higher education policy for employees pdf

Higher Education Policy

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2020
• Cite this reference work entry

• V. Lynn Meek 3  

140 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adams, J. 2013. The fourth age of research. Nature 497: 557–560.

Google Scholar  

Ansell, B.W. 2008. University challenges explaining institutional change in higher education. World Politics 60 (2): 189–230.

Avveduto, S. 2010. Mobility of PhD students and scientists. In Encyclopedia of higher education , 286–293. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Balzat, M. 2006. An economic analysis of innovation: Extending the concept of national innovation systems . Cheltnham: Edward Elgar.

Barnett, R. 2000. Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity . Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Bell, D. 1974. The coming of post-industrial society . London: Heinemann.

Bentley, P., and V.L. Meek. 2017. Development and future directions of higher degree research training in Australia. In Doctoral training for knowledge society: Global convergence or divergence? ed. J.C. Shin and G. Jones. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).

Boud, D., and A. Lee. 2009. Introduction. In Changing practices of doctoral education , ed. D. Boud and A. Lee, 1–9. London/New York: Routledge.

Boulton, G., and C. Lucas. 2008. What are universities for? Leuven: League of European Research Universities.

Cutler, T. 2008. Venturous Australia: Building strength in innovation . North Melbourne: Cutler & Company.

Daley, J., and A. Lancy. 2011. Investing in regions: Making a difference . Melbourne: Grattan Institute.

De Boer, H., B. Jongbloed, J. Enders, and J. File. 2008. Progress in higher education reform across Europe: Governance reform, volume 1: Executive summary main report . Directorate General for Education and Culture, European Commission.

Dill, D., and F. Van Vught. 2010. Introduction. In National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective , ed. D. Dill and F. van Vught, 1–26. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ferlie, E., C. Musselin, and G. Andresani. 2007. The ‘steering’ of higher education systems: A public management perspective. In Higher education looking forward: Relations between higher education and society , 59–78. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.

Geiger, R. 2010. State policies for science and technology: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective , ed. D. Dill and F. van Vught, 438–479. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Goddard, J., and J. Puukka. 2010. Universities and regional development. In Encyclopedia of higher education , 390–397. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Goedegebuure, L., and M. Hayden. 2007. Overview: Governance in higher education – Concepts and issues. Higher Education Research and Development 26 (1): 1–11.

Harman, G. 2010. Funding of university research. In Encyclopedia of higher education , 279–285. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Harpur, J. 2010. Innovation, profit and the common good in higher education: The new alchemy . New York: Palgrave. [Online]. Available at http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9780230274624 . Accessed 4 Jan 2017.

Jacob, M., and V.L. Meek. 2012. Scientific mobility and international research networks: Trends and policy tools for promoting research excellence and capacity building. Studies in Higher Education 38 (3): 331–344.

Kearney, M.-L., and R. Yelland. 2010. Higher education in a world changed utterly: Doing more with less . Paper presented to OECD/IMHE Conference, Paris.

King, R.P. 2007. Governance and accountability in the higher education regulatory state. Higher Education 53 (4): 411–430.

McNay, I. 2010. Research quality assessment. In Encyclopedia of higher education , 307–315. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Meek, V.L. 2003. Introduction. In The higher education managerial revolution? ed. A. Amaral, V.L. Meek, and I.M. Larsen, 1–29. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Meek, V.L., and D. Davies. 2009. Policy dynamics in higher education and research: Concepts and observations. In Higher education, research and innovation: Research and knowledge 2001–2009 , ed. V.L. Meek, U. Teichler, and M.-L. Kearney, 41–84. Kassel: International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel.

Meek, V.L., and L. Goedegebuure. 2008. Introduction. In Reinventing higher education: Towards participatory and sustainable development , ed. C. Haddad, V.L. Meek, and L. Goedegebuure, 1–15. Bangkok: UNESCO.

Meek, V.L., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne, eds. 1996. The mockers and the mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education . New York: Published for the IAU Press by Pergamon.

Neave, G. 1998. The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education 33 (3): 265–268.

Nguyen, T.L.H. 2010. Developing the third mission for Vietnamese higher education . Paper presented at the Linking Society and Universities: New Missions for Universities, EAIR Forum, Valencia.

Nguyen, T.L.H., and V.L. Meek. 2015. Key considerations in organizing and structuring university research. Journal of Research Administration 46 (1): 41–62.

Nguyen, T.L.H., and V.L. Meek. 2016. Key problems organizing university research in Vietnam: The lack of an effective research ‘behaviour formalization’ system. Minerva . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9289-6 .

Nussbaum, M.C. 2010. Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

OECD. 2010. OECD science, technology and industry outlook . Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Park, C. 2007. PhD quo vadis? Envisioning futures for the UK doctorate. In Skills training in research degree programmes: Politics and practice , ed. R. Hinchcliffe, T. Bromley, and S. Hutchinson. London: Open University Press.

Powell, W.W., and K. Snellman. 2004. The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 199–220.

Schmoch, U., C. Rammer, and H. Legler, eds. 2006. National system of innovation in comparison: Structure and performance indicators for knowledge societies . Dordrecht: Springer.

Shattock, M. 2006. Managing good governance in higher education . Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Shattock, M. 2010. Managerialism and collegialism in higher education institutions. In Encyclopedia of higher education , 251–255. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sporn, B. 2010. Management of and in higher education institutions. In Encyclopedia of higher education , 245–250. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

The Royal Society. 2011. Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century . London: The Royal Society.

van Vught, F. 2008. Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy 21 (2): 151–174.

Wildavsky, B. 2010. The great brain race: How global universities are reshaping the world . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

LH Martin Institute for Higher Education, Leadership and Management, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

V. Lynn Meek

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Lynn Meek .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies and Faculty of Economics - U., Porto, Portugal

Pedro Nuno Teixeira

Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

Jung Cheol Shin

Section Editor information

CIPES, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Alberto Amaral

Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

António Magalhães

Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Porto, Portugal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Meek, V.L. (2020). Higher Education Policy. In: Teixeira, P.N., Shin, J.C. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_1

Published : 19 August 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-017-8904-2

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-8905-9

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Employability in higher education: a review of key stakeholders' perspectives

Higher Education Evaluation and Development

ISSN : 2514-5789

Article publication date: 20 July 2021

Issue publication date: 10 May 2022

Employability is a key concept in higher education. Graduate employment rate is often used to assess the quality of university provision, despite that employability and employment are two different concepts. This paper will increase the understandings of graduate employability through interpreting its meaning and whose responsibility for graduate employability from the perspectives of four key stakeholders: higher education institutions, students, government and employers.

Design/methodology/approach

There are two stages to this literature review which was undertaken across bibliographic databases. The first stage builds a conceptual understanding of employability, relating to definition and how employability can be achieved and enhanced from the perspective of stakeholders. A structured search employing Boolean searches was conducted using a range of terms associated with key stakeholders. The second round of review drew on documentary analysis of official statements, declarations, documents, reports and position papers issued by key stakeholders in the UK, available online.

It reveals that responsibility for employability has been transferred by the UK government to higher education institutions, despite clear evidence that it needs to be shared by all the key stakeholders to be effective. In addition, there is a gap between employers' expectation for employability and the government's employability agenda.

Originality/value

This article highlights that solely using employment rate statistics as a key indicator for employability will encourage the practice of putting employers' needs above knowledge creation and the development of academic disciplines, with the consequence that higher education will become increasingly vocation driven.

• Employability
• Higher education
• Marketisation
• Stakeholder
• Perspectives

Cheng, M. , Adekola, O. , Albia, J. and Cai, S. (2022), "Employability in higher education: a review of key stakeholders' perspectives", Higher Education Evaluation and Development , Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 16-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-03-2021-0025

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Ming Cheng, Olalekan Adekola, JoClarisse Albia and Sanfa Cai

Published in Higher Education Evaluation and Development . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

Employability has become a key concept in higher education worldwide. In the UK for example, the Dearing and Garrick (1997) discussed employability. More recently employability was central to the Teaching Excellence Framework ( DBIS, 2016 ). It has become a common practice for higher education institutions (HEIs) to embed employability expectations and to enhance student learning outcomes especially at undergraduate level ( Fallows and Steven, 2000 ).

The upsurge of interest in employability can be traced to a number of factors, including a concern that graduates are less likely to secure public-sector employment due to the massification of higher education ( Sin and Neave, 2016 ). The downsizing and re-structuring of private organisations due to neoliberal policies places further strain on graduate work availability ( Peck and Tickell, 2002 ). A focus on employability is a pragmatic response ( Clarke, 2008 ) to these conditions in order to strengthen the vocational mission of higher education ( Harvey, 2000 ). In other words, the role of HEIs goes beyond ensuring that students are knowledgeable in an academic discipline to ensuring that they are prepared for the labour market ( Yorke, 2006 ).

In the classic work of Newman (1852 , p. ix), university is described as “a place of teaching universal knowledge.” Oakeshott (2017 , p. 9) depicts a university as “a home of learning, a place where a tradition of learning is preserved and extended, and where the necessary apparatus for the pursuit of learning has been gathered together”. Such views echo liberal-humanist perspectives of higher education as more than the acquisition of skills and behaviours ( Stoten, 2018 ). It is to enable people to live the “‘good life’ rather than simply for ‘good living’” ( Hickox and Moore, 1995 , p. 49). There are intrinsic and subjective motivations for going to university apart from its potential economic advantage to the graduate ( Kromydas, 2017 ). However, with globalisation, internationalisation and a dramatic rise in for-profit institutions, the role of higher education is being redefined. Universities are expected to prepare their students for a complex society that demands employees have diverse skills and capacities ( Chan, 2016 ).

Some scholars are weary of this new-found responsibility of HEIs in employability. For example, Kalfa and Taksa (2015) warn against HEIs being used as a panacea. They argue that employability should be considered in the context of volatility of the job market, attendant job insecurity and scarce fulltime employment. Likewise, Frankham (2017) question government imperatives concerning employability on the grounds that they risk higher education becoming a tool in the hands of market-based forces with different priorities and interests to the sector.

Despite these concerns, the general consensus in the literature has been that employability is core to higher education ( Mawson and Haworth, 2018 ; Oliver, 2015 ; Wilks et al. , 2017 ). The term employability has been used to mean different things ( Yorke, 2006 ). It has become a “floating signifier” reflecting its varied understandings across key stakeholders of higher education ( Sin and Neave, 2016 ). This has created a lack of coherence about what is meant by employability and its subsequent measurement ( Tymon, 2013 ). As a result, there has been a call for “an agreed definition of employability, to allow HEIs, employers and policy-makers to work towards similar goals and outcomes” ( Small et al. , 2018 , p. 16).

This paper argues that for such a definition to be possible, a clear understanding of how different stakeholders interpret employability must be found. In addition, stakeholders' own definition of their part in achieving “employability” must be clarified. This is because most of the differences go beyond the definition of the term, to debates on how employability can be developed, how it should be developed and the responsibility of various stakeholders in its provision ( Tymon, 2013 ). If not addressed, the lack of clarity of the meaning of employability and how much of a role HEIs should play in achieving it will continue to produce confusion of accountability and measurement within the sector.

This paper explores the meaning of employability through reviewing the literature on the understandings of employability held by four key stakeholders: HEIs, student, government and employer in the UK. It is developed from the author's two conference abstracts ( Cheng, 2019a , b ). The paper does not aim to provide a definition of employability, but seeks to explore how each stakeholder understands the concept of employability, who is responsible for graduate employability, and how to achieve and enhance that in the higher education sector.

Methodology

There are two stages to this literature review. The first stage aims to build a conceptual understanding of employability, relating to definition, responsibility and how employability can be achieved and enhanced, from the perspective of stakeholders. Fields in which the topic of employability is frequently discussed were reviewed such as higher education studies, vocational education, sociology and education economics.

Literature searches were undertaken across bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, EBSCO and Science Direct). The search focused on literatures published from 2010 to 2021. A structured search employing Boolean searches was conducted using a range of terms associated with key stakeholders (students or teaching staff or higher education institutions or employers or policymakers) and employability. Examples of string and terms searched included stakeholders and (student* or employee*) and (employability) and (universit* or institution* or higher education institutio*). The main focus was on undergraduate employability in the UK.

The second round of review drew on documentary analysis of official statements, declarations, documents, reports and position papers issued by key stakeholders in the UK, available online. The review covered materials (printed and electronic) published after 2010. Documentary analysis was used because it is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding and develop empirical knowledge ( Corbin and Strauss, 2008 ). Document analysis has been applied to qualitative studies to produce rich descriptions of a single phenomenon, event, organisation or program ( Stake, 1995 ). It can help the researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding and discover insights relevant to the research problem' ( Merriam, 1988 , p. 118).

Using search terms associated with employability and the four key stakeholders on the Google search engine, relevant materials reporting opinions of these stakeholders were identified and selected for further review. This review identified key stakeholders' interpretation of employability, and their perspective on responsibility for employability and how to achieve and enhance employability.

What is employability?

Broadly speaking, existing definitions of employability can be categorised into three main groups. The first group emphasises the capabilities of individuals ( De Vos et al. , 2011 ; Hillage and Pollard, 1998 ; Hogan et al. , 2013 ; Sanders and Grip, 2004 ; Yorke, 2006 ). These definitions resonate with the idea that employability of an individual depends upon personal assets or intrinsic characteristics. While Hillage and Pollard (1998) refer to it as capability, Yorke (2006) terms it a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes, and for De Vos et al. (2011) these are capabilities and willingness. These definitions emphasise the absolute dimensions of employability which relate to whether individuals possess the appropriate capabilities, skills and attitudes that employers need ( Morrison, 2012 ).

The second group's definition drew attention to the relative dimensions of employability. They often critique definitions based on individual capacity as ignoring the fact that employability is primarily determined by the labour market ( Brown et al. , 2003 ; Sin and Amaral, 2017 ). For example, Brown et al. (2003 , p. 114) interpret employability as the “relative chances of finding and maintaining different kinds of employment”. Employability can be influenced by broader external factors such as social, institutional and economic factors ( Sin and Amaral, 2017 ).

Emphasis on the relative dimensions of employability has not received great attention in literature. Some conceptualisations of employability often overlook how social structures such as gender, race, social class and disability interact with labour market opportunities ( McGinn and Oh, 2017 ). However, the relative dimensions can be very important. For example, ethnicity could affect employability, as some employers discriminate on job applications. In the UK whilst 53.3% of white university leavers were in fulltime paid employment six months after leaving university, only 42% of minority ethnic leavers were in the same position ( Davies, 2014 ). This suggests that we will need to understand relevant political, social and economic contexts, as well as how these factors intersect with one another in order to fully understand the concept of employability ( Speight et al. , 2012 ).

The third group of definitions emphasise the “duality of employability” ( Brown et al. , 2003 , p. 110): the need to understand both absolute and relative dimensions of employability. For example, Small et al. (2018 , p. 4) interpret employability as “capacity to be self-reliant in navigating the labour market, utilising knowledge, individual skills and attributes, and adapting them to the employment context, showcasing them to employers, while taking into account external and other constraints”. Part of this duality is the interplay of disciplinal training and application of subject-specific skills in a job. As industries and career paths change, graduates are expected to possess attributes that are not only discipline-specific but also transferrable to a broader range of jobs and careers ( König and Ribarić, 2019 ; Williams et al. , 2019 ).

These two latter groups of definitions not only recognise the importance of personal characteristics which make a graduate more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations but also emphasise the influence of external factors on the opportunities for employability. While the individual and their skills and competencies are positioned within a particular social context in these definitions ( Holmes, 2013 ; Vuksanovic et al. , 2014 ), skills and competencies are essential and must be acquired.

Measuring employability

The lack of one agreed definition of employability has evidently given rise to various approaches offered to measure it. For example, the European Council adopts a benchmark which conceives employability as the per cent of graduates employed between 20 and 34 years old three years after graduation, at 82% or above ( Christelle and Margarida, 2014 ). Similarly, in the UK, HEIs are often judged against targets of the per cent of their graduates who have gained employment ( DBIS, 2015 ). Such measurement is crude and faulty on four fronts.

Firstly, it tasks HEIs on developing citizens' knowledge and skills (referred to as “employability”) without recourse to the external factors that may shape a person's employability and ignores the relative and dual dimensions of employability. External factors are critical not only in terms of local employment but also in the context of internationalisation. The international or context-specific dimensions of employability ( Crossman and Clarke, 2010 ; Speight et al. , 2012 ) such as different local socio-cultural and political factors could also influence a student's employability. It is therefore crucial to understand both the host context and the international context in order to support students to develop successful careers in their home and beyond.

Secondly, student employment rate has been used as a mere proxy for employability ( Yorke, 2006 ). However, employment is different from employability. Employment statistics only measure actual job acquisition. Employability goes beyond that and measures a graduate's potential to obtain and function in a job. It is more than just a set of personal attributes and a destination, but a changing process ( Taylor, 2016 ), to be continually enhanced in order to be relevant in the labour market. Employability should not simply be regarded as the end goal; rather, it is the relationship between a student seeking a job and the myriad of actors in the employment sector, and the actions undertaken in the world of work ( Holmes, 2013 ).

Thirdly, the focus on student employment rates assumes that attending higher education will increase their job opportunities. This contradicts the findings of a recent study in England that those with degrees were less likely to be in work than those who left school to enter employment at 18 ( Hoskins et al. , 2018 ). This suggests that a degree programme could have minimal effect on a graduate obtaining a job but a large effect on the graduate doing the job ( Støren and Aamodt, 2010 ). As Wilton (2011 , p. 87) argues, “it is possible to be employable, yet unemployed or underemployed”. Perception (how graduates perceive a job as fitting their status), compensation (salary, benefits, bonus, working conditions, training support and career paths within a company) and geography (restrictions on migration to other cities or provinces to work) could dictate a graduate's employment status ( Davies et al. , 2012 ).

Fourthly, although employability has become a main reason for students to pursue higher education ( Sin and Amaral, 2017 ), there is little clarity who is responsible for student employability. The concept of graduate employability reveals an intrinsic assumption that higher education should produce individuals fit for the labour market. However, ensuring employability clearly goes beyond the remit of what universities alone can achieve, so understanding the roles of the key stakeholders (higher education institutions, students, government and employers) is vital.

Views from higher education institutions

The analysis of institutional documents and strategies suggests that there are increasing number of UK institutions which develop or have employability strategies. For example, the University of Bradford (2014 , p. 1) clearly states that its “employability strategy has been developed within the context of key internal and external drivers shaping graduate employability”. This suggests that HEIs' employability strategies can be seen as a response to government policies which highlight the need for students to develop skills to meet the needs of employers ( Frankham, 2017 ).

the integration of subject specific knowledge, skills and attributes with the skills of personal and professional development, lifelong learning and career management, to enable graduates to become employees of choice and effective in professional level work to the benefit of themselves, their employer, and the wider community ( University of Bradford, 2014 , p. 3).

To be employable, you need to acquire the experience and develop the skills and attributes that employers will value. You can develop your employability skills through the full range of activities which you engage in at university… ( University of Gloucestershire, 2016 , p. 1)

Ensuring that our students and graduates develop the necessary work-related skills and personal attributes that will allow them to compete successfully in the graduate labour market. ( Manchester Metropolitan University, 2015 , p. 1)

These definitions clearly resonate with government commissioned reports ( Hillage and Pollard, 1998 ) in focusing on building student's capacity (skills, understanding and personal attributes) seen as useful in making students employable. This suggests that the perceptions of HEIs on employability are implicitly influenced by the line set by the government. Through prescribing what or who is employable, the government yields control over HEIs by using employability as a measure of a university's performance ( Boden and Nedeva, 2010 ).

The type and status of the universities could also affect how they interpret and frame government agenda on employability. For example, post-1992 universities, with their roots in technical and vocational education, may be more concerned with employability than pre-1992 universities ( Ingleby, 2015 ; Stoten, 2018 ). Broad-based knowledge and cultural capital are the currencies that University of Oxford students acquire; while delivering the employability agenda could be crucial for a post-1992 university in order to increase student numbers ( Boden and Nedeva, 2010 ). These different and local interpretations of employability further contribute to vague and mixed understandings of employability in the sector.

Sin and Neave (2016) argue that HEIs are starting to recognise the influence of external factors on employability such as economic and labour market conditions, age, gender and discipline. However, there is no clear evidence of that in this review. There are four main implications of this silence of HEIs on the external dimensions of employability.

Firstly, the lack of emphasis on external dimensions does not give students a full perspective of their chosen field and how to prepare for a successful career, which might leave them in a vulnerable position after graduation.

The University of Kent is committed to enhancing the employability of all our students, undergraduate and postgraduate, in order to enable them to compete and flourish in a competitive, fast-moving knowledge-based economy ( University of Kent, 2013 , p. 1).

Some HEIs have linked employability with the wider priorities of their universities. For example, King's College London relates its employability strategy to student recruitment, student satisfaction and employment outcomes, employer relations and community engagement. This resonates with Tymon's (2013) argument that HEIs see the links between league tables and student numbers, which in turn affects funding. Thus, despite the difference between employability and employment rate, HEIs still use and promote the use of crude measures such as employment figures, as it can potentially enhance their reputation.

Thirdly, there is increasing call for academic staff to provide training on skills such as analytic thinking, competent reasoning and the ability to structure information and arguments, in order to prepare graduates to meet market needs ( De Villiers, 2010 ; Osmani et al. , 2018 ). This potentially threatens the quality of academic courses, as it implies a surrender to the short-term requests of an unpredictable labour market ( Sin and Neave, 2016 ).

Fourthly, there is strong emphasis on engaging stakeholders in employability, but how HEIs in the UK interpret these stakeholders remains unclear. Most of the stakeholders identified and referred are limited to actors within the university community (staff, students, alumni, etc.) and business. For example, University of Kent (2013 , p. 3) states that their employability engagement “undertakes active dialogue with employers in order to inform how it can best equip its students with the necessary skills and qualifications needed for long-term employability”. Yet policymakers or government are not generally included as a “stakeholder” within these HEI documents. This suggests that the main responsibility for employability has been transferred by government to HEIs ( Frankham, 2017 ).

Students' views

Review of student unions' documents suggests that there is a wide range of understandings of employability. For example, the National Union of Students ( NUS, 2011 , p. 12) states that employability is “a set of attributes, skills and knowledge that all labour market participants should possess to ensure they have the capability of being effective in the workplace – to the benefit of themselves, their employer and the wider economy”. This definition suggests that students saw improved job prospects as the most important motivation for undertaking a university degree.

Your Students' Union offers a range of ways for you to boost your employability, from training and acquiring useful skills … to a full course on leadership, you can find it all here. ( University of Stirling Students' Union, 2013 )

Being at University and making the most of your Union isn't just about having fun – it's also a really good opportunity to develop yourself both personally and professionally, and improve your employability. ( The University of Nottingham Students' Union, 2018 )

The framing of employability in these statements lends support to how the NUS (2011 , p. 1) describes the role of higher education as giving students “the opportunity to study an absorbing subject, make new friends, try new experiences – and for students to put themselves in pole position for starting work after graduation”. This concurs with the findings of Ingleby (2015) that students view higher education as a means to equip them with the right skills for employment. Such perspectives closely align with employers' idea of what university education is for, suggesting a clear view among students that HEIs are responsible for their employability, ignoring the influence of external factors.

An interesting contrast can be seen in a report of the European Students' Union which defines employability as “competences which enable graduates to successfully take up and pursue a profession/employment and empower their life-long learning” ( Vuksanovic et al. , 2014 , p. 15). This definition also describes employability as “being able to create/start new businesses, and being able to develop and succeed in their occupations” (p. 15). The reference to life-long learning, entrepreneurship and success in one's occupation, imply a holistic, humanistic and socially centred outlook towards employability beyond employment or having a job.

These views translate to students' call for HEIs to redesign degrees with more focus on skills and attributes associated with graduate employability ( Sin and Neave, 2016 ). The key attributes include self-management, team work, business and customer awareness, problem solving, communication, and application of numeracy and information skills ( NUS, 2011 ). Other commonly mentioned attributes include flexibility, adaptability, hardworking, commitment and dedication ( Tymon, 2013 ). This suggests that students are aware that employability requires skills to be linked to the needs of employers and that personal attributes are an inherent part of employability.

However, for students in the creative arts, possessing these attributes is not enough. Higdon (2016) found that creative arts students consider social capital as a key to employment success. Having access to network and contacts that offer work opportunities is crucial. This again points to the overlooked external dimensions of employability.

Students' understanding of employability could vary with their year of study. For example, whereas final year students tend to relate employability to ensuring future employment, first and second year students often link qualifications/grades with employability ( Brown et al. , 2003 ). As students move to their final years, they start to see employability from an insider perspective, attaching it to the idea of cultivating work experiences and gaining a good understanding of the industry they see themselves working in ( Gedye and Beaumont, 2018 ). The transformation in students' views could be the result of increased exposure to disciplinal know-how, and career and employment support offered to them during their study ( Gedye and Beaumont, 2018 ; Thirunavukarasu et al. , 2020 ).

Despite the strong emphasis on getting a job, students also related employability with career building. For example, the NUS (2011) uses the term “effectiveness” in their definition of employability, whilst leadership and professionalism are central to the conceptualisation of employability by University of Stirling Students' Union (2013) . This contrasts with the argument of Tymon (2013) that students focus on getting a job, any job, as opposed to employability in its wider sense.

It is worth noting that the emphasis on career development is still intertwined with students' awareness that their career is dependent on their ability to gain the skills needed by their employer. This is because while some form of paid work may be relatively accessible, finding a job with a career pathway in an occupation of choice and with long-term security is far less easy ( Hoskins et al. , 2018 ). In this sense, the attention to attributes and skills to be acquired and the various pathways through which these are made available in universities remain to be explored.

Government's views

Its core aims are to raise teaching standards, provide greater focus on graduate employability, widen participation in higher education, and open up the sector to new high-quality entrants ( DBIS, 2015 , p. 7).

the development of skills and adaptable workforces in which all those capable of work are encouraged to develop the skills, knowledge, technology and adaptability to enable them to enter and remain in employment throughout their working lives.

While employers report strong demand for graduate talent, they continue to raise concerns about the skills and job readiness of too many in the graduate labour pool ( Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2015 , p. 8).

Demand continues to be strong for employees with high level skills ( Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2015 , p. 10).

Higher education providers need to provide degrees with lasting value to their recipients. This will mean providers being open to involving employers and learned societies representing professions in curriculum design. It will also mean teaching students the transferrable work readiness skills that businesses need, including collaborative teamwork and the development of a positive work ethic, so that they can contribute more effectively to our efforts to boost the productivity of the UK economy. ( DBIS, 2015 , p. 11)

The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has been used to “provide better signalling for employers as to which providers they can trust to produce highly skilled graduate” ( DBIS, 2015 , p. 13). The emphasis on the preeminent role of HEIs in developing employability has raised concerns that government and employers are exempted from such responsibility. For example, Sin and Neave (2016) argue that HEIs are cast in a utilitarian role to equip students with the advanced knowledge, skills and competencies they need through their professional lives. This resonates with the view of Frankham (2017) that the burden of responsibility for government policy in this area is assigned to those who are subject to those policies rather than to those who instigate them.

Literature suggests that the UK government's perspective on employability is different from that in Europe. The external dimension of employability is emphasised within European Policymaking environment, with reference to changing labour markets and the economic crisis and employment uncertainty ( European Higher Education Area, 2009 ), whilst the UK government remains silent. Another difference is that EU policymakers perceive employability as an individual responsibility, with higher education as an operational means to support individuals in their efforts ( Sin and Neave, 2016 ). In contrast, the UK government makes little reference to individuals. These differences could be that the interest of UK government in employability is mainly passive, as what matters to them is mainly employment ( Tymon, 2013 ). It is perhaps time for the government to make a full commitment towards all areas of academic scholarship and learning within the broad definition of employability in order to improve student employability.

Employers' views

According to Mason et al. (2009 , p. 1), employers often see employability as work readiness: “possession of the skills, knowledge, attitudes and commercial understanding that will enable new graduates to make productive contributions to organisational objectives soon after commencing employment”. By work readiness, there is consensus that employers tend to emphasise capabilities beyond subject knowledge.

De Weert's (2007) study reveals that employers mostly value candidates with the ability to learn in addition to generic skills such as teamwork, problem-solving, planning, communication skills and taking responsibility. Interpersonal skills are valued far more than any other skills, and that personal ethics, the qualities of honesty, integrity and trust are also expected at appointment ( Hinchliffe and Jolly, 2011 ). Williams et al. (2019) found that employers place importance on values and commitment indicators such as interest in the company and shared company values. These indicators suggest that employers' assessment of what and who is employable can be subjective. Employers' emphasis on soft skills also suggest a major area of disconnection among government, HEIs and students' groups who appear to focus on practical and vocational skills ( Wharton and Horrocks, 2015 ; Yorke, 2004 , 2006 ). This means that employability outcomes tend to be defined normatively and measured objectively in universities ( Williams et al. , 2019 ), further discounting the contextual nature and relative dimensions of employability.

Although silent on the role of the government, employers hold a view that responsibility for graduate employability needs to be shared between students, HEIs and employers, and that students need to take greater responsibility for their own employability ( Sin and Neave, 2016 ). This proposed shared responsibility suggests that degrees/qualifications are no longer the core criteria for employability. However, for this to function effectively employers will need to increase collaboration with HEIs to make their needs known, to increase student internship opportunities and to provide employees with professional on-the-job learning.

Discussion and conclusion

This paper reveals that HEIs, student, government and employers hold different understandings of graduate employability and who is responsible for it. There is a big gap between what employers need and what is promoted by government as relevant for graduate employability. Whilst the government's definition of employability places priority on the development and accreditation of knowledge and vocational skills, employers stress soft skills and attitudes.

There is a silence from the UK government on its responsibility for graduate employability. HEIs appear to have passively accepted this designated role in developing student employability, but limit their reporting in terms of graduate employment rates. The imposed responsibility on HEIs for employability suggests that the government wants to get rid of their political responsibility for student employability, so it shifts the blame for market failures to the consumers and producers of higher education.

The HEIs' interpretations of employability clearly appear as heavily influenced by government policy. They focus on the absolute dimensions of employability and emphasise the institution's role to support students to become employable, ignoring the external factors that could influence graduate employability such as economic and labour market conditions, age, race, gender and discipline.

The stress on the absolute dimensions of employability is shared by students who perceive HEIs as responsible for enhancing their employability, although students are aware that they are responsible for their own employability. Unlike HEIs who emphasise gaining employment, students interpret employability as not only gaining employment but also building a career.

The focus on the absolute dimensions of employability signifies the value-added interpretation of higher educational provision. It reflects that the UK government demand for a full employment economy, through supplying the labour market with appropriately “skilled” future employees. This in turn will encourage the production and consumption of economically relevant learning and knowledge exchange, and promote employability as an institutional offering which is fundamentally in the interest of employers.

The two most important decisions for a prospective HE student are what course of study they choose, and at which institution. These decisions are significant factors in determining a student's future life and career ( DBIS, 2016 , p. 43).

The demand for employability increases consumerism culture and commodification of higher education. It shapes student expectation and value of university education in that economic return becomes the main driver. Students are expected to demonstrate their value through packaging their credentials and experiences as expected by employers, throughout their study. This approach will decrease students' voice in what they want to achieve from university education and will make them lose opportunities to explore their full potential.

It is worth noting that the UK government designates the responsibility for employability as an important task for HEIs, which could potentially make employers become increasingly powerful entities who set the direction for university education. The influential role accorded to employers can be evidenced in the increase of vocational provision and the growing practice for employers to contribute to university's programme design and delivery. This influence can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it enhances student link to the job market and encourages students to engage in work experience and build an employability profile, including extra curricula pursuits and participation in work experiences. On the other hand, putting employers' need above the purpose of subject knowledge creation and development will change the nature of higher education.

Specifically, there is a discernible shift from the provision of traditional education which is discipline and pedagogy oriented to vocationally focused provision which trains students to demonstrate their instrumental values of knowledge-for-use. For example, it has become a common practice for HEIs, especially teaching-centred ones, to incorporate employability skills development into their programmes ( Huang, 2013 ). However, designing a desirable curriculum to meet the expectations of diverse industries and student cohorts can be challenging, requiring a considerable commitment of staff time and resources ( Campbell, 2010 ; Fitch and Desai, 2012 ). Furthermore, an emphasis on employability without considering the intrinsic value of universities will produce a narrow view of the utilitarian values of university education ( McCowan, 2015 ). This will turn higher education into a training factory, if ignoring its need to foster innovation and develop subject-specific knowledge.

More importantly, the influence of external factors on employability has been ignored by government in its employability agenda, which will have negative impact on students and HEIs. It does not support students to develop a clear picture of employability and leaves them unsure of how to prepare for a successful career. This clear silence on the external dimensions of employability only serves to perpetuate the dominant agenda that measures employability in terms of employment rate, and the view that HEIs and students are the key actors in increasing these rates. By ignoring the social, political, cultural and personal elements that are key to employment success, the government are absolved of their responsibility to address these externalities in relation to employability. This increases doubts on the purposes of higher education and paints students as subject to the unpredictable changes in the industry ( Higdon, 2016 ).

These external dimensions are certainly overshadowed by the HEI-focussed narrative of employability by the government, thereby blurring the role that institutions could play in supporting students to maximise their chances of success in the labour market ( Yorke, 2006 ). Various commentators have already reiterated that employability should be treated as a dialogue ( Boffo, 2019 ) and a collaboration amongst various stakeholders ( Donald et al. , 2017 ; Ferns et al. , 2019 ). Williams et al. (2019) emphasise for instance the compatibility of expectations of employers and educators in terms of skills to be developed and in the assessment of employment outcomes. Highlighting employability as a collaboration that equally engages all key stakeholders can help bring closer attention to the external dimensions that influence employability.

The different understandings among stakeholders suggest that employability is a contested issue. This research is mainly based on literature review and documentary analysis and it serves to catch a snapshot of stakeholders' understandings of employability. It is important to note that stakeholders' perceptions may change or shift due to different institutional and national policies of employability. There is a need to extend this study by conducting empirical research on stakeholders' views and experiences of employability. Empirical research could also explore the issue of visibility (the role of the academic curriculum in employability), and responsibility for student employability within HEIs, employers and policymakers. The long-term impact of the employability agenda on the quality and equity of university education, student empowerment and the development of civic society could also be rich areas for future study.

Boden , R. and Nedeva , M. ( 2010 ), “ Employing discourse: universities and graduate ‘employability’ ”, Journal of Education Policy , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 37 - 54 .

Boffo , V. ( 2019 ), “ Employability and higher education: a category for the future ”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education , Vol. 2019 No. 163 , pp. 11 - 23 .

Brown , P. , Hesketh , A. and Wiliams , S. ( 2003 ), “ Employability in a knowledge- driven economy ”, Journal of Education and Work , Vol. 16 No. 2 , pp. 107 - 126 .

Campbell , A. ( 2010 ), “ Developing generic skills and attributes of international students: the (ir)relevance of the Australian university experience ”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , Vol. 32 , pp. 487 - 497 .

Chan , R.Y. ( 2016 ), “ Understanding the purpose of higher education: an analysis of the economic and social benefits for completing a college degree ”, Journal of Education Policy, Planning and Administration , Vol. 6 No. 5 , pp. 1 - 40 .

Cheng , M. ( 2019a ), “ Understanding student employability: views from key stakeholders of higher education ”, Comparative and International Education Society Conference , 18 April , Mexico City, Mexico , available at: https://convention2.allacademic.com/one/cies/cies19/index.php?cmd=online_program_direct_link&program_focus=view_paper&selected_paper_id=1468792&sub_action=online_program .

Cheng , M. ( 2019b ), “ Graduate employability: conceptual understandings of key stakeholders in the UK ”, European Educational Research Association Conference , 3 September , Hamburg, Germany , available at: https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/24/contribution/46560/ .

Christelle , L.G. and Margarida , R. ( 2014 ), “ Employability of young graduates in Europe ”, International Journal of Manpower , Vol. 35 No. 4 , pp. 425 - 447 .

Clarke , M. ( 2008 ), “ Understanding and managing employability in changing career contexts ”, Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 32 No. 4 , pp. 258 - 284 .

Corbin , J. and Strauss , A. ( 2008 ), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 3rd ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Crossman , J.E. and Clarke , M. ( 2010 ), “ International experience and graduate employability: stakeholder perceptions on the connection ”, Higher Education , Vol. 59 No. 5 , pp. 599 - 613 .

Davies , C. ( 2014 ), “ Defining the future: an exploration of perceptions of employability of undergraduate minority ethnic student ”, Society for Research into Higher Education , available at: http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/347427/6/davies-SRHE2014.pdf .

Davies , D. , Zhang , X.Y. and Liang , W. ( 2012 ), “ Skills shortages in China? A conceptual model ”, World Journal of Social Sciences , Vol. 2 No. 4 , pp. 77 - 85 .

Dearing , S.R. and Garrick , S.R. ( 1997 ), Higher Education in the Learning Society , her Majesty's Stationery Office , London , pp. 9 - 44 .

De Villiers , R. ( 2010 ), “ The incorporation of soft skills into accounting curricula: preparing accounting graduates for their unpredictable futures ”, Meditari Accountancy Research , Vol. 18 No. 2 , pp. 1 - 22 .

De Vos , A. , De Hauw , S. and Van der Heijden , B. ( 2011 ), “ Competency development and career success: the mediating role of employability ”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour , Vol. 79 No. 2 , pp. 438 - 447 .

de Weert , E. ( 2007 ), “ Graduate employment in Europe: the employers' perspective ”, Careers of University Graduates , Springer Netherlands , pp. 225 - 246 .

Department for Business Innovation and Skills ( 2015 ), “ Fulfilling our potential: teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice ”, available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/breaking_news_files/green_paper.pdf .

Department of Business Innovation and Skills ( 2016 ), “ Success as a knowledge economy: teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice ”, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523396/bis-16-265-success-as-a-knowledge-economy.pdf .

Donald , W.E. , Baruch , Y. and Ashleigh , M. ( 2017 ), “ The undergraduate self-perception of employability: human capital, careers advice, and career ownership ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 44 No. 4 , pp. 599 - 614 .

European Higher Education Area ( 2009 ), “ Communique of the conference of European ministers responsible for higher education ”, Ministerial Conference Leuven/Louvain-La-Neuve , 28-29 April , available at: http://www.ehea.info/page-ministerial-conference-Leuven-Louvain-la-Neuve-2009 .

Fallows , S. and Steven , C. ( 2000 ), “ Building employability skills into the higher education curriculum: a university-wide initiative ”, Education + Training , Vol. 42 No. 2 , pp. 75 - 83 .

Ferns , S. , Dawson , V. and Howitt , C. ( 2019 ), “ A collaborative framework for enhancing graduate employability ”, International Journal of Work - Integrated Learning , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. 99 - 111 .

Fitch , K. and Desai , R. ( 2012 ), “ Developing global practitioners ”, The Journal of International Communication , Vol. 18 , pp. 63 - 78 .

Frankham , J. ( 2017 ), “ Employability and higher education: the follies of the ‘productivity challenge’ in the teaching excellence framework ”, Journal of Education Policy , Vol. 32 No. 5 , pp. 628 - 641 .

Gedye , S. and Beaumont , E. ( 2018 ), “ The ability to get a job: student understandings and definitions of employability ”, Education + Training , Vol. 60 No. 5 , pp. 406 - 420 .

Harvey , L. ( 2000 ), “ New realities: the relationship between higher education and employment ”, Tertiary Education and Management , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 17 .

Hickox , M. and Moore , R. ( 1995 ), “ Liberal-humanist education: the vocationalist challenge ”, Curriculum Studies , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 45 - 59 .

Higdon , R.D. ( 2016 ), “ Employability: the missing voice: how student and graduate views could be used to develop future higher education policy and inform curricula ”, Power and Education , Vol. 8 No. 2 , pp. 176 - 195 .

Hillage , J. and Pollard , E. ( 1998 ), Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis , Department for Education and Employment , London .

Hinchliffe , G.W. and Jolly , A. ( 2011 ), “ Graduate identity and employability ”, British Educational Research Journal , Vol. 37 No. 4 , pp. 563 - 584 .

HM Treasury ( 1997 ), Gordon Brown Unveils UK Employment Action Plan , HM Treasury , London .

Hogan , R. , Chamorro-Premuzic , T. and Kaiser , R. ( 2013 ), “ Employability and career success: bridging the gap between theory and reality ”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 16 .

Holmes , L. ( 2013 ), “ Competing perspectives on graduate employability: possession, position or process? ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 38 No. 4 , pp. 538 - 554 .

Hoskins , B. , Leonard , P. and Wilde , R.J. ( 2018 ), “ Negotiating uncertain economic times: youth employment strategies in England ”, British Educational Research Journal , Vol. 44 No. 1 , pp. 61 - 79 .

Huang , R. ( 2013 ), “ International experience and graduate employability: perceptions of Chinese international students in the UK ”, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education , Vol. 13 , pp. 87 - 96 .

Ingleby , E. ( 2015 ), “ The house that jack built: neoliberalism, teaching in higher education and the moral objections ”, Teaching in Higher Education , Vol. 20 No. 5 , pp. 518 - 529 .

Kalfa , S. and Taksa , L. ( 2015 ), “ Cultural capital in business higher education: reconsidering the graduate attributes movement and the focus on employability ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 40 No. 4 , pp. 580 - 595 .

König , L.S. and Ribarić , H.M. ( 2019 ), “ Is there a mismatch between employers' and university teachers' perceptions on graduate employability in Croatia? ”, Journal of Management Issues , Vol. 24 No. 1 , pp. 87 - 102 .

Kromydas , T. ( 2017 ), “ Rethinking higher education and its relationship with social inequalities: past knowledge, present state and future potential ”, Palgrave Communications , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 12 .

Manchester Metropolitan University ( 2015 ), “ Employability, employment & enterprise strategy 2014 - 2020 ”, available at: https://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/employability/documents/E3Strategy.docx .

Mason , G. , Williams , G. and Cranmer , S. ( 2009 ), “ Employability skills initiatives in higher education: what effects do they have on graduate labour market outcomes? ”, Education Economics , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 30 .

Mawson , M. and Haworth , A.C. ( 2018 ), “ Supporting the employability agenda in university libraries: a case study from the university of Sheffield ”, Information and Learning Science , Vol. 119 Nos 1/2 , pp. 101 - 108 .

McCowan , T. ( 2015 ), “ Should universities promote employability? ”, Theory and Research in Education , Vol. 13 No. 3 , pp. 267 - 285 .

McGinn , K.L. and Oh , E. ( 2017 ), “ Gender, social class, and women's employment ”, Current Opinion in Psychology , Vol. 18 , pp. 84 - 88 .

Merriam , S.B. ( 1988 ), Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco .

Morrison , A. ( 2012 ), “ Absolute and relative employability: lecturers' views on undergraduates' employability ”, Paper Presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference , University of Manchester , 4-6 September .

National Union of Students ( 2011 ), “ Working towards your future. Making the most of your time in higher education: CBI ”, available at: https://www.nus.org.uk/Global/CBI_NUS_Employability%20report_May%202011.pdf .

Newman , J.H. ( 1852 ), “ The idea of a university ”, available at: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/ .

Oakeshott , M. ( 2017 ), “ The idea of a university ”, in Keeney , P. (Ed.), Academic Ethics , Routledge , London , pp. 9 - 16 .

Oliver , B. ( 2015 ), “ Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies ”, Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability , Vol. 6 No. 1 , p. 56 .

Osmani , M. , Hindi , N.M. and Weerakkody , V. ( 2018 ), “ Developing employability skills in information system graduates: traditional vs. Innovative teaching methods ”, International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education , Vol. 14 No. 2 , pp. 17 - 29 .

Peck , J. and Tickell , A. ( 2002 ), “ Neoliberalizing space ”, Antipode , Vol. 34 No. 3 , pp. 380 - 404 .

Sanders , J. and de Grip , A. ( 2004 ), “ Training, task flexibility and the employability of low‐skilled workers ”, International Journal of Manpower , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 73 - 89 .

Sin , C. and Amaral , A. ( 2017 ), “ Academics' and employers' perceptions about responsibilities for employability and their initiatives towards its development ”, Higher Education , Vol. 73 No. 1 , pp. 97 - 111 .

Sin , C. and Neave , G. ( 2016 ), “ Employability deconstructed: perceptions of Bologna stakeholders ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 41 No. 8 , pp. 1447 - 1462 .

Small , L. , Shacklock , K. and Marchant , T. ( 2018 ), “ Employability: a contemporary review for higher education stakeholders ”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training , Vol. 70 No. 1 , pp. 148 - 166 .

Speight , S. , Lackovic , N. and Cooker , L. ( 2012 ), “ Stakeholder attitudes towards employability in a Sino-British university ”, Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 26 - 40 .

Stake , R.E. ( 1995 ), The Art of Case Study Research , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Støren , L.A. and Aamodt , P.O. ( 2010 ), “ The quality of higher education and employability of graduates ”, Quality in Higher Education , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 297 - 313 .

Stoten , D. ( 2018 ), “ Employability: a contested concept in higher education ”, Journal of Pedagogic Development , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 9 - 17 .

Taylor , L.E. ( 2016 ), How to Develop Your Healthcare Career: A Guide to Employability and Professional Development , John Wiley & Sons , NJ .

The University of Nottingham Students' Union ( 2018 ), “ Employability ”, available at: https://su.nottingham.ac.uk/employability .

Thirunavukarasu , G. , Chandrasekaran , S. , Subhash Betageri , V. and Long , J. ( 2020 ), “ Assessing learners' perceptions of graduate employability ”, Sustainability , Vol. 12 No. 2 , pp. 1 - 17 .

Tymon , A. ( 2013 ), “ The student perspective on employability ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 38 No. 6 , pp. 841 - 856 .

University of Bradford ( 2014 ), “ Employability strategy 2012 – 2015 ”, available at: https://www.bradford.ac.uk/student-experience/media/academicdevelopment/documents/Employability-Strategy-(Revised-September-2014).pdf .

University of Gloucestershire ( 2016 ), “ Student employability and employment strategy 2016 – 2020 explore, decide, achieve ”, available at: http://www.glos.ac.uk/docs/download/university-employability-statement.pdf .

University of Kent ( 2013 ), “ University of Kent employability strategy ”, available at: https://www.kent.ac.uk/ces/staff/Employability%20Strategy.pdf .

University of Stirling Students' Union ( 2013 ), “ Employability is a huge part of your university experience ”, available at: https://www.stirlingstudentsunion.com/aboutus/employability/ .

Vuksanovic , N. , Santa , R. , Moisander , T. , Taskila , V.M. and Leen , E. ( 2014 ), “ Student advancement of graduates employability: employability with students' eyes ”, European Students' Union , available at: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Sage-EWSB-online-FINAL.pdf .

Wharton , C.Y. and Horrocks , A.J. ( 2015 ), “ Students' perceptions of employability within their degree programme: highlighting the disparity between what academics believe is included and the student experience ”, Paper Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Enhancement and Innovation in Higher Education , 9-11 June , Glasgow .

Wilks , C. , Jones , L. , Ojiaku , U. and Tando , A. ( 2017 ), “ Supporting student success and employability development through a personalised Co-curricular framework: a Kingston university case study ”, Paper Presented at HEA Annual Conference 2017-Generation TEF: Teaching in the Spotlight , 4-6 July , Manchester .

Williams , S. , Karypidou , A. , Steele , C. and Dodd , L. ( 2019 ), “ A personal construct approach to employability: comparing stakeholders' implicit theories ”, Education + Training , Vol. 61 No. 4 , pp. 390 - 412 .

Wilton , N. ( 2011 ), “ Do employability skills really matter in the UK graduate labour market? The case of business and management graduates ”, Work, Employment and Society , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 85 - 100 .

Yorke , M. ( 2004 ), “ Employability in the undergraduate curriculum: some student perspectives ”, European Journal of Education , Vol. 39 No. 4 , pp. 409 - 427 .

Yorke , M. ( 2006 ), Employability in Higher Education: What It Is-What It Is Not , Vol. 1 , Higher Education Academy , York .

Further reading

Benneworth , P.S. ( 2016 ), “ Employability: Asia and Europe prepare the new generation ”, 5th ASEM Rectors' Conference and Students' Forum , 4-8 April , Prague, Czech Republic , available at: https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/14250374 .

HM Stationery Office , available at: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html .

Sin , C. , Tavares , O. and Amaral , A. ( 2019 ), “ Accepting employability as a purpose of higher education? Academics' perceptions and practices ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 44 No. 6 , pp. 920 - 931 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• State System Home Page
• State Regents
• Chancellor Garrett
• Staff Directory
• 2024 Meeting Dates, Agendas and Minutes
• Colleges and Universities Map
• Alphabetical List
• Students Home Page
• Adult Students
• Course Transfer
• Current College Students
• Employer Tuition Assistance
• Residency Requirements
• Transcript Information
• Transfer Students
• Veterans & Active-Duty Military
• Higher Ed Faculty & Staff Home Page
• Academic Calendar
• Academic Forms
• Financial Aid Resources for Institutions
• K-12 Teachers & Staff Home Page
• Inspired to Teach
• Oklahoma’s Promise Scholarship
• Oklahoma Teacher Connection
• Teacher Shortage Employment Incentive Program (TSEIP)
• Professional Development Opportunities
• Preparing for College Publications
• Reading Conference
• Student Preparation
• Legislative
• Studies, Reports, & Data Home Page
• High School Preparation
• Business Support Services
• Digital Toolkit for Employers
• Oklahoma’s 100 Critical Occupations
• OKcollegestart
• Reach Higher
• Show What You Know
• Oklahoma’s Promise

Policy and Procedures Manual

Home » About the State System of Higher Education » Policy and Procedures Manual

Over the past two years, State Regents' staff and advisory committees have reviewed and revised policies to incorporate current APA rules and to increase readability and clarity. Some policies have been added or substantively revised as recommended by advisory committees or as needed to reflect current practice. The proposed revised manual is organized into five chapters corresponding to major functions of the State Regents (Governance, Administrative Operations, Academic, Budget and Fiscal, and Student Financial Aid and Scholarships).

Every policy in the manual follows a standard format and numbering system to allow staff, institutions and the public to more easily find information and locate citations.

You must have Acrobat Reader to view the Policy and Procedures Manual. The manual is provided as PDF files and is better viewed printed. Note that some chapters will take longer to download. For more information, email [email protected] . Hard copies are available of specific policies only.

Chapter 1 – Governance is a compilation of legal excerpts from the Constitution of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Higher Education Code as enacted by the 1965 Legislature and as amended during subsequent sessions.

The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education is the state's legal structure for providing public education at the collegiate level was set forth in the Oklahoma Constitution, Article XIII-A, Section 1-4:

All institutions of higher education supported wholly or in part by direct legislative appropriations shall be integral parts of a unified system to be known as "The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education."

Chapter 1 – Governance (PDF, 559k)

1.1 State System Coordination 1.2 Higher Education Defined 1.3 Oklahoma Constitution, Article XIII-A, Sections 1-4 1.4 Oklahoma Constitution, Article II, Sections 3202-3204, 3206 1.5 Administration 1.6 State System Institutions, Constituent Agencies, and Community Junior Colleges 1.7 State System Chart

Chapter 2 – Administrative Operations covers the rules of operations for the State Regents and the various state institutions. The chapter also includes the delegation of authority to the chancellor, the State Regents' ethics policy, advisory councils and OneNet fee structure.

Chapter 2 – Administrative Operations (PDF, 683k)

2.1 Rules of Operation 2.2 Operational Procedures for Meetings 2.3 Petition Requesting Promulgation, Amendment or Repeal of Rules 2.4 Petitions for Declaratory Rulings 2.5 State Regents' Committees 2.6 Election of State Regents' Officers 2.7 Orientation of New Board Members 2.8 Delegation of Authority to Chancellor 2.9 Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act 2.10 OSRHE Ethics Policy 2.11 Equal Opportunity, Nondiscrimination, and Reasonable Accommodations for State Regents' Programs, Services, and Activities 2.12 Compliance & Institutional Data Reporting Requirements 2.13 Regents Education Program 2.14 Student Advisory Board 2.15 Faculty Advisory Council 2.16 Council on Instruction 2.17 Council on Student Affairs 2.18 Council on Business Officers 2.19 Communicators Council 2.20 Economic Development Council 2.21 Council on Information Technology 2.22 Constitution of the Council of Presidents 2.23 Use of Towers, Facilities and Communications Services 2.24 OneNet Acceptable Use Policy 2.25 OneNet Fee Structure 2.26 Privacy, Data Access and Management 2.27 Chief Information Officer for the State System of Higher Education 2.28 The Oklahoma Free Speech Committee to the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education 2.29 Career Services Council

Academic Affairs Policy

Chapter 3 – Academic Affairs sets forth policy affecting academic operations of Oklahoma state system institutions, including institutional accreditation and function; standards for student admission, retention, and graduation; the in-state or out-of-state status of students; and instructional program approval and review.  For questions regarding Chapter 3 – Academic Affairs policy, contact Dr. Stephanie Beauchamp .

Chapter 3 – Academic Affairs Policy (PDF, 1m)

3.1 Institutional Accreditation and Authorization 3.2 Functions of Public Institutions 3.3 Function of Research in the State System 3.4 Academic Program Approval 3.5 Intensive English Program Approval and Review 3.6 Contractual Arrangements between Higher Education Institutions and Other Entities 3.7 Academic Program Review 3.8 Approval of Changes in Academic Structure and Nomenclature 3.9 Institutional Admission and Retention – 3.10 Concurrent Enrollment – UNDER REVIEW 3.11 Undergraduate Transfer and Articulation 3.12 Grading 3.13 Undergraduate Academic Course Load 3.14 Granting of Degrees 3.15 Undergraduate Degree Requirements 3.16 Credit for Prior Learning 3.17 Distance Education and Traditional Off-Campus Courses and Programs 3.18 In-State/Out-of-State Status of Enrolled Students 3.19 Academic Calendars 3.20 Student Assessment Plan 3.21 Teacher Education 3.22 Oklahoma Teacher Connection 3.23 Instructors English Proficiency 3.24 Professional Programs.

Academic Affairs Policy and Procedures Handbook

The Academic Affairs Policy and Procedures Handbook is being revised in tandem with Chapter 3 – Academic Affairs and will be posted on this page when revisions are complete. Until then, for questions regarding interpretation or application of state system policy, contact Dr. Robert Placido or Dr. Stephanie Beauchamp .

Service Area Maps

Maps showing the four-year and two-year service areas referenced in policy sections 3.2 and 3.17 are available for viewing below.  For questions about the maps or service areas, contact Dr. Robert Placido .

Four-Year Service Area Map  (JPG, 5.2m) Two-Year Service Area Map   (JPG, 5.2m )

Chapter 4 – Budget and Fiscal Affairs provides a procedural guide for budgeting, allocating, accounting and reporting fiscal affairs in the state system. Selected legal references are presented to show the responsibilities of the State Regents and other state agencies and to serve as the legal base upon which procedures are established.

For more information, see the  Redbook - Financial and Business Handbook   (PDF, 1.2m) , a guide for all persons who have an interest in the business and financial tasks that are required in the operation of higher education entities in the state of Oklahoma.

Chapter 4 – Budget and Fiscal Affairs  (PDF, 432k)

BUDGET AND FISCAL OPERATIONS 4.1 Definitions 4.2 Educational and General Budgets 4.3 Sponsored Research and Other Sponsored Programs 4.4 Revolving Funds 4.5 Maintenance of Operating Reserves 4.6 Governing Board Budgetary Assessments 4.7 Technology Transfer 4.8 Accounting and Financial Reporting Model 4.9 Disclosure of Beneficial Interest in State School Land Funds 4.10 Disclosure of Pension Information 4.11 Uniform Purchasing Model 4.12 Capital Improvements 4.13 Master Lease Program 4.14 Campus Master Plan Update 4.15 Student Tuition and Fees 4.16 Investment of Institutional Funds 4.17 Administration of the Regents Endowment Fund Program 4.18 Investment Policy Statement for Funds Administered by the State Regents

Chapter 5 – Student Financial Aid addresses policy pertaining to student financial aid and scholarships and includes policy for the Oklahoma College Assistance Program (formerly Guaranteed Student Loan Program), the Oklahoma Tuition Aid Grant/State Student Incentive Grant Program, the Oklahoma Future Teacher Scholarship and Employment Incentive Program (“Inspired to Teach”), the Chiropractic Education Assistance Program, Oklahoma's Promise, among others.

Chapter 5 – Student Financial Aid   (PDF, 241k)

5.1 Oklahoma College Assistance Program 5.2 University and College Supporter Scholarship 5.3 Regional University Baccalaureate Scholarship Program 5.4 Academic Scholars Program 5.5 Chancellor Hans Brisch Scholarship Program 5.6 William P. Willis Scholarship Program 5.7 Heartland Scholarship program 5.8 Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program (“Oklahoma’s Promise”) 5.9 George and Donna Nigh Scholarship 5.10 Chiropractic Education Assistance Program 5.11 Teacher Shortage Employment Incentive Program 5.12 Tulsa Reconciliation Education and Scholarship 5.13 Oklahoma Tuition Equalization Grant 5.14 Oklahoma Tuition Aid Grant Program 5.15 Brad Henry International Scholarship Program 5.16 Chancellor Glen D. Johnson Scholarship in Leadership and Public Service 5.17 Oklahoma Future Teacher Scholarship and Employment Incentive Program (“Inspired to Teach”) 5.18 Oklahoma National Guard Educational Assistance Program

Brought to you by:

Self Development 101: Introducing The Wheel of Self

By: Maja Djikic

Everyone wants to continue developing over time, in a variety of areas of our lives. But certain aspects of the self are particularly important for attempting self-change. The author, a psychologist…

• Length: 5 page(s)
• Publication Date: May 1, 2024
• Discipline: Organizational Behavior
• Product #: ROT499-PDF-ENG

What's included:

• Educator Copy

$4.50 per student

degree granting course

$7.95 per student

non-degree granting course

Get access to this material, plus much more with a free Educator Account:

• Access to world-famous HBS cases
• Up to 60% off materials for your students
• Resources for teaching online
• Tips and reviews from other Educators

Already registered? Sign in

• Student Registration
• Non-Academic Registration
• Included Materials

Everyone wants to continue developing over time, in a variety of areas of our lives. But certain aspects of the self are particularly important for attempting self-change. The author, a psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto, presents her framework, the Wheel of Self. She explains that the self has five distinct parts: motivation, behaviour, emotions, mind and body. When most of us try to change, we often focus only on our behaviour, forgetting that behaviour is influenced by the other four parts of the self. In the end, she provides key insights about how the self really works-and how to facilitate its development.

May 1, 2024

Discipline:

Organizational Behavior

Rotman Management Magazine

ROT499-PDF-ENG

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

Find your Senator and share your views on important issues.

Senate Passes 2024-25 Budget Addressing Critical Priorities for New Yorkers & Enacting Key Majority Proposals

April 20, 2024

• 2024-2025 Budget

File New York State Senate Majority Passes SFY 2024-25 Budget Addressing Critical Priorities for New Yorkers & Enacting Key Senate Ma

(Albany, NY) — The New York State Senate is proud to announce the successful passage and enactment of the New York State budget, a testament to the dedication and tireless efforts of the Senate Majority in delivering meaningful relief and progress for the people of New York. This comprehensive budget reflects the Senate Majority’s commitment to addressing the pressing needs of working individuals and families, safeguarding public education, and implementing a holistic approach to housing reform and affordability.

Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said, “The enactment of this budget represents a significant step forward in advancing the Senate Majority’s vision for a fairer and more prosperous New York. By prioritizing the needs of working families and investing in critical areas such as affordability, education, housing, environment and healthcare, the Senate Majority remains steadfast in its commitment to delivering tangible results and building a brighter future for all New Yorkers. I thank Governor Hochul, Speaker Heastie and all of my colleagues for their dedication and collaboration in delivering this vital budget. I am confident that this budget will make a meaningful difference in the lives of New Yorkers across the state.”

Senate Majority Deputy Leader Mike Gianaris said, “The State Senate worked hard to build a budget that serves our communities and delivers tangible benefits for New Yorkers. I am proud we achieved important policy priorities, including my proposals to provide additional funding for school security to combat increasing hate crimes, and improved reliability on public transit and express bus routes. The restoration of education aid was also a victory for students throughout the state. Though this budget reflects progress in tackling the decades-long housing crisis, that work remains unfinished and more remains to be done to further protect tenants and find comprehensive solutions to our affordability crisis.”

Finance Committee Chair Senator Liz Krueger said, “As is always the case, we did not get everything we wanted in this final budget, but it represents progress for the people of New York across many important areas. We have defended schools across the state against drastic cuts while laying the groundwork for long-term solutions on school funding and mayoral control; we have taken steps toward protecting all tenants in the state and supporting new affordable housing development; we have eased the tax burden and the child care burden for working families; we have given localities new tools to stop illegal cannabis shops; and we have successfully restored clean water and environmental funding. I thank Leader Stewart-Cousins and my colleagues for their dedication and collaboration, and I particularly thank all our staff for their tireless work throughout this extended budget process.”

Carrying on the proud legacy of being the “education conference,” the Senate Democratic Majority ensured that no cuts would be made to school funding, and that kids across the state would still receive the investments that they both need and deserve. Thanks to the Democratic Conference’s advocacy, this year’s budget will also include transformative investments in higher education to make continued learning more accessible These wins include: 

School Funding

• Rejecting the Executive’s proposal to eliminate Hold Harmless and also increasing Foundation Aid for the poorest 63 districts in the State. This is a Foundation Aid increase of $934 million, or 3.9 percent, over the current school year, which is an increase of $430 million, or 1.8 percent, over the Executive’s Foundation Aid proposal.
• A Comprehensive Study by The Rockefeller Institute and NYS Department of Education to develop a modernized school funding formula.
• $180 million to continue our historic commitment to providing universal school meals for thousands of New York children.
• Extending Mayoral Control for two years. 
• An additional $100 million for Universal Pre-K to allow school districts throughout the state to serve at least 90% of eligible four year olds.
• A study to work towards a pathway for expanded afterschool across New York State.

Higher Education

• The Enacted Budget increases SUNY Operating Aid by $60 million, Capital by $60 million and Community College Support by $6 million over the Executive’s proposal. 
• Increases CUNY Operating Aid by $40 million, Capital by $40 million and Community College Support by $4 million over the Executive’s proposal.
• The Senate also provided significant support for the SUNY Hospitals, providing operating assistance to cover their debt service and $150 million in capital. 
• Increasing the household income limit for dependent students from $80,000 to $125,000
• Increase the married, no children income ceiling from $40,000 to $60,000 (Net Taxable Income) 
• Increasing the max income limit from $10,000 to $30,000

Amidst the ongoing housing crisis in New York, the Senate Democratic Conference put forward and secured a transformative housing deal that targets both the affordability and supply of the current market through meaningful tenant and homeowner protections, along with real incentives to replenish the stock. This historic deal includes: 

Hard fought Senate Majority proposals in final package:

• Housing Opportunities for the Future - a new $150 million program to build affordable homes and rentals across New York State. 
• A new opt-in construction or commercial conversion tax exemption for affordable housing outside the City of New York.
• Authorization for municipalities to adopt a local tax exemption to make it easier for individuals to build accessory dwelling units.

Historic Tenant and Homeowner Protections: 

• A rent increase is presumptively unreasonable if it is greater than the annual change in CPI plus 5%, or 10%, whichever is lower. 
• A lease can only be terminated for one of the good causes lined out within the bill. 
• Takes effect immediately in New York City, while localities in the rest of the state may opt in and provides for flexibility in defining the small landlord and high-rent exemptions. 
• Sunsets in ten years. 
• The SFY 2024-25 Enacted Budget also establishes the crime of Deed Theft, to protect homeowners from having someone steal the title to their home through fraudulent or deceptive practices, often which are targeted towards elderly homeowners. This provision would allow for the prosecution of individuals who intentionally alter, falsify, forge, or misrepresent property documents unlawfully transfer ownership rights of real property.
• $140 million in capital funding for NYCHA, 
• $80 million to support Mitchell-Lamas and $75 million to support public housing authorities outside of New York City.
• $40 million in the Homeowner Protection Program (HOPP)
• A total of $10 million in Eviction Protection Funding in New York City and $40 million for outside New York City 

Needed New York City Specific Housing Advances:

• The Enacted Budget includes an extension of the 421a construction completion deadline until 2031 to ensure that vested projects that had started construction prior to the expiration of 421a are able to continue. 
• It also implements 485x, a new version of 421a, to build new multifamily buildings across New York City with stronger labor and wage standards and requires levels of affordability.  It also lifts the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) cap to allow for higher density buildings.
• This budget includes a pilot program to legalize basement and cellar apartments within identified geographic locations in the City of New York and to ensure those apartments are brought up to code to allow individuals to live in them safely. 
• And, it builds on previous conference wins to include a tax incentive program for Commercial Conversions with higher affordability requirements. 

In this year’s state budget, the Senate Democratic Conference continued its efforts to ensure New York remains affordable and opportunity-filled for working and middle class families to put down roots. This year, those measures included:

• A historic $350 million for a new supplemental tax credit for families eligible for the Empire State Child Tax Credit to provide direct support to working families, and continues to implement the lowest Middle-Class Tax rate in over 70 years, saving average New Yorkers millions of dollars. 
• Allowing children ages 0-6 to remain continuously enrolled in Medicaid or Child Health Plus without having to redetermine eligibility, to ensure children have stable and affordable health insurance for their first years. 
• Advances $50 million for customers enrolled in the NYSERDA EmPower+ Program to electrify their homes, providing subsidies to guarantee customers don’t spend more than 6% of their income on an electric bill.   
• Thanks to the Senate’s efforts, this budget will also include long overdue and critical Tier 6 reform by changing the final average salary calculation window for Tier 6 members from five to three years to help incentivize workforce retention. 
• The successful Senate inclusion of a 2.84% COLA for Human Services includes a 1.7% target salary increase for specific support, direct care, clinical, and non-executive administrative staff. This represents a notable increase over the Executive’s 1.5% COLA proposal.
• $50 million in transformative new funding for Anti-Poverty Efforts in Rochester, Syracuse and Buffalo. 

Access to Affordable Child Care: 

• The Enacted Budget includes $1.78 billion for the New York State Child Care Block Grant, an increase of $754.4 million, which will provide subsidies for 119,000 eligible children. 
• It further includes $280 million in underutilized federal pandemic funds to continue the Workforce Retention Grant program and provide another round of bonus payments to employees at 14,000 programs statewide. 
• The Enacted Budget will also continue $6.25 million for the Child Care Facilitated Enrollment program in New York City and $5.6 million to the rest of the state. This program is designed to help qualifying working parents get access to child care in New York City.  

In ongoing efforts to bolster New York’s economy from the ground up, New York State Democrats are continuing to invest in small businesses and development at all levels of the economy. This year’s state budget includes:

• Empire AI, a pioneering consortium to develop and inaugurate a cutting-edge artificial intelligence computing center in Buffalo, with statewide partners to ensure New York’s leadership in the burgeoning AI space. 
• It will create a personal income and corporate franchise tax credit for certain qualifying, independently owned print media or broadcasting entities, including those that have experienced workforce or circulation decline in the last five years.  
• It places a total cap on the credit per entity of $300,000, and an annual cap of $30 million. It sets aside $4 million to provide a $5,000 credit for the hiring of new employees, and $26 million set aside for the retention of current staff. Half of the funds will be set aside specifically for those with 100 or fewer employees.
• This budget adds $365,000 over the Executive proposal in additional funding for the Minority and Women-Owned Business Development lending program, for a total of $1 million.
• It also increases the grant amounts for Entrepreneurial Assistance Centers from $175,000 to $250,000 to support small businesses and MWBEs across the state and help establish EACs in unserved areas. 
• This budget successfully enacts the Retail Security Tax Credit, which helps small businesses make the investments needed to keep employees safe.
• The Senate Majority successfully added its investment of $1 million for beginning farmers, along with $1 million for socially and economically disadvantaged farmers.
• Language to lower the medical cannabis tax rate from 7% to 3.15%  and direct revenue to counties in order to keep them whole. 
• $100,000 for the Cannabis Farmers Alliance, and $50,000 for the Cannabis Association of New York.
• Increased enforcement powers for the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) to enable cities and counties to crack down on illegal cannabis shops.

In a continued effort to support the wellbeing of all New Yorker’s at every stage of life, the Senate Majority fought to bolster health care resources and continue investing in mental health services for everyone throughout the state. The SFY 2024-25 budget includes:

• $7.5 billion invested in New York’s health care system through modifications to the state's 1115 Medicaid Waiver to be used for promoting health equity, diminishing health disparities, and enhancing access to primary and behavioral health care.
• $800 million in support for distressed and safety-net hospitals.
• Continuing to increase the minimum wage for home care workers.
• Establishing minimum collection policies for medical debt, increasing eligibility for hospital financial assistance, a uniform financial assistance application for all hospitals, prohibiting hospitals from using immigration status as a criterion for financial assistance eligibility, requiring reporting on users of financial assistance, and clarifying that the notice requirements on medical credit cards apply to hospitals as well as other health care providers. 
• Eliminating cost-sharing for insulin in commercial insurance for thousands of New Yorkers.
• Requiring commercial insurance to reimburse outpatient behavioral and substance use disorder treatment services at no less than the Medicaid rate.  

Mental Health  

• Providing $55 million to establish 200 new inpatient psychiatric beds at State-run facilities.
• Investing $33 million to enhance mental health services targeting first responders and aiding individuals with mental illnesses involved in the criminal justice system.
• Allocating $19 million for mental health services for school-aged children.
• $75.8 million increase for Crisis Services, which includes improving public safety by addressing serious mental illness, and providing critical care to young people.
• $8 million increase to the Judiciary to support Mental Health Court operations. 
• Extending the Mental Health Support and Workforce Reinvestment Program for an additional three years, allowing Office of Mental Health to reinvest savings from the closure of State-operated inpatient facilities for workforce development activities and community mental health services

As New York continues to be a beacon for the nation amidst ongoing attacks on reproductive rights, the Senate Democrats used this year’s State Budget to advance greater protections and resources for those who utilize these services, ensuring that they remain available to all who need them. This includes:

• Passing First in the Nation Paid Prenatal Leave, providing 20 hours of paid sick time for pregnant employees to use for their prenatal care visits.
• Codifying the Reproductive Freedom and Equity Grant Program to provide funding for abortion providers and non-profit entities to support increased access to abortion.
• Enacting the Community Doula Expansion Grant Program to provide funding to community-based organizations for recruitment and retention and startup and administrative costs to increase the number of community doulas.
• Allowing the Health Commissioner to issue a statewide, non-patient specific order to provide doula services for any pregnant, birthing, or postpartum individual.
• Requiring Paid Breaks for Breast Milk Expression in the Workplace for 30 minutes.

The New York Senate Democrats have always understood that a brighter future starts with investments into our youth. Through this advocacy, the SFY 2024-25 Budget includes vital funding for youth programming and intervention services, with:

• $103.2 million for After School Programs, an increase of over $20 million from last year’s budget 
• $10 million for the Youth Sports Initiative. 
• $1.5 million in additional funding for the Youth Development Program, for a total of $15.6 million.
• $1 million in additional funding for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act program, for a total of $8.1 million.
• $2 million in additional funding for Child Advocacy Centers, for a total of $7.2 million.

The SFY 2024-25 Enacted Budget continues the Senate Democratic Majority’s commitment to meeting New York’s climate goals by forging ahead on key investments and advancing modern policy to address the needs of the moment so we can not only stop, but also reverse the effects of climate change. This includes:

• Adding $250 million over the Executive proposal for the Clean Water Infrastructure Act for a total of  $500 million.
• Successfully reversing cuts to the Environmental Protection Fund for an investment of  $400 million to support climate priorities across New York State.
• Expediting the siting and construction of electrical transmission and commercial energy storage through the RAPID Act, with the addition of Senate Majority proposals to preserve prime agricultural land, incorporate greater community input in the siting process, and improve labor standards. 
• $300 million in Capital for enhancing and improving parks statewide and $150 million for the New York Statewide Investment in More Swimming (NYSWIMS) program to improve pools and build new ones in communities across the State. 

The New York State Senate Majority is building on record investments to infrastructure and local municipalities by restoring roads funding and putting more money into local government. This includes: 

• $50 million increase in AIM funding for local governments, the first increase in AIM in over a decade for a total of $765.2 million.
• The Senate’s successful inclusion of Sammy’s Law, which will authorize citywide speed limits to be reduced at DOT’s discretion, upon authorization from the New York City Council, allowing for the speed limits to be changed from 25 mph to 20 mph, and to lower special traffic-calming zones from 15 mph to 10 mph. 
• $2.5 million added by the Senate Democrats to establish and support the Dr. John L. Flateau Voting Rights and Elections Database of New York to assist in efforts to enforce the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York, increasing both accountability and transparency in New York’s elections system, and $5 million in assistance for Local Boards of Elections.
• $10 million in additional funds for Upstate STOA funding, for a total of $333.2 million.
• $4.2 billion for the MTA, an increase of $140 million or 3.4 percent from SFY 2023-24. 
• $551 million for non-MTA downstate systems, a 5.4 percent increase in funding. 
• $60 million in additional funding for CHIPS, for a total of $598 million.
• $40 million in additional funding for State Touring Routes, for a total of $140 million.
• $200 million per year for BRIDGE NY
• $150 million per year for PAVE NY
• $200 million for Pave our Potholes
• $100 million for Extreme Winter Recovery

The SFY 2024-25 Enacted Budget puts meaningful resources into public safety and the protection of all New Yorkers, of all backgrounds. This year’s funding builds on previous Senate Majority efforts by: 

• Expanding the range of offenses that can be prosecuted as hate crimes.
• Investing an additional $35 million in the Securing Communities Against Hate Grant to safeguard houses of worship, religious schools, and other vulnerable locations.
• Allocating $347 million to continue efforts to reduce and prevent gun violence in New York.
• Providing $35.7 million to combat and prosecute domestic violence crimes.
• Investing $7.1 million to provide more intensive supervision for individuals on parole through the Supervision Against Violent Engagement (SAVE) program
• Expanding transitional housing and college programming across all state prisons.
• $1 million for transportation for visitors to and from State Correctional Facilities.
• Implementing measures to combat toll evasion on roads and fare evasion on subways, commuter rails, and buses, including cracking down on vanish plates and fraudulent paper plates. 
• Creates a Class E felony for assaulting a retail worker. 
• Allowing for aggregation of retail theft crimes to make it easier to prosecute repeat offenders. 
• This budget creates a new Class A misdemeanor, Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, which would make it a crime for an individual to intentionally subject a transit worker to unlawful physical contact.
• Protecting against Sexually explicit Artificial Intelligence- expands the existing statutory right to privacy, which says that it is unlawful to use a person’s name, portrait, or picture for commercial advertising without consent, by adding “likeness and voice” to the list of protected characteristics. 
• Combatting the use of Deep fakes in Elections- the legislation requires distributors or publishers of “materially deceptive” political communications to disclose the use of digitization. It also gives candidates a private right of action to seek injunctive relief and court and attorneys’ fees.
• The Senate fought to include $30 million for AAPI Equity Coalition priorities for crisis intervention initiatives and community-based programs to combat bias crimes.
• The Senate fought to enact the Limousine Passenger Safety Task Force’s recommendations, including increasing the minimum fine for operating a stretch limousine that has been suspended with an out-of-service defect, requiring stretch limos to be equipped with a window break tool as well as a fire extinguisher, equipping stretch limos with anti-intrusion and roll-over protections, improving safety data reporting and requiring a pre-trip safety briefing for limo passengers.

Share this Article or Press Release