11 minutes
Placement, authority, and the answer not yet A stage with undefined authority becomes a comment box or a wall. Deciding in writing whether it advises, conditions or holds is most of the design.
What you’ll be able to do Place an equity and access review at the point where requirements are still open, and state in writing what authority it carries, how long it takes, and what happens when a finding cannot be resolved before release. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: Which proposal addresses what both groups are actually describing? Document a next step for Placement, authority, and the answer not yet: Write one paragraph that states, for a workflow you own or influence, what the review examines, when it happens, what authority it carries, how many working days it takes, and who can approve an exception. Placement first, because placement decides everything else Ask where the requirements stop being open. In most workflows there is a clear point: the draft goes for clearance, or the effective date is published, or the form goes to print, or the contract language goes out with the solicitation. Before that point, a finding is an edit. After it, the same finding is an amendment, a correction notice, or a note for the next revision cycle.
The review belongs immediately before that point, and it works better as two touch points than one. The first is an early look, while the requirement is still a proposal and the drafting team still has options. The second is short: a confirmation before release that the findings from the first look were resolved, or accepted in writing by a person with a name. The second touch point takes very little time when the first one happened, and it is the only thing that stops findings from evaporating between review and release.
Everything else in the design follows from placement. Authority matters because an early reviewer is asking for changes that cost the drafting team real work. A timeline matters because an early review that takes an unknown number of days will be skipped by anyone with an effective date. An exception route matters because some deadlines are set in statute and will not move for anyone's review.
Three honest ways to set decision rights Advisory Conditional Hold
The review records findings; the document owner decides what to do with them. Low friction, fast, and appropriate for low-risk material and for a stage in its first weeks. Its failure mode is predictable: under schedule pressure the findings accumulate and nothing changes, and staff learn that participating is optional. If you choose advisory, pair it with a record that shows what was found and what was done, and look at that record on a set date.
Findings on the four questions must be resolved before release, or accepted in writing by the named owner of the document. The reviewer does not decide; they make the decision visible and attach a name to it. This is the setting that works for most bulletin, form and manual workflows, because it respects the owner's authority while making silent deferral impossible. Its failure mode is paperwork, which you avoid by keeping the accepted-finding record to one line.
Release waits until specified findings are resolved. Appropriate for a narrow, named class of findings: a document that cannot be read by the people it is addressed to, a requirement with no lawful way to comply, a translation that has not happened for a document the division treats as vital. Use it sparingly and write the list down. A hold authority that is broad and undefined will be routed around within a month, and you will not hear about it.
What the drafter brings, so the review is not a guessing game The draft in a working format, not a flattened image, so reviewers can read structure as well as words.
The requirement stated in one sentence: what a person must do, find, prove or wait for, by when, counted from what.
What already exists in other formats and languages, and what would have to be produced before release.
What the division already knows about who completes this step and who does not, if anyone has looked.
Who read the draft from outside the drafting team, whether they were paid, and what they said.
The effective date and where it comes from: statute, a federal requirement, a system change, or a decision that could move.
Who decides this? Whether the requirement is legally sufficient and whether the change has to go through rulemaking.
Choose a category Decided by the review stage Decided by the responsible DHS office Decided with the people affected Whether the draft is cleared and published, and on what date.
Choose a category Decided by the review stage Decided by the responsible DHS office Decided with the people affected Whether the requirement can be understood on a first read, and whether it states days and a start date.
Choose a category Decided by the review stage Decided by the responsible DHS office Decided with the people affected Whether the findings from the early look were resolved before release or accepted in writing, and by whom.
Choose a category Decided by the review stage Decided by the responsible DHS office Decided with the people affected Whether the draft is ready to release before the formats and translations people need exist.
Choose a category Decided by the review stage Decided by the responsible DHS office Decided with the people affected Which part of this process is hardest, and what it actually costs in time, travel and proof.
Choose a category Decided by the review stage Decided by the responsible DHS office Decided with the people affected What a workable notice period looks like for people who move often or share a mailing address.
Choose a category Decided by the review stage Decided by the responsible DHS office Decided with the people affected Check matches Reset Say out loud what happens when the answer is not yet What you can change You control whether not yet is a defined outcome with a named owner and a date, or an awkward pause that the release calendar resolves on its own.
What to watch for Do not leave an unresolved finding in a record with no owner. An accepted risk with nobody's name on it is not an accepted risk; it is a finding that was quietly dropped.
Your next step Write the not yet path for one workflow: what the reviewer records, who accepts the open finding, what date the back-check happens, and who is told.
Where the continuum shows up in a review stage This program uses the intercultural development continuum — denial, polarization, minimization, acceptance, adaptation and integration — as its theory of change. It describes how an organization's default way of seeing difference tends to move over time. It is never a label, a score, or a record about any individual, and nothing in this module asks anyone to place themselves or a colleague on it.
A review stage is one of the places where an organization's habitual position shows most plainly, because it is where difference becomes a decision. Minimization sounds reasonable and is easy to say out loud: the policy applies to everyone the same way, so it is already fair. In a review, it shows up as a preference for uniform wording, and as discomfort with a finding that says the same requirement costs different people very different amounts.
Acceptance sounds like a genuine question asked without defensiveness: what does this requirement cost someone whose week does not look like mine, and how would we find out? Adaptation is what happens next, when the draft actually changes — a second signature line, a wider list of acceptable proof, a window counted from receipt rather than from the date printed on the letter. A review stage is worth building mostly because it gives acceptance somewhere to go. Without it, the question gets asked in a hallway and the draft goes out unchanged.
A private reflection, for you only and never collected: think of a time your own objection to a draft was overtaken by a deadline. What would have had to be written down beforehand for that conversation to go differently — a timeline, a named decider, an exception route, or simply a place to record that the finding was accepted and by whom?
Carry this forward An undefined authority resolves itself badly in both directions: into a comment box everyone learns to ignore, or into an unpredictable wall that people route around. Saying plainly whether the review advises, conditions or holds is kinder than either.
Two touch points work better than one. An early look while the requirements are open, then a short confirmation before release that the findings were resolved or knowingly accepted.
An emergency route with a named approver and a required back-check is what keeps urgent from becoming the ordinary path. Without one, the first genuine deadline teaches everyone that the stage is optional.
Some questions do not belong to the review. Legal sufficiency, rulemaking and clearance belong to the responsible DHS offices, and what a requirement costs in practice belongs partly to the people who have to meet it, invited and paid for that work.
A scenario about a review that both drafters and reviewers call broken for opposite reasons, a sorting exercise separating what the stage decides from what other offices and affected people decide, and a knowledge check on decision rights.
Write one paragraph that states, for a workflow you own or influence, what the review examines, when it happens, what authority it carries, how many working days it takes, and who can approve an exception.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Next lesson Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
