Kimberley Isett, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Member Of:
  • School of Public Policy
Fax Number:
Office Location:
DM Smith 310
Related Links:

Kimberley Roussin Isett is Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy. She earned a Ph.D. in management with a specialization in organization theory from the University of Arizona in 2001. Dr. Isett has concentrated her research on institutional pressures and dynamics in implementing government services, with a particular interest in the delivery of services to vulnerable populations. Her goal is to help government organizations find their optimal system design given their political, policy, regulatory, and financial constraints.  To date, Dr. Isett has been awarded just under $1M in research grant money as Principal Investigator.

  • Ph.D., University of Arizona, Management (Organization Theory), June 2001
  • M.P.A., University of Arizona, (Health and Human Services), December 1998
  • B.A., Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA, (International Relations), May 1994
Research Fields:
  • Policy Process, Leadership, and Pre-Law
  • Program Evaluation, Public Management and Administration
  • United States
  • Health
  • Inequality and Social Justice
  • Race/Ethnicity
  • Vulnerable Populations
  • PUBP-4010: Policy Task Force I
  • PUBP-4020: Policy Task Force II
  • PUBP-8813: Special Topics
  • PUBP-8823: Special Topics
  • PUBP-8833: Special Topics
Recent Publications

Journal Articles

  • An Investigation Into the Characteristics of Papers With High Scholarly Citations in Public Administration
       In: Review of Public Personnel Administration [Peer Reviewed]

    March 2017

    In this article, we investigate characteristics associated with highly cited journal articles in Public Administration, especially the extent to which high impact contributions are theoretical. Using citations as a measure of scholarly influence, we used a mixed qualitative and bibliometric approach to understand the factors associated with the most highly cited articles in Public Administration in the last 20 years. Specifically, we assessed the extent to which each article was theoretical or empirical in nature, the role of the journal in which each article was published, and the extent to which the article’s impact spanned disciplines. Results indicate that theoretical development, the journal in which an article is published, and strategic placement with regard to the intended audience matter for scholarly impact. We also identify that theoretical versus empirical approach of subdisciplines is aligned with the maturity of that subdiscipline, consistent with Kuhn’s ideas of scientific evolution.

  • Making homes healthy: International code council processes and patterns
       In: Journal of Public Health Management and Practice [Peer Reviewed]

    June 2016

    © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.Context: Americans spend more than 90% of their time indoors, so it is important that homes are healthy environments. Yet many homes contribute to preventable illnesses via poor air quality, pests, safety hazards, and others. Efforts have been made to promote healthy housing through code changes, but results have been mixed. In support of such efforts, we analyzed International Code Council's (ICC) building code change process to uncover patterns of content and context that may contribute to successful adoptions of model codes. Objective: Discover patterns of facilitators and barriers to code amendments proposals. Design: Mixed methods study of ICC records of past code change proposals. N = 2660. Setting: N/A. Participants: N/A. Main Outcome Measure(s): There were 4 possible outcomes for each code proposal studied: accepted as submitted, accepted as modified, accepted as modified by public comment, and denied. Results: We found numerous correlates for final adoption of model codes proposed to the ICC. The number of proponents listed on a proposal was inversely correlated with success. Organizations that submitted more than 15 proposals had a higher chance of success than those that submitted fewer than 15. Proposals submitted by federal agencies correlated with a higher chance of success. Public comments in favor of a proposal correlated with an increased chance of success, while negative public comment had an even stronger negative correlation. Conclusions: To increase the chance of success, public health officials should submit their code changes through internal ICC committees or a federal agency, limit the number of cosponsors of the proposal, work with (or become) an active proposal submitter, and encourage public comment in favor of passage through their broader coalition.