Over the last three decades, the United States has increasingly devolved social policy decisions from the federal to the state level. These changes have resulted in substantial variation in policy decisions and related outcomes. Just as the changes allow states to act as policy laboratories, they also offer a window into the process by which organized interests take advantage of such opportunities to influence state-level policy. This study uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework to illuminate the black box of policy change with a comparative study of two states, Washington and Pennsylvania, which adopted “Employment First” policy aimed at prioritizing employment services for individuals with disability. The study reveals that policy change in both states was associated with organized stakeholder mobilization, strategic framing and narrative, and bureaucratic activism, all in an environment of heightened stakeholder attention to the issue. That said, the two states followed distinct paths, with early policy change in Washington stemming from service provider mobilization, suggesting the importance of policy feedback mechanisms.
AdamsG (1981) The Politics of Defense Contracting: The Iron Triangle. 1 ed. New York: Transaction Publishers.
2.
AgranoffR (2013) The transformation of public sector intellectual/developmental disabilities programming. Public Administration Review73: S127–S138.
3.
AucanteYBaudotP-Y (2018) Introduction implementing disability rights in national contexts: Norms, diffusion, and conflicts. Social Policy and Society17(1): 87–100.
BerryFSBerryWD (1990) State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review84(2): 395.
6.
BerryFSBerryWD (2017) Innovation and Diffusion models in policy research. In: WeibleCMSabatierP (eds) Theories of the Policy Process. 4th ed. Boulder: Westview Press.
7.
BertelliAMSmithCR (2010) Relational contracting and network management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20(suppl 1): i21–i40.
8.
BoehmkeFJ (2005) Sources of variation in the frequency of statewide initiatives: The role of interest group populations. Political Research Quarterly58(4): 565–575.
9.
BruchSKMeyersMKGornickJC (2018) The consequences of decentralization: Inequality in safety net provision in the post-welfare reform era. Social Service Review92(1): 3–35.
10.
BunchJLiebertzSMilitaK (2018) Outcomes and outputs: Long-term effects of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families on caseload enrollment and poverty. Public Policy and Administration33(3): 290–310.
11.
ButterworthJChristensenJFlippoK (2017) Partnerships in employment: Building strong coalitions to facilitate systems change for youth and young adults. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation47(3): 265–276.
CairneyP (2013) Standing on the shoulders of giants: How do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies?Policy Studies Journal41(1): 1–21.
DavisJHSchoormanFDDonaldsonL (1997) Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review22(1): 20–47.
17.
DickeLA (2002) Ensuring accountability in human services contracting: Can stewardship theory fill the bill?The American Review of Public Administration32(4): 455–470.
18.
DilgerRJBoydE (2014) Block grants: Perspectives and controversies, 15 July, Congressional Research Service. Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40486.pdf (accessed 7 December 2014).
19.
EatonCWeirM (2015) The power of coalitions: Advancing the public in California’s public-private welfare state. Politics & Society43(1): 3–32.
20.
EdzesAJERijnksRDijkJ (2013) Spatial implications of using firm level quotas to employ low productive workers. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie104(5): 621–629.
21.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review14(1): 57–74.
22.
EllisonBANewmarkAJ (2010) Building the reservoir to nowhere: The role of agencies in advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal38(4): 653–678.
FriedmanC (2016) Day habilitation services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services Waivers. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities41(4): 244–255.
25.
FriedmanCRizzoloMC (2016) ‘Get us real jobs:’ Supported employment services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Medicaid Home and Community Based Services Waivers. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 46(1): 107–116.
26.
GarrettKNJansaJM (2015) Interest group influence in policy diffusion networks. State Politics & Policy Quarterly15(3): 387–417.
27.
GeorgeALBennettA (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. 4th printing edition. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
28.
GerringJ (2008) Case selection for case study analysis: Qualitative and quantitative techniques. In: Box-Steffensmeier JM, Brady HE and Collier D (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford handbooks of political science. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
GettingsRM (2011) Forging a Federal-State Partnership: A History of Federal Developmental Disabilities Policy. Alexandria: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
30.
GiordonoLS (2019) Advocacy coalitions in low salience policy subsystems: Struggles under a smooth surface. Policy Studies Journal. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12330.
31.
GuzmanTPirogMASeefeldtK (2013) Social policy: What have we learned?Policy Studies Journal41: S53–S70.
32.
HallACButterworthJGilmoreDS, et al. (2003) High-performing states in integrated employment. Research to Practice 32, February. Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts, Boston. Available at: https://www.communityinclusion.org/article.php?article_id=121 (accessed 20 July 2018).
33.
HallACButterworthJWinsorJ, et al. (2007) Pushing the employment agenda: Case study research of high performing states in integrated employment.Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities45(3): 182–198.
34.
HeikkilaTPierceJJGallaherS, et al. (2014) Understanding a period of policy change: The case of hydraulic fracturing disclosure policy in Colorado. Review of Policy Research31(2): 65–87.
35.
HirschPMichaelsSFriedmanR (1987) ‘Dirty Hands’ versus ‘Clean Models’: Is sociology in danger of being seduced by economics?Theory and Society16(3): 317–336.
36.
HuberJDShipanCR (2002) Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
ItkonenT (2007) Politics of passion: Collective action from pain and loss. American Journal of Education113(4): 577–604.
38.
ItkonenT (2009) Stories of hope and decline interest group effectiveness in national special education policy. Educational Policy23(1): 43–65.
39.
Jenkins-SmithHNohrstedtDWeibleCM, et al. (2017) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An overview of the research program. In: WeibleCMSabatierPA (eds) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, pp.183–224.
40.
JensenMCMecklingWH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics3(4): 305–360.
41.
JeonYHaider-MarkelDP (2001) Tracing issue definition and policy change: An analysis of disability issue images and policy. Policy Studies Journal29(2): 215.
42.
JonesMDJenkins‐SmithHC (2009) Trans-subsystem dynamics: Policy topography, mass opinion, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal37(1): 37–58.
43.
KingGKeohaneROROVerbaS (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton paperbacks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
44.
KrauseGA (1999) A Two-Way Street: The Institutional Dynamics of the Modern Administrative State. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
45.
KüblerD (2001) Understanding policy change with the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy8(4): 623–641.
LeBlancAJTonnerMCHarringtonC (2000) Medicaid 1915 (c) Home and Community-Based Services Waivers across the states. Health Care Financing Review22(2): 159.
48.
LindsayCRHoustonD (2013) Disability Benefits, Welfare Reform and Employment Policy. Work and welfare in Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
49.
LoflandJ (2006) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
50.
MaxwellJA (2013) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 3rd ed. Applied social research methods series, vol. 41. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
51.
McGaugheyMMankD (2001) Empirical evidence of systems change in supported employment. Journal of Disability Policy Studies11(4): 210–222.
52.
MettlerSSoRelleM (2014) Policy Feedback Theory. In: SabatierPAWeibleCM (eds) Theories of the Policy Process. 3rd ed. Boulder: Westview Press, pp.151–182.
53.
NagelP (2006) Policy games and venue-shopping: Working the stakeholder interface to broker policy change in rehabilitation services. Australian Journal of Public Administration65(4): 3–16.
54.
NohrstedtD (2011) Shifting resources and venues producing policy change in contested subsystems: A case study of Swedish Signals Intelligence Policy. Policy Studies Journal39(3): 461–484.
55.
NordD (2014) Employment First across the nation: Progress on the policy front. Policy Research Brief, 1 March. University of Minnesota, RTC on Community Living. Available at: http://rtc.umn.edu/prb/214/ (accessed 14 September 2015).
56.
NordDLueckingRMankD, et al. (2013) The state of the science of employment and economic self-sufficiency for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities51(5): 376–384.
57.
PacewiczJ (2018) The regulatory road to reform: Bureaucratic activism, agency advocacy, and medicaid expansion within the delegated welfare state. Politics & Society46(4): 571–601.
PettinicchioD (2013) Strategic action fields and the context of political entrepreneurship: How disability rights became part of the policy agenda. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change36: 79–106.
62.
PierceJJGiordonoLSPetersonHL, et al. (2020) Common approaches for studying the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Review of methods and exemplary practices. Social Science Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.06.005.
63.
PierceJJPetersonHLJonesMD, et al. (2017) There and back again: A tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Studies Journal45(S1): S13–S46.
64.
PiersonP (1993) When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. In: Esping-Andersen G, Hall P, North DC, et al. (eds) World Politics 45(4): 595–628.
65.
RacinoJAR (2015) Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the U.S. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
66.
RogersEM (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.
67.
SabatierP (ed.) (2000) Clear enough to be wrong. Journal of European Public Policy7: 134–140.
68.
SabatierPA (1988) An Advocacy Coalition Framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences21(2/3): 129–168.
69.
SabatierPAJenkins-SmithH (1999) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An assessment. In: Sabatier PA (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. 1st ed. Boulder: Westview Press, pp.117–168.
70.
SabatierPAJenkins-SmithHC (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Theoretical lenses on public policy. Boulder: Westview Press.
SeawrightJGerringJ (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly61(2): 294–308.
73.
ShapiroJ (1994) Disability policy and the media: A stealth civil rights movement bypasses the press and defies conventional wisdom. Policy Studies Journal22(1): 123–132.
74.
ShipanCRVoldenC (2008) The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science52(4): 840–857.
75.
ShipanCRVoldenC (2012) Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review72(6): 788–796.
76.
SkocpolT (1995) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Reprint edition. Harvard: Belknap Press, an imprint of Harvard University Press.
77.
SquireP (2007) Measuring state legislative professionalism: The squire index revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly7(2): 211–227.
78.
SquireP (2017) A squire index update. State Politics & Policy Quarterly17(4): 361–371.
79.
StiglerGJ (1971) The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science2(1): 3–21.
80.
ThompsonFJBurkeC (2007) Executive federalism and medicaid demonstration waivers: Implications for policy and democratic process.Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law32(6): 971–1004.
81.
University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute on Community Inclusion (n.d.) StateData.info: Population Data from the American Community Survey (Post 2007), Cognitive Disability. Available at: www.statedata.info (accessed 28 October 2018)
82.
University of Michigan Law School (n.d.) Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Available at: https://www.clearinghouse.net (accessed 15 February 2018).
van der HeijdenJKuhlmannJLindquistE, et al. (2019) Have policy process scholars embraced causal mechanisms? A review of five popular frameworks. Public Policy and Administration: 0952076718814894. DOI: 10.1177/0952076718814894.
87.
Van SlykeDM (2007) Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory17(2): 157–187.
88.
VornholtKVillottiPMuschallaB, et al. (2018) Disability and employment – Overview and highlights. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology27(1): 40–55.
89.
WalshJPSewardJK (1990) On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. The Academy of Management Review15(3): 421–458.
Washington Legislature (1998) Chapter 216 (SSB 6751). AN ACT relating to stabilizing long-term care for persons with developmental disabilities living in the community and in residential habilitation centers. 1998 Regular Session. Available at: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6751&Year=1997 (accessed 15 November 2017).
92.
Washington Senate (2012) Chapter 49 (SSB 6384). AN ACT relating to ensuring that persons with developmental disabilities be given the opportunity to transition to a community access program after enrollment in an employment program. Laws of 2012. Available at: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=6384&Year=2012 (accessed 4 May 2017).
WehmeyerML (2013) The Story of Intellectual Disability : An Evolution of Meaning, Understanding, and Public Perception. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co.
95.
WeibleCM (2008) Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal36(4): 615–635.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
