Human Services Expansion in Allegheny County: Policy Models
This paper examines the dramatic expansion of human services in Allegheny County from 1968 to 1995 under Commissioner Tom Foerster, using it as a case study to evaluate three major policy process models. The paper explores the rational model, the political model, and the broader policy process model, assessing their respective strengths and limitations in explaining how Foerster reshaped public services for vulnerable populations. It also applies the Cobb and Elder agenda-setting model to explain how Foerster leveraged political influence, public support, and media framing to drive lasting policy change. The analysis demonstrates that no single model fully captures the complexity of large-scale human services reform.
- Introduction: Policy Change in Allegheny County: Overview of Foerster's human services expansion effort
- The Rational Model and Its Limitations: Sequential problem-solving model and its narrow scope
- The Political Model in Practice: Political agendas, lobbying, and policy influence
- The Policy Process Model and Commissioner Foerster: Flexible, multi-stage model applied to county reform
- The Cobb and Elder Agenda-Setting Model: Stakeholder influence and media framing in agenda setting
- Conclusion: No single model explains complex human services reform
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Consistently grounds abstract theoretical frameworks in a concrete historical case study, making each model tangible and easy to evaluate.
- Moves logically from simpler to more complex models, building analytical depth progressively across sections.
- Uses direct quotations from policy scholars to anchor claims, lending academic authority to comparative analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical application: rather than describing models in isolation, it evaluates each one against the same case study, allowing the reader to see why some frameworks (the rational model) fall short while others (the policy process model, the political model) better account for real-world complexity. This approach is a standard technique in public administration and policy analysis courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction situating the Allegheny County case. It then works through four distinct theoretical lenses — rational, political, policy process, and Cobb and Elder — devoting a section to each and connecting each theory back to Foerster's actions. The conclusion is implicit, with the final section on media framing and agenda setting serving as the paper's closing analytical point. The reference list follows APA formatting conventions.
Introduction: Policy Change in Allegheny County
Policy processes "blend political science, sociology, and anthropology, and their subject matter is the way in which policy is given shape in concrete historical processes" (Moij, 2003, p. 11). It is a complicated endeavor, and when one sets out to drastically change public policy, it can be a serious effort without guaranteed success. This is exactly what Commissioner Foerster did when he worked to open up greater resources for people in need in his county. Allegheny County dramatically expanded its human services department and the policies associated with it from 1968 to 1995. The Commissioner believed that government needed to engage more actively with the public and help provide more resources and services for those in need. He undertook sweeping changes to the existing public policy in order to reach his goals.
There are a number of different models that explain the nature of policy processes, each of which can be examined using this case study. The rational model, the political model, the policy process model, and the Cobb and Elder agenda-setting model each offer distinct frameworks for understanding how Commissioner Foerster's reforms took shape.
References
Anderson, Don. (2009). Public Policy Praxis: A Case for Understanding Policy and Analysis (2nd ed.). Pearson Publishing.
Burns, Melanie. (2013). The policy process model & agenda setting. University of Minnesota.
Moij, Jos. (2003). Smart Governance? Politics in the Policy Process of Andhra Pradesh, India. Overseas Development Institute.
Scheufele, Dietram A., & Tewksbury, David. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(2007), 9–20.
Sutton, Rebecca. (1999). The Policy Process: An Overview. Overseas Development Institute.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.