Human Services Expansion in Allegheny County: Policy Models

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.

The Rational Model and Its Limitations

The rational model is one of the most popular perspectives when examining policy administration and its subsequent processes. Essentially, "it outlines policy-making as a problem-solving process which is rational, balanced, objective and analytical," where "decisions are made in a series of sequential phases, starting with the identification of a problem or issue, and ending with a set of activities to solve or deal with it" (Sutton, 1999, p. 9). As such, it is important for policy makers utilizing the rational model to think rationally, logically working through every defined step in the policy-making process that would eventually lead to a practical solution to the designated problem. From this framework, there are clearly decided steps in the process: a reform issue is first understood, followed by clear agenda, decision, and implementation phases. This approach "assumes that policy makers address the issues rationally, going through each logical stage of the process, and carefully considering all relevant information" (Sutton, 1999, p. 9). When policy fails under this model, it is not the policy itself that is blamed, but the players within it who may not have logically defined the problem or implemented solutions correctly.

Although this model is simple, practical, and often effective, it can also be too narrow to implement policies that work on a broader scale. Without incorporating broader elements, the policy that is made might not be able to truly solve the problem because of its overly narrow focus. It is not just about making a decision and implementing it, for "the job only starts after the decision is made," meaning that a great deal of work must be done after implementation to understand and respond to the reaction that inevitably follows a major change in public policy (Moij, 2003, p. 13). This was evident in the Allegheny County case study. Because Commissioner Foerster was working to expand public services and redistribute wealth and equality back into the community, there were a number of highly abstract and complicated elements within the policy process — elements that proved too complex to work within a strictly linear or rational model. As such, the rational model was not the best strategy for the case at hand.

The Political Model in Practice

The political model proved to be much more applicable. From this perspective, "the whole process is fundamentally political," and thus policy-making is inherently a political undertaking (Moij, 2003, p. 8). Policy drafting is highly dependent on politics, and the resulting policy must support some form of political agenda. Essentially, the world of politics reduces public policy to what will serve particular political interests. Politicians support policies that in turn support them and their agendas, which may not always be in the best interest of the public that must live with the ramifications of those changes. The research suggests that "government officials respond to incentives and disincentives. They are unlikely to undertake policies that are generally unpopular or that will lose them powerful support. They may make deals that keep them in power and maintain revenue, votes, or whatever underlies their power" (Moij, 2003, p. 15). From this perspective, it is the voters' responsibility to elect politicians whose agendas reflect the public's best interests — and that is how successful public policy processes begin. When ineffective politicians exercise their power in the policy process, ineffective policy is the likely result.

Also within the political model, "pressure groups exercise a major influence over the policy process," partly because of their role and power within the political spectrum (Moij, 2003, p. 15). When lobbyists and special interest groups flex their influence over politicians, they can shape the creation of public policy in their favor. As such, "politics is an art where players use strategically crafted argument to persuade others to adopt their policy ideas as the best solution for the distribution and redistribution of goods" (Anderson, 2009, p. 91). Elements of this model are clearly visible in the Allegheny County case. Program administrators from both inside and outside Commissioner Foerster's administration lobbied for their interests to be reflected in the changing human services policies. Foerster not only used his own political influence to drive the changes forward, but he also listened to those special interest groups that held influence over county politics. He blended his own influence with that of like-minded supporters to develop more progressive public services for the county.

Conclusion

The expansion of human services in Allegheny County illustrates that large-scale public policy reform cannot be fully explained by any single theoretical model. While the rational model provides a useful baseline, its linearity proved insufficient for the complexity of Foerster's undertaking. The political model captures the role of influence, lobbying, and strategic coalition-building that were central to his success. The policy process model best reflects the adaptive, multi-stage approach Foerster actually employed, while the Cobb and Elder framework highlights how his personal commitment and use of media framing helped establish and sustain a reform agenda. Together, these models offer a more complete picture of how public administration operates in practice — not as a clean sequence of rational steps, but as a dynamic interplay of politics, expertise, public engagement, and institutional will.