Disability Rights and the American Social Safety Net

Erkulwater, Jennifer

doi:10.7591/9781501727153

Cited by 39 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, there appears to have been no scholarly attempt to explain the changes experienced since 2000 in the Day Habilitation and Employment subsystems in the context of the ACF. Erkulwater (2006) notes that disability‐related policy has received such little attention because “political scientists are generally interested in explaining controversy, and they see very little of it in disability programs” (p. 14). Disability researchers have extensively studied policy‐related issues, including Day Habilitation and Employment Services (e.g., Hall, Butterworth, Winsor, Gilmore, & Metzel, 2007; Niemiec, Lavin, & Owens, 2009; Rogan & Rinne, 2011; Winsor, Hall, Butterworth, & Gilmore, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advocacy Coalitions in Low Salience Policy Subsystems: Struggles Under a Smooth Surface

Giordono¹

2019

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a well‐known framework used to understand policy changes at the subsystem level, is predicated on the idea that coalitions with distinct beliefs compete to influence policy subsystem decisions. The ACF is noted as being most appropriate for, and is typically applied to, high salience policy areas. However, scholars have noted the need to also apply the ACF to less typical application settings in the interest of theoretical refinement. This paper thus explores the applicability of the ACF to Day Habilitation and Employment services systems for working‐age adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in two U.S. states, Washington and Pennsylvania, both of which have experienced distinct state‐level policy changes during the last two decades despite low levels of public attention and conflict. Using a mixed‐methods approach, the paper identifies the presence of two advocacy coalitions (Employment First and Choice) in both states. The study concludes that there is sufficient evidence to apply the ACF to these low salience subsystems, noting theoretical and practical implications for scholars and policymakers interested in applying the ACF to similar settings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advocacy Coalitions in Low Salience Policy Subsystems: Struggles Under a Smooth Surface

Giordono¹

2019

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, Medicare coverage, shown in Figure 9, has actually expanded over the period from 4.5 percent of the population in 1971 to nearly 10 percent. 70 Overall, programs in this grouping each continued along the trajectories established under postwar governance. 68 To the extent that visible benefits for the non-elderly became more expansive during this period, they were directed primarily to those who could not work.…”

Section: Heterogenous Governance 1976-the Presentmentioning

confidence: 98%

American Political Development from Citizens' Perspective: Tracking Federal Government's Presence in Individual Lives over Time

Mettler

Milstein

2007

Stud. Am. Pol. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CollegesAlthough scholars of American political development (APD) have helped transform many aspects of the study of U.S. politics over the last quarter-century, they have barely begun to use the powerful analytical tools of this approach to elucidate the relationship between government and citizens. APD research has probed deeply into the processes of state-building and the creation and implementation of specific policies, yet has given little attention to how such development affects the lives of individuals and the ways in which they relate to government. Studies routinely illuminate how policies influence the political roles of elites and organized groups, but barely touch on how the state shapes the experiences and responses of ordinary individuals. As a result, we know little about how governance has influenced citizenship over time or how those changes have, in turn, affected politics.Presumably state development influences many different aspects of citizenship, each of which is critical to the state's legitimacy, authority, and power. Different periods of governance might affect the extent to which individuals possess a sense of civic obligation and duty or a claim to specific rights. In some political eras, citizens may derive their identity from the state; in others, they may do so in opposition to the state. Given disparities in the ways policies may affect different groups of people, governance could create separate forms of status and stratify the citizenry; alternatively, some policies might foster a sense of social solidarity even among those who are situated differently in terms of class, race, or gender. The form taken by governing arrangements across time is likely to shape citizens' attitudes about and levels of support for government generally and for particular policies. Perhaps most significant, distinct regimes may mobilize citizens to participate to varying degrees, in different ways, and for diverse purposes. Each of these relationships lies well within the domain of American political development and thus APD scholars ought to be able to explain much about them.Yet, such concerns remain on the margins of APD scholarship, typically discussed briefly-if at all-in the final chapters of books or conclusions of articles. In effect, APD scholars have ceded the study of individual political behavior to behavioralists and rational choice scholars. Unfortunately, neither group employs the analytical tools necessary to grapple effectively with the questions posed above.Behavioralists tend to conduct their analysis from a society-centric starting point, considering political institutions and policies only as an endpoint of political behavior rather than potentially as a formative influence upon it; rational choice scholars, conversely, typically assume how institutions influenceThe authors wish to thank Sarah Byrne for her masterful work in preparing our graphs for publication and two anonymous reviewers who provided helpful comments on an earlier draft.

show abstract

“…Though the number of applications did not rise at 7 The evaluation of the child's ability to function in school is not an evaluation of the child's academic performance. Instead, the standard under the Individual Functional Assessment used during the Zebley years required that the applicant child have limitations in two or three functional areas: response to stimuli (applied birth to age 1), cognition, communication, motor functioning (applied birth to age 3), social functioning, personal and behavioral functioning (applied age 3 to age 16), and concentration, persistence, and pace (applied age 3 to age 16) (Erkulwater 2006). Adolescents age 16 to 18 were evaluated with respect to physical and mental activities expected of individuals at least 18 years old.…”

Section: Data and Empirical Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%