Achieving paid family leave in Oregon, USA: analysis of the policy process using the advocacy coalition framework.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Public Health Policy Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-28 DOI:10.1057/s41271-023-00455-0
Lisset Dumet, Hal Nelson
{"title":"Achieving paid family leave in Oregon, USA: analysis of the policy process using the advocacy coalition framework.","authors":"Lisset Dumet, Hal Nelson","doi":"10.1057/s41271-023-00455-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Only a few states have adopted a paid family leave (PFL) policy in the United States of America. Local media described the 2019 Oregon PFL legislation as \"the most progressive\" policy in the country, with coalitions as crucial policy advocates. This case study applies the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to examine policy learning and negotiated agreements as causal mechanisms to explain the adoption of the PFL. We identified three modes of policy learning: previous policy cycles, learning from other coalitions, and learning from community organizations. ACF explains the evolution of negotiated agreements based on the stability of coalition belief systems, including consensus on leave time, inclusivity, and cost-sharing contributions. ACF helps describe how coalitions adopted progressive ideas such as equity. However, ACF's elements that allow a deeper exploration of narratives were missing. Future studies should include interviews with coalition members and compare state policies to assess strategies. Future policy initiatives could integrate feedback from community organizations into policy strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-023-00455-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Only a few states have adopted a paid family leave (PFL) policy in the United States of America. Local media described the 2019 Oregon PFL legislation as "the most progressive" policy in the country, with coalitions as crucial policy advocates. This case study applies the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to examine policy learning and negotiated agreements as causal mechanisms to explain the adoption of the PFL. We identified three modes of policy learning: previous policy cycles, learning from other coalitions, and learning from community organizations. ACF explains the evolution of negotiated agreements based on the stability of coalition belief systems, including consensus on leave time, inclusivity, and cost-sharing contributions. ACF helps describe how coalitions adopted progressive ideas such as equity. However, ACF's elements that allow a deeper exploration of narratives were missing. Future studies should include interviews with coalition members and compare state policies to assess strategies. Future policy initiatives could integrate feedback from community organizations into policy strategies.

在美国俄勒冈州实现带薪家庭假:利用倡导联盟框架分析政策进程。
在美国,只有少数几个州采用了带薪家庭假(PFL)政策。当地媒体将 2019 年俄勒冈州的带薪家庭假立法描述为全国 "最进步 "的政策,而联盟则是关键的政策倡导者。本案例研究运用了倡导联盟框架(ACF)来研究政策学习和协商协议作为解释 PFL 通过的因果机制。我们确定了三种政策学习模式:以前的政策周期、向其他联盟学习以及向社区组织学习。ACF 基于联盟信念体系的稳定性解释了协商协议的演变,包括在休假时间、包容性和费用分担贡献方面的共识。ACF 帮助描述了联盟是如何采纳公平等进步理念的。然而,ACF 中缺少对叙述进行更深入探讨的要素。未来的研究应包括对联盟成员的访谈,并比较各州的政策以评估战略。未来的政策倡议可以将社区组织的反馈纳入政策战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health Policy
Journal of Public Health Policy 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Health Policy (JPHP) will continue its 35 year tradition: an accessible source of scholarly articles on the epidemiologic and social foundations of public health policy, rigorously edited, and progressive. JPHP aims to create a more inclusive public health policy dialogue, within nations and among them. It broadens public health policy debates beyond the ''health system'' to examine all forces and environments that impinge on the health of populations. It provides an exciting platform for airing controversy and framing policy debates - honing policies to solve new problems and unresolved old ones. JPHP welcomes unsolicited original scientific and policy contributions on all public health topics. New authors are particularly encouraged to enter debates about how to improve the health of populations and reduce health disparities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信