Policy Sciences

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 271–288 | Cite as

Using the Delphi process to analyze social policy implementation: A post hoc case from vocational rehabilitation

  • Andrew J. Buck
  • Meir Gross
  • Simon Hakim
  • J. Weinblatt


This study uses a Policy Delphi to discern differences in perspective among and within groups responsible for formulating and implementing vocational rehabilitation policy. Four groups of players were chosen for our analysis: government officials, academics, directors of rehabilitation centers, and the staff who interface with program participants. Significant differences were found between the groups regarding the relative importance of possible legislative goals. This suggests that the failure of vocational rehabilitation policy to promote a work agenda may be attributed to a lack of consensus among policy implementors. The Delphi technique could help policy planners understand the different perspectives within the implementation community, and hence craft more realistic legislation.


Economic Policy Social Policy Government Official Policy Implementation Work Agenda 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1963).Social Change and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Bardach, Eugene (1978).The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes Law. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bardecki, Michael (1984). ‘Participants' response to the delphi method: An attitudinal perspective.’Technological Forecasting and Social Change 25: 281–292.Google Scholar
  4. Berkowitz, Edward (1987).Disabled Policy: America's Programs for the Handicapped (A Twentieth Century Fund Report). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bryen, Diane et al. (1987). ‘Barriers to employability of persons with handicaps.’ Philadelphia: Temple University Development Disability Center, submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor (grant number J-9E-3-0172).Google Scholar
  6. Burton, Lloyd (1982). ‘The rehabilitation agency and the civil rights of clients: An analysis of strategies for policy implementation.’Journal of Rehabilitation 48 (2): 46–52.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, George C. III, ed. (1894).Public Policy Implementation. JAI Press, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  8. Gross, Meir et al. (1983). ‘Evaluation of alternative arterial roads: A modified delphi approach.’Environments 15 (1): 27–38.Google Scholar
  9. Helmer, O. (1966).Social Technology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Helmer O. and N. Rescher (1959). ‘On the epistemology of the inexact science.’Management Science 6(1): 25–52.Google Scholar
  11. Hogwood, Brian W. and R. Guy Peters (1985).The Pathology of Public Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jenkins, W. J. (1978).Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective. New York: St. Martin Press.Google Scholar
  13. Levin, Martin and Barbara Ferman (1986). ‘The political hand: Policy implementation and youth employment programs.’Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5(2): 311–325.Google Scholar
  14. Masser, Ian and Paul Foley (1987). ‘Delphi revisited: Expert opinion in urban analysis.’Urban Studies 24(3): 217–225.Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, Bradley W. (1978). ‘Statistical manipulation of delphi statements: Its success and effects on convergence and stability.’Technological Forecasting and Social Change 12(1): 41–60.Google Scholar
  16. Pennsylvania General Assembly (1987).Vocational and Rehabilitation Act, Senate Bill No. 1190. Harrisburg, PA.Google Scholar
  17. Percy, Stephen L. (1989).Disability, Civil Rights, and Public Policy: The Politics of Implementation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pressman, Jeffery and Aaron Wildavsky (1973).Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rauch, Wolf (1979). ‘The decision delphi.’Technological Forecasting and Social Change 15: 159–169.Google Scholar
  20. Rogan, Pat and Stephen Murphy (1991). ‘Supported Employment and vocational rehabilitation: Merger or misadventure?’Journal of Rehabilitation 57(2): 39–45.Google Scholar
  21. Shefer D. and J. Stroumsa (1982). ‘Street lighting projects selection: A rational decision making approach.’Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 16(6): 245–259.Google Scholar
  22. Schulman, Paul R. (1980).Large-Scale Policy Making. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  23. Turoff, Murray (1975). ‘The policy delphi’, in Hal Lindstone and Murray Turoff, eds.The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Congress.Rehabilitation Act of 1973.Google Scholar
  25. Vachon, R. Alexander (1989–90). ‘Employing the disabled.’Issues in Science and Technology 15(3): 44–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. Buck
    • 1
  • Meir Gross
    • 2
  • Simon Hakim
    • 1
  • J. Weinblatt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsTemple UniversityPhiladelphia
  2. 2.Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional PlanningUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsBen Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations