Citizen Participation: Can We Measure

¶ … Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Its Effectiveness" by Judy B. Rosener simply makes the case that it isn't certain that citizen participation is "effective" because of, generally, the fact that most research on the question takes the form of "case studies, listing of definitions and techniques, [and] schemes for implementing participation programs" that failed to provide accurate, scientific data on how "effective" citizen participation was to the "goal" (457). Rosener contends that evaluation research methodology can frame instances of citizen participation into something that will generate scientific evidence, allowing us to understand the effects of citizen participation.

Rosener first attempts to explain the concept of citizen participation by asking the journalistic questions who, where, what, how, and when. Defining citizen participation this way, she claims, illustrates the complexity of the term and the problems associated with understanding the effectiveness of involving the public in policy decision making, as well as defines what must be known before judging the effectiveness of citizen participation.

Asking the question "who," Rosener defines at least three sets of actors to whom 'citizen participation' is meaningful: elected officials, public administrators, and citizens. Each of these groups has different constraints, values, expectations and goals, and thus holds different meanings of citizen participation. Knowing who actually perceives is "crucial to any understanding of the effectiveness of citizen participation" (458). The question of "where," refers to where we want citizen participation to take us. In other words, we must know the goal of citizen participation to determine its effectiveness. Likewise, the question of "what" refers to the specific objectives of citizen participation, for example, knowledge sharing, the generation of options for policy makers, etc. Unless these objectives are clear, we cannot make accurate judgments regarding the effectiveness of citizen participation. Rosener's question of "how" indicates "how different kinds of issues relate to participation" (458). In other words, certain decisions require "experts" while others require no specialized knowledge. It is important to know how these issues relate to participation to understand its effectiveness. Finally, "when" refers to asking the question of when in the policy process do we want participation.

Rosener then goes on to explain how evaluation research can illuminate the effectiveness of citizen participation. Evaluation research is "nothing more than the application of certain kinds of research methods to the evaluation of social programs" (459). It functions to compare the effects of a program to its goals in order to assist further decision-making about the program in question. Embarking on evaluation research in citizen participation requires that first the who, where, what, how and when be answered. Additionally, it is important to know how it will actually be known that there's a cause and effect relationship between participation and the achievement of its goals. Rosener then presents a matrix to answer these questions. It is composed of four cells. Cell I is the coincidence of complete knowledge of the cause/effect relationship and the agreement on goals (between, for example, policymakers and citizens). Cell II is incomplete knowledge and agreement. Cell III is complete knowledge and no agreement, and cell IV is incomplete knowledge and no agreement. Most studies, Rosener says, lie in the cell IV environment -- as most participation programs generally do not articulate and come to a consensus on goals and objectives beforehand -- and thus limit our knowledge about how effective citizen participation actually is. The challenge of the future, she contends, is to move toward the cell I environment; "once participation is assessed in terms of how it contributes to the achievement of predetermined, clearly articulated goals and objectives, it will then be possible to compare participation activities" (462). It is in this way that we will know what works and what doesn't.

"Emergent Citizen Groups and Emergency Management" by Robert A. Stallings and E.L. Quarentelli addresses, in large part, three questions: (1) What are the characteristics of citizen groups which emerge around perceived needs or problems related to natural and technological disaster situations? (2) How do they play a part in each of the various phases of the emergency management process? And (3) What implications do these groups carry for emergency management policies and procedures?

There are two types of emergent citizen groups: those that form in the preparedness and post-crisis phase and those that form during the actual emergency. Both forms can be thought of as "private citizens who work together in pursuit of collective goals relevant to actual or potential disasters but whose organization has not yet become institutionalized" (94).

There are three types of groups which can emerge during an actual emergency. "Damage assessment groups" are characterized by assessments such as search and rescue, ascertaining which buildings have been damaged, or creating lists of missing persons (94). They are often the first source of information regarding the extent and location of damage for public officials. "Operative groups" simply act as sort of workforces, clearing debris, distributing food, etc. (94). "Coordinating groups" are more focused on management, forming to resolve domain disputes, communitywide problems, and the like (95).

These three groups share a number of characteristics. There tends to be a core of only a "handful" of continuing members, with the 'peripheral' members participating "fitfully" (95). The groups rarely acquire a name. The groups are relatively variable in terms of age, sex, race, and lifestyle. They usually have little to no structure in terms of hierarchy. Most of these groups exist only temporarily -- a few hours, days, or perhaps a week.

Generally, emergent groups that form in preparedness and post-crisis (non-emergency) times are small -- an average membership of 100 -- but have a much smaller core of, generally, around a half dozen. Typically, these types of groups acquire a name, and, generally, the majority of members are women, white, middle-class, and in the 30-to-40 range. Their structures mostly take the form of a central core of members supported by an outer core of less active members. Major activities of these groups are attempts at mobilizing resources and networking for their cause. Initially, these groups' goals are quite vague, causing the help sought from public officials to be vague and thus unanswered or denied. This often 'forces' these groups to specify their missions. When such groups reach this point, "they start to shed some of their emergent qualities and...come to resemble...what is more familiarly known as pressure groups, voluntary associations, or public interest groups" (96-97).

While not the focus of Stalling and Quarantelli's article, they mention, in the interest of comprehensiveness, that there exist other types of emergent groups, not comprised of private citizens, but that are formed within and among organizations in the private sector or composed exclusively or primarily of public officials. Moreover, "quasi-emergence" can occur when existing public organizations undertake new, unexpected tasks (97).

The existence of these emergence groups imply a number of points to be addressed by public administrators. First, emergence is inevitable, resulting from a perceived need that hasn't been addressed by 'the administration.' Administrators should not ignore what citizens perceive as a need. Second, administrators should remember that emergence is natural, not abnormal. While lacking structure, they are often better prepared to take on emergency situations than structured public groups because they are more flexible and less constrained by internal standards and law. Third, emergence is not necessarily dysfunctional or conflictive. In other words, while emergence may not be the most effective solution, it symbolizes an attempt at a solution and "should be recognized for that fact alone" (98). Fourth, emergence is not necessarily in opposition to public authorities. Most groups begin with the idea that public officials will be on their side once attention has been obtained. Finally, emergence cannot be eliminated by planning. Emergencies always present unique demands that planning does not foresee. "Emergence is one of the ways communities adjust to the uncertainties in their environment" (99).

"Institutionalized Use of Citizen Surveys in the Budgetary and Policy-Making Processes: A Small City Case Study by Watson, Juster, & Johnson explores, through the analysis of the implementation of citizen surveys -- over a period of approximately five years -- in Auburn, Alabama, the effect to which citizen surveys inform and influence budgetary policies. In sum, the authors find that citizen surveys "can provide a productive mechanism to incorporate citizen participation efficiently and productively into local governing processes" (232).

Watson et al. begin with a short history of citizen surveys. Citizen surveys became popular in the 1970s and 1980s as the result of the existing practices -- one-on-one contacts, special interest groups, letters to the editor, and complaints -- being unreliable regarding learning citizens' views. Citizen surveys offered a reliable way to gain feedback on service delivery and input into the policy process. They offered higher quality information in much more detail than the previously existing techniques.

Despite these advantages, however, citizen surveys are still not widely used. This may be the result of the fact that attempts at analyzing the validity and function of citizen surveys have returned ambiguous data, there is limited case study data, and most communities -- if they use citizen surveys -- only do so on a limited basis. Further, the view that citizens cannot objectively assess service delivery (and, conversely, that public officials can) has been a limiting factor to the institutionalization of citizen surveys. Watson et al. point out, however, that a disparity between the subjective views of citizens and the 'objective' assessments of service quality provides city leaders with the opportunities to both communicate more effectively and take steps to reduce the disparity.

Citizen surveys have a number of distinct advantages: they identify problems, evaluate services, influence budget priorities, identify citizen preferences, and "send a message to residents that the city government is concerned about their opinions" (234).

In an effort to promote citizen surveys and explore if citizen surveys are actually effective and worth a city government's time, Watson et al. look at the citizen survey creation and tradition in Auburn, Alabama. The first survey conducted, administered in 1985, convinced public officials that surveys served practical purposes (the results were used in the preparation of the city's budget for the forthcoming year) and could be completed within limited resource constraints. By 1989, the survey had become an annual city activity, the survey had been modified a number of times (for greater efficiency and poignancy), the local news media covered it annually, and public officials were submitting questions to be used. Survey results began to consistently be reflected in budgetary priorities and expenditure. When asked, in 1989, of the value of the citizen survey, the majority of Auburn city council members said they either used survey data to influence the setting of priorities or used survey data to set priorities.

Regarding the case study, the authors reach a number of conclusions. Because the survey has become a well-publicized, annual event, it is possible that positive feelings toward the city government are being reinforced. A "plausible case can be made that citizen survey responses are reflected in council budgetary and programmatic decisions" (238). Thus, citizen surveys can be an efficient, functional mechanism for genuine citizen participation, as well as "provide a framework for citizen participation in local government policy and management processes" (238). The most important circumstance for effective citizen surveys is that they be institutionalized, rather than random and not affecting the budget. As a whole, the case study suggests that the citizen survey is an important link between citizens and policy makers.

"Making Bureaucrats Responsive: A Study of the Impact of Citizen Participation and Staff Recommendations on Regulatory Decision Making" by Judy B. Rosener analyzes, through a case study, the effectiveness of citizen participation in regulatory proceedings. Rosener is additionally concerned with the conventional view that regulators generally take their policy recommendations from staff (rather than the public) -- merely "rubber stamping" policies 'predetermined' by their staffs (339).

Rosener used the proceedings of the California Coastal Act of 1972 as her case study. This act was created in response to pressure for coastal resource protection, and further, as a result of previous governmental inaction in response to this pressure. The California Coastal Commission was created to oversee the Act and determine how exactly the coast would be protected. This commission took the form of one state commission and six regional ones, with commissioners part-time and possessing the authority to approve or deny all development projects in the coastal zone. Additionally, a provision of the Act required that a public hearing be held for each permit that might have an "adverse environmental impact" on the coastal zone (340). Each commission had its own staff whose responsibility was to make recommendations on permits.

To determine if citizen participation had an effect on commission decision making and/or if commissioners merely acted as entities to rubber stamp staff recommendations, Rosener tested three hypotheses: (1) more permits will be denied if staff recommends denial, (2) more permits will be denied if citizens oppose the permits in a public hearing, and (3) more permits will be denied if citizens oppose the permits in a public hearing, irrespective of staff recommendations. Rosener obtained her data from 1,816 development permits for which individual public hearings were held.

Rosener found that when staff recommended permit approval, commissioners approved 93% of the time. When staff recommended permit denial, commissioners denied 55% of the time. Rosener found that, in the case of citizens, when there was no opposition to permits, commissioners denied 11% of the time. When citizens did oppose, the denial rate rose to 34%. This figure suggests that citizen participation was effective in commission decision making. In the situation where staff recommended approval but there was citizen opposition, commissioners denied 16% of the time (as opposed to a denial rate of 4% when staff recommended approval and there was no citizen opposition). Thus, the staff was overruled four times as often when met with citizen opposition. This is an additional fact that strengthens the case that citizen participation was actually effective. Moreover, when staff recommended denial in combination with citizen opposition, commissioners denied 66% of the time (as opposed to a 44% denial rate in the case of a denial recommendation and no citizen opposition).

Rosener's findings suggest a number of things. Citizen participation clearly influenced outcomes. This was measured quantitatively. Commissioners do not merely act to rubber stamp their staff's recommendation, as illustrated by the data that a higher percentage of denials occurred in the case of a staff recommendation for approval in combination with citizen opposition than in the case of a staff recommendation for approval in combination with no citizen opposition. Thus, participation influenced voting outcomes independent of staff recommendations.

In sum, Rosener's findings support all three of her hypotheses. The author's findings suggest that "the relationship between staff recommendation and voting behavior is more complex than has been assumed" (344). Most importantly, perhaps, is the finding that the combination of a staff recommendation for denial and citizen opposition significantly increases the possibility that a permit will be denied, as it is "the first quantitative measurement of the influence of these two factors on the voting behavior of regulators" (345).

"Putting More Public in Policy Analysis" by Walters, Aydelotte, & Miller explores the issues surrounding the difficulties of public participation in policy making via two case studies set in Utah. The authors then propose a model for the systematic inclusion of public participation in policy decisions, additionally identifying two variables -- the purpose for public involvement and the nature of the issue -- that need to be understood before public participation can be successful.