Citizen Participation in the American Federal System"

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing ORice, Washington, D.C.20402

Preface

iii In its 1976 legislation reenacting the General views are included as an appendix to this report, Revenue Sharing program for a second three-year along with a staff summary and evaluation of all period, Congress requested ACIR to prepare the comments received. The comment period several studies of fiscal decisionmaking in the extended from early December 1978 through mid- American federal system of government. Citizen March 1979. Many comments were received, participation, the topic of one of those studies, is some of considerable length and detail, and they the subject of this report. were helpful in revising our report. The number The draft report was prepared by the staff of recommendation options presented to the under its regular procedures which provide for Commission was doubled, and numerous critiques by the governmental research com- refinements in the background chapters were munity and others having special knowledge of made as a result of this consultation process. All the topic. Because of the nature of this topic, the comments received by the first of March were Commission also held a hearing on the draft fully reflected in information presented to the report at its regular meeting on December 7,1978. Commission prior to its action on this report. Following this hearing, the Commission deter- The Commission adopted the recommen- mined that opportunities should be provided for dations in this report and authorized its printing a broader range of views to be submitted on Friday, March 23, 1979. regarding the draft report. Comments received at the December hearing Abraham D. Beame and as a result of the subsequent solicitation of Chairman

Acknowledgements

Thisvolume was prepared by the governmental Hoewing, Judith May, Fred H. Pelzman, Jerry

structure and functions section of the Commis- Delli Priscoli, , Nelson Rosenbaum, Laurence sion staff under the direction of Assistant Rutter, Toni Thomas, Susan Terrence, Francis Director David B. Walker. The following staff Viscount, Robert N. Wise, and Amelie Wogan. members were responsible for individual Some of these same people, plus a number of chapters: Chapters 1, 3, and 5, Bruce D. Mc- others, also participated in a formal hearing on Dowell; Chapter 2, David B. Walker; and Chapter the draft report (held December 7, 1978) and a 4, Albert J. Richter. Chapter 6 was a team effort. follow-up consultation process which extended Professor John Rehfuss of Northern Illinois from December 1978 through March 1979. University (now with California State Universi- Persons involved in this process are named in the ty, Sacramento) developed the 1978 survey of Appendicies to this report, and their names are local governments summarized in this report and not repeated here. contributed to Chapters 4 and 5. The Inter- The Commission gratefully acknowledges the national City Management Association provided assistance of all who assisted by their participa- survey design assistance and data processing tion in the local government survey, the survey of services for the survey of local governments. federal grant-administering agencies reported in Secretarial support was provided by Delores Chapter 4, the critics session, the hearing, and the A. Dawson, Bettyann Hodukavich, Evelyn M. consultation process. Final responsibility for the Hahn, Lynn C. Schwalje, and Linda S. Silberg. report and its contents, of course, rests with the Evelyn M. Hahn compiled several special state- Commission and its staff. by-state tabulations of the 1978 survey. Participating in a "critics session" to review Wayne F. Anderson the draft chapters and alternative recommen- Executive Director dations were: Mark Alger, Francis C. DeLucia, Marla Ewing, Mark Goldberg, Mark Grainer, Lee David B. Walker L. Gray, Walter Groszyk, Mary Hill, Lincoln Assistant Director

Contents

Chapter Page Preface ...... iii Acknowledgment ...... v Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 What is Citizen Participation? ...... 1 Citizen Participation and the Federal Grant System ...... 3 Citizen Participation in the Federal Government's Own Activities .... 5 Citizen Participation and the States ...... 6 State Open Meeting Laws ...... 6 State Open Records Laws ...... 7 Public Information in State Legislatures ...... 7 State Administrative Procedures Acts ...... 7 State Budget Processes ...... 7 Miscellaneous Provisions for State Citizen Participation ...... 7 Citizen Participation and Local Government ...... 8 The Local Budget Process ...... 8 Advisory Committees ...... 9 Citizen Surveys ...... 9 Initiatives and Referendums ...... 9 How Well Does It Work? ...... 12 Conclusion ...... 12 AClR Recommendations ...... 12 Recommendation 1. Citizen Participation at Each Level of Government 13 Recommendation 2 . Citizen Participation in Federal Aid Programs: A Positive and Consistent Federal Policy ...... 14 I Introduction ...... 17 The Purpose of This Study ...... 18 Intergovernmental Aspects of Citizen Participation ...... 18 Forms and Purposes of Citizen Participation ...... 20 The Scope of This Report ...... 22 2 American Traditions of Citizen Participation ...... 25 Theoryand Theorists ...... 25 The Classical Theorists and Citizen Participation ...... 25 The 20th Century Theorists and Citizen Participation ...... 30 Summary Assessment of Citizen Participation Theory: Contrasts and Commonalities ...... 39 Participation in Practice: Its Evolution ...... 41 Expanding the Electorate ...... 41 Democratizing the Nominating Process ...... 45 Expanding Direct Popular Control of Governments ...... 49 Conclusion ...... 55 3 An Overview of Contemporary Citizen Participation ...... 61 The Diverse Forms and Purposes of Contemporary Citizen Participation 61 General Purposes of Citizen Participation ...... 61 The Diversity of Specific Purposes of Citizen Participation ...... 62 Diverse Purposes of Citizen Participation Pursued by Diverse In- terests ...... 64 Diverse Forms of Citizen Participation ...... 64 Relationships Between the Purposes and Forms of Citizen Partici- pation ...... 71 Who Gets Involved in Citizen Participation and Why? ...... 73 Special Techniques to Enhance Interactive Participation ...... 75 When to Use Citizen Participation ...... 75 Programs in Which Citizen Participation is Used ...... 78 Comprehensive Participation Processes ...... 83 Factors Considered in Developing Citizen Participation Processes 85 Evaluating the Forms of Citizen Participation ...... 86 Citizen Participation at the Various Levels of Government ...... 91 The Universality of Citizen Participation ...... 91 Variations in Citizen Participation Among the Levels of Govern- ment ...... 91 4 Citizen Participation in the Administration of Federal Programs ...... 99 The Evolution of Policy on Citizen Participation in Federal Administra- tion ...... 99 The Administrative Procedures Act ...... 99 The Right to Participate ...... 100 Broadening the Emphasis ...... 100 The Sunshine Act ...... 101 Citizen Participation in the Federal Government's Own Activities .... 101 The Level of Federal Performance ...... 102 Three Special "Institutional Remedies" ...... 105 Recent Administration Initiatives ...... 107 Summary ...... 108 Citizen Participation in Federal Aid Programs ...... 109 A Brief History ...... 109 An Inventory of Citizen Participation Requirements in Federal Grant Programs ...... 112 Citizen Participation in Selected Grant Programs: Five Case Studies 132 The Impact of Citizen Participation Requirements: Some General Studies ...... 164 Summary ...... 174 4A Appendix: Citizen Participation Requirements Mandated by Statute or Regulation in Federal Grant Programs, by Program. Department or Agency. and Major Type of Requirement ...... 180 49 Appendix: Membership and Activities of Boards and Committees Re- quired by Federal Grant Programs to Have Citizen Representation in Their Membership ...... 207 Department of Agriculture ...... 207 Department of Commerce ...... 207 HEW-Public Health Service ...... 208 HEW-Office of Education ...... 210 HEW-Office of Human Development Services ...... 215 HEW-Health Care Financing Administration ...... 216 HEW-Social Security Administration ...... 216 HEW-Public Health Service-ll ...... 216 Department of Justice ...... 217 Departmentof Labor ...... 217 Appalachian Regional Commission ...... 218 General Services Administration ...... 218 Community Services Administration ...... 219 Environmental Protection Agency ...... 219 Action ...... 219 Department of Energy ...... 220 5 Citizen Participation in State and Local Government ...... 221 Introduction ...... 221 Budgetary Practices at the State and Local Levels ...... 221 State Laws Calling for Public Meetings and Public Participation in Local Budgetary Processes ...... 221 Survey of Localities in the 50 States ...... 222 Direct Electoral Controls Over Fiscal Activity ...... 247 State Constitutional and Statutory Initiatives and Referenda ...... 247 Nonfiscal Participatory Activity at State and Local Levels ...... 262 Nonfiscal Referenda ...... 263 Open Meeting Laws ...... 265 Open Records Laws ...... 270 Public Information in State Legislatures ...... 270 Procedures for Administrative Rulemaking ...... 271 Advisory Committees ...... 274 Citizen Surveys ...... 276 New State Participative Mechanisms in Policy and Plan Formula- tion ...... 277 Other Specific Techniques ...... 277 Coordination of Citizen Participation at the State Level ...... 278 Conclusions ...... 278 6 Findings. Issues. and Recommendations ...... 283 Findings ...... 283 Participation in Practice: Its Evolution ...... 283 Forms and Purposes of Citizen Participation ...... 284 Citizen Participation in the Federal Government's Own Activities 285 State and Local Requirements and Practices ...... 289 Majorlssues ...... 292 Citizen Participation and Representative Democracy ...... 292 The Proper Use of Advisory Processes ...... 296 Intergovernmental Requirements for Citizen Participation ...... 300 Evaluation of Citizen Participation ...... 305 Recommendation 7. Citizen Participation at Each Level of Govern- ment ...... 307 Recommendation 2. Citizen Participation in Federal Aid Programs: A Positive and Consistent Federal Policy ...... 31 2 Appendices A Summary and Analysis of Comments Received by the Advisory Commis- sion on Intergovernmental Relations Concerning the Draft Report Entitled "Citizen Participation in the American Federal System" ...... 31 7 Procedures ...... 31 7 Responses to Recommendations ...... 31 8 Other Comments ...... 31 9 Additional Written Comments ...... 324 Two "Dialogue" Meetings ...... 325 The Morning Meeting ...... 325 The Afternoon Meeting ...... 337 B Hearing on Citizen Participation in the American Federal System, Decem- ber 7, 1978, Washington, D.C...... 339 I. Toni Thomas (Special Assistant for Citizen Participation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, US. Department of Housing and Urban Development) ...... 341 Lee L. Gray (Vice President, The Interagency Council on Citizen Par- ticipation) ...... 341 Richard lves (Assistant Director, Division of Budget and Planning, State of Missouri, and Member of the Council of State Planning Agencies) . 343 Clifford W. Graves (Chief Administrative Officer, County of San Diego--Statement Presented by Roger Honberger) ...... 345 Howard W. Hallman (President, Civic Action Institute--Formerly Known as Center for Governmental Studies) ...... 347 Nelson Rosenbaum (Senior Research Associate, the Urban Institute) . . 349 Dr. Graciela Olivarez (Director, Community Services Administration) 352 Harriet Hentges (Executive Director, League of Women Voters of the United States) ...... 353 Patricia Roberts Harris (Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) ...... 354 Dorothy Height (President, Alliance for Volunteerism) ...... 356 Tables 1 Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs Requiring Citizen Participation, by Agency and Period of Time in Which Mandating Legislation or Regulation was Adopted ...... 4 2 States with Direct Democracy Provisions, 1976 ...... 10 3-1 Purposes Served by the Various Forms of Citizen Participation ...... 72 3-2 Purposes of Citizen Participation Generally Emphasized by Various In- terests, and Relative Extent of Their Involvement ...... 74 3-3 Special Techniques of Citizen Participation Related to Major Forms of Citizen Participation ...... 76 Appropriateness of Citizen Participation Purposes at the Various Stages of Governmental Activity ...... Programs Using Various Citizen Participation Forms, Techniques, and Means of Facilitation-By Frequency of Use ...... Forms of Citizen Participation Used in Certain Citizen Participation Pro- cesses, and Degree to Which Relied Upon ...... Major Features of the Various Forms, Techniques, and Means of Facili- tating Citizen Participation ...... Levels of Government Using Various Citizen Participation Forms, Tech- niques, and Means of Facilitation-By Frequency of Use ...... Number of Federal Grant Programs with Citizen Participation Require- ments Mandated by Statute or Regulation, by Department or Agency and Major Type of Requirement...... Principal Interests Required by Law to be Represented on Nonfederal Boards/Committees Involved in Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs ...... Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs Requiring Citizen Participation, by Agency and Period of Time in Which Mandating Legislation or Regulation was Adopted ...... Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: Total and Number with Mandated Citizen Participation Requirements: by Department and Agency ...... Number of, and Average Attendance at, CDBG Hearings, All Reporting Cities and Counties, and Localities in Selected States...... Frequency of, and Attendance at, Various Kinds of Local Budget Hear- ings, Cities and Counties ...... Citizen Participation Mechanisms Used by Municipalities and Counties in Requests for Community Development Block Grant Funds ...... Effect of General Revenue Sharing Participation Requirements as Re- ported by Selected States ...... Local Budget Practices ...... 4-10 Local Budget Practices in Municipalities in Selected States ...... 4-1 1 Number of Hearings by Type of Hearing and Average Number of Citi- zens in Attendance ...... 4-1 2 Neighborhood or District Hearings Held in City or County with Average Citizen Attendance ...... 4-1 3 Number of Hearings Conducted and Citizens in Attendance Reported by Municipalities in Selected States ...... 4-14 Summary of Accomplishments of Citizen Participation in Eight Federally Aided Municipal Services, as Reported in a 1974 Survey of Policy Re- lated Research ...... 4-1 5 Type of Citizen Participation and Decentralization Outcomes ...... 4-16 Citizen Participation Mechanisms Used by Cities and Counties in Ap- plying for, or Administering Federal Grants, by Functional Type of Grant Program ...... 4-17 Local Officials' Opinions about the Effects of Citizen Participation on the Grant-in-Aid Process and Local Budget Decisions ...... 5-1 Evaluations of Citizen Participation in the Budget Process, by Local Of- ficials, 1978 ...... Evaluations of Citizen Participation in the Budget Process. by Local Of- ficials. 1978 ...... 224 Types of Organizations Represented at Local Public Hearings. by Local Jurisdictions in the 50 States ...... 226 Percentage of Reporting Municipalities in Certain States lndicating Spe- cific Groups Present at Any Budget or Community Development Block Grant Hearing ...... 229 Percentage of Reporting Counties in Certain States lndicating Specific Groups Present at Any Budget or Community Development Block Grant Hearing ...... 230 Effect of Citizen Participation on the Use of Grant Funds ...... 232 Effect of Citizen Participation on the Use of Grant Funds ...... 234 State Legislative Budget Periods ...... 240 Formal State Legislative Involvement in Public Hearings on the Executive Budget ...... 241 5-10 Representatives Usually Appearing Before State Legislative Appropria- tions and Revenue Committees ...... 242 5-1 1 Distribution of the State Budget Document ...... 244 5-12 Content of State Fiscal Notes ...... 246 5-1 3 States with Direct Democracy Provisions. 1976 ...... 248 5-14 State Constitutional Changes. by Method of Initiation. 1970.71. 1972- 73.197 4.75 ...... 250 5-1 5 Substantive Changes in State Constitutions Proposed and Adopted. 1970- 71.1972.73.197 4.75 ...... 251 5-16 Tax Referenda in Municipalities and Counties During 1975-77 ...... 253 5-17 November 1956 Bond Referenda in Alaska. New Jersey. and Rhode Island ...... 254 5-18 Results of State and Local Bond Issue Elections. 1950-75 ...... 255 5-1 9 State and Local Debt as a Percentage of Net Total Debt and Net Public Debt. 1950-74 ...... 256 5-20 State and Local Long-Term Debt Classified by Purpose. Selected Years. 1959-74 ...... 257 5-21 Bond Referenda During 1975-77 in Municipalities and Counties ...... 258 5-22 Referenda on Fiscal and Other Municipal Issues. 1975-77 ...... 259 5-23 Elementary and Secondary School Bond Issues Voted on in the United States. 1964-76 ...... 260 5-24 Par Value of Elementary and Secondary School Bond lssues Voted on in the United States. 1964-76 ...... 260 5-25 States with the Most Secondary and Elementary School Bond Elections and with the Largest Amounts of Bond Authorizations Voted Upon. through 1975.76. Five Highest in Each Category Listed ...... 261 5-26 Constitutional Amendments Considered and Adopted Among Selected States.i97 3.76 ...... 263 5-27 State Open Meeting Laws: 1977 ...... 266 5-28 State Open Records Laws: 1975 ...... 268 5-29 Rulemaking Provisions of State Administrative Procedures Acts. 1978 . . 272 5-30 Number of Municipal Citizen Advisory Committees or Commissions and the Total Number of Citizens Serving on Them ...... 274 5-31 Number of County Citizen Advisory Committees or Commissions and the Total Number of Citizens Serving on Them ...... 275 A-1 Summary of Responses to Recommendations ...... 318 Figures 1 Forms of Citizen Participation ...... 2 A-1 Views on ACIR's Draft Citizen Participation Recommendations Received at, and Following, the December 7, 1978, Hearing ...... 320 A-2 Summary of Comments on AClR Draft Citizen Participation Report with Staff Responses ...... 326 A-3 Characteristics of a Three-Part Approach to Citizen Participation in Fed- eral Aid Programs ...... 337

Summary

INTRODUCTION reasons for governmental decisions if it is to retain confidence in the soundness and equity of those decisions. Citizens participate in many ways in Governments at all levels have instituted American government. procedures for encouraging citizens to First of all, they vote. Voting for officials-both participate in public decisionmaking through in the nominating and the electoral processes- local ordinance, state law, and more recently and on ballot issues is the fundamental form of requirements or "strings" in federal grant-in-aid citizen participation upon which representative programs to state and local governments. democracy rests. The prevalence of these procedures and ques- They also serve as members of groups and tions concerning their effectiveness prompted committees, write letters, receive and send the Congress, in its 1976 renewal of General information, attend conferences and hearings, Revenue Sharing (GRS), to request ACIR to answer questionnaires, and call up "hotlines." prepare a study of "the legal and operational They are involved in making key decisions aspects of citizen participation in federal, state, such as which schools to close or where the new and local government fiscal decisionmaking." highway should go. They help to develop budgets This summary of that study-and the and regulations; they volunteer their services to Commission recommendations resulting from government and receive governmental services. it-focuses on key intergovernmental questions Citizen participation is formal and informal, is involving the use of citizen participation found at all governmental levels (but mostly at requirements in federal grants, the impact of the local), and is expedited and performed in those requirements on state and local govern- scores of different ways. ment, and methods used by state and local gov- What draws most of these variant elements ernments to encourage citizen participation. together is their common purpose: full and free interchange of information between citizens and WHAT IS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION? their appointed and elected officials. The decisionmakers need to know what the public Despite mounting concerns about apathy- wants and how the decisions they make actually supported by low and falling voter turnouts-the work in practice. Citizens need to know what the desire on the part of particular segments of the officials are doing so that they can hold them citizenry to participate in both public and private responsible. The public also must know the sector activities affecting their welfare is not dormant. Citizen participation in government procedures used to encourage this interaction are has a lengthy and deeply rooted history in subject to numerous criticisms including: America, and the U.S. still is among the most participatory of nations. 0 They often are time consuming and costly- Participation in government is most direct and and sometimes they yield little by way of most frequent at the local level. Governments at tangible results. higher levels-states, the federal government, OCitizens who are drawn to the citizen and regional organizations-inevitably have participation processes are not truly relied much more heavily upon representative representative of the general citizenry-they mechanisms, and local governments have moved more toward this form of democracy as they have Figure 1 grown in size. Yet, the American tradition of direct participation in government has been FORMS OF CITIZEN strong, and states have provided for it within the PARTICIPATION local government structures they created and have adopted it in various ways in their own operations. I. Organizational II. Individual Forms The federal government also has developed a Forms variety of opportunities for direct participation Citizen Groups Voting in its processes, and in recent years increasingly Special Interest Being a Pro- 2 has attached requirements for citizen participa- Groups gram Client tion to federal grant dollars going to state and Specific Pro- Making State- local governments and other recipients. Thus, gram Clientele ments participation by the public now is provided not Groups Working in Pub- only within each level of government, but also as Official Citizen lic Projects a principle of government transmitted by the Committees Campaigning/ intergovernmental grant system. And the latter Lobbying has been a source of no little amount of controver- Administrative sy. Currently some 31 different forms of par- Appeals ticipation are being used by one or more segments Going to Court of the population in their contacts with govern- Demonstrations ment (see Figure 1).These are geared to meeting one or more of the following objectives: Ill. Forms of IV. Forms of Information Information giving information to citizens; Dissemination Collection getting information from or about citizens; Open Govern- Hearings ment Workshops/ improving public decisions, programs, proj- Meetings/ Meetings/ ects, and services; Speaker Conferences 0 enhancing acceptance of public decisions, Bureaus Consultation programs, projects, and services; Conferences Government supplementing agency work; Publications Records Mass Media Nongovernment 0 altering political power patterns and alloca- Displays/ Documents tions of public resources; Exhibits Participant protecting individual and minority group Mail Observers rights and interests; and, Advertising/ Surveys Notices 0 delaying or avoiding the making of difficult Hot Lines public decisions. Drop-In Centers Correspondence While few can object to the goal of involving Word of Mouth citizens in governmental decisionmaking, the tend to represent merely special interests or CITIZEN PARTICIPATION concerns. AND THE FEDERAL GRANT SYSTEM 0 By instituting citizen participation procedures, the government "fulfills" a desire for Justifications for federal citizen participation more citizen involvement; yet, in many cases, requirements stem from long traditions of procedures are implemented in a "pro forma" American democracy. These are reflected in the manner encouraging little real participation. First, Fifth, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Citizen participation procedures may under- Constitution which, among other things, mine the representative system already in guarantee to all citizens the right to have a free place where people elect officials who pre- press, exercise free speech, assemble freely with sumably speak and act for them. one another, petition their governments for redress of grievances, and receive equal treat- 0 The effects of the various types of citizen par- ment under the laws in accordance with "due pro- ticipation are not always the same. Some cess. " forms and techniques cost less than others, The federal civil rights laws and antipoverty take less time, and attract greater numbers of programs of the mid-1960s emphasized that mi- participants. Some are more politically ac- nority groups are not to be excluded from enjoy- ceptable than others, and still others have ment of these and other rights and that federal aid greater potential for producing new ideas or must be spent in nondiscriminatory ways. In ad- resolving conflicts. dition, several individual federal aid programs 3 Providing simpler and clearer decision have specific provisions repeating bans on dis- processes, more adequate training of citizens and crimination. With this precedent, federal aids now officials involved in the participation process, are required to meet the special needs of minori- better staff and technical assistance, and ties, diverse racial and ethnic groups, various age economic assistance or incentives for participa- and income groups, both sexes, and the handi- tion can or might improve the participation capped or disadvantaged, as well as the needs of actually experienced-but at a cost. By these the general public. means, more affected persons could participate The existing citizen participation rein governmental decisionmaking processes, and quirements in federal aid programs, then, have there would be greater understanding of the the dual function of assisting the people in the process and greater capability to enter into a exercise of their constitutional rights of access to creative and constructive dialogue. government and helping state and local govern- Of course, these factors of inclusiveness, ments identify the needs of the diverse groups creativity, and capability do not tell the whole which are to be assisted fairly and equitably story. If basic interests are too diverse, then a under various federal aid programs. consensus may not develop in the advisory Interest in, and concern for, adequate citizen process and the parties may abandon it for the participation has been strong over the past dozen exercise of their power options-such as cam- years and is supported by many groups in paigning and voting for a change of government, addition to those concerned with civil rights. demonstrating, picketing, going on strike, or "Good government" groups such as Common using such other means as they may muster-or Cause and those banding together to save the simply to disengage. Advisory citizen participa- environment are examples of groups which tion methods are only one part of the total gov- encourage the inclusion of citizen participation ernmental decisionmaking process, and there is requirements in federal aid programs. no guarantee that they will produce "success" The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, from the viewpoint of any given participant in Headstart Economic Opportunity and Communi- any given situation. ty Partnership Act of 1974, Resource Conserva- Thus, there is no perfect citizen participation tion and Recovery Act of 1976, and the Housing mechanism. An effective and efficient citizen and Community Development Act of 1974 are participation process must be tailored to the level only a few of the examples of recent federal of government and nature of the issue being programs calling for substantial consultation considered. with, or participation by, the public (see Table 1). Table 1 FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS REQUIRING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, BY AGENCY AND PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH MANDATING LEGISLATION OR REGULATION WAS ADOPTED

Prior to 1960- Department or Agency Total

Agriculture 7 Commerce 8 HEW (82) PHs 18 OE 50 OHDS 9 HCFA 2 SSA 3 HUD 3 Interior 2 Justice 3 Labor 6 Transportation 5 Appalachian Regional Commission 14 General Services Administration 1 Community Services Administration 7 Water Resources Council 1 Environmental Protection Agency 9 ACTION 3 Energy 3 Treasury 1

Total 155 Percentage 100

SOURCE: ACIR staff tabulation.

In addition, recent legislation imposed citizen and planned use of revenue sharing funds. participation requirements on already existing The renewal legislation tightened up the programs such as the Federal Water Pollution process for publishing information and required Control Act Amendments of 1972 and the public hearings on the proposed use of revenue Regional Development Act of 1975. sharing funds and their relationship to the But the most far-reaching federal aid legisla- recipient jurisdiction's adopted budget. It also tion with a citizen participation component-in required states and localities to make an effort to the sense of numbers of governmental units af- give senior citizens an opportunity to be heard on fected-was the extension of General Revenue the allocation of GRS funds. Sharing in 1976. The original 1972 law required In order to determine the impact of federal only that state and local government recipients grant requirements on recipients, ACIR surveyed annually publish copies of their reports on actual federal, state, and local officials, examined how citizen participation works in five selected grant CI In the Community Development Block Grant, programs, and made an extensive literature re- at least in the early years, much dissatisfac- view. tion was voiced with the alleged under- The Commission found that, as of December involvement of lower income groups in a 1978, citizen participation requirements were program where Congress clearly intended contained in 155 separate federal grant pro- these groups and their urban neighborhoods grams--almost one-third of the total-accounting should have priority attention. for over 80% of grant funds. Most of these require- CIA study of citizen participation in eight ments (79%) were adopted since 1970. Over half federally aided municipal services found were in HEW programs and about three-fifths of that citizen participants generally were these were in the Office of Education. Further: middle class or "aspiring" members of lower incbme groups. "Ordinary" citizens were CI The establishment of boards or committees influential only in neighborhood health and prescription of their membership was centers. Even the most activist programs of the most usual type of mandate-found in 89 citizen participation-Community Action programs. The boards or committees were and Model Cities-involved largely middle confined to advisory powers, except for 24 class citizens and those with prior leadership programs involving 17 separate committees. experience. CI Public hearings were the next most common- ACIR also found: ly mandated participation mode and are 5 most prevalent outside HEW. Citizen participation requirements tend to have a stimulative effect on localities' ex- 0 Other types of mandatedpublic involvement penditures. (found in 114 of the 155 programs) included 0 The amount of influence exercised by the cit- giving notice of the preparation of a grant izen in decisionmaking apparently varies. In application or a plan, conducting workshops, some programs, such as General Revenue and offering opportunities for giving Sharing and coastal zone management, citi- testimony or review and comment. They zens and policymakers feel that the citizens varied with respect to the interests involved, did affect the setting of priorities. In other the stage of decisionmaking affected, and the cases, particularly programs requiring only types of participation mechanism mandated. public hearings, decisions often were made The findings indicate that the variations in prior to the citizen participation process and, forms of citizen participation are substantial. thus, it was merely a rubber stamp effort. Similar programs within the same department or CI Citizen participation processes tend to help agency, or programs in the same functional area, citizens feel closer to individual programs, or programs dealing with like phases of the but do not necessarily reduce their overall decisionmaking process differ in respect to feeling of alienation toward government whether they do, or do not require citizen generally. participation and how that participation should be encouraged. The impact of different kinds of federal citizen CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE participation requirements varies, but overall it FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S is modest. The major participants in the process OWN ACTIVITIES are the middle class, and even special efforts targeted to certain low income groups often do The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) of not produce significant participation by them. 1946 and its "Freedom of Information" and "Gov- For example: ernment in the Sunshine" amendments set the El In the Title XX (social services) program, minimum requirements for citizen access to, and considerable difficulty was encountered in involvement in, the federal administrative pro- obtaining widespread involvement by low cess. Public involvement is confined to specified income consumers of social programs. points in administrative proceedings. In effect, the APA limits the mobilized citizenry largely to to involve the public early in the regulation middle and upper-class organized interests able development process, provision for greater to obtain legal counsel on their own. involvement by neighborhood organizations and In legislation requiring citizen participation voluntary associations in implementing the enacted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely Administration's urban program, strengthening centering on environmental protection, Congress of the White House Office of Consumer Affairs, emphasized the agencies' affirmative respon- and study of citizen participation as a part of the sibility to encourage public participation. Usual- President's Reorganization Project. ly, however, a target population and the Other major participation techniques used at operational meaning of this kind of involvement the national level include national advisory were not specified. committees; special national advisory com- In a general appraisal of citizen participation at missions, such as the Hoover Commissions on the federal level in 1976, the Interagency Council Organization of the Executive Branch of the Gov- on Citizen Participation concluded that: ernment; and White House Conferences, such as the recent one on Balanced National Growth and Authority and responsibility for citizen Economic Development. participation in government agencies are often unclear, deficient, fragmented, or non- CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND existent. THE STATES Agency resources (personnel, expertise, 6 funding, organization) for better execution of Intergovernmental mandating of citizen partic- citizen participation are insufficient when ipation is not limited to federal grants-in-aid. For compared with other agency responsibilities. example, state laws in every state require local The policy, commitment, and initiative of governments to be operated in the open, and most agency leadership on citizen participation in states specifically require budget hearings and the decisionmaking process have been of voter approval of at least some local fiscal deci- widely uneven quality and priority. sions such as extraordinary increases in local property tax rates and the issuance of local gen- The planning, execution, and evaluation of eral obligation bonds. Furthermore, about 800 lo- citizen participation processes are unrespon- cal planning commissions have been established sive to the real needs and priorities of a large under state law to bring citizens into the planning segment of the public. process. A 1977 Senate committee report on independent States also use several mechanisms to en- regulatory commissions found that participation courage citizen involvement in state-level by regulated industries predominates; the lack of decisionmaking mainly through open meeting financial resources is the greatest single obstacle and open record laws, improved state ad- to active public participation by potential ministrative procedure acts, better public infor- participants; and nearly all regulatory agency mation on state legislative activities, and more advisory committees seriously lack representa- strenuous efforts to encourage public involve- tion of consumer and other broad public in- ment in the development of the state budget. terests. The committee's recommendations included establishment of an independent State Open Meeting Laws nonregulatory consumer agency, creation of All 50 states have some form of open meeting internal consumer advocate offices within major laws, applying variously to meetings in the federal ratesetting regulatory agencies, and legislative and executive branches and requiring legislation authorizing compensation to eligible public notification. persons for costs incurred while participating in State open meeting laws apply to state certain agency proceedings. legislative committees, state executive branches The Carter Administration has undertaken a and independent agencies, and local govern- number of initiatives on citizen participation, ments in all 50 states. They also apply to floor including support for a governmentwide office of actions of the legislatures in 46 states. consumer affairs, a directive to federal agencies These laws have specific limitations on the use of executive sessions by multimember govern- have administrative procedures acts. These mental bodies in all 50 states. They provide for apply to virtually all state administrative agen- prior notice of the meetings of such bodies in 42 cies and to an undetermined number of local gov- states, require that minutes of such meetings be ernmental agencies. kept for public information purposes in 37 states, In 46 states, the administrative procedures acts and provide for enforcement by (a) personal have one or more provisions governing rulemak- sanctions against individual violators in 35 ing by administrative agencies. Forty-five states states, (b)voiding the actions resulting from and the District of Columbia provide for notifica- improper meetings in 31, and (c)giving citizens tion about rulemaking procedures; 42 and the the legal standing to sue violators in 35. District of Columbia provide an opportunity for citizens to present their comments in either State Open Records Laws written or oral form; while 38 authorize citizens to petition agencies for rulemaking action. As of 1975, 47 states and the District of Despite the existence of a model act, there is Columbia had open records laws, often referred substantial variation not only among the major to as freedom of information laws. These laws provisions for rulemaking, but also on such define those records of state and local govern- details as the length of time for notice before ments which are available to the public; set actual rulemaking will occur, the procedures for procedures for inspecting, copying, and paying accepting comments, and the procedures for for them; and establish procedures for ad- agencies in responding to petitions requesting judicating denials of access to public records. rulemaking action. These statutes, however, are not uniform, Twenty-five states have a regular publication despite the availability of model acts reaching similar to the Federal Register in which they back as far as 1961. For example, only 17 states notify the public of rulemaking actions and provide administrative or judicial review of publish administrative rules or information denials, and some of the laws are too general to be about their availability and 26 have codified their enforced well. administrative rules and regulations. Public Information in State Legislatures Thirty-four states have formal procedures whereby the legislature reviews the regulations In the last few years, most state legislatures developed by state administrative agencies have increased their efforts to become more open pursuant to state legislation. Such review may be and visible to the general public through such advisory only, or it may allow for disapproval or means as: delay of a regulation. -publishing and making available agendas and schedules for floor action and com- State Budeet Processes mittee activities; Of the 50 states, 29 have annual budgets, while -setting up "hotline" telephone services 21 have biennial ones. Most state budget throughout the state; and processes are not especially well geared to citizen -improving or making available facilities for participation. Only 17 states provide for hearings electronic media. in the preparation of the Governor's budget, and Some legislatures fund or encourage substan- even in these cases the hearings are largely for tial in-depth public television coverage of the state agency and legislative participation. The legislature's activities, sponsor regional legislatures in 37 states, however, do hold budget legislative meetings throughout the state be- hearings which usually involve the general tween sessions, and conduct a variety of educa- public, while private organizations have access tional programs to help the public understand to the legislative budget process in 44 states. the legislative process. California provides information in Spanish as well as in English. Miscellaneous Provisions for State Citizen Participation State Administrative Procedures Acts At least three states-Hawaii, Iowa, and Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia Nebraska-and a few localities have established ombudsmen offices or similar complaint han- UIn 32 states, statutes expressly required dling services to assist their citizens in dis- public hearings before city or county budgets putes with the government. Several model acts could be finally adopted; one other state are available for this purpose. provided for an election to enact the city A uniform public assembly act is available to budget, while two others provided for assist state and local governments in facilitating written complaints or petitions to protest and protecting citizens' rights to hold large public items in a proposed city or county budget. assemblies, subject only to such restrictions on time, place, and manner of conducting the In spite of the prevalence of these procedures, assembly as are appropriate to safeguard the there is some question about the actualparticipa- civil liberties of nonparticipants. tion in the process by citizens. As of 1976, 32 states had established state An ACIR/International City Management offices of volunteerism. Most are in, or closely Association survey of a large group of local gov- related to, the Governor's office and provide a ernment officials found that 52% said there was substantial presence for citizen participation "very little" actual participation in the local advocates in the central policy councils of state budget process by citizens. Only 7% reported "a government, in addition to providing the services great deal" of participation. of volunteers in state government. The 1978 survey also questioned the officials as to the nature of the participation and its CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND effectiveness. It found: LOCAL GOVERNMENT Some 60% of the municipal and county It is at the local level-the government "closest officials reported that participation in the to the peoplev-that citizen participation is most local budget process usually was through prevalent and significant. formal mechanisms such as hearings and advisory committees. The Local Budget Process Fifty-four percent of municipal officials and 65%of county officials desired greater citizen One point of citizen involvement is the local participation in their jurisdiction's budget budgetary process. Forty states (as of 1975) making, while only 2% desired less. required local budget hearings or publication of About 47% of municipalities and 44% of notices about proposed budgets, and even in the counties reported that they provided staff ten states where such state requirements do not assistance to citizens wishing to participate exist, local budget hearings are held about as in the budget process. often as the average of the other states. More specifically: Organized groups participated in over 80% of local budget hearings, according to the survey; on Jn 35 states, citizens or taxpayers had some the average, three groups were involved. Senior access to decisionmaking on the munici- citizens were the most frequently represented pal budget process. interest. Other active groups included the League of Women Voters, business and industry groups, In 30 states, citizens or taxpayers had some neighborhoods, racial or ethnic groups, tax- access to the county budget process. payers and homeowners. The rankings were 0 In 23 states, citizens or taxpayers had some similar for counties, except that taxpayers access to both the city and the county budget groups were more active, ranking fourth. process. In their narrative responses, many localities expressed doubts about the effectiveness of In 38 states, publishing notice of a proposed citizen participation in the formal budget budget andlor budget hearings was required process. Most comments cited such factors as the before the final budget could be adopted for late stage at which hearings are held, the other a city or county; in one other state, the pro- processes throughout the year which predeter- posed county budget was open for inspection mine budget commitments, the complex and before final adoption. deadening nature of the figures, low motivation of the average citizen in overall budget matters, policy issues is used in most states and localities, and the dominance of special interests. More though the authorizations for such voting vary positive, but less frequently expressed, com- greatly among the states. Advisory votes also are ments stressed participation in the budget common at the state and local levels. process as a culmination of a year-long process of Direct ballotil~gon issues can be initiated by interaction between organized and assisted citizen petition for amending the state constitu- citizen groups and their local governments. tion in 17 states (see Table 2). In 21 states, Perhaps the brightest spot in budget participa- citizens can vote on state and local laws put on tion is the experience of localities (particularly in the ballot by the initiative process, and in an New England) having the town meeting form of additional 11 states, citizen initiatives apply only government. Eighty-six percent of these to local laws. Altogether, 34 of the states (two- localities reported "a great deal" or "a moderate thirds) have some experience with the initiative. amount" of citizen participation in the local Forty-two states provide for the use of referen- budget process, compared to 49% for the next da to confirm legislative actions through popular highest reporting category of local government balloting. In 35 of these states, both state and (council-manager communities). local laws (for at least some classes of localities) are subject to referendum. Four states apply the Advisory Committees referendum only to state legislation, while three apply it only to local laws. Municipalities and counties both make heavy Fifteen states have all the forms of initiative use of citizen advisory committees. Ninety-five and referendum, including initiatives to amend percent of those responding to the 1978 survey, the constitution and pass laws at both the state reported having one or more such committees, and local levels, and referenda to confirm laws at with 11%having 20 or more. both the state and local levels. The average municipality had one-to-five Many states have special provisions for committees with 25-49 citizens on each. About referenda in fiscal matters. Thirty-seven states half of the municipalities had more than 50 have local property tax rate limitations, and citizens altogether serving on such committees, 75% (27) of them have some provision for local and 105 cities reported that the total number of referenda to allow the limit to be exceeded. citizens serving was in the range of 200-500. States commonly submit their proposed long- The average county also had one-to-five such term general obligation bond issues to referen- committees, with an average of 50-99 members dum, and 45 states require local referenda to on each. Thus, county committees tend to be authorize local bonds of this type. larger than municipal ones. About 35% of both municipalities and counties, Citizen advisory committees are required at responding to a 1978 survey, reported voting on the local level by 53 federal aid programs. Local local tax limit changes during the three-year planning commissions, most having largely period of 1975-77. Nearly 20% of the municipal advisory roles under state laws, numbered about referenda and 25% of the county ones were 800 in a 1970 count. initiated by citizen action. Bond referenda in this same period were held by over 28% of the Citizen Surveys municipalities. Over 50% of large cities and counties (including Thirty-four state constitutional amendments cities over 100,000 in population, and counties were initiated by citizens in the 1970-75 period. over 250,000) use citizen surveys to provide Referenda on nonfiscal issues were held by representative samples of citizen views, helping about 28% of surveyed municipalities in 1975-77. to balance the often unrepresentative elements of participation found in public hearings and some HOW WELL DOES IT WORK? other commonly used forms of participation. Although we have some clues cited earlier about how well citizen participation works, lNlTlATlVES AND REFERENDUMS determination of its effectiveness has been hampered by several problems. Direct balloting to decide at least some public First, legislative bodies seldom, if ever, set Table 2 STATES WITH DIRECT DEMOCRACY PROVISIONS, 1976 Constitutional Statutory Initiative Statutory Referendum State Initiative State Localities State Localities

ALABAMA ALASKA X X X ARIZONA X X X ARKANSAS X X X CALIFORNIA X X X COLORADO X X X CONNECTICUT DELAWARE FLORIDA X X GEORGIA X X X HAWAII IDAHO X X X ILLINOIS X X INDIANA IOWA X X KANSAS X X KENTUCKY X X X LOUISIANA X MAINE X X X MARYLAND X X MASSACHUSETTS X X X MICHIGAN X X X MINNESOTA X X MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI X X X MONTANA X X X NEBRASKA X X X NEVADA X X X NEW HAMPSHIRE X NEW JERSEY X X X NEW MEXICO X NEW YORK X NORTH CAROLINA X NORTH DAKOTA X X X OHIO X X X OKLAHOMA X X X OREGON X X X PENNSYLVANIA X X X RHODE ISLAND X X SOUTH CAROLINA X X X SOUTH DAKOTA X X X TENNESSEE TEXAS X X UTAH X X X VERMONT X X X VIRGINIA X X X WASHINGTON X X X WESTVlRGlNlA X X WISCONSIN X X WYOMING X X X TOTAL 32 39 38

SOURCE Counc~lof State Government\. Jlic Hl~f~k01 rlw St~tc~,1Y7h- 1977. Lrx~ngton,KY, Count 11 ot StciteGovernmrnt~, 1976, pp. 176, 216-218 forth clear objectives in authorizing legislation or Rand also concluded that participation on even in the documented legislative history. committees does not adversely affect program Citizens and administrators must try to find effectiveness. However, the actual amount and direction for evaluation efforts from statutes that quality of citizen participation in HEW programs speak in such vague terms as "meaningful" or was unknown, as was the general impact of "widespread" or "substantial" citizen involve- citizen participation activities. This lack of ment. Little if any direction is provided con- knowledge stemmed from the absence of system- cerning the definition of citizen, the kinds of atic monitoring or enforcement procedures. participative mechanisms to be employed, what A study of eight federally aided municipal ser- procedures to follow in choosing citizens, how vices by the TARP Institute and the University of agencies are to respond to views of the public, Michigan's School of Public Health also sought to and how those views are to be balanced against evaluate citizen participation. Program perfor- other considerations in the administrators' deci- mance was positively affected in four of the eight sions. service areas. The second problem relates to the conflicting In general, the TAW-Michigan study con- biases of the parties involved: administrators re- cluded that: sponsible for involving citizens in the programs 0 Citizen participation is least effective in the and the citizens themselves. Since the administra- later stages of planning. tor's primary responsibility is to see that the ser- The structural complexity of a municipal vice goals of his or her program are achieved, he 11 or she tends to think of citizen participation in service system has more to do with the levels terms of its contribution to those goals. The of citizen influence than the type of par- citizen, on the other hand, views citizen ticipative mechanism. participation as important to the extent that it Citizen participation plays a limited role in insures that government decisions are con- the determination of municipal service sistent with his or her own interpretation of the performance and little evidence exists of public good. Objective evaluation of the views of influence over budgetary allocations. these two parties concerning "success" of the The evidence is weakest on whether citizen process is difficult. participation has any impact on citizen atti- And, finally, evaluation is hampered by sheer tudes. complexity, involving (a) 31 different forms of A National Science Foundation funded report participation ranging from presenting a prepared analyzed 215 case studies involving five munici- statement at a public hearing to serving on a pal functions. The use of citizen boards and indig- citizen committee that exercises some degree of enous paraprofessionals was studied. Five out- program control, and (b) the complexity of comes were examined, three of which government itself, with its many and diverse corresponded to those used in the Rand and TARP- state and local political systems and their Michigan analyses. Only increased client control interrelationships as well as their relationships was found to be associated with increased levels with the federal government and its many of participation. Citizen boards were found to be programs. In spite of these difficulties, there are a few re- most successful in achieving client control when cent studies which shed some light on the impact the board possessed authority to sign off on grant of citizen participation on programs and services. applications or service decisions, to plan for new Some preliminary work also has been done re- programs, to investigate grievances, to review ex- garding its effect on citizen trust in government. penditures or budget requests, to review personnel actions, and to supervise paid staff. A Rand study of HEW programs, mainly The Rand report for HEW concluded that through analysis of case studies, found that citizens' feelings of alienation (lack of trust in advisory committees influence the conduct of government and feelings of powerlessness) are local public activities and services, and that the not likely to be reduced by greater opportunities amount of impact depends on the committees' for participation. People may feel greater con- possession of staff, power to investigate fidence in their ability to affect a particular grievances, and power to influence budgets. program, but not to affect government generally. The TARP-University of Michigan study, ernment and should be undertaken only when prepared for the National Science Foundation, clear benefits are in prospect in given situations. found more positive evidence of reduced alienation but, as in the Rand-HEW report, concluded ACIR RECOMMENDATIONS that this change was tied to specific programs rather than to an attitude about government in While the ACIR study was hampered at many general. points by inadequate or conflicting information and opinions, the findings and the Commission's CONCLUSION experience with, and study of, the history and operation of American government still support The evidence summarized here leads to two the conclusion that citizen participation beyond concluding points. the electoral process is an essential part of First, many Americans expect a great deal of representative democracy in America. It helps to participation in governmental affairs to be open maintain the responsiveness of elected officials to them, even though they may not always take and bureaucrats to the citizenry. Given the advantage of available opportunities. indispensability of citizen participation as a Second, there is a substantial gap between the supplement to the basic electoral process, the amount of influence which many participants Commission believes that governments at all expect their involvement to have, and the actual levels should examine their existing citizen effects of participation. This gap, some believe, participation policies and practices with a view 12 arises largely from deficiencies in the present to providing the necessary authority, respon- citizen participation processes and causes sub- sibility, resources, commitment, and leadership stantial dissatisfaction. While the legal oppor- to assure that such participation is effective. tunities for citizen participation-whether or not The Commission believes that citizen par- they are exercised in any given instance-may ticipation is a vital complementary feature of have a substantial indirect effect on the actions of contemporary American government and public officials, direct effects often are limited be- recommends that governments at all levels cause: encourage citizen participation in their own activities, using caution to avoid common pitfalls Citizen participation opportunities are not such as the inadequately representative expres- provided until the latter stages of decision- sion of views, unnecessary costs and delays in making (as, for example, providing for public the process and uncertainty about the location of hearings just before a decision actually is decisionmaking responsibility and authority. made). While it is clear from this study and others that Opportunities for participation are frequently existing citizen participation processes in federal limited to a small advisory committee and an grants are imperfect, uneven, and in need of open public hearing at the end of the process. substantial change, it is also apparent that the federal requirements are designed to fulfill The opportunities provided are too passive important objectives that might not be adequate- (leaving to citizens' own devices the in- ly met if the federal government were to retire itiative and the development of capabilities from the field. Thus, the Commission to participate constructively in very complex recommends that citizen participation re- governmental processes). quirements remain an important element in Citizens don't have the time, information, or federal aid programs. experience to participate in a meaningful Nevertheless, there is a great need for reform in way. these requirements and the way they are administered. The Commission calls for establish- Clearly it costs little to run government in an ment of a general citizen participation require- open and above board manner, perhaps even ment for advisory processes which would be resulting in net savings in the long run by applied consistently at the federal level from reducing mistakes and enhancing acceptance of program to program and agency to agency. A decisions. Just as clearly, however, some meth- single Executive Branch agency would be ods of participation can be quite costly to gov- designated to oversee the implementation of the requirements and assist agencies in its adminis- involvement for the agencies' own narrow tration. purposes or for the perpetuation of programs The specific language of the two recommenda- beyond their useful lives; and (d) avoiding the tions follows. creation of unrealistically high hopes regarding the satisfactions and benefits to be reaped from RECOMMENDATION 1 citizen participation. More specifically the Commission CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AT recommends that, where lacking, state law EACH LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT provide for, as a minimum, (1)open meetings, (2) open records, (3) effective public information The Commission concludes that the fundamen- programs, (4) equitably representative advisory tal mechanism of citizen participation in committees and/or task forces for programs American democracy is, and must be, the process having significant effects on the public or of nominating and electing representative public numerically significant sectors thereof, officials and, in certain circumstances, balloting (5) public hearings at significant decision points on issues through the initiative and referendum. in the making of public policy, (6) regular Yet, the Commission further concludes that reporting by governmental units on their citizen citizen participation beyond the electoral participation activities along with evaluation of process, in both the legislative and executive such activities, and (7) the right of citizens to branches, constitutes a vital complementary appeal through administrative and judicial feature of contemporary American government, channels for the redress of procedural lapses l3 and is essential for holding elected and appointed under this legislation. Such legislation should officials accountable, exerting a salutary in- apply to both the executive and legislative fluence on governmental decisions, contribut- branches and agencies of state government, local ing to improved governmental services, and governments, and regional organizations which strengthening citizens' confidence in, and sup- are subject to state law. This legislation also port for, government. should provide for the visible and accountable placement of responsibility for compliance at The Commission, therefore, recommends that each level. In addition, it is recommended that governments at all levels provide sufficient such legislation make special provisions in authority, responsibility, resources, commit- specified cases for the involvement of program ment, and leadership for effective citizen par- clientele-including an appropriate share in ticipation in their own directly administered decisionmaking, the use of volunteers in program activities, including budgeting and financial administration, the employment of program decisionmaking, in addition to the elective clientele, and complaint services-in those state political process. and local programs with direct beneficiaries, and At the same time, the Commission recognizes also for the involvement of broad based com- that citizen participation processes, as munity, regional, or statewide interests, as well sometimes designed, can compete with the basic as special interests, in those programs, activities, responsibility and authority of elected officials and state or local planning and policymaking and can distort the representatives of such processes affecting primarily the public at large. processes. The Commission, therefore, Finally, such legislation should provide training recommends that legislative and executive for citizens and officials involved in all aspects of branches of all levels of government, when citizen participation, and technical assistance for providing in legislation and administrative participating citizen groups with demonstrated practice for citizen involvement, exercise caution need. in (a) selecting the types of situations in which The Commission also recommends that laws, citizens are empowered to share in decision- charters, and organic documents establishing making; (b) defining the categories of citizens local governments and regional public whose participation is needed to assure fair and organizations include citizen participation equitable representation of all significantly provisions consistent with the state legislation affected groups; (c) guarding against ad- recommended above. ministrative agencies' exploitation of citizen The Commission recommends, further, that the President and the Congress authorize a review of ting them. At the same time, the Commission the several legislative and administrative observes that the more than seven score re- provisions for citizen participation in the federal quirements for citizen participation now append- government's own direct rulemaking, regulatory, ed to a like number of federal assistance and program formulation processes, with a view programs, taken as a whole, are diverse, complex, toward establishing broadly and consistently confusing, sometimes arbitrary, less effective applicable, mutually supportive, yet simple and than they might be, and difficult for some federal cost-effective procedures for (I)open meetings, aid recipients to comply with. The Commission (2) open records, (3) effective public information also observes that the majority of federal grant programs, (4) the use of equitably representative programs available to state and local recipients advisory committees and/or task forces for do not presently incorporate citizen participation programs having significant effects on the public requirements. or numerically significant sectors thereof, The Colnmission recommends, therefore, that (5) public hearings and/or consultation processes Congress and the President enact legislation at significant decision points in the making of establishing general citizen participation poli- public policy, (6) regular reporting by Executive cies for advisory processes to be applied con- Branch departments and agencies, and indepen- sistently throughout the federal aid system, dent regulatory commissions, on their citizen and that under such legislation the President participation activities, along with evaluation of designate a single Executive Branch agency such activities, and (7) the right of citizens to with the responsibility and authority to ensure l4 appeal through administrative and judicial the consistent application and evaluation of channels for the redress of procedural lapses these policies in the administration of federal under such provisions. Distinctions should be assistance programs by the various federal made, as appropriate, in the applicability of the departments and agencies. The designated varying citizen participation procedures to the agency should carry out its responsibilities in rulemaking, regulatory, and program formula- consultation with affected federal agencies, tion processes of the federal government. federal aid recipients, and citizens; and it Responsibility for conducting this review should should have authority to adopt administrative be assigned clearly to a politically accountable regulations necessary for compliance with the official or agency in the Executive Branch, and act, to recommend executive action by the the review should be performed with clear President needed to realize the goals of the act, opportunity for equitably representative citizen and to recommend to the President and participation. Results of this review, together Congress appropriate additional legislation on with appropriate recommendations for the subject of citizen participation. The poli- legislative and administrative actions, should be cies established by this legislation should (a) reported to the President and the Congress and establish clear objectives for citizen participa- made public within a specified period of time. tion in federal aid programs; (b) enunciate performance standards that encourage the use RECOMMENDATION 2 of timely, effective, and efficient citizen participation methods tailored to diverse situa- CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL tions; (c) prohibit detailed federal specifica- AID PROGRAMS: A POSITIVE AND tion of exact techniques and procedures to be CONSISTENT FEDERAL POLICY followed by state and local recipients of federal aid; (d) rely, through a certification The Commission concludes that the federal process, upon citizen participation provisions government has a responsibility to ensure that of state and local law and established prac- requirements accompanying financial aid to tices thereunder, to the maximum extent con- state and local governments (and other communi- sistent with the objectives established in this ty service organizations) will be applied in a way legislation; (e) authorize the expenditure of a that will strengthen and support public decision- reasonable proportion of funds in aided pro- making processes by providing consistent oppor- grams for citizen participation purposes; and tunities for citizens to be heard prior to policy (f) authorize the use of federal research, tech- and/or administrative decisions directly affec- nical assistance, and training resources for the support of citizen participation objectives in justified by a need to confer a sharing indecision- federal aid programs. making on specific groups of citizens benefiting The Commission recommends, further, that from a specific federal aid program." this legislation should repeal, after a reasonable transition period, all existing legislative provi- *Congressman Fountain disagrees with this general repeal sions for participation embodied in provision because numerous committees of the Congress have jurisdiction in this matter. He believes that it would be aid programs, except advisable to recommend conforming legislation for each of that Congress and the President determine are the grant programs affected.

Chapter 1 Introduction

17 TheUnited States of America is a highly participatory nation, both as a society and as a governmental system. This has been true ever since the nation was founded, but the meaning and practice of participation have constantly changed. Over the past dozen years or so, citizen participation emerged as a major theme in American intergovernmental relations, reflected in numerous federal aid requirements for citizen participation. Yet, these programs take widely differing approaches to this urge for involvement, reflecting differing viewpoints and purposes among the various participants, governmental units, and public activities. For some, citizen participation is a necessary means of curbing government, all governments, in their inevitable tendency toward aloofness, ar- bitrariness, and insensitivity. The ballooning effects of "bigness" in contemporary government is what most concerns this group. With others, the concern is prompted by the need to improve the delivery of public services by infusing a sense of the peoples' needs and desires. The impulse is to curb and control bureaucrats, and especially the "expert" technocrats. Others see the disadvantaged, the hitherto politically dispossessed, and the despairing among the nation's citizenry as the focal points of concern. Social problems, arising from their conditions, will never be corrected, so this group argues, if passivity andlor alienation continue to characterize the political behavior of these seg- ticipation requirements (although these requirements of the populace. ments are relatively modest, involving only pub- With still others, there is a need to revitalize lic hearings). Recognizing this expansion, and the concept of popular sovereignty in an age of being sensitive to the potential for procedural dif- "Big Government" and especially of "Big Interest ficulties which might arise, Congress requested in Groups." Citizen participation, to these advo- the GRS renewal legislation that ACIR prepare a cates, is a vital part of any real effort to check the broad study of the American federal fiscal system, power of effective special interests who organize, including a study of "the legal and operational lobby, and contribute to campaigns, and "get aspects of citizen participation in federal, state, what they want" from government. In effect, these and local governmental fiscal decisionmaking." citizen participation proponents seek to establish While this request is stated in terms of fiscal a "people" power to countervail against the vested decisionmaking-encompassing such topics as interests-in and out of government-so that the grants-in-aid, budget processes, and participation "accommodations" reached by such interests will in taxing and spending matters-it is difficult, if not ignore the concerns of other affected portions not impossible, to separate such decisionmaking of the electorate. from the related and ongoing process of setting For some, the kind of drastic social change program policies and deciding other matters in- needed to realize the equalitarian as well as the volving the provision of public services. This has stabilizing norms of our political tradition neces- been amply demonstrated by the recent taxpayers' 18 sitates effective approaches to strengthening the revolt in California in which the voters initiated citizen's capacity to relate to, participate in, and and approved Proposition 13, which limits the authoritatively influence the governments that af- use of the property tax in that state. This decision fect them. Many citizen participation advocates initiated a reevaluation of practically all local pro- hold that violence and a range of social disorders grams, state services, state and federal aids, and will result if the poor and otherwise disadvan- the tax structure at all three levels of government. taged do not achieve some sense of control over Virtually no corner of government in the United their individual and collective destinies. States is escaping this reassessment. This report, In a very real sense, the range of views that seek then, takes a broad view of citizen participation to redefine the citizen's relationship with govern- and the issues it raises. ments stems from a perceived failure of the system to approximate Lincoln's governmental INTERGOVERNMENTAL ASPECTS OF ideal-"of the people, by the people, for the peo- CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ple"-and that a "new birth of freedom" is again needed.' The "of," "by," and "for" the people, The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmen- then, are still the basic questions for citizen par- tal Relations has examined certain limited aspects ticipation proponents. of citizen participation in earlier reports. From the more traditional angle, the Commission has made THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY a variety of recommendations concerning elective office^,^ representativeness of governing b~dies,~ When the federal government reenacted its and referendums for a variety of purpose^.^ On General Revenue Sharing program in 1976, it the more innovative side, the Commission has added a citizen participation requirement affect- recommended enabling legislation for neighbor- ing virtually all of the nation's approximately hood subunits of government in large cities and 39,000 units of general purpose local government. urban c~unties,~continuation of citizen partici- While numerous federal aid programs have re- pation in the federal antip~verty'program,~estab- quired citizen participation by recipient govern- lishment of police-community relations mecha- ments over the years, these recipients were much nisms and programs in local g~vernment,~ fewer than the 39,000 receiving General Revenue provisions for citizen participation in the budget Sharing (GRS) funds. Thus, the GRS amendments pro~ess,~and the standardization and simplifica- substantially expanded the number of state and tion of citizen participation requirements in fed- local governments subject to federal citizen par- eral aid program^.^ These Commission positions reflect the presence and importance of citizen par- cent years to demands for including citizen ticipation throughout the federal system, but up participation requirements in its programs of as- until now ACIR has treated citizen participation sistance to the state and local governments and as an incidental factor in its reports on other top- other federal aid recipients. Thus, participation ics. This report is the Commission's first in which by the public is provided now not only within citizen participation is the central focus. each level of government, but also as a principle Despite the hue and cry so often heard about of government transmitted by the intergovern- citizen apathy, the urge for people to participate mental grant system. in both public and private activities affecting their Over 150 federal aid programs mandate citizen welfare appears to be a universal human trait. It participation processes to be carried out by their is reflected differently in different societies and recipients. These requirements vary greatly from under different governmental systems, but as peo- one program to another, and they must be com- ple become better educated and economically bet- plied with at the same time that recipient state ter off, they become more aware of their potential and local governments comply with a variety of for influencing their own welfare through group participatory mechanisms already provided by action and individual participation in govern- state and local law. This creates practical diffi- ment. Whether one examines this phenomenon in culties for the governments which are charged the United States, or in other industrialized na- with actually carrying out the programs, and tions, or in the less developed nations, or even in raises the following types of questions: primitive societies, one finds that social changes What is the relationship between citizen par- 19 come about most easily and most lastingly through ticipation processes required in federal grant the participation of those citizens who will be af- programs and the electoral, public hearing, fected.1° This is true for workers in their work and other participation provisions of state places, residents in the communities where they and local law? live, clients in the governmental programs de- How effective and efficient are the citizen signed to benefit them, and citizens in the legal participation methods required by the var- system governing their responsibilities to society. ious levels of government? Which govern- Participation in government by the people has ments' provisions are "best?" Do these differ a long and deeply rooted history in America. One for the different purposes which may be of the most distinctive features of the United served by the various methods? States which struck the French political scientist Can federal aid requirements for citizen par- Alexis de Tocqueville when he came to the U.S. ticipation be made more consistent with each in 1831 to examine what then was a novel dem- other and be simplified for the convenience ocratic experiment, was the high degree of partic- of recipient governments, without sacrificing ipation by the people in both public and private legitimate national objectives and without affairs." Even today, the U.S. is among the most being unduly intrusive? participatory nations. To what extent are participatory procedures Traditionally, participation in government has provided by state and local law adequate to been most direct and most frequent at the local meet national objectives for the assurance of level. Governments at higher levels-states, the participation, allowing them to be substi- federal government, and regional organizations- tuted for federal requirements? inevitably have relied much more heavily upon representative mechanisms, and local govern- These questions are being asked with increas- ments moved more toward this form of democracy ing urgency as citizen participation requirements as they grew in size. Yet, the American traditions multiply at all levels of government-under the of direct participation in government are so strong pressures of minorities, the poor, environmental- that states have provided for it within the local ists, consumer advocates, taxpayer associations, government structures they created, and have ac- business, labor, organized public employees, and cepted it in various ways in their own operations. specific clientele groups for the growing number The federal government also has developed a va- of programs provided by government. riety of ways for direct participation in its pro- The participation rights which individuals and cesses, and has been particularly sensitive in re- groups have asserted and which governments have recognized, in the view of some, have out- endless. Therefore, this report recognizes the stripped the ability of government to provide ef- broad scope and changing character of the topic. fective and efficient processes of participation. As will become evident in later portions of this Though debatable, some observers have begun to report, citizen participation is by no means lim- wonder whether this has created a "Catch-22" sit- ited to the political process and the making of uation in which nothing can occur without par- policy. It is at the heart of the jury process within ticipation and nothing can occur with it.= Citizen the nation's court systems, and it also penetrates roles range from consultation and advice-giving deeply into bureaucracy. As bureaucracy grows to veto power, and legal recourse often is availa- and is assigned increasing responsibilities, the ble to challenge the adequacy of the participation urge for citizen participation in the activities of process quite apart from the substance of program bureaucracy increases. Many of the citizen partic- decisions being made. The adequacy of proce- ipation processes examined in this report are dures may be, and is judged differently by differ- aimed toward opening up the administration of ent levels of government and by different groups programs to citizens and to political processes at and individuals. Nonelective processes challenge the levels of government where implementation the decisions made by authorized elective pro- occurs. cesses. The linkages, then, are blurred, and it be- Proponents of citizen participation clearly incomes unclear in many cases what is meant by clude diverse groups, as the foregoing description the term "citizen participation." of arguments for greater citizen participation sug- 20 The time clearly is ripe for attempting to clarify gests. At the "grassroots" level, spokesmen for ra- citizen participation issues in America and their cial minorities and the disadvantaged came to the implications for intergovernmental relations. forefront during the 1960s, but, as William H. Stewart, Jr., notes "the movement to provide FORMS AND PURPOSES OF much wider community involvement in efforts to CITIZEN PARTICIPATION find solutions should not be restricted to blacks and the poor."13 Indeed, it has not been. Ethnic Although participation by citizens is an integral groups, blue collar workers, League of Women part of both the ideal and the practice of democ- Voters' members, suburbanites, housewives, and racy, it is difficult to define. There is, of course, many rank and file members of the electorate have voter and political party participation, but there championed activist ways of enhancing citizen is also the participation of individuals as program participation. Chief among their arguments are clientele or simply as interested parties; there is the anti-bigness, antitechnocrat, antibad services, organized participation by every conceivable type anti-status quo, and anti-elitist themes, noted of group from citizen associations to special in- above. terest groups to official advisory committees de- From some of the politicians, planners, admin- veloped especially for particular governmental istrators, and others in government have come ad- activities; and there is spontaneous participation ditional arguments, favoring greater citizen par- which may be reflected in protests, demonstra- ticipation. Promoting racial accommodation, tions, judicial proceedings, strikes, and riots. The solving community problems, encouraging "pos- dividing lines between these different types of itive" rather than destructive conflict, countering participation certainly are not clear. Furthermore, such negative attitudes as cynicism and aliena- the central focus of citizen participation provi- tion, increasing political sophistication and sions and reforms shifts from time to time as em- awareness, and facilitating the implementation of phasis at the various levels of government waxes service programs-all are purposes tending to and wanes with respect to direct democracy, rep- dominate the supportive arguments advanced by resentative democracy, freedom of information, these political and administrative officials.14 freedom of the press, individual rights, citizen All this is not to say there was, or is a neat activism and apathy, modern social survey tech- division between the motives of the "grassroots" niques, social psychology, consumerism, volun- advocates and those of the governmental propo- teerism, citizen complaint procedures, and other nents. The wide variety of citizens and officials forces. The many forms and purposes of citizen promoting improved citizen participation pre- participation generated by these forces are almost cludes any such hard-and-fast classification of motives according to the extent of one's relation- practices, and views it as an act or a series of acts ship to government. At the same time, the tend- by which the "citizen" has the opportunity "to encies suggested here do provide the basis for a influence the distribution of benefits or losses classification of these justifications developed by which may be visited upon him [or upon those Richard L. Cole and others. people he represents) as a result of federally sup- For Cole, most of the arguments favoring citizen ported acti~ity."~~ participation fall into two groups: "those which From a citizen participation handbook devel- suggest that such participation will lead to better, oped by Federal Region I1 comes the relatively or at least more accountable, municipal services simple and focused explanation that "citizens are at the neighborhood level;" and those which people whose membership in a population served would argue that "citizen involvement will in- or affected by specific federal programs entitles crease citizen trust and confidence in public of- them to participate in the design and operation of ficials, thus reducing the likelihood of urban un- the program. rest and violence."15 These contrasting perspec- Finally, the citizen participation booklet, issued tives, in turn, have generated widely differing by the Community Services Administration, ap- views about the ultimate goals of citizen partici- proached it this way: "Today, virtually all pro- pation and, as might be expected, widely varying grams in which federally appropriated funds are approaches to ways and means of effectively used require citizen access to the decisionmaking achieving these goals. Yet, the combination of cit- process. With respect to these programs, citizens izen activist forces with sympathetic officials pro- are defined as those persons whose membership 21 vided the practical conditions in the 1960s that in a population served or affected by a specific seemed to make greater and more effective citizen federal program entitles them to assist variously participation a feasible and desirable goal.16 in designing, operating, and evaluating the pro- Given the diversity of arguments for and groups gram. The nature of such participation is varied supporting citizen participation, it is not surpris- and is established by statute or administrative reg- ing that a commonly accepted definition is not ulation. "22 readily available. Here is a sampling of the defi- Analysis of these various definitions suggests nitions proposed by various observers. a few common elements and a number of con- Edmund M. Burke approached this task from an trasting ones. Among the commonalities are their American historical perspective: "Stated most explicit or implicit acceptance of the idea that cit- simply, it [citizen participation] views the citizen izen participation no longer can be adequately as the ultimate voice in community decisionmak- fulfilled by voting in primaries and elections, and ing. Citizens should share in decisions affecting of the fact that the forms it may take defy easy their destinies. Anything less is a betrayal of our descriptions or classification. Also central to most democratic tradition."17 Clifford W. Graves fo- of these definitional efforts is the notion of the cused somewhat more on the responsive govern- ongoing nature of citizen participation efforts, mental and passive citizen themes and described since the activities of governments that affect the it as "essentially . . . a device to make government citizenry are never-ending.23 responsive to the needs of all people, particularly Points of difference among the various defini- those. . . who are left out of the formal govern- tions often center around who constitutes the mental decisionmaking process."18 "participating" citizenry, which governmental ju- Henry D. Harral shifts the focus more to the ac- risdictions and levels it affects, what processes of tivities of governments and believes that real cit- government it should seek to affect, what forms izen participation means "the elected and ap- it should take, and finally, what basic goals it pointed representatives of our representative should seek to achieve. In addition, there is a sub- democracy. . . share their planning, policy deter- stantial body of criticism of requirements for in- mination and decisionmaking with groups of peo- volving citizens in day-to-day administration. ple who proclaim a more intense ideological or Such criticism notes: (1)the tendency of such in- parochial interest in certain specific public mat- volvement to make it more difficult for the bu- ters than does the general electorate."lg reaucracy to perform its duties; (2) the difficulty Melvin B. Mogulof approaches the definitional of getting citizens to turn out and contribute issue from the perspective of federal policies and meaningfully; (3) the tendency of increased participation to stir up trouble and reinforce oppo- tion developed within the general society and the sition or conflict; (4) the tendency to give undue governmental system. The approach is largely influence to nonelected, uninformed, and un- that of political theory and practice as well as qualified individuals, often self-appointed, who public administration. Contributions from fields have little or no accountability within the politi- like social work, social psychology, interest group cal process; (5) the tendency to short-circuit the dynamics, political polling, and constituent serv- ballot box and established governmental institu- ices-while of legitimate interest-are not em- tions, enhancing the political power of certain phasized. A study of "volunteerism" in the public groups without winning it in the regular political and private sectors is not included. process; (6) the tendency toward increased public Chapter 3 presents an overview of the various costs associated with decentralized administra- forms and purposes of citizen participation, and tion of services; and (7) the unfavorable benefit1 concludes with an overview of citizen participa- cost ratio of citizen participation programs them- tion practices at the different levels of American selves-sometimes they cost too much and pro- government. This is a very broad chapter, span- duce too little.24 While these criticisms do not ning the whole range of electoral and administra- question basic democratic processes, they do tive processes, and including legal rights as well question both the workability and the desirability as group dynamics. However, no single form of of some forms of citizen participation. participation is covered in depth. The diverse views about so many critical as- Chapter 4 examines citizen participation re- 22 pects of citizen participation set the scene for the quirements in federal aid programs across the remainder of this report. board, and presents a somewhat more detailed description of how these requirements have ac- THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT tually worked in a few illustrative federal aid programs. Participation by citizens at the federal As illustrated above, the topic of citizen partic- level, itself, is treated only lightly. ipation is an exceedingly broad one. It is so broad, Chapter 5 surveys the provisions for citizen par- in fact, that even ACIR's wide-ranging approach ticipation in state and local governments under to the subject cannot encompass all of its facets their own practices and procedures, and in rela- fully. Thus, where it has been necessary to narrow tion to some federal aid requirements. the scope of this report, those facets with less im- Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the findings mediate significance for intergovernmental rela- reached in the preceeding chapters, analyzes the tions have been deemphasized. current issues in citizen participation across all Chapter 2 of this report reviews the role of cit- levels of government in the American federal sys- izen participation in democratic theory-both tem, and presents recommendations for action at classical and contemporary-and how participa- the federal, state, local, and areawide levels.

FOOTNOTES mental Proposals, A-49, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1974. 'ACIR, State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Lo- 'From Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, November cal Taxing Powers, A-14, Washington, DC, U.S. Government 19, 1863. Printing Office, October 1962; ACIR, A-43, op. cit.; and ACIR, 2Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), A-44, op. cit. Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System, Vol. 1, A- 5ACIR, A-31, Vol. 2, op. cit. 31, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, Oc- EACIR,A-29, op. cit. tober 1967; ACIR, Regional Decision Making: New Strategies 'ACIR, State-Local Relations in the Criminal Justlce System, for Substate Districts, A-43, Washington, DC, U.S. Govern- A-38, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, ment Printing Office, October 1973; ACIR, The Challenge of August 1971. Local Governmental Reorganization, A-44, Washington, DC, 8ACIR, a policy resolution adopted at the Commission's reg- U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1974; and ACIR, ular meeting on December 14, 1974. Appointment of State Legislatures, A-15, Washington, DC, 9ACIR, Categorical Grants: Their Role and Design, A-52, U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1962. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 3ACIR, Intergovernmental Relations In the Poverty Program, 1977. A-29, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, loMargaret Mead, ed., Cultural Patterns and Technical Change, April 1966; ACIR, A-43, op. cit.; ACIR, A-44, op. cit.; ACIR, New York, NY, A Mentor Book, The New American Library, Toward More Balanced Transportation: New Intergovern- June 1955. "Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, specially ed- American Institute of Planners, September 1968,p. 287. ited and abridged for the modern reader by Richard D. Heff- IsClifford W. Graves, "Citizen Participation in Metropolitan ner, New York, NY,A Mentor Book, The New American Li- Planning," Public Administration Review, Vol. XXXII, Num- brary, February 1956. ber 3, Washington, DC, American Society for Public Admin- 'Warlan Cleveland, "How Does the Planner Get Everybody in istration, MayiJune 1972, p. 198. on the Act and Still Get Some Action?" in Council of State 19Quotedin Stewart, op. cit., p. xv. Planning Agencies, State Planning Issues: 1974, Lexington, 'OMelvin B. Mogulof, "Citizen Participation," A Review and KY, Council of State Governments, June 1974. Commentary on Federal Policies and Practices, Washington, I3William H. Stewart, Jr., Citizen Participation in Public DC, Urban Institute, 1970, pp. 2-3. Administration, University, AL, The University of Alabama, Vederal Region 11, Citizen Participation Handbook, New 1976, p. 10. York, 1976, Introduction. I41bid., pp. 19-27.See also Lawrence J. O'Toole, Jr., The Con- ZPCommunityServices Administration, Citizen Participation, cept of Participation in the Literature of American Public Washington, DC, Community Sewices Administration, Jan- Administration: A Study of the Orthodoxy of Reform, a Ph.D. uary 1978, Introduction. dissertation, Syracuse University, Ann Arbor, MI, University %ee Stewart, op. cit., p. xv. Microfilms International, 1975. "Stewart, op. cit., Chapter 111. See also James A. Riedel, "Cit- I5Richard L. Cole, Citizen Participation and the Urban Policy izen Participation: Myths and Realities," Public Administra- Process, Lexington, MA, D.C. Heath and Co., 1975, p. 7. tion Review, Vol. XXXII, Number 3, Washington, DC, Amer- IeIbid., pp. 6-7. ican Society for Public Administration, MaylJune 1972, pp. 'qdmund M. Burke, "Citizen Participation Strategies," Jour- 211-20. nal of the American Institute of Planners, Washington, DC,

Chapter 2

American Traditions of Citizen Participation

Throughout history, the most fundamental of in America's (and other free nation's) social human political questions have revolved around organizations and governments. the extent and form of citizen participation in the affairs of government. To a large degree, the shape of America's democratic tradition, The Classical Theorists and procedures, and federal system has been deter- Citizen Participation mined by recurring efforts to answer these questions and to create the procedures and THE JEFFERSONIAN TRADITION institutions for the practical application of participation. This chapter deals with the Thomas Jefferson (1743-18261, widely theoretical foundations and the evolving applica- accepted as the fount of America's classical tion in America of various procedures relating to democratic tradition, eloquently enunciated the citizen participation. precepts of citizen participation. These principles, in turn, have provided a fertile theoretical basis and, in some cases, the actual motivation THEORY AND THEORISTS for later efforts to expand citizen participation in our system. While Jefferson rarely hesitated to The basic reasons for the dearth of precision, change his views on specific issues of public clear purpose, and widely accepted precepts in policy, he never departed from his steadfast the definition of citizen participation arise in adherence to "the rights which God, and the law large measure from the varying emphases placed (natural] have given to all." Woodrow Wilson on it by democratic theorists-both classical and captured this distinctive trait of Jefferson when contemporary. At the core of this controversy are he wrote that his greatness did not consist so varying views of human nature, its capacity and much "in any one of his achievements, but in his potential, and its actual and ideal relations with attitude toward mankind."' As prime author of society and government. In effect, the different the Declaration of Independence, founder of the assessments and interpretations of these factors Democratic-Republican Party, framer of the by democratic thinkers, along with the use of Statute of Virginia for religious freedom, and ostensibly participatory practices by fascist and early friend (and later critic) of the French communist regimes, have helped generate much Revolution, Jefferson served as a life-long of the confusion and continuing conflict surroun- "Apostle of Human Rights," as Alpheus T. Mason ding recent efforts to revitalize the citizen's role has described him.2 From his doctrine of natural rights, with its "The true foundation of republican govern- libertarian and egalitarian components, came his ment," for Jefferson, "is the equal right of every theories of popular sovereignty, compact basis of citizen, in his person and property, and in their government, and right to revolution against a managementqW6Hence, his stress on expanding government that pursues a "long train of abuses the general suffrage, on equal representation in and usurpations" against such rights. In his legislatures, on an executive chosen popularly, Notes on Virginia, he wrote, "Every government on an elective judiciary, on justices, jurors, and degenerates when trustkd to the rulers of the sheriffs that are elective, on the ward divisions people alone. The people themselves, therefore, (below the county level), and on periodic amend- are its only sole depositaries. And, to render even ments to the constitution(^).^ These were the them safe, their minds must be improved to a means of securing "self-government by the certain degree."3 republicanism of our constitution, as well as by Greater popular education, then, through a free the spirit of the people."a A mixture of represen- press and debate, open inquiry, a "more general tative and direct democratic techniques is diffusion of learning," and "free schools" were endorsed, then, as the best means of achieving espoused (though not always adhered to or (and sustaining) a responsive and responsible enacted). In addition, Jefferson's concept of a people's government. After all, the control of the "hierarchy of republics" was a vital feature of his people "over the organs of their governments" is grand design for making a popular self- the "true" measure of the system's republicanism government workable. and he was not satisfied that this had been 26 At the local level, he urged: "divide the counties achieved at the local, state, or federal levels into wards of such size as that any citizen can during his lifetime. attend, when called on, and act in person. Ascribe The personal freedom and extensive participa- to them the government of their wards in all tion which formed the cornerstone of his "Em- things relating to themselves exclusively.. . . pire of Liberty," were viewed as having both These wards, called townships in New England, individual and systemic benefits. To violate are the vital principle of their governments, and individual rights or to curb political participa- have proved themselves the wisest invention tion was, in his mind, to ignore man's endless ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect capacity for growth and development.9 More- exercise of self-government, and for its preserva- over, the worth of any governmental/political tion."4 system "is the worth of the individuals com- In terms of the tiers of government, he posing it."lo The individual, society, and govern- marshalled the units into: "1, the general federal ment, then, all benefit, though in different ways. republic, for all concerns foreign and federal; 2, In this context, his positive approach to the ways that of the state, for what relates to our citizens of extending citizen participation is both in- exclusively; 3, the county republics, for the strumental (making things happen differently) duties and concerns of the county; and 4, the as well as an end in itself (by enhancing ward republics, for the small, and yet numerous individual self-development and keeping the and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; system "republican"). and in government, as well as in every other Jefferson's specific devices for achieving business of life, it is by division and subdivision greater citizen participation provided many of of duties alone, that all matters, great and small, the basic tenets of most subsequent American can be managed to perfection. And the whole is democratic reform movements. Such par- cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a ticipatory techniques as rotation in office, equal part in the administration of the public affairs."= suffrage and representation in the decisionmak- He sought, then, to keep the heaviest servicing ing process of higher local governments, and responsibilities with those governments that are direct representation and input at the local level closest to the people and the fewest to that would act to control and curb governments and jurisdiction that was most distant-the federal render them responsive and accountable-con- government. The wards in his hierarchy were, in cepts as contemporary as the latest publication of effect, replicas of the direct democratic units that Common Cause. Without pondering Jefferson's the New England town meetings constituted in legacy of ideas relating to the role of the citizen in his time (and ours). a representative system (while sometimes ignoring his political practice and policies), one cannot and James Mill, for example, enunciated a more appreciate the ideological roots of the Jacksoni- limited role of the citizen and of participation. ans, the early Republicans, the Populists, Pro- Both were utilitarians, hence concerned with gressives, and even the citizen participation achieving a society that yields the greatest good movement of the past dozen years (though few in for the greatest number, and both focused on it appreciate the extent of their indebtedness). skillful legislators as the chief means of pursuing this paramount goal.14 Both sought to strengthen THE EUROPEAN TRADITION the "voice of reason and public utility" initially by way of legal reform, but later with political Some intellectual assessments of citizen par- reform when Mill convinced Bentham that legal ticipation and its role in a democratic system reform would never come without parliamentary have looked more to European thinkers for the changes.15 Both came, then, to sanction universal philosophic roots of the current movement-both suffrage, the secret ballot, and annual here and abroad. Moreover, some of the latter day parliaments, with the electorate having a revisionists of democratic theory as well as some measure of control over their "deputies."l@ of their critics have "discovered," debated, and Though both rejected the theory of natural sometimes denied basic tenets of this "classical rights, they still emphasized the critical democratic tradition." significance of the individual and of individual In fact, the question arises as to whether one rights. The idea of a community having an can really speak of a single "tradition," as Carole interest or principle of its own was rejected, for 2 7 Pateman points out in her study of Participation as Bentham put it: and Democratic Theory.11 Thus, Pateman con- The interest of the community then is tends that it is impossible to ascribe a common what?-the sum of the interests of the set of precepts to this tradition (i.e., the ideal of several members who comprise it. It is an active, rational, and informed citizen; max- in vain to talk of the interest of the imum participation by all citizens; and/or a basic community without understanding democratic method of government that involves what is the interest of the individual.17 institutional arrangements for making policy decisions for the common will by allowing the "Liberty of the press" and "Liberty of private people to decide issues through the elections of association," then, were strongly endorsed. In a representatives, who then will carry out the free government, Bentham stressed, care must be popular wi11).12 taken with the manner in which power is While most of the latter day American and "distributed among the several ranks of persons European revisionists and their critics (to be that are sharers in it" and "free and easy changes discussed later) have not been specific about the of condition" should occur "between governors classical theorists whose "tradition" they were and governed," so that "the interests of one class amending or defending, Jean-Jacques Rousseau are more or less indistinguishably blended with (1712-1778),Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832),James those of the other."'8 The chief role of the Mill (1773-1836), and John Stuart Mill (1806- electorate was the selection and removal of their 1873) inferentially were among the earlier "deputies." Yet, both thinkers felt that legislators democratic theorists they had in mind. All four were not expected to legislate in a vacuum, certainly merit the "classical theorist of ignoring "post-election" public opinion(s).'g democracy" designation,l3 but clearly in the After all, it is in the best interest of a citizen to be British or French tradition, and only indirectly in concerned with political issues and this involves the American. more than electing good representatives. In short, Bentham and the senior Mill did not Participation as a "Means:" envision a passive or narrow citizenry, but one The Utilitarian Approach that learned, debated, and communicated to its deputies-through elections and other more Even cursory analyses of the writings of these informal means. At the same time, they were men suggest major differences between and chiefly concerned with national institutions, among them and agreement on only certain procedures, and legislation, and their par- democratic principles and practices. Bentham ticipatory principle was geared to fairly narrow purposes-to ensure good government and to tings of his desires," and genuine free wi11.25 AS guard against governmental encroachments on Rousseau explained it: "By dint of being exer- individual and private interests.20 cised, his faculties will develop, his ideas take on a wider scope, his sentiments become ennobled, and his whole soul be so elevated."26 The Participation as an "End:" centrality of the participation principle in his The Educative-Developmental Approach thought, thus, becomes apparent, and through it, Citizen participation had a much broader and the seeming contradiction between complete more central role in the thinking of Jean-Jacques obedience to the general will and individual Rousseau and John Stuart Mill. For the former, freedom can be reconciled. citizen participation was at the center of his The undertakings which bind us to entire political theory and his contribution to the the commonwealth are obligatory only Western democratic tradition. Certain vital because they are mutual: their nature prerequisites were necessary, however, if the being such that we cannot labour for many benefits Rousseau associated with it were others without, at the same time, to be realized. Thus, he advocated a relatively labouring for ourselves. For how can small [city-state) system which was to be the general will be always right, and composed mostly of small landholders.21 While how can all constantly will the.hap- Rousseau allowed for differentiations in wealth, piness of each, if every single in- 28 he stressed the requirement that each man should dividual does not include himself in own some property, for this was the most that word each, so that in voting forthe precious of the citizen's rights. Only from this general interest he may feel that he is solid base could the individual citizen acquire the voting for his own? Whichgoes to show independence and security that gives substance that the equality of rights and the idea to his social as well as his political equality and of justice which it produces derive from freed0m.~2 the preference which each man has for With these socio-economic conditions prevail- his own concerns-in other words, ing, citizens can gather in assembly as self- from human nature: that the general reliant, equal persons fully prepared to directly will, if it be deserving of its name, must participate in and conduct the public's business. be general, not in its origins only, but in All citizens, thus, "share in the sovereign its objects, applicable to all as well as authority" of the "state." Yet, each citizen owes a operated by all, and that it loses its duty to "his neighbor" and to the "sovereign natural validity as soon as it is concern- people as a whole." At the same time, the ed to achieve a merely individual and requisite social conditions, the reciprocal limited end, since, in that case, we, nature of the "act of association" which es- pronouncing judgement on something tablishes and sustains the polity, along with the outside ourselves, cease to be possess- direct participatory role Rousseau assigned to all ed of that true principle of equity which citizens, combine to make these obligations far is our guide.z7 less collectivist in an authoritarian sense than many commentators have supposed.23 He did not In short, as Pateman points out, the "only substitute the will of the majority (as expressed policy that will be acceptable to all is one where in the general will) for that of the few (which he the benefits and burdens are equally shared" and rejected) as some have claimed. All citizens, "the participatory process" that produces this according to Rousseau, were independent equals policy "ensures that political equality is made albeit in an interdependent condition, and it was effective in the decisionmaking assembly."z8 this social condition which distinguished natural Thus, the process assumes that individual rights liberty from the more preferable civil libert~.~4 and interests, as well as those of the public as a The latter form of freedom, while depriving man whole, are protected. of many of the advantages he possessed in the With John Stuart Mill, full participation was state of nature, confers greater ones: "the owner- also a fundamental theme. While rejecting, in his ship of what belongs to him," the need to consult later life, some of the ideas of Bentham and his "his reason not merely to respond to the promp- father, James, Mill continued to adhere to certain of their representative democratic ideas while many.. . (may).. . fill one or other of the enunciating his own eloquent participatory numerous local executive offices."36 In these theory. Unlike the early utilitarians, Mill felt that posts, the citizens will "have to act for public good government meant far more than managing interests as well as to think and to speak, and the the "material interests of society" and "regulating thinking cannot all be done by proxy."37 While the merely business part of social arrange- rejecting direct popular administration of the ments."29 As Pateman emphasizes, this first local public business, Mill clearly found in local aspect of government is of secondary importance representative units a basic means of fulfilling to him. "If we ask ourselves on what courses and the prime educational role he assigned to gov- conditions good government in all its ernment. senses.. . depends," he wrote in Considerations Nonetheless, throughout Mill's thinking, runs on Representative Government, "we find that the the theme of having the "wisest and best" in principal of them, the one which transcends all positions of authority, and this "elitism" is others, is the qualities of the human beings reflected in his approach to elections, his composing the society over which the govern- rejection of pledges required of legislators, his ment is exercised."30 The primary "question," denial of the need for annual parliaments, his then, regarding "any political institutions is how respect for the professional administrator, and far they tend to foster in the members of the his refusal to embrace direct democratic ap- community the various desirable qualities, moral proaches to local governmental decisionmaking. or intellectual.. . ."31 This, in turn, leads Mill to As he explained it, there are two "co-equal" sanction "representative government" rather requisites of representatives in government- 29 than an enlightened despotism, as the "ideally "responsibility to those for whose benefit best form." The right kind of personal character political power ought to be, and always professes would not be encouraged under the latter, while to be employed; and jointly therewith to obtain, the former tends to encourage "self-dependent," in the greatest measure possible, for the function "active," and "energetic" traits that benefit both of government, the benefits of superior intellect, the individual and "the community as a whole."32 trained by long meditation and practical dis- Thus, the managerial and educational aspects of ciplines to that special task."38 Hence, he diverges government join, because the former task in- from Rousseau in a very fundamental way while, cludes the promotion of the proper type of citizen at the same time, developing a link between his character and to do this, the right type of thought and that of the elder Mill and Jeremy institutions are required.33 Bentham. If the proper institutions are to be fully In a more basic sense, he reformulated Ed- representative, the arrangements must include, mund Burke's theory of the national legislator, for Mill, universal suffrage, proportional though in a fully democratic setting. The electors representation and proper respect for minority have a right to know how the representative rights and opinions, the secret ballot, no electoral intends to act and what public opinions guide his "filterings," and an open and vigorously conduct. If some of these "are unacceptable to deliberative national legislature. Yet, central to them, it is for him to satisfy them that he his participatory principle was the strong role he nevertheless deserves to be their representative; assigned to local governments. "It is but a small and, if they are wise, they will overlook it in favor portion of the public business," he stressed, of his general value."39 While valuing the "full "which can be well done or safely attempted by freedom" of the representative "to act as he in his the central authorities."34 A sharing of the great own judgment deems best," he also cautioned "aggregate of" governmental "duties" between that "deference (by the electors) to mental "central and local authorities" is "indispensible" superiority is not to go to the length of self- and the latter became his "chief instrument" for annihilation-abnegation of any personal opi- the "public education of the citizens."35 Citizen nion."40 In the final analysis, a "people cannot be participation in "general politics," by necessity, well governed in opposition to their primary was a fairly limited, though significant, activity. notions of right, even though these may be in However, in the case of local bodies, besides "the some points erroneous."41 function of electing, many citizens in turn have The relationship between the representative the chance of being elected, and and the represented may be a tense one, yet one that is healthy for the managing part of govern- latter two-Rousseau and Mill-much more ment, as well as its educative role. Electors have emphasis was placed on local government; one the right, especially during campaigns, to ascer- making it the state itself and the other a vital tain the "political opinions and sentiments" as contribution to national and popular educational well as the qualities of candidates. They are not efforts. Fourth, between these latter two, major only "entitled, but often bound to reject one who differences emerge as to the merits of direct differs from themselves on the few articles which popular decisionmaking and administration, are the foundation of their political belief."42 hence their contrasting views on the value of rep- However, once in office, they should tolerate his resentation and representatives, on the proper "experience and acting as opinions different from forms of citizen participation, on a differentiated theirs on any number of things not included in class structure, and on intellectual and moral their fundamental articles of faith."43 Such a rela- capacity as basic social differentiators. Finally, tionship is necessary if majority opinion in the the contrasting views of citizen participation national legislature is to be contested and it is presented here have had their 20th century especially necessary if the educative function of adherents, whether in fact latter day theorists government is to be performed effectively. have recognized the extent of their ideological Though his views lack Rousseau's indebtedness. egalitarianism, they explain Mill's criticism of America's tendency to exclude "the first minds in The 20th Century Theorists the country" from national representation.44 and Citizen Participation 30 Thus, for Mill, rejection of the delegate theory of representation was an essential feature of a The advent of industrialization and urbaniza- national representative system based on univer- tion, big government and big interest groups, and sal adult suffrage. Political debate and discus- the mass media (not to mention totalitarian sion would suffer if this principle was applied. regimes that have relied on pseudo-participatory After all, only from such "political discussion" as devices) have made it difficult for 20th century well as from "collective political action" can the theorists to adhere to classical values and ordinary citizen "whose daily occupations con- practices, regardless of their social and/or centrate his interests in a small circle roundhim- conceptual origins. Moreover, empirical studies self, learn(s) to feel for and with his fellow showing considerable gaps between the citizens, and become(s) consciously a member of character and actions of the "ideal" citizen and a great community."45 This psychological result the political/social attitudes and performance of clearly has an "integrative" purpose as Pateman the "real" citizen have caused a number of points Yet, it also suggests greater citizen contemporary theorists to revise or reformulate assertiveness and more positive participation as traditional notions about the nature, role, and his political sophistication increases. outcome of citizen participation. Though it is difficult to generalize about the Generalizations about the European Tradition range of these writings, especially over the past three decades or so, by economists, political From this brief assessment of four classical scientists, sociologists, and journalists-mostly democratic theorists in the European tradition, but not exclusively American-two fairly dis- certain generalizations emerge. First, as Pate- tinct schools of thought do emerge: the Realistic man points out, there is no single "classical Revisionists and Egalitarian citizen participa- democratic tradition," but two or more, depen- tion advocates.47 It is their broadly contrasting ding on how one gauges the approach of these and views of the citizen, his or her capacities, and his other thinkers, to the representational, role of or her relationships (both actual and potential] in government, and citizen participation issues. an urbanized, mass society that is the chief Second, with the four reviewed here (and by differentiating factor. Pateman), there clearly is a marked contrast in REALISTIC REVISIONIST THEORIES AND their approaches to citizen participation, with THE LIMITS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION two stressing the representational and governmental aspects and the other duo stressing the Realistic, revisionist theories emerge in the citizen developmental features. Third, with the writings of Walter Lippmann in the 20s; Joseph Schumpeter in the 40s; B. R. Berelson, Robert bined to produce a situation wherein "the Dahl, Seymour Lipset, and H. Eckstein in the 50s practice of democracy has turned a corner."51 and 60s. These modern theorists view democracy And, as he also pointed out, they reveal most primarily as a political method without specific vividly some contradictions in certain traditional goals or economic systems subsumed within it. democratic tenets. The ideal that, as he phrased They generally interpret politics pluralistically it, "a reasoned righteousness welled up spon- (not from the individual's perspective) and in taneously out of the mass of men" had to con- terms of conflicts and accommodations between front the reality, even in the 19th century, that all and among organized interests both in and out of men in a very large environment cannot gov- government. They also value social cohesion and ern.52 Moreover, he felt that the philosophic stability (though most claim they are "value- assumption (largely derived from Jefferson) free" researchers) over pervasive popular par- "that all men possessed the instinct [to govern] ticipation and rapid social change. And, finally, and could therefore deal with large affairs," could they assume or postulate a largely "passive" or only apply with respect to "the customs and more "practical" view of the average citizen's par- obvious character of the place where they lived ticipatory role and/or capacity. and worked."53 Walter Lippmann in the early 20s, was one of The "outer world," for Lippmann, cannot be the first to address the question of how people conceived of "instinctively," and the 20th century can and do cope with the responsibilities of demonstrates the accuracy of this finding even citizenship in a heavily heterogeneous, media- more clearly than the 19th. Basic innovations in conditioned ostensibly democratic mass society mass communications and modern analysis have 31 and system.48 In a 1922 book entitled Public brought the "unseen environment," hence nearly Opinion that was far more than mere journalism, "any aspect of human affairs," within "the range Lippmann enunciated a contemporary psy- of [individual] judgment."54 Yet, this radical chological (rather than a classically democratic development encounters the reality of how rational) view of man's understanding of public limited "the range of attention" is for most people, issues, personalities, and political environment. especially with complex political questions. There was "no serious trouble with the omni- There are many variables in each man's competent citizen" idea, Lippman felt, "until the impressions of the invisible world. The democratic stereotype was universally applied, points of contact vary, the stereotyped so that men looked at a complicated civilization expectations vary, the interest enlisted varies most subtly of all. The living and saw an enclosed village."55 The precepts and practices of Jeffersonian democracy, then, con- impressions of a large number of people flicted seriously with reality even as they are to an immeasurable degree personal evolved; but, he emphasized this is particularly in each of them, and unmanageably the case in this most complex of all centuries. complex in the mass. How then, is any practical relationship established What, then, is needed? For Lippmann, certain between what is in people's heads and realistic constraints must condition one's expec- what is out there beyond their ken in tations regarding the citizen in a 20th century the environment? How in the language democracy. "The amount of attention available" of democratic theory, do great numbers must be considered. "The volume of information" of people feeling each so privately cannot be overlooked. "The lack of interest" in all about so abstract a picture, develop any issues must be recognized. As he put it, ". . .the outsider, and every one of us is an outsider to all common will?. . .49 but a few aspects of modern life, has neither the Through the manipulation of emotionally time, nor attention, nor interest, nor the equip- charged symbols, through the oligarchic tenden- ment for specific judgment. It is on the men in- cies of all mass organizations, and through the side, working under conditions that are sound, complex changes that 20th century societies have that the daily administrations of society must experienced, "persuasion has become a self- rest."Se Thus, the outsider can arrive at "judg- conscious art and a regular organ of popular gov- ments about whether these conditions are sound ernment."SO Psychological research and modern only as the result after the event, and on the means of communication, he contended, com- procedure before the event."57 And, politically, more times than not, this takes the form of a sim- certain rights and the democratic method.64 plistic "yes" or "no," whether it is a "measure or a Moreover, it avoids equating popular rule with candidate" presenting the "choice to a larger majority rule by focusing on "the acceptance of group."58 leadership" as "the true function of the elec- Lippmann's views on the citizen's role in a torate's vote."65 democratic system clearly were markedly more The "classical theory" of democracy, according pessimistic and limited than those of Jefferson or to Schumpeter, was defective on a number of even those of the Utilitarians. Yet, he still counts. First, it placed too much faith on the respected the power of public opinion in a free "independence and rational quality" of the "will system, despite its irrational, inconstant, and of the individual."e6 Hence, it ignored the role of manipulatable features. What is more, he hoped "professional politicians," "exponents of an that through an educational process that objec- economic interest," or "idealists of one kind or tifies the subject materials and that nurtures the another" in manipulating or even creating "the individual's critical faculty, "public opinions" will of the people."B7 Second, it overlooked the could be brought "into grip with the environ- basic fact that "the will of the people is the ment."59 All this would depend on the "evolution product and not the motive power of the political of knowledge" and he worried that "our process."68 Finally, and linked to this concept of a knowledge of human institutions is extraor- "common will," is the idea of a "common good," dinarily meager and impressionistic."60 Never- which "classical theory" erroneously believed theless, he indicated (and personally exhibited] a was the "obvious beacon light of policy," easily certain faith in the attractiveness of the "scien- defined, and understood by "every normal tific method" applied to political and social person" through "rational argument."69 There is issues, while still cautioning about the huge no need here to dwell on the mix of anti- difficulty of obeying "reason in politics."61 Utilitarian and anti-Rousseauan points which In the final analysis, his prescriptions are Schumpeter makes, other than to note that there geared to rendering public opinions more sensi- is a blurring of the tenets of classical theory and a ble, less manipulatable, and less confused by failure to note that in many respects his own complexity. Personal participation as a practical democratic theory is not so different from that of necessity, however, remains largely a reactive, Bentham and the senior Mill.70 limited political activity. Schumpeter, then, was concerned with More than two decades later, Joseph Schum- developing a theory that was realistic, relevant to peter wrote one of the first major revisionist the 20th century, and responsive to the need, as studies to emerge from the academic ranks and he saw it, to dissassociate democracy from any most of the later antitraditionalists were, in some necessary linkage with socialist systems. Hence, way, influenced by his Capitalism, Socialism, his focus on democratic means and his openness and Democracy (1943). At the core of his as to ends. His realism, of course, echos Lipp- argument is his theory that democracy essential- mann's skepticism regarding individual and col- ly is a "political method," which need not be lective rationality, as well as the journalist's associated with any specific goals or particular awareness of the influential role of intermediary socio-economic system. To be more precise, "the institutions and groups in a complex 20th democratic method is that institutional arrange- century democratic system. ment for arriving at political decisions in which Schumpeter felt that certain conditions were individuals acquire the power to decide by means prerequisites "for the success of the democratic of a competitive struggle for the people's v0te."6~ method." Among these were "the adequacy" of The focus here is on "the election of men who "the human material of politics" (by which he are to do the deciding," not on the people, their meant the quality of people who were drawn into opinions, and the projection of them into political political life and by inference a society that had campaigns or public administration.63 This some sort of stratified social system based on interpretation provides a necessary corrective to competitive testing) and the presence of limits on deficiencies in the "classical theory," as he "the effective range of political decision" (or, to phrased it. It recognizes the need and role of put it another way, a range of private, local, leadership, the place of interest groups, the administrative, and supervisory matters should connection between personal freedom as well as not come before a national legislative body).'l "A well trained bureaucracy of good standing and tiated fashion. As he put it, "we need some people tradition" is another necessity, and the electorate who are active in a certain respect, others in the should exhibit "self-control" and "a large middle, and still others passive. The contradic- measure of tolerance for difference of opinion." tory things we want from the total require that These latter popular prerequisites again reflect the parts be different."78Put another way, apathy his constrained approach to citizen participation. and limited participation as well as moderate Like Mill and the Utilitarians, he rejected the involvement may serve the valuable function of delegate theory of representation and urged that "cushioning the shock of disagreement, adjust- the "division of labor" between the voters and ment, and change."79 This clearly requires a elected politicians be respected.72 Neither the modification of the older view that all citizens necessary self-control nor tolerance, he felt, should be actively concerned, continuously would be found in systems whose citizens lacked interested, and fully participative. a "national character and national habits of a From the viewpoint of Bentham and the senior certain type."73 Mill, this realistic theory would constitute only a To sum up, the citizens are left largely with the moderate shift from their own. Jefferson, John vote and the responsibility for keeping the Stuart Mill, and Rousseau, on the other hand, electoral process functioning properly. They can would recognize it as a drastic change, while replace decisionmakers in this way, but their Lippmann and Schumpeter would merely find it a actual impact on decisionmaking is at best further corroboration of their own basic con- indirect, and this is as it should be for cepts. Yet, Berelson's functionalist concern, his Schumpeter. systemic focus, and his view that the amount of 33 The 50s ushered in a series of behavioral citizen participation that occurs is about what a studies that continued to raise basic questions stable democracy requires are novel and stand as about the assumptions of classical democratic precursors of the approach and findings of theorists. With Berelson's study of Voting (19541, several later behavioral democratic revisionists. empirical findings are contrasted with the "pre- With Robert Dahl and his writings (beginning suppositions" of traditional normative theory. in the mid-50s and extending for a dozen years or The assumption that citizens will be interested, so), an effort is made to grapple with the rationally debate, and participate actively in fundamental question of "What are the necessary political affairs is countered with the finding that and sufficient conditions for maximizing citizen interest is not sustained and that the vote democracy in the real world?"aO In response, he is the chief form of participation, though a strong contended that his polyarchal theory of minority fails even to utilize it.74 democracy was more viable in the mid-20th A more realistic picture of contemporary century than either the "Madisonian" (limited democracy, for Berelson, is one that focuses on majoritarian via checks) or "populist" (simple the political system itself, not on the individual majoritarian) approaches. His concept of rule by citizen.75 The system, for him, meets "certain contending multiple minorities emerges from his requirements for a going political organization," analysis of the personal and systemic hurdles even though its individual members "may not confronting efforts to maximize the ideal of meet all standards."76 And, it is the former fact political equality in the many stages of contem- that permits political democracy to survive. Yet, porary decisionmaking (in both the election and certain conditions must also be met. interelection periods).B' For various psy- The conditions of survival include a restrained chological, organizational, and practical reasons, pace of change, a significant degree of social and Dahl concludes that "neither elections nor inter- economic stability, a pluralist social organiza- election activity provide much insurance that tion, and a basic consensus which "must bind decisions will accord with the preferences of a together the contending parties."77 The im- majority of adults or voters."82 At the same time, plications of a heterogenous (rather than the elections stand out as one of his two essential classic theorist's homogeneous) citizenry are methods of "social control." When the electoral crucial for Berelson. Since the political system process and "continuous political competition performs "contradictory functions," it is salutary among individuals, parties or both" operate in that differing political attitudes and habits are tandem, "governmental leaders" do become more distributed among the electorate in a differen- "responsive to nonleaders."83 As he explained it, "elections and political competition do not make peter, that it afforded some citizens-the more for government by majorities in any very involved, interested, and organized-more than significant way, but they vastly increase the size, the electoral process as a means of participation. number, and variety of minorities whose With Hartz, Lipset, and Eckstein came further preferences must be taken into account by revisions of traditional democratic values and/or leaders in making policy choices."84 It is this practice. For the first, the classical theorists feature of free elections, according to Dahl, that (Rousseau, Bentham, Jefferson, and Locke) sets democracies apart from dictatorships. provided a "negative description of life in the old This polyarchal theory, while a descriptive European world that democracy destroyed."87 one, also has its normative features. Certain According to Hartz, a gap has emerged between conditions are postulated and he found that very the democratic image (or theory) and democratic few systems actually meet these "tests." Put practice, a gap that is explained by the earlier differently, he found few genuinely egalitarian theorists' failure to grapple with the real polyarchal systems in the real world. This arises machinery of the system. Their inevitable in part because the effective operations of a "individualism" prompted them to overlook the polyarchy depend upon consensus on these "new pluralism of associations, parties, and norms and the latter, in turn, is a "function of groups."88 Their concept of universal "equality" total social training in all of the norms."a5 Neither was a strategem to shatter the rule of an older of these social prerequisites, he feels, is easy to economic class, largely in behalf of the middle establish or to sustain. classes rather than the citizenry as a whole. Their 34 Yet, Dahl felt that his concept still may give us idealization of "reason" was necessary to es- a more satisfactory idea "about political equali- tablish the basis for "common judgment among ty" than the Madisonian or populist inter- individuals emancipated from the old group es- pretations (or the classical democratic theory- tablishments."89 Yet, it became an emotional though at times he denies there was such a "cult," in large measure to provide a substitute theory). Modern political equality, for Dahl, for the "myths" of church and monarchy. means the reality of universal suffrage with its The negative idealism of liberal democracy, he potential for influencing outcomes by its role in notes,-individualism, rationality and the pop- the competition for votes. It also means the ular will-have all been used as a basis of attack "equal opportunity of access to influence over de- against democratic regimes, by Marxists, cisionmakers through interelectoral processes by Fascists, and others. Yet, in the machinery that which different groups in the electorate make emerged to make such regimes viable, Hartz finds their demands heard," as Pateman phrased it.86 reality and a basis for optimism about In short, Dahl sought to set forth a theory that democracy. The pluralism of modern life has descriptively and normatively was cognizant of enhanced "the range of group choice open to the 20th century experience, political systems, and average individual" and the competition between empirical data. Leaders and the led, minorities and among groups [along with the electoral and the majority, interest groups and the process) produces a kind of general will based on administrators, stability and the authoritarian accommodations and political bargaining.90 consequences of instability, electoral and inter- Traditional democratic principles, according to electoral decisionmaking processes, along with Hartz, have inhibited our ability to see the the ambiguities of individual participation and virtues of our democratic machinery which, political equality are all probed, and a concept is while far from ideal, do provide a clear contrast formulated that seeks to reconcile the inevitably with those of authoritarian systems. Moreover, oligarchic nature of decisionmaking with the the individual fares better under the democratic principle and practice of political equality. system, thanks to the competition, many group Though later critics have labeled him as elitist, associations, and the "ultimate universality" of there can be no doubt that Dahl's normative "the democratic state."gl precepts reflect a concern with achieving certain Seymour Martin Lipset's Political Man, in democratic goals (notably political equality) many respects, serves as a summary of through the polyarchal process. And, while his sociological revisionism. Building upon the process may seem "elitist" to some, Dahl felt that theoretical foundations of Schumpeter and Max it was empirically sound and, unlike Schum- Weber, German sociologist and economist (1864- 1930), he found that "democracy in a complex The empirical data relating to elections (which society may be defined as a political system are a critical element in his theory of democracy) which supplies regular constitutional oppor- suggest that a big vote need not be "a good thing," tunities for changing the governing officials, and while a low turn-out is not inevitably bad.98 a social mechanism which permits the largest "Democratic societies can exist with different part of the population to influence major levels of participation," he maintains. A low decisions by choosing among contenders for turn-out can mean that the dispossessed and political office."gZThree conditions, he points out, excessively disadvantaged are underrepre- are subsumed in this methodological view, and sented in government, but it can also signify a each is reflective of the difficulties democratic basic satisfaction with the system. A high turn- regimes have had in the 20th century in remain- out, on the other hand, can be viewed as a by- ing democratic as well as viable. product of a highly effective idea of citizenship in First, there must be a "political formula" or a operation as well as of loyalty to, and support for, cluster of beliefs which are accepted as legiti- the system. Conversely, it sometimes serves as a mate-political parties, a free press, free speech, prime sign of a society in deep distress. Thus, and elections.93 Without such a value system, "neither high nor low rates of participation and "democracy becomes chaotic," as in several Latin voting are in themselves good or bad for American countries. Secondly, "one set of democracy;. . .but the extent of apathy and the political leaders" must be in office. If, "the varying levels of participation of different political game" does not award effective authori- segments of the population do clarify the 35 ty to one group, he warned, irresponsible and underlying consensus and conflict within the unsteady government is likely to result as in pre- political process."99 Fascist Italy and France's Third and Fourth Re- Lipset, then, is concerned primarily with the publics.94 Finally, one or more set(~)of leaders conditions that make for stable democratic must be outwardly attempting to gain office; systems. While he fails to make many overt otherwise, the power of the governmental group contrasts between classical democratic precepts will grow, and popular influence on its policies and those that he develops, his theory and the will be minimal.95 supporting conditions that he examined clearly In probing the conditions that tend to support suggest major differences with Rousseau and democratic political systems, Lipset found a John Stuart Mill. Moreover, though the theory is strong relationship between (a) higher indices of nearly identical to that of Schumpeter, his wealth, industrialization, education, and ur- analysis of machinery, parties, and voter banization and (b) "more democratic" regimes.96 behavior reflects a heavy sociological concern The degree of consensus and the measure of with empirical evidence (unlike Schumpeter).He legitimacy accorded to political institutions, he moves far beyond Berelson in his comparative felt, are conditioned heavily by the manner in systems analyses and in his probe of favorable which three historic challenges to democratic and unfavorable conditions for democratic systems were handled: the role of the church(es), polities. Finally, though his theory is not as fully the extension of the franchise [especially to developed as Dahl's, Lipset leaves the citizen in a working classes), and the distribution of the democratic system in about the same position as national income. If these three issues are dealt the political scientist did, though with a with-and dealt with successfully-"one at a somewhat greater skepticism about his basic time," then a "value-integration" process will democratic propensities. emerge, and a stable political system will Eckstein also concentrates on the conditions develop.97 which tend to sustain a democratic system. In his In analyzing the political attitudes and A Theory of Stable Democracy, he analyzes the behavior of groups that do not fully share the social and psychological factors producing body of democratic values, Lipset underscores stability in such systems. Like Schumpeter, Dahl, the potential, if not actual, authoritarian tenden- and Lipset, he defines democracy in cies of "working classes," the "fascist" leanings of methodological terms where the electoral pro- various sectors of the middle classes-both here cess decides the outcome of competition for and on the continent-and the oligarchic tenden- power and policies.100 To be stable, however, "its cies of trade unions and political parties. authority pattern" must be "congruent with other authority patterns of the society of which it is a though a value orientation usually is implicit part."lOl He warns that this aspect of social in their respective interpretations of this relations has too frequently been ignored in evidence (and these orientations do not analyses of political behavior and of govern- always agree with one another). mental stability. As he explained it, "it stands to Third, all enunciate or clearly accept a theory reason that if any aspect of social life can directly of democracy that involves "a political affect government it is the experiences with method or a set of institutional arrange- authority that men have in other spheres of life, ments" at the national level.106 With prac- especially those that mold their personalities and tically all of them, the competition between those to which they normally devote most of their and among differing leadership groups for lives."l02 Stability in any government, then, votes provides the chief means by which hinges on the degree of congruency. Yet, among the people participate and exercise some the authority patterns in these differing spheres measure of control. The electoral process of a democratic system, there are some that are is the key element in their theories, and it not susceptible to democratization (i.e., the is this element that most commonly serves raising of youth and the operation of certain as the prime "democratic" feature of their economic organizations). In other words, for theories. The necessary conditions for a Eckstein, critical nongovernmental molders of free electoral process also are usually political behavior even in democratic systems, by stressed or tacitly accepted, including un- necessity, are not, and cannot be, democratic.103 36 iversal suffrage, a free press, and open Yet, some social organizations close to govern- debate. ment are capable of greater "democratic" behavior, and this permits a weak sense-though Fourth, institutional stability and social still a sense-of congruency.1O4 cohesion are prime concerns of most of these Put differently, instability and stress in a dem- theories, growing out of the rise of ocratic system can, for Eckstein, be minimized authoritarian regimes in the 30s, 40s, and 50s if citizens have ample opportunities to learn and the challenges confronting democratic democratic behavioral norms. At the same time, systems in an age of mass media, more he contends that stability requires that the gov- electorates, big bureaucracies and interests, ernmental pattern be in harmony with those in urbanization, and industrial (as well as post- the nongovernmental areas of action, with a industrial) development. Most, therefore, healthy balance between and among "disparate addressed the question of what conditions or elements" and a "healthy element of factors tend to be supportive of a stable authoritarianism" present.105 Thus, stable democratic system. Yet, differences in ap- democracy, for Eckstein, requires, at least in its proach and level of detail emerge with some national governmental institutions and stressing social training and education, processes, a less than "purely" democratic others emphasizing cultural values and the authority pattern. historical evaluation of a particular system, What, then, do these revisionist democratic still others accenting the need for consensus, thinkers provide by way of a composite "contem- a deference towards policymakers and re- porary theory of democracy," as Pateman jection of the delegate theory of represen- phrases it? tation, some stressing the desirability of low to moderate voter turnout and few forms First, all are constitutionalists (that is other than popular participation, and others dedicated to the concept of limited govern- emphasizing the varying meaning of turn- ment, hence a system of regularized out rates and the need for "equal opportuni- restraints on both the governors and the gov- ty" to participate in other than just elections erned); and all reject authoritarian govern- as a means of influencing decisionmakers. mental forms, no matter how their respective Fifth, nearly all of these theorists place the interpretations are viewed by their citizen in a democratic system squarely with egalitarian critics. the heavily pluralistic social and in- Second, all attempt to base their theories on stitutional setting that is its modern founda- what they take to be empirical evidence, tion and not within the unfettered, seemingly atomized, individualistic context of some of democratic theorists generally fall into two the classical theorists. Thus, the categories: those who explicitly take issue with "machinery," the "system," and/or "the the latter's "elitist" precepts and interpretations process" are as significant as the individual and those who develop their own theories for per se. greater citizen participation without special reference to the contemporary theorists. Finally, all stress (or at least accept) the emotional component of politics, political values, and political behavior and the EGALITARIAN COMMENTARIES AND THE oligarchic character of most organized REVITALIZATION OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION groups that influence or mold public policy; though this should not in all cases lead to an The overt critics usually argue that the anti-individualistic, antirational, anti-egali- revisionists have modified the classical theory so tarian labeling. heavily that the philosophic end product is a new conservatism rather than an adaptive democratic Whether a composite "contemporary theory of theory.108 AS Jack Walker contends, "the elitist democracy" can be reconstructed from the theorists, in trying to develop a theory which writings of these (and similar) thinkers depends takes account of the way the political system on how much their points of agreement are actually operates, have changed the principal emphasized and their differences de- orienting values of democracy."10g The "elitist" emphasized.107 It makes a difference, after all, emphasis on "the needs and functions of the 37 whether one feels that limited participation is system" and on "stability and efficiency" in their desirable or whether one finds that it is largely quest for realism, Walker argues, has led to a inevitable on the part of most citizens in a modern changing of the "distinctive prescriptive element democracy. It also makes a difference whether in democratic theory.""O The classical emphasis one is basically sanguine or pessimistic about the on individual participation and human develop- citizenry's individual and collective judgments ment, he further contends, has been replaced and about the viability of the "machinery" that with a "passive role" for the citizen and a reliance has evolved to "operate" a democratic system. on "the high minded sense of responsibility These are contrasting themes and tendencies that of . . . [the system's] . . . leaders.""' Moreover, reveal differences between and among the acceptance, if not idealization, of elites, poses Schumpeter and Berelson, on the one hand, and a basic challenge to the classical democratic Hartz and Dahl, on the other, with Lipset and "moral and absolute belief in the equality of Eckstein falling somewhere between the two man.''flZ groups. How much they individually or collec- These explicit egalitarian critics, then, believe tively depart from, or adhere to, the classical that the contemporary democratic theorists have theory depends on whether a composite classical overlooked the fact that "the classical theory was theory can be accepted and whether the contem- not meant to describe any existing system," but porary theorists are really normative or simply was a "set of prescriptions for the ideal polity empirical in their approach. The idea of consis- which men should strive to create."ll3 If the tent classical theory has been rejected here and "realistic" revisions of these theorists are the parallel points made by the Utilitarians and accepted, the critics warn, their authors in effect some of the 20th century thinkers have already will "become apologists for the existing political been noted. Moreover, the educative dimension order.""4 After all, these egalitarians argue, of participation that one finds in Rousseau, Mill, values underpin the contemporary inter- and Jefferson is not wholly overlooked by all of pretations just as much as they did those of the the contemporary theorists, though admittedly classicists. most of them give it far less emphasis than their In assessing these criticisms, Pateman points critics. And, this brings us to the range of out that the question of their acceptance of a thinkers who have taken issue with these single, coherent, classical democratic tradition contemporary interpretations of democracy inevitably arises. Moreover, the degree of and/or formulated their own theories of citizen philosophic coherence assigned the contem- participation. porary theorists raises another set of questions, Critics of the foregoing contemporary for reasons cited previously. Finally, divisions arise between and among these critics as to provide more opportunity for, not constraints on, whether what they take to be the classical theory greater participation. is prescriptively sound and relevant in any age or The illiberal tendencies of the "common man" is "normatively sound, but unrealistic" for to- must be faced, Bachrach concedes, but such a day.115 confrontation should not necessarily lead to any The last point suggests roughly two ap- idealization of elites. The latter, so the argument proaches to these critics' prescriptions for runs, are not any more prepared to adhere to contemporary democracy. For one group, ex- procedural rights (at the risk of personal status emplified by Walker, the "normative short- and power) than anyone else and they have a comings" of "elitist theory" provided an "uncon- difficult time arriving at the consensus necessary vincing explanation of widespread political to safeguard democracy, especially if they apathy in American society" and ignore operate in an atmosphere that ignores the "manifestations of discontent not directly related citizenry. If it is time to abandon the myth of the to the political system."lle By stripping the common man's allegiance to democracy, traditional democratic creed of its "radical elan," Bachrach cautions, "it is also time that elites in it no longer can serve "as an adequate guide to the general and political scientists in particular future.""' By implication, the traditional par- recognize that without the common man's active ticipatory principle, for these critics, can serve as support, liberty cannot be preserved over the a creative guide to the future, because it is still long run."123 very "relevant to society's pressing needs and With this modern participative theory, 38 urgent problems."ll8 Bachrach attempts to counter various tenets of For Bachrach and others, a new democratic some of the contemporary democratic theorists. theory for the 20th century is needed. This The wider areas of political action, the underly- requires a rejection of the explanatory facets of ing stress on stability, and the analysis of elitist contemporary democratic theorists which tend behavior and values-all reflect a conscious "to accept as unalterable the configuration of attempt to meet his opponents, at least partially, society as shaped by impersonal forces" and "the on their own grounds. At the same time, the growing concentration of elite power."llg Instead, egalitarian thrust, personal developmental ethic, a "modern self-developmental theory of as well as the societal benefits of a broad democracy" must be substituted, one that views participatory process have a Roussean and democracy as both a "political method and Millsian overtone to them. They also parallel ethical end."l20 Walker's less overt emphasis on these tenets of As a political method, certain procedural these classical theorists. principles should apply: universal suffrage Those theorists who focus primarily on a (political equality), freedom of discussion, ma- modern concept of citizen participation jority rule, as well as free and periodic elections. (generally without extensive debate with the Another basic principle, however, is that "the contemporary democratic theorists) include majority of individuals stand to gain in self- some sociologists, social psychologists, and esteem and growth toward a fuller affirmation of political scientists. The chief concern of the their personalities by participating more actively sociologists and social psychologists is "the in meaningful community decisions."l21 And, effect of the loss of community on society as a here the ethical goal of democracy comes into whole."'24 For the political scientists, as the play and with it a degree of indebtedness to analysis of Walker's and Bachrach's writings Rousseau, Jefferson, and Mill. already suggests, the impact of "nonparticipation There should be both a popular interest in the on the individual's psychological and participatory process and in the "end results" of educational development" tends to be the domi- politics. Yet, a modern concept of "political," is nant interest.125 Despite differences in thrust, the needed, Bachrach argues, one that recognizes interpretations and arguments of those two that "large areas within existing so-called groups are not all that clearly demarcated, and private centers of power are political and considerable overlaps occur. Moreover, some of therefore potentially open to a wide and the egalitarian critics of the contemporary democratic sharing in deci~ionmaking."l~~The democratic theorists figure prominently among rich pluralism of the system and the process the political science advocates of citizen participation in that while they attacked the tenets society's primary institutions. A more genuinely of these theorists and embraced the principles of pluralistic and participatory system, therefore, certain classical thinkers, they also enunciated becomes their answer to the urban and industrial their own contemporary rationale for broader forces generating large, seemingly impersonal citizen participation. forces dominated by the oligarchic few. And, for From the sociological perspective,126 the basic some of these theorists, social stability and a societal trend of the past 30 years or so has been viable democratic system will result if these the progressive weakening of such institutions as basic social reforms are instituted. the family, church or synagogue, the small firm, For the egalitarian political scientists, the and especially the community-in short, the psychological effect of nonparticipation and primary areas wherein individuals can interact participation on the individual citizen is the focal and relate with one another, establish alliances, concern.132 At the same time, many of the societal and mount group and, more important, political issues, noted above, are acknowledged by these undertakings.127 For Stein, industrialization, theorists. In fact, the basic factors conditioning urbanization, and bureaucratization have low citizen participation, for them, are about as "ripped apart the fabric of community life" and much societal as they are purely political. More- the resulting erosion of community ties threatens over, the dangers of apathy and disengagement to "shape the destinies of communities and are viewed almost as much in terms of social individuals along irrevocable lines."128 malaise as of a faulty democratic system. Kornhauser finds that the lack of contacts and System stability in the Berelson or Schumpeter cohesion traditionally provided by community sense, then, becomes less of a primary concern, 39 groups leaves the individual today in an though some stress that the individual apathetic and discontented state, while Stein developmental principle, if really applied, rein- claims that the "alienation" of Marx and/or the forces social and political balance and cohesion "anomie" of Durkheim are fast becoming the in the long run. The avenues of personal action actual behavioral traits of more and more include the traditional electoral processes at all individuals in western societies.129 levels, but especially the broad arena of local Nearly all within this group worry about the affairs including program administration.133 Out susceptibility of alienated or anomic people to of this will come a system, as Pateman sum- the manipulation of elites, especially totalitarian marizes, wherein "maximum input (participa- elites. Given the individual's need for some sense tion) is required and where output includes not of community and the weakness of "buffer" just policies (decisions) but also the development institutions like the family, church, and com- of the social and political capabilities of each in- munity organizations, the state tends to stand out dividual."134 as the only provider of their emotional needs.130 Hence, these thinkers fear totalitarian elites. "Group identification," for Kornhauser, and Summary Assessment of "mediating institutions," for Berger, are a Citizen Participation Theory: necessary bulwark of freedom.131 Such an iden- Contrasts and Commonalities tification and such groups protect the less influential from arbitrary manipulation by elites This analysis of major classical democratic or "megastructures," as Berger describes them. theorists, some of the contemporary revisionists, Primary, person-to-person groups, then, need and the egalitarian citizen participation ad- bolstering according to these sociologists. More- vocates reveals significant differences within over, the authority structures of large private and among these three schools of thought. To sector organizations need decentralization to ascribe a common set of principles to any of the strengthen the participatory socialization three is to ignore the significant differences and process. Without these, centralization and ar- emphases that the thinkers within each group bitrary governmental (and elitist) actions will exhibit. The foregoing assessment suggests that become even more pronounced than they are this is as true of the contemporary democratic now. The solution, then, is greater citizen theorists as of the classical, and the citizen activism and a more egalitarian socialization participation proponents, despite a commonly process, and a concomitant strengthening of enunciated principle, vary in their diagnoses of citizen apathy and their prescriptions for aviable system is viewed as having about as many democratic system. elements of democracy as is possible while still Despite the many contrasts, there are com- functioning as a viable polity, a much more monalities within each of the three and even passive interpretation of the citizen's role seems among them. Thus, the classical theorists idealiz- to emerge, as with Schumpeter, Berelson, and ed individualism, reason (with the possible Lipset. exception of Rousseau), political equality, and Another factor affecting the variety of ap- the political procedures necessary to maximize proaches to the citizen's role is the question of the popular will. The contemporary theorists, on governmental (and societal) size. If the basic gov- the other hand, claimed to study and assess the ernmental unit is small (as it was with Rous- machinery of government, the role of elites, the seau's, Jefferson's, and some of Jefferson's latter- realities of 20th century urban and mass society, day adherents' "ward republics"), then a highly and the difficulties (for some the danger) of participative role is sanctioned. If the nation achieving widespread application of the classical state is the primary focus of analysis, then a more active and interested citizen model. Finally, limited, largely electoral role is enunciated (as citizen participation advocates contend that with the Utilitarians, Schumpeter, Berelson, and greater involvement on the part of ordinary Lipset). When a two-tier, federative, and/or citizens is an elemental factor in sustaining a highly pluralistic system is described or healthy social system and a genuine con- prescribed, then a "mixed" theory seems to result, stitutional democracy. Moreover, all of the wherein participation is more limited vis-a-vis 40 theorists discussed herein were or are staunch national governmental institutions, but much defenders of constitutional democracy (meaning broader at the local level and in societal groups. a system of some sort of restraints on both the Mill, Lippmann (by inference), Hartz, Dahl, and governers and the governed), civil liberties, Eckstein, in differing ways demonstrate this political equality (and "universal" suffrage), free tendency. and contested elections (save for the direct demo- A related factor is the degree of complexity that crat-Rousseau), and popular majorities. the theorist finds in public policies and issues. Why, then, does the debate continue if there is For different reasons, Rousseau and Jefferson basic agreement on such fundamental principles? tended to view governmental questions in The debate arises, of course, because of the real or relatively uncomplicated terms, and both enun- alleged differences both within and among the ciated a sanguine view of the citizen's par- three schools of democratic theory as to the ticipatory capacity. With the Utilitarians and actual and potential capacity of most citizens for John Stuart Mill, national agenda issues were a fullsome civic life. This, in turn, involves considered more complex, so the agency theory of varying views about leadership, the relation- representation was rejected. For nearly all of the ship between the citizenry and its political contemporary democratic theorists-especially leaders, the real meaning of equality, and Lippmann and Schumpeter-20th century methods of assuring social change while preser- national and international issues were extremely ving social stability. intricate, requiring access to a vast amount of A basic factor in a thinker's treatment of these complex information as well as a sufficiently issues is, of course, the historical period and large amount of time in which to make reasoned political system in which he lived. To the extent decisions based upon that information; hence that he was attempting to prescribe an ideal their skepticism about the ordinary voter's democratic polity as a radical contrast to a ability to cope continuously with such matters. starkly undemocratic one, then a highly op- At the same time, Hartz, Dahl, and Eckstein see timistic view of the average citizen's rational, more than a mere electoral role for some citizens societal, and civic capacities is usually enun- in the national decisionmaking process, thanks to ciated, as with Rousseau, Jefferson, and some of the role of interest groups. Even with some of the today's citizen participation proponents. To the citizen participation theorists, the complexity degree that a system is being "improved," but not issue, though rarely treated frontally, is given totally overhauled, a more measured assessment tacit recognition by their focus on greater local of the citizen's role tends to come into play, as and group participation efforts. with the Utilitarians and Dahl. Finally, where the The ultimate factor in the theorists' varying views on citizen participation, however, is the conflict between Jeffersonian idealism and extent to which such views depend fundamental- Hamiltonian realism (and, some would say, Jef- ly on the mass of citizens participating in more fersonian pragmatism). than simply the electoral process. Here, contrasting principles of individual development Expanding the Electorate and education come into play, as do differing views about the nature and extent of constraints ENFRANCHISING WHITE MALES that limit individual improvement. For Rous- seau, Jefferson, John Stuart Mill (to a lesser Despite the egalitarian and libertarian themes degree), and most of the contemporary citizen of the Declaration of Independence, significant participation proponents, governmental and property holding, tax paying, and, in some cases, social systems are more the hurdles than any religious (not to mention racial, sexual, and age) frailties in human nature or reason. With the qualifications constrained the suffrage until the Utilitarians, Schumpeter, Berelson, and Lipset, admission of the first "western states" into the the "machinery of government" issue is just as Union and the advent of Jacksonian democracy. important as the issue of individual develop- "The general pattern was, first, to eliminate the ment. Hence, they hold more restrictive views on property-owning qualifications and to substi- citizen participation. But for Lippmann, Dahl, tute tax paying requirements which was, in turn, and Eckstein, the individual and his need to removed."l35 Moreover, nearly all of the newly participate are not forgotten, even though the entering "western" states extended the vote 41 inevitably limiting nature of modern in- without property tax or tax conditions, thus termediary institutions is fully recognized. providing much of the political base for the Many contrasts, some common points of agree- Jacksonianmovement. In the older eastern states, ment, a stream of continuity from some theorists however, some conflict emerged. in the classical period to those in later ones, but Between 1778 and 1842, eight of the original 13 many discontinuities between them-these are states moved to eliminate the tax payingrequire- the themes that emerge from this analysis of ment. The ensuing debate was sometimes democratic theory and theorists. spirited and revolved around philosophical as well as practical issues. Thus, in the New York Constitutional Convention of 1821, Chancellor PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE: Kent warned that "the tendency of universal ITS EVOLUTION suffrage is to jeopardize the rights of property and the principles of liberty."l36 Nonetheless, The American history of putting into practice ignoring the Chancellor's admonition, New York democratic principles relating to citizen par- removed the property requirement. ticipation involves three differing but in- During the Virginia Constitutional Convention terrelated movements: (1) a continuing effort to (1829-30), on the other hand, conservatives expand the suffrage, stretching over a period of a successfully dominated the suffrage debate. century and a half; (2)perennial drives beginning Setting the traditional tone, John Randolph in the 1820s to "reform" the political processes by convincingly cautioned his fellow Virginians which candidates are nominated; and (3) recurr- that "the lust of innovation has been the death of ing efforts to expand direct popular control of all republics."'37 Furthermore, his conservative government(s). In these three movements, one stance prevailed until 1850 when the state finally finds an unending attempt to give practical lifted its property qualification. meaning to the precepts of popular sovereignty, By the end of the 1850s, with only four states political equality, individual rights, and majority clinging to tax paying requirements, most of the rule, as well as to redefine the nature of elitism, barriers to universal white male sufferage had minority privilege, and antipopular practices in been eroded. (Yet, even today some jurisdictions light of changing social, economic, and political restrict voting on bond issues to persons paying conditions. From one vantage point, this sage of property taxes.) While many of the early conser- American democratization may be viewed as an vative arguments against extending the suffrage evolving practical realization of Jeffersonian appear, in retrospect, self-serving, special in- principles. From another, it reflects a continuing terest motivated, and emotionally antiurban, the concern of some about the possible manipulation practical effects, as in Guinn v. U.S. (1915) where or control of propertyless voters by the more the "grandfather clause" of the Oklahoma Con- affluent is a theme that later liberal reformers stitution was struck down.141 and even some contemporary citizen participa- After 1900, the emergence of the so-called tion advocates would echo. "white primary" proved to be a particularly effective means of practical black disen- BLACK VOTING EMANCIPATION franchisement in the one-party southern states where a primary win was tantamount to election. Of all the hurdles confronting the tendency Litigation over this device centered on whether a toward universal suffrage, the racial has been the political party could do what a state was banned highest. Paradoxically, the drive for white male from doing. It took two decades and four major, universal suffrage during the Jacksonian era was but varying decisions to arrive at a final opinion. accompanied by efforts in northern states to That decision, based upon 15th amendment disenfranchise free black men.138 "In the end, prohibitions, forbade party primaries the use of enslaved blacks without liberty," as Gordon S. discriminatory practices, for the primary was Wood phrased it, "and free blacks without judged an "integral part" of the electoral citizenship were such contradictions of the process.142 In this, as in other cases, the Court's revolutionary ideals (of popular sovereignty and delays related to the unwillingness of Congress political equality) that sooner or later those and the Presidency to involve themselves with the issue and their tacit acceptance of the 42 contradictions had to tear the country apart."l39 Following the Civil War, when northerners assumption that certain basic social changes debated alternative approaches to reconstruction would have to occur before the issue could be in the south, they advanced slowly but steadily resolved in a politically realistic climate. toward black suffrage. With the Reconstruction By the 50s and especially the 60s, the climate Act of 1867, the 14th amendment, and especially clearly had changed and the political branches of the 15th amendment, politics, post-war cir- the national government, after more than 80 cumstances, and some idealism combined to years, again moved even more boldly into the erase legal barriers to suffrage on the basis of voting rights area. With the Civil Rights Acts of race. For about eight years, assisted by the 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965, and 1970 (and especially presence of military force, black enfrancisement the specific and effective voting protections of (and carpetbagger governments) was a reality in the latter two), and the 24th amendment (antipoll the south. With the removal of troops in 1877 and tax amendment ratified in 1964), black voter the return of white political supremacy, a series registration in the south soared, and southern of formal (gerrymandering, complicated registra- politics have been transformed. tion procedures, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.) and informal (intimidation) techniques were WOMEN'S LIBERATION: PHASE ONE used to curtail black voting. By the turn of the century, blacks were generally disenfrancised in The initial drive for women's suffrage was all southern states. linked with the abolitionists' crusade to end Over the next half century, the political slavery. This campaign made some gains in its branches of the national government assiduously effort to remove the legal disabilities of women avoided confronting the gap between con- and to gain the right to vote in school elections. stitutional precept and practice, largely because By 1890, 14 states had granted this right and by it was assumed that force alone could make black 1896, four western states had given equal rights suffrage a reality in Dixie.l40 This left the matter to women in all voting matters, with seven more to the Supreme Court and a string of cases joining the ranks between 1910 and 1914 during emerged dealing with state statutes whose the heyday of the Progressive movement. practical effects, but not constitutional form, ran The drive for national action, though a half counter to the clear prohibitions of the U.S. century old, only began to take on an aura of Constitution. Sometimes the Court focused militancy by roughly 1913. By a dextereous narrowly on legal form, as in Williams v. combination of utilizing electoral strength in Mississippi (28983 and Giles v. Harris (1903) and those states where women had the vote and a at other times it went beyond form to probe series of vigorous, direct presentations of the suffragettes' case for an amendment to the U.S. minimum age to 18 for all elections. Rapid state Constitution in Washington, the Wilson Ad- actions brought about ratification by mid-1971. ministration and the Congress finally reconciled themselves to the proposed 19th amendment. By SIGNIFICANCE OF 1920, the requisite number of state legislatures EXPANDING THE ELECTORATE had acted favorably and another chapter (or at least the legal portion of it) in the evolution of What, then, do these efforts to expand the American universal suffrage had been written. electorate signify? The ultimate success of these Accompanying this roughly four-score year movements suggests that the basic legal barriers campaign for political equality was a continuing to achieving universal suffrage, one of the most debate over women's role in and capacity for elemental goals of citizen participation, have political affairs. Many of the arguments on both been overcome, though it took 180 years to sides of the question were forerunners of those achieve this rough realization of Jefferson's ideal enunciated more recently in the Equal Rights of political equality. Citizenship, residence, and Amendment debate. Yet, the increasing political disqualifications on criminal or mental grounds, strength of already enfranchised women, the as well as the voter registration process itself, growing role of Gomen in the labor force still are formal constraints imposed to greater or (especially during World War I), and their lesser degrees in all states. From the very heightened militancy during the second decade of beginning, the states have provided the legal this century combined to overcome inertia, definitions of suffrage and voter registration, 43 traditionalism, and the sexist critiques of that constrained, of course, by the prohibitions of day, not to mention the liquor interests and some certain US. constitutional amendments. And, corporate forces who feared that their interests these voting requirements do curb voter par- might be jeopardized by the extension of the vote ticipation, especially on the part of the more to women.143 mobile among Yet, when compared to the property, racial, sexual, and age barriers of the THE VOTE FOR YOUTH past, these must be considered minor and random in their effect, if not rational in their purpose. In The drive to extend the franchise to younger effect, then, ours has become largely a self- citizens is the last and most recent of the major defining electorate.146 efforts to achieve universal suffrage. As recently Historically, the expansion of the suffrage has as the 1968 elections, 46 states adhered to the been interpreted as a shift or even a drastic traditional voting age requirement of 21 years. change in the basis, distribution, and exercise of Georgia, in the midst of World War 11, had political power. In American terms, this was lowered its requirement to 18 years, responding reflected most drastically (1) with the emergence to the appeal of "Fight at 18, vote at 18." of the Jacksonian movement's egalitarian, Counterpart efforts in certain other states western, and populist program thrusts and produced no positive results, nor did President political style, and (2) with the enfranchisement Eisenhower's proposed constitutional amend- of 1.4 million southern black voters in the late 60s ~entin 1954. Kentucky joined Georgia the and its marked impact on campaigns for and the following year, however, as did Hawaii and exercise of political power in that region. Both of Alaska later (but with a 20-year requirement for these developments, of course, were associated the former and 19 for the latter). with a specific move toward broadening the The renewed drive in the 60s encountered franchise. nearly as much opposition until Congress in 1970 At the same time, the vote obviously is not the enacted a statute extending the suffrage to 18- only factor constituting political power. As V.O. year olds in both federal and state elections. Key pointed out some time ago, "disenfranchised Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court held in a groups have gained the right to vote without test case that the measure was constitutional as it being able to exert the power of the suffrage," as related to federal contests, but unconstitutional with southern blacks following Reconstruction, as it applied to state and local races.144Congress, and in some cases "the disenfranchised have had then, moved swiftly to pass and send to the states power enough to demand and to obtain the vote," a constitutional amendment reducing the as with white males and women.147 In policy terms, it is difficult to associate any First, our system places a heavier burden on specific extension of the vote with program the electorate-thanks to our distinctive fed- enactments that specifically benefitted the newly eral system-than others, involving typical- enfranchised group, though most efforts at ly between six to ten primaries and general extension were usually associated with related elections over a four-year period. drives for substantive legislative changes. With the suffrage, a group is in a better position to Second, participation generally varies exten- promote and especially to protect its interest, but sively between and among Presidential, mid- positive legislative enactments are subject to the term Congressional, non-Presidential year interplay of multiple political, social, and gubernatorial, and off-year local contests. economic interests, and this interplay usually is Put differently, turnout increases from local, enriched by every successive broadening of the to state, to national elections, especially franchise. A "concert of interests" must be when held separately. orchestrated for such enactments, then, and this Third, in social or demographic terms, study complicates the task of discerning specific after study has shown that turnout is higher program benefits flowing to newly enfranchised among men (though the margin, as was groups. noted, has narrowed greatly in recent years), In terms of actual voter participation, what the better educated and higher income have these extensions achieved? The Presiden- groups, whites, the middle aged (35-64),and tial election figures for the period 1824-60 the employed.151 Behind these many 44 indicate a steady increase in voting turn-out, differences, two factors emerge as the jumping most drastically from 26.9% of the primary social-economic indices of higher potential white male electorate in 1824 to 57.6% in voter participation: income and educational 1828 and the election of Andrew Jackson,upward to over four-fifths of this potential electorate by 1860.148 Fourth, certain attitudes tend to be The advent of the 19th amendment was associated with the regular voter and others associated with a sharp fall-off in overall with the nonparticipant. Earlier behavioral participation of eligibles from 68% in 1916 to studies showed that the former was more 52.3% in 1920 and 41.0% in 1924. Political likely to be interested in politics, to know the historians have explained this largely in terms of candidates and key issues, to be more the failure, during the early elections following partisan, to feel more obligated to vote, and the amendment's enactment, of women of work- to possess a greater sense of "political ing class and first and second generation efficacy" (i.e., voting makes a difference and American background to exercise their right of voters can influence the actions of decision- franchise.149 The candidacy of A1 Smith in 1928, makers).l53 These, of course, are not un- however, did much to end this pattern of related to the income and educational fac- noninvolvement. By the 70s, less than two tors, noted above, and to the experiences and percentage points separated the rates of male and expectations that such citizens have. At the female participation in the 1972 and 1976 same time, recent opinion studies underscore Presidential contests. the decline in partisanship in the late 60s and With our contemporary sophisticated tools for 70s, the increase in issue voting, the growing measuring turnout, it is somewhat easier to lack of confidence about the system, and gauge the participation impact of the 26th paradoxically somewhat greater activism amendment. In the 1972 national elections, over and involvement (than was the case with the 50% of the 18-to-20-year-old group did not vote, political generation of the ~OS).'~~Moreover, and four years later this figure had risen to 62°/~.150 most of these tendencies cut across None of these findings should come as any educational, age, and social categories. What great surprise to even a casual observer of our this suggests is a much more "volatile electoral scene. Experts have developed several electorate" where elections "turn more on explanations of the greater tendency toward short-term forces" and where voters become nonvoting in America than in other con- more dissatisfied with the political process stitutional democracies. even as they become more involved in it.155 By inference, then, some of the traits ascrib- mean far more than the vote. The vote, after ed to the nonvoter in the past (a weak sense all, even if extended universally, is but one of political self-confidence and feelings of facet of political power and one condi- powerlessness and alienation) are shared by tioner-albeit powerful-of our political a majority of the electorate as a whole, with processes. some exercising the franchise but others failing to. Witness the decline in turnout Democratizing the Nominating Process among the college educated and the employed between the 1968 and 1976 Presidential elections.156 Closely linked to the successive efforts to Fifth, in political party terms, extension of universalize the franchise have been companion the vote and low or high turnouts have efforts to reform and democratize the nominating exerted considerable influence historically. processes. It may be currently out of vogue to cite Where politics are competitive, an "in-group" the generalization of E.E. Schattschneider that frequently seeks to broaden its base by the "the political parties created democracy and admission of potential allies from outside. modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms Hence, the Jacksonian effort on the part of of parties."l59 Yet, as much of the foregoing disenfranchised white males, the Republican chronicle of expanding the vote suggests and the effort to enfranchise southern blacks during evolution of "reformed" nominating procedures will show-this statement is basically accurate Reconstruction, and the drive by Roosevelt 45 Democrats to activate heretofore passive when viewed from a historical perspective. urban electorates. In the more recent period, the general assumption has been that a large KILL "KING CAUCUS" turnout favors the Democrats, while "rainy weather is Republican weather."l57 At pre- Most nominations for local office were made by sent, however, with the decline in par- informal mass meetings, or caucuses, of local tisanship and the increasing difficulty of party supporters during the Federalist- clearly identifying a party's loyal electorate, Jeffersonian Republication period (1790-1820). such generalizations are becoming less ac- At the state level, initially, party members in the curate. legislature nominated candidates for statewide office. To correct the resulting geographic Finally, and from the vantagepoint of the imbalance "mixed caucuses" emerged in the first American democratic tradition, the suffrage decade of the last century, which were composed has assumed "such a transcendent of legislators and delegates elected from districts significance that it has sometimes obscured that lacked legislative representation.lB0 At the the substance of democratic politics and has national level, the Congressional caucus emerged led to an exaggeration of the real power of the by 1800 as the basic device for nominating legal right to vote."l58 The suffrage was [and presidential and vice presidential candidates. is) viewed as a symbol of citizenship and its The Republican one party, multifactional possession, as conveying a range of rights. politics of the mid-1820s, however, acted to As the drives for adult white male suffrage, terminate the ascendancy of this device. The black enfranchisement and the 19th and 26th nomination of William H. Crawford of Georgia in amendments attest, extending the vote has 1824 by the heavily boycotted Republican Con- perennially been cited as a basic instrument gressional caucus, and his poor showing in the for reform-a basic means of solving in- subsequent four-way Presidential canvass tricate social problems. While efforts to (along with the violent attacks on the caucus by achieve a greater political integration by the supporters of Jackson, Clay, and Adams) broadening the franchise have furthered the ended its use at the national level. goal of political equality and universal A variety of state-based mechanisms suffrage, they could not have succeeded (legislatures, mixed caucuses, and conventions) without the egalitarian ethic of our were utilized as presidential nominating devices traditional political processes. Moreover, for a brief period, until the dominant factions in political equality in practice has come to both of the two emerging parties found it in their interest to convene anational party convention to three fronts. First was the campaign for adoption nominate the two top national candidates (in of the Australian ballot. At the local level, this 1831, for the National Republicans and in 1832 produced legally nonpartisan elections in for the Jacksonian Democrats). The device itself, numerous jurisdictions, wherein the party labels it should be noted, had been launched in 1830 by of candidates were (and are) not listed on an the first "third party" in our history, the Anti- official and secret ballot. At the state level, most Masonic Party. And, the national convention has followed Indiana's early lead in adopting the remained the sole nominating mechanism down system wherein general election ballots are to our own time-though with basic changes in printed, distributed, and counted by public representation, convention rules and, above all, officials, marked in secret, and contain the party selection of delegates. label next to the candidate's name. As early as At the state, district, and county levels, 1892,31states had adopted some form of the new conventions also emerged as the dominant system and two decades later practically all had nominating method, with "precinct conventions" acted. and caucuses generally prevailing locally. In Second, most states were propelled into form, at least, it provided a more democratic enacting extensive legal codes that regulated in means of "transmitting, from local assemblies, great detail the internal affairs of state and local the wishes and impulses of the mass of party parties, largely as a necessary follow-up to the membership to a central point, where the adoption of the partisan version of the Australian selection of nominees was made."l61 Beginning ballot. These included: what committees and 46 with California and New York in 1866, however, conventions they were obliged to have, what legislatures moved to regulate these and other procedures were to be used in selecting their party affairs. With the former, advance public adherents, who could join in making party notice of party nominating conclaves was re- decisions, and what authority one party unit had, quired and qualifications for participation were if any, over another.165 The result, of course, was stipulated. The statute applied, however, only if to complete the conversion of the state/local a party requested it.162 In the New York case, the political parties from private associations to law was mandatory, but it only proscribed public agencies. intimidation and bribery in the conduct of party Third, and most dramatic of all, was the drive conventions and caucuses.163 for the direct primary. This, of course, con- Over the next two decades, other states took stituted a frontal attack on the nominating parallel regulatory action against various convention as a legitimate organ of represen- manifestations of boss control and manipulation, tative party governance. Despite the attempts to though the result was a varied assortment of regulate its "abuses," the reformers felt that only limited, general, mandatory, and optional with the direct primary could the people "cut statutes.1B4 Thus began the process of civilizing through the mesh of organized and privileged the party conventions and of making American power and group control of the government."le6 parties at the state and local levels the most Only a direct democratic device could represent regulated in the world. the people's will, and no matter how representative a convention might be, it always would fall THE PROGRESSIVE REFORMS short of this goal. Wisconsin, under the leadership of Robert M. Beginning in the mid-90s and extending over LaFollette, became the first state to institute a the next quarter of a century, a wave of new statewide primary in 1903, though South reforms hit the party organizations. All were Carolina's Democratic Party had used it as a geared to achieving the Progressive goal of "let nominating device as early as 1891. A decade and the people rule." In the political arena, this meant a half later, all but four states had taken some cleansing the process and the institutions of action and in 32, a comprehensive and mandatory corruption, vested interest domination, and law was enacted. As V.O. Key pointed out, while bossism. The results of progressive efforts were the drive for the primary is usually viewed as an to transform the political system. Their impact is outgrowth of the Progressives' democratic im- still very much with us. pulse, it can also be viewed as a logical outgrowth This campaign to reform politics operated on of political conditions in states that had one- party or near one-party systems where factional not support these Progressive promises. They all battles were difficult to resolve in the context of a show that turnout is much lower in primaries convention.lfl7 than in general elections, save for the south The multiple forms of the primary-open (eight during the era when one-party Democratic states], closed (39 states), blanket or "free love" ascendancy was the rule. They show that many (three states), and nonpartisan (two states and primaries are not contested, especially where an thousands of local jurisdictions]-need not be incumbent is running for renomination or where detailed here, save to note that the variations the primary winner is sure to l0se.170 Longer relate directly to the degree to which the device is incumbent tenure and the primary, at least in the intended to be antiparty organization and case of Congressional members, seem to be presumably pro-people. directly related, if the record from 1870-1910 is At present, 36 states require a primary for all compared to that of 1910 to 1970. They show that major party nominations for state offices as well those who do vote in primaries usually are as most local p0sts.~88In the south, it is man- unrepresentative of the parties' membership as a datory for the Democrats, but still optional for whole, and in recent years this has provided both the Republicans in three instances. Nine states of the major parties with more than a few have "mixed" systems, combining state conven- headaches. They suggest that primaries have tions and primaries to varying degrees and the curbed, if not totally eliminated, old-style boss remaining pair stipulate it for only selected state control of nominations and, some would add, any posts, though most local offices are covered by party control as well.171 Finally, they show that 47 the primary device. the primaries have tended to promote a greater The substitution of the primary for the special interest group role in the nominating convention as a means of selecting delegates to process, reflected in part in candidate-based national party conventions, of course, produced campaign organizations. the major modification of the presidential These findings clearly raise basic doubts as nominating process in this century. Its populari- to the goals anticipated by the early advocates ty among the states, however, has been uneven of the direct primary. The low turnout, un- over the more than three-score years that it has representative, interest-group manipulative been in use-rising to an early peak of 18 states in features of the device collide directly with the 1924, slipping steadily downward over the next higher turnout, undistorted popular, and non- four decades, to the 15 state mark as recently as elitist control results which the Progressives 1968, and then moving rapidly to 23 in 1972 and promised. The issue of better candidates is too 26 in 1976. subjective to permit judgments to be made, and But, what of the results of the primary in the smashing success of its antiparty thrust general and in light of its promises, five of which raises as many new problems as it solved old were suggested by the Progressive reformers:l69 ones. -Boss rule would be ended, because it would RECENT REFORMS be impossible to bribe or intimidate thousands of voters. Recent political reforms largely have been -Voter turnout would increase, as would directed toward asserting national party control voter interest in politics generally, since over the membership of their own organizations voters would be involved in all stages of the and adopting more open procedures for selecting electoral process. national convention delegates (assuring more representative convention~).l~~The second set of -The quality of candidates would improve. reforms is of special concern here because it -The "direct and undistorted expression of the involves new efforts to enhance voter involve- people's will" would be produced. ment in the political arena and is part of the broader contemporary movement to enhance -The individual citizen's independence would citizen participation generally. be enhanced, since the responsibility for Growing out of the bitter factional battles at political control would be hislhers. the 1968 Democratic Convention, the Commis- Unfortunately, studies of primary elections do sion on Party Structure and Delegate Selection (McGovern-Eraser Commission) was establish- political process in our national history" (in ed. From it, came a series of proposed guidelines referring to the process in 1972 by which he was which the national committee later adopted in nominated) is another matter.175Implicit in this toto, including the abolition of proxy voting, the drive, after all, were (and are) themes that unit rule, "favorite son" delegations, and the dominated earlier party reform efforts: conduc- requirement that each state's delegation be ting political deliberations openly and in the full representative of the demographic traits of the view of the citizenry; ending any undemocratic, state's population as a whole. Furthermore, the arbitrary and manipulative role on the part of 1972 convention voted not to seat any delegation party organizations, their leaders or their rules; in 1976 that had been selected in a "winner-take- converting political processes and organizations all" or an "open" primary and the principle of that are not directly democratic into institutions equal state representation on the national com- and processes that are fully representative of all mittee was scrapped in favor of a system that sectors of the citizenry; and facilitating a much reflected more accurately Democratic voting more active role by the individual citizen in party strength in the various states.17=In the wake of activities. These, as we have seen, are not recent the 1972 debacle, some of these reforms were but perennial political reform goals and, in a somewhat modified with a view toward sense, reflect a synthesis of Jacksonian and placating elected officeholders at all levels and Progressive norms. applying flexibility to demographic quotas when Factional power struggles within the parties, it came to determining the representativeness of however, have usually generated the campaigns 48 a state's delegation. for change, and the recent drive was no exception Only slightly later, the Republicans launched a to this historical generalization. At the same similar though less heralded effort. In 1968, their time, a democratic, egalitarian impulse was national convention directed the national com- resurgent within the body politic in all of these mittee to develop the means of implementing the reform periods, and this raises the question of GOP's Rule 32 which stipulates that participa- whether the parties react to broad secular tion in party activities "shall in no way be developments or vice versa. abridged for reasons of race, religion, color, or national origin."l74 A year later, the chairman of The specific thrusts of the recent reforms- the national committee appointed the Committee openness, access, and representativeness-no on Delegates and Organization which proposed doubt produced changes, as did previous efforts. ten new rules, most of which sought the same Most would agree that there was indeed greater goals as the McGovern-Eraser Commission's participation in both the 1972 and 1976 presiden- guidelines. At the 1972 convention, most of these tial nominating processes, and that both party rules were adopted and applied to the delegate- conclaves were different in composition (the selecting process for the 1976 party conclave. Democrats more than the Republicans) than their predecessors of the 60s or 50s. Yet, basic When these efforts by both parties over the questions remain: ~astdecade are viewed from a historical perspective, they emerge as the most vigorous campaign Of what should a party deliberative body be for greater and more direct democracy in in- representative? Party members? Activist traparty affairs since the first two decades of this party members? Active and passive party century, if not the 1820s and 1830s. And, the members? Followers, but not leaders? Both? mome&n behind the movement is by no means The electorate as a whole? expended. Witness the continuing interest in Does greater representativeness, however some form of a national presidential primary, the defined and made operational, enhance evolving role of the federal judiciary in electability? The record is anything but clear regulating the processes of the national parties, here, though it generally suggests a negative and the continuing debate between and among response. varying groups within both parties over the wisdom of some recent reforms. Does enhanced political participation, in That most of the reforms will stand, there fact, create new representation (i.e., elitist seems little doubt. Whether they sustain what and minority dominated party decisions) Senator George McGovern called "the most open problems, given the perennial phenomenon of active and passive citizen political federal government clearly did not fully escape behavior? their notice. Do citizens feel any better about the parties THE JACKSONIAN IMPACT as a result of these reforms? Recent surveys would suggest a more negative overall Linked directly to the effort to extend the attitude than at any other point in this suffrage to white adult males was the parallel century, though the linkage between these drive to eliminate additional qualifications for general opinions and the recent reforms is office holding. Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi, not at all that clear. Alabama, and Missouri all came into the Union Above all, perhaps, does the absence of (1816-21) with constitutions that opened up authoritative party organizations enhance political office to the entire eligible electorate. As the individual's access to and control over with the suffrage, the issue was less easily his or her governments? In a very real sense, resolved in the east. In a few instances (i.e., this is the ultimate question facing the Massachusetts) property qualifications applied parties and our citizenry in the remaining to high state offices until the latter part of the decades of this century. century, though in most states additional requirements of a property or religious nature were While relating to political topics primarily, eliminated by the 1850s.176 these issues and the manner in which the nation Accompanying the campaign to open up grapples with them have long term systemic 49 implications. In truth, they all relate to our existing elective offices to all within the eligible capacity to adapt or reconcile America's political electorate was a major drive to expand the tradition with its heavily Jeffersonian imprint to number of offices to be filled by popular election. a political (and governmental) system that This manifestation of popular sovereignty presently is more constrained by a virulent form brought a range of state and local administrative of special interest factionalism (that would have offices, that formerly and especially in eastern bewildered Madison) than it is by the cabals, states had been filled by appointment, within the conspiracies, and controlled candidates and electoral process. agendas of party elites. The movement really began at the municipal level, where up until about 1820, all mayors had been selected by their Governors or city councils. Over the next two decades, however, and Expanding Direct beginning with Boston and St. Louis in 1822, Popular Control of Governments charter changes converted the office into a popularly elective post, and by 1840 it had Efforts to put into practice Jefferson's ideals of become general practice in nearly all of the political equality and popular sovereignty have nation's municipalities.177 Accompanying this involved far more than broadening the franchise drive was a parallel effort to make other city and democratizing the nominating process. administrative officials elective. This campaign Eliminating "artificial" barriers to officeholding, was resisted by the councils (which exercised the expanding the number of posts that are directly appointive power] and generally was more elected, democratizing the public .service, successful west of the Alleghenies than in developing procedures by which the electorate eastern municipalities.178 In addition, the move- directly can make (or reject) laws or "unmake" ment focused on state statutory offices, the full public officials, and a comparable effort to range of county offices, and, in the 1840s and expand the opportunities of citizens to influence 1850s, on constitutional offices. Hence, with the (and participate in) administrative, decision- New York, Illinois, and Ohio constitutions of making are all part of this evolving saga of 1846, 1848, and 1851 respectively, most of the American democratization. In these various major state executive offices were made elec- efforts, citizen participation was given new tive.179 Perhaps the most drastic example of this meaning and more arenas for actual practice. drive for direct election was a proposal advanced While state and local governments were the in the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1847 primary focus of most of these "reforms," the that "there shall be elected by popular vote all the clerks required in the offices of treasurer, undermined by later campaigns for the "short auditor, and secretary of state."l80 Though this ballot," administrative reforms, and greater motion failed, the clerk of the supreme court was executive accountability. made an elective post. Abolition of special qualifications for office As the foregoing would suggest, the judiciary holding, and expanding the range of elective was not ignored by the Jacksonian proponents of state-local administrative and judicial offices, greater popular control of government. A few both were lasting contributions of the state constitutions adopted before the movement Jacksonians to increasing the points of access to was launched provided for direct election of and the chances for political and electoral judges of inferior courts (Georgia (1812) and participation in these governments. When com- Indiana (1816)),but Mississippi's constitution of bined with their broadening of the franchise, 1832 was the first to extend the procedure to its application of Jefferson's rotation-in-office prin- supreme court.181 After a lull, New York followed ciple (producing the patronage system),and their suit in 1846, despite heavy conservative and even enunciation of a "tribunician theory"l83 of ex- moderate opposition. Between 1846 and 1860,23 ecutive power (at both the national and state states in various parts of the country adopted the levels), these efforts began a trend toward system of an elective judiciary, either in whole or decentralization that most later reform efforts in part.l82 only expanded upon. Out of these efforts to expand the practical application of popular sovereignty came a more THE PUSH FROM THE PROGRESSIVES 50 representative system of state and local governments, the emergence of mass political parties, Building on many of the Populists' proposals and the "long ballot." With the election of a half and adding more than a few of their own, the dozen or more principal state administrative Progressives (1900-20) both added to, and occa- officers, a roughly equal number at the county sionally departed from, the Jacksonian efforts to level, and a varying number of judicial officers, expand direct popular control of government by the typical voter at the end of the Jacksonian making it more representative, more responsi- period faced a balloting experience and a political ble, and more responsive. Growing partly out of participation opportunity that probably would the lingering western agrarianism (and Popu- have dumbfounded his father and certainly his list) discontent, and partly out of a largely middle counterpart abroad in those few nations that then class revolt in the east and in big urban centers, provided for free elections. this movement sought in various ways to bring This legacy from the Jacksonian era, of course, "the interests" ("trusts," "Wall Street," the is still very much with us, despite later counter- "political bosses"] to heel and to establish a trends. Election continues to be the dominant "people's government." Their program had social, method of selection for all or most of the judicial economic, political, and governmental reform offices in 25 states, and elections are partisan in components to it, and their supporters came from 14 of these. With state administrative officials, both of the major parties as well as from the other than the Governor and lieutenant governor, Progressive party which Theodore Roosevelt four on the average still are directly elected by organized in 1912. the voters, with four states having between eight One of the early reforms was directed toward and ten key offices to fill in this manner. the U.S. Senate. Direct election of Senators had At the local level, reliable figures are hard to been advocated as far back as 1828. Yet, it took come by, but one estimate of elected offices puts the changed constitutional status of the states the current count at the 508,000 mark, Clearly, following the Civil War, the narrowly special the "long ballot," though not so long as it was interest role played by certain senators during three generations ago, still stands as a vivid the "Guilded Age," and the growing practice of symbol of heavy citizen obligation and of a rich permitting voters to indicate their U.S. Sena- opportunity for citizen participation. The Jackso- torial preference in state legislative elections184to nian impulse toward enthroned popular bring things to a head in 1913 when the 17th sovereignty through broadening direct citizen amendment was adopted. The effects of this control of governmental offices at the state and amendment are still being debated. The character local levels clearly has not been substantially and composition of the Senate did change subsequently and political bosses, retinue million- championed by William Jennings Bryan in 1896, aires, and "corporate pensionaires" were far South Dakota was the first state to apply the fewer.185 How much of this was a product of the initiative to ordinary legislation (1898). The amendment or parallel Progressive efforts to de- initiative generally confers a positive right to the stroy urban and state political machines is diffi- voters, wherein they may attempt to secure cult to discern. It appears more clear, however, legislation that the legislature refuses or fails to that directly elected Senators have been far less pass. The referendum, on the other hand, has a willing to serve as spokesmen of their states-in more negative cast, since it enables the voters to a state governmental sense-than their prevent the enactment of measures they deem legislatively selected predecessors. unwise. With South Dakota, a constitutional At the state and local levels, new procedures- amendment was enacted that permitted the rather than Jacksonian extensions-were in- people to present legislation by petition to the stituted to maximize popular control and gov- assembly, and the latter was given the option of ernmental responsiveness. During the first two enacting the measure or referring it back to the decades of this century, the initiative, referen- electorate for approval or rejection at the next dum, and recall were enacted in some form by 21 general election.190 The Oregon amendment of states.186 Los Angeles launched the recall in 1903. four years later permitted both constitutional Less than 25 years later, roughly 1,500 ,other amendments and regular statutory measures to cities had enacted ordinances requiring that a be proposed by petition and these, in turn, were special election be held pursuant to a petition required to be presented to the voters in the next from a stated number or percentage of the voters general election for approval or rejection. Most 51 to determine whether a public official should be later enactments followed the Oregon model and removed from office.187 Oregon extended the by 1914, 18 states had adopted the initiative for recall to state officials in 1908, followed by 11 ordinary legislation, while 12 of these extended it others over the next dozen years (with seven of to constitutional amendments as well.191 A dozen these applying it to judges).l88 Thirty-nine states years later, nearly half the states had enacted ultimately moved to authorize recall at the local some form of these populist devices, with level. A few states, notably Colorado, even western states predominating, and more con- extended it to state judicial decisions involving a straints surrounding their use in those eastern state law that had been declared un- states having them. At the local level, the drive constitutional. In those days, the device was used began with San Francisco's adoption of statutory fairly extensively, with 76 efforts to remove referendum in 1898 and two decades later, 33 officials being made in California alone before states had enacted constitutionally enabling 1920, and with North Dakotans removing their provisions for their cities. Later developments Governor in 1921. relating to initiative and referendum will be The initiative and referendum were designed treated in a subsequent chapter. to enable people to draft and enact their own A progressive reform that was counter to one of legislation independent of the legislature or to the basic thrusts of the Jacksonians-the drive to veto the latter's acts. In one sense, these an- expand the range of offices subject to direct elec- tilegislative devices were merely an extension of tion-was the "short ballot." The campaign for an 80-year trend toward circumventing this reform rested largely on two arguments: the legislative authority. In the Jacksonian period, it need to increase "democratic control of govern- took the form of a strengthened executive and ment" and the need to enhance "efficiency in constitutional prohibitions on, as well as special administration."192 The first goal emerged out of majorities required in, voting certain types of the practical results of the earlier expansion of legislation. Following the Civil War, efforts to elective offices as well as the Progressives' own curb legislatures focused not only on special successes in achieving the enactment of the legislation, but also on legislative procedures, initiative and referenda. A ballot for the 1916 compulsory popular referenda to validate certain general election in Chicago, for example, was legislative acts, and municipal home rule.189 With three feet long and twenty inches wide andlisted the initiative and referendum, however, the some 270 names arranged in six party columns. people assumed a direct role. Moreover, the voter was expected to cope with a Though first advocated by the Populists and separate ballot for judges of the municipal court, containing more than 30 candidates' names as in form, all sought to concentrate responsibility well as a "little ballot," two feet in length, setting with each utilizing a unicameral council and the forth five state and local referenda 'short ballot."'lg7 propositions-a tax amendment to the state To sum up, the push from the Progressives constitution, a banking law amendment, a park greatly expanded the democratic impulse of the consolidation, and two city bond issues. During Jacksonians in governments and governmental that one year (19161, Chicago voters were processes. With the direct election of US. Sen- confronted with choosing or helping to choose ators (along with the curbing of the Speaker's over 300 elective officials.193 To what extend this powers in the HouseJ, they sought at the national was typical or atypical of elections of the period, level to make the Congress more accountable to it is impossible to say. But, it is clear that some of the people and their representatives. Their the Progressive reformers were concerned with successful drive for initiative, referendum, and the burden that the burgeoning ballot was plac- recall in two-fifths of the states, in effect, added ing on the citizenry and the tendency of political to the already "long ballot," despite the eastern machines to manipulate this situation. Hence, the Progressives' championing of the "short ballot." need for a shorter ballot to make the voter again State government generally was more sovereign. fragmented at the end of the two decades than at Coupled with this argument was an entirely the outset. The already heavily fragmented different one, one that grew out of the drive counties saw a less drastic increase, while the launched largely by the eastern wing of the cities came out of the period with more of the s2 movement to simplify the machinery of govern- "short ballot" reforms than the other levels. ment and to render it more efficient and account- Whether these reforms actually enhanced able. The short ballot along with longer terms popular control of, and greater participation in, and fewer elections were all part of campaigns to governments is a thorny issue with which to deal. enhance the administrative authority of chief The skeptics have argued that the net effect of executives and to integrate the administrative most of these "reforms" was to enhance the role of components of government.194 The short ballot, special interest groups, both at the national and thus, was alleged to promote greater democratic state levels, and to generate a governmental control over governments, while also strength- system with so many checks within it that even ening the "apparently conflicting principle" of Madison would be amazed and probably "efficiency in administration."l95 angered. The people's will, they contend, was the At the state level, the impetus of other prime rationale for all of these "reforms," yet new Progressive "reforms" nullified much of the force as well as old special interests, new circumven- behind the "short ballot" movement. Popularly ting procedures, a pulverized pattern of govern- elected departmental heads and other con- mental power, and an impossible concept of stitutional offices were nearly as numerous at the individual civic obligation have frustrated this end of the era as at the beginning. Moreover, the will. The mechanistic, individualistic, and op- number of independent boards and commissions timistic overtones of the movement tended to had grown, reflecting the regulatory impulse of ignore the fact that the evils it was contending the Progressives. By 1919, New York had 116 with involved far more than tinkering with gov- independent authorities; Minnesota, 75; Illinois, ernmental machinery and the individual citizen 100; Massachusetts, 61; and Idaho, 42.190 Most acting on his or her own was no match for citi- were appointive, but gubernatorial control was zens acting in concert.'g8 Above all, perhaps, the minimal in fact. Only in the budgetary field did critics point out that when old power centers are the Governor's authority really increase during smashed, new ones will form. If reformers do not this period. fill the power void, others will. As Hofstadter put At the local level, the emergence of three it, "the formal gains for popular government, distinct forms of municipal government, each while still on the books, lost meaning because the with its coterie of proponents, represented a ability of the public to use them effectively somewhat more positive approach toward lapsed with the political revival that brought achieving greater accountability to the elec- them in, and the bosses and the interests torate. The "strong mayor, commission, and promptly filtered back in."'99 council-manager plans, while markedly different More sympathetic observers stress that (a) the Progressive reforms of government did establish concept of a professional civil service based on some new ground rules that generally were an the merit principle was introduced as a means of improvement over their predecessors, and (b] the enhancing bureaucratic competence, neutrality, procedural devices championed provided an and long term accountability. During the opportunity for the voters to curb the most Progressive era, civil service reform gained egregious examples of corruption, favoritism, strength-with 11 states, ten counties, and over and unresponsiveness. Some in this group also 200 cities utilizing civil service commissions by point out that, despite their antiorganizational 1920. Over the next half century, this movement rhetoric, various progressives were excellent continued, with Pennsylvania and Kentucky political organizers (La Follette, Hiram Johnson, finally taking action in the sixties. By the mid- and Woodrow Wilson) and skillful in harnessing 70s, nearly three-quarters of all permanent state the "reforms" to their broader policy goals. employees were under some form of merit system Others argue that coming out of the eighties and coverage. nineties, the country was in dire need of the Paralleling the drive (at least during the earlier Progressive impulse and their reforms to period] was a campaign to strengthen the "civilize" the "interests," to enunciate a -civic independence of regulatory commissions, begin- ethical ideal, to narrow the gap between govern- ning with the Interstate Commerce Commission ment and much of the electorate, and to provide at the national level and public utility com- some innovative means by which Jefferson's missions at the state levels, not to mention the ideal of popular sovereignty could be better newly formed civil service boards and com- realized (and popular individualism expressed) missions.203 This, of course, was repeated in the 5 3 in an increasingly complex system. 30s and the 70s. The bottom line, however, is the assessment of Starting with New York in 1917, and followed their impact. One of the most authoritative shortly by Illinois, a state reorganization move- studies of the period found that "the popular ment was launched (based partly on the rationale reforms neither revolutionalized nor restored for the "short ballot"]. This movement has yet to anything; they had, indeed, only a marginal effect run its course. The goal was to consolidate on the conduct of American government."200 proliferating agencies into a limited number of Others have been more negative, with Herbert departments directly responsible to the Gover- Croly, as early as 1914, pointing out that the nor. An accountable director was to head up a initiative and referenda were perfectly geared to department, and the Governor was to be assisted promote minority interests, given the complexity by staff agencies in the budgeting, personnel, and of many of the policy issues involved and the purchasing areas.204 Nearly all states were relatively low turnout in such elections,201This affected by this movement between 1920 and theme has a very contemporary ring to it. Witness 1957, with some amending their constitutions the following from a recent editorial in the and others making statutory changes. Though National Civic Review: "The direct initiative is the number of older independent agencies was not the great tool of democracy so often claimed. generally reduced, new programs spawned new While there are some notable exceptions, most units. The effects of these reorganizations were times the direct initiative becomes the tool of an far from permanent, especially in a period of elite-be it of the right, left, business, labor or expanding services and regulatory activities. At any other special interest."202 the local level, the number of cities having the council-mayor form increased more than six TOWARD A MORE ACCOUNTABLE times between 1920 and 1950, and 11 counties ADMINISTRATION had reorganized by the latter year. The first Hoover Commission (on the The prelude to most of the recent efforts to Organization of the Executive Branch-1947) put devise new citizen participation approaches and new life into the movement. More than three- devices is found in the nearly century old battle quarters of the states have reassessed their to make bureaucracies more accountable. Begin- executive branches (with most taking some ning with the Pendleton Act (1883) at the federal actions) since the early fifties. As a result, most level, and fpllowed shortly thereafter by similar state executive branches look more rational and enactments in Massachusetts and New York, the most Governors, more authoritative than their predecessors of three decades ago. Moreover, at administrative procedures, enactments, ethical the local level, the county reorganization effort codes, "sunshine" laws, etc.), and some increase gained significant momentum with at least 600 in oversight activity (provided, of course, their undergoing major administrative overhaul. With sessions are not constitutionally shackled). cities, managers came to play much more of a The second response (administrative par- "community leader" role, and most mayors ticipation) is based on the view that efforts by acquired much more administrative support. elected officials in the executive and legislative In effect, the recent drive for greater citizen branches are inadequate to produce a properly participation is rooted in the belief that these responsive bureaucracy.207 Some of this criticism older approaches to making administrators rests on a basic distrust of the electoral process accountable either have been unsuccessful or are and the representative governmental system that in need of strong supplementary popular action. it supports. Borrowing from some of contem- Merit, professionalism (expertise), and "greater porary democratic theorists, the point is made independencen had not produced a more ac- that elections cannot produce a clear mandate on countable public service, these observers con- all policy and administrative agency questions. tended. Quite the reverse! With ever expanding There also is a realistic awareness that chief services, mounting regulatory efforts at all executives and legislators simply lack the time, if levels, the expansion of civil service coverage not the motivation, to mount a sustained ad- and tenured positions, continuing broad ministrative oversight effort. And, there also is delegations of wide discretionary authority by the realization that governmental services are so 54 legislatures, and the comparative weakness of varied, the administrative process is so per- chief executives' powers over their respective vasive, and the number of public servants so bureaucracies, these critics questioned both the objectivity and the responsiveness of ad- numerous at this point-that even with the will ministrators.205 The earlier faith in the capacity and the time, the elected officials could never of the "administrative process" gave way to a cope with the countless decisions involved in the deep skepticism. day-to-day management of public programs. This, in turn, produced two kinds of reaction Finally, some of the criticism is directed at efforts and reformist thought.208 One sought to to assign greater authority to chief executives; strengthen the political branches of government, this, some believe, can be dangerous and as with a view toward reasserting control by the susceptible to abuse as it is to curing ad- people's representatives in the executive and ministrative unresponsiveness. legislative branches over the public service, and For these and other reasons notedin Chapters 1 with the people exerting an indirect role through and 3, the thrust from the administrative the vote. The second focuses on the need for participation reformers is to achieve a greater direct citizen participation in and control (in and more direct citizen involvement in govern- some cases) over administrative processes. ment and especially in its administrative ac- The first response (political participation) has tivities. For some, this is a vital supplementary been a basic factor underpinning the more recent effort to that of the political branches of the efforts to strengthen chief executives in light of various levels. For others, it is a basic alternative the major managerial challenges their respective to relying on these branches to achieve greater jurisdictions now face, largely through PPB, ZBB, bureaucratic accountability and respon- and reorganizations. This, of course, is merely an siveness.208 In truth, however, the interpretations extension of the much older campaign to enable merge in practice, because it usually requires popularly elected chief executives to discharge actions on the part of legislatures and chief their administrative responsibilities more effec- executives to establish direct participation rights tively. Generally speaking, such executives are and opportunities. These include (1) enactment in a far better position today to assume this role of general procedural acts or ordinances than their predecessors of a generation ago. With facilitating citizen access to and the accountabili- the legislative branches, there have come ty of administrators, and (2) the incorporation of "sunset" legislation, legislative vetos, better specific requirements with particular authoriz- staffing of committees (especially the money ing statutes (frequently, as we shall see, grant committees at the state level), more strenuous statutes) and ordinances that particular ad- attempts to guide bureaucratic behavior (i.e., ministrative agencies or jurisdictions establish citizen participation programs.209 urbanized, service-oriented, and bureaucratized The Federal Administrative Procedures Act of society and system. 1946, along with subsequent amendments, To the more pragmatic and conservative counterpart state and local enactments in the readers of this American democratic record (and 50s and 60s, the Freedom of Information Act Jefferson, as well as his arch opponent, Hamilton, (19661, and the National Environmental Policy possessed both of these traits), a somewhat Act (1969) stand out as basic examples of gov- different interpretation arises. While fully con- ernmentwide procedural efforts to expand ceding that certain of these democratic reforms participation rights and opportunities in ad- produced significant changes, and that most ministrative decisionmaking. In addition, there were in harmony with our democratic tradition are now "sunshine" or open meeting laws in all 50 (and ethic), they raise basic questions about their states, and some-like Montana-enacted a enactment, effects, and some of their underlying single, comprehensive statute setting forth assumptions. Regarding the circumstances that minimum procedural criteria to which most or all facilitated the enactment of some of these state and local agencies must comply.210 reforms (notably the extension of the vote and To achieve more active administrative achieving the convention and then the primary), response and decisionmaking in specific program they point out that it was as much an "in-group" areas, legislators have mandated particular or an emerging majority faction of a political citizen involvement requirements in grant and party that for very selfish reasons launched the other statutes relating to such areas and these, of drive for democratic innovations, as any vital course, are a prime focus of this study. Hence, philosophic commitment. Further, they point out 55 much more will be said of them in subsequent that the practical effects of most of these efforts chapters. have rarely lived up to the promises initially held out for them. There are these reasons for this CONCLUSION result: a failure on the part of the reformers to match their rhetoric with known reality; This chapter has attempted to trace the theory and evolving practice of citizen participation in a tendency to idealize the civic awareness the American experience. From a liberal perspec- and concern of the American citizenry (and tive, the saga appears as a continuous and to ignore the factors that strengthen or increasingly more successful series of efforts to weaken political and civic participation); narrow the gap over time between Jeffersonian a propensity to diagnose the social, political, ideals and their practical application. Thus, the and economic shortfalls in the system largely struggles to achieve universal suffrage, in terms of defects in governmental or democratically viable political parties and political machinery (and not in terms of nominating procedures, and accountable govern- human frailties or organizational factors); ment institutions and processes are viewed by the liberal interpreter as a persistent and vital an unwillingness to anticipate or take commitment to Jeffersonian principles. The faith precautions against the questionable side in the people, the distrust of governmental power effects of their reforms (i.e., the "long ballot" (and especially of unrepresentative and non- and the pulverizing of government power at directly accountable officials), and the sanguine the state and local levels in the drive for a view of reform through constitutional, statutory, people's government, and the substitution of and procedural changes, which permeate the interest groups for parties in the nominat- democratization drives of the Jacksonians, ing processes); and Progressives, and recent reformers, all reflect a above all, a blindness to the perennial strongly Jeffersonian outlook. From this vantage pattern of elites, factions, and power plays point, then, the ever widening opportunities for under either "unreformed" or "reformed citizen participation are merely the rational and political or governmental conditions, which necessary components of remaining faithful to in turn reflect a naivete about the nature of the tenets of the Declaration, while adapting to power and of inequality in our (or any) the exigencies of an evolving mass, heterogenous, system. Clearly, there is conflict between these two representative system are a series of direct interpretive readings of America's evolving democratic devices and above all a persistent democratic record. And, many of the differences attitude that suggests a continuing skeptism are reflected in the paradoxes suggested by this about some, if not many, of the implications record: of representative government, notably the On the one hand, there has been a steady, idea that the people's representatives can be ever-increasing application of the principle trusted to reflect the people's will. of political equality; while on the other, there has been recurring resentment directed The majority rule v. minority rights issue against the failure to achieve a more ideal directly relates to the above and also realization of this principle in practice. illustrates the ambivalence in our tradition. In theory, we have avoided the choice and While political and governmental in- favored both. Sometimes, in our political and stitutions have become ever more represen- representational processes and practice, we tative (especially in this century and have succeeded in reconciling the two and preeminently in the past decade and a half], even with the waves of democratic reforms expressions of distrust of the people's neither of these potentially antithetical representatives become more shrill and the norms has monopolized the arguments of the enactment of constraining devices and propounders. Moreover, even though the mechanisms more numerous. thrusts from the direct democratic advocates 5 6 Finally, as governments, their processes, and usually have had a majoritarian overtone to the parties have become more "open" and them, the protective-of-minorities features more accessible, charges of interest- of some of the procedures and institutions dominated, "establishmentw-oriented, and a within our representative governmental "closed" system have continued, if not in- (and political) framework have served as a creased. counterbalance. In the context of current citizen participation efforts, both goals- The points and the counterpoints in these three majoritarian and minoritarian-may be paradoxes suggest some of the reasons for the furthered, depending on individual cir- differences between the liberal and more conser- cumstances. vative assessments of our democratic tradition. If the underlying factors that have combined to Above all, perhaps, is America's tendency to produce these paradoxes are probed, even more link what in Europe would be dichotomized. basic reasons are discovered. Subsumed in these For us, it has always been liberty and paradoxes, of course, are a series of ambiguities equality, not liberty v. equality. While much and apparent inconsistencies that have long of the democratization drive recounted in characterized our political tradition and at- this chapter has had a heavy egalitarian titudes. caste to it, the theme of personal liberty and rights was very much part of it. In terms of For some, as was noted earlier, democracy is public political rhetoric, however, we have a political method, a process for resolving not tolerated talk of inequality (a basic public policy and leadership questions, byproduct of liberty] since the election of while for others, it involves a whole ap- 1800. But in social and even political practice proach to social behavior, to group organiza- we recognize it, sometimes accept it, tion, to "politics" in the broadest sense. In sometimes condemn it, and even sometimes fact, both views find concrete expression in call for more of it (i.e., leadership). In a very our experience. real sense, strong citizen or voter participa- Is ours a representative or direct democratic tion is one essential index of inequality, for system? In a formal and structural sense, it there are always those who participate less obviously is the former-geography, or not at all, and these citizens are less equal numbers, and practical administrative con- in terms of political and administrative cerns, not to mention our federalist heritage, impact than those who are active and have seen to that. But, intertwined in this especially active and organized. Thus, there are basic ambiguities in our experiment. As subsequent chapters will in- tradition, attitudes, and practices, and the dicate, there is no reason to believe that contem- tension between conflicting concepts has been a porary citizen participation efforts will be vital factor in explaining the paradoxes as well as exempt from this pattern of conflicting as well as the dynamics of America's unending democratic consensual purposes and practices.

FOOTNOTES '~Ibid.,p. 172. 4ePateman, op. cit. 'TPateman, op. cit., pp. 1-21,45-66;and Richard Cole, op. cit., lQuoted in A.T. Mason, Free Government in the Making, 2nd pp. 2-7. edit., 1956, New York, NY, Oxford U. Press, pp. 349-50. 'aW. Lippmann, Public Opinion, New York, NY, Free Press, 2A.T. Mason, and R. Leach, In Quest of Freedom, Englewood, 1922 (1965 ed.). NJ, Prentice Hall, 1960, p. 217. 'elbid., p. 125. 3Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, in P.L. Ford, ed., The solbid., p. 158. Works of Thomas Jefferson,New York, NY, G.P. Putman's 5lIbid. Sons, 1905, Vol. 4, p. 64. ~~Ibid.,pp. 163, 165. 'Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samual Kercheval, 13 July sslbid., p. 164. 1816, quoted in A. Mason, op. cit., p. 372. ~'Ibid.,pp. 165-6. Slbid. SsIbid., p. 173. albid., p. 371. SaIbid., p. 251. 7Ibid., p. 372. 571bid. Elbid. SaIbid., p. 148, 9A.T. Mason, op. cit., p. 346. sglbid., p. 255. 57 IOQuoted in Ibid., p. 346. WIbid., p. 256. "Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, 81Ibid., p. 261. Cambridge, England, University of Cambridge Press, 1976, 8ZJoseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, pp. 17-21. New York, NY, Harper Torchbooks (3rd ed.), 1963,p. 269. l2See for example, Ibid., pp.- - 6, 7, and 16. 83Ibid. 'SIbid., p. 17. MIbid., pp. 270-3. "George Sabine. A Historv of Political Theorv, New York, BsIbid., p. 273. NY, knrv ~olt& Co., 1947, .pp.. 650, 652, add 655. ~6Ibid.,p. 253. 'SQuoted inlbid., p. 651. ~'Ibid.,p. 263. laPateman, op, cit., p. 18. 88Ibid. '7jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to The Principles of "Ibid., p. 250. Morals and Legislation, New York, NY, The Hafner Library 7oPateman, op. cit., pp. 18-20. of Classics, 1945, p. 3. 71Schumpeter. op. cit.. pp. 289-92. '"eremy Bentham, A Fragment of Government, quoted in 72Ibid... .D. 295. F.W. Coker, ed., Readings in Political Philosophy, New 73Ibid. York, NY, Macmillan Co., 1948, p. 703. 74B.R. Berelson, P.F. Lazarsfeld, W.N. McPhee, Voting, XgPateman, op. cit., pp. 18-9. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1956, p. 307. ZOIbid., pp. 14-20. "Ibid., pp. 312-3. 2lJ.J. Rousseau, The Social Contract, London, England, Turbid., p; 312. Oxford University Press, 1948, pp. 186-7 and 211-7. Illbid., p. 313. ZZPateman, op. cit., p. 23; and Rousseau, op. cit., p. 189. lalbid., p. 314. ZSIbid., p. 23; and Rousseau, op. cit., pp. 181,182,184,196-9. 'gPateman, op. cit., p. 7. "Rousseau, op. cit., pp. 185-6. WR. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago, IL, ZSIbid. University of Chicago Press, 1956, p. 64. 2aIbid. allbid., pp. 67-81. 27Ibid., p. 196. azlbid., p. 131. 2EPateman,op. cit., p. 23. aslbid., p. 132. ZgQuoted in Pateman, op. cit., p. 28. a4Ibid. 30J.S. Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, aslbid., p. 76. New York, NY, Henry Holt & Co., pp. 37-6. MIbid., pp. 145-66;and Pateman, op. cit., p. 9. ' allbid., pp. 39-40. 87Louis Hartz, "Democracy: Image and Reality," Democracy 32Ibid., pp. 65-71. in the Mid-Twentieth Century, W. Chambers and R. 33Pateman, op, cit., p. 29. Salisbury, eds., St. Louis, MO, Washington University 34Mil1, op. cit., p. 286. Press, 1960, p. 14. SsIbid., pp. 287-8. EaIbid.. p. 15. SElbid., p. 289. BgIbid., p. 22. 37Ibid. WIbid.. DD. 19-20. SaIbid., p, 237. ellbid.; p: 27. 391bid., pp. 244-5. 9ZS.M. Lipset, Political Man, New York, NY, Doubleday & WIbid. Co., 1960, p. 44. allbid., p. 245. 931bid. 'Zlbid., p. 246. "Ibid., pp. 45-6. 'SIbid., pp. 246, 257. gslbid., p. 46. ''lbid., p. 171. galbid., pp. 48-67. Bllbid., p. 83. 144Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970). eelbid., pp. 216-9. "$In the 1976 national elections, for example, over 40% of thc eelbid., p. 219. potential electorate did not vote and over four-fifths ol "JOPateman,op. cit., p. 11. these were not registered. Twenty-three percent of thest 'S'H. Eckstein, "A Theory of Stable Democracy," App. B. of persons cited inability to register or foreign citizenship as Division and Cohesion in Democracy, Princeton, NJ, explanations for nonregistration, but over half provided Princeton University Press, 1966, p. 234. other explanations. See Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 'OZIbid., p. 225. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977, p. '031bid., pp. 237-8. 509. 'MPateman, op. cit., pp. 12-3. 148Frank Sorauf, Party Politics in America, Boston, MA, 'OSEckstein, op. cit., pp. 262-7. Little Brown & Co., 1972, p. 193. IWPateman, op. cit., p. 14. "7V.O. Key, op. cit., p. 670. lollbid., pp. 13-4, presents a good presentation of the argument "8Historical Statistics of the U.S., Colonial Times to 1976, that such a theory is a reasonable derivation from their Part 2, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Commerco writings. Bureau of the Census, p. 1072. 10ePateman,op. cit., p. 15. MBKey,op. cit., p. 661, and Sam Lubell, The Future of) 'OeWalker, op. cit., p. 289. American Politics, New York, NY, Doubleday & Co., 1956 1101bid.. pp. 288-9. p. 42. "llbid., p. 288. lSoStatistical Abstract of the U.S., 1977, op. cit., p. 508. "ZPeter Bachrach, The Theory of Democratic Elitism, A 1S1See, for example, Statistical Abstract of the U.S., op. cit. Critique, Boston, MA, Little Brown & Co., 1967, p. 3. 152Sorauf, op. cit., p. 196 and L.W. Milbrath, Politico 113Walker, op. cit., p. 289. Participation, Chicago, IL, Rand McNally, 1965. "41bid. lS3Sorauf, op. cit., pp. 196-7; A. Campbell, et. al., Th "Compare, for example, Walker, op. cit., pp. 289-95 with American Voter, New York, NY, Wiley, 1960, pp. 96-110. Bachrach, op. cit., pp. 98-106. 345-56. i lS4Nie,et. al., op. cit., especially pp. fiewalker, op. cit.. p. 295. 'SSIbid., pp. 347-8. 58 "7Ibid. '59tatistical Abstract of the U.S., op. cit., p. 508. IlaIbid. Is7Sorauf, op. cit., p. 200. "BBachrach, op. cit., p. 99. '58G.S. Wood, op. cit., p. 16. '"Ibid., p. 100. '59E.E. Schattschneider, Party Government, Westport, CT 'Z'Ibid., p. 101. Greenwood Press, Inc., 1977, p. 1. 'ZZIbid., p. 102. 'WAustin Ranney, Curing the Mischiefs of Faction: Part) 'Z3Ibid., p. 106. Reform in America, Berkeley, CA. University of Californi Iz4Cole,op. cit., p. 2. Press, 1975, p. 14. 1251 bid. 'elKey, op. cit., p. 373. 'ZeRobert Nisbet, Quest for Community, Oxford, England, IeZRanney, op. cit., p. 29. Oxford University Press, 1962; William Kornhauser, The IesIbid. Politics of Mass Society, Glencoe, IL, The Free Press, 1959; '"Charles E. Merriam, Primary Elections, Chicago. 11 Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom, New York, NY, Avon, University of Chicago Press, 1908, pp. 9-62. 1971; Maurice Stein, The Eclipse of Community, Princeton, 'BSRanney, op. cit., p. 18. NJ, Princeton University Press, 1960; Peter L. Berger, '"Key, op. cit., p. 375. "Mediating Structures," Commonsense, Vol. 1, No. 1, le7lbid., pp. 375-6. Summer, 1978. 'WRanney, op. cit., p. 123. 'ZXole, op. cit., p. 2. IeBIbid., p. 124. 'ZaStein, op. cit., p. 280-96. 170Ibid.. p. 127. 'ZeKornhauser, op. cit., p. 77 and Stein, op. cit., p. 329. 171Ibid., p. 129. 130Cole,op. cit., p. 2. 172Ibid., pp. 19-21. '31Korhouser, op. cit., p. 77 and Berger, op. cit., pp. 1-9. 173lbid., pp. 1-2. 132Cole,op. cit., p. 3. 174Quoted in Ibid., p. 2. 133Bachrach,op. cit.; Walker, op. cit.; Henry Kariel, Decline in 175Quoted in Ibid., p. 103. American Pluralism, Stanford, CA. Stanford University '7eA.H. Kelly, and W.A. Harbison, op. cit., pp. 318-9. Press, 1961; T.B. Bottomore, Classes in Modern Society, 177W.B. Munro, Municipal Government and Adrninistratiol New York, NY, Random, 1968. New York, NY, Macmillan Co., 1923, p. 94. '34Pateman, op. cit., p. 42. 'Tqbid., p. 95. 13W.O. Key, Jr., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 4th ed. '7eJohn M, Mathews, American State Government, New Yorl 1927, 76. New York, NY, Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1962, p. 646. NY, D. Appleton Co., p. '38Ibid., p. 647. 1801 bid. 1371bid. 1B'A.H. Kelly and W.A. Harbison, op. cit., p. 323. 'eZMathews, op. cit., p. 432. 138By 2830, it should be noted that less than3.000 out of a total t northern black population were enfranchised. '83Drawing on Roman constitutional history under th/ '3BGordon S. Wood, "Resolution and the Political Integration republic, the Jacksonians tended to view the executive as, of the Enslaved and Disenfranchised," American Enter- popularly chosen magistrate who, withtheveto, would an prise Institute's Distinguished Lecture Series, Washington, should protect the people's interests. DC, American Enterprise Institute, 1976, p. 15. Ie4By 1911, three-fourths of the states used this system. S "OKey, op. cit., p. 651. J.W. Fessler, ed., The 50 States and Their Local Gover 14'This device permitted the registration of voters whose ments, New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1967, pp. 74- ancestors could vote prior to the passage of the 15th 'asKelly and Harbison, op. cit., p. 621. 4 amendment. "Tessler, op. cit., p. 75. 'Wmith v. Allwright, US. 649, (1944). lerlbid. "3Key. op. cit., p. 661. IwMunro, op. cit., pp. 126-7; 14 now authorize recall for statq level officials. MacMillan, 1914, p. 306. lagMathews, op. cit., p. 146. 202National Civic Review, Sept. 1978, Vol. 67, No. 8, New 190Kelly and Harbison, op. cit., p. 631. York. NY, National Municipal League, p. 353. 1glIbid. Z03Nelson Rosenbaum, Citizen Involvement in Land Use 'QZMathews,op. cit., p. 126. Governance, Washington, DC, The Urban Institute, 1976, p. 193Ibid., pp. 122-3, 9. '94Ibid., pp. 125-6. ZOTessler, op, cit., p. 99. '951bid., p. 126. ZO5Rosenbaum, op. cit., pp. 10-1. '0eFessler, op. cit., p. 80. zoslbid., pp. 11-4. Wbid., p. 81. Wbid., p. 13. IgeRichard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform, New York, NY, ZonIbid., pp. 13-4. Vintage Books, 1955, especially pp. 257-71. ZOgIbid., p. 14; and ACIR, State Actions in 1976, M-109, Wash- IggIbid., pp. 266-7. ington, DC, US. Government Printing Office, February zooIbid., p. 266. 1977, pp. 61-3. ZOlHerbert Croly, Progressive Democracy, New York, NY, ZlOIbid., p. 15: also see Chapter 4 of this report.

Chapter 3 An Overview of Contemporary Citizen Participation

he purposes and forms of citizen participation and their interpretation in this report, will T in contemporary America are very diverse. suggest fruitful hypotheses for further research The number of different purposes and forms is by others. large, and they are combined in many different ways in actual practice. Furthermore, the various THE DIVERSE FORMS AND levels and branches of government use citizen PURPOSES OF CONTEMPORARY participation differently, as do the different CITIZEN PARTICIPATION sectors of the citizenry, and even within a single level or branch of government there is great The diversities in forms and purposes of citizen variation in the use of these practices. participation go hand in hand. Different forms This chapter briefly overviews (a) the diversi- serve different purposes, and different partici- ty among the purposes and forms of citizen pants have different purposes. Hence, the var- participation and how these purposes and forms ious forms, techniques, or methods of citizen relate to each other, and (b)ways in which citizen participation have arisen. participation is being used, in general, at the various levels of government. These overviews General Purposes of have been synthesized by the ACIR staff from a Citizen Participation wide variety of published sources1 and some actual experience. However, they are necessarily Generalizing, first, about the purposes of generalized, reflecting average tendencies rather citizen participation, one might observe that than the full range of variations which occur in citizen participation is a two-way street. Its actual practice. ultimate objective from the citizen point of view This chapter is based upon a series of tables is to change governmental behavior so that gov- constructed to illustrate the relationships among ernmental units respond better to citizens' needs the various parts of the concept of citizen and desires and refrain from the arbitrary, participation. These tables were developed by capricious, insensitive, or oppressive exercise of the Commission's staff, based upon the extensive power. On the other side, governments use reviews of literature (cited above) and actual citizen participation to help change citizen experience in the field. Yet, they inevitably behavior by (a) providing therapy to alienated incorporate some subjective assessments. Hence, and socially disturbed citizens, (b) affording they are tentative and are used illustratively, participation opportunities for citizens through rather than definitively. Perhaps these tables, which they can exercise and enhance their vigilance over government, and (c) helping tages of each with the advantages of the others. citizens to develop their participative and The citizen participation strategist, then, is leadership capabilities. Taken together, these faced with the task of developing a suitable ultimate objectives of participation are geared to participation process consisting of several differ- producing both better citizens and better gov- ent forms, techniques, and means of participa- ernments. And they are inextricably tion. In doing so, the strategist needs to be aware intertwined-better citizens make better gov- of the political acceptability, feasibility, and ernments while better governments make better potential productivity of each type of participa- citizens. The same citizen participation pro- tion. cesses which provide opportunities for citizens The first part of this chapter, then, examines to sharpen their skills by exercising them also each of these aspects of citizen participation. It provide the means by which the government's begins with (1)the diversity of specific purposes performance is improved and its operations are and forms of citizen participation; and then kept open. considers (2) the stages of governmental activities in which different forms of citizen participa- The twin goals of better citizens and better tion are most appropriate; (3) the use of various governments come to be reflected in a long series citizen participation forms, techniques, and of more specific objectives or purposes of citizen means in different governmental programs; (4) participation. These, in turn, generate a wide some of the ways in which participation methods variety of traditional and innovative forms, have been linked together into broader and more 62 techniques, and means by which citizen partici- effective citizen participation processes; and (5) pation is carried out. One well known and quite the features of various citizen participation complete catalog of citizen participation tech- forms, techniques, and means which should be niques contains 37 entries, ranging from the considered in developing effective citizen partici- familiar public hearings to the relatively unfa- pation processes. miliar Delphi technique.2 Many of the items in this catalog were developed during the 1960s and 1970s to help improve the effectiveness of citizen The Diversity of Specific Purposes of participation, in a number of different fields of Citizen Participation governmental activity, in reaction to the deadening effects of mass society, a faceless bureau- As noted earlier, the ultimate twin goals (or cracy, and ever increasing governmental pro- general purposes) of citizen participation-to grams. change the behavior of both governments and As citizen participation serves different pur- people-translate into several much more specif- poses in the hands of different participants, ic and limited objectives. An extensive literature variations in forms and methods arise from the search suggests that these more finely articulat- fact that citizens participate in government both ed objectives include (1) giving information to as individuals and as members of groups. In citizens; (2) getting information from and about addition, some of the various forms, techniques, citizens; (3) improving public decisions, pro- and means of citizen participation are more grams, projects, and services; (4) enhancing appropriate for use at different stages of govern- acceptance of public decisions, programs, pro- mental activities, are more suitable for use by jects, and services; (5) supplementing public certain individuals or groups than by others, and agency work through volunteerism; (6) altering have been used more often in certain govern- political power patterns and the allocations of mental programs than in others. public resources; (7) protecting individual and Numerous studies suggest that the sporadic minority group rights and interests; and (8) use of one or two types of participation is not delaying or avoiding the making of difficult nearly as effective as a more varied set of public decisions.4 methods linked together into a continuous These specific objectives often are neither participation process spanning the govern- mutually exclusive nor separately achieved in mental activity from beginning to end.3 Such a practice. For example, many forms of citizen process ensures that participation will occur at participation both give information to citizens times when it can make a difference, and the and get information from and about them. In fact, combination of methods balances the disadvan- the key element in many of the techniques used to improve citizen participation often is a means of Use information from and about citi- enhancing interactions between the government zens (see #2 above). and its citizens through fuller two-way commun- Get and use advice from citizens about: ications. This leads to resolving issues and 1) proposed plans and programs; thereby to improving public decisions and 2) policy reviews and program evalua- enhancing their acceptance. tions; and On the other hand, some of the specific 3) priorities. purposes of citizen participation may be pursued Enhance program coordination by: separately, and they need not necessarily always 1) counter-balancing special interests involve two-way communications. In fact, much with the general public interest; and "participation" clearly does not involve direct 2) promoting interaction among var- interaction. For example, a citizen who receives ious interests to resolve conflicts. information from or about government, decides Enhance services to individuals by: that it does not affect himlher or that its effect is establishing and using ombids- satisfactory, and then decides not to comment, is men, consumer advocates, etc.; automatically counted as a nonparticipant and providing "case work" services added to the statistics of citizen apathy. Actual- through offices of elected officials; ly, such people are "involved" through implied mounting administrative appeals; (and often very well informed) consent, and may and emerge as activists at any time they see a clear going to court. need to protect their own interests. Thus, an 63 undetermined number of "silent participants" are 4. Enhance acceptance of public decisions, important to the process despite their "one-way" programs, projects, and services. mode of participation on many (or even most) a. Get citizen endorsements of decisions, occasions. programs, projects, and services. The eight specific objectives listed above often b. Build constituency for programs. are expressed in even greater detail,5 as listed c. Minimize opposition by providing full below in a rough checklist of citizen participation information (see #I above) and reasons purposes. for public actions. d. Resolve issues (see #3-c above). Specific Objectives e. Employ indigenous citizens in public (not necessarily mutually exclusive, separ- programs. ately achieved, or sought by all participants) 5. Supplement public agency work. 1. Give information to citizens. Accept citizen volunteers on the staff. a. Disseminate information. Accept and use citizen-prepared b. Inform and educate the public. reports or information. c. Answer citizen questions. Share policymaking roles with d. Notify citizens of actions affecting citizens. them and opportunities for participa- Share report preparation activities tion. with citizens. 2. Get information from and about citizens. Encourage voluntary compliance by a. Identify affected groups, subcultures, citizens with governmental rules, program clients, and various sectors of regulations, incentives, and initiatives. the "market" for public services. Encourage complementary citizen b. Identify problems, attitudes, and ob- action in the private sector. jective characteristics of citizens. c. Gauge citizen attitudes toward govern- 6. Alter political power patterns and re- ment. source allocations. d. Generate new ideas and alternatives a. Centralize or decentralize programs. for public action. b. Establish citizen control. c. Oppose the government. 3. Improve public decisions, programs, d. Change the government through the projects, and services. political process. 7. Protect individual and minority group most used and most favored by what might be rights and interests. termed "the establishment," while the three a. Go to court. purposes of altering present power and funding b. Mount administrative appeals. patterns, protecting individual and minority c. Stage protests, demonstrations, group interests, and stopping or delaying public strikes, pickets, etc. action are those most used and most favored by d. Establish and use ombudsmen, con- the "antiestablishment." In a sense, it is the "ins" sumer advocates, etc. against the "outs," or perhaps the "majority" e. Provide "case work" services through against the "minority." Those who have enough offices of elected officials. confidence in, and satisfaction with, their government to work constructively and cooperatively 8. Delay or avoid making difficult public with it "within the system" make fullest use of decisions. the "establishment" set of purposes, while those a. Call for further studies. without such confidence and satisfaction tend b. Go to court. more toward confrontation and the "antiestab- c. Mount administrative appeals. lishment" set. While government officials (who, d. Stage protests, demonstrations, of course, are in power) tend to emphasize the strikes, pickets, etc. "establishment" purposes, the Constitution and related laws guarantee that citizens shall have access to the "antiestablishment" ones within the 64 Diverse Purposes of Citizen Participation Pursued by Diverse Interests reasonable bounds of respecting others' rights.

No single individual or group necessarily seeks Diverse Forms of Citizen Participation to pursue all of the specific purposes of citizen participation outlined above-at least not at the As referred to here, the forms of citizen same time. Yet, all of these purposes are reflected participation are the organizations, activities, in currently used forms of citizen participation and events through which citizens have contact (Table 3-1, appearing later in this chapter) and, with government for purposes of influencing as will be illustrated later in other tables, these governmental and citizen behavior. These forms purposes tend to be emphasized or played-down are differentiated from specific techniques of to differing degrees by different interests (Table interaction which might be applied in various 3-2). Even the same individuals or groups view settings (mostly meetings of one sort or another), some of the purposes differently at different and from certain means of facilitating the success times (Table 3-4). of contacts between citizens and governments Without going into these tables at this point, (including training, staffing, and assisting the however, it simply should be noted that, in participants with whatever forms or techniques general, the first two purposes (giving informa- they may be using). More will be said about the tion to citizens and getting information from and special techniques and means of facilitation about citizens) are fairly universally accepted. later. At this point, the focus is on forms of citizen Without this exchange of information there can participation. be little or no basis for working toward the The forms of citizen participation may be general purposes of citizen participation-which classified into three basic types: (1) organiza- are, as noted earlier, to help change the behavior tions developed for the purpose of group partici- of (1)citizens and (2) governments to the mutual pation, (2) participation activities for individu- benefit of both. But, the trouble is that the als, and (3) means or processes of information changes needed and the mutual benefits sought exchange. frequently are seen differently from the two The forms of information exchange are most sides. Thus, the remaining six purposes are used numerous. So it is convenient to subdivide them less universally, and this is where the differences into those most related to the dissemination of emerge. information and those more usually identified The three purposes of improving public deci- with the collection of information. Often, organi- sions, enhancing their acceptance, and supple- zations and individuals both take advantage of menting public agency work are the approaches these information forms, and there is some overlap between the forms of information dis- about whom public records are kept). This semination and collection. To the extent that openness allows the press, interested individu- citizen participation becomes a dynamic process als, and others to see and hear what is going on in of interaction between citizens and govern- government, and to take the initiative to publi- ments, the information forms link up into two- cize, comment upon, and influence governmental way exchange processes. activities. Without this element, much of the rest In these information exchange processes, of information dissemination may become sub- special attention also needs to be given to the ject to the criticism that it is "managed news." effectiveness of communication. Perhaps the Informational meetings may be largely a form most pressing need is to ensure that language of one-way communication from the govern- which can be understood by laymen is used ment to the people, or they may be combined with throughout the process. Another concern is to two-way communication objectives. Informa- make sure that a multilingual approach is used in tion meetings may be initiated by the govern- areas where significant numbers of participants ment or requested by outside groups and indi- use different languages. Special efforts also may viduals. Speaker bureaus established within be needed to reach the deaf and blind through government agencies can greatly facilitate the their own language media, and to accommodate governmental response to requests for informa- other participation difficulties of the handi- tion meetings. Frequently, speakers available capped and disadvantaged. Such special con- from such bureaus are backed up with displays, cerns may call for adaptations in one or more of slide presentations, documentary films, video- the forms of information exchange discussed tapes, exhibits, publications, and other means of 65 here, depending upon particular situations. helping to improve the effectiveness of their appearances. Information meetings may be large INFORMATION DISSEMINATION or small, and reported by the mass media or not. Even when designed primarily as an information The major forms of information dissemination dissemination event, they may draw responses. are: Any such citizen feedback (which may come from 1) open government, the audience spontaneously or in response to 2) meetings and speaker bureaus, press coverage) provides an opportunity for 3) conferences, information collection and governmental re- 4) publications, sponse. 5) mass media, Conferences, like meetings, may be large or 6) displays and exhibits, small, reported by the press or not, and largely 7) direct mailings, designed for information dissemination or for 8) advertising and public notices, two-way information exchange. The main differ- 9) hot lines, ence between meetings and conferences is that 10) drop-in centers, conferences are longer, less superficial, and 11) correspondence, and better prepared. They may differ in length from 12) word of mouth. one day to several days, but in any case they will address one or more topics in considerable depth. While these are largely self explanatory, it is They may make greater use of publications, worth commenting on several of them at this visual aids, and experts in the subject matter of point. the conference. The proceedings of conferences "Open government" simply means that public frequently are published or formally reported business is conducted in public view. "Sunshine" upon in some way, and when two-way communi- and freedom of information laws passed in recent cations are a major feature of the conference, the years have contributed substantially to the record of the conference probably will include the visibility of public actions. Private meetings of "results" of deliberations. officials in "smoke filled rooms" and rump Publications may be long or short, technical or sessions are becoming less important as the real simple, expensive or inexpensive, produced in policy debates take place in public meetings, and large or small quantities, and made available on as government records are opened increasingly to limited or mass market bases. Combinations also public view (within reasonable limitations are possible, such as expensive technical docu- designed to protect the privacy of individuals ments made available on a limited basis, while inexpensive popular versions are distributed commonly used in modern citizen participation widely. Copies may be given away at meetings, processes. Sometimes they may be combined schools, libraries, and other commonly frequent- with the mailing of tax or utility bills, or inserted ed locations, or through mass mailings. They also into newspapers. may be mailed individually to those requesting Hotlines and drop-in centers are also becoming them, or sold through public offices. Reference more popular. Hotlines are simply telephone copies may be deposited at various public offices lines which are open long hours, or perhaps or libraries. around the clock, to either present a recorded The mass media may be used in many different message and record incoming requests for ways. The media may simply be allowed to report further information, or to provide access to a on governmental activities, or the government knowledgeable person in the government with may make special efforts to initiate coverage by whom the caller may consult for help, advice, or the press and to work with the press in improving information about governmental activities and the completeness, depth, and timeliness of programs. Drop-in centers provide a similar reporting. Special feature stories may be devel- service on a face-to-face basis at a location oped in this manner, including newspaper and convenient to citizens. Drop-in centers may be magazine articles, and interviews or special provided uniformly throughout a community on programs on radio and television. Spot an- a decentralized basis for general informational nouncements, talk show appearances, regular purposes, or as a special service in particular news coverage, and other uses of the media areas where governmental programs or activities 66 frequently may be arranged free of charge under are having special effects on people who require the public service requirements of federal radio unusual efforts by the government to provide and television licenses. Much has been written points of contact. about effective use of the media which will not be Correspondence and word of mouth are such repeated here. However, it is important to basic techniques of communication that they are indicate that the full potential of the press in often forgotten in the citizen participation disseminating information concerning govern- process. They arise from the simple right of the mental affairs cannot be realized without the people to petition and write to their govern- active participation of governmental officials mental officials and to engage in free speech and agencies. about their government even to the point of Displays and exhibits may stand on their own spreading rumors. However, special attention to as effective information dissemination forms, these two opportunities for information dissemi- apart from their use in meetings and conferences. nation can pay off. Courteous and responsive They may be located in public buildings, shop- replies to correspondence can supply much ping malls, and other places where large numbers needed information to both individuals and of people are likely to see them. groups, and frequently will supply the substance for word of mouth communications throughout a Direct mailings, paid advertising, and legal community. With some deliberate effort, word of notices may supplement each other or be viewed mouth communications networks may be devel- as alternatives. Generally speaking, legal notices oped through political, civic, and neighborhood are the least effective in reaching people. They groups. Such means of communication may be are generally small and lost among many similar most important in communities with language notices. Advertising is much more prominently barriers or low educational levels, where the displayed and may be used for a much wider printed word, media coverage, and meeting variety of purposes, ranging well beyond the attendance do not reach effectively. satisfaction of minimum legal requirements. Direct mailings may be even more effective if well designed, since they may be targeted INFORMATION COLLECTION directly to individuals or groups affected by governmental programs and actions, or to all people Information collection methods include: hear- living in an affected neighborhood, community, ings, workshops, meetings and conferences, or governmental jurisdiction. Mass mailings of consultation, government records, analyses of inexpensive popular versions of governmental nongovernmental documents and sources, par- proposals, plans, and reports are becoming ticipant observers, and surveys. Most of these are largely self-explanatory, though some elabo- various types, and psycho-social tech- ration may be helpful. niques of enhancing group productivity Public hearings are probably the most common are used by skilled leaders. means of citizen participation used by govern- 5. Focused group discussions in which ments. They are a traditional part of the people are interviewed in groups rather legislative process, and are becoming increasing- than individually, and their inter- ly prominent in administrative processes. Typi- actions are used to clarify issues and cally used just prior to the passage of a law or develop new insights at a deeper level ordinance, or the making of an administrative than would emerge from individual decision, they also are being used now increas- interviews. Focused group discussions ingly at earlier stages in public policymaking may use group dynamics techniques, but processes. Nevertheless, the legal requirements they are more directly task oriented to a surrounding them and the rigidity of their formal particular problem already identified structures subject them to much criticism be- before the discussion takes place, and cause of the lack of opportunity for effective the need to probe certain aspects of this interaction between citizens and governmental problem more thoroughly in a relatively officials. well structured way. Workshops and meetings are less formal than hearings, and they provide better opportunities 6. Policy capturing processes in which the for interaction. Workshops and meetings de- values of participants on a variety of signed to collect information are more like the interrelated issues are weighted and 67 conferences described above, but they are traded off against each other in an effort provided with specific means to elicit informa- to measure the quantitative relation- tion from citizens in a setting which provides ships among a variety of policy options background information and assistance to citi- within the populations represented by zens to help them express their views in relevant participants. ways. It is in this type of setting, very often, 7. The policy Delphi process in which a where the special techniques of facilitating group of respondents is polled about interaction can be introduced most fruitfully. some issue successively over a period of Such techniques include the use of: time during which the respondents are supplied with feedback from the whole 1. Arbitration and mediation. group between each polling. The object is 2. Staff facilitators operating as coordina- to systematically develop and express tors and catalysts in the interchange of the consensus views of the group. ideas among different groups. 8. Priority setting exercises in which 3. A "plural planning" process in which advisory groups and policy bodies rank alternative plans are developed to rep- or rate competing public projects or resent the ideal solutions to problems as program levels until a consensus is seen from differing viewpoints, thereby reached regarding their relative priori- setting the stage for seeking com- ties for public spending. promise positions which satisfy as many 9. A design-in wherein self-selected citi- different views as possible. "Advocacy zens come together for intensive work planning" also may be used as part of sessions in which they are supplied with this process, supplying one or more staff assistance and materials to enable groups of citizens with their own planning advisors to help them "speak the them to "think out loud" about communi- language" of government effectively as ty issues posed by officials or by citizens they advocate their own views. This is themselves, and to express their much like having legal counsel in judi- thoughts visually and physically cial proceedings. through maps, drawings, and models. During the process, the citizens may be 4. Processes of group dynamics in which given briefings, and may make field trips brainstorming, role playing, feedback of to familiarize themselves with actual conditions. The results are well articu- documents, often including proposed community lated citizen perceptions of community plans, draft legislation, proposed ordinances, problems and potential solutions which and draft administrative regulations. The publi- may be considered by government offi- cation of these documents is accompanied by an cials. invitation for interested parties to submit written comments and recommendations. Sometimes 10. "Game" simulations can be used in the public hearings also are provided so that interactive process, either with or with- comments may be offered verbally as well as in out the assistance of computers, to help writing, but other times written responses alone participants see the likely outcomes of are accepted. This notice-and-written-response policy options in relation to one another procedure typically is accompanied by later before they are decided upon. This is a publication of the final action along with an type of simplified and foreshortened analysis of comments received and explanations series of comparative impact analyses of their disposition. which gives policy advisers and decisionmakers better "feel" for the effects of Government records and case files contain a their actions, though it does not take the great deal of information about program opera- place of fully developed impact analyses. tions and other public policy issues. In addition, nongovernmental sources of information (such 11. A series of technological innovations as research reports, news sources, newsletters of using computers, television, and tele- special interest groups, and 'so on) frequently 68 phone lines can be used to speed up these contain invaluable information about the views interactive processes and to span dis- of various segments of the public. Analysis of tances between participants who can- these public records and nongovernmental not conveniently be assembled in one sources can help significantly to augment gov- place. Such techniques include inter- ernmental understanding of public issues as they active cable television, teleconferencing affect "clients" and others. The technical field of by computers, real time computer polling content analysis may be applied with great bene- with feedback, interactive computer fit to some of these sources-particularly those graphics, and game simulations. sources emanating from the news media. As the listing of these techniques shows, there Participant observers are trained cultural are many means at hand for enhancing the anthropologists who can mix with a particular interaction between citizens and governments in segment of the population, be accepted into the workshops and meetings, as well as in unas- group, and learn what makes the group respond sembled groups. Such workshops and meetings as it does to its environment and to the govern- may be open to all who wish to come, or they may mental programs and services with which the be limited to those on an invitation list designed group comes in contact. This affords a much to be representative of specific interests or types deeper understanding of the dynamic relation- of expertise. These same means also may be ship between the government and the people applied in meetings of official governing bodies served than almost any other method, and it is or advisory committees, commissions, or task particularly useful where the segment of popula- forces. Obviously, they also may be used with tion being studied is different enough from the various citizens groups, special interest groups, predominant culture of the community that such and program clientele groups. differences could make governmental policies Consultation may be used as a means of and programs unworkable if they are not taken gathering information in several ways. An open into consideration.6 door policy by governmental officials and Finally, there is the survey technique. Used resulting face-to-face consultations with average very seldom in governmental decisionmaking citizens, program clients, and community leaders processes until after World War 11, surveys now or other influential persons constitute traditional have become very common elements at all levels means of consultation. More recently, however, of government. There are many types of surveys, more systematic means of consultation have been ranging from the opinion polling which has used increasingly. These rely upon published become a household word in election campaigns, notice of governmental proposals and draft to mailed questionnaires of considerable length and depth, to individual interviews, group are general purpose in nature. They are distin- interviews, and even highly sophisticated issue guished from one another, in addition to size, balloting based upon mass media educational chiefly by the types of problems they face within efforts which may (in some cases) be linked to their geographic bounds and the resulting the balloting through computer terminals and intensity or militancy of their public action telephone lines. The purposes of surveys are to programs. Typically, they deal with issues such collect information in an unbiased way from a as zoning changes, new development, traffic full cross section of the population, or a segment conditions, crime, public facilities and services in thereof chosen in advance, and to do so in a timely their areas, physical deterioration, vandalism, fashion and inexpensively so that additional and changes in population or economic status. reliable and relevant information can be given to Next are the special interest groups. In the decisionmakers before they must decide a related citizen participation context, they are of two public policy issue. While amateurs frequently types: one based upon a special interest not dabble in surveys, this is a highly technical field in which statistical sampling, professional necessarily connected with a particular governmental program, and the other type consisting of wording of questions, and careful administration are essential to the validity of the results. the clientele of particular governmental programs. The first type of special interest group is ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS not tied at all to the residential location of its OF PARTICIPATION members-though such groups may have state and local chapters in addition to a national 69 Alexis deTocqueville's observation almost 150 structure-and neither is the second group years ago that Americans band together in except when implementation of the program voluntary associations with unusual frequency happens to concentrate on a particular local area. is as true today as when he made it. Almost every Examples of the first type of special interest imaginable type of voluntary association exists groups are: chambers of commerce, unions, in the U.S. today. Some are established totally churches, professional societies, environmental without governmental initiative, while others are protection and consumer organizations, taxpayer created or sponsored by government. Described associations, associations representing particu- below are some major types of citizen organi- lar industries, citizen planning associations, zations involved in governmental activities. associations of the various types of state and First is a group of citizen organizations which local governments (often seen at the federal level might be termed "indigenous." These are based as essentially equivalent to nongovernmental upon area of residence, and within that jurisdic- interests), and many others. Examples of the tion the citizens' interests are general purpose. more particular public program clientele associa- These groups may be rather broadbased civic tions are parent/teacher/student associations associations or federations of civic associations (PTSAs), farm bureaus, public housing tenant with fairly large geographic jurisdiction, encom- associations, highway user groups, welfare passing perhaps as much as a whole city or rights groups, veterans associations, and so on county. Then, there may be neighborhood associ- almost endlessly. ations with much more restricted geographic Finally, there are the several types of official boundaries. These may encompass only the citizens committees, commissions, and councils subdivision built by a single contractor or the established within the governmental framework. service area of a single elementary school. In Some are purely advisory, while others have areas undergoing cultural change or physical limited governmental powers. Some are continu- decline, or facing some other visible problem ing bodies with definite roles in certain ongoing (like rising crime or declining schools), more activities of government, while others are tem- militant citizen action councils and block groups porary study units which go out of existence may form. At the smallest end of the spectrum is upon completion of their assignments. Some are the tenant association which may be limited to a composed completely of private citizens holding single apartment building or project. no other "official" positions, while other such Despite differences in size, all of these "indi- bodies have a mixed membership of private genous" citizen organizations spring from a citizens and public officials. In some cases, geographic residence basis of membership, and public governing bodies have one or more "citizen" seats designated for the purpose of result. Some localities-like Dayton and Cincin- incorporating some specific interest (such as a nati, OH, and New York City-have official student seat on a school board). Citizen members neighborhood boards which are used systemati- often are appointed to these committees, commis- cally in their planning and budgeting processes.10 sions, and councils by governmental officials or At least 19 local governments also have decen- by the members of those citizen groups which tralized their administrative services to "little hold seats on the official body, but in some cases city halls" to facilitate direct contact with their they are elected by the constituencies they citizens.ll represent. Where appointment processes are used, the number and types of citizens on the INDIVIDUAL FORMS OF body may be specified by law or administrative CITIZEN PARTICIPATION regulation for the purpose of ensuring reasonable representativeness within the body and to avoid Individuals have contact with government as the "capturing" of the body by special interests individuals in many ways. They vote to put with which the group would be expected to have elected officials in office (and in some states and official relationships. localities to remove them also), and in many places they also vote to initiate government Local planning commissions (numbering near- policies themselves (as members of the electo- ly 800 in 1970)7and the citizen advisory commit- rate) or to pass upon the actions of state or local tees required in numerous federal aid programs8 legislatures (referendum).lZ Individuals also are 70 exemplify the appointed citizen bodies designed clients of various public programs, and make primarily for advisory citizen participation statements of their own views concerning public purposes. Local government study commissions issues at public hearings, in the mass media, and provide an example of the temporary citizen task in other forums. Moreover, individuals are force. Elected model cities boards, under the now employed by the government, and there is defunct federal program of that name, provided increasing emphasis toward government work an example of the elective form of citizen group, a forces being representative of all segments of the form which is reflected now most often in elected general population as a means of breaking down neighborhood councils established in a number the "we-they" relationship between the people of large cities for purposes of neighborhood and the government. In certain governmental decentralization. The earlier Model Cities boards programs (notably antipoverty and Indian pro- operated, and current elected neighborhood grams), special efforts are made to hire project councils operate, within the policy framework personnel for public contact positions who are established by their city or county government, members of the population sector being served. possibly with some degree of decisionmaking This "indigenous" employment practice is de- authority within their own neighborhoods. signed to sensitize the government staff as well The issues of decentralization within local gov- as to enhance acceptance of the governmental ernments, and community control of schools, program by project clients. Volunteer workers were major concerns in the 1960s, generating also are used in some programs to supplement great controversy. They crystalized the question public agency efforts and to add the indigenous concerning whether citizen participation means dimension. (a) citizen control or (b) ample opportunity for Individuals also are active in influencing citizens to be heard and responded to within the public issues through political campaigning and established structure of government. The anti- lobbying for their own special interests, not only establishment mood of the 1960s supported a at election times but throughout the year. When number of citizen control experiments, compet- individuals feel they are adversely affected by ing with established structures of government governmental policies or proposals they may also for the exercise of power, but the 1970s has been a exercise various rights of administrative appeal, period in which there has been a return to the may appeal to a court to stop the implementation "ample opportunity to be heard" format. Never- of a governmental decision and/or to change that theless, decentralization to the neighborhood decision, or may even mount a demonstration or level in a number of the larger local jurisdictions protest of some type. These last three courses of has remained intact in an advisory role.0 Formal- action-administrative appeals, court action, ly elected advisory neighborhood councils are the and demonstrations-may be used by organizations as well as individuals. Indeed, those actions forms of participation, about four-fifths may be of this type having far reaching significance for counted upon to channel information to citizens, public policy usually do have organizational while about the same number may be counted backing, even though they may take the form of a upon as means of collecting information from or case directly affecting only an individual. Class about citizens. While the forms of participation action suits are relatively new instruments in the are not always the same for these two tasks, US. for influencing relationships between the about three-fifths of the 31 typically may be government and the people, and they are based on expected to serve both purposes. This means that an aggregation of individuals rather than upon a large number of different channels for two-way the existence of an organized corporate body communications between citizens and govern- representing the interest involved. ment may be opened. Individual citizen participation (a) relies upon In a general sense, any two-way communica- adequate information dissemination, (b) clearly tions channel may be viewed as a means of can contribute substantially to the information helping to improve public decisions, programs, collected by government, and (c) often can be projects, and services if diligently applied enhanced very substantially when exercised toward this end. However, the outcome of within the framework of citizen participation participation through most of the forms is so organizations. Apart from these interrelation- uncertain in relation to its effect on programs ships among the major types of participation, that only a few may be counted upon, necessarily, there is one additional factor to consider when an to improve public decisions in most cases. The individual has a problem with, or grievance latter include those specifically designed to solve 71 against, government, and is affected alone. In problems of individuals, to provide unbiased such cases, that person may find that mounting data about the whole population affected, and to an effort to rectify the situation can be more than sensitize government to the "objective" factors in an individual can do alone. To surmount this a public issue. Several other forms of information difficulty, some governments have established exchange and organizational or individual par- ombudsmen, consumer affairs offices, offices of ticipation obviously affect the nature of public public counsel, or other similar mechanisms. decisions, but whether or not the effect is an These offices assign government officials to the improvement may be less certain. For example, tasks of receiving and looking into complaints the effects of political campaigning, lobbying, about the activities of government, and using the subjecting public decisionmakers to special authority of their positions to gain access to interest group pressures, and holding hearings, relevant government information, to make offi- may or may not improve public activities. In cial findings, and to assist complainants in some cases, in fact, these types of participation getting a fair hearing by the government. This may delay decisions or perhaps even lead to practice began in Europe but has spread to decisions being skewed away from the general several states in the U.S. over the past decade or public interest. so, and to several other units of government in the Roughly a third of the 31 forms of citizen U.S. as we11.13 The ombudsman concept also has participation provide fairly reliable means of (a) its counterparts in the judicial system, where enhancing acceptance of public decisions or legal aid services and public defender systems programs, (b) supplementing public agency have expanded significantly in recent years.14 work, or (c) altering political power and resource The result is that, increasingly, the individual is allocation patterns. The forms of participation not left alone in his quest for justice and fair play which enhance public acceptance do so by at the hands of government. providing political legitimacy (voting, open gov- Relationships Between the Purposes and ernment, and objective surveys), two-way com- Forms of Citizen Participation munications (working in public projects, meetings, conferences, workshops, consultation, hot Table 3-3 shows in a rough way the degree to lines, and drop-in-centers), or high public visa- which the several forms of citizen participation bility (advertising, notices, and word of mouth). may be used to achieve the eight specific Those forms of participation supplementing purposes of citizen participation. The most public agency work include the contributions obvious feature about the table is that of the 31 made by citizen organizations in providing P w zg P e .p : ggn e.:sh~h$=.p~7s.g - % ,o fie'5 ?. A IP- 0 gn -.=gnq rp;i ,=f1 h NIP=.. c? En* j:zR 7 V) % c ~-3g =ZIP- 2 5% ;.+ .cs v .$ IP @ en 5.e V) .30=gpr-. -2 an 4 =8' si ev ; g~12 z>a=.nm32. > 3 ij.3 v E~.L-?I: =g RR ;hi 3 5 Zen2 c ;;.+%=.vV)p &.% .a. 82 e g-~z5 zi c ., iIp u 5 - "' Ha0 a w a Z.

Citizen Groups Special Interest Groups Specific Prnqrarn Clientele Groups Official Citizen Committees Voting Being a Client Making Statements Working in Public Projects CampaignILobby Administrative Appeals Going to Court

Demonstrations

Open Government MeetingsISpeaker Bureaus Conferences Publications Mass Media

Direct Mailings

Hot Lines Dropln Centers Correspondence

Word of Mouth Hearings Workshops, Meetings, Conferences Consultation Government Records Nongovernment Documents Participant Observers Survevs information, preparing reports, and volunteering services, as well as some of the more intensive forms of individual participation (working in public projects, and pursuing administrative or judicial appeals which may revise and clarify public policies, programs, and procedures), and some of the information dissemination and collection methods which help to spread public messages or gather-in outside information for use by government. The obvious contributors to altering political power and public resource allocation patterns are the activities of citizen participation organizations, political participation (voting, campaigning, and lobbying), and pursuing administrative and judicial appeals. Open government also can be expected to aid such changes simply through the power of public scrutiny. Several other forms of citizen participation, as indicated in the table, have more subtle (but sometimes very definite) impacts on political and resource allocation patterns. 73 Very few of the citizen participation forms have an obvious relationship to protecting individual and minority group rights and interests, or to delaying or avoiding difficult public decisions, although quite a few may be used for this purpose if sincere efforts are made to do so. Among the forms most obviously related to both these purposes are administrative and judicial appeals. Forms related more to minority purposes are open government and word of mouth, both of which can be positive factors in assisting minority groups to find out about governmental activities which may affect them. Demonstra- tions and protests also may serve both minority and delay purposes, and the latter (or avoidance) purpose may be especially well served by political action in many cases. Nearly half of the citizen participation forms typically can be expected to make a positive contribution toward achieving at least four of the eight purposes of citizen participation if used diligently and in "good faith" by both officials and citizens.

Who Gets Involved in Citizen Participation and Why? Table 3-2 shows, in a general way, degree of interaction and involvement among the various types of public officials and sectors of the general public, and the typical purposes of involvement from their own viewpoints or in terms of the Table 3-2

PURPOSES OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION GENERALLY EMPHASIZED BY VARIOUS INTERESTS, AND RELATIVE EXTENT OF THEIR INVOLVEMENT* INTERESTS Citizens Officials involved in Citizen 01 "l ,- cPrrlFlr\ participation1 g ; of Citizen Participation**

'Universal" Purposes I. Give Information to Citizens 2. Get Information From/About Citizens 'Establishment" Purposes 3. Improve Public Decisions/ Programs vv H HH v v I. Enhance Acceptance of Public Decisions/Programs vv H HHvv v H i. Supplement Public Agency Work H VH v H 'AntCEstabMment" wo= 5. Alter Political Power Patterns and Resources Allocations 7. Protect Individual and Minority Croup Rights and Interests H H B. Delay or Avoid Difficult Public Decisions VH H Hvv v

'H = Highly involved. I = Low involvement. v = Variable amount or intensity of involvement, depending upon the situation; frequently ranging from low to high. Blank = Typically not involved. '"These specific purposes all operate within the two general purposes of (1) changing the behavlor of governments so that they respond better to citizen needs and desires, and (2) changing citizen behavior to make citizens more capable and active in governmental affairs and less alienated from society. The characterizations of specific purposes as universal, establishment, or antiestablishment are not precise; rather, they are reminders that these purposes are viewed differently and used differently by different groups and individuals.

SOURCE: AClR staff compilation of information principally contained in: Robert A. Aleshire, "Planning and Citizen Participation: Costs, Senefits, and Approaches," Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4, Beverly Hllls, CA, Sage Publications, June 1970, pp. 369-93; Sherry R. Yrnstein, "A Ladder of Citizen Partic~pation,"journal of the American lnstitute oiPlanners, Vol. XXXV, No. 4, Washington, DC, American Institute of Planners, July 1969, pp. 216-24; Edmund M. Burke, "Citizen Partic~pationStrategies," lournal of the American lnstitute of Dlanners, Vol. XXXIV, No. 5, Washington, DC, American lnstitute of Planners. September 1968, pp. 287-94; Melvin Mogulof, Citizen "articipation: A Revfew and Commentary on Federdl Policies and Practices, Washington, DC, The Urban Institute, 1970; Nelson M. Rosen- Daum, Citizen lnvolvement in Land Use Governance: Issues and Methods, Washtngton, DC, The Urban Institute, 1976. effect they have.15 As this table shows, all the Special Techniques to Enhance basic types of public officials usually have a high Interactive Participation degree of involvement with some aspect of citizen participation. Court officials are least involved, Table 3-3 lists 15 special techniques which but even they must deal with citizen appeals have been used in various of the citizen participa- when aggrieved parties seek to protect their tion forms to enhance the effectiveness of two- individual and minority group rights or interests, way information flows between different ele- or to delay or change a public decision made in ments within government or within the citizenry, the executive or legislative branches of govern- or between the government and citizens. As the ment. table shows, most of these techniques may be used with the various types of organizations Among the various sectors of the general involved in citizen participation, as well as in public, the press, special interest groups, and workshops, meetings, and conferences designed specific clientele groups related to governmental to elicit responses from participating citizens and programs generally are the most intensely others. In addition, the "plural planning" or involved. Their high degree of involvement is advocacy planning techniques described earlier prompted by a concern with most of the eight can be used to inject alternative policies or plans purposes of citizen participation. Minority into political campaigns or appeals processes of groups, individual clients benefiting from pro- either the administrative or judicial varieties. grams, individual citizens employed in a govern- Finally, some of the newer technological tech- ment program, and aggrieved parties all have niques, based upon computers and television, 75 extensive involvement with government, but for may be used to add an interactive dimension to more restricted purposes. The minority groups surveys. and aggrieved parties are more concerned with It should be noted that these special techniques altering the allocation of political power and (most of which relate to groups rather than public resources, protecting their own rights, and individuals) are not the only means of facilitating delaying or avoiding public decisions which may participation. In fact, all the forms of citizen be incompatible with their own interests, while participation previously identified do this, and the individual program beneficiaries and indi- many of them (such as hot lines, direct mail, genous employees are more likely to be concerned drop-in centers, and ombudsmen) are directly with program information and the acceptability designed to facilitate participation by individu- of programs. Organized majority groups, resi- als as individuals. The distinction made here dents of particular neighborhoods or communi- between forms and special techniques is simply ties, and voters may get involved to a highdegree that the former are identifiable structures or or very little, depending upon the ebb and flow of activities which stand on their own, while the specific issues at particalar times and places. latter need a vehicle in which to be used (and a Minority groups also may exhibit this situational variety of vehicles will serve). behavior with respect to their involvement, since many policy issues and administrative actions When to Use Citizen Participation have no particular minority group focus. Ordi- nary citizens, in the main, who are not acting in An effective citizen participation process one or another of these other citizen capacities, involves the appropriate use of different forms can be expected to have very little direct and techniques at the right stages in a govern- involvement in citizen participation programs. mental activity. Table 3-4 shows this relationship in a generalized fashion, relating the stages The potential for involvement by any individu- of governmental activity to the major purposes of al or group at any time, however, may be as citizen participation. Then, by referring back to important as actual involvement. For example, Tables 3-1 and 3-3, the reader can translate these the fact that citizens have the opportunity to purposes into appropriate options for the forms examine and criticize a local budget probably and techniques of citizen participation which will influence that budget even if such citizen might be chosen at any stage. action seldom occurs. While this follows common For purposes of this analysis, the stages of gov- sense, its validity also has been confirmed clearly ernmental decisionmaking and problem solving by the mathematical field of game theory.16 activities are: Table 3-3

SPECIAL TECHNIQUES OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION RELATED TO MAJOR FORMS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FORMS I I of Organizational Individual Information Dissemination lnformation Collection Citizen \ Participation & SPECIAL \ TECHNIQUES of \ Citizen Participation \ * 1. Arbitration Psychologhl 2. Mediation xxxx 3. Coordinator1 Catalyst xxxx 4. Plural Planning xxxx XXX 5. Group Dynamics xxxx 6. Focused Group Discussion xxxx 7. Policy Capturing xxxx 8. Policy Delphi xxxx 9. Priority Setting xxxx 10. Design-In xxxx 11. Game Simulation xxxx Technological 12. Interactive Cable TV XXX 1 3. Teleconferencing XXX by Computer 14. Real Time Computer xxxx Polling and Feedback 15. Interactive Computer xxxx Graphics

SOURCE: AClR staff compilation of information principally contained in: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Effective Citizen Participation in Transportation Planning, Vol. II, A Catalog of Techniques, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Table 3-4

APPROPRIATENESS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PURPOSES AT THE-. VARIOUS STAGES OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY -.STAGES

Governmental

Participation* I

1 b - "Universal" Purposes 1. Give Information to Citizens 2. Get lnformation From/ About Citizens "Establishment" Purposes 3. Improve Public Decisions/Programs 4. Enhance Acceptance of Public Decisionsl Programs 5. Supplement Public Agency Work "Anti-Establishment" Purposes 6. Alter Political Power Patterns and Resources Allocations 7. Protect Individual and Minority Group Rights and Interests 8. Delay or Avoid Difficult Public Decisions - *These specific purposes all operate within the two general purposes of (1) changing the behavior of governments so that they respond better to citizen needs and desires, and (2) changing citizen behavior to make citizens more capable and active in governmental affairs and less alienated from society. The characterizations of specific purposes as universal, establishment, or antiestablishment are not precise; rather, they are reminders that these purposes are viewed differently and used differently by different groups and individuals.

SOURCE: Cogan & Associates, Techniques of Public Involvement, State Planning Series 11, Washington, DC, Council of State Plan- ning Agencies, 1977. 1) problems and issues recognition public agency work, and protecting individual 2) goals setting, and minority group rights also recur throughout 3) fact finding and research, the process. Efforts to enhance acceptance of 4) problem definition and revision of goals, policies and programs and to alter political 5) development of alternative public poli- power and public resources allocation patterns cies and programs, occur primarily at the direction setting and 6) analysis of alternatives (impact ana- implementation stages (stages 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8). lyses), Anyone interested in delaying or reversing 7) recommendation and adoption of pre- public decisions and activities also may be ferred public policies and programs, concerned with these direction setting stages, but 8) implementation of adopted public policies drastic actions to achieve this purpose usually and programs, and are reserved for the recommendation, adoption, 9) evaluation of policy and program imple- and imple!nentation stages (stages 7 and 8). mentation. Programs in Which As Table 3-4 shows, citizen participation of Citizen Participation is Used some type is appropriate at all of these stages. Citizen participation is used in both the The widest range of participation purposes apply legislative and executive branches of govern- at the recommendation, adoption, and implemen- ment, and often relates to processes and policies 78 tation stages, but almost as wide a range is of general government involving the highest level appropriate at the earlier goal setting and elected and appointed officials. Such participa- problem definition stages. Very significant par- tion also is used quite commonly in many ticipation, involving half or more of the citizen individual programs in both the physical devel- participation purposes, also is appropriate opment and human services fields, where citi- at the problem and issue recognition stage zens may be involved even more deeply, delving as well as the impact analysis and final evalua- into administrative matters and dealing with tion stages. The fewest purposes of public in- lower level staff people as well as the higher level volvement come into play at the fact finding and policies and officials. Except for the most research stage and the stage in which alternative traditional forms of political participation (vot- public policies and programs are developed, ing, campaigning, and lobbying),l7 most forms although these purposes sometimes may produce and techniques of citizen participation used very significant benefits at these stages also. The today are of relatively recent origin. high degree of expertise needed at these stages Some of the more recent citizen participation (or large amounts of technical assistance needed methods, however, have older roots going back to to compensate for the lack of expertise by earlier physical development programs and local citizens) sometimes limits the amount of partici- government reforms. The "good government" pation at these two stages. Still, it should be movement in the early part of this century recognized that the professionally trained "ex- spawned citizen planning commissions through- perts" have no monopoly on creativity or new out much of the nation and a variety of citizen ways of seeing problems and solutions. In fact, task forces and study commissions which sometimes too much training restricts vision prepared special reports with recommendations enough that only a fresh view from outside the for improving and modernizing the forms and bureaucracy can open new vistas and break Functions of government. Often, these commis- impasses. sions, task forces, and study groups originated as Table 3-4 also shows how continuously or citizen "watch dog" groups designed to monitor sporadically the different purposes of citizen the activities of government and bring outside participation are likely to be focused upon by the pressure to bear as a means of correcting govern- various interests (identified in Table 3-2) as a mental abuses and inadequacies. However, as governmental activity is pursued. Goals which time passed, the planning commissions and other are pursued from beginning to end include citizen groups in the physical development informing citizens and developing information programs took on functions which were more for use in governmental activities. The purposes integral to the operations of continuing govern- of improving public decisions, supplementing mental activities. Their physical development assignments oriented them largely toward public services field encompasses some of the most works projects and the programming of funds for innovative participation forms and techniques. such projects over three or five-year periods of However, these tend not to be as uniformly time in accordance with physical development applied across all human services as is common plans. among physical development programs. This physical project orientation led to empha- Among the general government programs, sis upon improving the design of the projects to except for comprehensive planning which fol- enhance their efficiency and effectiveness and to lows the physical development pattern, tradi- minimize their adverse impacts on the communi- tional political participation (augmented by ty, thereby enhancing their political and com- occasional temporary study commissions) typi- munity acceptance. Urban redevelopment and cally was felt to be adequate until recent years. In renewal programs deepened citizen involvement the post-Watergate era, however, the urge to in physical development work very greatly in the rebuild confidence in government has led to 1950s, and led the way for even more intensive major efforts in the last few years to open all participation under the Model Cities program in parts of government to public view. Increasingly, the second half of the 1960s. Heavy participation now, most legislative meetings are open to the in transportation projects began in the 1960s, and public and may even be broadcast by the environmental concerns have been added in the electronic media, while administrative rulemak- 1970s. Energy programs are now at the threshold ing which once took place behind closed doors of developing such involvement. (with the involvement of only special interest 79 Citizen participation in agricuItura1 and natu- groups) also has been put out in the open through ral resources programs came out of somewhat public notices, publication of proposed rules, and different traditions in the early part of the open invitations for all to comment and have century. The former were approached, for their comments responded to. Even labor negoti- example, through the demonstration programs of ations now are being conducted in public in some the agricultural extension agents (with direct cases, or submitted to some sort of public farmer contacts), through loan programs with ratification process afterwards. farmer-controlled review committees, and Admittedly, these characterizations of partici- through the election of farmer-controlled soil pation across the broad spectrum of government conservation districts, while the development of programs and activities is very general and water resources (through building dams and imprecise. Nevertheless, it provides some sense supplying irrigation and rural electrification) of the different origins and perceptions of generated rural citizen committees and direct participation in the different programs. Addi- "consumer" relationships with the federal gov- tional detail on some of these programs is ernment. provided in Chapter 4, where brief descriptions Citizen participation in human services pro- of citizen participation requirements in several grams received national attention considerably federal grant programs are examined, and in later, and grew out of still different traditions. It Chapter 5 where there is an examination of is more people oriented, case work sensitive, and participation in issues of state and local govern- advocative in nature. Its roots are largely in ment budgeting and financing. social work and sociology, and its national A general overview of the program-by- origins are found in the mid-1960s when the program variations in citizen participation forms antipoverty program and similar efforts began- and techniques are shown in Table 3-5. This table some have argued-as an effort to defuse the also shows variations by program for the several "time bomb" of dissatisfaction in urban ghettos "means" of facilitating citizen participation-re- which eventually broke out as urban riots. In gardless of which form or technique is being comparison with citizen participation in physical used. developmental fields, human services participa- The forms and techniques of citizen participation tends to be more oriented to continuous tion have been described earlier in this chapter, program operations on a year-by-year and but the general means of facilitating them have month-by-month basis, rather than the more only been hinted at. Thus, it is appropriate to episodic project orientation represented by describe the means here before proceeding to public works. Despite its later start, the human examine Table 3-5. These "means" are actions Table 3-5 PROGRAMS USING VARIOUS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FORMS, TECHNIQUES, AND MEANS OF FACILITATION-BY FREQUENCY OF USE* General Government Physical Development Human Services

W U

FACILITATING Citizen Participation FORMS 1. Organizational a. Citizen Groups G G G G sGG SSSSS G s b. Special Interest Groups G G G G GGGGGGGGGGGG c. Specific Program Clien- tele Groups G GG GGGGG GGGGGGGG d. Official Citizen Com- mittees, Task Forces, and Commissions 2. Individual a. Voting S S s S S b. Being a Program Client s SSS G SsSSSSSS c. Making Statements G GGG G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG d. Attending Meetings G GGG G GG GGGGGGGGGGGGG e. Working in Public Projects 5 s se G sGGsssCSs f. Campaigning/Lobbying G GGGGG G GG GGGGGGGGGGGGG g. Court/Administrative Appeals S S S S h. Demonstrating SSS SSS 3. Information Dissemination a. Open Government G GGG G G GGGGGGGGGGGGGs b. Special Public Informa- tion Meetings G GGGG s G G G GG c. Conferences G GGGGG s G d. Publications G G G GGGGGGGGGGGGC e. Mass Media G G C G GGG sGGGGGGGG f. Displays/Exhibits/Etc. G G G G G G GGG GGG G g. Mail Gsse s s G S S S h. AdvertisingINotices S S s S i. Hot Lines S S S S s j. Drop-In Centers s G Gsss s k. Correspondence G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 4. Information Collection a. Hearings b. Workshops, Meetings and Conferences S SSS s sssGGsGGs s sG G c. Consultation G GGG G G G G G GGGGGGGGGGG G d. Government Records s GGGss G G G GGGGGGGGGGGG G e. Nongovernment Docu- ments (content analysis) GGG G GGG G f. Participant Observers e e e e e g. Surveys sssssssGs TECHNIQUES 1. Legal a. Arbitration 2. Psychological a. Mediation sses b. CoordinatorICatalyst e c. Plural (advocacy) Planning eeee e d. Group Dynamics SSSS S S e. Focused Group Discussion e G f. Policy Capturing e e e g. Policy Delphi e e e h. Priority Setting SSSS S S i. Design-In e e e j. Game Simulation e e e 3. Technological a. lnteractive Cable TV b. Teleconferencing by Computer c. Real Time Computer Polling and Feedback d. Interactive Computer Graphics and Game Simu- lation Table 3-5 (cont.) PROGRAMS USING VARIOUS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FORMS, TECHNIQUES, AND MEANS OF FACILITATION-BY FREQUENCY OF USE* General Government Physical Dewloprnent Human Services PROGRAMS S 0, 0, .-> .-U V) C

AND MEANS OF FACILITATING Citizen ; & 4 d ; 4 r;i drdr; &r;d\dr;ed6

MEANS OF FACILITATING 1. Simplify and Clarify the Process s 2. Provide Citizen Participa- tion Training to: a. Citizens s s s s b. Public Officials and Staffs e s s 3. Provide Citizen Participation and Related Staff to: a. Citizen Groups s s s s s b. Government Agencies sGe Gsss GssG sss GG 4. Provide Technical Assis- tance to: a. Citizen Groups s s s s s S s sGsGGsss Sss b. Certain Individual Citi- zens G s s s I 5. Provide Economic Assis- tance and Incentives for Citizens to Participate sG s ss s s Ss a. Cost Reimbursement ssss s s sss GG GG G GG 1 b. Honoraria s e s s I *G = Generally used. s = Sometimes used. e = Experimentally or infrequently used. Blank = Not used. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Effective Citizen Participation in Transportation Planning, Vol. It, I A Catalog of Techniques, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. which may be taken by government, or by other groups. However, the other means of facilitating interested parties, to enable participants in the participation are not used to nearly so great an process-whether they are public officials or extent. This is evident in the fact that the gov- private persons or groups-to be more effective. ernment processes in which citizens are expected Perhaps most basic is the effort to simplify and to participate remain complex and confusing for clarify the governmental processes in which the most part. In addition, citizen participation participation is occurring. Unnecessary com- training is seldom offered either to citizens or plexity and confusion makes participants waste public officials, and staff assistance is seldom their time and efforts, become increasingly provided to citizen groups. Also, technical frustrated with their lack of effectiveness, and assistance is seldom provided to individual ultimately withdraw from the process. participants, and the same may be said of But even with relatively clear and simple gov- honorariums. ernmental processes, participants need to "learn With respect to the forms of citizen participa- the ropes" and have access to staff and technical tion, Table 3-5 shows that all of the govern- assistance. Several means are available to mental program areas tabulated make wide- provide this help. One is training in the use of spread use of three or more of them, and all the citizen participation forms and techniques. It programs use still other forms sometimes or oc- sometimes is as useful to public officials and casionally. The program areas using the fewest their staffs as it is to citizens themselves. Then, forms are labor relations and scientific re- once the participants know what is to be done to search-as one might expect. In the middle group participate effectively, they can do a much better are the program fields of budget and finance, 83 job if they have staff allocated to help them, and if legislation, administrative rulemaking, natural they have access to technical resources which resources, services for the aging, antipoverty, can help answer key questions brought up in the job training and placement, health, education, participation dialogue. leisure time, welfare, and criminal justice. The Finally, economic assistance can do a great ones using the largest number of forms are com- deal to enable participants to join and remain in prehensive planning, community development, the participation process. This is an especially economic development, transportation, environ- crucial consideration in the participation of low mental protection, energy (potentially), agricul- and moderate income people who may not be able ture, and housing. to afford the babysitting, transportation, and The forms of participation used most common- salary loss consequences of participating. This ly by the various program areas are special becomes a major concern in human services interests and specific program clientele groups, programs where many of the most relevant individual statements and attendance at meet- participants fall into these lower income catego- ings, political campaigning and lobbying, open ries. In other programs, this cost reimbursement government, publications and mass media, consideration is often more limited to the correspondence and consultation, and the analy- courtesy type of expenses such as free parking sis of information from government records. and a free meal at the meeting site. Honoraria, not Least generally used are indigenous employment specifically related to any actual costs, also have in public projects, mass mailings, drop-in ten- been provided in a few cases where additional ters, participant observers, and surveys. incentive was desired for attracting particular None of the special techniques for intensifying experts or a good cross section of those to be the two-way interchange of information are represented. generally used in any program area (except As Table 3-5 shows, some form of reimburse- focused group discussions in agriculture), but ment often is provided, often covering a fuller these techniques at least have been experimented range of costs in the human services fields than in with in almost every program area. other programs. Also, citizen participation staffs are generally provided within government agen- Comprehensive Participation Processes cies in a number of different program areas. Those staffs, often supplemented by other Recognizing that citizen participation can be regular staff members in public agencies, fre- much more effective and useful when several quently provide technical assistance to citizen forms of it are used together, many units of Citizen Croups 111 I Special Interest Groups Specific Program Clientele Cnnrps Offiiial Citizen Committees Voting Being a Client Making Statements Working in Public Pmjects -paiy/LobbY Administrative Appeals Gaing to Court Demonstrations Open Government Meeting/ III 3 Speaker Bureaus Conferences Publications Mass Media Displays/Exhibits hit AdvertisinglNotices Hot Lines Dropln Centers

Word of Mouth Hearing Workshops, Meeting, Conferences III - Consultation Government Recd government have established more or less highly intensive problem solving process which comprehensive programs of citizen participation is usually applied to a relatively limited and well which make use of several such forms. Table 3-6 defined public policy issue. It involves choosing a shows the degree to which four such processes relatively small but highly representative group rely upon the various forms of citizen participa- of people affected by the issue, and gathering tion. them together in a marathon meeting process The first one-standard public policy where they are given adequate staff and technical process-often used by governing bodies and support and are asked to "solve the problem." The planning commissions, makes heavy use of such process may be scheduled over a series of forms as official citizen commissions, commit- consecutive weekends or evenings within a tees, and task forces, as well as special interest relatively short period of time so that a highly groups, political processes, and hearings. Other intensive working atmosphere can be developed forms of participation are used to lesser degrees, and maintained. The result is a definite public but too frequently participation is inadequate policy proposal and project design, agreed to by and leads to demonstrations or other types of more or less "official" representatives of the protest in the end. parties-at-interest. The policy proposal and By contrast, the "open" public policy process project design are presented to public policymak- places a high reliance on about three times as ers for final action. many participation forms. The idea is to provide The charrette is a highly interactive process, much fuller participation throughout the policy- and it uses many of the same participation forms making process, and minimize the risk of as value analysis. The chief differences are (I) 85 demonstrations and protests in the final stages. that much more attention may be given at the The other two comprehensive participation beginning to publicizing the charrette and processes-value analysis and charrette-are choosing participants from the affected commun- much more highly structured, and have been used ity who may not necessarily be organizational much less frequently. Value analysis has been representatives, and (2) the charrette takes place used in the transportation and education fields, over a much shorter period of time, essentially while charrettes have been used for designing within the confines of one room, whereas the schools and neighborhood facilities, regional value analysis may take place over a long period land use plans, urban renewal projects, model of time with many more steps to the process cities projects, rapid transit systems, highway and many more technical studies and outside fac- interchanges, urban malls, and historic preserva- tors influencing the process. tion plans. While the value analysis and charrette pro- The value analysis process identifies the key cesses are not as general purpose as the "stand- parties-at-interest in a public policy issue, and ard" and "open" public policy processes, they do involves all of them throughout the policymaking illustrate the way in which a variety of citizen process in (a) identifying the factors of chief participation forms and techniques may be concern to them, (b) ranking the consequences of linked together creatively to help solve large- alternative proposals, (c) reacting to technical scale, long-range planning problems and smaller, studies, (d) resolving community differences of more immediate project design problems. opinion, and finally (e) developing support for a preferred policy or program. The forms and Factors Considered in Developing techniques used in this process may vary from Citizen Participation Processes time-to-time and place-to-place, but great reliance is placed upon representative citizen and If it is agreed that citizen participation is most special interest groups, meetings, workshops, effective when approached through a process conferences, consultations, and surveys. The which provides a variety of opportunities at more highly interactive these forms, the better. different stages of governmental activities, then The charrette is much like the design-in developing an effective process involves choos- technique described earlier, except that the ing the appropriate participation forms and charrette has greater status in the planning techniques, and providing appropriate support to process and follows through all the way to the facilitate the process at particular times in point of official public decisionmaking. It is a specific places. Such choices can be made upon the basis of the political acceptability, productiv- edgeable about the issues and provide ity, and feasibility of the various forms, tech- well considered responses; niques, and means. These factors, differentiating the many methods of participation, are examined 4) its ability to yield unique information below. about the people and organizations affected, the issues involved, and the ideas or POLITICAL ACCEPTABILITY viewpoints of the interested parties; 4) its ability to resolve issues (rather than to To be politically acceptable, a method of polarize them); and participation must be perceived as providing fair opportunities for inclusion of viewpoints from all 5) its ability to be objectively validated so sectors of the community or other constituencies that the reliability of information pro- which reasonably may be expected to be affected duced may be checked and vouched for. by the issues involved. Such methods also must be viewed as producing credible results, based FEASIBILITY upon responsible processes under which participants may be held accountable for their actions. There also is the question of the feasibility of These factors of fairness, inclusiveness, respon- the participation method. Some citizen participa- sibility, and accountability have the effect of tion methods cost much more than others, while legitimizing the process and making the results others may require much more of the citizens' 86 more credible. time than alternative methods. Some methods The other principal dimension of political may take so long that, by the time results are acceptability concerns the degree and rapidity of produced, the issues have already been decided. change which is sought in the political order. Are Citizen participation methods also vary a great the issues being raised in the main stream of deal in terms of citizen convenience. Moreover, those already recognized politically? Are they some methods are so complex, or deal with issues new ones on the fringe of recognition? Or, so complex, that ordinary citizens cannot partici- perhaps, are they issues which the present pate in them without special training, special political order has already "swept under the equipment, or other assistance. Finally, some rug?" Does the citizen participation method seek methods may require the passage of new laws to challenge existing political power bases and before they can be used. While these difficulties shift that power to new leaders more sympathetic might ultimately be overcome, they present to currently unacceptable issues? Obviously, practical obstacles in the pursuit of certain types there is a great difference between citizen of participation. participation which is genuinely helpful on well accepted issues and works in harmony with Evaluating the Forms of existing leadership, and participation which Citizen Participation seeks to change existing leadership and move into new "unsettling" types of issues. Both types Table 3-7 rates the various citizen participa- of participation may be necessary from time to tion forms, techniques, and facilitation practices time and place to place, but the former has a on the basis of their political acceptability, much greater chance of being politically accepted productivity, and feasibility. These ratings are from the beginning, while the latter is much more judgmental, but they are based upon an extensive likely to stir political opposition. review of the literature of citizen participation and upon specific pro and con evaluations of PRODUCTIVITY most of the forms and techniques prepared by the Federal Highway Administration in 1976.l8 The productivity of a citizen participation method is related to: ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS 1) its ability to actually attract citizens to The ratings of organizational forms of citizen take part in it actively; participation are fairly high overall. Especially 2) its ability to involve citizens relatively with respect to their feasibility and their produc- intensely, so that they become knowl- tivity in terms of attracting citizens to become involved and providing worthwhile information INFORMATION COLLECTION not available elsewhere. The self-selected citizen groups and special interest groups are not as high Most information collection practices also have in political acceptability as public program many benefits and few drawbacks. However, clientele groups and officially constituted citizen there are two exceptions. The drawbacks of committees, task forces, and commissions, be- public hearings (lack of opportunity for two-way cause of their potential for being biased on issues communications and the biased nature of much of affecting them. The clientele groups are consi- the information placed in the record] fairly dered to be legitimate participants because of evenly balance out their simplicity, feasibility, their high degree of involvement, while the and familiar position within the citizen partici- officially constituted committees and commis- pation process. Thus, they may be seen, very sions (including task forces) are "acceptable" often, as necessary parts of the citizen participa- because appointments to them can be balanced to tion process, but not one of the more productive ensure a fair and inclusive mixture of viewpoints parts. The other information collection practice and members who are viewed as responsible and with substantial drawbacks is the use of partici- accountable individuals. Of course, if appoint- pant observers. This method is impractical for ments to these bodies are not made with such use on a broad scale, but it can be very productive factors in mind, then these bodies also may lose in limited situations where other means may be their relatively high degree of "acceptability." unproductive.

INDIVIDUAL FORMS SPECIAL TECHNIQUES FOR ENHANCING INTERACTION Individual forms of citizen participation are quite varied, and span the full range of ratings. Most of the special techniques for enhancing Voting and being a program client are viewed as interactions among governments and people in highly legitimate in the political sense, and both the citizen participation process are highly are productive and feasible as well. Attending productive and politically acceptable. Most also meetings and working in public projects also are quite feasible. However, they are not without receive fairly high ratings, with relatively few problems. For example, the legal arbitration drawbacks. On the other hand, individuals technique is ruled out in many situations by the making public statements often are highly lack of authorization to carry it out, and the suspect, in that their statements are immediately design-in and game simulation techniques are so discounted as being "one man's opinion" unless intensive that they raise a whole variety of the person is a recognized leader of some sort feasibility questions in a large number of (tying him back to some organizational relation- situations. The technologically based interactive ship). Political campaigning, lobbying, and techniques also face feasibility problems relating demonstrating or protesting against govern- to cost and the need for special equipment and ment have even greater drawbacks; they repre- specially trained participants. sent obvious biases with respect to the issues confronted. Finally, the use of judicial and MEANS OF FACILITATING PARTICIPATION administrative appeal procedures by individuals presents almost as many problems of feasibility The means of facilitating participation (appli- and adverse impact on programs as the benefits cable to any of the forms or techniques used], which may accrue ultimately as program im- generally present opportunities for improving provements; thus, they usually are viewed as a the process with few drawbacks. However, their "last resort." relative lack of use attests to the significance of such drawbacks. For example, the staffing of INFORMATION DISSEMINATION citizen groups and certain individual citizens having special needs does run into some problem Information dissemination practices have of political acceptability; it may present a many benefits and few disadvantages, except challenge to existing leadership because it might that they (in themselves) are not very productive give citizens a greater capability to raise "unac- unless used in conjunction with other participa- ceptable" issues with greater frequency and tory practices. intensity. Thus, it often is viewed as something 40 ,,qlJOMt, pue At!sualul 'z

suaz!y!D XI I I EIEE IE OE E EEEX =JUV 01 Awqv 'L

(uopez!loqlne e8al 'luaud!nba Su!u!eq lepads 104 paau) sanssl lue spoww 40 At!l!qepu~wapun '5

EI E OEOE €0 1c3 0 EEEO

EE E IIOE Oa ICY I EEEE mmm m g. Mail mmH H h. AdvertisinglNotices mHH H i. Hot Lines mmH H j. Drop-In Centers mmH H k. Correspondence mmH H 4. Information Collection a. Hearings HmH m b. Workshops, Meetings and Conferences mmH m c. Consultation HmH m d. Government Records mmm H e. Nongovernment Docu- ments (content analysis) HmH H f. Participant Observers QQQ H g. Surveys mmH H TECHNIQUES 1. Legal a. Arbitration 2. Psychological a. Mediation b. CoordinatorICatalyst c. Plural (advocacy) Plan- ning mmm m d. Group Dynamics HHH m e. Focused Group Discus- sion (panels) HHH m f. Policy Capturing mmH m g. Policy Delphi mQQ m h. Priority Setting HHH m i. Design-In QQQ Q j. Game Simulation QQQ Q 3. Technological a. lnteractive Cable TV QmH H b. Teleconferencing by Computer QmH m c. Real Time Computer Polling and Feedback QmH m d. lnteractive Computer Graphics and Game Simu- lation QmH m Table 3-7 (cont.) MAJOR FEATURES OF THE VARIOUS FORMS, TECHNIQUES, AND MEANS OF FACILITATING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FEATURES of Forms, Political Acceptability* Productivitv* Techniques, and Means of Facilitating 4ND- MEANS OF Participation

MEANS OF FACILITATING 1. Simplify and Clarify the Process HHH H H 2. Provide Citizen Participa- tion Training to: a. Citizens mmm H H b.Public Officials and Staffs Hmm H H 3. Provide Citizen Participation and Related Staff to: a. Citizen Croups b. Certain Individual Citizens 4. Provide Technical Assis- tance to: a. Citizen Croups b. Certain Individual Citi- zens 5. Provide Economic Assis- tance and Incentives for Citizens to Participate a. Cost Reimbursement b. Honoraria *H = Highly politically acoeptable, feasible or productiw. Q =Questionable acceptability, feasibility or productivity. m = Moderately acceptable, feasible or productiw. Blank = Not applicable. **Costs are quite variable for most forms and techniques of citizen participation, often depending upon how seriously pursued and facilitated. Entries in this column assume reasonable diligence, and reflect only general estimates of relative cost. SOURCE: ACl R staff compilation based principally upon: U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Effectiw Citizen Participation in Transportation Planning, Vol. I I, A Catalog of Jechniqws, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. upon which to move rather slowly. Cost factors Nothing less than participation by 10O0/0 of the also may be raised in connection with these citizens, and their high intensity and well means of citizen participation facilitation. informed involvement, suffices to fulfill this common conception. Obviously, such participa- SUMMARY tion is possible only in small local jurisdictions, In summary, these ratings show that there are where travel distances, physical accommoda- many politically acceptable, productive, and tions, and a high level of commitment to self-gov- feasible citizen participation practices which ernment by all the people in the area permit such may be used in combination to help improve and processes. It should be obvious, also, that such enhance public acceptance of public decisions, participation seldom if ever is actually achieved, programs, projects, and services, to help partici- even in such local jurisdictions. Nevertheless, pants protect their own rights and interests, and this popular conception is so ingrained in to ensure that governments act responsively, American experience, that anything less is often responsibly, and accountably. Thus, it would labeled as pseudo-participation. In part, it is this appear that despite budgetary and time idealization which leads to the myth that constraints, a productive and acceptable citizen effective citizen participation can be sought only participation process can be developed where at the local levels of government. there is .a will to do so. Actually, there may be great variations at all levels of government (including local) in the proportions of people involved, in the intensity CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AT THE g1 VARIOUS LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT and frequency of their involvement, and in the purposes and forms of their involvement. When one actually looks into the practice of citizen Contrary to popular belief, citizen participa- participation in the United States, it becomes tion is a universal feature of government at all readily apparent that any level of government is levels in the United States. The following para- likely to use almost any form or technique of graphs elaborate upon this finding, but also show participation on one occasion or another. For that the practice of citizen participation varies example, in September 1978, the United States from one level of government to another. Congress installed a hot-line and stationed a battery of Congressmen at the phones to receive The Universality of Citizen Participation calls from all over the country from ordinary individuals wishing to place their views in front Table 3-8 shows that a substantial amount of of the Congress. President Carter had used a citizen participation is found at every level of similar technique months earlier, along with a government in the United States, and in every series of town meetings at which he appeared in branch of those governments. Despite lapses in various parts of the country to respond to the practice of citizen participation at particular citizen's questions. Showmanship or not, in these times and places, the American system of individual cases, it is obvious that the mere size democracy is based upon theories of openness and involvement, and continues to move toward of government is not necessarily a barrier to such ideals in actual practice. The jury system in providing citizens with direct access. The state the judiciary, and the campaigning, voting, and and federal governments now are using many lobbying processes in the two political branches means of consulting their constituents directly permeate the federal, state, and local levels of on major policy issues and on many administra- government. Beyond that, public information tive issues as well, though distance, cost, and programs and hearings are widely used by all familiarity with procedures can be factors that three levels, and by both the executive and inhibit folks who are not organized. legislative branches. When one stops to think of such matters, these Variations in Citizen Participation revelations are not surprising. However, the Among the Levels of Government common conception of citizen participation often has been the "town meeting" where all citizens Of course, there are differences in citizen attend and their direct participation and vote participation efforts at the various levels of gov- decides public issues without intermediaries. ernment. Table 3-8 shows, for example, that Table 3-8 LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT USING VARIOUS ClTlZEl PARTICIPATION FORMS, TECHNIQUES, AND MEANS OF FACILITATION-t Y FREQUENCY OF USE* Federal Government Stale Government Local Government Regional Govern- LEVELS AND mental Organizations PROCESSES -- u w u C c .-> c .a% M aJ 3 .E' E w a . gP % .r- .@ E.P L . +% r--O A .- 3 2-4 :cE I .= $ ." El kC 52 $@ FACILITATING -w M .- a 20 Citizen bn Y 32 ~b 3 ,, Participation r ci 4 i r 4 4 i FORMS 1. Organizational a. Citizen Groups b. Special Interest Groups c. Specific Program Clien- tele Groups d. Official Citizen Com- mittees, Task Forces, and Commissions 2. Individual a. Voting b. Being a Program Client c. Making Statements d. Attending Meetings e. Working in Public Proj- ects f. CampaigninglLobbying g. CourtIAdministrative Appeals h. Demonstration 3. Information Dissemination a. Open Government GGG G b. Special Public Informa- tion Meetings c. Conferences d. Publications e. Mass Media f. DisplaydExhibitdEtc. g. Mail h. Advertising/Notices i. Hot Lines j. Drop-In Centers k. Correspondence 4. Information Collection a. Hearings b. Workshops, Meetings and Conferences c. Consultation d. Government Records e. Nongovernment Docu- ments (content analysis) f. Participant Observers g. Surveys

TECHNIQUES 1. Legal a. Arbitration 2. Psychological a. Mediation b. Coordinator/Catalyst c. Plural (advocacy) Plan- ning d. Group Dynamics e. Focused Group Discus- sion f. Policy Capturing g. Policy Delphi h. Priority Setting i. Design-In j. Game Simulation 3. Technological a. lnteractive Cable TV b. Teleconferencing by Computer c. Real Time Computer Polling and Feedback d. lnteractive Computer Graphics and Came Simu- lation Table 3-8 (cont.) LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT USlNG VARIOUS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FORMS, TECHNIQUES, AND MEANS OF FACILITATION-BY FREQUENCY OF USE* Regional Govern- LEVELS AND Federal Government Stak Cowrnment 1 Local Government mental Organizations \ PROCESSES

r rim' i

MEANS OF FACILITATING 1. Simplify and Clarify the Process 2. Provide Citizen Participa- tion Training to: a. Citizens b. Public Officials and Staffs 3. Provide Citizen Participation and Related Staff to: a. Citizen Groups b. Government Agencies 4. Provide Technical Assis- tance to: a. Citizen Groups b. Certain Individual Citizens 5. Provide Economic Assis- tance and Incentives for Citizens to Participate a. Cost Reimbursement b. Honoraria *G = Generally used. s = Sometimes used. e = Experimentally or infrequently used. Blank = Not used. SOURCE: AClR staff compilation principally based upon: Cogan & Associates, Techniques of Public Involvement, State Planning Series 11, Washington, DC, Council of State Planning Agencies, 1977; U.S. Community Services Administration, Citizen Participation, Washington, DC, 1978; and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Effective Citizen Participation in Transportation Plan- ning, Vol. II, A Catalog of Techniques, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. somewhat more forms of citizen participation are general basis, although some local governments used by local governments on a fairly general and some regional governmental organizations basis than is true of other levels. However, do provide a substantial amount of across-the- regional governmental organizations are a close board assistance for participation. second, and the state and federal governments are not far behind. CHARACTERIZATION OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AT Not apparent from this table, but perhaps of EACH LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT even greater significance, are two other differences. First, participation is likely to be more While any attempt to characterize citizen frequent, and exercised at more different stages participation at any particular level of govern- of a governmental activity at the local level, or in ment runs the risk of oversimplification, it is regional organizations, than at the state and worthwhile to offer such characterizations to federal levels. Second, the proportion of people help crystalize a general feeling about the actually involved from the total population tends processes which are underway. to be greater, the lower the level of government, and this, of course, better approximates the LOCAL GOVERNMENT citizen participation ideal. A corollary to this second point is that the At the local level, there is likely to be a citizen screening of participants necessarily is greater planning commission to advise on physical for participation at higher levels of government, development matters, assorted temporary study g5 and organizational representation is re1ie.d upon commissions dealing with a variety of topics more (instead of individual participation) as the which change from time to time, numerous public size of government increases. For example, hearings held by the local governing body on anyone who shows up at a local public hearing everything from animal control to zoning, and and desires to speak, usually is allowed to do so. numerous citizens' associations and interest Sometimes this is even true in state legislative groups [like the Chamber of Commerce and the hearings. But at the national level, those to be League of Women Voters) ready and willing to heard by a Congressional committee, or by a appear at almost any hearing on relatively short federal administrative hearing panel or hearing notice. Local planning commissions frequently officer, usually are only those who have been hold open work sessions, and occasionally invited because of their special knowledge of the sponsor workshops and conferences in connec- topic or possession of some other special qualifi- tion with major revisions of their community's cations. The greater pressures of time at the plan for physical development. Special commit- higher levels of government demand this type of tees of local residents and businessmen may be screening, and tend to reduce the length of time established to assist in detailed planning of small and intensity of contact, and the degree of areas within the jurisdiction. interaction among the various interested parties at the upper levels of government. Nevertheless, REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS the contacts are there, and they may be elaborated upon in appropriate cases. Regional governmental organizations, such as At all three levels of government, the number of a metropolitan council of governments or rural different forms of citizen participation tend to be area regional planning council, may have a greatest in the policy formulation process [informal set of citizen advisory committees, one to cluding planning) and in program operations. advise them on each type of policy being There is somewhat less variety in the legislative developed. Frequently, such committees are a process (where hearings are the mainstay) and in requirement of federal aid. Conferences and administrative rulemaking (which has been workshops for the general public may be held at largely a matter of negotiation between adminis- appropriate points in the development of major trators and special interest groups until recent plans, and formal hearings may be held at several "open government" and consultation provisions locations in the region to give citizens an broadened the process). None of the levels of gov- opportunity to be heard before policies are ernment are using special interactive techniques adopted. Citizens also may have an opportunity of participation or facilitation methods on a to advise on the review of specific projects at the time they are being funded (specially if federal mendations on specific issues. In 1979, for funding is being proposed). example, there was a national study commission on transportation policy, and another on neigh- STATE GOVERNMENT borhoods. Special White House conferences also are held from time to time for similar purposes. At the state level, temporary citizen commit- A national study commission may be composed tees, or committees composed of both private of a mixture of one or two dozen private citizens citizens and public officials, frequently are and public officials, while a White House established to study and make recommendations conference frequently involves a large group of about major issues. Sometimes such committees people (perhaps numbering several hundred) are established by the Governor, and sometimes who collectively are more fully representative of by the legislature. a cross-section of the nation or of some major With respect to legislation, the legislature constituency. usually holds hearings on proposed bills, but The national legislative process is based upon frequently participation is rather limited. Often, hearings, and receives a great deal of press this participation includes only executive branch coverage. National organizations lobby both the personnel and other parties with special inter- legislative and Executive Branches during the ests. Sometimes, however, such hearings are legislative process. Congress and the Executive completely open. Branch both are opening many more of their On other matters, a few states now have regular national policy deliberations to public view. 96 publications providing official notice of adminis- Even administrative rulemaking in the federal trative rulemaking, comparable to the federal government is becoming much more openly register. Also, in recent years, many states have consultative. Under the Freedom of Information pursued "goals projects" in which many Act and recent executive orders, draft regula- hundreds of citizens have been involved through- tions are being published in the Federal Register, out the state in establishing goals and objectives with 30 to 60 day comment periods, associated for the future development and governing of the meetings and hearings, and other means of state. eliciting comments and debate upon the merits of the proposals.~~ THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT These "typical participation processes" only scratch the surface of what is actually taking At the federal level, Congress and the President place at every level of government. They are each have established national study commis- enough, however, to indicate that citizen partici- sions from time to time as temporary bodies to pation has its place throughout the American make specific studies or develop policy recom- federal system.

FOOTNOTES DC, The Urban Institute, 1976; U.S. Community Services Administration, Citizen Participation, Washington, DC, 1978; and US. Department of Transportation, Federal 'The most useful published sources used in this analysis are: Highway Administration, Effective Citizen Participation in Robert A. Aleshire, "Planning and Citizen Participation: Transportation Planning, Vol. 11, A Catalog of Techniques, Costs, Benefits, and Approaches," Urban Affairs Quarterly, Washington, DC, 1976. Vol. 5, No. 4, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, June 2U.S. Deqartment of Transportation, Effective Citizen 1970, pp. 369-93; Sherry R. Arnstein, "A Ladder of Citizen Participation in Transportation Planning, ibid. Participation," journal of the American Institute of 3For example, see Cogan &Associates,op. cit., pp. 7-10; U.S. Planners, Val. XXXV, No. 4, Washington, DC, American Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Public Institute of Planners, July 1969, pp. 216-24; Edmund M. Involvement in Planning, Washington, DC, U.S. Govern- Burke, "Citizen Participation Strategies," Journal of the ment Printing Office, August 1978, p. 17; and Howard W. American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXXIV, No. 5, Wash- Hallman, Citizen Involvement in the Local Budget Process, ington, DC, American Institute of Planners, September Washington, DC, The Center for Community Change, 1968, pp. 287-94; Cogan & Associates, Techniques of Public August 1978, pp. 16-32. Involvement, State Planning Series 11, Washington, DC, %ee, for example, the sources cited in the first footnote of Council of State Planning Agencies, 1977; Melvin Mogulof, this chapter. Citizen Participation: A Review and Commentary on 5Ibid. Federal Policies and Practices, Washington, DC, The Urban eRobert K. Yin, Participant-Observation and the Develop- Institute, 1970; Nelson M. Rosenbaum, Citizen Involvement ment of Urban Neighborhood Policy, Report R-962 of The in Land Use Governance: Issues and Methods, Washington, New York City-Rand Institute, Springfield, VA, National Technical Information Service, May 1972. system and the Massachusetts Division of Employment 7B. Douglas Harman, "City Planning Agencies: Organization, Security, and in such cities as Buffalo, Dayton, Erie, Kansas Staffing, and Functions," in International City Management City, Newark, Oakland, and Wichita. See U.S. Department Association, Municipal Year Book: 1972,Washington, DC, of Transportation. Effective Citizen Participation in 1972,Table 412, p. 56. Transportation Planning, Volume 11, A Catalog of Techni- BSuch committees are required (as of 1977) at the local level ques, op. cit., p. 151. by 53 federal aid programs, at the state level by 34,and at the I4NationalAdvisory Commission on Criminal Justice Stand- federal level by 29. Advisory committees are the most ards and Goals, Courts, Washington, DC, US. Government frequently required citizen participation mechanism in Printing Office, 1973, pp. 250-86;ACIR, State Legislative federal aid programs. ACIR staff compilation based upon Program, Part 10, Criminal Justice, Washington, DC, U.S. Community Services Administration, Citizen Participation, Government Printing Office, 1975, pp. 85-87. San Jose, CA, Rapido Press, 1978, 15This table, of course, does not pretend to cover the varying gHoward W. Hallman, Small and Large Together: Governing dynamics in all situations, nor the intensity of the social the Metropolis, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, 1977, groups' involvement, nor does it suggest that all officials or pp. 113-26. citizens in each category are involved to the same degree. IOHallman, Citizen Involvement in the Local Budget Process, levon Neumann and Morgenstern, Theory of Games and op. cit., pp. 42-44. Economic Behavior, New York, Wiley, 1944. "Hallman, Small and Large Together: Governing the Metro- "See Chapter 2. polis, op. cit., pp. 119-20. lBU.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Ad- '=See Chapters 2 and 5 for more detail. ministration, Effective Citizen Participation in Transpor- 130mbudsmen have been created in the states of Hawaii, tation Planning, Vol. 11, A Catalog of Techniques, op, cit. Illinois, Iowa. Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, '9The most recent executive order on this topic (No. 12044) Ohio, Oregon, and South Carolina, in the Connecticut prison was signed by President Carter on March 23, 1978.

Chapter 4 Citizen Participation in the Administration of Federal Programs

Withthe growth of the national government as citizens were consulted, heard, and informed on the dominant partner in the federal system and administrative actions. More important, it meant its increasing impact on the national polity and that there were no minimum standards of economy, the extent and content of citizen assurance that the public would have an oppor- involvement in the administration of federal tunity to have access to the administrative programs have become matters of growing decisionmaking process. concern. This concern is directed at the federal The Administrative Procedures Act government's dual but overlapping roles of administering programs directly and prescribing In 1946, for the first time, a governmentwide and overseeing states' and localities' administra- policy on public involvement in federal programs tion of federally assisted programs. was promulgated.1 After more than ten years of This chapter examines the development and study and debate by various public and private status of citizen participation at the federal level, bodies, including President Franklin D. first, in the administrative process generally but Roosevelt's Committee on Administrative with major emphasis on direct federal programs, Management, over the problems of due process in and second, in the administration of federal the growing reliance on administrative agencies,Z grants-in-aid to state and local governments. Congress enacted the Administrative Procedures These are preceded by a brief tracing of the Act (APA).3 Its basic effect was to establish evolution of policy on public involvement in minimum standards of administrative federal administrative processes. procedures for federal agencies. The APA required that an agency provide for public notice THE EVOLUTION OF POLICY and comment during rulemaking, offer oppor- ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION tunities for group representation during trial- IN FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION type hearings (adjudications) or during quasi- judicial rulemaking "on the record," and when Until 1946, federal departments and agencies appropriate, hold public hearings, at its discre- generally determined their own policies and tion, on other matters. practices on involving citizens in program The APA was a big step forward in es- administration, independent of any general tablishing governmentwide a minimum standard policies established by Congress or the Presi- of practice for public involvement, yet it still left dent. This meant wide variation throughout the considerable discretion in the hands of federal government in the manner and degree in which administrators and much of the initiative to citizens themselves. It reflected the philosophy the right of participation by people who are that "responsibility for initiating involvement directly affected by public programs-"par- largely rested with the public; involvement was ticipation was now a right rather than a to be confined to specified forms at limited points privilege."lO in administrative proceedings (usually late in Broadening the Emphasis policy development); and the public was left to its own resources in attempting to apprehend the Congress enacted a cluster of new programs in substance and procedure attending important the late 1960s and early 1970s continuing the decisions. In effect, if not by intent, it confined assumption of a right to participation, but with a the mobilized public largely to middle and upper- different application. The concept of affirmative class organized interests able to obtain the legal agency responsibility to encourage public par- counsel usually required for effective interven- ticipation was retained but usually without tion under these conditions."4 specifying a "target" population. Also, although the standard of "maximum" or "widespread" The Right to Participate participation was not applied in new programs, it President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society was assumed that most aspects of agency programs brought a significant shift in approach. planning were open to public involvement. These In the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, Congress new programs affect the whole population and mandated that the Office of Economic Oppor- are not aimed specifically at the poor, as in the tunity (OEO) achieve "maximum feasible par- case of OEO and HUD. "The programs imply 100 ticipation" among the poor in its community public involvement at many stages of policy action program^.^ This was followed in 1966 by planning through many techniques, and thus the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan procedures are presumably open-ended in Development Act6 which required that HUD method and administrative locus."" Another achieve widespread participation among those significant change is that the authorizing affected by its program grants. statutes are not very specific in defining the In a similar spirit, Congress took a significant operating meaning of this kind of involvement, step to open up the administrative process in the consequently giving federal administrators con- entire federal bureaucracy. It amended the siderable leeway in implementation. Administrative Procedures Act with the Rosenbaum finds the prototype of this Con- Freedom of lnformation Act, requiring that all gressional approach in the Federal Water Pollu- governmental agencies, upon request, provide tion Control Act Amendments of 1972: the public with papers, opinions, records, policy Public participation in the develop- statements and staff manuals.7 ment, revision and enforcement of any The OEO and HUD programs "departed regulation, standard, effluent limita- substantially from the traditional APA approach tion, plan or program established by the to participation: agencies apparently were oblig- Administrator, or any state under this ed to encourage involvement among 'target' act shall be provided for, encouraged populations of the poor."8 OEO and HUD, in and assisted by the Administrator and any case, interpreted the legislation that way, the states. . . .I2 although as it turned out that may not have been what the Congressional sponsors had in mind. Similar provisions multiplied, by legislation or "Sponsors of the OEO legislation, for instance, regulation, so that they became "a new federal thought of 'maximum feasible participation' house style." According to the ACIR staff survey largely as 'a nice sentiment and a means of giving of citizen participation in federally assisted the administrator of the program power to programs (see discussion later in this chapter), prevent segregation of community action 78% of all the public participation programs were programs."'g Under the barrage of controversy created during or after 1970 and about 75% of and criticism arising from the unexpected impact programs in which participation implicitly or of the participation of the poor in program explicitly permits a broad range of modes, development, both programs were eventually cut locations, and publics within agency activities back, but not until an important principle had were created during or after 1970. The proportion been established: Congressional recognition of of all participation programs aimed at a general public and involving open-ended means has in- The rulemaking section17 sets forth the re- creased steadily in recent years, according to quired procedure for making a rule, which is Rosenbaum.13 defined in part as "an agency statement of general The Sunshine Act or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe The most recent action by Congress in enun- law or policy or describing the organization, ciating general policy on public participation at procedure, or practice requirements of an agen- the federal level has been more back toward the cy." General notice of proposed rulemaking must 1946 APA approach. In 1977, it passed the be publishedin the Federal Register. After notice, Government in the Sunshine Act,14 requiring the agency must give interested persons "an about 50 multimember federal agencies to opportunity to participate in the rulemaking conduct their business regularly in public through submission of written data, views, or session. The effect is to require regulatory arguments with or without opportunity for oral agencies, advisory committees, the Postal Ser- presentation." Final publication of the rule vice, and certain other independent agencies- generally must be no less than 30 days before the but not cabinet agencies-to open all their effective date. meetings to the public unless a majority votes The obligation to provide opportunities for otherwise. Closed meetings are permitted for participation under the informal rulemaking only ten specified reasons, and certain notice and procedure leaves much to the agency's own publication requirements must be met for those discretion. It can select from a variety of sessions. The law also prohibits informal, ex procedures: informal hearings, with or without a 101 parte communication between agency officials verbatim record, conferences, consultation with and representatives of organizations with which advisory committees or interested individuals, agencies do business. the submission of written views, or any combina- While this law further expands the public's tion of these. No formal record is required in any right of access, it is more closely allied to the APA case, so the agency does not have to base its approach in placing the responsibility for in- decisions on anything the public has advocated. itiating and maintaining involvement on the Under the formal rulemaking procedure affected publics. specified in sections 556 and 557 of the APA, an agency's options in assuring public involvement CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE are closely circumscribed. This procedure is FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S required when formal hearings are prescribed by OWN ACTIVITIES statute and is of chief concern to the independent regulatory commissions. It is, of course, far less At the present time, then, minimum standards commonly used than the informal process. An for public participation in the decisionmaking of agency is required to maintain a concise record all federal agencies are set forth in the Ad- containing all evidence entered on the record, ministrative Procedures Act. The freedom of including agency findings and conclusions on information section of the act15 provides that, material issues of fact and law. The agency must except for matters concerning national security, base a rule on the evidence that appears in the internal personnel rules and practices, and record. An interested party can participate only subjects specifically exempted by law, each by appearing before the agency in an "on-the- agency must make available certain information record" hearing. Obviously, a formal hearing is on agency rules, opinions, orders, records and less susceptible to widespread citizen participa- proceedings; specifies what must be published in tion in an agency's decision process in view of the the Federal Register and/or made available for problems of technical expertise and cost in- public inspection and copying; requires publica- volved.18 tion of fee schedules for obtaining copies of Beyond the governmentwide requirements of agency documents; and requires recording for the APA, individual agencies' responsibilities for public inspection of the final votes of every ensuring citizen participation are set forth in agency proceeding. The Government in the statutes applying specifically to their programs, sunshine section18 requires multimember federal as in the case of the Federal Water Pollution agencies to open up their meetings to public view. Control Act (FWPCA) cited earlier, or the Indian Health Care lmprovement Act. The latter man- participation programs in a range of federal dates the Secretary of HEW to "consult with departments and agencies. Its purpose is "to various national and regional Indian foster the development and exchange of ideas, organizations to obtain their views on the techniques, and experiences that will enhance formulation of rules and regulations."lQAs in the the effectiveness of citizen participation in case of the FWPCA, many of these program- government decisionmaking and increase the specific requirements are found in programs of responsiveness of government decisionmakers to federal grants-in-aid to state and local the people."21 The council held a conference in governments. Since they generally place public December 1976, the published proceedings of participation mandates on the recipient jurisdic- which "concentrates on actions the federal gov- tions as well as the federal agency, they are dealt ernment can take to solve public and agency with more fully in the latter part of this chapter. problems in achieving meaningful citizen par- Finally, in the Federal Advisory Committee ticipation." As the council's statement of purpose Act,20 Congress required that advisory com- indicates, the report's contents would reflect the mittees make their proceedings accessible to the viewpoint of persons with a prime function of public, much along the lines that the APA opens promoting citizen participation at the federal up departmental and agency decisionmaking. level. Meetings must be open to the public, timely The report looked at problems in citizen notice must be published in the Federal Register, participation from two perspectives: govern- interested persons must be permitted to attend, ment constraints in working with the public and lo2 appear before, or file statements with any public constraints in working with the govern- committee, and records and other documents ment. Pertinent here are the first: constraints on must be made available, subject to the limitations the government. Five basic problems are iden- of the Freedom of lnformation Act. tified, with "indicator statements" as supporting evidence and a list of "possible remedies." The Level of Federal Performance 1. Citizen participation authority and respon- How far beyond the minimums set forth in the sibility for government agencies are often un- Administrative Procedures Act have federal clear, deficient, fragmented or nonexistent. agencies progressed in involving citizens in their Among the 27 "indicator statements" supporting decisionmaking? This is a difficult, if not this conclusion are: the lack of consistency and impossible, question to answer with any preci- coordination among agencies; the lack of consis- sion and detail at this point. First of all, a tent definitions of "consumer" and "citizen reasonably complete inventory of current citizen participation" in the decision process; faulty participation practices in federal agencies does statutory delegation of organizational respon- not exist. Second, the art of evaluating citizen sibility and authority; legislative bias toward participation is at an early stage of development. specific publics; and OMB control and obstruc- Yet, a number of official and semi-official tion of surveys and questionnaires. efforts in the past few years do shed partial light Among the eight "possible remedies" on the general issue. Each has its own objectives suggested: enact legislation that makes citizen which influenced its separate approach, findings, participation an integral part of the respon- and conclusions. Reports on two such efforts are sibilities of all agencies in all programs. OMB and summarized below: by the Federal Interagency the General Accounting Office should im- Council on Citizen Participation and by the mediately assess the programs established for Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The citizen participation under existing authority. former looked at citizen participation in federal Establish a process through which existing and administration gene.rally; the latter focused on proposed statutory and executive requirements the independent regulatory commissions. can be reviewed governmentwide for greater coordination and unification of federal policy. THE FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COUNCIL 2. Agency resources (personnel, expertise, ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION fundings, organization) for better execution of The interagency council was organized in 1976 citizen participation are weak when compared by staff members responsible for various citizen with other agency responsibilities. Some of the 19 "indicator statements:" unrealistic time 5. Agency policy and practice in citizen priorities; inconsistency governmentwide on the participation processes are unresponsive to real organizational structure, staffing, and funding needs and priorities of a large segment of the for citizen participation programs; inadequate public. Some of the 18"indicator statements:" the funding for existing authorities-A-95, NEPA. classic erroneous assumption that a lack of Some of the ten "possible remedies": OMB public response is always due to apathy; lack of should issue directives formally making citizen feedback; failure to perceive public predisposi- participation a major, visible item in each tion or social/cultural prpblem, i.e., a sense of agency's planning, programming, budgeting, and futility by the public. evaluation processes. The administration should Among the seven possible remedies: address identify citizen participation as a high priority public's failure to receive information by iden- item for resource allocation. Sufficient time tifying who needs it and by getting it to them. should be provided in the decision process for Don't overkill citizen participation-when peo- meaningful citizen participation. ple cannot become involved, don't push them.

3. The policy, commitment, and initiative of SENATE REPORT ON agency leadership on citizen participation in the PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN decisionmaking process have been of significant- REGULATORY AGENCY PROCEEDINGS ly uneven quality and priority. Among the 25 "indicator statements:" agency leaders and In 1976 and 1977 the Senate Committee on Gov- management don't feel accountable for citizen ernmental Affairs studied various aspects of the 103 participation in their functions; some leaders see administrative procedures followed by federal citizen participation as a threat to their authori- regulatory agencies. The third of its six-volume ty, professionalism and decisionmaking power; a report dealt with citizen participation.22 While double standard often exists under which leaders the findings and recommendations are directed at officially endorse citizen participation but unof- the regulatory agencies, they also have some ficially condemn it; leaders sometimes feel "they bearing on citizen participation issues govern- know what is best" for the public. mentwide. Some of the six "possible remedies:" use a Among the major findings reflecting on the proven record in citizen participation as a major adequacy or inadequacy of citizen participation criterion for hiring agency leaders. Use leaders' were the following: records in citizen participation as a formal At agency after agency, participation by the criterion in performance evaluation. Provide regulated industry predominates. Organized special awareness training in citizen participa- public interest representation accounts for a tion to agency leaders. very small percentage of participation before federal regulatory agencies. 4. The planning, execution, and evaluation of citizen participation programs are poor and often The single greatest obstacle to active public well below the known state-of-the-art accep- participation in these proceedings is the lack tability. Some of the 27 "indicator statements:" of financial resources by potential par- inability to develop or recognize an effective and ticipants to meet the great costs of formal fair process for all interests, including the participation. The regulated industry con- general public; lack of ability to reliably identify sistently outspends public participants by a affected public segments on a decision; lack of wide margin. Lack of resources limits relevant and sustained research in citizen par- participant groups' ability to hire technical ticipation; lack of knowledge of, and about, expertise. Large administrative costs, such citizen groups. as fees for transcripts and reproduction of The two "possible remedies:" provide adequate required materials, inhibit their participa- training programs for government employees tion. responsible for citizen participation. Establish a Delay is particularly burdensome to par- central resource file of significant programs, ticipating citizen groups. publications, training materials, and statutory requirements related to citizen participation. Potential public participation is often foreclosed by inadequate notice of pending statutorily established and separately proceedings. budgeted to assure independence; have full powers of intervention and authority to seek Some agency proceedings provide inadequate time for effective public participation. judicial review; have consumer complaint handling responsibilities; and also be per- The Federal Trade Commission's program of mitted to advise and assist independent providing compensation to certain par- groups who seek to represent broad in- ticipants in rulemaking proceedings, has terests. allowed for the presentation of diverse Congress should enact general legislation viewpoints and information that otherwise authorizing agencies to provide compensa- would not have been presented. tion to eligible persons for costs incurred in Most regulatory agencies do not sufficiently participating in agency rulemaking, utilize the complaints they receive from the ratemaking, licensing, and certain other public in agency policymaking, nor do they proceedings. Until such general legislation is utilize such complaints to inform the public enacted, regulatory agencies should imple- about the performance of regulated in- ment their own programs to compensate dustries and potentially dangerous products. eligible participants in agency proceedings as appropriate. Regulatory agency advisory committees have held closed meetings in important and Each regulatory agency that normally 104 unwarranted instances. receives complaints from the public should have a central complaint handling office. Nearly all such committees seriously lack representation of consumer and other broad Agencies should remedy the lack of con- public interests. sumer and other public interest representation that now exists on most advisory Agency rules and regulations are frequently committees. obsolete, conflicting, confusing, or obscure. Congress should require regulatory agencies Committee recommendations were addressed to review their rules and regulations, and to these and other findings. Among the proposed eliminate or modify any conflicting, incon- remedies are: sistent, redundant, or inactive provisions. Regulatory agencies should actively solicit Rules should be clarified in simple, easy to the views of the widest possible public in all understand language. rulemaking and adjudicatory proceedings On January 31, 1979, Senator Abraham with significant and wide-reaching impact, Ribicoff and 16 co-authors introduced S. 262, including holding hearings in regions, on proposed legislation entitled, "The Reform of weekends, and in the evenings. Federal Regulation Act of 1979."Based on the six- volume "Study on Federal Regulation" of the Congress should establish an independent Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the nonregulatory consumer agency that would: legislation would specifically implement two of (1) have full intervention, participation, and the above recommendations. It would require appellate rights to advocate consumer in- each federal agency to systematically review its terests before the federal agencies and the rules to determine whether the need for the rules federal courts; (2) undertake studies and still exists and whether they should be rescinded, disseminate information of importance to amended, or continued without change. It also consumers; (3) serve as a consumer com- would reconstitute and strengthen the Ad- plaint clearinghouse; (4) possess authority to ministrative Conference of the United States and obtain information needed to carry out its empower it to provide financial assistance to functions; and (5) have adequate funding to persons for the costs of participation, including assume these responsibilities. the cost of attorneys, transcripts and experts, in Internal consumer advocate offices should any agency proceeding or analysis involving a be established within major federal rate- regulatory function in certain specified cir- setting regulatory agencies. They should be cumstances.23 Three Special "Institutional Remedies" of Rail Public Counsel is similar to the CAB's former Office of Consumer Advocate but with Several proposals in the Senate committee's some important distinctions. It originated in the report on federal regulatory commissions Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 which deserve further comment because they involve set up procedures for reorganizing the insolvent two "institutional remedies" that have func- northeast railroads. The act created the Rail tioned in one or more federal agencies and one Services Planning Office (RSPO) and required that has been steadily advocated in Congress as the RSPO to employ attorneys and other staff far back as 1961. The first two are the office of necessary to protect the interests of communities public counsel and federal funding of public and users of rail services which might not representation. The third is the office of con- otherwise be adequately represented in the sumer affairs. All three are likely to receive course of the reorganization. The ICC set up the Congressional and Executive Branch attention in Office of Public Counsel (OPC) within the RSPO future efforts to improve public participation in to further this goal. the federal administrative process. OPC activities did not involve adversary parties, adjudicatory hearings, or licensing or OFFICES OF PUBLIC COUNSEL ratemaking proceedings. Rather, it monitored the reorganization, researched legal and technical The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and the problems, participated directly in proceedings, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) have and, most importantly, maintained "outreach" 105 had experience with internal offices representing efforts to promote and aid local communities' nonregulated interests affected by particular participation. proceedings. The CAB's Office of Consumer OPC's efforts yielded thousands of pages of Advocate had the distinction of being the only oral and written testimony on the discontinuance organizationally distinct consumer advocacy of rail lines in the northeast. It represented unit within a federal regulatory agency. With its affected interests that were not otherwise being origins in the consumer complaint section of the represented through legal work and technical CAB Bureau of Enforcement, the Office was assistance. formally established by regulations in November OPC was transformed into the Office of Rail 1974. It had the status of a party before the board, Public Counsel, a statutory office with wider on an equal footing with other CAB bureaus and responsibilities and independent status, by the other parties. It was empowered to enter Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform proceedings with no prior concurrence from any Act of 1976. The office is a separate entity other CAB bureau or office. Its independence was affiliated with the ICC but largely independent of limited, however. Without a statutory basis, it the organizational hierarchy. The President depended on other CAB bureaus for any action it appoints the director of the office, subject to proposed; it was not separately budgeted; and it Senate confirmation, and the office submits its did not have the right to seek judicial review of budget requests directly to OMB and Congress board decisions.24 concurrently. The office can become party to any The Office of Consumer Advocate has now ICC proceeding relating to rail service and may been subsumed into a new, larger entity, the seek juridical review of such proceedings. Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP). The new bureau recombines the enforcement and con- FEDERAL FUNDING OFPUBLIC REPRESENTATION sumer functions of the CAB into five different areas of responsibility: consumer protection, Direct compensation by the government for advocacy of consumer interests, maintenance of persons participating in regulatory agency competition, procedural reform and consumer proceedings has been increasingly urged as an assistance. While consumer advocacy is thus no essential way to facilitate public participation. A longer the responsibility of a separate entity, number of regulatory agencies have made such CAB feels that the reorganization has given compensation after rulings by the Comptroller public participation and representation greater General that they possessed authority to do so, emphasis.25 but the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the The Interstate Commerce Commission's Office only agency now specifically authorized by statute to provide public funding for participants bursement for participants during the 95th Con- in all its rulemaking proceedings.26 gress. It was not acted upon by that Congress. FTC's authority was granted by the Magnuson- Moss FTC Improvement A~t.2~The act authoriz- A CONSUMER AGENCY es the commission to provide compensation to As long ago as 1961, Senator Estes Kefauver eligible persons for reasonable attorneys' fees, introduced a bill to establish a department of expert witnesses' fees, and other costs of par- consumers to represent the economic interests of ticipating in a rulemaking proceeding. Compen- consumers. A similar bill to create a Cabinet- sation may be provided to any person (1) who level department was introduced in 1965 by has, or represents, an interest (a) which would Representative Benjamin Rosenthal. Actual not otherwise be adequately represented in such Senate consideration of institutional representa- proceeding, and (b) representation of which is tion for consumer interests dates to March 1969 necessary for a fair determination of the when the Subcommittee on Executive rulemaking proceeding taken as a whole, and (2) Reorganization began hearings on a bill to create who is unable effectively to participate in such a department of consumer affairs introduced by proceeding because such person cannot afford to Senator Gaylord Nelson. The Nelson proposal pay costs of making oral presentations, conduc- would have made the department an advocate of ting cross-examination, and making rebuttal consumer interests in government policymaking submissions in such proceeding. In addition, the and in federal regulatory proceedings. It would act does not provide compensation for persons have been a clearinghouse for consumer informa- lo6 bringing court challenges to FTC decisions.28 tion and complaints and an umbrella agency The CAB has developed a program for reim- under which certain existing regulatory func- bursing public participation in board proceed- tions would have been transferred. ings in certain situations that supplement the Although there was widespread acceptance of advocacy activities of the CAB'S Bureau of the need for better administration of regulatory Consumer Protection. In both 1979 and 1980, laws and better representation of consumer $150,000 are available for funding groups interests, most witnesses at the 1969 hearings presenting unique "public interest" viewpoints opposed the creation of a department of con- in important proceedings at the board.29 sumer affairs with the sweeping scope of the In 1976 and 1977, a number of regulatory Nelson proposal.31 agencies undertook, or initiated plans to under- Support for a separate Cabinet-level depart- take, financial compensation to participants in ment waned and a variety of other proposals rulemaking proceedings without specific emerged during the 91st Congress. The debate statutory authority. These included the Nuclear focused not so much on the need for consumer Regulatory Commission, the Federal Com- representation as on the proper organizational munications Commission, the Consumer Product setting for such a function. When consumer Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Ad- interests vigorously opposed the idea of having ministration and the National Highway Traffic the proposed agency within the Executive Office Safety Administration of the Department of of the President, interest shifted to a more Transportation. The Comptroller General had narrowly focused advocacy office. In 1970 the ruled that the NRC and the FCC had inherent Senate Government Operations Committee statutory authority to make such payments. proposed that the consumer advocacy function When the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled be lodged in an independent agency. A bill to this against the exercise of such authority in a case effect passed the Senate but died in the House. involving the Federal Power Commission, Similar legislation passed the House by wide however, the Comptroller General modified his margins in both the 92nd and 93rd Congresses previous opinion and recommended that explicit but failed in the Senate because of filibusters by statutory sanction be sought as in the case of the the bill's opponents. In 1975, both houses FTC.30 approved a consumer agency bill. Yet, the House In January 1977, Senator Edward Kennedy never sent the bill to the White House because introduced S. 270, the "Public Participation in President Ford threatened to veto it and the Federal Agency Proceedings Act of 1977," which House backers felt they did not have enough became the focal point for debate over reim- votes for an override. The bill received a boost in 1977 when On another front, President Carter announced President Carter announced his strong support strengthening of the White House Office of and appointed a special assistant for consumer Consumer Affairs and increasing its respon- affairs to lobby for it. When this bill ran into sibilities, following defeat in Congress of the trouble in the House, a watered-down version proposed bill for an office of consumer represen- was unveiled providing for an office of consumer tation. He directed his special assistant for con- representation (OCR), an independent agency sumer affairs to represent the consumer point of within the Executive Branch. It was killed after a view on domestic policy decisions and in the two-day debate in February 1978. review of ending legislation, to survey federal The principal argument of opponents was that agencies as a step toward assuring consumer the agency would only be another layer of gov- involvement in agency decisionmaking, and to ernment bureaucracy without much influence on coordinate the activities of federal agency consumer problems, since its function was only consumer pr0grams.~5 representation, not regulation. Others argued The special assistant's office undertook the that there is no single consumer interest, con- survey in mid-1978, focusing on the extent to trary to what seemed to be the basic premise of which individual agencies had institutionalized the proposal.32 the representation of consumers' interests in their operations and were performing consumer Recent Administration initiatives functions as defined in the survey. That defini- The Carter Administration has launched a tion was broad, covering policy development, number of initiatives on citizen participation at regulatory proceedings, external liaison, com- 107 the federal level responding to some of the plaint handling, education and information, and problems identified in Congressional regional activities. A preliminary analysis of the deliberations, the work of the interagency results was issued in August 1978.36Staff of the council, and elsewhere. On March 23, 1978, the Office of Consumer Affairs indicated that the President issued an executive order entitled survey findings would be used by the special "Improving Government Relations" directing assistant in recommending to the President agencies, among other things, to give the public standards and guidelines for department and "an early and meaningful opportunity to par- agency consumer activities. ticipate in the development of agency Finally, citizen participation was one of the regulations." The order identified publication of matters under study by the President's advance notice of proposed rulemaking, holding Reorganization Project (PRP). The PRP task of open conferences or public hearings, force was focusing its efforts on public involve- publishing notices of proposed regulations in ment in grant programs included in the planning publications likely to be read by those affected, requirements review. and notification of interested parties directly.33 In approving regulations, agency heads must Other Major Participation Techniques determine that public comments have been Used at the National Level considered and an adequate response has been Among other major methods of involving the prepared. public in administrative decisionmaking at the The executive order directed the agencies to national level are national advisory committees review their existing processes for developing and White House conferences. National advisory regulations, revise them as necessary, and pub- committees are created to obtain expert advice, lish a report on their actions in the Federal Regis- ideas, and diverse opinions for the President and ter. By July 16, 1978, 34 agencies had published executive departments and agencies. At the end their reports, including the Departments of of 1977, there were 875 such bodies of which 598 Agriculture, Commerce, Health, Education, and were established by statute, 262 by agency Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, action, and 15 by Presidential directive. The Interior, Justice, Labor, and Transportation, and greatest concentration was found in the follow- Community Services Administration, the En- ing departments or agencies: HEW (2981, Com- vironmental Protection Agency, the Veterans merce (1021, Small Business Administration (651, Administration, and the Water Resources Coun- Commission on Civil Rights (51), and Interior ci1.34 (47). Total estimated cost of operating and supporting these committees was about $65 its existence, purpose, mission, and, by million in 1977. A total of 17,400members served extension, some degree of loyalty, to the during 1977 on committees that still existed at President.39 the end of that year.37 Often the White House conference seeks to Since 1972 the establishment, activities, and generate ideas and build consensus from the duration of national advisory committees have been subject to the Federal Advisory Committee grassroots, using local, state, and regional organizations. Act.38 The purposes of the act included control of the creation of the committees, termination when The first White House conference was calledin they are no longer needed, encouragement of 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt and dealt standards and uniform procedures governing with conservation. Conferences in recent decades their establishment, operation, administration, have been on aging (1961 and 1971), natural and duration, and provision of information to beauty (1965), civil rights (1965), federal-state Congress and the public about their activities. In relationships (1966), children and youth (1970 1977,184 new committees were created, 408 were and 1971), handicapped individuals (1977), and terminated, and 60 were merged into 25. Central balanced national growth and economic develop- management of the committees pursuant to the ment (1978).40 1972 act is now vested in the Committee Summary Management Secretariat in the General Services Administration. The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 lo8 From time to time national advisory com- and its Freedom of Information and Government missions are set up by Presidential directive or in the Sunshine amendments set the minimum Congressional action to deal with a particularly requirements for citizen access to and involve- urgent problem. The nature of the problem, the ment in the federal administrative process. The prominence of the citizen members, and the types of involvement are much more wide open special publicity effort associated with their under the informal rulemaking process set forth creation and activities set them aside as special in the APA than under the formal process, and kinds of citizen participation devises. Examples the informal procedure is the more commonly in recent years have been the Commissions on used of the two. The formal process applies to the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Gov- independent regulatory commissions which have ernment (Hoover Commissions), the President's significant impact on consumer interests. Commission on National Goals, the Commission A workable inventory of current practice in on Intergovernmental Relations (Kestnbaum citizen participation in the federal ad- Commission), the National Commission on ministrative process does not exist. Recent Urban Problems (Douglas Commission), the efforts by the administration have focused on National Advisory Commission on Civil Dis- requirements mandated on state and local orders (Kerner Commission), and the Commis- recipients of federal grant funds. Without such an sion on Federal Paperwork. inventory, and given the undeveloped state of White House conferences are another type of evaluation of the effectiveness of citizen par- participatory device designed to focus national ticipation, an assessment of the degree to which attention on a special national issue. From a federal agencies meet or exceed the minimum President's standpoint, it has certain advantages standards of the APA is difficult, if not impossi- over the national advisory commission since it is ble. more likely to be created Still, the two reports summarized here provide insightful, if partial, perspectives on the current . . . at his will rather than being status of citizen participation at the federal level. necessitated by events; its participants The report of the conference of the Interagency need not be government personalities Council on Citizen Participation is the broader in whereas national commissions oc- scope, but clearly must be read as reflecting the casionally have members of Congress experiences, perceptions, and goals of and the judiciary as panelists; and the professionals who are, in varying degrees, citizen conference itself is an event clothed in participation advocates. the mantle of the White House, owing The value of the report of the Senate Committee b on Governmental Affairs, on the other hand, is such bureau began as a division of the Bingham- limited by its focus on citizen participation in the ton, NY, chamber of commerce which, with the independent regulatory commissions. Delaware and Lackawanna Railroad and the In both reports it is clear that, from the Office of Farm Management of the U.S. Depart- perspectives of their authors and endorsers, ment of Agriculture, employed a county citizen participation in the segments of the agricultural agent. When county funds were federal administrative process that they address provided in 1913, the ties to the chamber of has serious shortcomings, from the standpoint of commerce were severed. legislative foundation and direction as well as In 1914 Congress passed the Smith-Lever administrative commitment and practice. Extension Act, providing federal funds for county agent work and specifically recognizing CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL private contributions as a legitimate part of state AID PROGRAMS matching funds. Several state legislatures in authorizing state aid to match federal funds The attachment of public participation requirements to an increasing number of federal recognized farm bureaus as the county grant programs is both a product and a cause of cooperating organizations; a few even made the the growth of citizen participation in American organization of a county farm bureau a require- government. The remainder of this chapter ment before financial assistance from the county describes these requirements in federal grants- could be provided.42 in-aid, presents case studies of such re- 1930-59 109 quirements in five major grant programs, and Citizen participation blossomed in other forms reviews the available evidence on the impact of and programs in the ensuing years. Probably the these mandates, including the results of the best known and most innovative use of citizen ACIR-ICMA survey of local officials. participation in the 1930s occurred in the A Brief History Department of Agriculture. Before 1933, the department under the Smith-Lever Extension While requirements for formal citizen par- Act of 1914 relied on federal grants-in-aid to ticipation in federal grant-in-aid programs first channel funds to individual farmers through the attracted widespread attention in the 1960s, extension services of the state land-grant particularly around activities of the Great colleges. The inauguration of national action Society's poverty program, their antecedents can programs in 1933, especially the Agricultural be found many decades earlier, in both direct and Adjustment Act of that year, required more grant-in-aid federal programs. Perhaps the first direct relationships between the federal govern- recorded instance of federally encouraged citizen ment and the farmers. participation occurred when Congress chartered The first of the new organizational devices that chambers of commerce in 1912 to bring the views were developed in response to this need were of the business community to it. Not a formal locally elected county and community com- grant program, the chambers were to be a mittees of farmers. Their duties were to oversee coordinating force to focus the work and energies the administration of acreage controls, of community volunteer organizations. While marketing quotas, and other production controls, chamber activities were (and are) business to provide the Secretary with information oriented, latter day chamber issues have includ- required to adapt to local needs, and to ensure ed civil rights and community development, as farmer participation in program planning and in Hartford, CT, Schenectady, NY, and Dayton, adaptation. 0~~41 When the Supreme Court invalidated the Coincidentally, a chamber of commerce was production control provisions of the 1933 legisla- also associated with the origins of citizen tion, Congress passed the Soil Conservation and participation in federal farm programs. Shortly Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 under which before World War I, county farm bureaus, farmers were paid for voluntarily shifting acres supported by local groups of farmers, were set up from soil depleting surplus crops into soil to provide leadership and attract additional conserving legumes and grasses. In carrying out funds for county demonstration work. The first the provisions of this act as well as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the representation from the neighborhoods affected, Secretary again used the locally chosen county a few places (Philadelphia, Detroit, and and community committees of farmers. Baltimore) sought to put heavier emphasis on Initiation of soil conservation districts, like the involving neighborhood representatives.46 establishment of farmer committees under the adjustment and allotment acts, was another THE 1960s creative device introduced by the Department of Early in the 1960s, the President's Committee Agriculture during the depression. Special soil on Juvenile Delinquency and the Ford Foun- conservation districts were organized as new dation's "Gray Area" program experimented governmental subdivisions of the state to insure with participative mechanisms in community local farmers participation in the planning and work. They hoped to influence established management of the program as it was adapted to institutions to use research and analysis in local needs.43 solving u *ban problems, and to develop Citizen participation was a key part of another coalitions of agencies to work with such in- New Deal program initiated in the 1930s-the stitutions. They also wished to "arm the disad- Tennessee Valley Authority. The agency stress- vantaged" through new methods of participation. ed decentralization, with "active participation by These approaches led to, and became part of, the the people themselves in the programs of the Community Action Program created by Title I1 of public enterprise."¶¶ the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Com- As one observer described it after a decade of munity Action Agencies (CAAs) were formed 'lo experience, with the three-fold assignment of providing services, mobilizing public and private the farmer or the businessman . . . resources, and achieving "maximum feasible finds a means of participating in the participation." Participation levels increased activities of government supplemental substantially drawing particularly on to his role on election day. If there is neighborhood minority or low income residents. fertilizer to be distributed, farmers are It took a number of forms: membership on the invited, on a county and community governing board of the CAA, employment of basis, to participate in locally con- residents especially as subprofessionals, trolled organizations which will make neighborhood boards and area councils, program decisions as to the most effective means advisory committees and independent citizen of using fertilizer in the local area. If organizations, for example.47 As neighborhood government land is to be rented, a local residents attempted to expand their influence land-use association is organized so over CAA board policies, sometimes controversy that the conditions of rental can be was ignited, giving rise to confrontation between determined with maximum benefit for neighborhood residents and the local govern- the community. If power is to be sold in ment, cooptation of citizens by existing com- a rural area, a cooperative provides a munity forces, or control of the agency by consumer ownership which retains indigenous citizens. profits in the community and makes The Model Cities program enacted in 1966 possible a management guided by maintained the neighborhood orientation of community problems and local needs.45 citizen participation, but a "widespread citizen On the urban scene, the urban redevelopment participation" requirement was used instead of program established by the Housing Act of 1949 the "maximum feasible participation" in com- required citizen participation through public munity action programs. City hall controlled hearings. The Housing Act of 1954 broadened the most programs and mayors increased their program, changed its title to urban renewal, and powers, often at the expense of neighborhood- made citizen participation a mandated element of based citizen organizations. Citizens par- the "workable program for community improve- ticipated through advisory committee ment" (WPCI), which was a precondition for membership and in a few cases actually held receiving funds. Although most cities met this some formal control by approving or vetoing requirement by creating a citywide advisory grant proposals. Many committees "bargained committee of leading citizens with little or no with the local government even though coordination and control was centralized in the mayor's increased citizen participation in the past decade hands.48 Centralization increased when the 1974 has been the continuing, steady addition of new Community Development block grant folded categorical grant programs that call for some sort together into a single grant programmodel cities, of citizen involvement, such as the environmen- urban renewal and most other HUD categorical tal protection programs, already mentioned. programs. At the same time, local governments Examples include: pursued their own decentralization practices The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 through little city halls, neighborhood councils (P.L. 92-583). Thecommittee report explicit- and/or corporations, and improved complaint- ly declared Congress's intention that "the handling systems. Many of these mechanisms policy includes encouragement of the par- grew out of the community action agencies. ticipation of the public." Public hearings and opportunity for public participation in THE LAST TEN YEARS rulemaking are required. Starting in the late 1960s and through to the Headstart Economic Opportunity and present, citizen participation in federally aided Community Partnership Act of 1974 (P.L. 93- as well as direct activities expanded into new 644). Headstart must "provide for direct areas with new approaches.49 Nationally based participation of the parents of such children public interest groups focusing their attention at in the development, conduct and overall the federal level came into prominence, including program direction at the local level." 111 Common Cause and Public Citizen. Mostly Resource Conservation and Recovery Act middle income groups, they signified a move of 1976 (P.L. 94-580). The Administrator is toward citizen-initiated participatory action on required to approve a state hazardous waste "middle-class" issues, such as organizational and plan, unless after notice and public hearing, procedural reforms. Another new thrust came he finds that the state program is not with heightened public concern about deteriora- equivalent to the federal minimum stan- tion of the natural environment through air, dards. water, and other types of pollution. The National Housing and Community Development Environment Policy Act of 1969 required federal Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415). Grant applicants agencies to attach an environmental impact must certify that they have "provided statement (EIS) to every proposal for a major adequate opportunity for citizen participa- federal action significantly affecting the quality tion in the development of the application of the human environment. Such statements and for resident involvement in program invariably involve public participation, both in activities." preparation of the statement or, where an agency decides an EIS is not needed, in review of that Energy Conservation and Production Act decision. The EIS requirement has given the (P.L. 94-385). A provision for local hearings public an important point of access to ad- "can be expected to make every citizen's ministrative decisionmaking in direct federal opportunity to participate in governmental and federal-state-local programs. decisionmaking more meaningful and direct Improved public access to information was the and should result in a more responsive and objective of the original Freedom of Information responsible exercise of governmental Act of 196650 and its 1974 amendments.51 Then in authority at the federal level." 1976 Congress acted on another front to open up Indian Health Care Improvement Act (P.L. the government to the citizens by passing the 94-437). The Secretary of HEW is mandated Government in the Sunshine Act,52 requiring for to "consult with various national and the first time that all multimember federal regional Indian organizations to obtain their agencies-some 50 in 1976-conduct their views in the formulation of rules and business regularly in public session.53 In the 1972 regulations." Federal Advisory Committee Act, Congress already had required that advisory committees Surface Mining Act (P.L. 95-87). "The make their proceedings accessible to the public.54 success or failure of a national coal surface Accompanying these various new avenues to mining regulation will depend, to a significant extent, on the role played by citizens in An Inventory of Citizen Participation the regulatory process." Requirements in In addition, legislation imposed new citizen Federal Grant Programs participation requirements on already existing programs. For instance: In the fall of 1978, the ACIR surveyed federal agencies administering programs of grants-in- Federal Water Pollution Control Act aid to state and local governments to obtain Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). "The information about citizen participation re- Environmental Protection Agency and the quirements imposed on state and local govern- state should actively seek, encourage and ments as conditions of the grants.59 The survey assist the involvement and participation of asked the agencies to supply the statutory and/or the public in the process of setting water regulatory citations for the requirements and quality requirements and in their subse- provide available guideline material. Through quent implementation and enforcement." the survey and additional research by ACIR staff, information was obtained for over 95% of The Regional Development Act of 1975 the grant programs listed in the 1978 Catalog of (P.L. 94-188). A new provision "emphasizes Federal Domestic Assistance. The results are overall regional goals and the strengthened summarized by administering agency and major participation of political subdivisions and mode of participation in Table 4-1 and are the general public in the preparation of state development plans."55 listed by program in Appendix Table 4A-1. 112 According to this tally, 155 federal grant Other ongoing programs increasingly sub- programs have citizen participation rejected to citizen involvement requirements quirements specified by statute or regulation- included forest service, water management, and more than one-fourth of all the grant prograrns,60 technology assessment.56 The 155 accounted for over 80% of federal grant Probably the most far-reaching federal aid expenditures in FY 1977. Among the major modes legislation affecting citizen participation-in the of participation, over one-half of the programs- sense of numbers of governmental units affected 89-require boards or committees reflecting the (39,000)-was the extension of General Revenue public in various ways in their membership.61 Sharing (GRS) in 1976. The original 1972 law Fifty-five programs mandate public hearings required state and local government recipients while in 114 programs other types of citizen annually to publish copies of their reports on participation are specified, i.e., public meet- actual and planned use of revenue sharing funds ings, workshops, and review and consultation. received. It also required recipient governments to expend revenue sharing funds in accordance BOARDS AND COMMllTEES with the laws and procedures applicable to their own funds. Thus, if public hearings were In Table 4A-2 are summarized the prescribed required for the regular budget of the recipient membership and activities of the boards and jurisdiction, they were required for revenue committees for each of 89 aided programs, sharing rn0neys.5~ arranged by department or agency and program Under the heading, 'Citizen Participation: number assigned in the 1978 Catalog of Federal Reports, Enforcements," the 1976 legislation Domestic Assistance.62 required a proposed use hearing and a budget hearing. The proposed use hearing was intended Interests Represented to remedy the problem of holding hearings so late in the budget process that all important decisions Congress and executive agencies (to the extent had been made. This hearing was designed to that public participation is mandated by regula- give citizens an opportunity to comment on the tion) provide for the representation of a wide draft budget before it was submitted to the diversity of interests on these boards and adopting body for consideration and adoption. committees. Table 4-2 is an ACIR staff classifica- The legislation also required states andlocalities tion of these interests. The 16 groups (excluding to afford the senior citizens opportunity "other") were identified from a perusal of the to be heard on the allocation of GRS funds.58 program statutes or regulations. The choice of Table 4-7 NUMBER OF FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS WITH CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION, BY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY AND MAJORTYPE OF REQUIREMENT (December 1978)

Number of Programs With Various Types of CP Requirement Boards or Total Committees Programs Some With CP Advisory Public Department or Agency Requirements Only Hearings Other*

Agriculture 3 Commerce 2 HEW (44) PHs-I 4 OE 32 OHDS 4 HCFA 2 SSA 2 PHs-II - HUD - Interior - Justice 1 Labor 6 Transportation - Appalachian Regional Commission I GSA 1 CS A 3 Water Resources Council - EPA - ACTION 3 Energy 1 Treasury - - Total 65

*Includes such requirements as public meetings, workshops, and review and consultation.

SOURCE: ACIR staff survey. classes and assignment of specified interests to The table notes, by asterisk, those cases where them required subjective judgment in some the law requires an identified interest to con- cases, as in distinguishing between functional stitute at least a certain minimum number of community organizations, functional national members or proportion of the total membership. organizations, and general community Generally, the apparent intent was to assure that organizations. It is believed, however, that this a particular group is given a dominant or breakdown gives a fairly accurate picture of the substantial role in the organization's activities. range of interests currently represented in these Following are the most frequently occurring of boards and committees. the identified interests, listed in descending General Public

General Community Organizations Functional Community Organizations Functional National Organizations

Economic Interests

Consumers, Clientele

Provider Professionals Inside Government Provider Professionals Outside Government Provider lnstitutions (noneducational) Institutions of Higher Education

Parents

Poor

Racial Minorities

Ethnic Minorities

Local Governments

Other Nonfederal Governments

Other

x I General Public ------General Community X Organizations

Functional Community I Organizations Functional National I Organizations - Economic Interests

X, Consumers, Clientele Provider Professionals 5 Inside Government Provider Professionals Outside Government Provider Institutions (noneducational) Institutions of X X X X Higher Education

x 55%XX,X, X, X, Parents

I Poor

I Racial Minorities

I Ethnic Minz I Local Governments -- 0the;Gnfederal 5 Governments

01 "7 L" A Other

X X, X X X General Public

General Community X X X Organizations

Functional Community X X X X X Organizations

Functional National I Organizations

X Economic Interests

Consumers, Clientele 5 X, 5 X Provider Professionals I Inside Government Provider Professionals 5 5 X Outside Government Provider lnstitutions X 5 (noneducational) Institutions of X Higher Education

I Parents

I Poor 1 Racial Minorities

X Ethnic Minorities

I x X x x x I Local Governments

X X X X Other Nonfederal Governments

> P ,d Other

order of the number of programs in which they groups as those identified as "civic or com- are required to be represented on a board or munity organizations" (13.525), "consumer committee. organizations" (13.714), and "community-based organizations" (17.230). Some might consider Consumers, clientele or intended direct these very similar to the "general public." Again, beneficiaries of the program are represented on in no case are "general community organization boards/committees of 43 of the 89 programs representatives" assured a certain share of the involving some kind of board/committee public total membership of a board/committee by the participation. In 20 of the 43 programs, moreover, governing law. consumers are assured a certain proportion of the membership. An example is the Migrant Health 8 Representatives of ethnic minorities are Centers governing board (CFDA #13.246) on provided for on boards/committees in 26 which a majority must be individuals served by programs. While required chiefly in the human the center. Thirty-three of the 43 programs are service programs of HEW and ACTION, they are under HEW; the remainder are in other people- also mandated in four EDA (Commerce) serving agencies: Labor (5), ACTION (3) and programs. In eight of the programs, ethnic Community Services Administration (2). minorities are assured a certain share of total membership. 8 "General public" interest representatives are found on boards/committees in 36 different 8 Institutions of higher education have grant programs. This classification encompasses representatives on boards/committees of 26 123 "interest groups," "individuals," "the public programs, 15 of which are under the Office of interest," "public and private citizens broadly Education. representative of the community," and groups and individuals identified by similar terms in the 8 Racial minorities are represented on the law. The "general public" interest is represented boards/committees of 25 programs, 14 of which on boards/committees in two-thirds of the 15 are Office of Education programs and the departments and agencies listed in the table. In remainder distributed among PHs (5),Commerce only two cases (Employment Service's State (4), and ACTION (2). In eight of the programs the Advisory Council-17.207, and Air Pollution minority group is assured a specified proportion Control Program Permit Boards-66.001) are of the total membership. "general public" representatives assured a cer- Economic interests are tabbed for represen- tain share of the total membership. tation on boards/committees under 23 programs. Terminology commonly used refers specifically 8 Functional community organizations are represented on boards/committees under 28 to such general groups as farmers, business, different programs. They are identified by such industry, labor, and banking, or speaks of the terms as "nongovernmental organizations and "principal economic interests of the district" groups concerned with health" (13.210), (11.300-Economic Development District Gover- "organizations in the community who have ning Board).63 ''Economic interest" representa- shown concern in the interests of low income tion is clustered chiefly in the committees of persons" (13.433), and "organizations directly programs under the Departments of Agriculture, related to delinquency prevention" (16.500). Commerce, and Labor, with a smattering in HEW Somewhat like the "consumer-clientele" interest health and vocational education programs. On group, they are most often represented in the only one of the boards/committees is a specified human service programs of HEW, Labor, and representation of "economic interests" mandated ACTION. In no case, however, does the law (13.493(2)-Vocational Education-Basic Grants require these groups to constitute a specified to States). portion of the total membership of the body they Parents must be represented on boards or serve on. committees connected with 20 grant programs. Representatives of general community All are HEW programs and all but one (13.630- organizations are required on boards/committees Developmental Disabilities State Planning Coun- associated with 26 grant programs. Under this cil) are under the Office of Education. heading are included representatives of such Significantly, in 16 of the 20 programs, parents are required to have a specified share of the in the EDA and a few manpower programs of the membership, usually a majority. Labor Department. Otherwise, it also consists of functional agencies or specialists within those The remainder of the interests, separately agencies. identified on the chart, in descending order of number of programs in which they are Authority Exercised represented on boards/committees, are: Boards/committees required in 65 programs -"provider professionals-outside govern- perform only an advisory function, according to ment:" 17 programs; their governing statute or regulation. Two-thirds of these are HEW programs, chiefly under the -"the poor or low income group:" 16 programs; Office of Education. Advisory authority is -"provider professionals-inside gov- spelled out in a variety of ways, for example: ernment" (usually in the administering -Advise Chief Administrative Officer of the agency): 15 programs; University (10.879); -"provider institutions-noneducational:" ten -Consult with state agency in carrying out the programs; and state plan (13.257); -"functional national organizations:" nine -Advise the local educational agency in the programs. planning for, implementation, and evalua- In this group of five "interests," the "poor" are tion of educational programs for handi- 124 most frequently assured a minimum share of capped children (13.427); representation-in 13 of the 16 programs in -Supervise development of the approved state which their presence is required. "Provider pro- plan, monitor and evaluate implementation fessionals-outside government" have a certain of the plan, review and comment on all state assured representation in six programs; and plans relating to programs affecting persons "provider professionals-inside government" in with developmental disabilities (13.630); four. Two additional classes of "interests" have -Advise the Governor and the state agency in frequent representation on boards/committees the implementation of the state plan (13.633); but are left out of the above listing because they and do not represent the nongovernmental public. -Formulate policies and discuss problems These are of course "local governments" and relating to employment and ensure impar- "other nonfederal governments." They include tiality, neutrality, and freedom from political "officials" as well as governments as such. The influence in the solution of such problems "other nonfederal governments" are mainly (17.207). representatives of state agencies, and are found chiefly in state-administered grant programs. Among the boards or committees required to Compared to the nongovernmental "interests," have citizen representation, 17 wield some these two governmental categories are among the decisionmaking authority.64 All but four of the 17 most frequently represented "interests." "Local possess general governing or policymaking governments" are represented on committees power. These four are basically advisory bodies associated with 46 of the 89 grant programs; but it appears from the law that they are given "other nonfederal governments" are involved in one or more specific decisionmaking powers as 32 programs. In the great majority of cases, well. They are all associated with HEW functional agencies or professionals in those programs: agencies are the entities to be represented. This is -Statewide Health Coordinating Council particularly true of the "other nonfederal" (associated with CFDA #13.210, 13.220, category, where memberships from state agen- 13.293, and 13.887). While it generally cies are most often mandated. Such agencies advises the state health planning and include health, education, aging, welfare, law development agency, it also approves or enforcement, and employment services units. disapproves the state health plan, the state Local government representation comes from medical facilities plan, and applications for local units of government or local elected officials certain health grants. -Advisory Committee in program of Indian PUBLIC HEARINGS Education-Grants to Local Education Through membership on boards and com- Agencies (CFDA g13.534). Its functions mittees, the federal government assures par- appear mainly advisory in accord with its ticular interests access to the government deci- title, but it also approves applications for sion process in grant-aided programs. The public grants. hearing is the common mechanism for giving the -Parent Committee in program of Indian public-at-large that access. Education-Grants to Non-Local The statutes and regulations that mandate Educational Agencies [CFDA #13.551). public hearings in 55 grant programs require Similar to committee under CFDA #13.534. them to be held chiefly in the planning, project application, or program development stage of the -Project Council required by Special grant process. Generally, these amount to the Programs for the Aging-Nutrition Program same thing: the stage at which officials for the Elderly [CFDA #l3.635). Advises presumably are still making up their minds on grant recipient but also approves certain projected program activity. As examples: operating decisions. -The three coastal zone programs require The 13 governing or policymaking bodies hearings during program development involved in the grant process whose membership (CFDA g11.418, 11.419, and 11.421). is required to include public representation are: -Hearings must be held before adoption of the 125 -Economic Development District (EDD) state or areawide plans in certain health Governing Board, required under CFDA (CFDA #13.210, 13.220, 13.293, 13.294, #11.302, 11.306, and 11.308; 13.3871, vocational education (CFDA -Health Systems Agency Governing Body- g13.493, 13.4991, aging [CFDA #13.633), and CFDA #13.220, 13.294, and 13.887; air pollution control (CFDA #66.001) programs. -Community Health Center Governing Board-CFDA #13.224; -The planning process is the focus of public hearings in the 14 ARC programs (CFDA -Migrant Health Center Governing Board- H23.002-23.006, 23.008-23.013, 23.0171, and CFDA #13.246; in the Local Rail Services System-National -Health Maintenance Organization Develop- Program [CFDA #20.308). ment Policymaking Body-CFDA #13.256; -By far the most common linkage is with the -Community Mental Health Center Gover- development of the project application, as in ning Body-CFDA #13.295; the Watershed Protection and Flood Preven- -Teacher Center Policy Board-CFDA tion program [CFDA #10.904), eight programs under the Emergency School Aid g13.416; Act (e.g., CFDA #13.525), the Airport -Teacher Corps Policy Board-CFDA g13.489; Development Aid Program (CFDA #20.102), the Community Development Block Grant -State (Criminal Justice) Planning Agency program (CFDA #14.218), and five other Supervisory Board-CFDA #16.500 and programs. 16.502; -Local Development District (LDD) Gover- In at least one case-highway construction ning Board-CFDA #23.009; (CFDA #20.205)-a public hearing is required at two stages-before a route location is approved, -Community Action Agency (CAA) Board- and after approval of the location but before the CFDA #49.002; state highway department is committed to a -Community Development Corporation specific design proposal. Governing Body-CFDA #49.011; and The type of program determines where public hearings fit in. The best illustration is the -Permit Board, Air Pollution Control Pro- regulatory activity of the Environmental Protec- gram-CFDA #66.001. tion Agency (EPA).In three of the EPA programs (CFDA #66.418, 66.419, and 66.426), public In over one-half of these 114 programs, the hearings must be held not only on program statute or regulation speaks only generally of development but also in regard to regulations and involvement, without specifying particular standards. Further, in EPA's program of State modes or mechanisms. In the remainder, the Public Water Supervision (CFDA #66.432), a particular types of involvement called for in- hearing must be held before granting a variance clude: due notice of the preparation of a grant from a minimum requirement. application or development of a plan or the holding of a meeting; holding public meetings of Other Citizen Participation Requirements workshops; making records or documents available to the public; offering opportunities for In 114 of the 155 grant programs, statutes giving testimony or review and comment; and and/or regulations prescribe public participation consulting with particular groups. requirements beyond membership on boarddcommittees or the holding of public Breakdown by Department or Agency hearings. These are summarized by program in the "other" column of Appendix Table 4A-1. The preceding analysis noted certain These provisions vary with respect to whether departmental tendencies in participation re- specific interests must be involved and, if so, quirements. The following paragraphs focus which ones; at what stage of the decisionmaking more squarely on departmental differences. process participation must occur; and the types The Department of Health, Education, and 126 of participation mechanisms mandated. Welfare (HEW), the department with the most ' For the most part, these "other" provisions call grant programs, has more than one-half the for general public participation, with or without number with citizen participation require- identifying specific interests that constitute the ments-82. They are administered by the Office public. Fully two-thirds of the programs can be of Education (501, the Public Health Service (181, read as providing for participation by "the the Office of Human Development Services public" or terms that convey the same meaning. (nine), the Social Security Administration About one-half of these speak only of the public, (three), and the Health Care Financing with no reference to any specific interests to be Administration (two). The other 15 departments represented. The CP provisions in the programs or agencies with citizen participation mandates of HUD, the Appalachian Regional Commission, in descending order of number of grant pro- and EPA are almost exclusively of this type. grams affected are the Appalachian Regional Particular interests most often identified in other Commission (14), Environmental Protection programs are local governments or local officials Agency (nine), Commerce (eight), Community (17 programs), other nonfederal governments Services Administration (seven), Agriculture (usually state agencies) (15),clientele or program (seven), Labor (six), Transportation (five), recipients (14),general community organizations Justice (three), ACTION (three), Energy (three), (13), functional community organizations (13), HUD (three), Interior (two), General Services and parents (12). Administration (one), Water Resources Council When specified, public involvement is most (one), and Treasury (one). commonly required to occur during the planning In HEW, two-thirds of their citizen participa- or program development stage of the decision- tion programs require citizen membership on making process. Sometimes the focus is on the boards or committees at the state and local levels. application process. In fewer instances, the Most of these are purely advisory bodies. Citizen public is to participate in program operations or membership on committees in education implementation, or in program evaluation. The programs leans heavily toward parents-19 of broadest type of involvement is mandated for the the 50 cases, and students-13. Other interests Clean Water Act programs of the Environmental heavily represented in Office of Education Protection Agency: "public participation in the programs are local governments (usually school development, revision, and enforcement of any districts) [16), ethnic minorities and institutions regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or of higher education (ten each), and low income program established by the Administrator or any and racial minorities [nine each). Except for the state."65 cluster of programs under the Emergency School Aid Act, public hearing requirements are rare chapter, it was noted that the addition of new among Office of Education programs. requirements had accelerated over the past ten Public Health Service boards/committees are years or so. This generalization is borne out by required to represent about a half dozen specified examination of the enactment dates of the 155 interests on the average. The most common one is grant programs with citizen participation re- the consumer of health services-in ten quirements. programs. Again, public hearings are not a Most of the 155 are of relatively recent vintage. common requirement in this part of HEW. One-hundred-twenty-four were enacted in 1970 All of the 14 ARC programs are governed by a or later, about 81%of the total. As seen in Table 4- general provision mandating public hearings 3, up through 1974 the rate of expansion of new and several other elements of an active program programs with citizen participation mandates of public participation in the planning process. went up steadily, from five programs prior to EPA also is directed to use a comprehensive 1960, to ten in 1960-64, 16 in 1965-69, and 69 in approach to citizen participation in its programs, 1970-74. The upward trend is, of course, similar but for only one of the nine (Air Pollution to the growth in number of all federal grant Control) is an advisory committee involved. programs, but it is not identical. The sharp Five of the affected Commerce Department expansion in grant programs occurred in the programs are in the economic development area middle and late 1960s during the heyday of the and three in coastal zone management. Public Great Society.66 The number of programs with representation on committees is involved in the citizen participation requirements, on the other former, with special emphasis on reflection of hand, spurted in the early 1970s. Some would say 127 economic interests, racial and ethnic minorities, that this was in great part a response to the and local governments. The coastal zone political and social activism as well as the programs stress public hearings and other turmoil of the late 1960s; others would argue that vehicles of consultation, such as public meetings the earlier citizen participation requirements-at and workshops. least some of them-contributed to the turmoil; Five of the seven Community Services Ad- while still others would contend that the bulk of ministration programs must heed the "maximum the later requirements were merely a Con- feasible participation" command of the statute. gressional gesture to pacify special interest The four programs with advisory committees pleaders. emphasize representation of the poor and The pace of expansion of citizen participation residents of the area served. requirements varied among departments and In Agriculture, the three programs with agencies. Among those with the most programs, advisory committees feature representation of the Office of Education took on a host of economic interests, providers, institutions of programs with citizen participation re- higher education, and local and nonfederal quirements in 1972 legislation, but then ex- government agencies. Two of the seven programs panded even further from 1974 through 1976. The call for public hearings. All six Labor programs latter largely reflected concentrated enactments focus the participation requirements on advisory of vocational education programs. The Public committees, emphasizing representation of a Health Service's noticeable addition of programs broad spectrum of interests. These include the requiring citizen participation in the post-1970 "general public," clientele groups, economic period involved a wide range of new grant interests, local and other nonfederal agencies, programs, from Migrant Health Centers to and general and functional community groups. Health Maintenance Organization Development The five DOT programs, on the other hand, use no to State Health Planning and Development committees, but rather stress public hearings and Agencies. The Regional Development Act of 1975 public involvement in the transportation plan- amended the Appalachian Regional Commission ning process. legislation to mandate that public participation The Recent Blossoming of "in the development, revision, and implementa- Citizen Participation Requirements tion of all plans and programs under this act by the commission, and state or any local develop- In tracing the history of federal citizen par- ment district shall be provided for, encouraged, ticipation provisions at the opening of this and assisted." By one stroke this added 14 Table 4-3 FEDERAL GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAMS REQUIRING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, BY AGENCY AND PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH MANDATING LEGISLATION OR REGULATION WAS ADOPTED

Prior to 1960- Department or Agency 1960 64 Total

Total Percentage

SOURCE: AClR staff tabulation.

programs to the tally for that year. Finally, eight question by showing for each department or of the nine EPA grant programs requiring public agency (a) the total number of federal grant involvement and all of the ACTION (three) and programs as of January 1, 1978, according to the Department of Energy (three)programs came into ACIR's count, (b) the number of programs with being after 1970. citizen participation requirements, and (c) the percentage that the latter is of the former. As The Programs Without explained in an earlier footnote, the data in the Mandated Citizen Participation two columns are not strictly comparable because At the outset it was stated that one-fourth to of differences in counting,67 but the similarity is one-third of federal grant programs have citizen great enough to provide a generally accurate participation requirements prescribed by law or picture. regulation. The question might well be asked: The table clearly shows a wide range of which programs do not have such requirements, incidence of participation requirements among and why don't they? Table 4-4 approaches this the departments and agencies. Among the major departments, 11%of programs in Interior, 17%in involving primarily the development and use of Agriculture, and 20%in HUD are on the low side. highly technical knowledge and methodologies On the high side are Office of Education with might benefit little from the involvement of the 52%, ACTION with 6O0/0, Energy with 50%. EPA public. Many of the EPA, Agriculture, and with 26% is slightly below the average. Overall, Interior programs are of this type. On the other 31% of the grant programs require citizen par- hand, one would expect that programs delivering ticipation. services to people, or to particular segments of By themselves, of course, these figures are not the populace, would be highly adaptable to very meaningful. One would expect that citizen citizen involvement. That premise seems borne participation would have varying significance in out in the degree to which citizen participation is different kinds of programs. Research programs required in programs under the Office of Educa-

Table 4-4 FEDERAL GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: TOTAL AND NUMBER WITH MANDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS: BY DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY (1978)

With Mandated Citizen Participation Department or Agency Total Number Percent

Agriculture 42 7 17 Commerce 28 8 29 HEW (222) (82) (37) Office of Secretary 2 - 0 PHs 70 18 26 OE 96 50 52 OHDS 41 9 22 HCFA 3 2 67 SSA 10 3 30 HUD 15 3 20 Interior 19 2 11 Justice 14 3 21 Labor 23 6 26 Transportation 50 5 10 Appalachian Regional Commission 14 14 100 GSA 1 1 100 CSA 7 7 100 Water Resources Council I 1 100 EP A 35 9 26 ACTION 5 3 60 Energy 6 3 50 Treasury 1 1 100 Other' 15 0 0 - - Total 155 31

'Department of Defense, National Foundation for Arts and Humanities, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, and Veterans Administration.

SOURCE: Total: ACIR, A Catalog of Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs to State and Local Governments: Grants FundedFY 1978, A- 72, Washington, DC, US. Government Printing Office, 1979; number with mandated citizen participation provisions: AClRstaff survey and calculation. tion, the Community Services Administration, The interest-representation model reflects the and ACTION. involvement of organized interest groupings in Yet, from a cursory examination of the list of conflict over relatively narrow and distinct grant programs it is evident that by no means are controversies. This is the most common approach research programs always excluded from citizen and the most "normal" from the perspective of participation requirements, nor, on the other interest-group domination in American politics. hand, do all people-serving programs have such The government's task in handling this approach, requirements. Moreover, the inconsistent treat- says Rosenbaum, is to establish basic rules of ment appears among programs that are closely access, fairness, and efficiency in providing related functionally and administered by the information, obtaining citizens views, and same department or agency. Thus, in the Depart- evaluating the competing interests. As basic ment of Interior, Water Resources Research guarantees of access to the decisionmaking Assistance to State Institutes (CFDA #15.951) process, they should apply to all grant programs, has a participation requirement, but Water according to Rosenbaum. They lend themselves Resources Research: Additional Projects (CFDA to standardization governmentwide. #15.950) does not. In the Office of Human The clientele control model is distinguished by Development Services of HEW, Older Americans designation of a particular constituency or Program: Area Planning and Social Service clientele group which is vested with some direct (CFDA #13.633) requires public involvement but form of authority over program operation, 130 the same is not true for two apparently closely because of the comparative magnitude of the related programs: Older American Programs: program's impact on the designated group. While Model Projects (CFDA #13.634), and Older less susceptible to standardization than the first American Programs: Multi-Disciplinary Centers approach, common factors do exist that could of Gerontology (CFDA #13.638). permit a degree of effective standardization. The planning function is an area where public The third approach, the community consensus involvement is often found. The planning phase approach, attempts to penetrate beyond the of program or project development seems a organized interest groups to seek the views and logical step in the decisionmaking process at interests of unorganized and unrepresented which to seek public input. Yet, by no means do elements of an affected community. Planning and all planning programs-at least those with the natural resource programs most commonly term in their titles-mandate public involve- involve citizens through this approach, because ment. Those without such requirements include: of their broad scope and diverse community- DOE'S Supplemental State Energy Conservation wide impacts. According to Rosenbaum, this Plans (CFDA #81.043); Interior's Historic Preser- approach is least susceptible to standardization vation: Comprehensive Planning and Survey mainly because of differences in groups to be Grants (CFDA #15.411); DOT'S Airport and included and lack of experience with community Airway Development: Planning Grants [CFDA consensus techniques. g20.103); and Commerce's Coastal Energy Impact ACIR staff undertook to identify which of the Program: Planning Grants (CFDA #11.422). 155 total grant programs with citizen participation requirements seem to fall in the clientele control and community consensus classes, based A Typology of Approaches to Standardization of Citizen Participation again on the language of the statutes and/or regulations. The assigned classifications appear in Federal Grant Programs in Appendix Table 4A-1 in the far right-hand In his testimony before the ACIR with regard to column. the December 1978 draft report on citizen The 12 clientele control programs are dis- participation, Nelson Rosenbaum of the Urban tributed among Community Services Ad- Institute proposed that in thinking about stan- ministration (five), Public Health Service (four), dardizing citizen participation requirements in Office of Education (two),and Agriculture (one). the federal assistance system, a threefold The 36 community consensus programs are in the classification might be used: (1) interest Appalachian Regional Commission (ll),EPA representation, (2) clientele control, and (3) (eight), Commerce (six), HUD and Agriculture community consensus. (three each), and the Office of Education, Interior, Water Resources Council, Energy, and growing bureaucracy, it is significant that Treasury (one each). functional specialists maintain strong numerical representation on these federally mandated Summary and Comment boards and committees. Of the 89 programs with participation through In summarizing, it is necessary to emphasize boards or committees, these bodies are confined two basic limitations of this analysis: (I] the data to advisory powers with the exception of 24 are based on a reading of statutes and regula- programs involving 17 separate committees. tions-they do not necessarily reflect actual Thus, the principal impact of this primary citizen practice; (2) the statutory and regulatory participation mechanism often stops short of references were supplied, for the most part, by actual decisionmaking. The extent to which the the responsible federal departments and agen- advice offered by these multimember bodies is cies, confirmed and supplemented in many cases heeded requires indepth analysis beyond the by ACIR staff research. scope of this report. Within these limitations, ACIR identified 155 Public hearings are the second most common separate grant programs, as of December 1978, type of citizen participation device prescribed for that mandate citizen participation through federal grant programs. They are timed mostly statute and/or regulation. These are largely of for the planning, project application, or program fairly recent origin-81% were adopted since development stage of the grant process. In the 1970. newer environmental programs involving not Prescription of boards or committees and of the only plans and programs but also standards and 133 membership of such bodies is the most usual type regulations, separate hearings may be required at of mandate. Consumers or clientele served by several or all of these stages. particular programs are the most frequently One-hundred-fourteen of the 155 grant represented interest on boards and committees. ' programs mandate types of public involvement In many cases, moreover, the legislation or beyond boards/committees or public hearings. regulation requires that they constitute a certain These vary with respect to the interests involved, proportion of the total membership. Next most the stage of decisionmaking affected, and the frequently represented are members of the types of participation mechanism mandated. general public, of functional community These "other" provisions call for participation of organizations and of general community or civic the general public in most cases, with or without organizations. Ethnic and racial minorities also identifying particular interests that must be constitute the next most numerous cluster of represented. In the "community consensus" type interests; then come institutions of higher of involvement, the emphasis in these provisions education, economic interests, and parents, in is heavily on representation of the general public. that order. A clear effort is made to distinguish When the timing of the "other" types of between consumers and providers in boardlcom- participation is specified, it is usually set for the mittee membership, but consumers are much planning or program development stages of the more frequently designated than are providers. decisionmaking process. Also, in most of these Local and other nonfederal governments are also programs, no particular type of participation often required to be represented on boards or mechanism is prescribed. When prescribed, the committees. To some extent the high representa- requirements run heavily to the elements of tion of local governments reflects the increased administrative procedures acts: due notice, activity of national organizations of elected local access to public records; opportunity for review officials, as in programs of the Economic and comment; and the like. Development Administration and the Labor As might be expected, the department with the Department. More important, however, the local greatest number of grant programs and the government representation is drawn from func- largest proportion of people-serving activities- tional specialists as is the representation of other HEW-dominates the statistics on participation nonfederal governments, which consists mainly requirements. Moreover, within HEW the domi- of professional employees in state government. nant agency is the Office of Education because of Considering that citizen participation is often its large share of total programs. Board/commit- urged as necessary to exert more control over tee membership is the principal means of Citizen Participation in HEW programs; public hearings Citizen Participation in Selected are little used. Parents, students, and local school Grant Programs: Five Case Studies districts are the chief interests represented on boards and committees. To obtain a better picture of the origin, Other departments use a variety of different evolution, problems, and effects of federally mechanisms and diverse patterns of representa- mandated citizen participation requirements, tion of particular interests. The community ACIR staff focused on five major grant programs. consensus type tend more toward inclusion of a These are: the community health center program, range of interests, the use of a variety of Title XX of the Social Security Act (social techniques, and involvement of the citizen in services), the coastal zone management program, several steps in the decisionmaking process. community development block grants: and the The 155 grant programs with public participa- General Revenue Sharing (GRS) program. They tion mandates account for one-fourth to one- were selected as important programs with rather third of all current programs of grants to state different histories and citizen participation and local governments. That two-thirds to three- requirements. They are not necessarily represen- fourths of the programs are not subject to tative of the 155 programs identified earlier, but mandatory public involvement raises the strong do constitute a range of federal programs and presumption that citizen participation is not participation practices and, in some instances, consistently mandated by the federal govern- pose very different issues. GRS is included for ment. An examination of provisions of the the additional reason, of course, that the 1976 132 mandating laws and regulations fortifies this legislation extending the program requested this presumption inasmuch as similar programs study and the legislation mandates significant within the same department or agency, or new citizen participation requirements for state programs in the same functional area, or and local governments. programs dealing with like phases of the decisionmaking process-such as planning-dif- COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS fer in respect to whether they do or do not require citizen participation. There is the additional Community health centers (CHCs) are public or significant fact that the programs that do nonprofit private organizations created to plan, mandate citizen participation differ consid- develop and operate programs to improve com- erably with respect to the types of mechanism munity health care. Their major goal is to employed and the detailed application of those improve the health care delivery system in mechanisms. medically "underserved" urban and rural areas. To achieve greater consistency among citizen The Public Health Service (PHs) may make participation requirements in federal programs, planning and initial funding grants to the centers one knowledgeable observer has suggested a whenever it determines that existing health three-pronged approach based upon three systems do not provide quality care to the different kinds of citizen participation needs. The community. three approaches are: the interest-representation Community health center grants were original- model, which would assure certain minimum ly authorized in 1966.68 They were intended to types of access to decisionmaking in all grant promote flexible and innovative approaches to programs; the clientele control model, limited to health care delivery. Before any grants were where it is important that a particular affected made, however, the program was transformed group have some degree of control over decisions; into aiding ambulatory or comprehensive health and the community consensus model, where it is care programs in service areas with low or important to reach out to ensure inclusion of nonexistent health care services. The first interests that are not usually represented in neighborhood health centers were funded in 1968 decisions that affect them, through lack of and were based on a model for health care initiative or organization. According to ACIR patterned after health centers funded under the staff estimates, the existing programs with Economic Opportunity Act. Later a number of mandated participation include 12 of the clientele OEO centers were transferred to the Public control approach, and 36 using the community Health Service in HEW. consensus model. Congress found evidence linking neighborhood health centers to improved health of at least some operation of the pr~gram."~lLater the report users and also to decreased hospital utilization.6g indicates that the Secretary, in awarding grants, New legislation, the 1975 Health Services Act, must determine that a governing board has been changed the name of neighborhood centers to established and that it is comprised of a majority community health centers. The measure also who are "being served by the applicant (grantee) proposed to support the centers at a higher and who collectively represent the community." funding level and to provide standards which The report suggests monthly meetings and the would eventually make them self sufficient. That power to select the director, approve the annual time would arrive, in the words of Senate Report budget, and set center hours. The center (appli- 93-1137 "when public and private insurance have cant) is also to create a professional advisory expanded sufficiently to cover the range of board with the professional staff represented on services offered by the centers."70 The final bill it. The lack of detailed commentary is balanced, embodying these views was passed over the of course, by the fact that existing CHCs had President's veto. The administration resisted the citizen governing boards and many had had proposed funding levels and preferred that citizen involvement in their earlier activities narrow categorical grants be folded into the under the Community Action and Model Cities existing health care delivery system. programs. Funding has been less than originally en- In keeping with the intent of the legislation, visioned. In Senate Report 93-117, $460 million centers are to provide services in the language was proposed, but, in fiscal year 1977, PHs could and cultural context most appropriate to 133 commit only $215 million to existing CHCs and bilingual and bicultural individuals. some other primary care centers. Individual During the testimony before the Subcommittee grants ranged from $25,000 to $4,000,000, far on Labor and Public Welfare in 1974, some from the largest share of a typical CHC budget. In evidence was presented that "consumers" knew HEW Region 11, which includes the State of New best what kind of programs were needed and how York, CHC budgets ranged from $1.3 to $13 to administer them, although this mostly referred million including grants. to migrant health centers, another part of the bill. The most common type of CHC was a nonprofit Most of the testimony was from those formally corporation. Seventy-seven of the 164 CHCs fell representing the poor or from some kind of local into this category, while 47 were community organizer. Nowhere in the legislative history, action, Model City, or similar agencies. Fifteen however, is there the kind of information that were city or state agencies, 13 were hospitals, accounts for the specific size and makeup of and 12 were educational, health, or medical governing boards which finally appeared in the society institutions. Funding decisions have been Federal Register. One view is that the citizen decentralized to the regions, and grants can be participation requirements were developed from made initially for up to five years. Some centers the experiences of the Office of Economic have received funding for a decade or more, Opportunity.72 If that is true, control by the particularly if they grew out of the Community board is intended to be meaningful and strongly Action programs. oriented to community action. The regulations seem consistent with that Citizen Participation interpretation. The governing bodies of nonprofit grantees must have a majority of consumers Until 1978, there was relatively little evidence (clients in the area who have used the medical in the legislative history that community and services). They are to "represent the individuals consumer participation in the CHCs was a major being or to be served in terms of demographic concern of Congress. The background commen- factors, such as race, ethnicity, sex."73 The tary in the 1974 Senate report contains no balance of the committee may consist of comment on the subject, and only one sentence in providers (up to 25Ol0 of the full committee] and the discussion of planning and development representatives of the CHC service area. These grants refers to formal citizen involvement. It latter individuals are to be selected "for their indicates that the grantees should, with other expertise in community affairs, local govern- requirements, "initiate and encourage continuing ment, finance and banking, legal affairs, trade community involvement in the development and unions, and other commercial and industrial concerns, or social service agencies within the evaluate each center, with the other criteria community."74 related to the quality of medical care. About three Boards must contain between nine and 25 or four site visits are made annually to each members, with the average from 15 to 20. center, and a review of the governing board Selection of members is governed by the gover- minutes takes place. If a center requires more ning body rules. These rules reflect the needs of attention, regional representatives may spend a the governing body, which vary with the good deal of time in review and attend a number demographic makeup of the catchment (service) of board meetings.78 area. "Democratic selection" or selection of Board Issues and Activities governing body members by the incumbents, is frequent, although election is preferred by HEW. A critical board responsibility is staff selec- A new community health center board is general- tion. The most important choice is an executive ly made up of activists in the area who may have director. Here, boards occasionally become been part of the original advisory board. After embroiled in controversy. When a choice is made, some time, permanent boards usually create a occasionally the decision is unacceptable to nominating committee which seeks out new regional Public Health officials, who have in the members and tries to assure that board mem- past vetoed choices. Regions require vitae for bership mirrors the area and maintains the nominees to be sent to them for approval. Many consumer-provider relationship. These nominat- directors are generalist administrators rather ing committees look for local influentials and than MDs. The latter generally occupy the 134 representatives of important groups. The most professional staff positions. common pattern is for community leaders to be Most of the differences among board members appointed while consumer representatives are are presumed to be rooted in the different elected. This pattern occurs primarily after a interests of consumers and providers, but this is board becomes stabilized in its governing not always true. Frequently, providers and pattern. New boards, as in a change from a consumers have the same interests.77At the same hospital to a community agency as grantee, time, providers usually are more often concerned usually blanket in the existing advisory board with the quality of health care than consumers. In and seek out other representatives by any case, it is usually difficult to enlist as many appointment. providers as the law allows, since "underserved" Boards are required to hold monthly meetings, areas, by definition, lack providers. When they appoint the executive director, set CHC policy, are present and interested they are influential, establish personnel rules, adopt a financial but on many or most boards, consumers heavily management plan, evaluate center activities, predominate in numbers. It is sometimes also assure that the center is operated in conformity difficult to attract community leaders to a board. with federal, state and local laws, and adopt A review of the actions of three boards in New health care policies such as scope and availabili- York State during early 1977 brings these ty of services, location, and hours. In practice, the comments .into focus.78 Since all of the boards board is usually limited to policy questions, were changing from advisory to governing, final while the chief executive officer is largely composition of the governing body was in- responsible for day-to-day operation^.^^ complete. Even so, in only one of the boards did women make up half the membership. There was HEW Review considerable evidence of earnest attempts to recruit members of all types, from lawyers TheCHC program is largely administered and representing the community to a number of supervised by HEW regions with the number of consumer representatives. The search was made centers in any one region ranging between 17and more difficult by the prohibitions against center 184. Grant proposals are continually reviewed, employees or their blood relatives holding board and in some regions a double review takes place. membership. Often, center employees, such as A regional consultant is responsible for the medical doctors, were virtually the only whole CHC program and program officers are providers available for board membership. assigned to specific projects and centers. Citizen Employees in effect were represented by the participation is one of a range of criteria used to executive director who can be an ex officio member of the board without voting rights. existing policy of a community governing body The attendance rate at the three CHC board made up of a majority of consumers. The question meetings ranged from 70% to 100% with similar of self-sufficiency is really avoided by implicitly rates at those committee meetings which were promising support until client insurance can reported to the center board. The meetings were cover costs to the extent of private hospitals. similar to a very large town or village council It is unlikely that generally low-income lay made up of working class people with a citizens who are consumers of health services in professional manager. Hence, the need for their area can effectively govern CHCs at a time training new center board members has been when self-sufficiency still is a distant goal. The stressed by regional Public Health officials and is matter may even be beyond the grasp of much a perennial concern of board members. Every more highly trained and educated individuals. meeting is marked by announcements of training Many boards are not operating effectively under sessions and the assignment of individuals to lay control, while there is no evidence that the them. new legislation will solve the problems of those that are not. Thus, the legislation creating CHCs Effect of Legislation represents a holding pattern in the sense that The 1975 Health Services Act did not greatly community controlled boards have received a affect participation activities associated with vote of support at the Congressional level. community health centers. It tried to establish the principle that additional support was needed TITLE XX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 135 until the centers can become self sufficient. In Title XX of the Social Security Act was the effect, the legislation endorsed the programs culmination of a long and protracted debate generally carried on by the old neighborhood between HEW, Congress, and a number of health centers with Congressional concern center- diverse interest groups involved in social ser- ing on specific types of health care standards. vices. Gradual amendments to the social services The CHCs involve the classic form of citizen program since the early 1960s had substantially participation, since their governance is in the increased its coverage. In an attempt to en- hands of clients chosen from the population they courage states to expand coverage, both control serve. This is, of course, based on the theory that devices and definitions of eligibility were chang- "consumers" are the best judges of what is ed. As an unintended consequence, it became appropriate health care policy in their possible for states to charge the federal govern- geographical setting. Congress apparently saw ment 75% of the costs of providing many social no need to question that theory. services formerly funded entirely from The legislation had little direct effect upon the state/local funds. Faced with a projected $4.7 actual extent of citizen participation. The present billion federal share as a consequence, Congress levels of participation and community control in 1972 imposed a limit of $2.5 billion. However, existed prior to the 1975 legislation, and there is HEW had difficulty developing regulations no evidence in the record of any significant setting eligibility limits which were acceptable to Congressional interest in changing policies the states and Congress. A compromise, P.L. 93- relating to participation or control of the gov- 67, was finally passedand signed into law in erning board by the community. Yet, several January 1975.'9 related questions do inevitably arise. Under Title XX, the federal government The first is the length of time for the CHCs to matches 75% of state expenditures. Some rather become self-sufficient. The Senate report implied prescriptive rules must be followed, but once this would be when "public and private in- these are met the federal contribution is surance cover the range of services offered by the automatic. The legislation spells out five special centers," potentially a long commitment for service goals-self-support, self-care, protective subsidies. The second issue involves the role of services for children and adults, prevention or consumers of health care treatment and their reduction of institutionalization, and ineffectiveness and role on governing boards. The stitutionalizing those who require care. A state legislation dealt directly with neither question. must offer family planning and at least one In the case of consumers, it merely supported the service in each of the five goal areas. The significance of Title XX for public par- States generally used one or more of five ticipation is that the planning process was participative mechanisms in the 1975-76 required to be made public and explicit. Prior to program.8z Letter writing was common as a Title XX, state social services decisionmaking response to the proposed plan. Public meetings was a fairly "closed process, often dominated by were used to disseminate program information the social service agency leadership."80 States and to answer questions from citizens. Some had moved away from purely welfare type pay- meetings were aimed at special interests and ments, and into programs such as mental health special locations. Public hearings were held to because of the open ended grant provisions. Yet, solicit testimony, information and opinions from there was still a close linkage between social the general public, although they were sometimes service spending and state-federal bureaucratic dominated by special interests. The most effec- functional linkages. Title XX tried to open this tive hearings were those held in the plan system and also decategorize social service development stage rather than on a proposed programs by not requiring that an individual be final plan. In many cases, surveys and question- on public assistance to obtain services. In naires were used in assessing needs and setting addition, regulations of the administering agen- priorities, although their reliability was always a cy, the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS), problem. Finally, advisory councils were used were rather restrictive and many members of frequently to provide more depth to participa- Congress viewed Title XX as a way to loosen tion, even though it was feared that providers these constraints.81 would dominate councils. 136 The five mechanisms were used in varying 1975-76 Experience combinations in 23 states and the District of Whether or not Title XX "opened up public Columbia during the first year. Twenty of the 24 participation" depends largely upon one's con- jurisdictions used advisory councils, public cept of public participation. More participation hearings or meetings, or surveys to develop this exists now than before Title XX, when involve- plan. Some were more limited than others, but all ment was largely limited to professionals and 20 exceeded the SRS guideline minimums. service providers. Some commentators feel, Fifteen states used one or more advisory coun- however, that the requirements fall short of cils, although Rose, Zorn, and Radin claim that desirable levels. Specifically, they point out that public and private service providers were over- the regulations were drafted hurriedly for the represented on these councils.83 Nine states first submissions in 1975-76, and included provided for hearings or meetings, with as many relatively few participative mechanisms, i.e., (1) as 18,000 in attendance in Georgia, which held making the proposed state services plan two hearings in each county. available to the public for 90 days before the Surveys varied greatly, from telephone polls to program year with 45 of these days available for questionnaires by mail. Public-at-large sampl- comment on the plan, (2) requiring newspaper ing, however, was not common, since providers display advertisements and news releases, (3) were the specific target groups in eight of the 11 making public hearings an option, (4) providing a states using the survey device. States such as toll free or local phone number, (5) requiring Nebraska and Georgia, which did use a survey publication of public officials' addresses for aimed at the general public, got significantly obtaining documents or copies, and (6) distribu- more responses, as might be expected. tion, free of charge, of plan summaries. During the review and comment period on the The final plan had to be publicized in much the final state plan, 18 states provided for public same way and had to indicate the differences hearings. Most were held at a variety of loca- between the proposed and final plans. The state tions. Total attendance varied, reaching as high agency did not have to act on suggestions, only as over 3,000 in Georgia's 100 public hearings. receive them, a practice that drew considerable Other parts of the requirements generally were criticism. The critics argued that citizens should met, particularly the availability of service plans be involved in the actual process of developing at a reasonable fee. All of the basic information the plan rather than making comments on a that had to be included in the plans was included, specific plan which would most likely be too late but the form of presentation varied greatly and for inclusion. often was confusing or vagueaB4Written comments varied in number from 20 in one state to centers, family service agencies, and rehabilita- 1,363 in California. Only Indiana provided no tion industries continue to be well supported.87 participative mechanisms in addition to written Even so, Title XX, after the first year, may have comments, and thus 23 of the 24 states surveyed changed the rules of the game and benefitted the exceeded the federal minimum standards. Governor or the legislature at the expense of Rose, Zorn, and Radin noted that service agency heads. However, low income clients are providers dominated the process in most of the 24 not significant actors. states because of their resources, interests, and Level of participation in the states was not familiarity with the program. This was at least unexpected. The Brookings Institution noted that partly because providers were heavily engaged substantial political activity was expected for a in the early planning process. part of the $2.5 billion. It found that the "day care The states chiefly relied on after-the-fact people" were deeply involved and well organized, evaluations, rather than developmental plan- so much so that in one state they went directly to ning, as called for by the federal regulations. Yet, the legislature and wrote into the social service 20 of the 24 states did have some mechanism for appropriations bill the amount to be spent on day citizen involvement in the planning process. care. Political forces change, however, and it may Finally, intensity of participation solicitation by well be that the aged and handicapped will get states varied substantially, in part because of significantly larger shares in the future. In any varying budget cycles, in part because of the case, the Brookings researchers concluded that delayed federal regulations, and in part due to providers of funds or organized groups who variations in state perception and assessment of wanted funds participated much more heavily 137 the value of participation. than the "general public" who were much less active.88 This finding, of course, parallels that of Evaluation of Participation Rose, Zorn and Radin. The SRS staff was generally satisfied with the The Urban Institute made a study of statewide results of state participation in the first year of Title XX participation in five states for the Social 1975-76. In several cases, public hearings and Rehabilitation Service. A substantial resulted in state modifications of proposed plans. number of interviews were conducted in North Even so, the regulations were changed con- Carolina, Oregon, Iowa, Michigan and New York. siderably in early 1977, generally to strengthen The study concluded that the first year of Title the plan development process which all parties XX "was much more open" than the pre-Title XX seemed to view as critical. The new regulations participation process. It predicted that openness included a statement of purpose about the public would continue to increase, despite considerable review process emphasizing "prior public par- difficulty in obtaining widespread involvement ticipation of Title XX clients.. . throughout the by low income consumers of social programs.85 development of the services plan."89 They also The role of the Governor was found to be more provided for public access to comments on the influential under Title XX than previously, proposed plan, and detailed further the types of although the agency leadership still was more publication requirements. Publication in the influential. Service providers (e.g., day care news section instead of the legal section was homes, foster care homes) had less influence than stipulated and some notification details relative might have been expected-less than the agency to eligibility, funding allocations, and dollar leadership and the Governor. Other official incomes were set forth. Other than these, groups such as the state mental health agency however, the specific mechanisms were not and the regional social service staff also were significantly modified. Except in the hortatory active and influential. Unfortunately, as noted statement of principle, states are not required to above, consumer client participation was low provide any particular participative mechanism and was expected to remain so.B6 in the plan development process. The picture then is of a system dominated by sets of public actors such as the agencies, the Impact of Participation Requirements Governor, and the legislature with outside groups still highly influential. Apparently, Participation in the initial Title XX grant producers and organized groups such as day care process among the various states was probably at least as much as Congress anticipated. The pressure from commercial, recreation, fishing, Senate and House conference report did not and other users. specify much in terms of detailed requirements, Studies were authorized to assess the ap- other than requiring public comment on a propriate action to be taken. The Department of proposed services plan for 45 days, publication of Interior published two reports, the 1969 National a final comprehensive plan after the public Estuarine Pollution Study required by the Clean comment period with the report outlining the Water Restoration Actg3 and the 1970 National differences between the proposed and final plan, Estuary Study required by the National Estuary and 30 days of public commentary on proposed Protection Act of 1968. Both studies suggested a amendments. Regulations in general expanded federal-state management system for coastal these provisions by requiring states to publish studies. Preceding these studies was the Com- descriptions of the plan in newspaper adver- mission on Marine Science, Engineering and tisements in major geographical areas, establish Resources report in 1966, Our Nation and the Sea, toll free telephone service for inquiries and other which called for a management system to protect similar measures to assure wide public coastal areas. This system was to be a federal- a~ailability.~O state program with primary responsibility at the The evidence shows that 20 of the 24 states state level under a National Oceanic and At- studied exceeded minimum participation stan- mospheric Agency. dards, and some states experienced substantial Legislation was introduced in 1969 for coastal participation. One may conclude that providers management and debate began over several 138 were better organized and dominated the process crucial issues: whether to enact coastal zone as Rose, et al., did, yet still be optimistic over the management as part of a national land use law; increased levels of participation as the SRS staff how to allocate costs and management between and Brookings were. However, additional re- the states and the federal government; and quirements would probably not have increased whether the federal agency should be in the participation. At the same time it also is clear Interior or Commerce department. In the legisla- that the federal requirements did result in more tion signed in October 1972, Congress decided participation than would have occurred that coastal areas warranted separate attention otherwise. rather than being included in a national land use The Social Services program involves a law, the Commerce Department was the proper number of well entrenched interests and organizational location, and the program should professional organizations. Title XX proposes, in be state managed with federal support in both the effect, to bring or attempt to bring in hitherto planning and implementation stage. The program unheard voices, such as the poor and unorganiz- is managed by the Office of Coastal Zone ed. New actors have become involved, such as Management (OCZM) in the National Oceanic other state agencies and Governors, but low and Atmospheric Administration of the Depart- income clients have not been influential, even ment of Commerce in Washington, DC, with under the revised participation guidelines.gl regional coordinators for the major regions such Here, of course, one of the basic questions as the Pacific Coast, Great Lakes, Atlantic and relating to citizen participation is raised: par- Gulf Coast. ticipation for whom? OCZM Grants THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OCZM grants are designed to help the 35 eligible states and territories plan and ad- For some years prior to the passage of the minister coastal zone management programs and Coastal Zone Management program in 1972,92 acquire estuarine sanctuaries, and to encourage pressure had been building up for the legal cooperation between local, state, regional, and protection of coastal habitats, particularly es- federal agencies in preserving coastal areas. The tuaries with rare marine life. States such as matching formula is 80%federal, 20%state, with California and Florida had large expanses of the allocation formula based on the miles of heavily populated coastal zones, but other states shoreline and the population located near it. also found their coasts under developmental Since states manage their coastal areas, the grants are designed to foster a process by which The words "participate and par- states can develop the plans and administrative ticipation" mean more than cooperation expertise to manage these coastal resources. On or coordination in the preparation of the other hand, there are substantive questions management programs. The committee that the plan must take into account. The major intends to emphasize the need for one is facility siting, which requires that the positive participation by state agen- national interest in energy development be con- cies, local governments, regional, and sidered in developing coastal use plans. This federal agencies in the preparation of means that oil, gas, and other energy producing the coastal zone programs. industries must be given formal consideration Public hearings must be announced along with often competinginterests. Section 308 at least 30 days in advance with of the Coastal Zone program establishes the relevant materials, documents and Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP)94 and studies available to the public 30 days under it states participating in the CZM program in advance of the hearings. Broadly or independently developing a consistent pro- based public participation in the plan- gram are eligible for funds for planning new ning for the coastal and estuarine zones services and reducing or preventing losses of is basic to this legislation. Unfortunate environmental or recreational resources due to experience with comparable provisions energy activities, particularly gas and oil of legislation prompts the committee to exploration. provide explicit standards for notice 139 The state plan must contain elements covering and hearings. Those standards provide the protection of marine estuaries, erosion not only for adequate notice of propos- control, and public beach access. Public pared hearings in order to provide ample ticipation throughout the planning process is time for preparation, but also require intended to prevent any one of these interests all relevant documents, materials, from being ignored. studies, and proposed actions to be One of the sticky process questions is the available to the public for advance "federal consistency" requirement. This means study and preparation.96 that federal agencies, whose direct activities impact on coastal zones must coordinate and cooperate with each other and with the approved The House report notes that public hearings local management plan for such areas. Many are intended to be in addition to any other legal federal agencies are not anxious to defer to state plans and at least one citizen group has argued requirements and "do not replace any other remedies available to the public." that citizen participation is crucial in monitoring approved plans to assure that all agencies (state, Most of the participation requirements affecting the CZM program are spelled out in detail in local, as well as federal) comply.95 15 CFR 920.30-920.32; Participation Requirements Public participation is an essential The requirements for public participation are element of development and ad- more carefully spelled out in the legislation and ministration of a coastal zone manage- the regulations covering CZM than in most ment program. Through citizen in- federal programs. Part of this is due to the nature volvement in the development of a of the program, which inherently involved the management program, public needs resolution of conflicting interests, thus requiring and aspirations can be reflected in use more formal and far reaching attempts to elicit all decisions for the coastal zone, and possible views. Part, however, is due to Con- public support for the management gress' basic concern here with specifying the program can be generated. Par- nature and type of participation. The Senate ticipating states, then, should seek to report on the bill noted as a matter of public obtain extensive public participation in policy that participation of the public; federal, the development and administration of state, and local governments; regional agencies; a coastal zone management program and port authorities was to be encouraged. (920.30). The type of preparation for and conduct of and from the specific requirements is the full public hearings is specified in some detail. cooperation and participation of local units of government. The House reportg7 required that 1. Hearings must provide at least 30 days of public notice. the Secretary of Commerce, in making an administrative grant for an approved program, 2. They must be of a "press release" type as must find that the state has coordinated its pro- well as meeting formal legal notice re- gram with applicable plans already existent in its quirements. coastal area (assuring that local land use plans will be considered). The Secretary must find that 3. Hearing materials which include the (1) the state has provided for continuing consulta- agenda, (2) data, and (3) other documents tion and coordination with all responsible local must be available for public review in the governments and various agencies to assure their locale of the hearing. full participation in carrying out the purposes of 4. Only one hearing is required, although the the legislation. context of the section calls for extensive The original hearings contained considerable hearings. "In reviewing the plan submitted discussion of how and to what extent the public by a state, the Secretary will not approve should be involved. At some points, this involved any plan unless there has been a full and the touchy relationships in this subject area effective opportunity for public involve- between localities and the state. At least one ment in every portion of the plan." mayor indicated concern that the proposed 140 legislation not reduce the role of local units. At 5. Hearings must be held in geographic areas another point, a representative of the Izaak which would be principall-y affeited. Walton League expressed doubt about the 6. They must be held at times when affected effectiveness of public hearings since they often parties can be present (i.e., summers for came too late in the process.98 tourists using beach areas). The final legislation clearly declared that local units of government, including port authorities 7. Summaries of the hearings should be pre- and regional organizations as well as traditional pared and made available to the public units, were to be jointly involved with state and within 30 days of its conclusion. federal agencies, the general public, and public Additional means of participation are also and private interest groups. outlined. Arrangements for exchanging information Oregon and California and reports among state and local agencies, citizen groups, special interest groups and To appraise citizen involvement in the CZM the public at large should be established. program more closely experience in California and Oregon was examined. Public participation The state should solicit the views of relevant was substantial in the development of the coastal federal and state agencies, local plans for these two states. Oregon's plan, organizations, port authorities and in- developed under Section 305 funding, has been terested parties. adopted and the state is now receiving Section Mechanisms such as the following should be 306 money (administrative grants for states with developed by the state: approved plans). California has completed a state plan and a draft environmental impact a) citizen involvement in the development statement (EIS] had been completed by the of goals and objectives, OCZM as of June 1977. b) citizens' advisory commissions for the In California, the state was divided into six CZM agency, and regions with six commissions for preparation of c) review of elements of the management the original plan because of the requirements of program by selected citizens groups and the 1972 Coastal Initiative99 adopted by the general public. statewide referendum. A statewide commission An important element of public participation was required to adopt a plan after preparation of that emerges from both the legislative history the regional plans, and submit it to the legislature for enactment. About 6,000 persons attended Informal Technical Assistance the 259 regional commission and several statewide commission meetings, submitting OCZM staff members spend a good deal of time some 8,000 pages of written comments. An working with states on participation, often estimated 10,000 individuals and groups were providing technical assistance on how to elicit involved in the coastal planning process, and a citizen involvement in proposed state programs. total of 20,000 persons received planning Regulations for the review of state management material. The number of parties from whom programs call for an evaluation that comments were requested on the draft EIS . . . will not in general deal with the statement is partially indicative. There were 40 wisdom of specific land and water federal agencies, 36 national interest groups, five decisions, but rather with a determina- professional groups, nine national public interest tion that in addressing those problems groups, and 47 other private groups. A few of and issues the state is aware of the full these varied interests included EXXON, the range of present and potential needs League of Women Voters, the Association of and uses of the coastal zone, and has California Loggers, Keep Pacific Scenic, Clyde developed procedure, based on scien- Woodward Associates, Friends of the Earth, and tific knowledge, public participation the Sport Fishing Institute. and unified governmental policies, choices and decisions.100 Oregon is a smaller state with about 10% of California's population. Thus, the EIS statement An example of informal support for a broad 141 provided a more detailed explanation of public participation program occurred in Georgia, participation in the preparation of the plan. In where a staff member of OCZM met with a staff establishing the statewide goals, 28 public member of the state agency to help develop a workshops were held throughout the state with public involvement program. After consulta- attendance ranging from 36 to 209 with a total tion, the proposed state program involved among attendance of approximately 3,000 people. other things: (1) preparing a 20-minute film and Television and radio public announcements were provision of a speaker for civic and special in- made plus a mailing of 75,000 invitations to terest group meetings, (2) providing legislators randomly selected individuals. The first with an information package, (3) using question- workshops identified subjects to be studied, naires to determine the opinion of local govern- followed by 28 more workshops with some 2,500 ment officials, (4) holding a series of public meet- individuals attending to refine the goals. These ings, (5) coordinating a workshop with the latter workshops were aided by 17 technical county extension agencies particularly in coastal advisory committees and a statewide agency counties, (6) producing public affairs television advisory committee. After public markup programs and other TV and radio public service sessions, ten more public hearings were held announcements, and (7) arranging a radio inter- throughout the state to select the final goals. view with the Governor. Coastal goals were formulated over a three- year period. The heaviest formal participation Impact of Federal was in 1976, when 21 afternoon-evening public Participation Requirements hearings were held on different drafts of EIS. Extensive public participation occurred in Some 420 individuals and groups testified with both Oregon and California in the preparation of 1,400 citizens in attendance. Eighty-five "Coastal coastal management plans. Local governments Awareness" meetings were held in the fall to were involved in both states, as well as a number answer questions which arose from the public of port authorities in Oregon. In California, the hearings. Attendance ranged from three to 240. Coastal Commission established by a citizen After the plan was completed, the federal 1972 Coastal Initiative was not directly respon- OCZM conducted an EIS hearing, as in Califor- sive to local interests, since it had been created to nia. Seventy-one private parties as well as over see that statewide interests in the conservation 20 port authorities and 34 federal, state, and local and development of the coastal area were pro- agencies submitted comments. tected. Yet, the control of local land use was restored to local units by the legislature after COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS adoption of the Coastal Act of 1976. Localities must now draft a detailed plan. The Community Development Block Grant Comparison of the apparent results in these (CDBG) program, managed by HUD, was enacted two states with the specific federal legislation in 19741°1 and re-enacted with some changes in does not clearly indicate that the federal require- 1977.102 It consolidated seven categorical grants ments were of truly major significance. In both including model cities, urban renewal, basic cases, the level of participation seems to have ex- water and sewer facilities, open space and ceeded what would have been considered the historical preservation. .The initial three-and- minimum levels anticipated by the regulations. one-half-year authorization was $11.3 billion, of Extensive hearings were held in both states, which about $3.75 billion was committed in FY and in a number of geographic areas. In Cali- 1977 to some 725 cities and counties. fornia, a statewide vote on coastal management Metropoliian cities over 50,000 and some coun- preceded the federal program. In both states, ties over 200,000 plus some nonmetropolitan there were a number of advisory committees and cities with previous urban renewal or Model thousands of citizens were involved. Cities grants were eligible. The reasons for this level of involvement are Community development is not defined in the obvious. Great issues are at stake in both Cali- legislation, but generally refers to a wide range of fornia and Oregon. The vast majority of Cali- programs and policies designed to rebuild and fornia citizens live in coastal counties. This is preserve urban areas and improve the lives of 142 manifested by the passage of the Coastal Initia- their residents. It leaves localities wide discre- tive, and it is probable that what happened would tion concerning the specific elements of each have occurred with or without federal require- unit's program. ments or the CZM program. Oregon is a small (in The act has relatively few specific participa- population size), homogeneous state noted for its tion requirements. Applicants must provide strong environmental interests and activity. satisfactory assurance that they will (1)provide Much of the state's tourist, fishing, and agricul- citizens with adequate information on the ture activity takes place in coastal counties. It is amount of funds available and the range of not clear if a coastal management program would activities that may be undertaken, (2)hold public have been initiated without federal help, but the hearings to obtain citizen views, and (3) afford levels of participation exceeded what was citizens an adequate opportunity to participate in necessary to meet minimum standards. the development of the application. HUD re- Both states, then, are atypical. In this sense, it quires that two public hearings be held. remains to be determined what effect federal The law and legislative record indicate that the participation requirements will have on state citizens of principal concern are the low and activity nationwide. A more complete test will moderate income residents of an area affected or arise when states with less at stake economically likely to be affected by housing and community or socially undertake final plans including public development activities. Thus, CDBG programs participation. are to be directed toward low and moderate Perhaps the most important aspect of the CZM income neighborhoods and their residents rather program, in terms of citizen participation policy, than primarily citywide programs. is that Congress recognized that the legislation Congress wrestled with the question of citizen would finance a process in which there would be participation in the 1974 law. The original Senate a substantial clash of interests. It could be argued bill contained more explicit requirements for that this was almost explicitly anticipated, and participation than the House measure, many of that the federal message was that all concerned which were not contained in the final version.103 parties were to be involved in the process of These included requirements for a public hearing developing a plan. It may be that where interests prior to land acquisition and a public hearing or can be identified and can be expected to involve publication of application prior to submitting the themselves in a highly competitive arena, community development grant proposal. The explicit rules for participation are needed while Senate bill also proposed to require applicants to they may be of less importance in less politically involve residents of community development charged areas. areas in the execution of community development activities and to provide adequate HUD Evaluations of the 1974 Act Impact resources for their participation. The conference report indicated that these were discretionary HUD has completed several internal rather than mandatory matters. evaluations of the CDBG. The first was a report The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, to the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and and Urban Affairs' original report had indicated Urban Affairs in 1976.1°7It concluded that while that participation levels varied from city to city, all communities receiving grants met the law. They . . . there is no single, commonly held at least two hearings, provided an oppor- accepted definition and (the committee) tunity for citizen participation to citizens and concluded that a number of methods published notices of hearings. Cities surveyed by could be utilized by localities in the Office of Evaluation rated citizen participa- meeting the requirements of the bill for tion the most influential of several factors in adequate citizen participation. Under developing grant proposals and a majority of the some circumstances, public hearings cities also indicated that there was an increase in would be sufficient. Under other cir- the degree of citizen participation. cumstances, other forms of community HUD's second annual report on the CDBG involvement would be sufficient. program covered some of the participation Provision for reasonable prior notice, experience in detail.108 It reported that the most information and expression of opinion common method localities used to involve would be among the elements of any citizens in the CDBG application planning and 143 acceptable program. Section 308(d) preparation process was by inviting citizens or would require that the community groups to submit proposals. Eighty-eight percent development agency hold public of all cities surveyed used this technique to some hearings or publish its proposed degree. Other common techniques involved application 30 days before submitting forming an advisory committee to help prepare it. The committee concluded, however, the plan (73%); relying on existing boards or that it would be unwise for it to frame a committees (71%);developing a citizen survey of single model for citizen participation; some sort (6290);using an existing project area but instead, decided that program committee (41%); and continuing the elected objectives would be better served by Model Cities commission (6%).109 relying on local governments to develop Public hearings were quite common, with acceptable models for citizen participa- three-quarters of the cities holding more than the tion taking into account the varied required two hearings. About a third of all the traditions and public institutions that cities held seven or more hearings. Over 80% have grown up in U.S. communities.'04 appeared to have a citizen advisory board, This suggests the rationale for HUD's disinclina- usually a reconstituted citywide body. Some tion in its regulations to specify the manner in boards were based on neighborhoods with which general purpose units of local government representatives elected on this basis. On the ought to relate to their citizens.105 issue of representativeness, however, 27% of the HUD did not specify any particular mode even cities were rated as unsatisfactory in representa- though the CDBG funds had "folded in" tion of low to moderate income groups on the neighborhood groups originally funded by model boards; and of residents citywide, 30%. cities grants. Many of these groups expected that The HUD report measured citizen impact by its they still would have a substantial role in the apparent influence on determination of program, even though the law clearly did not ' priorities, selection of activities, and choice of require it. HUD did not want to detail the locations where activities would be placed. In a procedures, process and local structure for local survey of 724 entitlement cities, local officials participation. It believed that participation in the were asked to assess the importance of various law referred to advice and consultation rather factors in selecting activities in general, and in than any veto power over local government determining the level of social service expen- actions, and that participation did not mean that ditures for the second year application. Eighty the applicant city or county had to submit a percent of the cities reported that citizen par- prescribed program.106 ticipation was an important influence on selection of activities and 43% indicated that it citizens, were not committed to citizen participa- influenced the level of social service expen- tion and some charged that local governments ditures. HUD concluded that citizen participa- viewed citizen participation merely as a federal tion was an important, but not predominant, requirement. Others criticized the federal gov- factor in influencing program content."O ernment for pulling back from the commitment to In a survey of citizen recommendations on their citizen participation demonstrated in earlier city's choice and location of CDBG activities or programs."Z projects, HUD found overall that 78% of the In the third annual report on CDBG, HUD recommendations were accepted completely, 7% reported on selected aspects of citizen participa- were accepted in part, and 16% were rejected. tion based on a special study of 40 cities by the Only rarely were citizen efforts thwarted by National Citizen Participation Council."3 It actual rejection of their recommendations. The found that all cities were meeting the re- level of impact was associated with the represen- quirements but there was wide variation in tativeness of the citizen advisory structure and, performance beyond the minimum requirements. not unexpectedly, citizen satisfaction was found 85% of the cities provided complete or to be higher in cities where citizens had been adequate information to both low and active in making recommendations and moderate income citizens and other citizens. successful in securing acceptance of their proposals. All cities held at least two public hearings, Complaints on the citizen participation with 60% being held in low and moderate 144 process, however, were the most frequent of all income areas. complaints received on CDBG. These dealt with Three-fourths of the cities had created such matters as the failure to hold hearings and citizen advisory committees, usually ap- the lack of sufficient funding for citizen par- pointed (61%) and citywide in coverage ticipation activities. (70%).While the impact of the committees Overall, when asked if they were satisfied with was great in 63%of the cities, participation in the participation process, all or most of those and impact over implementation and interviewed in one-third of the cities were monitoring was slight in most cities. satisfied; in 23%, respondents were evenly divided; and in 44%, most or all were not In 80% of the cities, most of the activity satisfied. HUD concluded: budget was proposed or approved by citizens. The tendency appears toward dissatisfaction . . . the level of satisfac- Advisory committee members were satisfied tion is related to both the represen- with the citizen participation process in 69% of tativeness of citizen advisory the sample cities, and other citizens were committees and to the amount and satisfied in 62% of the cities. All or most citizens impact of citizen participation. Even in were dissatisfied in 31% of the cities that used a cities where representation was citizen advisory committee and in half of the satisfactory to good, or impact was other cities. moderate to high, however, there was (sic) still some expressions of dis- Congressional Testimony satisfaction. This apparent contradiction may be explained by the high - Renewal hearings on the CDBG program before expectations citizens have for par- the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and ticipation in the community develop- Urban Affairs in 1976 elicited several complaints ment programs."l about a lack of citizen participation or local HUD analyzed recommendations made by attention to citizens. The Southern Regional citizens who had made complaints about CDBG Council referred to HUD as a "paper tiger" in and found that a substantial number dealt with assuring that local governments adhere to the attitudes toward citizen participation rather purposes of the program, citing a number of cases than its administration or requirements. Many in southern cities.fl4 Most of the complaints felt that local and federal governments, as well as involved local units allegedly ignoring low income neighborhood projects. Complainants Report117 referred to the testimony received from demanded more citizen participation as the only citizens regarding the lack of adequate oppor- mechanism to assure that the community tunity to make comment prior to submission of an development program remains responsive to application and also community development national needs, which they defined largely as activities which did not primarily benefit low providing social services projects in low income and moderate income persons and their neighborhoods. neighborhoods. The final legislation, however, Those testifying desired all government dealt only indirectly with these issues, and documents regarding community development reiterated existing law that nothing in participa- programs to be available to everyone. Another tion requirements restricts the responsibility and demand was to require election of citizen authority of the applicant jurisdiction to develop advisory boards from neighborhoods. Other and execute its community development witnesses suggested that the model cities program. program was far superior to the new block grant program in eliciting citizen participation, and Outside Evaluation of the 1974 Act that few cities funded citizen participation to the Outside evaluation was not quite as critical as extent typical under the model cities programs. citizen groups. A major study of the impact of the Testimony six months later before the House CDBG program was made by the Brookings Subcommittee on Housing and Community Institution under contract with HUD. Development during its renewal hearings was Brookings testified at the House Subcommittee not significantly different with regard to citizen hearing that: 145 participation.115 One witness advocated that citizen participation, contrary to HUD regional offices have consumer affairs . . . what some observers anticipated, has offices to be responsible for monitoring and been a very significant feature of the reviewing citizen participation. The Suburban program's implementation in the first Action Institute asked for substantial changes in year, especially in those cases in which the citizen participation process, indicating that local officials demonstrated a strong "the nationwide experience with citizen par- positive attitude toward these ac- ticipation in the community development block tivities.fl8 grant process has been unsatisfactory." The institute advocated additional public hearings, Brookings' view was based on a study of 62 teams of citizens to monitor the city's applica- cities and counties by some 22 observers. Their tion, specific notice requirements, and public report, published after the testimony, states that inspection conditions.fl8 most local governments went well beyond the In general, witnesses strongly demanded minimum legal requirements in encouraging and additional ctizen participation, either by specify- providing for citizen participation. The study ing it in the law or regulations. Failures in found that the extent and mode of participation properly implementing the existing legislation did not reflect the actual influence it exerted on were generally attributed to local government local decisions. What did appear to influence failure to accept legitimate citizen participation outcomes strongly was the attitude of public in the allocation of funds. officials toward citizen participation. Where Perhaps as a result of this testimony, the 1977 local officials regarded citizen participation as Housing and Community Development Act very important, citizen involvement was judged changed slightly the citizen participation re- to be influential or at least somewhat influen- quirements. A written citizen participation plan tial.llg This Brookings finding was supported by is required, and citizens must have an opportuni- testimony before the House Subcommittee on ty to submit comments concerning the communi- Housing and Community Development, and ty development performance of the applicant. Bach's study of six major center cities also noted The comments of citizens on applicant perfor- that "regardless of the form that participation mance must be included in the department's took, the effectiveness of the citizen participation review, and timely response by the applicant to mechanism was largely dependent on the at- citizen proposals is also mandated. The Senate titudes and efforts of the mayor and city staff."lzo Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Brookings' findings rated citizen participation as having a major influence in 42% of the averaging over five hearings for municipalities communities studied and limited influence in 29% and over nine for counties. Attendance at the of the cases. The most influential citizen groups meetings was similar for cities and counties, according to Brookings were neighborhood slightly over 30 citizens attending a typical city groups, senior citizens, and Model Cities or countywide hearing and over 27 for a organizations. The Brookings and HUD studies neighborhood hearing. also suggested that participation during the early Totals for municipalities in selected states are years of the CDBG program met or exceeded given to show ranges among states. Minnesota legislative requirements. was contrasted to Michigan because they are relatively similar states except for the lack of tradition in Minnesota requiring publication of ACIR-ICMA Survey the local budget or holding hearings prior to The ACIR-ICMA survey in 1978 attempted to adopting it. The same comparison holds for assess the extent of citizen participation in the Arizona and New Mexico, with the latter state public hearing process under the Community not requiring formal participative budget Development Block Grant and the various mechanisms at the local level. With the exception participative mechanisms that were employed. of New Mexico, the number of hearings is about The results are shown in Tables 4-5,4-6, and 4-7. the same. Attendance at Arizona's hearings is On the average, about three citywide hearings higher than average, and New Mexico's rate is were held by the typical reporting jurisdiction lower, but there is no overall pattern. 146 (Table 4-5). Those that conducted neighborhood Municipalities in the ten states with no history of hearings held substantially more hearings, budgetary participation requirements do not

Table 4-5 NUMBER OF, AND AVERAGE ATTENDANCE AT, CDBG HEARINGS, ALL REPORTING CITIES AND COUNTIES, AND LOCALITIES IN SELECTED STATES Citywide Hearings Neighborhood Hearings Reporting Units Number Attendance Reporting Units Number Attendance (number) Mean Mean (number) Mean Mean

All Cities (1068) 3.12 30.39 (446) 5.64 27.24

All Counties (113) 3.11 33.24 (73) 9.58 27.98

Localities in Ten States Not Required to Hold Hearings or Publish Budgets (159)' 3.48 29.64

Minnesota (47) 2.67 28.81

Michigan (46) 2.64 30.98

Arizona (11)* 2.73 49.82

New Mexico (8) 4.13 16.0

' Includes the states of Alabama, Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and West Virginia. *Responses are distorted by one very high total for one large city.

SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. differ significantly from other units except in the tion. An important one is raised by Anthony number of neighborhood meetings, and the total Downs, who argues that the real need is to there is inflated by returns from one city. maximize total urban commitment to urban The survey covered localities' regular budget development. Downs indicates that there are hearings and general revenue sharing budget three kinds of participation required, only one of hearings as well as those held for the CDBG which is traditional citizen participation at the program. The relative incidence of and atten- neighborhood and citywide level. The second is dance at these several kinds of hearings, on both educating citizens and local officials as to the a citywide and neighborhood basis, are shown in nature of urban problems, and the third is Table 4-6. In the case of cities, CDBG hearings attracting the financial resources from the exceeded GRS hearings, whether separate or private and other nonfederal sectors to supple- combined with the regular budget hearing, on ment meager federal funds. Without substantial almost every count and clearly exceeded separate outside financing and top civic leadership general budget hearings on every score except the commitment, Downs feels that the CDBG average number of communitywide hearings. In program will continue to be underused and the case of counties, CDBG hearings similarly underfunded in light of the total urban develop- scored highest except in regard to the average ment job to be done.122 number of communitywide regular budget Another important issue involves the influence hearings and the average number of citizens of various officials in the CDBG program. The attending neighborhood meetings on the regular Brookings study indicates that generalist ad- budget. It is not known whether this better record ministrators, particularly the chief executive, 147 is due to a greater popular interest in CDBG or were substantially strengthened. They tended to greater efforts by the localities to elicit a citizen structure the participation process, and achieved response. considerably more direction over specialists Table 4-7 indicates the type of participative such as housing and rehabilitation directors. In mechanism reported by municipalities and all but a few of the 62 jurisdictions surveyed, the counties. About two-thirds of the cities use an chief executive was found to be the most advisory committee', slightly more than the re- dominant figure in the CDBG process. porting counties; the preponderance of munici- Some conclude that the enhanced role of palities and counties held public hearings; generalists in CDBG is simply a function of the slightly under three-quarters of both cities and amount of money available. Others are inclined counties published the application; and about to believe that the format of this block grant gives three-quarters provided for inspection of the top level officials a chance to take charge application.121 initially, but that this dominance may decline as Some differences appear between the HUD the program evolves.123 findings in their annual reports and the ACIR- Whatever the reasons, the influence of ICMA survey. ACIR-ICMA responses indicate generalist administrators has significance for the that up to 13% of counties and 7% of type of participation elicited and thus on the municipalities do not hold public hearings, distribution of funds. Bach indicates that despite the clear requirement that two be held. because the Mayor is sensitive to the need for Part of the difference is that HUD's study used a broad political support, funds tended to be different sample of entitlement cities, but this is spread across neighborhoods to build consensus not sufficient to explain the failure to hold rather than concentrating them strategically in hearings. In addition, the number of advisory the most impoverished neighborhoods.124 committees reported to ACIR-ICMA was lower Brookings observed the same process. They than the 73%reported by HUD. The ACIR-ICMA called it a "trade-off" between broader participa- survey suggests that the required or desired level tion and broader planning. Brookings expects the of participation is not being reached in many trend toward the predominance of generalist localities. administrators to continue and thus to maintain the spreading out of benefits among recipients.125 Issues This "thinning out" of funds, due to citizen Some issues are separable from the specific demands and spurred by the involvement of the question of how to maximize citizen participa- chief elected official rather than more protected Table 4-6 FREQUENCY OF, AND ATTENDANCE AT, VARIOUS KINDS OF LOCAL BUDGET HEARINGS, CITIES AND COUNTIES (1977)

Cities Separate Separate General Combined GRS CDBG Budget Hearings' HearingsZ Hearings3 Hearings4

Average Number of Communitywide Hearings Annually 3.22

Average Number of Citizens Attending Communitywide Hearings 27.38

Percentage of Units Holding Hearings at Neighborhood Level 4.20

Average Number of Neighborhood Meetings Annually in Units Holding Such Meetings 4.64

Average Number of Citizens Attending Neighborhood Meetings 23.81 20.41 27.24 22.84

Counties Separate Separate General Combined GRS CDBG Budget Hearings' Hearings2 Hearings3 Hearings4

Average Number of Communitywide Hearings Annually

Average Number of Citizens Attending Cornmunitywide Hearings

Percentage of Units Holding Hearings At Neighborhood Level

Average Number of Neighborhood Meetings Annually in Units Holding Such Meetings

Average Number of Citizens Attending Neighborhood Meetings

'Combined hearings on the proposed use of revenue sharing funds and on the regular budget. 2Hearings (separate from regular budget hearings) on the proposed budget. 3Community Development Block Grant proposal hearings. 4Hearings (separate from revenue sharing hearings) on the proposed budget.

SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. I Table 4-7 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION MECHANISMS USED BY MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES IN REQUESTS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS

Type of Participation Mechanism Number of Advisory Public Publish Inspection of Responses Committee Hearings Application Application

1 Municipalities 1,I 20 65.4% 93.4% 71.3% 76.4%

Counties 147 58.5 87.8 74.1 75.5

/ SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. I specialists, was also predicted by the House the "spreading out" of benefits from concentrated committee staff in a report in February 1977. The areas of need, presumably in low income areas, to report refers to the likelihood that spreading encompass a wider but more scattered range of limited funds across a wider segment of the benefits. This may reflect a variety of causes, but Iqg community may divert resources from the most one may be an insufficient effort to enlist the needy areas.lZ6 participation of the needy and low income A potential dilemma of citizen participation is groups. posed here. The more one strengthens generalist Regarding the impact of participation on the administrators, the more benefits tend to get program, HUD found that citizen participation spread out in a classic "logrolling" manner, was influencing the selection of activities and the typical of the political process in general. If one level of social service expenditures. This conclu- "broadens" participation to include interests and sion was echoed by Brookings. Yet, HUD also groups with financial resources, thus increasing found a high degree of dissatisfaction with community development resources, one dilutes citizen participation, expressed directly in sur- the impact of the poor and the neighborhoods. veys as well as through complaints received on Further experience with the CDBG program the CDBG program. Dissatisfaction was voiced may suggest that strengthening generalist ad- by many witnesses at the Congressional hearings ministrators and concentrating private funds in regarding the need for more involvement of lower the community development process are of income groups and more responsiveness general- significant enough importance that the citizen ly of cities and counties to the contributions of participation process should be considered in citizen participants. HUD at one point offered the terms of its effect on these two issues. view that the apparent inconsistency between reported high participation and high influence Effect of CDBC Participation Requirements on one hand and dissatisfaction on the other was explained by the high expectations that many The various assessments are mixed on the citizens had for participation in the community impact of the CDBG participation requirements. development program. In general, the Brookings study and the HUD A final issue in considering impact of the internal reviews concluded that required par- citizen participation requirements in CDBG is the ticipation levels are being met. Indeed, Brookings effect of Congress' mandating the requirements. indicated that most localities went well beyond Other than holding two hearings, nothing more the minimum requirements. On the other hand, specific than providing information and an responses to the ACIR-ICMA survey indicated opportunity to participate is mandated. A that a noticeable percentage of cities and counties question arises then as to whether highparticipa- were not holding the required public hearings.127 tion programs as in Redding, CA, and Boston, Another indication that the participation re- MA, and other localities reported in HUD's quirements were not being met as intended was annual reports would have occurred without these Washington-imposed conditions. One is longer necessary, at least in a detailed manner. It inclined to think that they would, because the was a triumph for those who argued for "no levels of involvement are so much higher than strings" legislation over those who agreed with legitimately could be expected with even higher the need for fiscal support but who wanted to citizen involvement standards. Yet, even with attach conditions. The final legislation required the fairly extensive information on participation only that trust funds for GRS payments be that is available in the CDBG case, it is not created, that planned and actual use reports be possible to say with certainty that federal published, that the money be spent in eight regulations caused certain actions relating to priority areas, that they not be used as matching levels of participation to occur. The major for other federal grants, that they not be used for variable seems to be the attitudes of elective general administrative purposes, and that the officials and this transcends federal re- Treasury Department's fiscal audit procedures quirements. be followed. Citizen involvement was not a major issue in General Revenue Sharing the original legislation. Only two requirements in General Revenue Sharing (GRS) was first the law were of real significance in this regard. adopted in 1972 in the form of the Stateand Local First, recipients were required to prepare plan- Fiscal Assistance Act.128 The law initially ned and actual use reports, and to publish them provided some $30.2 billion to about 39,000 in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, states and units of general purpose local govern- citizens were to be advised of proposed expen- 150 ment (municipalities, counties, townships, and ditures and given a chance to monitor them. The Indian tribes). Two-thirds of the total went to second requirement merely indicated that local units and one-third to the states. Distribu- recipients had to expend funds in accordance tion was on the basis of population, per capita with state law. Hence, localities in states with income, and general tax effort and was made hearing and/or publication laws had to hold directly to the eligible unit of government. hearings and publish the budget which contained Expenditures were limited to capital expen- GRS funds. ditures and eight priority operating categories: Congress seemed to assume that the question environmental protection, public safety, trans- of citizen access to the review process was to be portation, health, libraries, financial admin- settled by the states and local governments. istration, recreation, and social services. Citizen oversight was presumed. The following The Revenue Sharing Act had two basic comments were made in the Senate during objectives. The first was to provide fiscal relief passage of the 1972 law. for local government fiscal pressures. Hard Senator Long: . . . the people of each pressed local units demanded relief and this community will be far better policemen became a telling argument.129 The second objec- on the expenditure of their money than tive was to strengthen states and local units. any committee of Congress would be. Many supporters wanted to decentralize the federal system by limiting the use of categorical Senator Bennett: I agree . . . we have grants-in-aid and thus restoring to state and local built into this bill an effective if units more discretion in developing and manag- unusual method of controlling the ing their own programs. This would reduce actual expenditure of these funds at the federal control and place responsibility for local level. programs at the other two governmental levels. It Senator Long: We will rely heavily on was hoped that this also would eventually bring the fact that (state and local govern- about increased public interest and citizen ments] will inform their own people as participation in the local decisionmaking to how they will use the money, both before and after it is spent.lS1 Prior approaches to grants-in-aid had involved attempts to build capacity largely by federal Studies of the Impact of GRS support with requirements to assure that A substantial number of studies were under- national standards are met. The final GRS bill, in taken in the years following the enactment of effect, indicated that these requirements were no GRS in 1972 and its re-enactment in 1976, and a number of them dealt with citizen participation. analyses of revenue sharing. In one, a study of Caputo and Cole surveyed chief executive 250 local units, knowledgeable local officials in officers in American cities over 50,000 popula- about a third of the localities felt that citizen tion in 1973 and 1974 and concluded that an participation levels in planning budget expen- "unexpectedly large number of cities have ditures were higher than normal, particularly in experienced some degree of citizen participation larger cities. Respondents indicated "increased during their General Revenue Sharing decision- participation of special interest groups requiring making processes."l32 They found that, in that revenue sharing funds be allocated for such general, cities that held public hearings tended to activities as social services, senior citizens allocate a larger proportion of revenue sharing projects, health agencies and libraries."l38 funds to social service needs than to more Another GAO survey of 26 specific localities in traditional areas, such as public safety. This 1974, done at the request of the chairman of the finding was stronger in suburban cities, in larger House Subcommittee on Intergovernmental cities, and when the chief executive was elected. Relations, dealt partially with citizen participa- However, the study also noted that when fiscal tion. Of the 26 units, only one reported "high pressures were greatest the funds were more levels of activity" while about ten showed some likely to be allocated to public safety (i.e., activity including that outside the hearing overriding the "participation" pressures of process. The other 15 reported little interest.13' citizens for social services). These findings were The National Science Foundation (NSF) fund- confined to an analysis of how funds were ed several studies on revenue sharing, several of initially allocated, rather than their actual which dealt partially or wholly with citizen 151 impact. Since allocations of GRS "freed up" other participation. One probed the effectiveness of funds for alternative uses, Caputo and Cole's formal mechanisms for eliciting participation. It study suffered from this analytical difficulty, found that (1)real participation was more likely which also plagued most other early studies. to take place in large cities; (2) those groups They recognized this and noted, in another active in revenue sharing allocations were well context, that ". . . although many observers established before the program became law; (3) claim to have documented policy changes many of these groups were formerly funded by brought about by citizen participation activities, other federal grants (Model Cities, etc.) which the causes of such changes and their extent are were being reduced, thus increasing the chances impossible to document."l33 that future levels of participation would decline; An early report by the ACIR indicated that (4) public hearings and the use of citizen advisory there was some stimulative effect on citizen committees due to GRS made it easier for local participation due to revenue sharing. The Com- officials to determine citizen preferences and to mission noted that: broaden official awareness of new problems; and (5) the number of hearings held declined after the While there is no legal mandate first year and local officials opposed making calling for citizen participation in decisions on the use of revenue sharing hearings mandatory, thus increasing the likelihood that involvement would drop.138 funds, the publicity attending the enactment of the program and the Another NSF-supported study examined planning and participation as they related to GRS. distribution of the funds along with the requirements that recipients publish Stanford Research Institute (SRI) found that in planned use and actual use reports five of ten large cities surveyed improved usage stimulated some additional citizen of GRS funds was linked to two basic com- participation and concern in deter- ponents of local governmental capacity: in- mining local budget priorities.134 creased citizen participation and improved policy planning. Participatory processes "make it The ACIR found that where citizen participation possible for both community groups and was a part of the budget process prior to revenue members of the general public to articulate their sharing, GRS stimulated participation but not concern and priorities and also allow citizens to otherwise. This stimulative factor might wear off hold public officials accountable for their ac- as revenue sharing aged.135 tion~."~~~SRI argued that there is need for a The General Accounting Office made two formalized citizen participation structure to provide a locus for citizen action and information experience.142 dissemination and to serve as a framework for Several separate studies of revenue sharing interactive negotiations between citizen leaders impacts were made by a coalition of groups and officials. SRI found generally that cities in working through the National Revenue Sharing better financial shape or with stronger preex- Monitoring Project. The groups included the isting management capacities did better in League of Women Voters, the National establishing structures for planning and for Clearinghouse on Revenue Sharing, the Center citizen participation. Effective citizen involve- for Community Change, the National Urban ment needs to be institutionalized which, in turn, Coalition, and the Center for National Policy depends on local official commitment. This is Review. An early study by this coalition, entitled similar to the Caputo and Cole finding as it General Revenue Sharing in American Cities: applies to the effect of fiscal management First Impressions, reached these general conclu- capacity. SRI suggested several "capacity sions pertaining to citizen participation in GRS. building" participation provisions, including (1) 1. There had been a rather wide range of requiring a citizens advisory committee citizen activity relating to GRS. For example, representative of the demographic and coalitions of citizens were formed in about 40% of geographic makeup of the city, (2) requiring the the surveyed cities, open general budget cities to institute a participative process funded meetings and some special GRS meetings were from GRS funds, and (3) having the federal gov- held, and several citizen advisory boards were ernment provide technical assistance and 152 perhaps bonus funding to cities in their develop- formed. ment of participation structures. SRI also 2. However, citizen involvement was neither presented some specific revenue sharing broad nor deep. Public hearings were of limited amendments which would improve participation value and were often attended by few citizens processes in cities such as (1) mandating two while advisory committees frequently had no hearings, the first to elicit comments and the influence with city legislators. second to explain how the funds were used; (2) 3. Citizen activity did not translate into citizen requiring the advertising of GRS plans, impact with any regularity. providing free copies of plans to citizens, making 4. The lack of citizen initiative may have been the complete plan available at specific locations; related to lack of information. Media coverage and publishing summaries of comments received was spotty and planned and actual use reports in a form similar to Title XX of the Social were not useful informative devices.143 Security Act; and (3) producing and advertising the Planned Use Report in lay language.140 The clearinghouse concluded that GRS is The Brookings study found that rather sparse ineffective as a lever for harmonizing local and preliminary data suggested that revenue decisionmaking with national goals, because the sharing tended to increase the overall com- total sums of money are relatively small for each petitiveness and public visibility of the budget unit. It indicated that GRS could be a handle for process. About a third of the case studies citizens to promote concern for social issues and involved some separation of GRS from the to increase involverr~entif it remains an iden- regular budget, which increased public and tifiable pot of money. The clearinghouse felt that interest group participation. In those jurisdic- it was too early to declare GRS citizen participa- tions which did not separate the process, tion a failure, although there were much better behavior still changed somewhat. In addition, ways to mandate citizen participation or civil some national interest groups were attracted to rights concerns.144 the local decisionmaking pr0~ess.l~~ A League of Women Voters study of 23 Iowa Another study concluded that previous ex- cities concluded that GRS had brought little perience with Model Cities programs resulted in positive change in the lives of citizens. GRS greater group activity in making GRS requests. funds perpetuated "business as usual," public The groups in the cities surveyed were more input was minimal, with most of it coming after active in GRS and the budget process generally the budget already had been prepared, and than they had been during the Model City municipal moneys were spent in traditional program, probably because of their previous fashion.145 Most cities entrusted creation of the budget and GRS decisions to the mayor and/or hearings and meetings in serial order, rather the city manager as a regular part of the budget. than ad hoc or one-shot affairs; On occasion, citizen group presentations were citizen input beginning at the neighborhood made, and a few citizen advisory boards or task level; and forces were appointed. While public officials citizen participation involving some sort of favored citizen access to the decisionmaking followup and continued monitoring. process, they desired what was called "construction, due to the complexity of the budget process, After extensive discussion and debate, Con- and there was considerable evidence of citizen gress renewed General Revenue Sharing on apathy about that process.146 October 10, 1976.147As might be expected, the final action represented a compromise. State and Re-enactment of General Revenue Sharing local units achieved reenactment not subject to At the time revenue sharing came up for annual Congressional appropriation. The ex- renewal in 1976, a number of the aforementioned isting distribution formula to local and state studies were available for Congressional con- units was retained, but priority areas such as sideration. On the matter of citizen participation, public safety or health were scrapped because of however, most of them were clearly ambiguous. the difficulty of meaningful enforcement. Reform Some indicated that participation had increased groups such as the League of Women Voters and somewhat while others attempted, with varying the Revenue Sharing Clearinghouse were able to convince Congress that some regulation of citizen success, to document that little effective par- 153 ticipation had occurred. Hearings before the participation and tougher civil rights provisions House Subcommittee on Intergovernmental were necessary.148 Relations and Human Resources of the Govern- The new legislation contained new procedural ment Operations Committee consumed at least 16 requirements which opened the process formally days or parts of days, beginning in September to increased citizen participation. Two hearings and lasting into early December. were required. One was a proposed use hearing A large part of the testimony dealt with citizen and the second was on how revenue sharing participation, in one form or another, and often moneys relate to overall agency spending. Notice the discussion on other topics returned to of the first hearing must be published in a participation and related matters. Some of the newspaper of general circulation at least ten days testimony was from ACIR, with Chairman prior to the hearing and contain the amount of Robert Merriam supporting state-developed revenue sharing funds that the unit expects to citizen participation requirements. He explained receive in the coming year and the unobligated that such requirements should include a hearing amount remaining in the trust fund. This on the budget, advance notice by newspaper or proposed use hearing must be at least seven days other suitable means, and availability of budget prior to presentation of the budget to the summaries and narrative statements in advance legislative body. The second hearing must also be of hearings. preceded by a ten-day notice to the public, and Groups associated with the National Revenue this publication must summarize the proposed Sharing Clearinghouse stressed'the enforcement budget, indicate the time and place of the hearing, of civil rights provisions, accountability for the and make budgetary information available to the expenditure of funds by localities, and citizen public in a newspaper of general circulation. The participation. Carol Rose of the Southern Gov- proposed budget also must be available for ernmental Monitoring Project, indicated that inspection. Thirty days after the budget hearing a successful citizen participation programs should summary of the adopted budget including the include: intended use of general revenue sharing funds must be available for public inspection and a timely and accurate information to cities notice of its availability must be published. and citizens boards; Localities must notify the news media, par- multiple strategies for attaining citizen ticularly minority, bilingual and foreign input; language media, of the hearings and endeavor to citizen input at a time when impact on provide an opportunity for senior citizens to decisions can be maximized; participate in hearings. At the end of a fiscal year, actual use reports which describe how funds result of the new regulations. were spent must be made available to the public Maryland, Illinois, and Texas held proposed and notice of their availability given. Any change use hearings pursuant to the new requirements, in the adopted budget involving 25% of the budget with a total of four persons attending the hearing or $1,000, whichever is greater, would in the three states. Massachusetts held hearings necessitate an additional proposed use hearing on the proposed budget which could have served and budget hearing.149 as proposed use hearings, although they were Proposed regulations by the Office of Revenue scheduled prior to the new regulations. Maine Sharing that provided for waivers of the propos- and North Carolina formally requested and ed use hearing for GRS recipients receiving less received waivers of the proposed use hearing than $10,000 met substantial objections by the from the Office of Revenue Sharing (ORS). The same citizen participation advocates who had other five states concluded that the requirements testified earlier before Congress. As a result, the went into effect too late to be operative in their final regulations waived proposed use hearings budget process and would hold their first only when the unavoidable costs of such a proposed use hearing in the next budget year. hearing are over 15% of the total entitlement for The Montana legislature conducted revenue the year and if state and local laws and charters sharing meetings as part of the regular hearing require a budget hearing and assure an oppor- process over a 90-day period without formally tunity for citizen participation. advertising for a revenue sharing meeting as such. The Governor recommended that GRS Revenue Sharing and State Budgetary Practice funds be allocated to school equalization grants, resulting in a substantial debate that finally State governments historically have not been a concluded with the legislature upholding his major center of interest regarding the involve- recommendation. Montana officials indicated ment of citizens in budget decisions. The distance that proposed use hearings would extend the of many state capitals from population centers controversies over spending by opening up the partly explains this, since distance alone can be a debate earlier. New Mexico was unable to meet barrier to effective citizen involvement. While the proposed use deadline so elected to hold the many states have had public hearings, they funds in a separate account and allocate them generally have not been geared to eliciting with the 1978 revenue sharing funds. widespread citizen involvement, but rather to As in the case of local governments, many giving special points of view or interests a states made no special effort the first year to hearing before the legislature. In a few cases, involve senior citizens. Illinois, Indiana, North Governors have held a hearing on their proposed Carolina and Massachusetts indicated special budgets. Yet, in many cases, legislatures have not efforts, usually through the state agency dealing provided a formal public hearing for citizens.150 with senior citizen affairs. The remaining units The mass media have not always highlighted did not report special undertakings, although in budgetary allocation issues. Even so, the new the case of Montana, senior citizen groups were citizen participation requirements in GRS affect said to be highly active in the regular budget all recipients, and states now must follow the hearings dealing with revenue sharing. same procedures that apply to localities. State respondents indicated that little if any In the fall of 1977, ACIR staff undertook a citizen participation was elicited by the hearing telephone survey to ascertain the effect of the requirements.151 Several commented to the effect new GRS rules on state budget practices in a that the requirements were simply a condition selected group of 11 states. Legislative or that had to be met to receive the money. Most executive branch officers familiar with the states were required to advertise more widely budget process were contacted. The responses, than in the past and, in some cases, provided summarized in Table 4-8, indicated that, with a additional notification for the proposed use few exceptions, the new requirements had little hearing. Some extra staff time also was com- effect on state budget practices. In some cases, mitted in Oregon to preparing separate budget where citizen participation, or at least citizen statements specifying revenue sharing fund attendance took place, it was part of the allocations. Another state commented that the traditional legislative budget hearing and a effect was to "subsidize newspapers." In only a few states, did significant reallocations of counties. Overall, however, it, reflects the ex- revenue sharing funds occur. Michigan perience of a very large number of localities. transferred revenue sharing funds from teachers retirement use to mental health and debt service, A) Local Budget Practices. Localities varied while Indiana lumped its funds into teachers considerably in the way that they combined or retirement rather than using it for existing separated revenue sharing and general budget agencies. Maine placed its funds in teachers funds, held hearings on them, and otherwise met retirement rather than general local subsidies. the participation requirements of the new federal Montana, as was noted, used its revenues for regulations. Their responses hinged heavily on school fund equalization. Most of these changes what had been their prior practices. Table 4-9 were unrelated to citizen participation and were shows how cities and counties met the re- generally made to simplify the accounts for audit quirements, before and after January 1, 1977. purposes. The Indiana and Maine changes were Over two-thirds had one or more combined intended to eliminate individual school districts revenue sharing and local budget hearings prior from liability if a later audit or civil rights to January 1977. Of those that did not, over half complaint resulted in fund withholding by the had modified or planned to modify their practices federal government. after the new revenue sharing rules went into On the basis of the 11-state survey, little effect effect January 1,1977. About half of the respond- on state budget practice can be attributed to ing municipalities had separate revenue sharing revenue sharing participation requirements. hearings and slightly over half of those that did Hearings seemed to be pro forma with little not, planned to change or already had changed 155 participation of citizens. No interest was shown their practices to include such a hearing. Over in involving many citizens formally with the 6O0lo of municipalities had a separate hearing on legislative policymaking process, although in- their local budget, but only about a quarter of dividual executive agencies may have those not doing so planned to add this practice. mechanisms for citizen input in shaping their Almost universally, localities provided for requests to the Governor or legislature. In citizen inspection of proposed and adopted addition, most states have an establishedroutine budgets, although the specific methods might for allocating their relatively small share of vary substantially. Yet, making special efforts to revenue sharing funds and do not seem inclined involve senior citizens was substantially less each session to consider a range of alternatives common, with only 35% of respondents reporting for such allocation. this practice before the new revenue sharing The historic lack of state legislative interest in regulations went into effect. Of the two-thirds widespread individual participation seems likely majority who reported no special efforts, only to continue. The proposed use hearings of the about a quarter changed or made plans to change Governor which are now mandated could become their efforts. Cities already making special opportunities for greater citizen involvement, at efforts to involve senior citizens differed slightly least in some cases, although it is more likely that from other municipalities. They were more likely the hearings will be dominated by interest groups to be located in the northeast, to be outside formally representing their constituents. metropolitan areas (central cities of metropolitan areas scored lowest], and to be mayor-council Localities and the New Regulations cities. County responses to the senior citizen The ACIR-ICMA questionnaire survey of cities question generally paralleled city practices, with over 10,000 population and counties over 50,000 39.5% indicating some effort prior to 1977. took place in early 1978, shortly after the new Table 4-10 differentiates among a few selected GRS regulations went into effect. Of the 1,495 states regarding the use of the budget practices municipalities and 322 counties responding, only shown nationally in Table 4-9. Minnesota and seven reported that they did not hold a revenue Michigan are paired since they are geographical- sharing public hearing, either combined with the ly somewhat similar, yet Michigan required full general local budget or as a separate hearing. hearings and publication for the local budget The total responding slightly overrepresents process for some time while Minnesota did not. central cities, municipalities and counties with The same applies to the pairing of Arizona and centralized executives, and Western cities and New Mexico. Arizona is similar to New Mexico, Table 4-8 EFFECT OF GENERAL REVENUE SHARING PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS AS REPORTED BY SELECTED STATES (1977)

Effect of Regulations in Specific Areas Publication and Senior State Hearings Display Citizens Comments

Illinois Held a proposed Additional notice Contacted through Little attendance at the proposed use use hearing. and display of docu- Lieutenant Governor hearing even though some newspaper ments has been used. and Department on coverage resulted from the notice. Aging. No one has reviewed the adopted budget.

Indiana In future will re- Not reported. Invited through Few groups or citizens attended. Money quire a proposed Commission on placed in teachers retirement fund. use hearing. Aging.

Maine Required an ORS Additional notice No additional efforts Little reported attendance or interest. waiver of proposed required. reported. Funds allocated to teachers retirement. use hearing in 1977 which will be held in future.

Maryland Held a proposed Additional notice No additional efforts A few county and city interests were at use hearing. required. reported. regular budget hearing, but less than ten individuals in total. Money was placed in retirement systems as has been traditionally done.

Massachusetts In future, will re- No effect. Additional publica- Part of a regular budget hearing which quire a proposed tion announcement, groups such as Massachusetts Taxpayers use hearing. Secretary of Elderly Association and Common Cause attend. Affairs notified. Funds by law allocated to debt service.

Michigan In future, will re- Not reported. No additional efforts Some media representatives attended but quire a proposed reported. few citizens. Funds allocated from use hearing. teacher retirement funds to mental health and debt service. Montana Proposed use Extensive publica- Extensive activity Extensive and highly visible debates hearings will be tion, but not as by senior citizen over funding alternatives and Governor's in future. revenue sharing, groups over genera recommendation that revenue sharing per se. budget, with no go for school equalization. Proposed separate revenue use hearings will further complicate sharing activity. budget process by beginning debate earlier in the process.

New Mexico Will hold a pro- Not reported. No additional efforts Revenue sharing funds were not ap- posed use hearing reported. propriated because state could not meet in future. proposed use requirements with their timetable. In future, requirements should pose no problem.

North Carolina Required an ORS Not reported. Invited through No attendance. Funds allocated 50% waiver of proposed Council on Aging. capital uses, 40% school buses and 10% use hearing in 1977 debt service. which will be held in future.

Oregon Proposed use hear- Additional notice No additional efforts Little citizen interest reported. In the ings in future will and preparation of reported. past, however, budget items have been re- be held. documents. ferred to a vote of citizens by petition.

Texas Held a proposed use Additional notice No additional efforts Virtually no citizen interests. Funds hearing for the requirements. reported. were placed in higher education fund. first time.

SOURCE: AClR staff telephone survey, 1977. Table 4-9 LOCAL BUDGET PRACTICES

Not Used Prior to January 1, 1977, but Adopted Used Prior to January 1,1977 or Plan to Adopt Thereafter Mechanism (Percent) (Percent)

City County City County

Combined Revenue Sharing and Local Budget Hearings

Separate Revenue Sharing Hearings

Separate Hearings on General Local Budget

Citizen Inspection of Proposed Budget

Citizen Inspection of Adopted Budget

Efforts to Involve Senior Citizens

SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. except that it also requires full participative local B) Number of Budget Hearings. The number budget methods and New Mexico traditionally of hearings held varied considerably among the has not. The set of 190 municipalities in ten states responding municipalities. Table 4-11 provides a with no participatory requirements for the local summary of the average number of hearings and budget process is also used for comparison. the citizens in attendance for the four types. Local The data are not conclusive. Minnesota and (general) budget hearings were most frequently New Mexico shared higher rates of local budget held by all cities, with fewer hearings on revenue hearings than their paired states, Michigan and sharing alone. Some cities reported as many as Arizona, even though the latter two required 100 hearings. The average municipal attendance local hearings and the former did not. Yet, per hearing ranged from 17 to 30 citizens, with Michigan and Arizona did not in every instance extremes ranging from one to 1,250 citizens. register higher percentages of municipalities County experience was similar to cities, adopting new budget hearing procedures after averaging about the same number of hearings. January 1, 1977. Similar inconsistencies were However, the range among counties was lower obtained in comparing the ten states not requir- with no county reporting over 50 hearings for any ing local hearings or publication with Michigan type of budget. Counties attracted from 10% to and Arizona. It is not possible to draw any firm 35% more citizens to their hearings than conclusions, therefore, about the relation municipalities. The highest county figure was a between the impact of the regulation effective reported 800 attendees at a meeting. January 1, 1977, and state laws requiring local Metropolitan counties held more meetings than budget procedures. nonmetropolitan counties and experienced sub- Table 4-70 LOCAL BUDGET PRACTICES IN MUNICIPALITIES IN SELECTED STATES

Combined Revenue Sharing and Local Revenue Sharing Local Budget Public Budget Hearing Hearings Only Hearing Only inspection Senior Have or Adopted Adopted Adopted of Proposed Public Citizen Will Involve or PI& to or plan to or plan to ~udnet Inspection Involvemeni Seniors State (number Before Since Before Since Before Since prior-to of Adopted Before Since of reporting 1/1/77 1/1/77 1/1/77 1/1/77 1/1/77 1/1/77 1/1/77 Budget 1/1/77 1/1/77 municipalities) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)

Minnesota (44) 26.7%

Michigan (67) 14.3

All Municipalities in States Not Re- quiring Local Hearings or Pub- lication (190)* 32.0

Arizona (11) 60.0

New Mexico (11) 20.0

*Includes the states of Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Maine, and Vermont. These ten states were identified by a 1975 Congressional Research Service study as having no requirements for either public hearings or publication of the local budget. They form a sample of units with no history of participation. SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. stantially greater average attendance per cities held more hearings than other cities with meeting. There was some tendency for ad- the exception of town meetings and represen- ministrator counties to have a higher average tative town meeting jurisdictions. Central cities attendance at meetings than nonadministrator far exceeded suburbs or independent cities in counties. meetings held (4.60). Combined hearings ranged in number from one to 50 but the median number is only two C) Attendance of Budget Hearings. Table 4-1 1 meetings, and a quarter of the respondents held also summarizes the average attendance at each only one. Several cities had as many as 20 hearing. Combined hearings in cities drew 30.52 hearings. Western cities had the highest average citizens per event, with the number in half of all number. Fewer revenue-sharing-only hearings cities exceeding 15. Attendance declined regular- were held than other types, with the high being 30 ly as the size of cities declined and cities under followed by several governments with ten each. 25,000 making up over half the responses, Half the reporting units held only one hearing. average 25.74 citizens per hearing. New England, Little geographical variation existed, although due to heavy attendance at town meetings and central cities held more hearings than suburbs or representative town meetings, averaged 111 independent cities. citizens per hearing with a median of 40. Central Municipalities holding separate hearings on cities and suburbs had equal attendance rates of their own budget showed a wide range of over 34, but independent cities averaged only experience. Northeast cities had the largest about 20 citizens. 160 number (4.28),which was well over the national Separate revenue sharing hearings were the average. Three cities held over 40 meetings, but least well attended type, averaging only 17.28 the median for all cities was only two. Central citizens per meeting. Ten or fewer citizens

Table 4-77 NUMBER OF HEARINGS BY TYPE OF HEARING AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF CITIZENS IN AllENDANCE

Number of Hearings Citizens in Attendance Responding Responding Median Mean Range Units Median Mean Range Units MUNICIPALITIES Combined Revenue Sharing and General Budget 2 2.34 1-50 900

Revenue Sharing Only 1 1.55 1-30 858

General Budget Only 2 3.22 1-100 657

COUNTIES Combined Revenue Sharing and General Budget 2 2.42 1-17 21 4

Revenue Sharing Only 2 1.61 1-25 177

General Budget Only 2 4.06 1-50 153 SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. Table 4-72 NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT HEARINGS HELD IN CITY OR COUNTY WITH AVERAGE CITIZEN ATTENDANCE

Units Reporting Neighborhood or Attendance and Number of Meetings District Meetings Average Number of Mean Attendance

(percent P Meetings of reporting units) Municipal County Municipal County Municipal County Combined Revenue Sharing and General Budget 87 (6.6%) 26 (9.0%)

Revenue Sharing Only 52 (4.3) 19 (7.3)

General Budget Only 47 (4.2) 19 (7.6)

SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978.

attended half of the hearings, but at least four It indicates that more counties than cities cities had as many as 300 in attendance at one reported holding neighborhood hearings, that time. Attendance declined with population, and counties held more such hearings (except for cities under 25,000 averaged only 14 citizens per combined revenue sharing and local budgets), hearing. The central city average of 26 citizens and that counties attracted more citizens to their per meeting was well above the suburban or hearings. The differences are substantial-for independent city totals. example, counties reported nearly twice as many Separate local budget hearings in cities at- citizens as did cities attending neighborhood tracted more citizens than revenue sharing general budget hearings. While the differences meetings (27.38 to 17.28).Much of this was due to seem significant, the limited number of responses town meetings which averaged 118 citizens per preclude any firm conclusions here. hearing. These figures raise questions about the Table 4-13 provides some detail highlighting view that revenue sharing hearings would be interstate differences among municipalities on better attended because of interest in these the number of hearings, the average attendance, relatively new funds. In every category, and the number of district or neighborhood separately held local budget hearings were better hearings held. The same states as in Table 4-10 attended. Several cities had attendances of over were used. Arizona had the greatest average 300 (not all town meetings) per hearings. number of hearings, overall, but New Mexico had Independent cities had substantially lower the most combined hearings. Arizona also had average attendance (20) than metropolitan cities, the largest average number of attendees with no and suburbs had a slightly higher rate (30) than clear pattern emerging among the other states. central cities (281, and the manager cities' Arizona likewise held the largest percentage of average was slightly greater than the mayor- meetings at neighborhood sites, with the excep- council cities (26 to 21, respectively). tion of local budget hearings in New Mexico. Other than this, no trends emerge. D) Neighborhood or District Hearings. Relatively few cities and counties reported E) Summary of Survey Findings. The new having neighborhood or district hearings on any citizen participation requirements imposed by part of the budget. Table 4-12 summarizes the the legislation extending General Revenue Shar- responses to this question, for both ing generated a modest increase in activities and municipalities and counties. procedures designed to involve citizens in the Table 4-1 3 NUMBER OF HEARINGS CONDUCTED AND CITIZENS IN ATTENDANCE REPORTED BY MUNICIPALITIES IN SELECTED STATES Combined Revenue Sharing and Separate Hearings on Revenue Separate Hearings on Local General Budget Hearings Sharing Alone Budget Alone Percent Percent Percent of Units of Units of Units State (number of Average Average Holding Average Average Holding Average Average Holding municipalities Number Attendance Neighbor- Number Attendance Neighbor- Number AttendanceNeighbor- reporting) Varies of Per hood of Per hood of per hood with Hearing Hearings Meeting Hearings Hearings Meeting Hearings Hearings Meeting Hearings

National Sample (varies with hearing) 2.34

All Municipalities Not Required by State to Hold Local Hearings or Yub- lish Budget- Ten States 2.47

Minnesota 2.36

Michigan 2.13

Arizona 3.57

New Mexico 5 .OO

'See Table 4-10.

SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. local budget process. A large percentage of cities the governing body's decisions. Public inspection and counties already had been offering participa- of the proposed and actual budget is almost tion opportunities before they were mandated by universal. About a third of all units have the GRS program, particularly public hearings. provided in some way for senior citizen involve- Moreover, as seen in the preceding section on ment and over a quarter more plan to move in this CDBG, hearings on community development direction in succeeding budgets. The number of block grant funds and general local budgets were citizens attending meetings or hearings on the found to be more successful than GRS hearings in use of local revenue sharing funds (separately or involving citizens, measured both by the fre- in combination with hearing or regular budget) quency of, and public attendance at, hearings. exceeds the normal number for a separate Neighborhood or district hearings on any part of hearing on the regular budget or a routine the budget were rare, and these were pre- meeting. dominantly in connection with the Community Whether high levels of involvement actually Development Block Grants. will be attained is an open question, of course. Of the various types of formal citizen par- The effect may be temporary, similar to that ticipation mechanisms, cities and counties made predicted by the ACIR and Caputo and Cole after greatest use of public hearings in applying for the initial enactment of revenue sharing.152 and administering grants-in-aid generally. Coun- Another and probably more important ques- ties tended to rely more on advisory committees tion is whether GRS-induced participation has than did cities, apparently because of their any real influence on decisionmaking at the state greater involvement in manpower planning and local levels. In the ACIR-ICMA survey, 43% programs. of city and 44% of county officials said that Citizen participation tended to boost localities' citizen participation measurably affected the participation in federal grant programs and to setting of priorities within their government's support continuation of a program after federal general budget. The question was asked about all funding had ceased. Both of these trends, of participation practices, not just those mandated course, have special implications in a period of by GRS. It can be assumed, however, that the fiscal constraint. GRS requirements were significant, in light of the earlier responses concerning the effect of Impact of CRS Participation Requirements GRS on participation. Yet, other questions relating to citizen involve- The effect of GRS citizen participation re- ment and local decisionmaking as well as written quirements on participation in local and possibly comments volunteered by the survey state budget processes has been modest. As respondents, indicated that local officials were reported in detail in Chapter 5, 34% of city and generally dubious about the effectiveness of 41% of county respondents stated that citizen citizen participation as manifested through the participation had increased in their budget formal budget pr0~ess.l~~Their comments process during the last few years. Twenty reflected concern that citizen participation in percent of the city and 29% of the county officials budget formulation frequently comes at the tail said that the increases have been moderate or end of the decisionmaking process. Many of- substantial. When asked if the increased par- ficials saw little difference between what ticipation was because of revenue sharing, 44% of happens as the consequence of public hearings the city and 4g0/0 of the county officials answered and routine meetings of budget adopting bodies. in the affirmative. Still others felt that opportunities for participa- Responses to other questions, summarized tion are primarily exploited by special interest above, indicate that further changes are in the groups. offing. States are now going to schedule proposed If these views are correct, additional re- use hearings; there will be more effort to involve quirements at the federal level may lead merely senior citizens; and more publicity via to "formalistic" participation. Some argue, newspapers or even through alternative media. however, that formal activity can be the first step At the local level, nearly 100% of all units now toward more active involvement. Others contend have two budget hearings, publish an- that in the short run, at least, formalistic and nouncements of them, and report the resuhs of possibly sporadic budget hearing participation generated by federal requirements does not concerning which groups are to be provide a substantial influence on fiscal involved, which methods are to be used, decisions. what weight is to be attached to public One other possible effect of GRS-induced views and so forth.155 participation should be noted. A substantial share of the original demands for federal par- Rosenbaum states that lacking clear direction ticipation requirements in GRS sprang from from Congress, "the actors involved naturally dissatisfaction with the alleged allocation of view the objectives of citizen involvement in funds in a racially or geographically dis- terms of their own institutional or ideological criminatory way. Particular emphasis was self-interest."l56 For the government ad- placed on the tendency for the established budget ministrator, the prime functional objective of process to allocate GRS funds to traditional citizen involvement is to mobilize public support municipal services (e.g., police, fire, sanitation) for his decisions and his program. For the as against social or human services. If the new individual citizen, the basic objective is to ensure GRS requirements produce greater support for that the decisions of governmental ad- the latter, some of the liberal and minority group ministrators correspond with his needs and desires. criticisms of the program and its earlier From a broad historical perspective, however, procedures would tend to subside, while local citizen involvement can be viewed as part of the officials might assume a more antagonistic overall trend toward democratization of our gov- stance. This issue takes on special significance as ernmental institutions, embracing the fundamen- increasing tax consciousness generates heighten- tal goals of democratic theory: "to ensure that ed movement toward cutbacks in local revenue. If there is a close correspondence between govern- California's Proposition 13 is an indication, mental actions and preponderant public social services are likely to be the most vulnerable to budget reductions, in which case preferences and to prevent government from overstepping the bounds of its limited authori- the allocation of GRS funds and the procedures ty."l57 Rosenbaum translates the general goal into relating thereto are bound to assume more of a three specific evaluative criteria: accessibility, front-center position. fairness, and responsiveness. The Impact of Citizen Participation In her approach to evaluating citizen participa- Requirements: Some General Studies tion, Judy Rosener states it is first necessary to determine whether or not a program is perceived Following up on the examination of citizen as an end in itself or as a means to an end, or a participation in five federal aid programs in the combination of both. If it is seen primarily as an preceding section, and recognizing that they end per se, effectiveness can be measured with relative ease, for example, by counting the provide only a sample but not a cross-section of number of people participating, keeping track of grant programs with citizen participation re- the kinds of people involved and the frequency of quirements, this section seeks to both broaden their involvement, and their attitudes about and narrow the perspective. It attempts to look at participation. On the other hand, when participa- a wider functional range of programs but to focus tion is a means to an end, measurement becomes more specifically on the issue of the impact of more difficult. Two questions must then be citizen participation requirements. answered: What are the goals and objectives that The question of impact necessitates a clear some specified participation is expected to conception of what the requirements are sup- achieve? How will it be known that there is a posed to accomplish, that is, the objectives of cause and effect relationship between what is Congress or grant administrators.154 As far as Congress is concerned, one observer notes that: being proposed as a participation activity and the achievement of the desired goals and objec- Authorizing legislation rarely tives?158 provides any guidance for evaluating Rosenbaum and Rosener offer their approaches purposes. The typical statutory man- to evaluation at a time when there has been a date calls for "widespread" or dearth of defensible evaluation studies. Such "meaningful" or "extensive" citizen studies as have been done rarely have been involvement, without much direction scientifically rigorous enough to allow conclusions to be drawn with any certainty. Many Rand Corporation to review prior experience reports on citizen participation are descriptive with citizen participation and submit recommen- and hortatory from an advocacy point of view. dations for HEW action. Rand employed TARP as These studies seldom try to link citizen participa- subcontractor. Mainly because of the stringent tion with any clearly caused outcome. Even the time limitations, Rand confined its research more careful studies generally are limited to largely to a literature review, supplemented with "associating" citizen action with changed a limited number of specially commissioned case programs or with changed citizen behavior. One studies and interviews. major study noted that "in general, the quality of the citizen participation literature was poor, with Citizen Boards and Cornmittees161 few empirical studies."159 Granting the difficulties of performing sound Given the charge from HEW to focus on forms evaluations and the scarcity of authoritative of citizen participation that at a minimum are studies, enough such reports of sufficient curren- capable of devolving power to citizens and could cy are available to reach some conclusions on the be implemented in the near future, Rand focused impact of citizen participation requirements in on citizen organizations (boards and com- federal grant programs. Four such reports offer mittees), concluding that most other forms of evaluations of at least some aspects of citizen participation, as they had been approached in the participation in two or more federally aided past, either had not been successful or would be programs with citizen participation mandates. difficult to implement. Excluded because they lie These are a study by The Rand Corporation for beyond the scope of HEW action even though 165 the Department of Health, Education, and they might devolve power were neighborhood Welfare in 1973; a study of municipal services governments, community development cor- systems conducted jointly by the Technical porations, and the use of vouchers by grant Assistance Research Program Institute (TARP) beneficiaries. In addition, five forms of participa- and the University of Michigan School of Public tion were identified that, while within the Health; a Rand examination of decentralization immediate scope of HEW action, did not by of five urban services; and the ACIR-ICMA sur- themselves, in their traditional use, fulfill the vey of the opinions of city and county officials primary criterion of devolving power to citizens: cited in the preceding section. The first three volunteering, the employment of para- employ basically the same criteria for assessing professionals, grievance procedures, citizen sur- citizens participation but cover essentially dif- veys, and citizen evaluations. These five were ferent functional ground.160 The last relies regarded, however, as possible secondary entirely on the perceptions of local officials for features of citizen organizations or procedures. evaluation and covers largely different func- Three categories of citizen organization were tional ground from the other three. identified according to their level of authority: citizen-dominated governing boards that deter- CITIZEN ORGANIZATIONS mine policies, advisory committees composed IN HEW PROGRAMS partly or entirely of citizens, and organizations that fall between the other two and that might be In 1971, then Secretary Elliot Richardson of the called committees of limited authority. Citizens Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the third type are granted one or two asked his staff to advise him on what forms, significant but limited responsibilities, such as structures, and mechanisms of citizen participa- the authority to hire a project director or sign the tion would be most practicable and effective for application for federal funds. HEW programs. He subsequently indicated that The Rand analysis considered 51 specific cases the department's principal objectives with of participation through citizen organizations, respect to citizen participation were to (1) drawn from rural and urban areas in 17 states. devolve to citizens a greater measure of power Thirty of the 51 were federally funded: 11 largely over HEW programs, (2) reduce feelings of through HEW, eight through Model Cities, and alienation and estrangement from government, about 15 as OEO projects. and (3) improve, if possible, the effectiveness of Analyzing the 51 cases and using the three HEW programs. The department engaged The impact criteria proposed by Secretary Richard- son produced the conclusion that, as already quired local advisory bodies, 21 parapro- noted, citizen organizations do influence the fessionals, 19 state advisory boards, four some conduct of local public activities and services. type of specific parental involvement, three The impact varies among boards and committees areawide advisory bodies, and one each required but not simply because the organization has more "general" or volunteer participation (some or less legal power. The important traits are (1) programs required more than one participation possession of their own staff, (2) power to mode). In general, health programs most fre- investigate grievances, (3) power to influence quently were marked by requirements for local service budgets, and (4) election of citizen advisory committees; education programs usual- members. ly called for a mixture of local and state advisory In appraising how boards and committees committees; and welfare programs called only for affected citizens' feelings of alienation or es- the weaker forms of participation-state ad- trangement from government, Rand identified visory committees and the employment of two separate components: the citizen's feeling of paraprofessionals. power or powerlessness (efficacy) and his trust Rand attributed the variation of citizen par- (or lack of it) in the political process. It concluded ticipation requirements within each area of that, regardless of the organizational form, health, education and welfare to the range of participation is unlikely to increase generalized programs, but also to the lack of an overall citizen trust in government. Further, political participa- participation policy at either the departmental or tion generally is related to a general sense of agency level. The existing citizen participation political efficacy, but participation in local provisions stemmed from the unique history of organizations may be related only to a sense of specific HEW programs and consequently did not efficacy in regard to the specific program or follow any general pattern. Furthermore, the activity. The report concluded that citizen formal requirements usually were not explicit participation does not promise to change the about the precise form participation should take. general level of political alienation in our society, Often neither the membership nor the powers of regardless of the organizational form of that committees was made clear. The possible conse- participation. quence was the establishment of only nominal Finally, the analysis found it most difficult to types of citizen participation. In addition, when assess the impact of citizen participation in combined with the absence of clear departmental boards and committees on program effec- or agency policies the vagueness of requirements tiveness. Its conclusions were rather tentative: meant an increased dependence on the attitudes such citizen participation does not adversely of program staff in determining the ultimate form affect program effectiveness, and boards in the and content of participation. aggregate have a somewhat more positive impact Rand reported that the actual amount and than do committees. quality of citizen participation in HEW programs was unknown, due to the lack of a systematic Citizen Participation in HEW in 1972162 monitoring or enforcement procedure. Special surveys of specific programs, however, Rand found in 1972 that many HEW programs suggested that, while compliance was usually had some formal requirement for citizen par- more frequent than noncompliance, significant ticipation. These varied both in the type of citizen cases of noncompliance existed. For example: involvement mandated (e.g., local boards, state advisory committees, employment of In migrant health,'only 69% of the projects paraprofessionals) and in the source of the had organized the mandated local boards. requirement (e.g., law, federal regulation, or In family planning, 13%of the projects had no program guideline. The requirements often were citizen participation of any type though some vaguely stated, allowing for considerable varia- type was required. tion even among different projects within the same program. 8 In Medicaid, 32 states failed to have some Sixty-nine HEW programs listed in the Catalog citizen membership on their advisory com- of Federal Domestic Assistance had citizen mittees and several states had neither participation requirements. Twenty-eight re- recipients nor consumer representatives. Because of the lack of systematic monitoring, however, there are major difficulties in es- the general impact of citizen participation tablishing clear relationships between citizen activities also was unknown. participation and system outputs."le4 Based on some experimental work in HEW, After that general appraisal, the report sum- Rand suggested the components of a departmen- marizes the defensible findings and conclusions tal program for monitoring citizen participation: on citizen participation found in the basic volumes. Findings were examined in the light of It should cover a systematic sample of the following set of policy objectives: projects. increase the influence of ordinary citizens in It should be a year-round activity. municipal service system decisionmaking Field evaluators and monitors needed proper processes, training. enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of The monitoring results must be linked to municipal service system program perfor- overall program reviews on a timely and mance, and systematic manner. change citizen attitudes. FEDERALLY AIDED MUNICIPAL SERVICES The first two are essentially the same as two used in the HEW study by Rand. The third is In 1974 under a National Science Foundation generally directed toward citizens' attitudes and (NSF) grant, the TARP Institute and the School not as pinpointed on the reduction of feelings of 3 of Public Health of the University of Michigan alienation as the HEW criterion. The difference completed an overview and summary of an probably reflects HEW'S greater concern with evaluation of policy related research on citizen low income, disadvantaged citizens than the participation in eight municipal service range of municipal services covered in the NSF systems.163 The study was one of a series funded study. by NSF directed toward evaluating policy- The reported findings on each of the three related research on municipal systems, criteria for each of the eight services are operations, and services in the hope of making summarized in Table 4-14. The influence of the research more useful to decisionmakers. The ordinary citizens was positively affected only in specific aim of the municipal services studies neighborhood health centers, although in civilian was to provide a basic understanding of the police review boards occasional cases of in- citizen participation phenomenon, the quality of fluence were noted. In the most active program of the research contributing basic knowledge about citizen participation (Community ActionIModel citizen participation, and the range of con- Cities), participation involved mostly middle clusions and policy recommendations that class citizens or those with prior leadership appeared sustainable within the limits of the experience. In urban renewal, business influence research. was predominant; providers tended to dominate The eight services were Community Ac- health planning; and in education, such citizen tionJMode1 Cities, urban renewal, health, educa- leadership as was developed had to accom- tion, welfare, legal system, environmental plan- modate to the professional/administrative elites. ning, and transportation planning. Citizen Citizen participation affected performance participation requirements were usually positively in Community ActionIModel Cities, generated by federal regulations tied to program health, welfare, and legal systems. Community funding, but in some cases were also mandated ActionJModel Cities programs' priorities were by municipal and state legislation. moved toward human services; in health centers The report first summarized the evaluation of the influence showed up in the centers' overall the research from the eight volumes and found performance rather than in any particular that, on the whole, the quality of the citizen service; in welfare, there was evidence of a participation literature was poor. "Specific positive link between citizen participation and findings and policy implications are somewhat expanded services, consumer-oriented changes strengthened by cross-system analyses which in regulations, and heightened sensitivity of case indicate common results. Standing alone, workers to clients' needs; and in legal systems Table 4-14 SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN EIGHT FEDERALLY AIDED MUNICIPAL SERVICES, AS REPORTED IN A 1974 SURVEY OF POLICY RELATED RESEARCH Does Citizen Participation Municipal Does Citizen Participation Does Citizen Participation Affect Citizens' Attitudes About Service Affect Influence Available to Affect Performance of Municipal Municipal Service Systems and Ordinary Citizens? Service System Programs? Society in General? Community Leaders usually from middle class. Influences program priorities Citizens on Community ~ction Action/Model lnfluence on decisionmaking re- toward human services,away boards likely to develop increasing Cities lated to ability to act as a bloc from physical. Best Model confidence, power, less alienation, and external to Community Cities plans result from involve- but positive effect does not extend ActionIModel Cities structure. ment of citizens. to nonparticipating service recipients.

Urban Renewal Ordinary citizens have little in- Negative effect when citizens not Strong link between active partici- fluence, but business community involved in early planning. Posi- pation, decreased alienation from influence significant. tive influence not established. Urban Renewal process.

Health In neighborhood centers, more Citizen Participation on neighbor- Positively related to preventive citizen influence where commit- hood center board influences health behavior attitudes. tees have full governing author- center's overall performance, not ity or limited control over specific specific amounts and types of decisions. Providers tend to domi- services. nate health planning process; citizen members are more influential when systematically trained.

Education Committees exert only marginal No conclusive evidence. Citizen Participation influences influence. Leaders are developed citizens to believe they can affect through committees, but achieve education process, but since they influence only through accommo- do not really exert influence, creates dation to and adminis- "false consciousness" which may trative elites. Citizen influence adversely affect change efforts. over school budgets is limited.

Evidence weak. Citizen Participation positively Participation in welfare rights linked to expanded services, con- organization produces more opti- sumer-oriented changes in regu- mistic outlook, but this may be lations. Welfare rights units because only "future-oriented" responsible for increased sensi- people constitute the ones studied. tivity of case workers. citizen volunteers in correctlons were seen to help reduce recidivism. In urban renewal, negative effects were noted unless citizen participation occurred at an early stage. Finally, in several cases evidence was found of changes in citizen attitudes due to citizen participation. In legal systems, health centers, urban renewal, and community action, attitudes became less negative, although in the last the changes did not extend to nonparticipating service recipients. Changes in citizen perspectives occurred in other services, but with reservations. Education participants had improved attitudes, but this was ascribed to aUfalse consciousness," meaning that those citizens incorrectly believed they had influence. Par- ticipants in welfare programs had improved attitudes but possibly due to a self-selection process of "future-oriented" people. In general, the study found that citizen participants were middle class or upwardly mobile members of lower income groups. They tended to be active in more than one municipal system (health and urban renewal, for example). The researchers found it difficult to make generalizations from the citizen participation research studies, given the ambiguity of their findings and their uneven quality. Yet, certain conclusions were drawn: 1. Citizen participation is least effective in the later stages of planning. "At that stage, professional and administrative dominance has had the opportunity firmly to orient policy and program directions, making it extremely difficult for alternative citizen-initiated options to be considered."l65 2. The structural characteristics of the municipal service have more influence on the level of citizen participation than the type of participative mechanism. Highly structured services such as Model Cities or urban renewal offer a greater chance for successful intervention than fragmented systems or those dominated by professionals, such as health, education, welfare, police, transportation planning, and environmental planning. 3. Citizen participation plays a limited role in the determination of municipal service performance and little evidence exists of much real influence over budgetary allocations. 4. Evidence that citizen participation has any impact on citizen attitudes is the weakest area of Citizen boards and employment of indigenous the findings. The reason appears to be that many paraprofessionals were the only two types of citizen participation efforts are not able to participative mechanisms examined. These were address authentic citizen needs. weighted in the 215 cases against five outcomes: increased flow of information, improved agency DECENTRALIZATION STUDY attitudes, improved client attitudes, improved services, and increased client control. The last Another study funded by the National Science three correspond closely to the three criteria used Foundation also covered a cluster of municipal in the Rand study for HEW cited earlier. functions, most of which use federal money, and Of the five outcomes, only increased client provides another evaluation of citizen participa- control was associated with increased levels of tion at the local leve1.166 Its central focus was the participative mechanisms. Table 4-15 provides decentralization of urban services. One of the some of the details and indicates increasing client two dimensions of decentralization was defined control with boards only or in conjunction with as "the transference of responsibility and power paraprofessionals. to those very people who are affected by the The study also probed more deeply into citizen program or innovation in question."l67 In the board activities in order to ascertain which board process of assessing decentralization efforts, functions were effective in achieving client therefore, citizen participation had to be control. Six different functions were identified: evaluated. signoff authority over grant applications or 170 Again, the appraisal was based on an examina- service decisions, planning for new programs or tion of case studies, covering some 215 in all. facilities, grievance investigation, budget review These were divided as follows among five of requests or expenditures, personnel review for functional areas: public safety-18%, educa- hiring, firing or promoting, and supervision over tion-l6%, health-22%, multiservice programs paid staff. (including such federally funded programs as The earlier Rand study had found that the Community ActionIModel Cities and neighbor- latter four functions were important mechanisms hood fa~ilities)-19~1~,and economic development for increasing client control, with supervision of (primarily federally funded through the paid staff the most important.168 This study special impact program of the Office of Eco- confirmed that finding, with the exception of nomic Opportunity)-25%. grievance investigations. Budget review, per-

Table 4- 15 TYPE OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND DECENTRALIZATION OUTCOMES (n 215)

Percentage Occurrence of Outcome Total More Improved Improved More Number of Infor- Agency Client Improved Client Type of Participation Studies mation Attitudes Attitudes Services Control1

No Citizen Participation 54 70.4% 14.8% 30.0% 59.3% 0.0 Oh

Paraprofessionals Only 30 83.3 20.0 26.7 66.7 10.0

Boards Only 72 52.8 5.6 15.3 57.0 30.6

Boards and Paraprofessionals 59 52.5 15.3 30.5 83.1 39.0

'Differences are significant at the p <.001 level; differences for the other four outcomes are not statistically significant.

SOURCE: Robert K. Yin and Douglas Yates, Street-Level Governments: Assessing Decentralization and Urban Services, Santa Monica, CA, The Rand Corporation, 1974, p. 198. Table 4-16 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION MECHANISMS USED BY CITIES AND COUNTIES IN APPLYING FOR, OR ADMINISTERING FEDERAL GRANTS, BY FUNCTIONAL TYPE OF GRANT PROGRAM

Type of Mechanism (percentage) Advisory Public Publish Inspection of Program Responses Committee Hearings Application Application

CommunityDevelop- City County City County City County City County City County ment lock Grant

Law Enforcement

Water and Sewer

Housing

Transportation

Manpower Planning

701 Planning

Health

Other

NOTE: *Whenever municipal response rates are greater than county response rates for a specific mechanism. Italics indicate highest scores for each mechanism for each unit of government.

SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. sonnel review, and supervision were more highly Participation Techniques used in associated with increased client control. Super- Grant-in-Aid Programs vision of staff, as in the earlier study, was the most strongly associated with client control. The survey queried local officials on the formal citizen participation mechanisms they used in SURVEY OF LOCAL OFFICIALS specified functional areas in which they received federal grant funds. The mechanisms identified Earlier in this chapter, reference was made to were advisory committees, public hearings, the ACIR-ICMA's 1978 survey of city and county publication of grant applications, and inspection officials on citizen participation in fiscal of applications. The results are summarized in decisionmaking at the local level, particularly in Table 4-16. the community development block grant and What do these figures mean? Ideally, they general revenue sharing programs. Two should be able to tell us, first, which citizen questions in that same survey may shed some participation mechanisms are used most heavily light on citizen participation in a range of grant- in each program area by cities and counties and, aided programs and the impact of that participa- second, helpolead to some conclusions on the tion, as seen from the vantage point of a cross- impact of citizen participation requirements. section of city and county officials. Approaching the first question requires aggregating the numbers in some fashion Counties horizontally and vertically. Before doing that, it Community Development Block Grant must be decided what weights should be given to Housing each of the sets of data. For example, should a 50% Other participation rate in the use of advisory com- Manpower Planning mittees count equally with a similar rate in Transportation citizen participation in the publication of Water and Sewer applications? Similarly, should a 50°/0 participa- 701 Planning tion rate in transportation programs weigh no Health more than a 50% rate in law enforcement? Law Enforcement Whether equal or some other relative weight should be used depends on such questions as: Comparing overall performance between Should greater weight be given to mechanisms cities and counties-again, as reported by the and/or programs in which citizen participation is local officials surveyed-counties experienced a mandated? Should it be given when the par- higher rate of participation. In the 36 pairings ticular kind of mechanism is judged especially between cities and counties (four types of important to a certain program? mechanisms times nine grant programs), the One basis for assigning weights is the degree to counties reported higher rates for 28 cases. which each of the mechanisms is mandated by Regarding the second question posed above- federal law or regulation. When that information what does this all mean in terms of the impact of becomes available from its current survey, ACIR citizen participation requirements-one obser- can explore such an approach. Until that time, vation may be tentatively ventured at this point, and possibly for illustrative purposes only, the using the aggregates of unweighted numbers. simplest approach is to assume the assignment of Based on the proposition followed in the first equal weight to all percentages in the table. That Rand study cited above-that of the four listed assumption leads to the following findings: participative mechanisms only advisory com- As among the different participative mittees offer a real devolution of power-it mechanisms, cities made greatest use of public appears that the cities and counties using federal hearings, followed in order by inspection of the programs are not emphasizing the mechanism application, publication of the application, and best calculated to deliver the most power to the advisory committees. The rank order reported by citizens, particularly in the case of the cities. counties was public hearings, advisory com- Citizen Participation's Impact on Localities' mittees, inspection of applications, and publica- Participation in Grant Programs and on Their tion of applications. Counties' greater use of Budget Decisions advisory committees was especially marked in A series of questions in the ACIR-ICMA manpower planning. survey sought to find out, first, how citizen As among the different functional programs, participation requirements affected localities' cities reported greatest participation in the 701 participation in federal grant programs general- planning program, counties in the Community ly; and second, how they influenced, indirectly or Development Block Grant program. The com- directly, local budget decisions. The questions plete ranking for both cities and counties was: and rates of response are captured in Table 4-17. The responses indicate that citizen participa- Cities tion has a relatively minor tendency to influence 701 Planning local governments to drop staff-developed grant Community Development Block Grant proposals. Only about one-sixth of the cities and Housing one-tenth of the counties reported such an Other impact. Answers to the next question show that, Transportation to the contrary, citizen involvement was a Water and Sewer positive force when a local government sought to Health participate in federal grant programs. In over 60% Manpower Planning of the cities and counties, new grant proposals Law Enforcement were stimulated by citizen participation. These Considering the generally expansionary effect program, based on replies to the ACIR-ICMA of citizen participation on local expenditures as survey. In that case, the reported noncompliance revealed in the answers to these five questions, with the hearing provision may have been due to the response to the final question is somewhat the recency of the localities' entering the program surprising. The question was: Has citizen par- or a misreading of the questionnaire. Other ticipation had a measurable effect on the setting appraisals of CDBG, namely by HUD and The of priorities within your local government's Brookings Institution, found full compliance. The general budget? Forty-three percent of the cities Rand study found the extent of compliance in and 44% of the counties answered in the affir- HEW programs was unknown due to the lack of a mative. While this percentage for city officials is systematic monitoring or enforcement about the same as their response to the question procedure. It found evidence that noncompliance on continuing services where grants were ter- clearly existed at the time of its study in the minated (40.7%), it is notably lower than the migrant health, family planning, and Medicaid percentage who said citizen participation was programs. responsible for development of new grant The record was not nearly so consistent on proposals (60.9%). One explanation (further the issue of whether federal mandates had elaborated in Chapter 5) is that the budget actually stimulated participation. In the com- process is a yearly, routine occurrence which munity health center program it appeared that a does not have the policy implications that grants substantial level of participation had already have and thus the fiscal impact of grants may be been established by the predecessor 173 viewed as outside the normal budget process. neighborhood health centers under the Economic Opportunity Act, so little if any increase could be Summary credited to the 1975 federal legislation. Stimula- tion was seen in the Title XX, CDBG, and GRS The five case studies, the three consultants' programs. The appraisal of the Coastal Zone reports on an array of federally aided programs, Management (CZM) program centered on and the ACIR-ICMA survey covered a broad California and Oregon where the affected en- range of experience with citizen participation in vironmental issues had attracted the attention of grant-aided programs in recent years. As would various interests and the state governments well be expected of any appraisal of a phenomenon in advance of federal legislation. As a result, involving many federal agencies, numerous citizen participation already exceeded the functional programs, all three levels of govern- minimum federal mandate. ment, and a Congress which has not worked out a consistent set of goals, objectives, and ap- Where the federal government expressed its proaches in this field, this analysis projects a intention that certain groups should have an opportunity to participate-either through the fairly kaleidoscopic picture of citizen participation in terms of aims, mechanisms employed, and legislative history or by explicit statutory or regulatory provision-those groups did not in attainments. Differences extend to such matters fact always participate, or participate effective- as the degree to which federal mandates have ly. This was the case in Title XX, where the poor been met; whether the mandates actually have stimulated participation and, if so, whether all and unorganized did not participate as much as concerned interests have become involved; originally had been hoped. The same situation in whether the participation has had an impact, in the early stages of the CDBG program led to much criticism in the Congressional hearings on terms of increasing the influence of participants renewal of the CDBG legislation. In part, this was over government dk~isionmakin~,improving the a criticism of the program's failure to target funds delivery of services, and increasing citizens' interest in and support for their government; and more on the needy neighborhoods rather than the problems encountered by federal agencies in spread them city or countywide. Some traced the monitoring compliance with requirements. "spreading" effect to the mayor's key role in the program, since he would regard a "spreading" Among the programs covered by the five case approach as more likely to help him build studies, full compliance with participation communitywide political support than a requirements was in doubt only in the CDBG "targeting" approach. Table 4-17 LOCAL OFFICIALS' OPINIONS ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ON THE GRANT-IN-AID PROCESS AND LOCAL BUDGET DECISIONS

Percentage Yes Question Cities Counties

Have grant proposals developed by local government staff been dropped because of citizen participation? 16.8 010 11.8 010

Have new grant proposals been developed as a result of citizen suggestions? 60.9 63.3

Has your local government transferred funding for a service or program from its general budget to a grant because of citizen participation? 19.7 26.9

Has your local government assumed the costs in its general budget for continuing a service or program funded through an expired grant because of citizen participation? 40.7 58.8

Has your local government dropped a service or program funded through a grant when the grant expired because of citizen participation? 12.2 18.6

Has citizen participation had a measurable effect on the setting of priorities within your local government's general budget? 42.9 43.8

SOURCE: ACIR-ICMA survey, 1978. two sets of responses tell a lot about the general demonstrated in the survey responses to another thrust of public opinion toward expanding question: Has your local government assumed services through federal grants, at least as the costs in its general budget for continuing a articulated by citizens engaged in formal par- service or program funded through an expired ticipation mechanisms. grant because of citizen participation? Forty-one One-fifth of the cities and one-fourth of the percent of the city officials and 59% of the county counties reported that citizen inputs were officials answered"Yes." This suggests that local responsible for their transferring funding for a officials might have been inclined to drop a service or program from their general budget to a program funded by a federal grant, but were grant. The relatively low number of jurisdictions dissuaded by public opinion channeled through reporting such actions should come as no great formal participation mechanisms. surprise. Citizens, after all, usually support The answer to the next question again presents expansion of programs rather than a shifting of the other side of the coin. Only 12% of the city funds to an uncertain funding source and, in officials and 19% of the county officials were of many cases, maintenance of effort provisions the opinion that citizen participation caused their attached to federal grants require the recipient to units to drop a service or program once the use the federal money to expand expenditures federal grant terminated. Clearly, citizen par- rather than substitute federal for local money. ticipation mechanisms are not basically an The stimulative influence of citizen participa- influence for reducing local government's fiscal tion on local expenditures is further involvement once initiated. On the issue of whether citizens actually locality's participation in grant programs; by influenced decisionmaking, the answer was supporting the transfer of funds from the general "yes" but with an array of qualifications. HUD budget to a grant program; and by exerting and The Brookings Institution found that citi- pressure on the local government to retain a zens influenced the selection of CDBG activities program even after federal grant funds had and the level of social service expenditures, yet ceased. a good deal of dissatisfaction was voiced on On the closely related question of the effect this score at Congressional hearings. Cities and on program performance, some positive results counties were charged with not being responsive were reported by the TARP-Michigan group in enough to citizen participants' inputs. A substan- four of the eight services examined: Community tial portion of respondents to the ACIR-ICMA ActionIModel Cities, health, welfare, and legal survey thought that citizens involvement in GRS systems. Yet, the overall conclusion was that budget process affected the setting of budget citizen participation plays a limited role in priorities. In the CZM program in California and determining municipal service performance. The Oregon, citizens clearly had an impact on coastal Rand-HEW study was even more negative: it zone environmental decisions, but that had to be would say only that citizen participation does not ascribed to activities set in motion earlier by adversely affect program effectiveness. General- citizen and other groups and the state govern- ly, it felt that the impact on HEW programs could ments, rather than to the requirements of federal not be judged because of the lack of systematic legislation. monitoring. 175 The Rand study of HEW committees concluded that those mechanisms exerted influence Citizens' feelings of alienation from govern- on program decisions, but the amount depended ment-another element to be considered in on certain vital traits such as staff at the judging the impact of citizen participation-are committee's disposal, the power to investigate unlikely to be reduced by greater participation, grievances, and the election of citizen members. according to the Rand-HEW study. Citizens may A similar finding regarding those traits was feel a heightened sense of efficacy toward a made in the Rand study of urban decentraliza- particular program but not toward government tion. In its study of municipal services, the generally. The TARP-Michigan findings were TARP-Michigan group concluded that ordinary somewhat more sanguine. In legal systems, citizens exerted influence only in the health centers, urban renewal and Community neighborhood health centers. Usually citizen Action, they perceived that attitudes became less participants were middle class or upwardly negative. Insofar as these were attitudes toward mobile members of lower income groups who specific programs they did not conflict with the tended to be active in more than one municipal general finding of the Rand-HEW study. system. City and county officials, according to However, TARP-Michigan pointedly noted that the ACIR-ICMA survey, saw citizen influence the impact of citizen participation on citizen exerted in a variety of ways: by stimulating the attitudes was its weakest area of findings.

FOOTNOTES glbid., p. 82. lolbid., p. 83. Illbid. 'Walter A. Rosenbaum, "Public Involvement as Reform and 1233 U.S.C. 1151, cited in Rosenbaum, op. cit., p. 82. Ritual: The Development of Federal Participation '3Ibid.. p. 85. Programs," in Citizen Participation in America. Stuart 14P.L. 94-409. Langton, ed., Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1978, pp. 81- '55 U.S.C. 552. 94. '65 U.S.C. 552b. ZAdministrative Procedures Act, Legislative History, 79th 175 U.S.C. 553. Cong., 1944-46, Part 3, Washington, DC, U.S. Government IaRecently questions have been raised-notably by en- Printing Office, 1946. vironmental groups-about the authority of the President 3P.L. 79-404. vis-a-vis agency rulemaking after the close of the public 4Rosenbaum. op. cit.. p. 82. comment period. It has been charged that the Presidentially 5P.L. 88-253, Section 202(a)(3). appointed Regulatory Analysis Review Group may have 'P.L. 89-754. exceeded their legal authority in attempting to influence ?P.L. 89-487. rulemaking decisions of the Environmental Protection aRosenbaum, op. cit., p. 82. Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Ad- ministration. Letter, staff attorney, Environmental Defense Angeles, CA, University of California Press, 1949, p. 28. Fund, to ACIR, February 1, 1979. '"bid., pp. 40-1. '9P.L. 94-437. 46Howard Hallman, "Federally Financed Citizen Participa- 2oP.L.92-463, sec. 10. tion," in Public Administration Review, Special Issue, 21Federal Interagency Council on Citizen Participation, At September 1972, p. 421. For information about citizen Square One, Proceedings of the Conference on Citizen involvement after the 1950s, see Carl Stenberg, "Citizens Participation in Government Decisionmaking, Washing- and the Administrative State: From Participation to Power," ton, DC, US. Government Printing Office, December 1976, in Public Administration Review, Washington, DC, Foreword. MayIJune 1972, pp. 190-8. 22U.S.Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Public 47Hallman,op. cit., pp. 422-3. Participation in Regulatory Agency Proceedings, Study on 48See "Citizens and Model Cities: Major Issues and Federal Regulation, Vol. 111, Washington, DC, U.S. Govern- Relationships," 1971 Municipal Year Book, Washington, ment Printing Office, 1977. DC, International City Management Association, 1971, pp. 23Congressional Record, Washington, DC, U.S. Government 12-6. Printing Office, January 31, 1979, pp. S858-80. 49For further documentation of the recent acceleration in 24U.S.Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, op. cit., multiplication of citizen participation requirements, see the pp. 74-6. section below, The Recent Blossoming of Citizen Participa- 2SLetter,OMB to ACIR, February 9, 1979. tion Requirements. 2TheEnvironmental Protection Agency has similar authority j0P.L. 89-487. in proceedings that are under the Toxic Substances Act. 51P.L.93-502. "P.L. 93-637. "P.L. 94-409. 28U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, op. cit., 53A 1978 Common Cause study reported, however, that less pp. 98-9. than 40% of the meetings of 47 federal agencies covered by 29Letter,OMB to ACIR, February 9, 1979. the Sunshine Act were fully open to the public in the act's 30U.S.Senate, Committee onGovernmenta1Affairs, op. cit., p. first year of operation, Washington Post, Washington, DC. 95. August 31, 1978. 176 31lbid., p. 64. 54P.L.92-463. Wongressional Quarterly, Washington, DC, Congressional 5jThe quoted language is from the statute or a Congressional Quarterly, Inc., February 11, 1978, p. 324. committee report. 33Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Washing- 56The Forest Service is mentioned in Lloyd Ireland, "Citizen ton, DC, US. Government Printing Office, March 27, 1978, Participation-A Tool for Conflict Management on the Executive Order 12044, March 23, 1978. Implementing Public Lands," Public Administration Review, Wash- guidelines were issued by the Office of Management and ington, DC, MaylJune, 1975, pp. 262-9; water management in Budget in the Federol Register of February 28, 1979, pp. Kris Kauffman and Alice Shorett, "A Perspective on Public 11356-62. Involvement in Water Management Decisionmaking," S4Federal Register, Washington, DC, US. Government Print- Public Administration Review, Washington, DC, Sep- ing Office, July 6, 1976. temberloctober, 1977, pp, 467-71; and technology assess- 35Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. Washine- ment in Erasmus Kloman, "Public Participation in Tech- ton, DC, u.s.-~overnmentPrinting Office, May 1, 1978, pi. nology Assessment," Public Administration Review, 789-90. Washington, DC, JanuaryIFebruary, 1974, pp. 52-9. 3TheOffice of Esther Peterson, The White House, Consumer j7P.L. 92-512, sec. 121, 123(a)(4). Involvement in Federal Agencies: A Preliminary Analysis, 58P.L.94-488, sec. 7. August 7, 1978. 59These are requirements imposed on state and local 37U.S. General Services Administration, Federal Advisory recipients-they do not include requirements in statutes Committees, Sixth Annual Report of the President, Wash- and regulations that apply to federal agencies. Thus, they do ington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1978. not include. for example, national advisory boards or 38P.L.92-463. committees. 39HaroldC. Relyea, Development and Organization of White "The ACIR's report, A Catalog of Federal Gront-in-Aid House Conferences, Congressional Research Service, Programs to State and Local Governments: Grants Funded Library of Congress, April 20, 1978 (rev.) p. 1. FY 1978, A-72, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing 4oIbid., pp. 11-2. Office, 1979, identified 492 categorical, five block, and one 41Ibid., pp. 11-2. revenue sharing program, a total of 498. This figure is not 411vanElmer, "Chambers of Commerce, Participation and the strictly comparable to the 155, however, since a single Establishment," in Edgar Cahn and Barry Passett, eds., program included in the agency survey (e.g., highways) Citizen Participation: Effecting Community Chonge, New represents several in the ACIR grant count. Roughly York, NY, Praeger Publishers, 1971, pp. 214-22. speaking, nevertheless, it appears that between one-fourth 42WayneD. Rasmussen and Gladys L. Baker, The Department and one-third of the grant programs have citizen participa- of Agriculture, New York, NY, Praeger Publishers, 1972, p. tion requirements now. 213, and unpublished manuscript by Gladys L. Baker, 6lThe 89 programs actually involve only 70 separate boards or "Washington, the Field and the Farmer," undated, pp. 3-4. committees-in a number of cases a single board~committee 43Rasmussenand Baker, op. cit., pp. 215-17; Baker, op. cit., pp. serves more than one program. 11-5. Also see Study Committee on Federal Aid to "Three programs are not listed in the Catalog of Federal Agriculture, Federal Aid to Agriculture, report submitted to Domestic Assistance. the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washing- "For this analysis, the term does not include economic groups ton, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1955, p. 26, that have a direct provider interest in aprogram, such as the and Reed L. Frischknecht, "The Democratization of Ad- health care industry vis-a-vis certain health programs. The ministration: The Farmer Committee System," American latter are classed under one of the "provider" headings. Political Science Review, Vol. XLVII, No. 3, Menasha, WI, "The 17 are associated with 24 grant programs-a number of September 1953, pp. 704-27. programs use the same boardlcommittee. 44Philip Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots, Berkeley and Los '~~33USC 1251(e). %ee ACIR, Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System. 85Turem, o'p. cit., p. 4. A-31, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, aqbid., pp. 96-102. 1967, p. 151. 87Interview with Katherine Godwin, Public Services Divi- 67Noncomparability is most noticeable in the figures for the sion, Social and Rehabilitation Service, June 29, 1977. Department of Transportation. In its total figure as of 88ACIR, Block Grants: A Roundtable Discussion, A-51, January 1, 1978, ACIR included many separate programs Washington, DC, US. Government Printing Office, Oc- that are represented by one listing in the second column. tober 1976, pp. 21-2. 68p.L. 89-749, the Comprehensive Heolth Planning and Public 8942 Federol Register, Washington, DC, US. Government Heolth Service Amendments. Printing Office, January 31, 1977, p. 5852. "US. Senate, Committee onLabor and Public Welfare, Heolth gostoff Data and Materials of Sociol Service Proposals, Services Act of 1974, Report 93-1137, to accompany S. 328, prepared for the Senate Committee on Finance, May 6,1976, Washington, DC, U.S. Governmental Printing Office, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 3-4. September 5, 1974. glBill Benton, et. al., "Participation and Influence in State ?orbid., p. 6. Social Services Decisionmaking," Washington, DC, The 7llbid., p. 15. Urban Institute, October 1971, p. 23. 7ZInterview with Dr. Siege1 Young, Community Health 9ZP.L.92-583. Service Bureau, Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, June g3P.L.89-753. 8, 1977. g4P.L.94-370. 7341 Federol Register, Washington, DC, U.S. Government 95League of Women Voters, Energy and Our Coasts: The 1976 Printing Office, December 3, 1976, p. 53210. CZM Amendments, Washington, DC, League of Women 7'1bid. Voters of the US., April 1977, p. 5. 75In its report on the 1978 amendments to the community 9W.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Notional Coastal health centers legislation, the Senate Human Resources Zone Management Act of 1972, Report on S. 3507 with Committee declared that it is "firmly committed to con- individual views, Senate Report No. 92-753, Washington, sumer majority governing boards" and it proposed no DC, US. Government Printing Office, 1972. change in current board requirements, U.S. Senate, Human 9'U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant Resources Committee, Heolth Services and Centers Marine and Fisheries, Coastal Zone Management, House Amendments of 1978, Report 95-860, to accompany S. 2474, Report No. 92-1049, Washington, DC, US. Government Washington, DC, US. Government Printing Office, May 15, Printing Office, 1972. 1978, p. 28. 98U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Merchant 781nterview with Bernard Passer, Region 11, Director for Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Health Services, June 1977. Coastal Zone Management: Hearings, Washington, DC, 77Letter from G.A. Reich, Regional Health Administrator, US. Government Printing Office, 1972. Public Health Service, Region IV. For a similar view from a 99Information on California participation is from U.S. related program, see James Glass, "Citizen Participation in Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- Comprehensive Health Planning: Conflict and Control," a ment, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Washing- paper presented to the 1977 Annual Conference of the ton, DC, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977, chap. 13. For American Society for Public Administration, Atlanta, GA. Oregon it is from the Final EIS statement. Both are 78Minutes of the 1977 Board meetings and one grant available from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, application for Martin Luther King, Jr., Health Center in the US. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Bronx, the Mid-Westside Neighborhood Health Center in lo040 Federal Register, Washington, DC, U.S. Government New York City and the Syracuse Neighborhood Health Printing Office, January 9, 1975, p. 1685. Center were reviewed. The first two centers were changing 1°'P.L. 93-383. to a community corporation from a hospital grantee, while 'OZP.L. 95-128. the Syracuse Center was changing from a university to '03U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban community corporation grantee. Affairs, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 79For additional background, see U.S. House of Represen- report together with supplemental and additional views, tatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Sociol Services Senate Report No. 93-693, Washington, DC, U.S. Govern- Amendments of 1974, Report 93-1490, to Accompany H.R. ment Printing Office, 1974. 17045, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, lo4U.S.House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and November 22, 1974, and Social Services Amendments of Currency, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Report 93-1643, Conference Report to Accompany 1974, Conference Report No. 93-1279, Washington, DC, U.S. H.R. 17045, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Government Printing Office, 1974. Office, December 19, 1974. Io539 Federol Register, Washington, DC, US. Government 8OJerry Turem, et. al., The Implementation of Title XX: The Printing Office, November 13, 1974, p. 40136. First Years Experience, Washington, DC, The Urban 1°Quane Landreth, "Four Elements Under Title I of the Institute, under contract 500-75-0010 with the Social and Housing and Community Development Act of 1974," The Rehabilitation Service, Department of HEW, working Urban Lawyer, Chicago, IL, American Bar Assoc., Winter paper, November 1976, p. 4. 1977, pp. 92-100. 81ibidd.,pp. 7 and 17. lo7U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 8ZFrancis Zorn, Leilani Rose, and Bervl Radin, "Title XX and Affairs, Community Development Block Grant Program, Public Participation: An Initial - Assessment," Public hearings on oversight on the administration of the Housing Welfare, Washington, DC, American Public Welfare Assoc., ond*~ommunityDevelopment Act of 1974, Washington, Fall 1976, pp. 20-5. This section relies heavily on this DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977. article. '08U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 83LeilaniRose, Francis Zorn, and Beryl Radin, "Title XX and Community Development Block Grant Program, Second Public Participation: An Initial Assessment," Public Annual Report, Washington, DC, US. Government Prin- Welfare, Washington, DC, American Public Welfare Assoc.. ting Office, 1976, Chapter 14. Winter 1977, pp. 24-31. IogIbid.,Table 14.3. 84Ibid., p. 29. llolbid., p. 154. ~lllbid.,p. 157. 1974, p. 9. "ZIbid., p. 159. '"Ibid., pp. 9-10. Il3U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 13Comptroller General of the United States, Revenue Community Development Block Grant Program, Third Sharing: Its Use By and Impact Upon Local Governments, Annual Report, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Prin- Washington, DC, U.S. General Accounting Office, April ting Office, 1978, Chapter 23. 1974, p. 2. "4All references to this hearing are from Community 137U.S. General Accounting Office, Case Studies of Revenue Development Block Grant Program, op. cit. Sharing in 26 Local Governments, Churchill Co., NV, Wash- "5U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking, ington, DC, U.S. General Accounting Office, July 21, 1975. Finance and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Housing and 138Edie Goldberg, "Citizen Participation in General Revenue Community Development, Housing and Community Sharing," in The Economic and Political Impact of General Development Act of 1977: Hearings, Washington, DC, U.S. Revenue Sharing, Thomas Justin, ed., Ann Arbor, MI, Government Printing Office, vols. I and 111. Institute for Social Research, the University of Michigan, Il6lbid., p. 832. prepared for the National Science Foundation, 1976, pp. H7Housing and Community Development Act of 1977: 165-82. Hearings, op. cit. '39Waldhorn, op. cit., p. 87. ""bid., p. 585. 1"Ibid.. pp. 87-92. IlYRichard Nathan, et. al., Block Grants for Community 14lNathan, op. cit., passim. Development, Washington, DC, The Brookings Institution, 14~RufusBrowning and Dale Marshall, "Implementation of 1977, p. 495. Model Cities and Revenue Sharing in 10 Bay Area Cities," a inoHousing and Community Development Act of 1977: paper presented to the American Political Science Associa- Hearings, op. cit., p. 642. tion Annual Conference at Chicago, IL, September 1974. 121For descriptions of innovative and noteworthy citizen I43Patricia Blair, General Revenue Sharing in American participation processes in the CDBG program in 31 Cities: First Impressions, National Clearinghouse on communities (27 cities and four counties), see U.S. Revenue Sharing, Washington, DC, December 1974, pp. 3-8. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Citizen IRllbid., pp. 24-6. 178 Participation in Community Development, Washington, I4jLeague of Women Voters Education Fund, Iowa Case Study DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. on Implementation of General Revenue Sharing at the Local '22Anthony Downs, "Citizen Participation in Community Level, Washington, DC, 1976, p. 1. Development: Why Some Changes are Needed," National 14"bid., pp. 6-8. Civic Review. New York, NY, National Municipal League, I4'P.L. 94-488. May 1975, pp. 238-48. 14~Foradditional background refer to U.S. Congress, Joint 123ACIR, A-51, op. cit., pp. 23-5. Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, Extension and 124Housing and Community Development Act of 1977: Revision of General Revenue Sharing Areas for Committee Hearings, op. cit., pp. 642-3. Consideration, Report for the Committee on Finance by the 125Nathan, op. cit., pp. 408, 486, and 502. Staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, 12Wousing and Community Development Act of 1977: Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, August Hearings, op. cit., pp. 35-7. 25, 1976. A record of the hearings is in US. House of 127It is possible that the cities that reported not holding Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, hearings (a)were receiving funds for the first time and had State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act (General Revenue not yet completely developed their participation Sharing]: Hearings, Washington, DC, U.S. Government procedures, or (b) misunderstood the requirements, or (c) Printing Office, 2 vols. misunderstood the wording of the question. 14942Federal Register. September 22, 1977. pp. 47988-47992. 12"P.. 92-512. Also see Steven Rudman, "Controversial Revenue Sharing 129Will Myers, "A Legislative History of Revenue Sharing," Regulations Have Far Reaching Complications," The Annals of the American Acadenly of Political and Social Grantsmanship Center News, Los Angeles, CA, Grants- Science, 419, Philadelphia, PA, American Academy of manship Center, April-June, 1977, pp. 46-8. Political and Social Science, May 1975, p. 3. ISoLeagueof Women Voters, General Revenue Sharing and the l30Richard Nathan, Allen Manvel and Susannah Calkins, States, Washington, DC, 1975, pp. 17-21. Monitoring Revenue Sharing, Washington, DC, The Brook- lSIParallelresults were reported in a Peat, Marwick, Mitchell ing~Institution, 1975, p. 263. Also see Steven Waldhorn, survey of six states for the Office of Revenue Sharing. U.S. et. al., Planning and Participation: General Revenue Shar- Department of the Treasury. Letter, ORS to ACIR, January ing in Ten Large Cities, Menlo Park, CA, Stanford Re- 29, 1979. search Institute under contract wiih the National Science 152ACIR, A-48, op. cit., and Caputo and Cole, op. cit. Foundation, 1975, pp. 5-9. 153Forfull discussion, see Chapter 5. In a survey for the Office 13lDonald Lief, "Revenue Sharing and Citizen Participation," a of Revenue Sharing, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell reported a paper prepared for delivery to the Seminar on New similar conclusion regarding the reactions of local officials. Federalism at the University of Oklahoma, May 1975. Letter, ORS to ACIR, January 29, 1979. 132David Caputo and Richard Cole, "The Influences and '54Judy B, Rosener, "Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Impact of Citizen Participation on the Expenditure of Its Effectiveness?" Public Administration Review, Wash- General Revenue Sharing Funds," a paper prepared for ington, DC, American Society for Public Administration, delivery to the Northeast Political Science Association Septemberioctober 1978, p. 457. meeting at Saratoga Springs, NY, November 1974,@.7. ISSNelson Rosenbaum, "Evaluating Citizen Involvement l3jJohn Strange, "The Impact of Citizen Participation on Programs," briefing paper for the National Conference on Public Administration," Public Administration Review, 32, Citizen Participation, September 28-October 1, 1978, Washington, DC, American Society for Public Administra- Washington, DC, p. 1. tion, September 1972, pp. 457-70, quoted in Caputo and 156Ibid., p. 2. Cole, Ibid., p. 2. 15'Ibid. 134ACIR, General Revenue.Sharing: An ACIR Re-evaluation, IjHRosener, op. cit., p. 459. A-48, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 159JosephFalkson, An Evaluation of Policy Related Research on Citizen Participation in Municipal Service Systems: ments: Assessing Decentralization and Urban Services, Overview and Summary, Washington, DC, TARP Institute, Santa Monica, CA, The Rand Corporation, 1974. 1974, p. 16. See also Rosenbaum, op. cit., p. 1, and Rosener, ISlYin, et. al., op. cit., Chapters 1-4. op. cit., p. 457. 1"lbid.. Chapter 5. '6OThe three reports are, respectively: Robert K. Yin, William '"Falkson, op. cit. A. Lucas, Peter L. Szanton, and J. Andrews Spindler, LsrIbid., p. 19. Citizen Organizations: Increasing Client Control Over Services, Santa Monica, CA, The Rand Corporation, 1973; 1651bid., p. 32. Falkson, op. cit., and the eight studies of individual '"Yin and Yates, op. cit. municipal services that it synthesizes and summarizes; and 's'lbid., p. 29. Robert K. Yin and Douglas Yates, Street-Level Govern- 168Yin,et. al., op. cit. Appendix 4A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS. BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJOR TYPE OF REQU-IREMENT (December 1978) Boards or

CFDA Statute (USC) and/o~ Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Area Development Requires systematic involvement of federal, 7 CFR 1948.5, 1948.3: Assistance Planning state, and local government agencies, public and consumer interest groups, and the private sector in rural development policymaking process.

National School Lunch School food authorities must involve students 7 CFR 210.19b(q)*** Program through activities such as menu planning, enhancement of the eating environment.

Special Supplemental State agency's annual evaluation must in- 7 USC 613c note, Food Program for Women, clude participants' views. State agency must 42 USC 1758 Infants, Children publicize availability of benefits.

Rural Development 7 USC 2664(e) Research

Cooperative Extension 7 USC 2661-2668 Service 7 CFR 23.4

Resource Conservation Resource conservation and development 7 CFR 642.6(a), 642.8 and Development council's planning process must provide for community leadership participation and citizen involvement, including informational meetings and use of citizen resource committees and technical advisory teams. Watershed Protection and Planning process must provide for public 7 CFR 622.30, 622.32 Flood Prevention participation based on informational and educational program.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economic Development- Secretary must assure local governments an 42 USC 3131(f) Grants and Loans for opportunity to review and comment on 13 CFR 303.4, 304.3 Public Works and proposed projects. Development Facilities

Economic Development- Planning must involve public officials and 42 USC 3151a Support for Planning private citizens. Organizations

Economic Development- Planning must involve public officials and 42 USC 3151a State and Local Economic private citizens. If no procedure exists for 13 CFR 307.52(a)(2)(i) Development Planning this involvement, a special planning com- 307.55(c) mittee of public and private citizens must be established in office of Mayor or county executive.

Economic Development- Local governments must have opportunity 12 USC 3151a District Operational to review and comment on proposed projects. 13 CFR 303.4(c), Assistance Planning must involve public officials, private 307.52(b) citizens.

Public Works and Local governments must have opportunity 12 USC 3131(f) Economic Development: to review and comment on proposed 13 CFR 303.4, 304.3 Supplemental and Basic projects. Grants

Coastal Zone Manage- State must develop management program 16 USC 1455 ment-Program Develop- with full participation of federal, state, local 15 CFR 923.50, 923.5: ment governments, regional organizations, port authorities, other interested parties; must have continuing full consultation. "Full participation" includes public meetings, workshops with reasonable notice. Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIR vlENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRA IS. BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MA]l0d TYPE OF REQ~IREMENT (December 1978) Boards or

CFDA tatute (USC) and/or Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (cont.)

Coastal Zone Manage- State must develop management program 6 USC 1455 ment-Program Adminis- with full participation of federal, state, local 5 CFR 923.50, 923.55 stration governments, regional organizations, port authorities, other interested parties; must have continuing full consultation. "Full participation" includes public meetings, workshops with reasonable notice.

Coastal Energy Impact State must develop management program 6 USC 1455 Program-Formula Grants with full participation of federal, state, local 5 CFR 923.50, 923.55 governments, regional organizations, port authorities, other interested parties; must have continuing full consultation. "Full participation" includes public meetings, workshops with reasonable notice.

HEW-PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

Comprehensive Public 42 USC 246(d) Health Services

Crippled Children's Must use nonpaid or partially paidvolunteers. 42 USC 705(a) Services Medical Facilities Health systems agencies and state health 42 USC 3001-1, Construction- coordinating council must conduct meetings 30011-1 Formula Grants in public, give adequate public notice, give 2 CFR 122.104,122.0 access to records. Grant applicant must describe how residents are served by application.

Community Health 42 USC 13% Centers 42 CFR 51c.304

Migrant Health Must initiate continuing community involve- 42 USC 247d Centers ment in development and operation of project. 42 CFR 56.203

Alcoholism Treatment Project must involve active participation of 45 CFR 54a.404 and Rehabilitation/ wide range of public and nongovernmental Occupational Alcoholism agencies and individuals, including indi- - Senices Program viduals representative of population served.

Health Maintenance 42 USC 300e Organization Development

Alcohol Formula Grants 42 USC 4573

Drug Abuse Prevention 21 USC 1176(e) Formula Grants

Emergency Medical Must assure adequate opportunity to par- 42 USC 300d-5 Service ticipate for persons who reside in the systems service area and have no professional training or financial interest in provision of health care.

Sudden Infant Death Must provide for community representation 42 USC 300~-11 Syndrome Information in development and operation of each project. 42 CFR 51a.506 and Counseling Program State Health Planning State health coordinating council must 42 USC 300m-3 and Development Agen- conduct all business meetings in public. 42 CFR 123.104, cies Governor must give general public oppor- 123.305,123.306 tunity to express views on state health planning and development agency. Health Planning- Agencies must conduct meetings in public, 12 USC 242d, 3001-1 Health Systems give adequate public notice, give access to i00n-1 Agencies records. Grant applicant must describe how 12 CFR 122.104, 122.1 residents are involved in developing application. Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJOR TYPE OF REQUIREMENT (December 1978)

itu C P, .-P .-u E: z5 S n C)n u C 0 CFDA 5 Statute (USC) and/or 4! b Number CFDA Title Other U Regulation (CFR) 4 %

HEW PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE (cont.)

Community Mental Health Centen-Com- prehensive Services Support

HEW-OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Adult Education- State must involve representatives of 1 Grants to States various prescribed groups concerned with adult education in development and carrying out of state plan.

Bilingual Education Application must be developed in con- 4 20 USC 880b-I (a) sultation with parents of children of limited English-speaking ability, teachers, secondary school students.

Educational Broadcast- Nonprofit applicant must be organized to 45 CFR 153.5 ing Facilities (public be representative of educational, cultural, broadcasting) and civic groups in the community to be served and free from such control by a single private entity as would prevent it from serving overall community needs or interests. Teacher Centers 20 USC 1119a

Educationally Deprived Applicant (local educational agency) must 20 USC 241c-1,241e Children-Handicapped make application and pertinent documents 15 CFR 116a available to parents and general public.

Educationally Deprived Applicant (local educational agency) must 20 USC 241c-1, 241e Children-Local make application and pertinent documents 15 CFR 116a Educational Agencies available to parents and general public.

Educationally Deprived Applicant (state educational agency) and 20 USC 2761-3 Children-Migrants subgrantees (local educational agencies or 45 CFR 116,116d other public or private nonprofit agencies) must make application and pertinent documents available to parents and general public.

Follow Through Project must include a parent and com- 45 CFR 158.19, munity involvement component. 158.26(b)

Handicapped Early Program must include activities and 20 USC 1423(a) Childhood Assistance reviews designed to encourage participa- 45 CFR 121d.29 tion of parents in development and operation of program.

Handicapped Innovative Applicants must ensure that programs 20 USC 1231d Programs-Deaf-Blind assisted have been planned and devel- 20 CFR 121c.40 Centers oped, and will be operated, in consultation and with involvement of parents of children served. Handicapped Preschool 20 USC 1412(7)(A), and School Programs 1413(a)(12) 45 CFR 121a.651

Handicapped Personnel Applications are evaluated on basis of 45 CFR 121f.20 Preparation prescribed factors, including the extent to which present and former students, employing agencies, and individuals (parents, practicing teachers, etc.) are involved in program planning, implementation and evaluation.

Library Services- 20 USC 351a Grants for Public Libraries Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJORTYPE OF REQUIREMENT (December 1978) Boards or

CFDA statute (USC) and/a Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR)

HEW-OFFICE OF EDUCATION (cont.)

Library Services- 20 USC 351a Interlibrary Cooperation

Teachers Corps- 20 USC 1103(e) Operations and Training 45 CFR 172.14.172.1

University Community 20 USC 1005(a) Service-Grants 45 CFR 173.12, 173.1 to States

Vocational Educa- Formulation ot state's five-year vocational 20 USC 2305, 2307(a tion-Basic Grants education plan must involve active parti- to States cipation of representatives of a list of prescribed state agencies responsible for aspects of vocational education, including the state advisory council on vocational education.

Vocational Education- Formulation of state's five-year vocational 20 USC 2305, 2307(a Consumer and Home- education plan must involve active par- making Program ticipation of representatives of a list of prescribed state agencies responsible for aspects of vocational education, including the state advisory council on vocational education. Vocational Education- Formulation of state's five-year vocational 20 USC 2305. 2401 Program Improvement education plan must involve active par- Project ticipation of representatives of a list of prescribed state agencies responsible for aspects of vocational education, including the state advisory council on vocational education.

Vocational Education- Formulation of state's five-year vocational 20 USC 2305, 2307(a) Special Needs education plan must involve active participation of representatives of a list of prescribed state agencies responsible for aspects of vocational education, including the state advisory council on vocational education.

Vocational Education- 20 USC 2305 State Advisory Councils

Emergency School Aid Act-Basic Grants to 20 USC 1609(a)(2) Local Educational 15 CFR 185.41, 185.42 Agencies

Emergency School Aid Act-Pilot Programs 20 USC 1609(a)(2) (Special Programs and 45 CFR 185.41,185.42 Projects)

Emergency School Aid Act-Bilingual Educa- 20 USC 1609(a)(2) tion Projects 45 CFR 185.41, 185.41

Emergency School Aid 20 USC 1609(a)(2) Act-Special Programs 45 CFR 185.65 and Projects (nonprofit organizations)

Emergency School Aid 20 USC 1609(a)(2) Act-Educational TV 45 CFR 185.75

Emergency School Aid 20 USC 1609(a)(2) Act-Special Programs 45 CFR 185.41, 185.4; Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJORTYPE OF REQUIREMENT - (December 19783 Boards or Committee 7

CFDA Statute (USC) and/o~ Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR) - -

HEW-OFFICE OF EDUCATION (cont.)

Right to Read-Elimina- Applicant must have reading program 20 USC 1921,1944 tion of Illiteracy which provides for: participation of school faculty, school board members, administration, parents, and students in reading related activities which stimulate an interest in reading; parent participation in program development and implementation; involvement of cultural and educational leaders of area to be served.

lndian Education: Must ensure that program will be operated 20 USC 241dd(b) Grants to Local Educa- and evaluated in consultation with, and tional Agencies involvement of, parents of children and representatives of area to be served, including the advisory committee.

lndian Education- Must be adequate participation by parents 20 USC 887c Special Programs and of children to be served in planning and 45 CFR 100d Projects development of project and in operation and evaluation.

lndian Education-Adult Must be adequate participation by parents 20 USC 1211a(c) lndian Education of children to be served in planning and 45 CFR 188.8 development of project and in operation and evaluation. Educational Oppor- Representatives of community and local 45 CFR 154.10 tunity Centers educational agencies and institutions of higher education in area to be served must participate in formulation of applications and give advice on operations.

Ethnic Heritage Public must be given opportunity to testify 20 USC 900a-2 Studies Program or otherwise comment on grant application. 20 USC 887e 45 CFR 184.12

Indian Education- Public must be given opportunity to Grants to Non-local testify or otherwise comment ow grant Educational Agencies application.

Bilingual Vocational Formulation of state's five-year vocational 20 USC 2305, 2411 Training education plan must involve active participation of representatives of a list of prescribed state agencies responsible for aspects of vocational education, including the state advisory council on vocational education.

Education for Gifted Needs assessment must involve public to be 45 CFR 160b.6(b), and Talented served, educators, parents and community 160b.23, 160b.24, Children and Youth groups or institutions. Evaluation must 160b.53 involve persons directly and indirectly affected. Model project must include demonstration of contributions from parents of target groups, students, community organizations.

Community Education Local community college, social, recrea- 20 USC 1864(d)(4) Program tional, and health groups must be consulted on programs to be offered and facilities to be used.

Consumer's Education Public must be given opportunity to testify 20 USC 887e or otherwise comment on grant application.

Elementary and 45 CFR 160g.14, Secondary School Edu- 160g.24 cation in the Arts

Libraries and Learning 20 USC 1803 Resources Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUlli MENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION, IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRP IS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MA )R TYPE OF REQUIREMENT :December 1978) - Boards or Com mittees

CFD A Statute (USC)and/oi Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR)

EDUCATION (cont.)

13.571 Educational Innovation Must involve in planning and carrying out 20 USC 1832 and Support programs or projects the participation of persons broadly representative of cultural and educational resources of area served.

13.572 Assistance to States for Must give public an opportunity to present 15 CFR 156.4 State Equalization Plan views other than through public hearing.

13.582 State Student Financial State agency must consult with statewide 15 CFR 178a.4(b) Assistance Training financial and administrative organizations Program on regular basis.

13.585 Educational Informa- Must involve individuals, public and 15 CFR 137.5 tion Centers private agencies, organizations in plan development.

13.586 Bilingual Vocational Formulation of state's five-year vocational 20 USC 2305 Instructor Training education plan must involve active participation of representatives of a list of prescribed state agencies responsible for aspects of vocational education, including the state advisory council on vocational education. Bilingual Vocational Formulation of state's five-year vocational !O USC 2305 instructional Materials, education plan must involve active par- Methods, and ticipation of representatives of a list of Techniques prescribed state agencies responsible for aspects of vocational education, including the state advisory council on vocational education.

Emergency School Aid- !O USC 1609(a)(2) Magnet Schools, Uni- 15 CFR 185.41, 185.42 versity/Business Cooperation

Emergency School Aid- 'L 92-318, sec. 710(a) Neutral Site Planning (11, (2) $5 CFR 185.41, 185.42

Pre-School Incentive Plan amendments must be made available to 20 USC 1412,1413 Grants parents, guardians, other members of general public prior to submission to Office of Education. Must consult with individuals concerned with education of handicapped children.

Administration for Must provide for direct participation of 42 USC 2928 Children, Youth and parents of Head Start children in develop- Families-Head Start ment and overall direction of program at local level.

HEW-OFFICE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Rehabilitation Services Recipient agencies must take into account 29 USC 721 (a)(l8) and Facilities- views of individuals and groups who re- Basic Support ceive vocational rehabilitation services, workers in the field of vocational rehabilitation, and providers of vocational rehabilitation services.

Vocational Rehabili- Recipient agencies must take into account tation Services for views of individuals and groups who re- Social Security Disability ceive vocational rehabilitation services, Beneficiaries workers in the field of vocational rehabilitation, and providers of vocational rehabilitation services. Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION R iQUlREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PR XRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AN D MAJORTYPE OF REQUIREMENT - (December 1978) Boards or Corn mittees

CFDA Statute (USC) and/or Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR)

HEW-OFFICE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (cont.)

13.626 Rehabilitation Services Recipient agencies must take into account 29 USC 721(a)(18) and Facilities- views of individuals and groups who re- Special Projects ceive vocational rehabilitation services, workers in the field of vocational rehabilitation, and providers of vocational rehabilitation services.

13.630 Developmental Disabili- Must make maximum use of available com- 42 USC 6063 ties-Basic Support munity resources including volunteers serving under Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 7973 and other appropriate voluntary organizations.

13.633 Special Programs for the Must take account of views of social 42 USC 3024(a)(2)(B), Aging-State Agency service recipients in developing and ad- 3024(c)(4)(C) Activities and Area ministering state plan. 45 CFR 1321.15, Planning and Social 1321.36,1321.50, Service Programs 1321.65, 1321.66

13.635 Special Programs for Must administer project with advice of the Aging- persons competent in field of service in Nutrition Program which nutrition program is provided, of for the Elderly elderly program participants, and of persons knowledgeable about needs of the elderly. al Programs for the 15 CFR 1326.5 Aging-Title V Multiple Purpose Senior Centers

Social Services Proposed comprehensive annual services 2 USC 1397c Block Grant program plan must be made available to public 90 days prior to start of year. Fiscal plan, together with explanation of changes from proposed plan, must be published 45 days after publication of proposed plan.

Child Welfare Services- Must provide for training and using non- 2 USC 622(a)(i)(ii) State Grants paid or partially paid volunteers rep- 5 CFR 220.4, 220.6(a) resenting various age groups, including 00.7(a) senior citizens and youth. HEW-HEALTH CARE FINANCING AD- MINISTRATION

Medical Assistance Must train and use paid subprofessional 12 USC 1396a(4) Program staff, emphasizing recipients and other 12 CFR 431.12 low income persons, and must use nonpaid or partially paid volunteers in the social service volunteer program.

Health Financing Must train and use paid subprofessional 12 USC 1396a(a)(4) Research, Demonstra- staff, emphasizing recipients and other ,2 CFR 431.12 tions and Experiments low income persons, and must use nonpaid or partially paid volunteers in the social service volunteer program.

HEW-SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Assistance Payments- Must provide for training and using non- 45 CFR 222.2, 222.3, State and Local Training paid or partially paid volunteers represent- 222.4 ing various age groups, including senior citizens and youth.

Assistance Payments- Must provide opportunity for public com- 42 USC 602 Research ment on proposed demonstration projects. Copies of proposed projects must be available for public inspection.

Refugee Assistance- 1978 CFR 30127-3013( lndochinese Refugees cr (D I&

Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJORTYPE OF REQUIREMENT (December 1978)

Boards or Committees

CFDA itatute (USC) and/o~ Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR)

HEW-PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE I1

13.887 Medical Facilities Con- Health systems agencies and state health 42 USC 242d, 3001-1 struction-Project Grants coordinating council must conduct meetings 300n-1 in public, give adequate public notice, give access to records. Grant applicant must describe how residents are served by application.

13.890 Genetic Diseases Must provide for community representa- 42 USC 300b-3(a) Testing and Counseling tion where appropriate in development Services and operation of voluntary genetic testing or counseling program.

13.898 Alcoholism Demonstra- Must involve active participation of wide 42 CFR 54a.404 tion range of public and nongovernmental agencies, organizations, individuals, including individuals representative of population served.

13.899 Alcohol Abuse and Must, whenever possible, be community 42 USC 4577(b) Alcoholism Prevention based and provide for active participation Demonstration of a wide range of public and nongovernmental agencies, organizations, individuals. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Comprehensive Planning Must carry on comprehensive planning 42 USC 461 (c) Assistance process which provides for citizen partici- 24 CFR 600.80(b) pation.

Community Development Must give citizens opportunity to partici- 42 USC 5304(a)(6) Block Grant pate in development of application, encourage public views and proposals especially from residents of blighted neighborhoods and citizens of low and moderate income. Must provide citizens information on funds available for proposed community development and housing activities. Must provide citizens opportunity to comment on community development performance.

Urban Development Must provide opportunity for citizen par- 42 USC 5318(c)(5) Action Grants ticipation in development of application, especially from low and moderate income people and residents of blighted neighborhoods, and must give citizens adequate information on funds available, range of activities that may be undertaken, other important program requirements.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Outdoor Recreation- Must provide ample opportunity for 16 USC 4601-8(d) Acquisition, Development public participation in plan development and Planning and revision. Must have active participation by program administrators, legislators, special interest groups, and general public including minority groups.

Water Resources Institutes must develop programs in con- 42 USC 7811 Research-Assistance to sultation with leading water resources State Institutes officials within the state and region. Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJOR TYPE OF REQUIREMENT (December 1978j Boards or I Commit

CFDA Statute (USC) and/o~ Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR)

DEPARTMENT OF IUSTICE

16.500 Law Enforcement Must hold open meetings, provide public 42 USC 3723 Assistance-Comprehen- access to all records. sive Planning Grants

16.502 Law Enforcement Must hold open meetings, provide public 42 USC 3723 Assistance-Improving access to all records and Strengthening Law Enforcement and Crimi- nal justice

16.516 Law Enforcement 42 USC 5633(a)(3) Assistance-Juvenile Delinquency Preven- tion-Allocation in States

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

17.207 Employment Service 29 USC 49j(a)

17. 230 Migrant and Seasonal 29 CFR 95.13 Farm Workers

17.232 Comprehensive Employ- 29 USC 814, 817 ment and Training Program Youth Community Con- 29 USC 814,817 servation lmprovement Program

Youth Employment and Must involve community-based organiza- 29 USC 814,894 Training tions in developing youth plan. 29 CFR 97.705

Public Service Employ- 29 USC 814, 817 ment Program DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Airport Development 49 USC 1760(d) Aid Program 14 CFR 152.73

Highway Research, Urban transportation planning process 23 USC 128(a) Planning and Construc- must involve the public. 23 CFR 450.120, tion 771, 790

Local Rail Services State rail plans must be based on compre- 49 CFR 266.15 Systems-National hensive, continuous planning p:ocess Program and be developed with participation of interested private and public agencies.

Urban Mass Transporta- Urban transportation planning process 23 USC 128(a) tion Capital lmprovement must involve the public. 23 CFR 450.120, Grants 771, 790

Urban Mass Transporta- Urban transportation planning process 23 USC 128(a) tion Technical Studies must involve the public 23 CFR 450.120, Grants 771.790 APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

Appalachian Supple- 40 App USC 107(a), ments to Federal @),and 225(a), (b) Grants-in-Aid (Com- ARC Code sec. munity Development)13 200A-2.4 Appalachian Develop- States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), ment Highway System14 assure opportunity for affected public to @),and 225(a), (b) participate in state and regional planning ARC Code sec. process. Apart from hearings, states must 200 A-2.4 and assure early public notice, availability of 201 A-7 draft plans and programs. Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS. BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MA,lad TYPE OF REQ~IREMENT (December 1978) Boards or Committees

CFDA Statute (USC) and/or Number CFDA Titk Other Regulation (CFR)

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION Icont.)

23.004 Appalachian Health States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), Program assure opportunity for affected public to (b), 202, and participate in state and regional planning 22W, (b) process. Apart from hearings, states must ARC Code sec. assure early public notice, availability of 200A-2.4 draft plans and programs.

23.005 Appalachian Housing States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), Project: Site Develop- assure opportunity for affected public to (b),and 225(a), (b) ment and Off-Site participate in state and regional planning ARC Code sec. Improvement Grant process. Apart from hearings, states must 2WA-2.4 assure early public notice, availability of draft plans and programs.

23.005 Appalachian Housing States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), Project: Planning and assure opportunity for affected public to (b),jand 225(a), (b) Obtaining Financing participate in stateand regional planning ARC Code sec. process. Apart from hearings, states must BOA-2.4 assure early public notice, availability of draft plans and programs. Appalachian Local States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a) Access Roads1' assure opportunity tor affected public to (b), and 225(a), (b) participate in state and regional planning ARC Code sec. process. Apart from hearings, states must 201 A-7 assure early public notice, availability of draft plans and programs.

Appalachian Local States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a) Development District assure opportunity for affected public to (b),and 225(a), (b) Assistance participate in state and regional planning ARC Code sec. process. Apart from hearings, states must MOA-2.4 and assure early public notice, availability of 302A-6.3(i)(ii) draft plans and programs.

Appalachian Mine Area States and local development districts must Restoration assure opportunity for affected public to participate in state and regional planning process. Apart from hearings, states must assure early public notice, availability of draft plans and programs.

Appalachian State States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), Research, Technical assure opportunity for affected public to (b),and 225(a), (b) Assistance and participate in state and regional planning Demonstration Projects process. Apart from hearings, states must assure early public notice, availability of draft plans and programs.

Appalachian Vocational States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), and Other Education assure opportunity for affected public to (b), and 225(a), (b) Facilities and Operations participate in state and regional planning ARC Code sec. process. Apart from hearings, states must MOA-2.4,211-1.3.2(2 assure early public notice, availability of and 2118-3.1(4) draft plans and programs. Projects must be selected with involvement of all sectors of the community. Regional education service agencies must encourage community involvement. N 0 0 Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION, IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJORTYPE OF REQUIREMENT (December 1978) Boards or Committees

CFDA Statute (USC) and/or Number CFDA Title Other Regulation (CFR)

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION (Cont.)

Appalachian Vocational States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), and Technical Educa- assure opportunity for affected public to (b), and 225(a), (b) tion Demonstration participate in state and regional planning ARC Code sec. Projects: Planning, process. Apart from hearings, states must 200A-2.4, 211-1.3.2(2 Construction, and assure early public notice, availability of and 211B-3.1(4) Operation draft plans and programs. Projects must be selected with involvement of all sectors of the community. Regional education service agencies must encourage community involvement.

Appalachian Child States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), Development assure opportunity for affected public to +),and 225(a), (b) participate in state and regional planning ARC Code sec. process. Apart from hearings, states must 200A-2.4.2028-5.2 assure early public notice, availability of draft plans and programs. Process for developing state child development plan must involve participation by area, county, and community officials, agencies and citizen groups.

Appalachian Highway States and local development districts must 40 App USC 107(a), System: Special Trans- assure opportunity for affected public to @),and 225(a), (b) portation Related participate in state and regional planning ARC Code sec. Planning Research and process. Apart from hearingj, states must 200A-2.4and 201A-7 Development14 assure early public notice, availability of draft plans and programs. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

National Historical 41 CFR 105-65.203-2 Publications and Records Grants

COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Community Action All programs for poor or low income areas 42 USC 2781 (a)(4) must be developed and implemented with 45 CFR 1060.1-2 maximum feasible participation of residents of areas and members of the groups served.

Community Food and All programs for poor or low income areas 42 USO 2781 (a)(4) Nutrition must be developed and implemented with and 2809(a)(5) maximum feasible participation of resi- 45 CFR 1060.1-2 dents of areas and members of the groups served.

Community Action: All programs for poor or low income areas 42 USC 2781 (a) (4) Senior Opportunities must be developed and implemented with and 2809(a)(7) and Services maximum feasible participation of resi- 45 CFR 1060.1-2 dents of areas and members of the groups served.

Community Economic Projects must be planned and carried out 42 USC 2982 Development with fullest participation of local businessmen and representatives of financial institutions.

State Economic All programs for poor or low-income areas 12 USC 2781 (a)(4), Opportunity Offices must be developed and implemented with 2824 maximum feasible participation of residents of areas and members of groups served.

Emergency Conserva- 12 USC 28O9(a) (12) tion Services

Summer Youth All programs for poor or low income areas ,2 USC 2781(a)(4) anc Recreation must be developed and implemented with !809(a) (13) maximum feasible participation of residents of areas and members of the groups sewed. N 0 N

Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION, IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJORTYPE OF REQUIREMENT (December 1978)

Boards or Committees 1 i,e Q, .-n .-u E: P n36 m -e C 0 2 Statute (USC) and/or $ $ INumber CFDA Title Other U Regulation (CFR) a ( WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Water Resources States must provide for part~cipationby 18 CFR 703.2(c) Planning all public or private agencies or interests that may affect or be affected by resource management.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Air Pollution Control State implementation plan must provide 42 USC 1857c-5(a)(l) Program Grants for enhancing public's awareness of, and 7427, 7428 ways to participate in, efforts to improve 40 CFR 35.520(f) air quality.

Construction Grants for States must provide for public participa- 33 USC 1251(e) Waste Water Treatment tion in development, review, and enforce- 40 CFR 35.917-5 and Works ment of regulations, standards, effluent 105 limitation plan or program. Mechanisms include informational materials, technical and informational assistance, consultation, notification, information access, comment on proposed rules.

Water Pollution Con- States must provide for public participa- 33 USC 1251(e) trol-State and Inter- tion in development, review, and enforce- 40 CFR 105, 130.10, state Program Grants ment of regulations, standards, effluent 131.20 limitation plan or program. Mechanisms include informational materials, technical and informational assistance, consultation, notification, information access, comment on proposed rules. State and areawide planning processes must include public participation.

Water Pollution Con- States must provide for public participa- 33 USC 1251(e) trol-State and Areawide tion in development, review, and enforce- 40 CFR 105, 130.10, Water Quality Manage- ment of regulations, standards, effluent 131.20 ment Planning Agency limitation plan, or program. Mechanisms include informational materials, technical and informational assistance, consultation, notification, information access, comment on proposed rules. State and area~ide planning processes must include public participation.

State Public Water 12 USC 3OOg-4, 300g- System Supervision 10 CFR 142.20 Program Grants

State Underground State program plan must have a public $0 CFR 35.670-4(b) Water Source Protection participation element to encourage public Program Grants involvement in planning and operation of program. Must include consultation and system for handling citizen complaints.

Solid and Hazardous States must provide for public participa- 12 USC 6974(b) Waste Management tion in the development, revision, imple- 40 CFR 249.1(b), 249. Program Support mentation, and enforcement of any regulation or program. Public participation includes public meetings, conferences, and workshops; development and distribution of materials; and opportunity for public review and comment on proposed regulations.

Solid Waste Manage- States must provide for public participa- 12 USC 6974(b) ment Demonstration tion in the development, revision, imple- 10 CFR 249.1(b), 249. Grants mentation, and enforcement of any regulation or program.

Solid Waste Manage- States must provide for public participa- 12 USC 6974(b) ment Training tion in the development, revision, imple- 10 CFR 249.1(b), 249.. Grants mentation, and enforcement of any regulation or program. N 0 rP

Appendix 4A (cont.) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION IN FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS, BY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, AND MAJORTYPE OF REQUIREMENT (December 1978)

Boards or Commitl C & .g 3 -- 0 Y" eJ P Q)" CFDA E% Statute (USC) and/a Number CFDA Title 3 Other Regulation (CFR)

ACTION

72.001 Foster Grandparen! 45 CFR 1208.3-6 Program

72.002 Retired Senior Volun- 45 CFR 1209.3-2 teer Program

72.008 Senior Companion 45 CFR 1207.3-5 Program

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

81.040 Grants for Offices of State offices of consumer affairs must 10 CFR 460.12(b)(4)(i Consumer Services consider views and data obtained from broad spectrum of consumers.

81.042 Weatherization 42 USC 6863 Assistance Program for 10 CFR 440.14 Low Income Persons

81.050 Energy Extension State's energy outreach plan must be pre- 42 USC 7004 Service pared with opportunity for input from state, 10 CFR 465.7(~)(5) county, and local officials, state universities, colleges, cooperative extension services, community service action agencies, and other public or private organizations involved in active energy outreach programs. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

1 **** General Revenue Prior to second of two required public 31 USC 1241(b) Sharing hearings, recipient jurisdiction must publish proposed uses and summary of proposed budget and make publications available for public inspection. After budget adoption, must make budget summary and statement of proposed use available for public inspection.

* Grant recipient which must comply with CP requirement: 1, state governments; Advisory council for both local educational agency and state educational agency. 2, state and local governments; 3, local governments; and 4, governmental and qtate advisory committee and area advisory council. others. State advisory committee on AFDC and child welfare service programs and ad- ** AClR staff designation of type of citizen participation involved, based on Nelson visory committee on day care services when the advisory committee on AFDC Rosenbaum's classification: (1) clientele control, (2) community consensus (see and CWS does not perform the function. text). lo May be combined with advisory committee required under CFDA #13.645. *** Interim regulations. " Prime sponsor planning council and state manpower services council. **** Not listed in Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. l2 Prime sponsor planning council and youth council. l3 Projects must al o meet citizen participation requirements, if any, applicable to Planning committee required if no other procedure exists for involving public the federal grant programs that are supplemented. Such programs may be for the officials and private citizens in the planning process. acquistion or development of land, the construction or equipment of facilities, or Requires either a statewide health coordinating council, which has some decision other community or economic development or economic adjustment activities. authority, or a state health planning council, which is purely advisory. 40 App USC 214(a), (c). For entire school district and for each school served by a project assisted. l4 Also governed by citizen participation requirements applicable to construction ' State advisory council and local advisory council. and maintenance of federal aid primary and secondary highways. See CFDA Districtwide advisory council and student advisory council. #20.205 above. Separate advisory committees required for recipients that are nonprofit organizations other than local educational agencies, and those that are local educational agencies. SOURCE: AClR staff analysis.

Appendix 4B

MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES OF BOARDS AND COMMITTEES REQUIRED BY FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS TO HAVE CITIZEN REPRESENTATION IN THEIR MEMBERSHIP

Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce CFDA* #10.879 Rural Development Research CFDA #ll.3OO Economic Development - State Rural Development Advisory Council Grants and Loans for Public Works and Develop- Members: Head of school of agriculture in ment Facilities university responsible for administering Rural 1. Economic Development District Governing Development Research program, head of a school Board of engineering, and at least ten more members Members: Broadly representative of the prin- representing farmers, business, labor, banking, cipal economic interests of the district, including local government, multicounty planning and business, labor, agriculture, minority groups and development districts, public and private representatives of the unemployed and un- colleges, and federal and state agencies in- deremployed. Shall include at least a simple volved in rural development. majority of elected public officials. One-third of Activities: Advises chief administrative of- members shall be private citizens who are neither ficer of the university. elected officials nor employees of local general CFDA #10.881 Cooperative Extension Service purpose governments. State Rural Development Advisory Council Activities: Establishes and implements overall Members and Activities: Same as CFDA economic development program; coordinates #10.879. federal, state, and local development activities within the district. CFDA #10.901 Resource Conservation and Development 2. Overall Economic Development Program (OEDP) Committee Citizen Resource Committee Members: Representative of the community; Members: Interested groups, local citizen shall include representatives of local govern- leaders, and individuals. ment, business, industry, finance, agriculture, Activities: Advises Resource Conservation the professions, organized labor, utilities, educa- and Development Council. tion, racial or cultural minorities, and the unemployed or underemployed. *Executive Office of the President, Office of Management Activities: Preparation of OEDP; submission and Budget. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Wash- to OEDP governing board in areas included in ington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, annual. economic development district. CFDA #11.302 Economic Development- HSPs of HSAs; (3) conducts public hearing on Support for Planning Organizations proposed state health plan; (4) annually reviews Economic Development District Governing the budget of each HSA; (5) reviews applications Board for grants submitted by HSAs and submits the Members and Activities: Same as CFDA comments to Secretary; (6) gives general advice #11.300 [I). on the operation of the state health agency; and CFDA #1 1.305 Economic Development-State (7) reviews annually and approves or disapproves any state plan and any application and Local Economic Development Planning submitted to the Secretary as a condition to the Special Planning Committee receipt of funds under the Public Health Service Members: Public and private citizens broadly Act, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, representative of the community. or the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Activities: Assists public officials in planning Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment, and for economic development. Rehabilitation Act of 1970. CFDA #11.306 Economic Development- 2. State Health Planning Council District Operational Assistance Members: Includes representatives of federal, Economic Development District Governing state, and local agencies and nongovernmental Board organizations and groups concerned with health, Members and Activities: Same as CFDA and consumers of health services. 208 #11.3GG (I), Activities: Advises state health agency. CFDA #11.308 Public Works and Economic CFDA #13.220 Medical Facilities Construc- Development: Supplemental and Basic Grants tion -Formula Grant Economic Development District Governing 1. Governing Body, Health Systems Agency Board (HSA) Members and Activities: Same as CFDA Members: 50-60% are residents of the health #11.300 (1). service area who are consumers of health care and not providers and are broadly representative of social, economic, linguistic, and racial populations, geographic areas, and major purchasers HEW-Public Health Service of health care. Remainder are residents and providers and represent health care CFDA #13.210 Comprehensive Public Health professionals, health care institutions, health Services (314) (dl care insurers, health professional schools and 1. Statewide Health Coordinating Council allied health professions. Members must include Members: (A) No less than 16 representatives elected officials and other representatives of gov- appointed by Governor from lists submitted by ernments and representatives of public and health service agencies, not less than one-half of private agencies; proportionate percentage of which shall be consumers, not providers, of individuals who reside in nonmetropolitan area; health care; (B) Governor may also appoint such and one representative of health maintenance others as he deems appropriate, but these may organizations in the area. not exceed 40% of total membership and the Activities: Responsible for internal affairs of majority must be consumers who are not also HSA; establishes health systems plan and annual providers of health care; (C) not less than one- implementation plan; approves of grants and third of the providers who are members of the contracts to achieve health systems described in SHCC shall be direct providers of health care. the health systems plan; and approves or Activities: Advises state health planning and disapproves proposed use of federal aid funds development agency. To this end: (1) reviews authorized under Public Health Service Act, annually and coordinates health services plan including funds for medical facilities construc- (HSP) and annual implementation plan (AIP) of tion. each health service agency (HSA) in the state and 2. Statewide Health Coordinating Council reports to Secretary its comments on HSP and Members and Activities: Same as CFDA AIP; (2) prepares a state health plan made up of #13.210 (1). CFDA #I3224 Community Health Centers ernmental organizations, of groups to be served Governing Board with attention to assuring representation of Members: Individuals, a majority of whom are minority and poverty groups, and of public being served by the center and who, as a group, agencies concerned with prevention and treat- represent individuals served by the center in ment of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, and at terms of demographic factors, such as race, least one representative of statewide health ethnicity, and sex. No more than one-half of the coordinating council. remaining members may be individuals who Activities: Consults with state agency in derived more than 10% of their annual income carrying out the state plan. from the health care industry. Remaining CFDA #I3269 Drug Abuse Prevention Formula members shall be representative of the communi- Grants ty in which center's catchment area is located and shall be selected for their expertise in State Advisory Council community affairs, local government, finance Members: Includes representatives of non- and banking, legal affairs, trade unions, and governmental organizations or groups and of other commercial and industrial concerns, or public agencies concerned with prevention and social service agencies. treatment of drug abuse and dependence from Activities: Establishes general policies (in- different geographical areas of the state. cluding services to be provided and hours of Activities: Consults with state agency in service), approves annual budget, and approves carrying out the state plan. 209 selection of director. Specific responsibility for CFDA #13.292 establishing personnel policies and procedures, Sudden lnfant Death Syndrome Information and Counseling Program adopting policy for financial management practices, evaluating center activities, assuring Project Community Council operation and compliance with applicable Members: At least one-third are represen- federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and tatives of community being served, including adopting health care policies. representatives of parents' groups or other voluntary civic or community organizations. CFDA #I3246 Migrant Health Centers Shall also include representatives of health care, Governing Board social services, or public safety professions. Members: Individuals, a majority of whom are Activities: Consultation and advice. being served by the center and who as a group, represent individuals being served by the center. CFDA #13.293 State Health Planning and Further provisions same as CFDA #13.224. Development Agencies Activities: Establishes services, including Statewide Health Coordinating Council selection of services and hours of service, Members and Activities: Same as CFDA approves annual budget, approves selection of #13.210 (1). director. Further provisions same as CFDA g13.224. CFDA #13.294 Health Planning-Health Systems Agencies CFDA #13.256 Health Maintenance Organiza- Governing Body, Health Systems Agency tion Development Members and Activities: Same as CFDA Policymaking Body g13.220 (1). Members: At least one-third of members of policymaking body must be members of the CFDA g13.295 Community Mental Health organization, and members from medically Centers-Comprehensive Services Support underserved areas served by organization must Governing Body, Community Mental Health have equitable representation. Center (CMHC] Activities: As determined by each HMO. Members: Persons who reside in the catchment area and who represent residents, taking into CFDA #13.257 Alcohol Formula Grants consideration employment, age, sex, place of State Advisory Council residence and other demographic characteristics. Members: Includes representatives of nongov- At least one-half of the members shall not be providers of health care. Agencies operated by a Members and Activities: Same as CFDA government agency before July 29, 1975, and g13.427 (1)and (2). receiving a grant under 42 USC 2688, shall appoint a committee to advise them on CFDA g13.429 Educationally Deprived operations. Such committees must have the same Children-Migrants membership as above. 1. State Advisory Council Activities: Establishes general policies, ap- Members: Parents of children to be served or proves annual budget, and approves selection of who are being served and of other persons a director. knowledgeable about the needs of migratory children. HEW-Office of Education Activities: Advises state educational agency CFDA #13.416 Teacher Centers concerning the operation and evaluation of the present state program and local projects and Teacher Center Policy Board planning of future programs and projects. Members: Majority are representative of the elementary and secondary classroom teachers to 2. Advisory Council-Operating Agency (local be served by such center, fairly representing the education agency or other public or nonprofit makeup of all school teachers including special private agency) education and vocational education. They also Members and Activities: Same as for state include individuals representative of, or advisory council. 210 designated by, the school board of the local CFDA #13.433 Follow Through Programs educational agency and at least one represen- Policy Advisory Committee tative designated by institutions of higher Members: More than one-half shall be low education in the area. income follow-through parents elected by all Activities: Supervises the operation of the such parents annually. The remaining members teacher center. shall be chosen by the parent members from CFDA #13.427 Educationally Deprived among the various persons and representatives Children-Handicapped of agencies and organizations in the community 1. Advisory Council (entire school district). and who have shown concern in the interests of Members: A majority are parents of the chil- low income persons. dren eligible to be served. All members are Activities: (1)Helps develop components of the selected by the parents of the school attendance project proposal and approve them in their final area. form; (2) assists in developing criteria for Activities: Advises local educational agency in selecting professional staff and recommends the planning for, implementation and evaluation selection of staff; (3) same responsibility with of educational program for handicapped respect to nonprofessional and paraprofessional children. staff; (4) exercises primary role in developing 2. Advisory Council (For Each School Served by criteria for selection and recruiting of eligible a Project Assisted) children; and (5) establishes and operates a Members: A Majority are parents of the chil- procedure for promptly and fairly considering dren eligible to be served. All members are complaints. selected by the parents of the school attendance CFDA #13.444 Handicapped Early Childhood area. Assistance Activities: Advises the local educational Advisory Council agency in planning for and implementing and Members: At least one-fourth shall be parents evaluating handicapped programs and projects from area served and at least two such parents of the affected school. shall be parents of children served. CFDA #13.428 Educationally Deprived Activities: Assists actively in (1) planning, Children-Local Educational Agencies development, and operation of the program; (2) 1. Advisory Council (entire school district) acquainting community with the program; (3) 2. Advisory Council (for each school served by a dissemination of information; and (4) evaluat- project assisted) ing success. CFDA #13.449 Handicapped Pre-School and CFDA #13.491 University Community School Programs Service-Grants to States State Advisory Panel State Advisory Council Members: Individuals involved and concerned Required only where the designated state with education of handicapped children. Must agency does not have special qualifications for include at least one person representative of solving community problems and/or is not handicapped individuals, teachers of han- broadly representative of institutions of higher dicapped children, parents of handicapped chil- education in the state which are competent to dren, state and local educational officials, and offer community service and continuing educa- special education program administrators. tion programs. Activities: Advises state educational agency of Members: Must have special qualifications for unmet needs within the state, comments publicly solving community problems and be broadly on proposed regulations, and assists state in representative of institutions of higher education developing and reporting such data and in the state competent to offer community service evaluations as may assist the commissioner of and continuing education programs. education. Activities: Consults with the designated state agency in the preparation of the state plan. CFDA #13.464 Library Services-Grants for CFDA #13.493 Vocational Education-Basic Public Libraries Grants to States State Advisory Council on Libraries 1. State Advisory Council 211 Members: Broadly representative of public, Members: A majority are persons who are not school, academic, special, and institutional educators or administrators in education and libraries, and libraries serving the handicapped. include one or more individuals who: represent Activities: Advises state library ad- vocational needs and problems of management in ministrative agency of the development of, and the state, of labor, of agriculture, state industrial policy matters arising in administration of, the and economic development agencies, community state plan, and assists in evaluation of activities. and junior colleges, other institutions of higher CFDA #13.465 Library Services-Interlibrary education, area vocational schools, technical Cooperation institutes, and post-secondary agencies; have State Advisory Council on Libraries special knowledge, experience or qualifications Members and Activities: Same as CFDA regarding vocational education but are not g13.464. involved in administration of state or local vocational education programs; represent public CFDA #13.489 Teacher Corps-Operations and programs of vocational education in comprehen- Training sive secondary schools, nonprofit private 1. Community Council schools, vocational guidance and counseling Members: Representative of the community in services, state correctional institutions, which projects are located and of parents of vocational education teachers presently teaching students of elementary or secondary schools to be in local education agencies, superintendents or served by projects. other administrators of local educational agen- Activities: Participates with local educational cies, local school boards, the state manpower agency or institutions of higher education in services council, school systems with large planning, carrying out, and evaluating projects. concentrations of persons who have special academic, social, economic, and cultural needs 2. Policy Board and have limited English-speaking ability; are Members: Dean of school of education or other women familiar with sex discrimination in component that offers graduate training in the employment; have special knowledge regarding institution of higher education; superintendent of special educational needs of physically or local educational agency; and chairperson of mentally handicapped persons; represent the community council. general public, including a person or persons Activities: Supervises planning and operation representing and knowledgeable about the poor of each project. and disadvantaged; and are vocational education students who are not qualified under any of the CFDA #13.525 Emergency School Aid Act- above categories. Basic Grants to Local Educational Agencies Activities: Advises state board in development 1. Districtwide Advisory Committee of five-year state plan and annual program plan Members: Selected by at least five civic or and accountability report; evaluates vocational community organizations, broadly represen- education programs; identifies vocational educa- tative of minority and nonminority groups to be tion and employment and training needs; and served. After consulting with teacher assesses extent to which vocational education, organizations, the local educational agency shall employment training, vocational rehabilitation, either designate nonminority group classroom and other programs represent a consistent, inte- teacher and one such teacher from each minority grated and coordinated approach to meeting such group, or delegate designation of such teachers to needs. such organization. Committee must be composed 2. Local Advisory Council of equal numbers of nonminority group members Members: Representatives of the general and members from each minority group substan- public including at least a representative of tially represented in the community. At least 50% business, industry, and labor. Must have an shall be parents of children directly affected by appropriate representation of both sexes and of the program. The above committee members the racial and ethnic minorities found in the select at least one nonminority secondary school program areas, schools, community, or region student and an equal number from each minority 212 which the local advisory council serves. group. Activities: Advises the local eligible edu- Activities: The committee comments on the cational agency or post-secondary educa- application by the local education agency for tional institution which receives federal assis- basic grants. The local education agency consults tance under the act on current job needs and with the committee at least once a month on the relevance of programs being offered by the policy matters arising in the administration and local educational agency or post-secondary operation of the program. Committee must have educational agency in meeting current job needs. opportunity to observe and comment on all project-related activities. CFDA #13.494 Vocational Education- 2. Student Advisory Committee (created by the Consumer and Homemaking Program local educational agency at each school affected 1. State Advisory Council by the program) 2. Local Advisory Council Members: Equal numbers of nonminority Members and Activities: Same as CFDA group students and of students for each minority #13.493 (1) and (2). group substantially represented in the school. Must be at least six members and all must be CFDA #13.498 Vocational Education-Program selected by the student body or the student gov- Improvement Project ernment of each school. 1. State Advisory Council Activities: Advises the local educational agen- 2. Local Advisory Council Members and Activities: Same as CFDA CY CFDA #13.526 Emergency School Aid Act- #13.493 (1) and (2). Pilot Programs (special programs and projects) CFDA #13.499 Vocational Education-Special 1. Districtwide Advisory Committee Needs 2. Student Advisory Committee State Advisory Council Members and Activities: Same as CFDA Members and Activities: Same as CFDA #13.525 (1)and (2). #13.493 (1). CFDA #13.528 Emergency School Aid- CFDA g13.500 ~ocationai Education-State Bilingual Education Project Advisory Councils 1. Districtwide Advisory Committee State Advisory Council 2. Student Advisory Committee Members and Activities: Same as CFDA Members and Activities: Same as CFDA #13.493 (1). #13.525 (1)and (2). CFDA #13.529 Emergency School Aid Act- organizations shall each select a member of the Special Programs and Projects (nonprofit advisory committee. These organizations when organizations) taken together shall be broadly representative of Districtwide Advisory Committee the minority and nonminority communities to be Members: At least five civic or community served. The committee must be composed of an organizations each selects a member of the equal number of nonminority group members committee. When taken together these and of members from each minority group organizations are broadly representative of the substantially represented in the area to be served minority and nonminority communities to be by the proposed television programming. At least served. The applicant shall invite the ap- 50% of the nonstudent members of the committee propriate local educational agency to designate shall be parents of children at whom the as a member of the committee at least one person proposed TV programming will be directed. who is the administrator, principal, or teacher Where the proposed TV programming will be employed by such agency or a member of the directed at secondary school age students, at school board of such agency. In addition, if the least 50% of the total membership of the com- local educational agency has applied for, or re- mittee must be secondary school students ceived, assistance, the applicant shall invite the enrolled in the secondary school or schools advisory committee formed by such agency to located within the area to be served by the designate at least one of its members as a member proposed TV programming. Among such student of the committee. The committee must be members there must be equal numbers of composed of equal numbers of nonminority nonminority group persons and persons from 213 group members and members from each minority each minority group substantially represented in group substantially represented in the communi- the area to be served by the proposed television ty or in the student body of the appropriate local programming. educational agency. At least 50% of the nonstu- Activities: Advises the applicant in identifying dent members shall be parents of children problems and assessing the needs to be ad- directly affected by a plan or project. In addition dressed by the application. to members appointed to the committee by civic 2. Districtwide Area Advisory Committee (local or community organizations and those selected educational agencies) from persons designated by a local educational Members: Same as in CFDA #l3.525 (1)except agency, the applicant shall select the minimum that the area of reference is the entire area to be number of additional persons as may be served by the proposed TV programming, and the necessary to meet the specified requirements. In designations of teachers and students shall be addition to all the above, the applicant shall with reference to the entire area to be served by select from the schools of the appropriate local the proposed television programming. educational agency equal numbers of nonminori- Activities: Same as CFDA #13.525. ty groups secondary students and of such CFDA 813.532 Emergency School Aid Act- students from each minority group substantially Special Programs represented in the community so that the number of such students so selected will constitute 50%of 1. Districtwide Advisory Committee the total membership of such committee. 2. Student Advisory Committee Activities: Advises the agency, institution, or Members and Activities: Same as CFDA organization applying for assistance in iden- #13.525. tifying problems and assessing the needs to be CFDA #13.533 Right to Read-Elimination of addressed by the application for assistance. Illiteracy CFDA #13.530 Emergency School Aid Act- State Advisory Council on Reading Educational TV Members: Broadly representative of 1. Areawide Advisory Committee (for public or educational resources of the state and of the private nonprofit agencies, institutions, or general public, including persons representative organizations other than local educational agen- of (A) public and private nonprofit elementary cies) school children, (B) institutions of higher educa- Members: At least five civic or community tion, (C) parents of elementary school children, and (D) areas of professional competence relating 2. Local Advisory Council to instruction in reading. Members and Activities: Same as CFDA Activities: Advises state educational agency 813.493 (1)and (2). on formulation of the standard of excellence for reading programs in the elementary schools and CFDA 813.562 Education for Gifted and on the evaluation of results of the program. Talented Children and Youth CFDA 813.534 Indian Education-Grants to Advisory Committee Local Educational Agencies Members: Persons broadly representative of the community and the school district to be Advisory Committee served by the program or project, including Members: Composed of, and selected by, persons representing agencies or other entities parents of children participating in the program serving the needs of the gifted and talented, for which assistance is sought, teachers, and, teachers, administrators, gifted students, non- where applicable, secondary school students. At public school representative~,and parents of least half the members shall be parents. gifted and talented children. Activities: Participates in the development of, Activities: Advice. and approves of, the application for a grant under this program. Participates in the operation and CFDA 813.566 Elementary and Secondary evaluation of the program. School Education in the Arts CFDA 813,549 Ethnic Heritage Studies 1. Advisory Committee, Local Educational 214 Program Agency Advisory Council Members: Persons broadly representative of Members: Each ethnic group concerned is arts resources in the area. represented on the council. More than one-half Activities: Advice. the membership shall consist of community 2. Advisory Committee, State Educational representatives of the ethnic group or groups. Agency Membership is broadly representative of Members: Persons broadly representative of educational and professional backgrounds rele- arts resources throughout the state. vant to the program and at least one member is Activities: Advice in developing and carrying affiliated with an educational organization and out the project. has expertise and experience in curriculum CFDA 813.570 Libraries and Learning development, training of personnel, and/or Resources dissemination of curriculum materials. Activities: Advises applicant regarding plan- State Advisory Council ning of the program and preparation of the Members: Broadly representative of cultural application and conduct semi-annual assessment and educational resources of state and of the of the program. public, including representatives of public and private elementary schools, institutions of CFDA 813.551 Indian Education-Grants to higher education, and the field of professional NonIocal Educational Agencies competence in dealing with children needing Parent Committee special education. Members: Selected by parents of Indian chil- Activities: Advises state educational agency dren to be served, teachers, and, where on preparation of, and policy matters arising in applicable, Indian secondary school students. administration of, state plan; evaluate all Membership proportionate to total number of programs and projects and prepare annual Indian children to be served, but no more than 40. report. Activities: Participates in needs assessments and priority determinations. Must approve the CFDA 813.586 Bilingual Vocational Instructor application and projects and activities to be Training implemented by the applicant which affect the 1. State Advisory Council community to be served. 2. Local Advisory Council CFDA 813.558 Bilingual Vocational Training Members and Activities: Same as CFDA 1. State Advisory Council g13.493 (1) and (2). CFDA #13.587 Bilingual Vocational Instruc- with respect to such an entity. Of this one-half of tional Materials, Methods and Techniques membership, at least one-third shall be persons 1. State Advisory Council with developmental disabilities, at least one- 2. Local Advisory Council third shall be individuals with immediate Members and Activities: Same as CFDA relatives or guardians of persons with mentally #13.493 (1)and (2). impairing developmental disabilities, and at least one of such individuals shall be an CFDA #13.589 Emergency School Aid-Magnet immediate relative or guardian of an Schools, UniversitylBusiness Cooperation institutionalized person with a developmental 1. Districtwide Advisory Committee disability. 2. Student Advisory Committee Activities: Develops a state plan jointly with Members and Activities: Same as CFDA the designated state agency(ies). Monitors, #13.525 (1)and (2). reviews, and evaluates implementation of the plan; reviews and comments on all state plans CFDA #I3590 Emergency School Aid-Neutral which relate to programs affecting persons with Site Planning developmental disabilities. 1. Districtwide Advisory Commitee 2. Student Advisory Committee CFDA #13.633 Special Programs for the Members and Activities: Same as CFDA Aging-State Agency Activities and Area H13.525 (1) and (2). Planning in Social Services Programs Pre-School lncentive Grants (Not in 1978 CFDA) 1. State Advisory Committee Members: At least one-half the members are Advisory Panel (state) actual consumers of services including low Members: Individuals involved in, or concern- income and minority older persons, at least in ed with, education of handicapped children. proportion to the number of minority older Activities: Advises state education agency of persons in the state, with the rest broadly unmet needs within the state and education of representative of major public and private handicapped children; comments on pertinent agencies and organizations. rules and regulations issued by the state; assists Activities: Advises the Governor and state state in developing and reporting data and agency in the implementation of the state plan. evaluations. 2. Area Advisory Council Members: Representatives of program HEW-Office of Human Development participants and the general public, including Services low income and older minority persons at least in CFDA g13.630 Developmental Disabilities- proportion to the number of minority older Basic Support persons in the area. At least one-half of the members shall be actual consumers of services. State Planning Council Activities: Advises the area agency on all Members: Representatives of the principal matters regarding development and state agencies, higher education training administration of the area plan and operations. facilities, local agencies, and nongovernmental agencies and groups concerned with services to CFDA #13.635 Special Programs for the persons with developmental disabilities. At least Aging-Nutrition Program for the Elderly one-half of the membership shall consist of Project Council persons who are developmentally disabled or Members: More than one-half shall be actual parents or guardians of such persons, or are consumers of nutrition services. Consumer immediate relatives or guardians of persons with members shall be representative of congregate mentally impairing developmental disabilities, meal sites and be elected by participants at such who are not employees of a state agency which sites. Other members shall include persons receives funds or provides services, who are not competent in field of service in which nutrition is managing employees of any other entity which being provided and knowledgeable with respect receives funds or provides services, and who are to the needs of the elderly persons. not persons with an ownership or control interest Activities: Advises recipient on all matters regarding delivery of nutrition services and ap- familiar with the medical needs of low income proves all policy decisions on (1)determination groups and with the resources available and of general menus, (2) establishment of suggested required for their care; members of consumer fee guidelines, (3) days and hours of project groups, including Title XIX recipients, and operation, and (4) decorating and furnishing of consumer organizations; and director of the meal sites. public welfare department or of the public health CFDA #13.639 Special Programs for the department, whichever does not have the single Aging-Title V Multiple Purpose Senior Centers state agency for the Title XIX plan. Activities: Advises on policy development and Area Advisory Council program administration, including furtherance Members and Activities: Same as CFDA of recipient participation in the agency's #13.633 (2). program. CFDA M3.645 Child Welfare Services-State Grants CFDA #13.766 Health Financing Research, Demonstrations and Experiments 1. Advisory Committee on AFDC and CWS State Medical Care Advisory Committee Programs (must be established at the state level Members and Activities: Same as CFDA and local levels where the programs are locally administered, except that in local jurisdictions Rl3.714. with small caseloads alternate procedures for securing similar participation may be HEW-Social Security Administration established) CFDA #13.810 Assistance Payments-State Members: Representatives of other state and Local Training agencies concerned with services, repre- Advisory Committee on Aged, Blind, and sentatives of professional, civic or other public Disabled (at the state level and at the local level or private organizations, private citizens in- where programs are locally administered, except terested and experienced in service programs, that in local jurisdictions of small caseloads and recipients of assistance or services or their alternate procedures for securing similar representatives who shall constitute at least one- participation may be established. This advisory third of the membership. committee may be combined with the AFDC- Activities: Advises the principal policy setting CWS advisory committee described in CFDA administrative officials of the agency and #13.645) participates in policy development and program Members: Representatives of other state agen- administration. cies concerned with services, representatives of 2. Advisory Committee on Day Care Services professional, civic, or other public or private (must be established at the state level, either as a organizations, private citizens interested and separate committee, or all or part of the advi- experienced in service programs, and recipients sory committee on AFDC and CWS programs of assistance or services or their representa- may be assigned this function) tives, who shall constitute at least one-third the Members: Must have at least one-third membership. members drawn from recipients or their Activities: Advises the principal policy setting representatives and include representatives and administrative officials in the agency. similar to those provided in the state and local AFDC and CWS advisory committees. CFDA #13.814 Refugee Assistance-lndo- Activities: See Advisory Committee on AFDC chinese Refugees and CWS. Advisory Board Members: Equal numbers of representatives HEW-Health Care Financing from among the refugee community, mental Administration health clinicians, and social services agencies. Activities: Advises grantee. CFDA #13.714 Medical Assistance Program State Medical Care Advisory Committee HEW-Public Health Service-ll Members: Board certified physicians and other representatives of the health professions who are CFDA #13.887 Medical Facilities Construction-Project Grants shall be under the age of 26. Activities: Advises state's planning agency 1. Governing Body, Health Systems Agency and its supervisory board. 2. Statewide Health Coordinating Council Members and Activities: Same as CFDA #13.220 (1)and (2). Department of Labor CFDA #17.207 Employment Service Department of Justice State Advisory Council CFDA #16.500 Law Enforcement Assistance- Members: Men and women representing Comprehensive Planning Grants employers and employees in equal numbers and State Planning Agency Supervisory Board the public. Members: Representatives of law enforcement Activities: Formulates policies and discusses and criminal justice agencies, including agencies problems relating to employment and ensures directly related to the prevention and control of impartiality, neutrality, and freedom from juvenile delinquency, units of general local gov- political influence in the solution of such ernment, public agencies maintaining programs problems. to reduce and control crime, and representatives CFDA #I7230 Migrant and Seasonal Farm of citizens, professionals, and community Workers organizations, including organizations directly Prime Sponsor Manpower Planning Council related to delinquency prevention. Members: Representatives of the participant 217 Activities: Views, approves, and maintains community and of community-based general oversight of the state plan and its organizations, the state employment security implementation. agency, education and training agencies and CFDA #16.502 Law Enforcement Assistance- institutions, business, organized labor, and Improving and Strengthening Law Enforcement where appropriate, agriculture. and Criminal Justice Activities: Advises the prime sponsor in the State Planning Agency Supervisory Board setting of basic goals, policies, and procedures. Members and Activities: Same as CFDA CFDA #I7232 Comprehensive Employment #16.500. and Training Programs CFDA #16.516 Law Enforcement Assistance- 1. Prime Sponsor Planning Council Juvenile Delinquency Prevention-Allocation to Members: Representatives of the client com- States munity and of community-based organizations, Advisory Group the employment services, education and training Members: Not less than 21 and not more than agencies and institutions, business, labor, and 33 shall have training, experience, or special where appropriate, agriculture. knowledge concerning prevention and treatment Activities: Submits recommendations for of juvenile delinquency or the administration of program plans and basic goals, policies, and juvenile justice agencies, and public agencies procedures; monitors and provides for objective units of local government, law enforcement and evaluations of employment and training juvenile justice agencies, and public agencies programs conducted in prime sponsorship area; concerned with delinquency prevention or and provides for continuing analyses of needs for treatment such as welfare, social services, employment, training, and related services in mental health, education, or youth services such areas. departments; shall include representatives of 2. State Manpower Services Council private organizations concerned with Members: (i) Representatives of the unit or delinquency prevention or treatment, neglected combinations of units of general local govern- or dependent children, quality of juvenile justice, ment, who shall comprise at least one-third of the education or social services for children; the membership of the council, which have com- majority of whose members shall not be full-time prehensive manpower plans approved, (ii) one employees of the federal, state, or local govern- representative each of the state board of ment; and at least one-third of whose members vocational education in the public employment service, (iii) one representative of the state Public Service Employment Program (Not in advisory council on vocational education, (iv) 1978 CFDA) one representative each of such other state 1. Prime Sponsor Manpower Planning Council agency as the Governor may determine to have 2. State Manpower Services Council a direct interest in overall manpower training Members and Activities: Same as CFDA and utilization within the state, (v) representa- #17.232 (1)and (2). tives of organized labor, (vi) representatives of business and industry, (vii) representatives of Appalachian Regional Commission community-based organizations and of the client community to be served under this chapter, and CFDA #23.OO9 Appalachian Local Development (viii) representatives of the general public. District Assistance Activities: (i) Reviews the plans of each prime sponsor and of state agencies for the provision of Local Development District (LDD) Governing services to such prime sponsors and make Board recommendations to such prime sponsors and Members: Full and fair representation of all agencies, (ii) continuously monitors the opera- sectors of the population in the area served tion of programs conducted by each prime assuring to the fullest extent practicable that the sponsor and the availability, responsiveness, members reflect the composition and interests of and adequacy of state services, (iii) makes an the population in the area; provided, however, annual report to the Governor, and (iv) identifies that a governing board which is required by state 218 the employment and training and vocational law to consist solely of members who are education needs of the state and assesses the appointed from county or municipal posts to extent to which employment training, vocational which they are elected by the entire county or education, vocational rehabilitation and other municipal electorate shall be deemed to satisfy programs are a consistent, integrated, and these requirements. coordinated approach to meeting such needs. Activities: Governing body of the LDD. CFDA R23.013 Appalachian Child Development CFDA #l7.239 Youth Community Conservation lmprovement Program State-Level Interagency Committee Members: Representatives from at least the 1. Prime Sponsor Planning Council state's departments of health, mental health, 2. State Manpower Services Council education, child welfare, the state planning Members and Activities: Same as CFDA agency's human resource or social programs arm #17.232 (1)and (2). (or the functional equivalent of any of the above), CFDA #17.240 Youth Employment and and any state agency providing services to chil- Training dren. 1. Prime Sponsor Planning Council Activities: Carries out, or provides policy Members and Activities: Same as CFDA advice for carrying out, the development of the #17.232 (1). state child development plan. 2. Youth Council Members: Representation from the local General Services Administration educational agency, local vocational education advisory council, post-secondary educational CFDA #39.006 National Historical Publications institutions, business, unions, the state employ- and Records Grants ment security agency, local government and non- State Historical Records Advisory Board government agencies and organizations which Members: At least seven members, including are involved in meeting the special needs of the state's historical records coordinator, who youth, the community served by the applicant, chairs the board. The majority of the members the prime sponsor, and youths themselves. shall have recognized professional experience in Activities: Makes recommendations to the the administration of historical records or in the prime sponsor planning council with respect to field of research that makes extensive use of such planning and review of activities conducted by records. The board is broadly representative as this program. possible of the public and private archival and research institutions and organizations in the propriate local responses to energy problems of state. the poor and recommends to the board standards Activities: Central advisory board for of program quality to be met by each project. historical records planning and for projects developed and carried out within the state. Environmental Protection Agency CFDA #66.001 Air Pollution Control Program Community Services Administration Grants Permit Board CFDA #49.002 Community Action Members: At least a majority must represent 1. Community Action Agency (CAA) Board the public interest and may not derive any Members: At least one-third is representative significant portion of their income from persons of the poor and residents of the areas to be served subject to permits or enforcement orders under by the CAA, chosen in a democratic way. the Air Pollution Act. Activities: Responsible for CAA policies and Activities: Approves permits or enforcement operations. orders under the Air Pollution Act. 2. State Economic Opportunity Office Advisory Action Committee Members: Representatives elected by the CFDA #72.001 Foster Grandparent Program representatives of the poor of each CAA board in Foster Grandparent Advisory Council 219 the state. Members: Representatives of the community, Activities: Participates in development of including major private and public community policies and procedures for the statewide agencies, minority groups, civic and service programs; reviews and comments on the organizations, and representation from volunteer programs; participates in evaluations; and agencies and organizations concerned with the presents findings to the SEOO for its considera- interests of older persons and volunteerism. One- tion. fourth of the members shall be, or represent, low CFDA #49.011 Community Economic income persons, aged 60 or older, and may Development include foster grandparents. Community Development Corporation Gover- Activities: Advises and assists the sponsor in ning Body planning, community support, project operating Members: Not less than 50% must be residents problems, and provides an annual appraisal of of the area served. project operations. Activities: Responsible for corporation's CFDA #72.002 Retired Senior Volunteer policies and operations. Program CFDA #4Y.013 State Economic Opportunity Retired Senior Volunteer Program Advisory Offices Council Members: Representation from volunteer SEOO Advisory Committee agencies, specialists in the field of aging and Members and Activities: Same as CFDA volunteerism, major private organizations and #49.002 (2). public agencies concerned with the best interests CFDA #49.014 Emergency Conservation Ser- of older persons and also volunteers, and other vices citizens of the community able to make a sub- Project Advisory Committees stantial contribution to the project. At least one- Members: Made up of at least 51% poor fourth shall be persons aged 60 and over and persons, including representatives of the local must include retired senior volunteer program governments and other resource agencies within volunteers. the community served as well as a representative Activities: Prior to filing of the project applica- or representatives of the local public utility and tion, gives advice on planning of the project and local fuel dealers. on drafting of the application and, after funding, Activities: Advises the grantee board on gives the sponsors support, assistance, and policies for guiding development of the ap- advice on significant decisions and actions. CFDA $172.008 The Senior Companion Program Department of Energy Advisory Council CFDA #81.042 Weatherization Assistance Pro- Members: Representatives of major private gram for Low Income Persons and public community agencies, minority groups, civic and service organizations, and Policy Advisory Council volunteer agencies and organizations concerned Members: Broadly representative of organiza- with the interests of older persons and tions and agencies providing services to low volunteerism. One-fourth shall be, or represent income persons. low income persons aged 60 or over and include Activities: Advises the responsible official or at least one senior companion as a member. agency administering the allocation of financial Activities: Advises and assists sponsor in assistance in such state or area with respect to planning, support, related project operations and the development and implementation of an annual appraisal. weatherization assistance. Chapter 5 Citizen Participation in State and Local Government

INTRODUCTION There are generally provisions for direct 221 democracy, through initiative and referendum on Citizen participation at the state and local state and/or local legislation, as well as election levels of government is broad and pervasive, yet and recall of officials. Further forms or variants it easily escapes description because of its of direct democracy include voter approval of complexity and the diversity of governments in bond issues, tax limitations or exceptions to the 50 states and the 80,120 local jurisdictions. limitations, and various constitutional change State and local citizen participation also is mechanisms, some of which may be initiated by paradoxical; while these levels of government citizens. Local budgetary processes are often often are viewed as being closer to the citizen and subject to public hearings, as are many nonfiscal thus more subject to popular control, many matters such as zoning changes or even routine groups contend that their decisionmaking pro- ordinance passage. Other mechanisms such as cesses are often closed and secretive. The advisory commissions are common at both the testimony on the reenactment of General Re- state and local levels. Open meeting laws are venue Sharing highlighted these divergent opin- becoming more frequent, and groups are spring- ions. Thus, state and local participation is ing up to enforce their provisions. controversial. One side holds that citizen partici- This chapter reviews available information pation is effective in guiding state and local about these participatory provisions. actions, and the matter should be of no concern to the federal government, while others cite a long BUDGETARY PRACTICES history of closed meetings and tightly held control by local elites, using such examples as the AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS community power literature which indicates business or old family domination.' State Laws Calling for Public Meetings The whole topic is too complex and broad to be and Public Participation in dealt with comprehensively in a part of this Local Budgetary Processes report, even if limited to fiscal issues. However, it is possible to pay some attention to certain types A basic requirement for public participation in of citizen participation about which information the local budget process is that budget discus- exists. Citizen participation requirements exist sions should be open to the public so that citizens to some degree in every state, applying to the may formally express their opinions and be states themselves and to local units of govern- informed about financial decisions for the ment. coming year. Even complete interaction throughout the year, with legislative budget responsive- funds with revenue sharing funds, hearings on, ness to the views expressed, falls short of the and publication of notice for, at least this need to formally act on fiscal matters in the federally funded part of the budget now are presence of citizens. required for almost all jurisdictions-excluding Although not universal, states generally pro- only a few very small ones eligible for waiver of vide by statute that localities hold such hearings, this requirement if it would be unreasonably and often formally announce the time and place burdensome. in advance as well as provide for inspection of the Laws regarding hearings vary significantly proposed or adopted budget. A November 1975, among the states, however. Louisiana municipal- study of state statutes by the Congressional ities, for example, were required to publish the Research Service indicated that: budget but not hold public hearings. Maryland cities must hold a public hearing after two weeks In 35 states, citizens or taxpayers had notice, but the type of notice is not spelled out in some access to the municipal budget the 1973 law. Mississippi requires both munici- process. palities over 1,000 population and all counties to In 30 states, citizens or taxpayers had prepare and publish a budget, but no mention of a some access to the county budget pro- public hearing was found. Several states (includ- cess. ing Minnesota, Georgia, Maine, Alabama, Ver- In 23 states, citizens or taxpayers had mont, New Mexico, Rhode Island, North Caroli- some access to both the city and the na, and West Virginia) do not require local units county budget process. to either publish or hold hearings on the budget. In 38 states, publication was required Conversely, at least 15 states (including Texas, giving notice of a proposed budget Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and/or budget hearings before a final Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New budget could be adopted for a city or York, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and county. In one other state, the proposed Washington) require both publication and hear- county budget was open for inspection ings. About a dozen other states require either before final adoption. municipalities or counties (but not both) to publish and hold hearings. In 32 states, statutes expressly required public hearings before city or county Survey of Localities in the 50 States budgets could be finally adopted. Where a state statute provided for a "public In early 1978, ACIR used the International City hearing," it is herein construed as Management Association's survey facilities to contemplating some public participa- ask a large group of local governments several tion, although most statutes expressly questions about their budgetary practices. All provided for public opportunity to municipalities (including townships) over 10,000 express views for or against budget population, and all counties over 50,000, were items. One other state provided for an surveyed, and about 57%responded overall (60% election to enact the city budget. Two of the municipalities and 45% of the counties). others provided for town meetings, One question dealt with local officials' evalua- implying public participation thereat. tions of citizen participation in the budget Two others provided for written pro- process. Table 5-1 highlights the findings. In tests or petitions to protest items in a general, nearly 60% of local officials indicated proposed city or county budget.2 that local participation takes place through is doubtful that significant changes have formal mechanisms such as hearings and adviso- occurred since this survey was taken. Any ry committees, while the balance of those changes that may have occurred probably result reporting were inclined to report a more informal from the federal revenue sharing requirements form of participation through phone calls or for hearings, notice of hearings, and citizen personal contacts. There was a strong belief by inspection of related documents preceding the local officials that most citizens attended the appropriation of revenue sharing funds. Since budget hearings to seek specific goals or to many jurisdictions mingle their own general represent special interests rather than because of "genuine interest" in the budget process. Over respondents indicated that there is "very little" 84% of municipal and 90% of county officials citizen participation in the budget process, while indicated this feeling (in a set of forced-choice less than 8% described it as a "great deal." Fifty- paired questions). The allocation of funds four percent of municipal and 65% of county through the budget process is not generally officials desired more participation in the pro- associated with citizen controversies, according cess than exists now, while only about 2%desired to respondents. Apparently any community less participation. About a third of municipal and divisions that exist do not emerge at this point. 40% of county officials indicated that citizen In short, most participation is reported to be participation has increased from previous years, through formal channels, with most citizens with under 5% noting a decrease. However, seeking specific goals for themselves or their nearly two-thirds of municipal and nearly 60%of interests. However, the budget process does not county officials noted that very few changes in generally become fraught with controversy. the budget occur because of citizen participation. Counties are slightly more likely than cities to see More county than municipal officials reported controversy as individuals or groups seek that participation had increased a great deal, that additional funding. there was more citizen participation, that they DESIRED LEVELS OF desired more, and that they had made changes in the budget process due to citizen activity. This CITIZEN PARTICIPATION may be because cities had developed higher Local officials also were asked to assess both levels of activity in earlier years, toward which the actual and desired level of citizen participa- counties are now moving. Counties appear to 223 tion. Table 5-2 provides the detailed information. be seeking greater participation now than Slightly over half of both county and municipal municipalities.

Table 5-1 EVALUATIONS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE BUDGET PROCESS BY LOCAL OFFICIALS, 1978 Best Describes Your Situation Paired Questions Municipality County

1. Most participation is informal through phone contacts with government officials OR Participation is usually through advisory committees, hearings, or other parts of the formal structure

2. Most participants attend meetings only to seek additional funding for the special interests they represent OR Citizens attend hearings because of genuine interest in the entire budget process

3. Generally, citizen controversies rarely arise over allocation of funds OR Citizen controversies often arise over allocation of budget funds

Question Municipalities Counties

Very Moderate A Great Very Moderate A Great Little Amount Deal Little Amount Deal Citizen participation in the budget process is . . . 52.3% 41.5% 6.2% 51.3% 41.6% 7.1% About the About the More Same Level Less More Same Level Less Desirable citizen participation in the budget process . . . 54.5% 43.3% 2.2% 65.6% 33.2% 1.2% In- Remained In- Remained Citizen participation in the creased Same Decreased creased Same Decreased budget process has in the last few years . . . 33.9% 61.7% 4.4% 41.3% 54.3% 4.3% Very A Moderate A Substan- Very A Moderate A Substan- How many changes in the Few Number tial Number Few Number tial Number budget process are due to citizen participation? 65.7% 31.0% 3.3% 58.8% 35.4% 5.8%

Common Combinations of Answers Municipalities Counties and 2 There is very little citizen participation in the budget process. More would be desirable. 37.3% 41.3% About the same level is desirable. 13.7 8.9 There is a moderate amount of citizen participation in the budget process. More would be desirable. About the same level is desirable. There is a great deal of citizen participation in the budget process. About the same level is desirable. Miscellaneous combinations.

Citizen participation in the budget process has increased in the past few years. Very few changes in the budget process have been made because of citizen participation. A moderate number of changes in the budget process have been made because of citizen participation. A substantial number of changes in the budget process have been made because of citizen participation. Citizen participation in the budget process has remained the same in the past few years. Very few changes in the budget process have been made because of citizen participation. A moderate number of changes in the budget process have been made because of citizen participation. Citizen participation in the budget process has decreased in the past few years, and very few changes in the budget process have been made because of citizen participation. Miscellaneous combinations

(a) League (b) (e) Total of Women Social (0 (d) Senior Respondents Voters Services Business Taxpayers Citizens States City County City County City County City County City County City County Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maiile Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming SOURCE: Survey entitled "Citizen Participation In Fiscal Decision Making-1977." conducted by AClR in cooperation w~ththe International City Management Association, 1958. Table 5-3 (cont.) TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED AT LOCAL PUBLIC HEARINGS, BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IN THE 50 STATES Number of Different Types of Organizations (h) City County (f) (P) Neighbor- (i) Racial Homeowner hood Other Average High Low Average High Low City County City County City County City County 17 1 2 0 8 1 6 1 54 16 7 4 13 0 2 1 0 0 28 8 17 4 0 1 2 0 17 1 3 2 4 1 12 0 8 0 7 2 10 5 6 9 1 17 4 5 1 8 1 13 1 2 1 3 0 3 1 0 0 21 1 6 2 15 8 22 5 0 0 16 7 8 0 3 1 9 5 5 0 12 10 0 0 11 1 41 3 10 0 0 11 5 8 2 4 2 2 3 0 0 GROUP REPRESENTATION AT HEARINGS (Table 5-5) covers counties. These two tables convert the responses of cities and counties, Nationally, municipalities reported that 81%of indicating the type of group representation all hearings were attended by one or more groups, occurring at one or more hearings, into percen- compared to 86% for counties. The groups tages for each type of hearing and multiply by identified were the League of Women Voters, nine, the maximum number of groups inquired social service organizations, business and/or about. Totaled across, the scores (with a maxi- industry, taxpayers, senior citizens, racial or mum of 900 if every city had all groups present at ethnic groups, homeowners, neighborhoods, and one or more hearings) indicate a rough compari- others which were active in the respondents' son among states. locality. Senior citizens were the most frequently A special entry is made in these two tables reported group in attendance at municipal combining all municipalities or counties in the hearings, followed in order by social service ten states which were not required by state law in groups, the League of Women Voters, business 1975 to either hold hearings or publish notice of and/or industry, neighborhoods, racial or ethnic the budget. This entry was made to determine groups, taxpayers, homeowners, and others. whether the historic lack of mandatory require- Nationally there were about twice as many ments appeared to result in less participative senior citizen groups reported attending hearings activity by community groups. as homeowners. The other groups were repre- All of the selected states shown had at least 11 sented much less frequently. cities and three counties reporting. Arizona 228 The rankings were similar for counties, except reported the most group activity among cities, that taxpayer groups were stronger, ranking followed by New Mexico and California. The fourth. Counties reported an average of 3.2 lowest score was for Minnesota, which is one of groups per hearing, compared to 2.7 for cities. In the states with no history of requirements for general, western cities and counties reported budget hearings and notification. The combined more attending hearings. Smaller units reported group of ten states not requiring budget hearing the least. Cities and municipalities in a metropol- or notices, including Minnesota, was not far in itan area or with city managers or county score from Colorado, the middle ranking state in administrators had more groups attending than the nine state sample. Counties had higher scores nonmetropolitan or nonmanager units. Senior than cities in six of the states and generally citizens, the most active group, are most likely to reported slightly more activity. However, there appear before hearings in smaller cities, while all was little difference in the state rankings. other groups are most commonly found in central Michigan had the lowest score and California the cities. Taxpayer groups are strongest in central highest. The group of ten states with no partici- cities. pation requirements ranked low-seventh out of Table 5-3 provides state-by-state information nine. on the groups reported to have appeared before The highest combined city and county scores localities. For example, Alabama had one county were in California, New Mexico, and Arizona, respond to the question on types of organizations while the lowest scores were in Michigan and represented, and that county reported that all Minnesota. Arizona and Michigan are two of the groups but business and homeowners appeared states with full 1975 hearing notification require- at one or more local budget or Community ments for both municipalities and counties, while Development Block Grant hearings. Four of the New Mexico and Minnesota had no requirements 19 Alabama cities had taxpayer groups at one or for either. The ranking for the ten states with no more hearings, the least active group next to requirements was seventh of nine on both tables. "other," while 17 of the cities had racial or ethnic All this suggests it is difficult to conclude that groups present at one or more hearings. legal requirements clearly affect group involve- To highlight further, some of the information ment in the local budget process (at least as from this state-by-state listing, two other tables reported in 1978). were prepared for certain selected states-illus- trating a range of demographic, political, and GRANTS-IN-AID geographical characteristics. The first (Table 5- 4) covers selected municipalities, while the other Another effect which citizen participation can Table 5-4 PERCENTAGE OF REPORTING MUNICIPALITIES IN CERTAIN STATES INDICATING SPECIFIC GROUPS PRESENT AT ANY BUDGET OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT HEARING

League of Business Racial Total Women Social or Tax- Senior or Home- Neigh- Summed Rank State Voters Service Industry payer Citizen Ethnic owner borhood Other Average1 Order

Arizona 64 27 91 82 4 5 New Mexico 55 18 1 00 55 9 California 38 4 1 68 3 1 40 New York 33 39 56 39 36 Colorado 68 23 59 3 1 2 3 Indiana 3 7 26 8 5 2 2 2 2 Michigan 44 18 57 25 36 Minnesota 64 2 7 46 11 2 2 All Municipalities Not Required by the State in 1975 to Hold Public ~ekrin~s or Publish the Budget (190 in ten state^)^ 44 56 42 2 6 64 47 2 8 44 11 3 62

'Sum of the percentages. A maximum score is 900, achieved if every city in the to either publish or hold hearingson their local budget.They includeMinnesota state reported each group present at least onceat every hearing. Caution should and New Mexico, shown above, and Alabama, Georgia, Maine, North Carolina, be observed in using the figure since small states may have a very active city Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia. which may distort the totals. SOURCE: Survey entitled "Citizen Participation in Fiscal Decision Making- ZTheseten states were identified in the November 1975 Congressional Research 1977," conducted by AClR in cooperation with the International City Service survey as having no requirements for municipal or county governments Management Association, 1978. Table 5-5 PERCENTAGE OF REPORTING COUNTIES IN CERTAIN STATES INDICATING SPECIFIC GROUPS PRESENT AT ANY BUDGET OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT HEARING

League of Business Racial Total Women Social or Tax- Senior or Home- Neigh- Summed Rank State Voters Service Industry payer Citizen Ethnic owner borhood Other Average1 Order

California 67 100 76 95 95 76 53 76 19 Colorado 100 100 88 75 75 50 38 50 0 New Mexico 75 100 50 25 100 50 50 75 0 Arizona 0 33 67 100 100 33 67 33 33 New York 67 63 55 79 75 33 2 1 38 4 Minnesota 83 83 67 33 50 17 0 67 17 Indiana 50 60 30 50 40 20 3 0 20 10 Michigan 60 47 15 15 40 27 7 15 15 All Counties in States Not Requiring Public Hearings or Publication of Budget (ten states, 61 countie~)~49 79 4 1 34 57 4 1 2 3 42 14 380

'Sum of the percentages. A maximum score is 900, achieved if every city in the state North Carolina (26). Rhode Island, one of the ten states, has no counties. reported each group present at least once at every hearing. Caution should be ob- sewed in using the figure since small states may have a very active city which may SOURCE: Survey entitled "Citizen Participation in Fiscal Decision Making-1977," distort the totals. conducted by AClR in cooperation with the International City Management Associ- 21ncludesthe same states as in Table 5-4. This sample is dominated by responses from. ation, 1978. have in the budget process involves the decision surably affected their budget process. County to apply for, scrap, or maintain grant proposals. respondents scored slightly or significantly The impact on the local budget process is higher than municipalities on their answers to all obvious, although the ways that participation other questions except in being less likely to drop may be manifested are numerous and complex. A a grant proposal because of citizen opposition to number of questions in the ACIRIICMA survey a staff proposal. The absolute scores on each item dealt with the grants-in-aid process. Respond- for cities and counties in a state ranged from 0%to ents were asked to answer "Yes" or "No" to the loo%, although few states with large numbers of following questions: respondents scored 100%. In 18 states, over half of the cities indicated that their budget process Have grant proposals developed by staff was measurably affected by citizen participa- been dropped because of citizen participation, while in 21 states over half the counties had tion? a similar response. Twenty-one of the states had Have new grant proposals been developed as over half of their cities reporting transfer of grant a result of citizen suggestions? proposals to the general budget because of citizen Has your local government transferred participation, while 29 of the 45 states with funding for a service or program from its responding counties reported similarly. Nearly general budget to a grant because of citizen all states (47) had over half of their cities report- participation? ing initiation of grant proposals because of citizen participation, compared to only 32 states Has your local government assumed the cost with counties reporting this practice. 233 in its general budget for continuing a service It is significant that over 60% of both munici- or program funded through an expired grant palities and counties reported that citizen partic- because of citizen participation? ipation led to the development of a new grant Has your local government dropped a service proposal, but that only about 43% of the same or program funded through a grant when the units reported that citizen participation affected grant expired because of citizen participa- their own budget priorities. Furthermore, 58% of tion? counties and 41% of municipalities reported Has citizen participation had a measurable transferring an expired grant to their general effect on the setting of priorities within your budget because of citizen participation. local government's general budget? Evidently some of these repondents must have commented that citizen ~artici~ationdid not The first five questions involve the federal affect priorities in their general budget when grant-in-aid process specifically, while the last is they also reported developing grant proposals or a broader one about citizen participation and the transferring expired grants to the local budget budgeting process generally. Tables 5-6 and 5-7 because of citizen participation. Perhaps they show the responses from cities and counties distinguished between the local budget and the [respectively) in each state. The last entry in each use of grants, the latter being "extra" or "discre- table gives the national total for the category. tionary" money which was at best a minor budget Citizen participation accounts for initiation of concern. Localities are not unaware of the fiscal grant requests in about 60% of the cities, and the impact of grants, since a fifth of cities and a transfer of one or more expired grants to the quarter of counties transferred a project from general budget in 41%. Forty-three percent of their own budget to a grant program. One municipalities indicated that citizen participa- explanation, then, is that the budget process is a tion had a measurable effect on budget priorities. yearly, routine occurrence which does not have The rest of the responses were below 20%. the policy implications and flexibility that grants In the case of counties (Table 5-7), about the have. Thus, the fiscal impact of grants may be same proportion, 6l0/0, initiated grant proposals considered outside the normal budget process. because of citizen participation. Substantially more counties than cities (58% vs. 41%) trans- STAFF ASSISTANCE ferred expiring grants to their general budget. About the same percentage of counties as cities Localities, if they wish, can help citizens (43%) indicated that citizen participation mea- prepare for the budget process by providing staff Table 5-6 EFFECT OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ON THE USE OF GRANT FUNDS (cities)

(c) (f) Cities (dl Cities Transferring Cities (e) Where CP (b) Projects Transferring Cities Affects Total (a) Cities from Expired Dropping Priorities Cities Cities Where CP General Grants to Expired in States Respond- Dropping Initiated Budget General Grant General ing- Grants Grants to Grant Budget Program Budget Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number IPercent Number Percent Alabama 20 4 Alaska 3 3 Arizona 11 2 Arkansas 16 2 California 170 25 Colorado 22 1 Connecticut 42 14 Delaware 3 2 Florida 57 7 Georgia 26 3 Hawaii 1 0 Idaho 7 2 Illinois 4 5 12 Indiana 27 3 Iowa 22 6 Kansas 26 7 Kentucky 17 2 Louisiana 13 1 Maine 12 3 Maryland 13 3 Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Total

SOURCE: Survey entitled "Citizen Participation in Fiscal Decision Making-1977," conducted by AClR in cooperation with the International City Man- agement Association, 1978. Table 5-7 EFFECT OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ON THE USE OF GRANT FUNDS (counties)

(c) (f) Counties (d) Counties Transferring Counties (e) Where CP (b) Projects Transferring Counties Affects Total (a) Counties f rom Expired Dropping Priorities Counties Counties Where CP General Grants to Expired in Respond- Dropping Initiated Budget General Grant General States ing Grants Grants to Grant Budget Program Budget Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Total

SOURCE: Survey entitled "Citizen Participation in Fiscal Decision Making-1977," conducted by AClR in cooperation with the International City Man. agement Association, 1978. assistance. Many local governments reported ble disagreements over whether neighborhood performing this activity, although analysis of priorities add up to citywide preferences4 their comments in the ACIRIICMA survey Many localities, however, responded to the suggests that it is not a high priority item. About 1978 survey by stating that citizen interest is 47% of cities and 44% of counties in this 1978 weak. The City-County of Denver abolished the survey reported such activity. Over half the Mayor's Citizen Budget Committee ten years ago manager cities and administrator counties pro- due to lack of interest, while Guilford County vided this aid, as did a majority of cities and (Greensboro, NC) reported that citizen input counties in the western United States. sessions held by the budget office died for lack of The type of staff aid varied widely, according interest. to the survey. The Littleton, CO, staff provides Other responses indicated that providing information to individuals and to city advisory assistance during the budget process is often committees in developing formal program recom- informal at best. One indicated that "staff is mendations for a preliminary budget hearing. always willing and available to explain the Somerville, MA, has a citizen participation budget to advisory bodies, neighborhood associ- coordinator available each day for technical ations, and individual citizens." A Florida city assistance in such matters as interpreting indicated that it "provides data and information regulations and chairing citizen input meetings. upon request" and an Ohio municipality noted Salem, OR, assigns five staff members to service that it "would provide if requested." A California 14 neighborhood organizations. Madison, WI, city noted that explanation is available on 236 has a special projects office for inquiries and request, but goes on to amplify ". . . citizen assistance for citizens or private/civiclservice participation may be high and result in a special agencies whenever assistance is requested. appropriation for something. Involvement dur- Shelby County (Memphis, TN) sponsors and ing the budget process is traditionally low." staffs communitywide citizen goal programs at Even when a city indicated that staff assist- the neighborhood level every year as the initial ance is available, it was usually on request and step in the budget process. without a formal mechanism such as San Diego The City of San Diego adopted an elaborate or Washington, DC. Staffing existing citizen procedure to encourage citizen participation in committees, in the opinion of many of the the budget process, although it does not directly respondents to the ACIRIICMA survey, meets involve staff aid to citizens. It included a ten- any moral or legal requirements for aiding citizen page newspaper (entitled The Budget in Brief) involvement. They often do not see additional summarizing the proposed budget, its impact in effort as necessary. laymen's terms, and summary of the distribution of revenue sharing funds. The newspaper is BUDGETS AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION mailed to all citizens who indicate interest by returning a card enclosed with their water bill, Many localities are generally dubious about and is also distributed through libraries, fire sta- the effectiveness of citizen participation as tions, and other point^.^ manifested through the formal budget process. Most responses to the ACIRfICMA survey Washington, DC, developed a major citizen indicated that the budget process is, at best, an participation effort for its executive budget imperfect means of eliciting citizen participation process. The city was divided into nine service and, at worst, serves to institutionalize the areas with weekly meetings to identify needs. A demands of special interest groups. A California budget group grew out of the service area city commented that: meetings and became involved with public improvements planned for its area. After initial . . . although citizen participation is work on the capital improvement program, the encouraged throughout the budget group developed (with staff aid) a questionnaire process, actual citizen involvement is for residents and a review process for proposed usually experienced at the tail end of capital improvements which feeds into the the decisionmaking cycle, or, in many formal proposed budget. Citizen participation cases, after decisions have actually was substantially enhanced despite the inevita- been made. This appears to be attributed to the average citizen's noninterest "citizen participation appears to be generally in in local decisionmaking until the actual the form of special interest groups and/or official impact of those decisions are felt. city committees or commissions. Rarely do A Maryland response indicated that: 'public hearings involve the general public'." This view is consistent with reservations of some There is little difference between members of Congress at the hearings held prior to public hearings and regular meetings as the re-enactment of revenue sharing with formal to the participation of citizens. Citizens participation requirements which include hear- express their views to council in many ings. Then Senator William Brock (TN) voiced ways and their views influence coun- concerns about legislated mandates for hearings cil's actions. which almost place greater emphasis on the One city manager explained that: representation of special interests as opposed to the general or public interest.5 . . . there has been little citizen partici- A few respondents were highly critical of pation during formal hearings. The public hearings. The Mayor of a small Illinois participation actually occurs through- town wrote that: out the year as groups or neighborhood areas come before the council with . . .public hearings are a cancer that special requests.. . . The mandated impedes proper management of public public hearings (revenue sharing), in funds due to so called public need. In our case, have not had any beneficial other words, public hearings do no- 237 results in terms of citizen participation. thing but force public officials to spend Perhaps part of this is timing, because more money than is necessary. groups come up with ideas at different times of the year outside the budget Another group of respondents were quite review period. positive about public hearings and citizen participation. Texarkana, TX, reported that: A Massachusetts town's response highlighted the frustration many localities encounter when it Citizen participation has been work- noted that, while the town's Finance Committee ing in Texarkana since its Model Cities holds regular meetings open to public participa- designation, with a resultant sophisti- tion to review the budget, citizens participate cation of the neighborhood residents in only on selective issues. "Genuine broad-interest their approach to problem solving, and citizen participation is difficult to find, or even their general acceptance of the idea of a muster, in this community. Only when a govern- city-citizen partnership. Neighborhood ment decision directly affects aperson or group is hearings are well attended and service interest resulting in participation shown." complaints are freely proferred.. . . Probably the most common theme of local officials participating in the ACIRIICMA poll Good public information programs was their perception of public hearings as a (written reports and media presenta- device used primarily by special interests. An tions) are highly instrumental in Alabama city noted that: achieving good citizen participation. More especially a willingness to meet in . . . citizen participation could be a the neighborhoods on the citizens' time useful guide in formulating programs, schedules is even more vital if meaning- however, it usually is the case that only ful communication and two-way ex- minorities or special interest groups change is to be achieved. In the months attend hearings for such programs. We, of September and October, when our therefore, do not know what the majori- budget hearings in neighborhoods and ty of the citizens desire both low- citizens' advisory committee meetings moderate and other persons). are held, our city staff averages three night meetings per week. The invest- A southern California city cautioned that ment is great, but the results can be, too. Scottsdale, AZ, noted that: ly held view that the most meaningful opportunity for citizen participation in fiscal decisionmak- Our city makes use of citizen partici- ing may be provided by the town meeting. These pation throughout the year in work- annual assemblies were adopted in the early New shops, seminars and forums-this England colonies and states as the basic process increases their [citizens'] awareness of of community government, at which citizens the budgeting process, provides elected themselves were made responsible for adopting a officials with needed information. It budget, electing public officials, and deciding may be that our year-round program other local affairs. has a direct result in the low attendance at budget hearings. The original government of the New England town approached that of a A final group of respondents were supportive of pure democracy. The ultimate and citizen participation, at least in principle, but actual working sovereignty-under the were not sure that the local budget process was law of the state-was vested in the the place to attempt to maximize it. A Maine body of adult male citizens qualified to official stated: vote in town meeting. Here the needs of Government should be totally open, the town were debated and voted on, responsible to public inquiries and the the budget was adopted and taxes press, and people should be encouraged levied, and the administrative officers 238 to participate, but requiring formal were elected and their work passed in citizen participation processes sets up review before the voters.. . . A great false and misleading standards. They deal of praise has been heaped upon will discourage people from participa- town government, and much of it has tion rather than encourage them, since been deserved. It inculcated a feeling they will appear to promise more than for public affairs in ten generations of can be delivered. They (formal citizen citizens; it gave thousands of men a participation processes) become mean- valuable training by affording them the ingless, superfluous formalities. opportunity to rule as well as be ruled; and it nourished a sense of loyalty to Likewise a New Jersey township manager the town which, though it might be commented on the difficulty of linking citizen regarded as merely parochial, was participation to the budget process by noting nevertheless a stabilizing force of great that: social value.6 I believe one aspect is the "intimida- Towns (the New England term) and townships tion of the process" in our formalized (used in the midwest) are now found in portions hearings. Additionally, the budget of 20 states.' These include the six New England summaries that are presented provide states where the system originated and other too little interest even from astute states, principally in the middle Atlantic and observers. The documents themselves midwestern regions, which were settled initially are not difficult but the maze of figures by a "Yankee" population. Most of the 16,822 quickly dissolves the passing interest organized township governments have small individuals have. The process is timed populations-80% have less than 2,500 resi- not to coincide with the receipt of tax dents-but, depending upon state law and bills; consequently, when people are traditions, townships may serve both urban and most motivated to be mindful of fiscal rural areas.8 Those in New England, New Jersey, matters (when their new assessments and Pennsylvania, and to some degree in Michi- and tax bills are fresh) the annual gan, New York, and Wisconsin, provide an process is in the middle of the fiscal extensive range of local governmental services, year. including those normally associated with municipalities and counties in other parts of the nation. TOWN MEETINGS In New England, towns also are responsible for The ACIRIICMA survey supports the general- local schools. In contrast, the townships found in much of the midwest provide a very limited range ed that citizen controversies over the allocation of services for predominantly rural areas9 of funds were far more frequent, and were Given these differences in functional responsi- somewhat more likely to say that "citizens attend bility, the political significance-and attractive- hearings because of genuine interest in the entire ness-of participation in township affairs does budget process." Few of these communities, vary substantially. Attendance at township however, reported an increase in citizen partici- meetings in many of the midwestern states is pation because of the revenue sharing program. very slight, in keeping with limited public Towns employing the representative town business to be transacted, and frequently is meeting form also experienced a somewhat confined to the officeholders themselves.10 higher level of participation in the budgetary Like any citizen participation practice, the process than was common under other forms of town meeting has disadvantages and advan- government, but the differences were less strik- tages, critics as well as proponents. The ade- ing. For instance, the number of participants at quacy of this approach was questioned increas- combined hearings on the local budget and ingly in the more urbanized areas as government revenue sharing averaged 78. activities grew. One Maine critic in 1916 com- plained of the inability of the assembled citizenry STATE BUDGETARY PRACTICES to assess fully costs and benefits and overall town needs." With rising populations, many Chapter 4 dealt with state budgetary practices communities did modify traditional procedures. as they are affected by the new federal revenue Some instituted the limited or representative sharing participation requirements. This section 239 town meeting in which a large body of elected will examine some of the formal parameters of representatives actually determined policy; the state budget process, involving such things as others employed an appointed or elected finance the use of hearings, distribution of the budget committee to prepare the budget, though this was document, new innovations in state budgetary still adopted at the annual meeting; others have processes, and so on. adopted the manager system. Still, especially in State budget periods generally begin on July 1 rural areas, the traditional forms do persist. and run for one year, although there are many Survey responses to the ACIRIICMA question- exceptions. Three major variations are involved naire indicate that citizen participation in town in the budget period: annual budgets, biennial meetings is considerably higher than is common budgets, and biennial budgets with some annual under other governmental forms (Mayor-council, review of selected areas or supplemental appro- council-manager, or commission). Of 29 com- priations. Annual review in biennial budgets munities responding, 86% reported "a great deal" takes almost as much time as annual budgets. or a "moderate amount" of citizen participation in The present trend is toward annual budgets, the local budget process. (In comparison, just 49% although two-year budgets now are sometimes of the council-manager communities-the next seen as permitting longer range planning. highest group-fell into these categories.) One state, Hawaii, switched back to biennial These assessments are borne out by the reports budgets after several years of annual budgeting. of attendance at budget hearings. In the 21 towns Annual budgets permit sharper revenue esti- holding combined hearings on revenue sharing mates and quicker adjustments to changed and the regular budget, the average number of economic trends, while biennial budgets force citizens in attendance was 231. (In the council- longer range planning and save the time of staff, manager communities, average participation the executive, and the legislature which would be was just 27). Somewhat lower-but stillcompar- spent on annual reviews. atively high-turnout was indicated for separate Table 5-8 indicates that 29 of the 50 states have hearings on revenue sharing (58) and the local annual budgets. In general, larger states tend budget (118). to use annual budgets, with the exceptions of Furthermore, according to the survey re- Texas and Ohio. However, Texas frequently has sponses, citizen participation was judged to be made annual appropriations since 1970. quite meaningful. Town meeting communities Among states that have biennial budgets, reported more frequent changes in the budget Wyoming has an annual review of biennial process because of citizen participation, indicat- budgets, while Georgia, despite constitutional Table 5-8 STATE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET PERIODS

Budgets Budgets State Annual Biennial State Annual Biennial Alabama X Nebraska X Alaska X Nevada Arizona X New Hampshire Arkansas X New Jersey X California New Mexico X Colorado New York X Connecticut North Carolina Delaware North Dakota Florida Ohio Georgia Oklahoma X Hawaii Oregon Idaho Pennsylvania X Illinois Rhode Island X Indiana South Carolina X Iowa South Dakota X Kansas Tennessee X Kentucky Texas Louisiana Utah X Maine Vermont X Mary land Virginia Massachusetts Washington Michigan West Virginia X Minnesota X Wisconsin Mississippi Wyoming Missouri Montana X Total 'Georgia: Constitution requires biennial appropriations- STexas: In four of the last six years, appropriations have however, it is not annual. been made for one year. 21ndiana: With annual updates optional. 'Wisconsin: With annual review. 310wa: May be amended in second year. 'Wyoming: With annual review. 'North Carolina: Normallv sessions and budgets are as shown. Had experimental annual session in 1974, resulting SOURCE: Council of State Governments, State Legislative in annual budgets for 1973-74 and for 1974-75. Decisions Appropriations Process, Lexington, KY, Council of State on annual vs. biennial sessions and budgets will probably Governments, 1975, p. 57. be made in 1975. requirements, makes annual appropriations. involvement in the executive budget hearing Indiana updates its budget annually, while process, and by inference indicates the number of Iowa's can be amended in the second year. North those hearings. A total of 17 states, approximate- Carolina also has recently experimented with ly a third, hold such hearings. With the excep- annual budgets. The movement toward annual tions of New York and Texas, most of these states budgets, if there were substantial opportunities are not particularly populous. Connecticut has for citizen involvement, would increase the not held executive budget hearings in recent chances for citizen participation to affect state years, while in New York the hearings are not budget practice. public but held with agency heads, as constitu- In many states, the executive budget has some tionally provided. The hearings are often aimed public hearing, either by law or at the Governor's at agencies or the legislature, not the general discretion. Table 5-9 indicates formal legislative public. Table 5-9 FORMAL STATE LEGISLATIVE INVOLVEMENT IN PUBLIC HEARINGS I ON THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET

Degree of Degree of Involvement Involvement -X Actors Actors 6

State State Alabama Montana

I Alaska Nebraska Arizona Nevada X X Arkansas New Hampshire X X X California New Jersey X X X Colorado New Mexico I Connecticut New York X X X3 Delaware X North Carolina 2 X Florida North Dakota X X

I Georgia Ohio Hawaii Oklahoma X Idaho Oregon Illinois Pennsylvania Indiana X X Rhode Island X Iowa X X South Carolina 2 Kansas X South Dakota X X Kentucky X Tennessee X X X Louisiana X X Texas X X X Maine X Utah Maryland Vermont X Massachusetts Virginia X X X Michigan X X Washington Minnesota X X West Virginia Mississippi 2 X Wisconsin X X4 X Missouri Wyoming Total 15 17 4 17

'Connecticut: No executive budget hearings held in recent years. 2Budget is developed by a board composed of both legislative and executive members. 3New York: The Governor does not hold public hearings. However, the constitution requires that he hold formal hearings with agency heads. The legislature's attendance at these hearings is authorized by the constitution. While participation by the legislature is not prohibited, the level is subdued with the more prominent questioning being conducted by the executive budget director. 'Wisconsin: Fiscal staff attends but does not participate.

SOURCE: Council of State Governments, State Legislative Appropriations Process, Lexington, KY, Council of State Governments, 1975, p. 73.

Formally, there is more opportunity for citizen tion and revenue committees. Table 5-20 pro- impact on the proposed budget after the Gover- vides the breakdown. Private organizations nor presents it to the legislature. Of the 50 states, usually appear in 44 states. Agency heads, whose 37 indicate that individual citizens from the budgets are being considered, appear in every general public usually appear before appropria- state, while the executive budget staff (who Table 5- 10 REPRESENTATIVES USUALLY APPEARING BEFORE STATE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS AND REVENUE COMMITTEES

Executive Department Other Agency Budget of Fiscal Legislative Private General State Officials Staff Revenue Staff Staff Organizations Public Alabama X X X X X Alaska X X X X X X X Arizona X X X X X X Arkansas X X X X X California X X X X X X Colorado X X X Connecticut X X X X Delaware X X X X Florida X X X X Georgia X X X X Hawaii X X X Idaho X X X Illinois X X Indiana X X X X Iowa X X X X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts X X X Michigan X X X X Minnesota X X X X Mississippi X X X X Missouri X X X X XXXXX XXX XX XXXXX XXXXX $

XXXXXXXXX X X XXXX XXXX 2

XXXX X XXX X X XX

XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX xx xx$

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 51 Table 5- 1 1 DISTRIBUTION OF THE STATE BUDGET DOCUMENT

To Whom Are Copies of the Budget Document Distributed?

State Budget Members Agencies Members Agency of of the State Staff Legislature All Some News Media Other

Alabama Alaska X all X State librarians, political subdivisions. Arizona X all Other state budget offices. Arkansas X all X California X all X All interested persons may purchase at cost. Colorado Connecticut X all X Delaware X all X Other states, libraries, financial institutions, colleges. Florida X all X To each state, state library, state university, others on request. Georgia X all X Education institutions. Hawaii X all X Idaho X all X Upon request. Illinois X all X Anyone who requests, major interest groups. Indiana all X Any interested person. Iowa X all X All other states. Kansas X all X Libraries, budget agencies of other states. Kentucky X all X Interested citizens and groups on request. Louisiana X all Other states. Maine X all As requested within available supply. Maryland X all X Libraries. Massachusetts X all X Other states. Michigan X all X State library-75 copies. Minnesota Mississippi X all X Missouri X all X Public-as requested. Montana X all X State and national libraries. Nebraska X all X State publications clearinghouse, anyone upon request. Nevada X all Libraries, other states. helped develop the proposed budget) appear in 44 review the budget document as it is proposed states. There is no report on how many or how and/or adopted, and to have a document which often (other than "usually") the public actually outlines the major policy and financial implica- appears. Since state capitols are far from most tions therein. Table 5-11 indicates the distribu- citizens, group representation would be most tion of the final budget document. Forty-four typical of citizen influence or impact. states provide copies automatically to the news Citizen participation involves more than mere media, about the same number as make them appearances at hearings. It implies the ability to available to the budget agency staff. Five states Table 5-1 1 (cont.) DISTRIBUTION OF THE STATE BUDGET DOCUMENT

To Whom Are Copies of the Budget Document Distributed?

State Budget Members Agencies Members Agency of of the State Staff Legislature All Some News Media Other New Hampshire X all X X Anyone requesting as long as supply lasts. New jersey X all X Public and college (university) libraries. New Mexico X all Libraries, other states, budget agencies, etc. New York X all X Libraries, some other states. North Carolina X all X Libraries, certain associations, Repre- sentatives, county commissioners, etc. North Dakota Ohio X all X The public upon request. Oklahoma X all Anyone who desires a copy. Oregon X all X State budget officers of other states. Pennsylvania X all X Other states, private agencies, and others who request a copy. Rhode island X all X Libraries, chambers of commerce, other state budget officers, etc. South Carolina X all X Libraries, other states, on an exchange basis. South Dakota X all X College libraries and all 50 states. Tennessee X all X Other state governments and selected libraries. Texas X all X Utah X all X Libraries, research agencies, other states upon request. Vermont X all X Major universities, state libraries, other state governments. Virginia X all X Some libraries. Virgin Islands X all X Washington X all X State library and other libraries. West Virginia Wisconsin X all X Others at budget sections. Wyoming X all Other states and libraries in Wyoming. Total 45 46 39 40

(Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, equally important is some assessment of what is and West Virginia) apparently make little effort in it. Some states, such as Illinois, have a program to publicize the budget document. Many others type of budget which highlights the spending and (such as Ohio, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Idaho, New performance estimates for each agency. Hampshire, and Missouri) send it to interested Table 5-12 indicates the content of fiscal parties. In California, copies of the budget can impact notes that are required in the state's be purchased. budget. The vast majority, 44 of 50, stipulate the While the budget document itself is important, current cost involved, but only 41 of those Table 5- 12 CONTENT OF STATE FISCAL NOTES

State State Alabama Montana Alaska Nebraska Arizona Nevada Arkansas New Hampshire California New Jersey Colorado New Mexico Connecticut New York Delaware North Carolina Florida North Dakota Georgia Ohio Hawaii Oklahoma Idaho Oregon Illinois Pennsylvania Indiana Rhode Island Iowa South Carolina Kansas South Dakota Kentucky Tennessee Louisiana Texas Maine Utah Maryland Vermont Massachusetts Virginia Michigan Washington Minnesota West Virginia Mississippi Wisconsin Missouri Wyoming Total

'Arizona: No formal fiscal note. Staff reports by memo on impact of fiscal bill. ZDelaware: Relevant data and prior fiscal year cost information. Norida: Mechanical defects and effective date. 4Hawaii: No standard format-may include one or all. sldaho: Occasionallv. 6Kentucky: Staff rel;orts are prepared in lieu of fiscal note. 'Nebraska: Rationale to support the bill. ENorth Dakota: A two-year projection is included. 9Oklahoma: (a) Recent appropriations for same program or agency; (b) agency request and justification; (c) executive recommendation; (d) conference notes; (e) summary of bill's progress through legislature. loUtah: Goal and planning analysis prepared by legislative council staff.

SOURCE: Council of State Governments, State Legislative Appropriations Process, Lexington, KY, Council of State Govern- ments, 1975, p. 103. highlight the future projected cost, while only 31 reports the source of revenue, while Kentucky show the proposed source of revenue, and even and Arizona prepare or act on a staff report fewer (24) indicate the intent or purpose of the rather than a formal statement. bill. Some of these fiscal notes are not clearly Four states have adopted economic impact visible to the public. Idaho only occasionally statements procedures.12 California provides that the legislative analyst for the rules commit- public officials seek citizen support and obtain tee of either house is responsible for obtaining public feedback. These do not lend themselves information showing the effect on employment, easily to a formal hearing or advisory committee the costs of goods and services, and general structure. In addition, and perhaps more impor- economic impact. Florida law mandates that tantly, the geographic size and population agency staff publish a statement with the dispersion of many states makes formal public proposed bill which provides information on information and opinion gathering difficult to costs to all persons involved and to the agency, pursue effectively. and also assesses the social and economic benefits. Illinois requires impact statements from the Pollution Control Board on all proposed DIRECT ELECTORAL CONTROLS rules and regulations. Washington requires OVER FISCAL ACTIVITY impact information on bills relating to local school districts. State Constitutional and In addition to these four states, some legisla- Statutory Initiatives and Referenda's tures (notablyNevada's and Wisconsin's) require bills to include predictions of their impact on local government revenues. Vermont, Hawaii, The initiative and referendum are political and Maryland also use formal capital improve- institutions which place direct control over the ment plans which outline long-range plans for outcomes of governmental decisions in the hands major expenditure items and increase the oppor- of citizens. They are called forms of "direct 247 tunity for citizen awareness and comment.13 democracy" to contrast them with the devices of a Despite the aforementioned examples, most representative system, whereby the voter merely states do not emphasize budgeting mechanisms selects his or her representatives.16 Some include which wpld maximize citizen participation. the recall as part of the direct democracy Common Cause has a state budget program package, but the recall does not change the role of which places emphasis on two reforms involving citizens directly, or strictly speaking, influence citizen participation: legislation. The initiative and referendum, of course, date 1) a chance for meaningful public participa- back to the Progressive Era (1900-20) but, were tion in the early stages of executive budget not new even at that time. They had existed in one formulation, and form or another since the nation's founding. 2) executive budget documents should contain While early 19th century legislatures made detailed information about alternatives that ordinary law by statute, voters through referen- allow people outside each agency to make da even then approved constitutional provisions meaningful choices of budget priorities.14 and sometimes could initiate constitutional conventions. Indeed they could, and sometimes Common Cause cites two states as examples of did, write statute law into constitutions by meeting each of these reforms. Massachusetts, making detailed provisions in the constitutional since 1974, has required the secretaries of conventions, which were then ratified by popular departments to hold public hearings on detailed vote. William Munro notes that even the 18th budget requests prepared by agency heads, with century constitutions of Massachusetts, the Governor's proposed budget showing the Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire provided for agency's request and explaining any different citizen authority to instruct their representa- figure. Wisconsin has a program type of budget tives in the state legislature.17 However, the which organizes agency budgets into functional application of the initiative and referendum to areas, with brief statements of each program's localities, and their widespread use in many new purpose within the broader functional area. states, was a substantial expansion if not a minor In general, state practices are not geared political revolution in the period 1900-20. toward eliciting substantial citizen participation Use of the initiative and referendum was in the formulation of state budgets. Some of the advocated for two basic purposes. Some Progres- reasons are historical, revolving around the sives wanted to restore power to the people by methods by which legislators and other elected reestablishing their right to self-government. Table 5- 7 3 STATES WITH DIRECT DEMOCRACY PROVISIONS, 1976

Statutory Statutory Statutory Statutory Initiative Referendum Initiative Referendum z z .-u .-u .-z .-z -.- .- .-u .-u 0) - U * a g a U -a o g a -a -I S; 4 s : 1 State 5; : State V) 4 tz d:

Alabama Montana X X X X Alaska X X X X Nebraska X X X X Arizona X X X X Nevada X X X X Arkansas X X X X New Hampshire X California X X X X New Jersey X X X Colorado X X X X New Mexico X Connecticut New York X Delaware North Carolina X Florida X X North Dakota X X X X Georgia X X X Ohio X X X X Hawaii Oklahoma X X X X Idaho X X X X Oregon X X X X Illinois X X Pennsylvania X X X Indiana Rhode Island X X Iowa X X South Carolina X X X Kansas X X South Dakota X X X X Kentucky X X X Tennessee Louisiana X Texas X X Maine X X X X Utah X X X X Maryland X X Vermont X X X Massachusetts X X X X Virginia X X X Michigan X X X X Washington X X X X Minnesota X X West Virginia X X Mississippi Wisconsin X X Missouri X X X X Wyoming X X X X Total 21 32 3 9 3 8

SOURCE: Council of State Governments, Book of the States, 1976-77, Lexington, KY, Council of State Governments, 1976, pp. 176, 2 16-8. 1

This tended often to be crude "antilegislative" minded and uncorrupted individuals to enter antagonism. Others wanted to reestablish repre- legislatures. sentative government by making legislatures Three separate types of issues can be settled more responsive to the will of the people. This through the initiative and referendum process. was aimed more at "reform" than the former. The constitutional amendment procedure by Many thought that the people would not have to initiative exists in 17 states.'$ Any item, includ- act often, but the threat of direct action would ing fiscal matters such as tax exemptions for eliminate log rolling, political bosses and groups or individuals, can be proposed for the "ripper" legislation or wholesale granting of voters to ratify. The requirements for signatures franchises. In turn, this would encourage high of the petition range from 20,000in North Dakota and 3% of the recent gubernatorial vote in levels. These "fully participatory" states are Massachusetts, to 15% of the largest number of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massa- votes for a state officer at the last general election chusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebras- in Wyoming. Eight percent of the previous ka, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, gubernatorial vote is a common figure. Some Oregon, and South Dakota. states require a distribution of signatures among counties or legislative districts. A majority of electors casting ballots on the initiative is ACTUAL EXPERIENCE generally sufficient to pass it. In states without this type of initiative, only constitutional con- In general, citizen initiatives, whether consti- ventions [which must be approved by the voters tutional or statutory, have not been well received in all states but Delaware) can amend the by the voters in recent years.lg State Govern- constitution. See Table 5-13 for the states which ment News reporting voter approvals in 1972 and permit each kind of direct democracy. 1976 November balloting, indicated that only The traditional initiatives at the state level about a quarter of citizen-initiated measures got a involve statutory law and are of two kinds. favorable vote. In 1972, seven of 26 petition Direct initiatives used in 13 states place mea- initiatives were approved, while ten of 39 were sures immediately before the electorate. Indirect approved in 1976, for a total of 17 out of 65. Of types in five states are sent to the legislature for these 65 elections, about half, or 34, involved action first and then go onto the ballot if no action fiscal matters, and nine of them passed- takes place. Three states use both types. In approximately the overall ratio. Most fiscal 249 addition to these 21 states, all of which have local initiatives were designed to reduce state expen- initiative procedures, 11 more have the initiative ditures rather than to establish new taxes or procedure at the local level only. Thus 32 of the bond issues, indicating a stronger antispending states [nearly two-thirds) have some experience mood among initiative sponsors. with the initiative. One noted initiative defeated was the 1972 Watson initiative in California, which would The referendum exists in some form in 42 of the have limited state expenditures to a declining 50 states. In 39 states, statutory enactments are share of personal income taxes, limited property subject to, or may be subject to, popular taxes, and reduced income taxes. Favored by ratification. In 23 cases, citizens may petition Governor Ronald Reagan, it only received 44% of directly and force the matter to a vote. In 16 all votes cast. Colorado voted down an initiative states, the legislature may refer a matter to the in 1976 which would have repealed the sales tax voters and/or the constitution may require that on food and instituted a mineral severance tax certain matters [i.e., the authorization of debt] be and higher corporate taxes. It also voted down settled by a popular vote. In general, the number another proposal to require voter approval before of petitioners required for a referendum ranges state or local governments could raise taxes or from 7,000 voters in South Dakota and 3% of the initiate new ones. In the same year, Montana votes last cast for Governor in Massachusett's to defeated an initiative to limit state spending until Wyoming's requirement for 15%of those voting in 1983 and to reduce by 15% a year the amount of the last election distributed among two-thirds of federal funds the state could receive until it the counties. Of these 39 states, 35 also have some reached zero in 1984. In 1972, Michigan turned referenda provisions available to some or all down a property tax limit for school financing to local units of government. Three additional be replaced by state funds, and Oregon likewise states without state referenda laws do have a denied an initiative to prohibit property tax referenda procedure for their localities, for a total levies for school operating expenses. of 42 states with some experience. With few These initiatives were concentrated in a few exceptions, a majority vote is required for states. Four states had over half of the total- approval. Colorado with 13, California with ten, plus There are 15 states which have all five of these Oregon and Michigan with seven each. popular procedures, constitutional initiative, One of the most recent fiscal initiatives, of statutory initiative at the state and local levels, course, is Proposition 13 in California and its and statutory referendum at the state and local impact appears to be enormous. Passed in June 1978, it limits property taxes to 1%of assessed value, limits yearly increases in assessments to 2%, rolls back assessments to the 1975-76 level, and makes it difficult to select or increase alternative taxes to replace property tax revenues. The enactment of this initiative, approved by 65% of the electorate, spurred attempts by citizens and legislative bodies in other states to adopt measures with similar objectives. In November 1978, 13 states had such measures on their ballots. These were Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michi- gan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas. Despite Proposition 13 and parallel efforts elsewhere, popular initiative generally does not guarantee widespread support. Why? First, the initiative and petition route is a mass effort which can be concentrated in certain areas by 250 interests or groups with energy and money, achieving the 5% to 15% of the last gubernatorial vote necessary to place the matter on the ballot. This, however, is no assurance of widespread support, particularly since many people will sign petitions without any commitment even to vote for the proposal. Second, many of the defeated proposals threatened the existence of established programs by drastic curtailment of taxes. Substantial debate, on both sides of the issue, plus whatever influence public officials had over voters; no doubt led to the defeat of many fiscal initiatives. Constitutional initiatives, as compared to statutory proposals, have not fared much better.'O Ten of 31 in a four-year period between 1972 and 1975 were adopted-about one-third. Colora- do, which adopted four of seven, including one which prohibited funding the 1976 Olympics and Ohio, which voted down all eight proposals, considered the most proposals. A total of 13 states considered constitutional initiatives, and seven adopted one or more. Legislative proposals do much better than citizen initiatives. In the six years from 1970 through 1975, state legislatures proposed 1,221 constitutional changes or other measures of statewide applicability. A total of 823 or 67% were approved. Only 14 of 30 proposals from constitutional conventions were adopted by the voters, and only 12 of 34 initiated by the voters themselves. Tables 5-14 and 5-15 provide a detailed breakdown. Of these issues, 251 or about Table 5- 15 SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS PROPOSED AND ADOPTED,

Total Proposed Total Adopted Percentage Adopted Subject Matter 1970-71 1972-73 1974-75 1970-71 1972-73 1974-75 1970-71 1972-73 1974-75

Proposals of Statewide Applicability Bill of Rights Suffrage and Elections Legislative Branch Executive Branch Judicial Branch Local Government Taxation and Finance State and Local Debt State Functions Amendment and Revision General Revision Proposals Miscellaneous Provisions Local Amendments

SOURCE: Council of State Governments, Book of the States, 1976-77, Lexington, KY, Council of State Governments, 1976, p. 165 a fifth,dealt with taxation (184)or with state and They often rejected proposals. ACIR's 1962 local debt (67). Of the 251, 149 (59%) were recommendations, among others, called for (1) approved. The enactment rate here was slightly provision for state agency administrative relief lower than the overall rate of 67%. and voter relief if limitations should be imposed Limitations on local government taxes and (the Commission generally opposes such limits), expenditures often can be exceeded only by and indicated that (2) the electorate should popular referendum, thus providing a direct always have the authority to initiate by petition a citizen control mechanism. In most cases, these vote on proposals to exceed prescribed tax limits are attached to the property tax because limitations.24 property normally yields the majority of local Usually a simple majority of voters is required revenue from own sources. Many of the limita- for approval, although at least four states require tions date back to the period between 1870 and 55% or more of the voters to ratify the additional 1940, and were an attempt to restrain expendi- levy, and in two other states as much as two tures of local units during recessions-es- thirds of the voters must approve certain kinds of pecially the 1930s Depression.21Property tax rate levies. and levy limits, then, affect localities more than Table 5-16 provides some information about states, since states do not rely generally on local tax limit referenda, as reported in the property taxes. ACIRIICMA survey. About 35% of both munici- The most widely used restriction on local gov- palities and counties reported attempting to 252 ernments takes the form of a limit on the obtain voter approval for tax limit changes. Two- maximum allowable property tax rate. Thirty- hundred-sixty-one individual municipal issues seven states have property tax rate limitations, were considered by voters in 203 municipalities with about two-thirds (27) having some provi- during the three-year period, of which 132 sion for local referenda to exceed the allowable passed-a rate of 51%. This is lower than the rate. Seventeen states authorize voter override county passage rate of 6O01o, based on approval of referenda for all types of local government, six 28 issues out of 47 put to a vote in 25 counties. The authorize voter override referenda in certain total rate of approved issues per reporting unit of functional areas such as education, and three government was similar at 28% of counties (28 others authorize only certain types of local gov- approved issues from 100 reporting counties) and ernment other than school districts to submit 26% for municipalities (1321502). Nearly 20% of such increases to the voters.22 municipal and 25% of county referenda were Ten states now impose a levy limitation on one initiated by citizen action. or more types of local government. This form of limitation means that a local government is BOND AUTHORIZATIONS restricted to approximately the same amount of States revenue from the property tax in the current year as it received in the past year. Levy limitations Even in a period of strong voter opposition to relate to both the tax base and the tax rate. bond elections, states have done reasonably well Provision for voter override is provided in most when they have chosen to put measures on the states imposing this type of limit.23 An analysis ballot. An examination of the issues reported in of recent levy limitations suggests that they exert State Government News indicates that in the fall an influence on the growth of local property tax elections for five years from 1972 to 1976, 97 revenues in a state, although they do n0.t seem to issues were voted upon and 60 were approved, an exert much effect on state-local expenditures in approval rate of 62%. Only 17 states chose to put the aggregate. issues before the voters, and many only went to Local tax rate limitations often caused at least the polls once in this period. On the other hand, temporary difficulties to local units, and some- Alaska voters approved 15 of 18 issues. New times were disastrous in their immediate impact. Jersey and Rhode Island also tried over ten times, Services were cut and employees laid off. with the former receiving assent five out of 13 Therefore, in those units where voter referen- attempts and the latter nine of 15 times. There dums could ease the limit, citizens had almost life was a tendency for these three states to put up a and death control over the local jurisdiction. large number of issues at a few elections.

Table 5-17 NOVEMBER 1956 BOND REFERENDA IN ALASKA, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND Amount Alaska New Jersey Rhode Island Purpose (in millions) Pass Fail Pass Fail Pass Fail Rural Schools $ 59.0 X Educational Facilities 12.7 X Senior Citizen Housing 7.5 X Housing 25.0 X Water Supply, Pollution Control 120.0 X Mental Health, Others 80.0 X Mental Health and Hospitals 14.7 X Firefighting Training Facilities 7.1 X Firefighting Training Facilities 1.o X Justice, Correctional Facilities 10.6 X Correctional Facilities 13.9 X Highways, Trails, Ferries 53.0 X Roads 6.8 X Public Transportation 2.1 X Parks and Recreation 1.25 X Parks and Recreation 6.6 X Airports 6.8 X Airports 1.7 X Fish and Came Facilities 29.0 X University of Alaska 17.7 Vietnam Veterans Bonus 10.0 Solid Waste Management 0.7 Sewage Facilities 9.0 State House Facilities 2 .o Water Supply 3.8 Totals $501.95 $1 62.40 $34.90 $225.00 0 $33.70 $45.95 SOURCE: State Government News, Lexington, KY, Council of State Governments, December 1976, pp. 2-6.

As Table 5-17 indicates, these same three educational and housing proposals. Voters in states, submitted 25 bond issues to the voters in Rhode Island were considerably more selective 1976. While only 12 were approved, this encom- than those in the two other states, favoring only passed 84O/0 of the proposed amount of indebted- three of ten issues. ness. Voters tended to support the larger issues. There was some tendency to break out smaller STATE AND LOCAL DEBT items such as $700,000 in solid waste management in New Jersey from the large $9 million Authorizing governmental indebtedness at the sewage facilities proposal. Usually, however, state and local levels is a well established they are placed together to let the smaller item tradition. All but five states now require votes "ride on the back" of the larger. The items to be for local general obligation, long-term debt (such voted on ranged widely from fire training as for building fire stations or city hallsl.25 The facilities to water supply and pollution control exceptions are Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, facilities. The most common type of proposal Massachusetts, and Tennessee, and the latter involved some use of water. Transportation two states require it for some specific types of made up another important category, as did local issues. Table 5-18 RESULTS OF STATE AND LOCAL BOND ISSUE ELECTIONS, 1950-75

Year Approved Amount Percent Defeated Amount Percent 1950 76% $ 497,983,399 24% 1951 88 301 ,I 74,640 12 1952 84 458,278,500 16 1953 83 388,769,450 17 1954 84 544,154,550 16 1955 65 1,524,453,871 35 1956 87 665,689,492 13 1957 77 806,795,602 23 1958 75 1,263,754,101 25 1959 72 1,087,633,605 28 1960 85 1,007,889,410 15 1961 67 1,263,606,943 33 I962 70 1,850,443,358 30 I963 63 2,156,807,833 37 1964 78 1,582,926,248 22 I965 73 2,095,491,659 27 1966 77 1,944,831,423 23 1967 74 2,549,704,766 26 1968 54 7,459,875,274 46 I969 40 6,534,047,453 60 1970 63 3,194,042,145 37 1971 35 5,862,362,912 65 1972 64 4,445,857,080 36 1973 52 5,800,848,114 48 1974 62 4,865,370,237 38 1975 29 8,184,238,481 71

SOURCE: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Understanding the Market for State and Local Debt, M-104, Wash- ington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1976, p. 30.

In 14 states, such popular approval is required purse strings tightly for some time, if not forever. by the Constitution, in nine others it is controlled This is not true. The explosion in state and local by both statutory and constitutional provision, spending since World War I1 has been partly and in 22 others it is required only by statute. In fueled by an explosion in state and local 32 states, only a majority vote is required. In 11, borrowing. Table 5-18 makes this clear. The either generally or for special purposes, a yearly percentage of state and local bond issues majority of from three-fifths to two-thirds is that have been approved has exceeded 80%on six required. In Nebraska and North Dakota, a occasions since 1950. Only in three years have specified percentage of voter participation is over half of total proposed funding amounts been required for certain classes of debt. defeated. At the same time, the period since 1970 The concern about bond elections could lead to has seen significantly lower approval percen- the current conclusion that very few bond issues tages, with the lowest in 1975, when only 29%of pass and that the voters have been holding their all proposed amounts were approved. Voter Table 5- 7 9 STATE AND LOCAL DEBT AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET TOTAL DEBT AND NET PUBLIC DEBT, 1950-74 (in billions)

Total Total State and State and Private Total State Total Local Percent Local Percent Year and Public Public and Local Private Total Total Public

1950 $ 490.3 $239.4 $ 20.7 $ 250.9 1951 524.0 241.8 23.3 282.2 1952 555.2 248.7 25.8 306.5 1953 586.4 256.7 28.6 329.7 1954 612.0 263.6 33.4 348.4 1955 665.8 273.6 41 .I 392.2 1956 698.4 271.2 44.5 427.2 1957 728.3 274.0 48.6 454.3 1958 769.6 287.2 53.7 482.4 1959 833.0 304.7 59.6 528.3 1960 874.2 308.1 64.9 566.1 1961 930.3 321.2 70.5 609.1 I962 966.0 335.9 77.0 660.1 I963 1,070.9 348.6 83.9 722.3 1964 1,151.6 361.9 90.4 789.7 1965 1,244.1 373.7 98.3 870.4 1966 1,341.4 387.9 104.8 953.5 I967 1,435.5 408.3 112.8 1,027.2 1968 1,582.5 437.1 123.9 1,145.4 I969 1,736.0 453.2 133.3 1,282.9 1970 1,868.9 484.9 145.0 1,384.0 1971 2,045.8 528.2 162.4 1,517.6 1972 2,270.2 557.6 175.0 1,712.7 1973 2,525.8 593.4 184.5 1,932.4 1974 2,777.3 642.9 205.6 2,134.4

SOURCE: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Understanding ihe Market for State and Local Debt, M-104, Wash- ington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1976, p. 34. support clearly has declined in the 1970s, but it is has increased some eightfold since 1950, much too soon to tell if this is a long term trend or due to faster than governmental debt, although part of peculiarities of this decade. this is no doubt due to the artificially low levels State and local debt peaked in 1964 at 7.9O10 of of private spending during World War 11. total public and private debt, and is now slightly Not more than half of the total state-local under that at 7.4%. It has continued to grow, indebtedness has been authorized by voters. however, as a percentage of total public debt Often, the voting public ratifies only general (federal, state and local), now constituting about obligation long-term obligations,26 and these one-third (32%).In the quarter century from 1950 total about 54% of the total debt, down from 78% to 1974, state and local debt multiplied some of all debt in 1952. About 47% of all state debt and tenfold, while federal debt approximately 57% of local debt is of this sort. The remainder is doubled. Table 5-19 indicates that private debt mostly in the form of limited liability obligations repaid by revenues or charges from a specific referenda in the 1975 through 1977 period, as project, such as a sewage plant, and a smaller outlined in Table 5-21. amount in short-term loans, mostly for tax About 76% of all municipal and 61% of all anticipation notes or similar uses at the local county bond referenda were approved, with level. Referenda for limited liability obligations fairly stable passage rates over the three years. are much less common than for general obligation The municipal approval rate was higher than bonds. municipal tax limit referenda (Table 5-16), The purposes of state and local long-term debt suggesting that bond elections may be perceived are changing. Table 5-20 indicates the shifts. by local voters as directed at a specific, hence Education has dropped significantly as a percen- more acceptable, purpose rather than merely the tage of total debt since its peak of 35% in 1962. need for additional funds. This approval rate is a Transportation also has decreased significantly. good deal higher than the most recent school Industrial aid bonds peaked in the late 1960% district record (Table 5-23) and somewhat higher while in 1973 and 1974 expenditures for pollution than the state bond referenda rate of 62%. The control devices increased dramatically. approval rate for counties is about the same as county tax limit referenda, but higher than MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY BOND REFERENDA, school bonds and comparable to approval rates 1975-77 for state bond referenda. Municipal and county government bond refer- In actual numbers, 414 municipalities held 997 enda are not uncommon, although certainly bond referenda over the period, an average of not as widespread as school bond issues. The about 2.4 per locality. The county rate was only 257 1978 ACIRIICMA survey of all municipalities about one-half, with 58 counties holding 73 bond over 10,000 and all counties over 50,000 indicated referenda (1.3 per county). Almost a third, or 317 that nearly 30% of reporting municipalities and of 997 municipal referenda were begun by citizen 20% of reporting counties held one or more initiatives in 121 cities. The overall number of

Table 5-20 STATE AND LOCAL LONG-TERM DEBT CLASSIFIED BY PURPOSE, SELECTED YEARS, 1959-74 (percent)

Transports- Public Industrial Pollution Year Schools Utilities tion Housing Aid Control Other Total

15% 15 14 12 12 13 15 13 15 14

Less than 0.5%

SOURCE: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Understanding the Market for State and Local Debt, M-104, Wash- ington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1976, p. 15. Table 5-2 1 BOND REFERENDA DURING 1975-77INMUNlClPALlTlESANDCOUNTlES

414 Municipalities Holding Elections Total (28.5% of reporting units) Total Municipalities 505 Ballot lssues 997 lssues Approved 752 (76%) lssues Due to Citizen lnitiatives (number of ~ities)~ 317 (121) 58 Counties Holding Elections (1 8.8% of reporting units) Total Counties 56b Ballot lssues 73 lssues Approved 45 (61 %) lssues Due to Citizen lnitiatives (number of counties) 20 (1 7)

a Citizen initiated referenda included in preceding totals. Fewer elections were reported year by year than for the entire three-year period (58).This is apparently a reporting error.

SOURCE: Survey entitled "Citizen Participation in Fiscal Decision Making-1977," conducted by AClR in cooperation with the International City Management Association, 1978. municipal citizen-initiated referenda seems to be SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDA27 increasing, as well as the number initiated in each city. Counties had about 30% of their total Approval of general obligation bonds for issues initiated by citizens (20 of 73). school purposes requires a vote of the citizens in Table 5-22 places the municipal bond referenda 32 states. Fourteen of these states (California, within the context of all municipal referenda. A Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missis- total of 1,322 elections were held for all purposes sippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New between 1975 and 1977, averaging almost one per York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, municipality over the three-year period (al- and Virginia) require specified percentages in though of course, some localities held several). excess of a bare majority for approval. Mississip- Tax limit referenda were the most common, with pi, for example, requires a 54%approval of those bond and nonfiscal issues about equal in number. voting. In 15 states, some but not all school The propensity to conduct bond referenda is systems require voter approval of bonded not a function of municipal size for smaller indebtedness. In three states (Alabama, Hawaii jurisdictions, but increases dramatically for and Indiana), voter approval is not required. cities over 100,000. Northeast cities tend to go to Tables 5-23 and 5-24 give an overview of the the polls less frequently than those in other school district bond elections held between 1964 regions, with western cities somewhat more and 1976, In this period, some 18,386 individual likely to rely on popular voting. Central cities referenda in the 50 states were held, with over were slightly more likely to hold referenda than 11,000 approved for an acceptance rate of 61.5%. independent cities, particularly if the issues were This rate has been declining in recent years, nonfiscal. Suburban cities used referenda least of however, even as the number of elections has the three jurisdictional types, though overall, decreased. The 391 approvals in fiscal 1976 were there was a clear tendency for council-manager an all time low, as were the 770 elections held. No cities to hold referenda more often than mayor- doubt, the gradual decline in the proportion of council municipalities. school age youngsters has something to do with Table 5-22 REFERENDA ON FISCAL AND OTHER MUNICIPAL ISSUES, 1975-77

Municipalities Municipalities Municipalities Holding Bond Holding Tax Limit Holding Other Referenda Referenda Referenda

Percentage Percentage Percentage of all Re- of All Re- of All Re- Number spondents Number spondents Number spondents

Total Population Group Over 1,000,000 500,000 to 999,999 250,000 to 499,999 100,000 to 249,999 50,000 to 99,999 25,000 to 49,999 10,000 to 24,999 Geographic Region Northeast Northcentral South West Metropolitan Status Central Suburban independent Form of Government Mayor-Counci l Counci I-Manager Commission Town Meeting Representative Town Meeting

Fiscal Year Number of Elections Ending Approved June 30 Held Approved (in percent)

1964 1965 I966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Total

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Bond Sales for Public School Purposes, 1975-76, Washington, DC, U.S. Office of Education, p. 2.

Table 5-24 PAR VALUE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL BOND ISSUES VOTED ON IN THE UNITED STATES, 1964-76

Fiscal Year Par Value of Bond Issues Ending ( n millions) Approved June 30 Proposed Approved (in percent)

1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Total

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, Bond Sales for Public School Purposes, 1975-76, Washington, DC, U.S. Office of Education, p. 2. this, as would any additional financial support apparently were somewhat more likely to ap- from states. Table 5-25 shows the five states prove smaller than larger ones, in contrast to (Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and Oklahoma) state bond issues as noted earlier (see Table 5- with the most local referenda in the six fiscal 17).This voter reaction occurred in nine of the 13 years beginning 1970-71. In Texas, Illinois, and years reported, and presumably serves as an Oklahoma the rate of successful elections ex- encouragement to school officials to keep the size ceeds or meets the national average, which never of bond proposals down (or to split up issues into exceeded 56% during those years. Yet, school smaller and more palatable options).The amount districts in Michigan and Ohio faced, at best, an proposed has declined rather dramatically from a uphill battle, encountering success less than a high in 1973 and 1974, and the amount approved third of the time. Even so, they continued to put in 1976 dropped below a billion for the first time issues before the voters. In Michigan, bonds in the 13 years surveyed. equal to 5% of the state-equalized valuation can Oklahoma, the state with the most local be issued by the school board without a vote, elections, usually put the largest proposed while in Ohio the governing body unilaterally indebtedness authorizations before the voters. may issue bonds up to 0.1% of the locally assessed Yet, most of these were in small amounts, while valuation. Both of these provisions give the California, with fewer voter issues than Oklaho- districts some flexibility but the voters have ma, placed nearly $3 billion in proposals before effectively limited education expansion in these the voters during the six-year period. This is two states. probably due to the relatively larger size of the Table 5-24 indicates the value of bond issues California districts. Texas voters, it might be 261 put before the voters during the period 1967-76. A noted, approved slightly more total authoriza- total of over $44 billion was put on the ballot, tions than California. Texas was also the one with over $24 billion, or 54%, approved through state in this group whose districts approved a 1976. The 6l0/0 rate of approval in individual higher percentage of the amounts proposed than elections somewhat exceeds the 54% average for approved individual elections (74% to 66%). the amount of bonds approved as a percentage of Individual district elections in other states were the amount of issue at stake. Thus, voters closer to the norm of lower authorized amounts

Table 5-25 STATES WlTH THE MOST SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOND ELECTIONS AND WlTH THE LARGEST AMOUNTS OF BOND AUTHORIZATIONS VOTED UPON, THROUGH 1975-76 FIVE HIGHEST IN EACH CATEGORY LISTED

Number Total Proposed Total Passed of Local Number Authorizations Authorizations States Referenda Passed Percentage (in millions) (in millions) Percentage

California - -% $2,957 $1,502 51 % Illinois 462 288 62 1,172 577 49 Michigan 61 6 196 32 2,127 648 30 Ohio 736 210 29 1,996 588 29 Oklahoma 41 0 282 69 - - - Texas 871 580 66 2,046 1,519 74 SOURCE: National Center for Educational Statistics, Bond Sales for Public School Purposes, Washington, DC, US. Office of Education, issues for 1970-71 thru 1975-76, passim, compiled by AClR staff. than for rates of electoral success. The exception such people have a chance to express political to the states with the most individual district protest and thus ". . . voting down local issues elections placing the most proposed par value of does not represent an organized, class-conscious total bonds before voters was Oklahoma, where opposition, but a type of mass protest, a the proposed amounts were relatively insignifi- convergence of the individual assessment of the cant. powerless who have projected into available Several studies have been made of the reasons symbols the fears and suspicions growing out of for defeat of school bond issues. One study of 68 their alienated existence."31 defeated issues, mostly in California, anddone at In light of these findings, it appears that a time when approvals were running at an overall greater efforts for more citizen involvement rate of over 67% and concluded that the following would reach out to these kinds of citizens, for (1) were the most important factors explaining they are unlikely to step forward to participate failure: (1) the percentage of vote required for in, or to belong to, organizations which might be passage (generally a two-thirds vote), (2) the linked to schools through participative mecha- level of the local school tax rate, (3) the level of nisms, and (2) it is unlikely that any participato- the overall tax rate, and (4) scars resulting from ry scheme could involve all individuals or change unification battles. Items two and three suggest all views. The existence of deeply alienated strongly that voters carefully calculate the individuals who are still willing to vote (normal- benefits of school programs against the addition- ly these individuals do not) suggest that local al costs of property tax increases.28 Less influen- referenda provide certain "outlets" for protest 262 tial, yet still significant reasons included criti- and may be highly functional for the political cism of officials, negative voting by senior system as a whole, even though it does make citizens, and community economic levels. more difficult the job of local school officials. Some defeated issues, it should be noted, were One factor not generally considered in studies found to be at least partially a result of the failure of this type is whether or not the decline in the to involve citizens. "Informed community leaders number of school districts over the last three perceived that decisionmaking had often taken decades, from over 108,000 in 1942 to 15,260 in place with little or only token involvement of the 1977, has contributed to voter negativism be- citizen. Decisions had been announced after cause of loss of local control or a feeling of discussions in which they had not been in- powerlessness in the face of larger, more profes- volved."29 Civic groups usually supported or led sional districts. Information on the frequency the campaigns which brought approval. and success of referenda by size of district unfortunately is not available. Citizens' advisory committees for assisting in the planning of facilities projects and their financing were not NONFISCAL PARTICIPATORY ACTIVITY often encountered. Both officials and AT STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS voter respondents felt that failure to involve the public in the preliminary There are a number of participative mecha- stages of arriving at crucial decisions nisms at the state and local level which do not was of some importance in accounting directly involve fiscal activity. Yet, they are for lack of citizen support of all school closely related to participative processes in policy decisions, not just of bond general and thereby indirectly to fiscal processes as well. For this reason, some of the major mechanisms of a more general sort are discussed Another study of school bond issues concluded in this section. These include nonfiscal referenda, that deep seated feelings of frustration and open meetings and open records laws, public alienation are the basic reasons for negative information in state legislatures, procedures for voting in local referenda. This response is administrative rulemaking, advisory commit- based on a general feeling of individual power- tees, citizen surveys, new state mechanisms in lessness rather than on any specific opposition policy and plan formulation, other specific to school finances or policies. The referendum techniques, and coordination of citizen participa- process is an institutional arrangement by which tion at the state level. Nonfiscal Referenda Table 5-26 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS A substantial number of ballot issues at both CONSIDERED AND ADOPTED the state and local levels do not directly affect AMONG SELECTED STATES, 1973-76 fiscal matters, but provide an opportunity for citizen participation, even absolute control. In Most Amendments Considered addition, their use often affects fiscal matters. State Proposed Adopted Voter receptivity to nonfiscal ballot issues may aid or endanger bond or tax limit proposals on the California 3 7 27 same ballot. Personnel decisions which affect Ohio 41 23 such matters as veterans preference, the use of Oregon 27 13 state or city lands, the creation of a commission, Maryland 22 2 1 and similar matters have an effect on the Oklahoma 22 15 allocation of funds in the future. Often it is Texas 2 1 9 difficult to distinguish clearly between ballot New Hampshire 2 1 7 measures on the basis of whether or not they have fiscal impact. Table 5-15 indicated that state Fewer Amendments Considered constitutional or other statewide issues proposed from 1970 to 1975 involved formal fiscal matters State Proposed Adopted in about a fifth of the cases. Illinois 1 0 A separate analysis of state constitutional Rhode Island 1 1 amendments considered during 1972-76(Table 5- Hawaii 2 2 26), indicates that some states considered a Louisiana substantial number. In such states, those citizens 2 2 Iowa or groups involved in the electoral process have a 2 2 substantial impact on governmental decisions. In June 1976,for example, California voters acted on Highest Percentage of Amendment Adopted the following ten statewide issues (many of (among states considering five or which were not constitutional issues): more proposals) State Proposed Adopted permission for legislature to authorize bingo for cities and counties (approved); Maine 14 14 authorization for depositing public moneys South Carolina 9 9 in savings and loan associations as well as Connecticut 8 8 banks (approved); Maryland 2 2 2 1 Kansas 11 10 delineation and taxing of historical sites (approved); (all over 90%) authorizing the legislature to allow elderly Lowest Percentage of Amendments Adopted citizens to postpone property taxes (ap- State Proposed Adopted proved); change in legislative voting requirements for Illinois 1 0 corporation taxes (approved); South Dakota 8 1 Nebraska 114 3 elimination of income tax deductions for Vermont 7 2 insurance companies' home office property Washington 11 3 tax (approved); (all under 30%) use of surplus property for park use (approved); SOURCE: National Civic Review, New York, NY, National repeal and amendment of various miscel- Municipal League, 1972 through 1977. laneous constitutional matters (approved); TN, balloted on liquor by-the-glass sales. Pasco, authorization for legislature to approve WA, voted in 1975 on a gambling issue (adviso- refunding bonds for state debt by a two- ry); Boca Raton, FL, on ratifying a topless thirds vote (not approved); and ordinance; and Inglewood, CA, on legalizing card parlors. authorization to increase maximum interest Zoning matters also were put to the electorate rate collectible (not approved). in many cities, and often they had a fiscal impact. Kewanee, IL, voted on using a park for a high rise States such as California use the constitutional development. Merrimack, NH, had 12 zoning amendment process much more frequently than matters on the ballot in a three-year period, along others, although in a four-year period from 1972 with a proposal for a town manager in each year. to 1976, only one state, Tennessee, failed to The county of Santa Barbara, CA, voted on propose any changes to its constitution. In this permitting construction of an oil processing plant period, the number of items considered by in the coastal area and on a growth control individual states ranged from 41 in Ohio to one proposal by the council which downzoned the proposal each in Rhode Island and Illinois. city and set potential population limits. River- Approvals ranged from 27 in California to none in side, CA, rejected a citizen initiative on Illinois. Table 5-26 gives some of the extremes controlled growth, and Little Rock, AR, voted on among states, both in the number of proposals annexing a 55-square-mile area. 264 and in the percentages of approvals. Employee status and policies also were com- Localities also place a substantial number of mon ballot measures, often having substantial nonfiscal matters on the local ballot. Table 5-22 fiscal implications. A number of localities voted indicates that municipalities responding to the on collective bargaining questions, some on 1978 ACIRIICMA questionnaire held as many whether or not to accept an agreement, but more miscellaneous as bond referenda, with about 28% often to authorize negotiations (frequently for conducting such canvasses over the past three fire departments]. Voter approval of negotiated years. agreements (especially for teachers' salaries) For many localities, the most common ballot was found more often in eastern cities. Oakland item was an amendment to the local chapter. In and San Bernardino, CA, voted on setting police some cases, the volume of charter amendments and fire salaries, Tonawanda, NY, on civil was substantial. The City and County of San service status for specific department heads, and Francisco had 45 charter amendments on the Los Angeles County, CA, on travel reimburse- local ballot in the three-year period from 1975 to ments for employees. While direct citizen action 1977, second only to the city of Tamarac, FL, with in public sector bargaining is controversial, a its 46 during the same period. Colorado Springs recent study indicates that there is general reported the most charter amendment votes in a agreement about the need for some means of single year, 19 in 1977, along with five other "public interest" access to, and influences over, proposals in 1975. San Diego reported 12 items on the the 1977 ballot, including charter amendments to Occasionally, issues arise directly relating to lease lands, establish competitive bidding proce- the grants-in-aid process, such as in Las Cruces, dures, limit veterans preference, set civil service NM, where citizen participation forced a 1975 procedures, assign functions to a different referendum on whether or not to accept Commun- municipal official, and modify the civil service ity Development Block Grant funds. system. In addition, San Diego citizens also Other types of votes affect the organization prohibited nudity on beaches and approved a and financing of services. Pasco County, FL, paramedic program. voted in 1976 on creation or modification of three Regulation of morals, which often involves fire districts, a bridge district, and a water and financial questions, was a commonly reported sewer district. Sarasota County, FL, put to matter for popular decision. Dade County, FL, popular vote the proposed creation of two voted on a gay rights ordinance. Clay County, highway districts and an emergency medical MO, voted on repealing a blue law to permit services district, while Salem, OR, voters reject- Sunday sales. Grandview, MI, and Springfield, ed a mass transit district. Sometimes advisory referenda are presented to sunshine laws or strengthened old ones. In the citizenry. Moorhead, MN, held one on selling 1976, 12 other states acted, including New York a 320 acre city farm, and Miami, FL, on selling and Rhode Island. In 1977, four other states beer in the Orange Bowl. Many other votes enacted comprehensive sunshine laws, and ten appear to be technically advisory, or placed on others passed new legislation.34 Now, every state the ballot at the initiative of the legislative body has some form of open meeting law. when not legally required to do so. Of the 50 state open meeting laws, 42 require This brief review of nonfiscal referenda clearly advance public notice, 37 require that minutes be shows that citizen control through the ballot box taken, 35 provide for sanctions against officials has a substantial impact on state and local gov- who violate the law, and 31 provide that actions ernment. Whether the referenda are binding or taken against the provisions of the law are void advisory, they circumscribe the decisionmaking or voidable. This latter provision was actually powers of elected officials, and expand the role of used in New Jersey, where courts voided an citizens. Atlantic City charter already approved by voters because it was drafted illegally in closed ses- Open Meeting Laws si0ns.~5 According to the Common Cause report, all 50 Open meeting laws create opportunities for states require local governments to open their citizen participation. States have a wide range of meetings except when dealing with specified requirements for open meetings, applying var- actions such as personnel decisions, salary 265 negotiations, or consultation with an attorney. iously to meetings of the legislative and execu- All 50 states also apply the law to state executive tive branches, and requiring public notification. In 1974, the ACIR reported that virtually all branches, and to all or some activities of their states required their public bodies to conduct state legislatures. Thirty-five states give citizens open meetings. While executive sessions still are the legal standing needed to sue violators. permitted under some circumstances, most states In some cases, the concept of open meetings has restrict the nature of these closed sessions, apparently resulted in televised legislative prohibiting final votes in them. However, only 24 proceedings. Public TV stations in 31 states now states, at that time, required public notification provide regular coverage of state legislatures; of meetings, and even fewer specified the nature nine televise sessions nightly; and 12 feature and scope of such meetings. weekly telecasts. Studies conducted in Florida, State legislatures usually are allowed to where the original sunshine law was adopted in operate under their own rules. A survey made by 1967, indicated that viewers generally liked the the Iowa State Association of Counties and program, and that the program generally reported in its publication Public Access to the improved attitudes toward the legislature.36 Legislative Process indicated that most legisla- Florida also has conducted public sector labor tures do have open meeting requirements, but negotiations in open meetings since 1974. This that notification procedures are relatively infor- appears to be as far as any state has gone in mal or nonexistent. The Iowa study assigned opening meetings which most experts hitherto scores with respect to 11 criteria of public access would have regarded as best left closed. Prelimi- to the legislative process. This ranking showed nary reports indicate that school board members Wisconsin and Minnesota as leaders in accessi- and superintendents prefer open meetings, but bility, and gave substantially lower scores to that labor negotiators do not. Negotiators cite the Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Geor- difficulty of compromising and changing posi- gia.33 tions in public. At least one union negotiator feels Provisions of state laws applying to public that open sessions can be useful to the union in meetings and notification as of 1977 are found in explaining their position to the public.37 Table 5-27. These laws originated with the 1967 Making public these kinds of matters is what Florida sunshine law. There has been a substan- advocates of open meetings have in mind, and the tial increase in the number of such laws and their Florida experience points out the strengths and strength in the last few years. Common Cause weaknesses of such laws when the concept is indicates that in 1975, 15 states enacted new carried to its logical conclusion. Table 5-27 STATE OPEN MEETING LAWS: 1977

Applies to: State State Limita- Provisions Enforcement Legislation Open Executive Local tions on for: Citizens Meetings Com- Branch Govern- Executive Min- Personal Voluntary Standing States Required Floor mittees etc. ment Sessions Notice utes Sanctions Actions to Sue

United States, Total 50 50 50 42 3 1 35 Alabama X X X Alaska X X X X X Arizona X X X X X X Arkansas X X X X X X California X X X X X Colorado X X X X X X Connecticut X X X X X X Delaware X X X X X X Dist. of Columbia Florida X X X X X X Georgia X X X X X Hawaii X X X X X Idaho X X X X X Illinois X X X X Indiana X X X 2 X X Iowa X X X X X Kansas X X X X X Kentucky X X X X X X Louisiana X X X X X Maine X X X X X X XXX X XXXXXXX X XX X XXX XXXX

XXX X X XXX X XXX XX

X X XXX XX XXXXX XXXX XXX X

XXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXX XX XXX XX

XXXXX X XXX XXX XXXXX XXX XXX XX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXr XXXXXr

X- XXX XXXXX XXXXX X- XXX XXXXX X XXXX

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XX XX XXXXX All records open

X X x_ xx Administrative review x A

XX XX XXX X XX XXXX judicial review

X X X X Attorneys fees paid

x x xxX,X,xx X xx XX, x Fine - w

X X X x 5x jail

juvenile, adoption X,x X, EX, X X, X, CP N 'om C 0 X, 5XoxNX parole, medical, mental Litigation involving X X X public body Land acquisition X X XX X disposition

x, EX, 5% Personnel, school files

Arrest records (if no conviction)

X X Trade secrets

XX X Investigatory information

X X Inter-dept. memos

XXXX Invasion of privacy

X X Geological information

X X XX X X XXX fees charged n n CD 0 CD fa wu Fee schedule set up Mississippi** Missouri X X26 X X X27 X Montana X X Nebraska X X X X X X Nevada X X28 X New Hampshire X X X XZ9 X X X New jersey X X X X New Mexico X X X X X30 X New York X X31 X32 X X X North Carolina X X X X X North Dakota X Ohio X33 X X34 Oklahoma X Oregon X X35 X X X36 X X XXXX X Pennsylvania X X X X Rhode Island** South Carolina X X X X X37 X3 X South Dakota X Tennessee X ~39 X40 X41 X X X X Texas X X42 X X X XXX X X X X X X Utah X Vermont X X X X X43 XXX XXXX X Virginia X X X X Xu X X X X Washington XXXX X45 X X XXXX X West Virginia X Wisconsin X Wyoming X X X X46 X X X X X X X

*' Have no open record laws. l5 Medical 31 Also by a Committee on Access to Public Records l6Medical 3Z Medical ' Civil Action l7School 33 Minutes of Open Meetings Adoption, Medical laMisdemeanor " Parole Adoption, Medical l9 Juvenile, Adoption 35 By the Attorney General School By the Attorney General 36 Parole Contempt of Court 21 Misdemeanor 37 Medical Medical " Medical " School ' Personnel Medical, Adoption 39 Misdemeanor Transcripts Can be Made Available 24 Medical " For divulging Tax RecordcJail and Fine Medical, juvenile 25 Personnel Medical loPersonnel 26 Misdemeanor 42 Attorney General l1 By Public Information Review Board 27 School Contempt of Court l2 By Individual Agencies * Misdemeanor Medical l3 Adoption 29 Parole, Medical 45 Medical, Mental, Parole l4Medical 30 Medical, Mental " Medical SOURCE: Lucille Amico, et al., State Open Records Laws: An Update, Columbia, MO, Freedom of lnformation Center School of Journalism,University of Missouri, rnimeo, July 1976, pp. 205-7. Open Records Laws 38 citizens are to have a right to know, they must be adequately informed. As of 1975, 47 states and the District of The acts tend to be inconsiderate of Columbia had open records laws, often referred those seeking information. Because to as freedom of information laws. Only Dela- they fail to give custodians a deadline in which to respond to a request, they ware, Mississippi and Rhode Island had none. Such laws provide access by citizens to records allow information to be withheld inde- finately.39 in the possession of both state and local governments. Journalists have been promoting this type of The first open records law was enacted by state legislation since 1961 when their profes- Wisconsin in 1849, and 34 states had them by sional society, Sigma Delta Chi developed a 1961. These, of course, predated the federal model acress law. The Southern Governmental Freedom of Information Act of 1966. Monitoring Project of the Southern Regional Following the Watergate break-in in 1972, 22 Council formulated a more complete model in states (and the federal government also) 1975, and the Freedom of Information Center amended their laws to make the procedures for provided a refined version of this latter formula- obtaining public records more rapid and sys- tion in 1976.40 tematic. Many states now enumerate a few exemptions and make all other records accessible Public Information in 270 to the public unless the government can demon- State Legislatures strate that disclosure would damage the public State legislatures increasingly are becoming interest. The states also often set reasonable aware of the need to be open with, and visible to, procedures for inspecting records, copying and the general public. Therefore, through their paying for them, and adjudication of denials. The national association, they have surveyed their 1975 status of state open meeting laws is shown recent efforts to open up, and published both the in Table 5-28. general findings and recommendations as well as Despite this progress, the Freedom of Informa- specific examples.41 Here is what the National tion Center at the University of Missouri Conference of State Legislatures found: concludes: Public knowledge as to when and where . . . state record acts still need a great action will be taken on pending legislation is deal of improvement. For example, one of the most fundamental aspects of there are 17 states which fail to provide legislative public information. All states administrative or judicial review. In provide some form of bill calendar for both most of these states, a writ of manda- house and committee consideration. In most mus cannot even be issued because states, floor action agendas are available custodial duties are not clearly speci- daily; committee schedules are usually fied. In other states, administrative and published on a weekly basis. Legislative judicial review are furnished but at the administrative officers-the secretary of the expense of the individual. Hawaii, senate and the clerk of the house-are Illinois, Vermont, and Washington are customarily responsible for the gathering the only states which award citizens and publication of such information. attorney fees and litigation costs if they gain access to the desired record. States are increasingly using computers to Connecticut, the District of Columbia track legislation. According to a 1975-76 and New York have established free- National Association of State Information dom of information commissions to Systems (NASIS) report, 29 states have review all denials and to aid requestors computerized their bill status data. Some in disputing them. states disseminate factual legislative infor- Another weakness in several of the mation directly-and effectively-to their state record laws is that they are too citizens through the use of a call-in "hotline" general in discussing documents open service. In 11 states, residents can dial a state and exempt from disclosure. . . . If government WATS line and receive bill status, committee scheduling, and floor explaining the legislative process. Almost all action information. Factual questions about state legislatures provide citizens with bill sponsorship and district representatives general information pamphlets, and operate are also answered. speakers' bureaus. California has special public information programs for Spanish In addition to status and calendar informa- speaking citizens. tion, narrative summaries andnewsletters of legislative activities are prepared and made Upon completion of its survey of these public available by many states. Some states information efforts in the state legislatures, the distribute these to interested citizens and Legislative Improvement and Modernization media at no cost through the use of extensive Committee of the National Conference of State mailing lists. Other states make copies Legislatures recommended that: available in the capitol, primarily for use by state legislatures actively provide informa- the capitol press corps and legislators. tion on legislative activities to the public; Many legislatures have facilities for press each state legislature adopt as many public conferences and media coverage of legisla- information services and activities as feasi- tive activities. All 50 states provide facilities ble; and for the print media in, or near, the state capitols; and half of the states furnish at each state legislature adopt formal least one special studio or press conference constraints to ensure the judicious provision room for the electronic media. Some states of such information. 271 provide radio taping facilities for members who wish to tape a program for constituents Procedures for on their activities. Nearly all states allow spot television coverage of committee and Administrative Rulemaking floor sessions. Several states have in- Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia depth public television coverage of the have administrative procedures acts (APA). The legislature. exceptions are Alabama and South Carolina. In All states make copies of bills available to all but two of the 48 APA states (Delaware and their citizens, though sometimes at charge. North Dakota), these acts provide administrative All states also provide one or more of the rulemaking procedures consisting of (1)notice of following publications: a list of bills under proposed action, (2) opportunity to comment, consideration, a schedule of floor and com- and/or (3) citizens' rights to petition an adminis- mittee actions, a record of that activity, and trative agency for adoption, amendment, or directories containing information on indi- repeal of administrative rules. These laws apply vidual legislators. generally to state administrative agencies, and sometimes to local agencies as we11.42 In order to generate citizen interest and involvement throughout the year, some Although many of these laws sprang from the states "take the legislature to the people" by model state Administrative Procedures Act, there holding interim committee meetings in are substantial differences among them. Table 5- individual districts. In addition, newsletters 29 shows the presence or absence of the three and publications on interim activities are basic rulemaking provisions. At this level of available in some states. generality, 45 states and the District of Columbia provide for notification; 42 states and the District Many legislatures publish a session "wrap- of Columbia provide an opportunity for citizens up" or summary. This kind of publication is to present their comments in either written or usually made available to the public through oral form; and 38 states provide citizens the right the state library system. to petition for rulemaking action. Looking at it another way, four states have no general admin- Some states provide educational programs, istrative rulemaking law; two have only one of seminars, and capitol tours, as well as the three parts; nine plus the District of Columbia internship programs and film presentations have two parts; and 35 have all three parts. In -- -

X XXXX X XXXX X X XXX

XXXXX X XX XXX

XXXX XX XX XXXXX XX X XXX

XXXX XX XX XXXXX XXXXX XXX

e XXXX XX X X XXX X XXXXX XX xs

XX XXXX XX XXX X XXXXX XXXXZ

XX XX XX XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX

XX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX

I) addition, there is substantial variation among the review may be advisory only, or it may allow for details such as the length of time for notice before disapproval or delay of a regulation. In any case, actual rulemaking will occur, the procedures for it provides a continuing means for the legisla- accepting comments, and the procedures for tures to monitor the activities of the bureaucracy, agencies in responding to petitions requesting and ensures that proposed regulations are rulemaking action.43 technically correct, within the scope of the law, in The model state APA requires that administra- accord with legislative intent, and not unneces- tive rules be made available for public inspection sarily burdensome on the public. as a condition for them becoming "valid or effective,"44 and it also provides that the states Advisory Committees publish a monthly periodical (similar to the Federal Register) in which state administrative Counties and municipalities, as well as states, rules are to be printed or a notice of their make heavy use of advisory committees and availability given.45 According to a 1975 survey commissions as a means of obtaining information of state administrative rules and regulations and feed back from citizens, eliciting citizen conducted by the Maryland Division of State participation, and involving the public in the Documents,46 25 of the responding states have a development and even implementation of local register type publication; 26 codify their admin- programs. istrative rules and regulations; and 24 provide These committees cover such subject matter instruction to agency personnel involved in areas as planning, police and fire, recreation, 274 rulemaking while the remaining 24 states believe human relations, and economic development. that such intention would be beneficial. Most of One study estimates that as many as one out of this activity is of recent origin. 200 politically aware adults were on commis- Another recent trend in administrative rule- sions in two or three Chicago area suburbs.48 making is legislative review. As of 1977,34 states The ACIRIICMA survey asked localities to had formal procedures whereby the legislature indicate the number of advisory committees or reviews the regulations developed by state commissions created by state law or local administrative agencies pursuant to state legis- legislative action in their community, and the lation.47 Often these provisions are enacted as estimated number of citizens serving in total on amendments to the state APA. The legislative all such bodies. A total of 95O10 of the 1,464

Table 5-30 NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES OR COMMISSIONS AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CITIZENS SERVING ON THEM

Total Citizens Serving on Committees Number of Number of Under Over Committees Cities Percentage 25 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500

- - - - None 7 5 5% - - 1-5 596 4 1 230 278 6 1 2 2 5 - 6-9 314 2 1 6 134 151 20 1 2 10-19 322 2 2 4 19 152 133 12 2 20-49 145 10 - - 5 69 6 5 6 - - Over 50 12 1 - - 5 7 Totals 1,464 100% 240 43 1 369 244 88 17

Total Citizens Serving on Committees Number of Number of Under Over Committees Counties Percentage 25 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500

None 2 8 9% ------1-5 100 3 2 3 0 46 2 0 4 - - 6-9 48 15 1 13 2 6 6 1 1 10-19 74 2 3 1 - 2 8 35 10 - 20-49 50 16 1 1 3 16 29 - Over 50 14 5 - - - 1 4 9 Totals 3 14 100% 33 60 77 52 44 10

SOURCE: Survey entitled "Citizen Participation in Fiscal Decision Making-1977," conducted by AClR in cooperation with the International City Management Association, 1978. responding municipalities indicated that they common total was also from one to five commit- had at least one such citizen group, while 11% tees, but the typical number of citizen members reported 20 or more. Table 5-30 provides the (in the 50 to 99 range) was somewhat greater than detailed breakdown. for municipalities (in the 25-49 range). A total of 105 cities reported from 200 to over The larger the county's population, the more 500 citizens serving on advisory bodies. The most likely it was to have 20 or more committees. common figures showed from one to five commit- Metropolitan counties and counties with admin- tees, with between 25 and 49 citizens serving on istrators were far more likely to have over 20 each. Nearly half of all reporting municipalities committees than were nonmetropolitan or non- (718), have over 50 citizens serving on advisory administrator counties. Western counties usual- groups. ly had more committees than those in other As might be expected, municipalities under regions. 25,000 had substantially fewer committees than Since about 95% of cities and 91% of counties larger units, with over half having five or fewer reported at least one citizen committee, it is clear committees. No municipality under 100,000 had that citizen advisory committee membership, as many as 50 cammittees. There was no regional along with direct electoral methods, is a time- variation in the number of committees, but there tested and accepted means of assuring citizen was a marked trend for central cities to have participation at the local level. Written comments more of them, with over 32% in this category from both city and county officials frequently having at least 20. No suburban or independent indicated that the budget is reviewed by citizen city had over 50 committees. Manager cities advisory groups or commissions, and their tended to have more advisory committees than comments were taken into account in the final mayor-council municipalities. decisions. Some units even have citizen commit- Of the 314 reporting counties, 28 or about 9% tees prepare, or at least approve, the preliminary reported no citizen committees, while 64, about proposed budget. Bluefield, WV, reported that 21°/0, reported 20 or more committees (see Table 5- "overall, the appointed~electedadvisory commit- 31). In comparison to cities, a large percentage of tees remain the central point of citizen participa- counties had over ten committees (44%compared tion groups." Milwaukie, OR, noted that "We to 33%). This suggests that those counties created a Neighborhood Council program in 1975 choosing to use committees tended to use them for the specific purpose of involving interested more than municipalities. For counties, the most citizens in the local decisionmaking process-the opportunities for such sharing are limited only obviously, was of interest to local officials. by their energy and interest. Participation in Jefferson County (Louisville), KY, has the fiscal decisionmaking is largely a function of Continuing Citizens Consultation program, be- education, at least we have found it so." Plain- gun in 1974, which calls for quarterly surveys of field, NJ, stated that a 15-member citizen ad hoc various topics every fiscal year. These surveys budget advisory committee is involved each year have dealt with major community issues, includ- in the analysis of the city's budget review ing expenditure priorities, school busing, hous- process. These and similar advisory committees ing, and government reorganization.54 elsewhere clearly are involved in the local fiscal Allentown, PA, conducted several surveys of decisionmaking process. citywide attitudes and attitudes in selected wards in 1975, attempting to obtain citizen perceptions of city government, city issues, and Citizen Surveys neighborhood conditions.55 Harrisburg, PA, provided a short, self-administered question- Survey research is an established citizen naire to its residents to obtain their views prior to participation tool, although it has not received as adoption of its 1977 budget. The city's confidence much attention as it deserves. A 1972 survey in using this approach was strengthened by a indicated that more than 5O010 of cities over previous study (funded by the U.S. Office of 100,000 and counties over 250,000 had been Education) which ascertained that evaluations of conducting citizen surveys for several years. services are related systematically to preferences z76 Even so, local surveys of public opinions and for increased expenditures.56 citizen views have not been widely used as a Open-ended responses to the ACIRIICMA 1978 means of citizen participation.49 Time, expense, survey indicated that several localities use and questions as to their need all enter into the citizen surveys. For example, Kirkwood, MO, reluctance of smaller jurisdictions in using them. claims to have used a mail public opinion According to one study, they may even have questionnaire in addition to advertising public fallen into disrepute in the 1970~.~O hearings, and to have received as high as a 25% The basic reason for using surveys as a form of return rate from all homeowners. Winnetka, IL, citizen participation is to provide a carefully mails a questionnaire to all residents. Tallahas- conducted poll of a representative sample of the see, FL, reports receiving citizen input into the population on some issue or set of issues. Such budget process by opinion surveys with sample surveys can balance the often unrepresentative questions such as the following: element of participation found in public hearings and serve as a supplement to more direct means of participation such as advisory commissions or 1. Would you say the streets in your neighbor- hearings. A substantial body of literature on hood: their use locally is beginning to eme~-ge.5l The specific use of survey data and opinion a. -need no repair. surveys can be found in many places. The State b. -need some minor repair. of Washington, in developing its Alternatives for c. -need major repair. Washington program, surveyed over 50,000 d. -don't know. citizens by mail, telephone and newspapers between 1974 and 1976.52Newspapers commonly 2. In the event that 1979 city revenues exceed survey readers or "the man on the street" about projected costs, I feel that the following city public issues, and these surveys have an impact services should be improved. Please check no on the local governments in the area. For more than three services: example, a Chicago Tribune telephone survey three years ago, found that most residents of both Garbage and trash collection - the city and its suburbs (a) would prefer to live Parks - elsewhere, (b) expected both Chicago and the Street improvement and repair - suburbs to be worse places to live in five years, Bus service - and (c) thought that their place of residence had Police service - gotten worse in the past five ~ears.5~This, Fire service - New State Participative Mechanisms in meetings, including a special three-day session Policy and Plan Formulation designed to brief legislators on the past, present and future status of the state. The sessions were broadcast live over radio stations, and rebroad- Several states have initiated major new policy cast later on educational television. and planning innovations with heavy use of Alaska appointed a group of citizens to the citizen participation techniques.57 Referring to Alaska Growth Policy Council and charged them these developments, and terming them "almost a with involving the public in identification, populist revival in state level policy develop- analysis, and policy formulation on a range of ment," the Council of State Planning Agencies developmental topics. Through statewide work- indicated that general discontent with govern- shops, over 3,500 citizens became involved in ment stimulated many of the innovations men- recommending actions which the state should tioned in its report. take. Several factors have led to this "populist During 1975-77, Massachusetts developed a revival," including (1) awareness of the potential growth policy report which involved volunteer of survey research as an aid to political decision- efforts of over 5,000 members of local growth making, (2) the need for consistent state proce- policy committees in 330 local communities. At dures for citizen participation because of the about the same time, California also developed "rampant and diverse requirements for public and adopted such a policy. Michigan is follow- hearings and citizen involvement associated ing suit. with federal programs," (3) media coverage of These state innovations have been essentially 277 state government, and (4) regional local founda- one-time attempts to achieve state goals or to tions and private groups such as the League of create state development policies through mas- Women Voters and Common Cause.58 sive citizen participation. As such, they might be Several specific examples of state actions in distinguished from the routine requirements for this field can be cited. Texas started the trend public hearing and notification which enable toward state "goals studies" when it emulated the citizens to gain access to everyday govern- pioneering "Goals for Dallas" project by compil- mental decisionmaking. At the state level, a ing and publishing Goals for Texas, based upon a combination of both formal citizen participation series of citizen meetings throughout the state. requirements for routine actions and major The states of Georgia, Oregon and Washington initiatives involving citizens in the development followed, and by 1974,21 states were involved in of state policies might maximize the opportuni- such efforts.S9 ties for citizen involvement. Recent examples give the current flavor of these efforts. In Pennsylvania, a multitechnique Other Specific Techniques participation effort began in 1976. It focused on development of a state land use plan. Scores of At least two other types of citizen participation meetings were held, and over 10,000 participants have been expressly provided for by state law. were involved. The results are to lead to a revised One is the office of ombudsman, or other similar state land use plan through legislative and complaint-handling agencies, and the other is a administrative actions. permit procedure to protect the right for Kentucky is another good example. It created a public demonstrations. major citizen task force on economic development in 1974 with 1,000 citizen members of five MODEL OMBUDSMAN ACTS subtask forces considering agriculture, energy, finance, tourism, and industrial development. In State ombudsman legislation has been enacted 1975, another citizen task force was formed on in Hawaii, Iowa and Nebraska (as of 1975),60and education with 600 individual citizen members. ombudsman types of complaint-handling offices Minnesota created the Commission on Minne- have been established in Honolulu, HI, Seattle- sota's Future to develop a state growth and King County, WA, and Jackson County, M0.61 development plan for the Governor and legisla- Other states and local governments also have ture. Forty citizen members plus a number of more or less ombudsman-like complaint services state officials held a number of publicized open to assist citizens in their disputes with their government. Model acts have been drafted at many state governments as a result of this effort. Harvard, Yale and Columbia universities, and Governmentwide coordination of citizen par- by the American Bar Association Section on ticipation at the state level is not highly devel- Administrative Law.62 Federal antipoverty pro- oped, and descriptions of the efforts which are grams have been instrumental in much of this being made along these lines are not readily activity. available from any source uncovered by ACIR. Informal contacts with individuals in state gov- UNIFORM PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT ernment, however, do indicate that there is some action of this type. For example, there is a In 1972, following several active years of recommendation in Rhode Island for an ex- disruptive public demonstrations and other panded effort which would be embodied in a new types of large public assemblies which disturbed office of volunteerism and citizen participation,66 the peace in many communities, and which led to and the special Governor's Task Force on Citizen litigation casting doubt on the effectiveness of Participation has made very far reaching recom- local government efforts to control such demon- mendations for Montana.67 The Montana recom- strations and assemblies, the National Confer- mendations are quite detailed and they cover ence of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws formal "Rules for Citizen Participation for all adopted a "Uniform Public Assembly Act.""This Departments of State Government," recommen- act "facilitates and protects the holding of public dations for state publications (including a assemblies.. . subject only to such restrictions directory of state government, a "state govern- 278 on time, place, and manner of conducting the ment agenda" listing meetings of public interest, assembly as are appropriate to safeguard the and a state periodical for publication of notices, civil liberties of nonparticipants."64 The act proposed actions, appointments, and other conforms to constitutional requirements and information of public interest), recommenda- "attempts to maximize the possibilities that tions for training in citizen participation, and 13 discussions and negotiations will occur between specific recommendations for new or amended sponsors [of assemblies] and governmental legislation. If accepted, these provisions could authorities with successful results."65 The need have a substantial unifying effect on citizen for such an act was pointed up by Justice Black in participation at the state level in Montana. the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Gregory vs. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111. CONCLUSIONS Coordination of Citizen Participation at the State Level This chapter has attempted to cover at least some of the more important elements of citizen ACTION, the federal agency for volunteer participation at the state and local levels of gov- programs in both domestic and international ernment. In so doing, certain conclusions emerge affairs, and the National Governors' Association regarding the effectiveness of state-local citizen have cooperated in recent years in establishing participation, provisions, and processes. state offices of volunteerism. In May 1976, such offices in 32 states formed a national organiza- Direct electoral action on policy questions is tion known as The Assembly, through which a major element of the state/local citizen partici- they exchange information and experience, pation process. It covers both fiscal and nonfiscal advise ACTION on state and national policies, matters, and supplements the usual controls over promote citizen participation, and pursue related the election, reelection, and recall of individual interests. Most of the state offices are in or public officials. The percentage of bond referen- closely related to their Governor's office and are da, tax limit proposals, and miscellaneous receiving (or have received) funds from AC- nonfiscal issues voted down by the electorate in TION. As of February 1979, four states had recent years exceed, for example, the percentage dropped out of The Assembly and only 21 states of incumbent Congressmen or Senators replaced, were recognized by ACTION. Nevertheless, and probably exceeds the rate of turnover in state there is a substantial presence of citizen partici- and local officials. No one argues that the pation advocates in the central policy councils of electoral process is the same in these two cases, but the differences in effect are striking. Vetoing substantial attendance, with as many as 500 a bond issue prohibits any alternative (other than individuals in a few cases. But, it is likely that the status quo), while defeating an incumbent this would have occurred anyway, since many only assures a different representative. Strongly were town meetings where large turnouts are a negative views of citizens can be clearly ex- relatively common pattern. Most meetings did pressed by votes on propositions and, as noted not have a large number of attendees, with a earlier, the electoral process does provide an median figure of 15. outlet which may be cathartic, if not always Some of the written responses to ACIR's 1978 helpful to public officials. survey-such as Fort Worth's, TX, or Texarka- States and local governments have responded na's, AR,-noted that a major effort by city to the electorate by choosing to place before officials did elicit added participation. These citizens a large number of issues, many of which cases, however, involved efforts far beyond what do not formally require voter sanction. Advisory legal requirements mandated. The survey data votes are most common at the local level, but even indicated generally that where local officials some states place large numbers of matters reported an increase in the amount of participa- before the public as a matter of policy. While not tion, changes in budget processes designed to all states and local governments use direct citizen elicit participation were more likely to have action in this fashion, most do to some degree. At occurred. Cause and effect cannot be separated, times, the process of advisory or partially but it does appear that changes in the budget advisory referenda may lead states or locali- process were as likely to follow citizenparticipa- ties to abandon the tough legislative process of tion as to precede (and to facilitate) them. 2 79 resolving conflicting views. This finding is strengthened by the fact that the In addition to voluntary referenda, of computed group representation scores in Tables course, there are citizen-initiated and referred 5-4 and 5-5 were not very closely, if at all, related measures which often have a dramatic effect on to the 1975 record of openness in terms of budget governments. These maximize citizen participa- hearing and public notice requirements. A tion, at least in principle, but often result in history of openness in the local budget process another form of group or special interest action. did not assure high levels of group activity. The Such actions as initiatives, referenda, bond lesson here is that the complex of factors elections, and tax limit modifications are essen- conditioning citizen involvement in the local tially mass citizen movements rather than budget process is not primarily a function of state mechanisms which support individual citizen law. This suggests that caution and realism participation. They are not a substitute for should accompany the drafting of laws and individual citizen participation, but they serve written regulations on this subject. other purposes and cannot be ignored when evaluating the state/local participative system. The normal budget process is not the best mechanism for eliciting meaningful citizen participation. Because of its complexity, tedious- Statutory requirements alone are not ness, and ties to previous commitments, the enough to ensure effective citizen participation. budget process is not usually the best mechanism This statement is nearly a truism. No one, or no for assuring vigorous citizen involvement in set of requirements, can compel citizen involve- state or local policymaking. This is unfortunate, ment. In fact, the furthest anyone has gone is to since the process lends itself to relatively simple argue that statutory requirements enable hither- statutory requirements such as hearings, pub- to ineffectual or ignored groups to move into the lished notices, and inspection of proposed and arena of political participation. This appears to adopted budgets. But, the budget process really is be what Congress intended the federal revenue not the key to the process of local or state deci- sharing participation requirements to do. This sion-making. Rather, it is an end product in chapter has shown cases where participation which the budget often merely represents pre- requirements do not work well. Public budget vious commitments to long standing programs, hearings, if one listens to the survey response, do and responses to citizens and other views ex- not elicit a great deal more citizen participation pressed throughout the year. than unannounced hearings. Some hearings had It is, of course, the final statement of a jurisdiction's spending priorities for the coming environmental groups have received much no- year, and citizen action can determine a number tice, but other groups who are producer oriented, of priorities at the time the budget is adopted. as well as consumer oriented also have been While participation requirements (preferably by effective. Group representation of interests, of state action but necessarily by federal actions for course, is typical of the American political the use of federal funds) are essential, their system, but this is not what many advocates of existence does not assure participation in the citizen participation have in mind. Yet, many statellocal decisionmaking process. They are, at present participation requirements have the best, part of a "participative system" of which effect of strengthening organized individuals and probably only a portion can be mandated or interests. Many existing practices, such as the formalized. initiative and referendum, are subject of group Other frequently more effective means exist "capture" and this raises the specter of minority for creating an environment for participation in manipulation. budget related activities. These include the Citizens, of course, have a good deal of creation of citizen budget advisory committees individual power. All electoral participation, which operate during the year; long-term plan- such as a bond referenda, is determined by ning and goals committees with citizen members, individuals at the ballot box. In the budget which seek to develop priorities that guide the process, individual voices are often rather budget process (this is what the state policy and influential, particularly if they are informed and planning innovations essentially were); and expressed at the right time (which may not be 280 capital expenditure citizen commissions, when- during a hearing). Membership on advisory ever a state or locality has a capital program commissions or committees is also an effective which allocates expenditures to a given fiscal or way of affecting policy. The point here is not to budget year. None will work without the support understate the influence of individual action, but of the affected staff agency, but they are at least to note that many requirements which seek to as important in shaping the budget process, as increase participation are at least as likely to the procedures relative to the process itself. increase group access as individual access. This is also true of much existing practice at the state U Multiple requirements such as budget and local levels, where, for example, many publication and hearings, fiscal notes, initia- initiative procedures require extensive manage- tives, referenda, and sunshine or open meeting ment and coordination to obtain the necessary laws maximize the opportunity for organized signatures, inviting narrow interest groups to try groups to affect the political process. Group to place their measure directly before the public. representation, which is often what really occurs Individuals may decide, but groups usually in the political participation process, is maxim- propose. ized by most citizen participation requirements Any attempt to increase participation through and practices. To the extent that previously federal mandates should consider the nature of ineffectual or unrepresented groups are now part existing practices in the given state and locality of the participation system, the requirements and the implication that the requirement(s) will have served a useful purpose. In recent years, have on group as against individual opportuni- middle class groups such as Common Cause and ties for participation.

FOOTNOTES ZCongressional Research Service, "Memorandum to House Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee," Washington, DC, Library of Congress, December 30, 1975, pp. 1-2. 'Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure, Chapel Hill, 3Municipal Finance Officers Association, Newsletter, Chica- NC, University of North Carolina Press, 1953, was the first go, IL, Municipal Finance Officers Association, April 4, work to dramatize the question, although a number of works 1977. since then have dealt with this issue in various cities-in- 4PatriciaArnaudo and Terry Pell, Citizen Participation in the cluding but not limited to Atlanta, New Haven, and other Executive Budget Process: The Washington, DC, Expe- communities of various sizes. V. 0. Key's Southern Politics, rience, Urban Data Service Reporter, Vol. 6, No. 6, Wash- New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, 1949, suggests the type of ington, DC, International City Management Association, participation applying to one group of states in the 1930s June 1974. and 40s. W.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on Revenue Sharing, General Revenue Shoring Hearings, 94th 30Ibid., p. 29. Cong., 1st Sess., Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing 31John Horton and Wayne Thompson, "Powerlessness and Office, April-May 1975, p. 146. Political Negativism: A Study of Defeated Referendums," 6Lane W. Lancaster, Government in Rural America, Prince- American Journal of Sociology, Chicago, IL, University of ton, NJ, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1952, p. 37. Chicago Press, March 1972, p. 485. 7Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977 3ZJean J. Couturier, "Public Involvement in Government Labor Census of Governments, Vol. 1. Governmental Organiza- Relations," National Civic Review, New York, NY, National tion, No. 1, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Municipal League, Vol. 67, No. 7, July 1978, pp. 312-6, 348. Office, 1978, p. 3. 33Iowa State Association of Counties, Public Access to the BIbid., p. 21. Legislative Process, Des Moines, IA, Iowa State Association gIbid., p. 3. of Counties, 1974. "JRussell W. Maddox and Robert F. Fuquay, State ond Local Wommon Cause, Open Government in the States, Washing- Government, 2nd ed., Princeton, NJ, D. Van Nostrand ton, DC, Common Cause, mimeo, 1978, p. 13. Company, Inc., 1966, p. 533; James W. Fesler, The 50 States 3sIbid., p. 9. and Their Local Governments, New York, NY, Alfred A. 3"bid., p. 11. Knopf, 1967, p. 519. 37"Sunshine Laws in the Public Sector, Midwest Monitor, Part "Orren C. Hormefl, Budget-Making for Maine Towns, 1, Bloomington, IN, University of Indiana, School of Public Bowdoin College Bulletin, New Series No. 64-1, 1961, p. 6, and Environmental Affairs, SeptemberiOctober, 1977. quoted in Lancaster, op. cit., p. 43. 38This section is drawn from Lucille Arnica, et. al., State Open 12Sidney Gardner and Georgiana Vines, Governmental Records Laws: An Update, Columbia, MO, Freedom of Capacity: State and Local Innovations, Columbus, OH, Information Center, School of Journalism, University of Academy for Contemporary Problems, on behalf of theNew Missouri, mimeo, July 1976. Coalition, Spring 1977 (mimeo), p. 43. 39Ibid., pp. 46-7. 13Ibid., p. 44. 40Both of these models are provided in ibid., Appendix B and 'Common Cause, State Budget Program, Washington, DC, Appendix C. Common Cause, mimeo, July 1975, pp. 7-8. 41National Conference of State Legislatures, So the People '=The material in this section is taken from Anwar Syed, The May Know: Public Information in State Legislatures, 281 Political Theory of American Local Government, New York, Denver, CO, National Conference of State Legislatures,- NY, Random House, 1966, pp. 78-86; and Herbert Kaufman, March 1977. Politics and Policies in State and Local Government, New 42The "Model State Administrative Procedure Act" was York, NY, Prentice-Hall, 1963, pp. 33-50. For a recent adopted originally by the National Conference of Commis- historical review of the use of initiatives, see Larry L. Berg, sioners on Uniform State Laws in 1946, and a revised "The Initiative Process and Public Policy-Making in the version was adopted in 1961. The definitive legal textbook States: 1904-1976," a paper presented at the 1978 annual on this subject is Frank E. Cooper, State Administrative meeting of the American Political Science Association. Law, Indianapolis, IN, Bobbs-Merrill, 1965, 2 Vols. The 'See Chapter 2. "Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act" is 17WilliamMunro, ed., The Initiative, Referendum and Recall, reproduced in the appendix of this textbook, pp. 797-824. It New York, NY, D. Appleton, 1912. is quite parallel to the federal APA. The commentary on the '8Additional information on specific states can be obtained Revised Model State Administrative Procedures Act from the 1977-78 Book of the States, Lexington, KY, Council recommends that the act be applied to city and county of State Governments, 1977. agencies as well as statewide agencies, but the extent to 1gInformation in this section is from the National Civic which this has been done has not been catalogued as far as Review, New York, NY, National Municipal League, and ACIR knows. State Government News, Lexington, KY, Council of State 43Excerpts from "State Administrative Procedures Acts" Governments, issues of 1972 through 1977. prepared by law students at Vanderbilt University in 1977 ZOThis history of property tax limitations is from the ACIR, under the direction of Professor L. Harold Levinson. See also State Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions on Local Assembly Staff, Administrative Regulations Review Com- Taxing Powers, A-14, pp. 1-18, Washington, DC, U.S. Gov- mission, New York State Assembly, Public Access to ernment Printing Office, 1962. New limitations since the Rulemaking: A Comparative Study of the Federal and State late 1960s are discussed in ACIR, State Limitations on Local Administrative Procedure Acts, Albany, NY, State of New Taxes and Expenditures, A-64, Washington, DC, U.S. Gov- York, November 1978. ernment Printing Office, 1977. 44Cooper,op. cit., p. 806. 21ACIR,A-14, op. cit., pp. 61-62. 451bid, p. ko. - 22ACIR,Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1976-1977, 46Robert J. Colborn, Jr., Administrator, Division of State M-110, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, Documents, State of Maryland, "Administrative Rules and March 1977, Table 93, pp. 151-167. Regulations Questionnaire Form: Compilation of Answers 23ACIR,A-64, op. cit. Received," undated. 24ACIR,A-14, op, cit. 47National Conference of State Legislatures, Restoring the 2SInformation on state requirements is largely based on Balance: Legislative Review of Administrative Regulations, Lennox Moak and Albert Hillhouse, Concepts and Practices Denver, CO, National Conference of State Legislatures, in Local Government Finance, Chicago, IL, Municipal 1978. See also Council of State Governments, The Book of Finance Officers Association, 1975, pp. 280-3. the States: 1978-79, Lexington, KY, Council of State Gov- Z"cIR, M-110, op. cit., pp. 83-91. ernments, 1978, pp. 52-3. 27National Center for Education Statistics, Bond Sales for Public School Purposes, 1974-75, Washington, DC, U.S. 48John Rehfuss, "Political Development in Three Chicago Office of Education, pp. 2-3. Suburbs," a paper presented to the American Political 28Montfort Barr and A. T. Lindsay, Bond Issue Election Science Association, Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, 1971. Defeats in Western States 1966-76, Bloomington, IN, 4YRobertBrown and Donald Fish, "Recreation Planning and Indiana University, School of Education, unpublished Analysis in Local Government," 1973 Municipal Year Book, manuscript. 1968. Washington, DC, International City Management Associa- ZgIbid., p. 28. tion, p. 38. SoGregoryDaneke, "Community Evaluation: Survey Research 58Ibid., p. 1. and Citizen Involvement," Blacksburg, VA, College of 59Academy for Contemporary Problems, Experiments in Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Growth Policy, undated draft reconnaissance paper pre- Institute and State University, unpublished manuscript, pared for the Office of Policy Planning, U.S. Department of 1977. Housing and Urban Development as input to the President's 51T~ogood examples are: Kenneth Webb and Harry Hatry, 1974 Report on National Growth and Development, Wash- Obtaining Citizen Feedback, Washington, DC, The Urban ington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 47. Institute, 1973; and John Jackson and William Shade, "Council of State Governments, Suggested State Legislation: "Citizen Participation, Democratic Representation and 1975, Vol. XXXIV, Lexington, KY, 1974, p. 101. Survey Research," Urban Affairs Quarterly, Beverly Hills, elStanley V. Anderson and John E. Moore, editors, Estoblish- CA, Sage Publications, September, 1973, pp. 57-90. ing Ombudsman Offices: Recent Experience in the United 520ffice of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, States, Berkeley, CA, Institute of Governmental Studies, Alternatives for Washington, Vol. 1, Olympia, WA, University of California, Berkeley, 1972; and "Jackson's Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, 1976. Ombudsman," County News, Washington, DC, National 53Residents Gloomy on City's Future, Chicago, IL, Chicago Association of Counties, April 30, 1979, p. 3. Tribune, October 15, 1975, p. 1. Wouncil of State Governments, Vol. XXXIV, op. cit., pp. 100- 54Urban Studies Center, Community Priorities and Evaluo- 01; and Walter Gellhorn, "Appendix: Annotated Model tions, Louisville, KY, University of Louisville Press, 1977. Ombudsman Statute," pp. 159-73 in Anderson and Moore, 55Public Opinion and Survey Summary, Allentown, PA. op. cit. Allentown Urban Observatory, circa 1976. QCouncil of State Governments, Suggested State Legislation: 1974, Svames McDavid and Theodore Poister, "A Comparative Vol. XXXIII, Lexington, KY, Council of State Governments, 1973, Analysis of City Residents' Preferences for Increased Levels pp. 251-67. of City Services," a paper presented to the Annual 64lbid., p. 251. Conference, American Society for Public Administration, 65Ibid., p. 255. Atlanta, GA, 1977. "Letter of February 26, 1979, to ACIR from Steven Richards 57Growth and Investment, New Roles for Citizens, a Report of the Rhode Island Governor's Office. prepared for the White House Conference on Balanced b7Memorandum of September 7,1978, to: Governor Thomas L. 282 National Growth and Economic Development, Washington, Judge, et al., from: The Governor's Task Force on Citizen DC, Council of State Planning Agencies, 1978, particularly Participation, re: Proposals from the Citizen Participation pp. 8-10. Task Force. Chapter 6

Findings, Issues, and Recommendations

283 Theforegoing chapters have shown that citizen the evolution of participation in American participation is an integral part of American life public practice, and thought, and that it takes many different the diversity in forms and purposes of forms at all levels of government in the United current participation, States. Not only have citizen participation 3) federally mandated requirements, and processes been institutionalized at every level of 4) state and local requirements and practices government in the U.S., but they also have been transmitted from one level of government to Participation in Practice: Its Evolution another by specific mandates for greater participation. Thus, citizen participation has become a Expanding citizen participation in American major intergovernmental issue. government has involved three interrelated The meaning of citizen participation is difficult movements: (1)a continuing effort to expand the to pin down, because it has changed greatly suffrage, stretching over a period of a century throughout the nation's history. These changes and a half; (2) perennial drives to reform the have been especially rapid during the 1960s and political processes by which candidates are 1970s. The preceding chapters have shown that, nominated; and (3) repeated efforts to expand even now, there is a wide gap between the direct popular control of government(s). theoretical benefits expected from participation Expanding the suffrage involved enfranchis- and the benefits actually observed in practice. ing white males by removing property holding, There is no perfect type of citizen participation; taxpaying, and religious qualifications; abolish- but, at the same time, there are means of ing the barriers to black voting rights; granting expanding opportunities to participate in gov- women the right to vote; and extending the ernmental affairs-at least marginally when and suffr'age to 18-year olds. Expansion of the where this is deemed desirable. suffrage is difficult to associate with many The purpose of this chapter is to briefly program enactments that specifically benefit a summarize the findings from earlier chapters, to newly enfranchised group, however. Moreover, explore the issues they raise, and to present in recent years there has been an increasing recommendations in response to those issues. tendency toward nonvoting. FINDINGS Democratization of the nominating process began with the movement in the early 19th The findings in earlier chapters may be century to replace largely informal devices, such summarized under four headings: as mass meetings and caucuses, with local, state, and national conventions; moved through the Forms and Purposes of Citizen "Progressive Era" (1900-20) with emphasis on Participation such changes as nonpartisan elections, party identification, state laws controlling internal In contemporary America, there are on the party affairs, and, above all, direct primaries; order of 31 different forms of participation being and runs through to the recent period of reforms used by one or more segments of the population in directed toward asserting the national parties' their contacts with their governments. A few are control over the membership of their own traditional forms, with long histories of use, but organizations and adopting more open proce- most are much newer-coming into use largely dures for selecting national convention delegates since World War 11, and by no means universally and assuring more representative conventions. applied even now. In addition, 15 special techniques have been devised, mostly in recent years, and used in limited situations to enhance the two- The movement toward more direct popular way interchange of ideas between governments control of governments-the last of the three and the governed. Finally, at least five means of major steps toward increased citizen participa- facilitating the people's involvement with gov- tion-was marked by the elimination of "artifi- ernment have come into limited use. cial" barriers to officeholding, expansion of the number of offices that are directly elected, The 31 forms of participation identified in democratization of the public service, the devel- this study are: Organizational Forms-(1) citizen 284 opment of initiative, referendum, and recall groups, (2) special interest groups, (3) specific procedures by which the electorate directly can program clientele groups, (4) official citizen make (or reject) laws or remove public officials, committees; Individual Forms-(5) voting, and the relatively recent emphasis on expanding (6) being a program client, (7) making state- the opportunities for citizens to influence ments, (8) working in public projects, (9) cam- (through participation in) administrative deci- paigningllobbying, (10) administrative appeals, sionmaking. (11)going to court, (12) demonstrations; Forms of Information Dissemination-(13) open government, (14)meetingslspeaker bureaus, (15)con- Out of these democratization efforts have ferences, (16) publications, (17) mass media, emerged at least two interpretative traditions. (18) displayslexhibits, (19) mail, (20) adver- One views this record as the necessary and tisinglnotices, (21) hot lines (22) drop-in cen- rational components of remaining faithful to the ters, (23) correspondence, (24) word of mouth; precepts of the Declaration of Independence Forms of Information Collection-(25) hearings, (popular sovereignty, political equality, and (26)workshops, meetings, conferences, (27) con- individual liberty) while adapting to the exigen- sultation, (28) government records, (29) nongov- cies of an evolving mass, heterogeneous, urbaniz- ernment documents, (30) participant observers, ing, service-oriented, and increasingly bureau- and (31) surveys. The electoral processes deter- cratized society and system. Another, more mine representation of the voting public in a large conservative school of thought, concedes that share of the decisionmaking structures of gov- some of the reforms produced significant results, ernment, and the outcome of the many issues put but raises questions about their assumptions and to referendum or initiative votes. Some appoint- real effects, including a tendency on the part of ive governmental bodies, like special purpose reformers to idealize the civic awareness of, and authorities and commissions or even some capability of, the American citizen to diagnose federal aid planning bodies, also have authorita- basic defects in the system largely in govern- tive decisionmaking powers. Most of the other mental (rather than social or economic) terms, forms of participation listed here are advisory not to anticipate undesirable side effects (long only. ballot and fragmented governmental structure) of some changes, to ignore the role of elites in The 15 special interactive techniques are: "reformed" or "unreformed" systems (stemming (1) arbitration, (2) mediation, (3) coordinator1 from anunwiilingness to grapple with the factors catalyst, (4) plural planning, (5) group dy- generating inequality), and to be naive about namics, (6)focused group discussion, (7) policy power and influence generally in a democracy. capturing, (8) policy delphi, (9) priority setting, (10) design-in, (11)game simulation, (12) inter- program clientele groups, press, voters, resi- active cable TV, (13) teleconferencing by com- dents, ordinary citizens, individual program puter, (14) real time computer polling and feed- beneficiaries, indigenous employees, aggrieved back, and (15) interactive computer graphics. parties; or officials, official advisory committees or commissions, governing bodies and elected The five means of facilitating participation officials, political appointees, the bureaucracy, are: (1)simplify and clarify the process; (2) pro- and the courts. Typically, the specific purposes vide citizen participation training to citizens, of information giving and getting are viewed by public officials, and staffs; (3) provide citizen all participants as essential ingredients of participation and related staff to citizen groups effective citizen participation; while improving and government agencies; (4) provide technical public decisions or programs, enhancing their assistance to citizen groups and certain individu- acceptance, and supplementing public agency al citizens; and (5)provide economic assistance work are viewed more as "establishment" pur- and incentives for citizens to participate, includ- poses, and those relating to altering political ing cost reimbursement and honoraria. power, protecting individual and minority group The various forms of participation are being rights, and delaying or avoiding difficult (or used, to greater or lesser degrees, to achieve eight controversial) public decisions are seen more as specific purposes. These are: (1)giving informa- "antiestablishment" ones. Roughly speaking, tion to citizens; (2) getting information from or officials and satisfied citizens make the most of about citizens; (3) improving public decisions, the establishment purposes and associated forms programs, projects, and services; (4) enhancing of participation, while dissatisfied citizens tend 285 acceptance of public decisions, programs, pro- to use the antiestablishment ones. jects, and services; (5) supplementing public agency work; (6) altering political power pat- Citizen Participation in the Federal terns and the allocations of public resources; Government's Own Activities (7) protecting individual and minority group rights and interests; and (8)delaying or avoiding The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) the making of difficult public decisions. of 1946 and its "Freedom of Information" and These specific purposes all are geared in one "Government in the Sunshine" amendments set way or another toward the two general and the minimum requirements for citizen access to, intertwined goals of (1)changing governmental and involvement in, the federal administrative behavior so that governmental units respond process. Public involvement is confined to speci- better to citizens' needs and desires, and refrain fied points in administrative proceedings and the from the arbitrary, capricious, insensitive, or public is left to its own resources in influencing oppressive exercise of power; and (2) changing decisions. In effect, the APA limits the mobilized citizen behavior by (a) providing therapy to citizenry largely to middle and upper class alienated and socially disturbed citizens, (b)af- organized interests able to obtain legal counsel fording participation opportunities for citizens on their own. through which they can exercise and enhance their vigilance over government, and (c)helping In legislation requiring citizen participation citizens to develop their participative and enacted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely leadership capabilities. The same citizen partici- centering on environmental protection, Congress pation processes which provide opportunities for emphasized agencies' affirmative responsibility citizens to sharpen their skills by exercising them to encourage public participation, but usually did also provide the means by which the govern- not specify a "target" population. This legislation ment's performance is improved and its opera- assumes that most aspects of agency planning tions are kept open. are open to public involvement and are subject to a variety of participati~nmechanisms. Programs A wide variety of different interests (partici- covered by these requirements affect the whole pants) use the various forms of participation for population, unlike several key programs in the their own purposes. These participants may be 1960s that were aimed specifically at the poor. described as: citizens, including majority Also, the legislation is not very specific in groups, minority groups, special interest groups, defining the operational meaning of this kind of involvement, and hence vests considerable the national level include national advisory discretion in federal administrators. committees; special national advisory commis- In a general appraisal of citizen participation sions, such as the Hoover Commissions on at the federal level in 1976, the Interagency Organization of the Executive Branch of the Gov- Council on Citizen Participation concluded that: ernment; and White House Conferences, such as the recent Conference on Balanced National (1)authority and responsibility for citizen par- Growth and Economic Development. I ticipation in government agencies are often unclear, deficient, fragmented, or nonexistent; (2) agency resources (personnel, expertise, fund- CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN ing, organization) for better execution of citizen FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS participation are weak when compared with As of December 1978, 155 separate federal other agency responsibilities; (3) the policy, grant programs had citizen participation require- commitment, and initiative of agency leadership ments, almost one-third of all grant programs on citizen participation in the decisionmaking accounting for over 80% of grant funds. Most of process have been of significantly uneven quality these requirements were of fairly recent origin- and priority; (4) the planning, execution, and 79% were adopted since 1970. Over half were in evaluation of citizen participation programs are HEW, and about three-fifths of the HEW pro- poor and often well below the known state-of- grams were in the Office of Education. the-art; and (5) agency policy and practice in 286 citizen participation processes are unresponsive Prescription of boards or committees and of to the real needs and priorities of a large segment their membership is the most usual type of man- of the public. date-found in 89 programs. Consumers or clientele served by particular programs are the A 1977 Senate committee report on inde- most frequently represented interest. The boards pendent regulatory commissions found that or committees are confined to advisory powers participation by regulated industries predomi- except for 24 programs involving 17 separate nates; the lack of financial resources is the committees. greatest single obstacle to active public participation by potential participants; and nearly all Public hearings are the next most commonly regulatory agency advisory committees serious- mandated participation mode and are most ly lack representation of consumer and other prevalent outside HEW. One of their drawbacks broad public interests. The committee's recom- is that they come late in the development of a plan mendations included establishment of an inde- or programs. pendent nonregulatory consumer agency, crea- One-hundred-and-fourteen of the 155 grant tion of internal consumer advocate offices within programs mandate types of public involvement major federal rate setting regulatory agencies, beyond boards/committees or public hearings. and legislation authorizing compensation to These vary with respect to the interests involved, eligible persons for costs incurred in participat- the stage of decisionmaking affected, and the ing in certain agency proceedings. types of participation mechanism mandated, and The Carter Administration has undertaken a include due notice of the preparation of a grant number of initiatives on citizen participation, application or a plan, conducting workshops, and including support for a governmentwide office of offering opportunities for giving testimony or consumer affairs, a directive to federal agencies review and comment. to involve the public early in the regulation- That more than two-thirds of federal grant development process, provision for greater programs are not subject to mandatory public involvement by neighborhood organizations and involvement raises the strong presumption that voluntary associations in implementing the citizen participation is not consistently mandat- Administration's urban program, strengthening ed by the federal government. Actually similar of the White House Office of Consumer Affairs, programs within the same department or agency, and study of citizen participation as a part of the or programs in the same functional area, or pro- President's Reorganization Project. grams dealing with like phases of the decision- Other major participation techniques used at making process differ in respect to whether they do or do not require citizen participation. In HUD's second annual report on the CDBG addition, programs that do mandate citizen program found 27%of the cities were unsatisfac- participation differ widely with regard to the tory in representation of low-to-moderate income types of mechanisms employed and the detailed groups on advisory boards. Eighty percent of the application of those mechanisms. localities reported that citizen participation was an important influence on selection of activities CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED GRANT and 43% indicated that it influenced the level of PROGRAMS: FIVE CASE STUDIES social service expenditures. Seventy-eight percent of the citizen recommendations relating to 1975 legislation requiring citizen Involve- their city's choice and location of CDBG activities ment in community health centers (CHCs) had or projects were accepted completely. However, little direct effect upon the actual extent of citizen complaints on the citizen participation process participation. CHCs were converted from neigh- were the most frequent of all complaints received borhood centers established under the communi- on CDBG. Overall, HUD reported that there was ty action and model cities programs. Under the a tendency toward dissatisfaction with the latter two programs, citizen participation had citizen participation process. Congressional already been required. witnesses on renewal of CDBG legislation Federal requirements produced increased demanded additional citizen participation, par- participation in the Title XX (social services) ticularly for low income groups and affected program. Producers and organized groups such neighborhoods. A Brookings Institution study of as day care centers and family service agencies the original legislation was not as critical, 287 were influential, but not as much as Governors, finding that the extent and mode of participation administrators, and legislators. The program did not reflect the actual influence it exerted on failed to meet the citizen participation objective local decisions. The effectiveness of the citizen in one area-involvement of the poor and unor- participaton mechanism was found to be largely ganized. dependent on the attitudes and efforts of public officials. The Brookings study also found that The requirements for public participation generalist officials, particularly the chief execu- are more carefully spelled out in the Coastal Zone tives, tend to use CDBG funds to build support Management legislation and its regulations than throughout their constituencies. This has a in most federal programs. This is due to Con- negative effect on any tendency to concentrate gress' concern with specifying the nature and funds on target neighborhoods. type of participation in this area. In California In general, assessments are mixed on the and Oregon, the federal requirements were not of impact of the CDBG participation requirements. truly major significance,because federal legisla- Some observers found the requirements being tion was preceded in both cases by state met; others found deficiencies. HUD and Brook- requirements for public participation, such as ings found that citizen participation was in- extensive hearings, advisory committees, and in California a statewide vote on coastal manage- fluencing the selection of activities and the level ment. Participation requirements that are com- of social service expenditures, yet, dissatisfac- prehensive and explicit as to procedures to be tion still was voiced. Finally, it is not possible to followed and interests to be represented seem say with certainty that the federal law and well advised where, as in the case of coastal regulations caused improved participation. The major variable seems to be the attitudes of local management in Oregon and California, a range of groups have an interest in a highly competitive elected officials. arena. The original 1972 General Revenue Sharing The Community Development Block Grant (GRS) legislation had few citizen participation (CDBG) legislation and legislative record leave requirements. The many studies of experience recipient localities wide discretion concerning with those requirements reached an ambiguous the methods to be used in meeting citizen range of conclusions, from "impossible to docu- participation requirements, yet indicate that the ment," through "no effect," and "a significant citizens of principal concern are the low and increase in participation," to "increased partici- moderate income residents of affected areas. pation in certain cities, no increases in others." In communities that reported increased participa- amount of impact depends on the committee's tion as a result of GRS, few if any saw any real possession of staff, power to investigate grievan- impact on local decisionmaking. ces, and power to influence budgets. Rand found The 1976 extension of GRS legislation added further that participation in committees does not requirements for hearings, notice, publication of basically alter citizens' general feelings of budget decisions, and opportunities for senior estrangement or alienation toward their govern- citizens' participation. The new requirements ment. Finally, Rand reached the conclusion that had little effect on state budget practices. An participation on committees does not adversely ACIR-ICMA survey of cities and counties affect program effectiveness. indicated that they generated a modest increase in citizen involvement in the local budget Rand found a wide variation of citizen process. A large portion of the localities already participation requirements in HEW programs, had been offering participation opportunities due to the range of programs and the lack of an (especially public hearings) before they were overall citizen participation policy at the depart- mandated by the GRS program. Responses from mental or agency level. Vagueness as to precise state and local officials suggest that their forms of participation in the formal requirements jurisdictions will increase their efforts to involve led to establishment of only nominal types of their citizens in decisionmaking related to GRS, citizen participation, and increased dependence especially by reaching out to senior citizens and on staff discretion in determining the form and giving more publicity to budget hearings and content of participation. The actual amount and 288 decisions. Even if these changes occur, however, quality of citizen participation in HEW programs it is an open question whether they will be was unknown, as was the general impact of lasting. citizen participation activities. This lack of A large percentage of local officials indicated knowledge stemmed from the absence of sys- that citizen participation measurably affected tematic monitoring or enforcement procedures. the priorities within their government's general budget. Yet, other evidence cast doubt about the A study of eight federally aided municipal impact. Many felt that citizen participation services by the TARP Institute and the Universi- comes too late in the budget process to affect ty of Michigan's School of Public Health also decisions, while others thought the participation sought to evaluate citizen participation from the opportunities were primarily exploited by spe- threefold perspective of (1)citizens' influence on cial interest groups. the decisionmaking process, (2) the effectiveness If the new citizen participation requirements in of municipal program performance, and (3) the GRS produce greater support for the allocation of effect on citizen attitudes. On each score, the GRS funds to social or human services, criticisms study found variations among the services aided. of GRS by liberal and minority groups might tend The influence of ordinary citizens was positively to subside while local officials might assume a felt only in neighborhood health centers; in other more antagonistic stance. This issue will become services, middle class or elite groups exerted especially important if Proposition 13-type influence. Program performance was positively spending retrenchments become more wides- affected in four of the eight service areas. In pread. several cases, evidence was found of changes in citizen attitudes due to public participation, SOME GENERAL STUDIES while in others, specifically education and welfare, changes were noted but with reserva- A major problem in assessing the status of tions. citizen participation in federal grant programs is In general, the TARP-Michigan study found the dearth of good evaluation studies. Yet, there that citizen participants were middle class or are a few recent studies that appear carefully upwardly mobile members of lower income researched and reasoned. groups who tended to be active in more than one A Rand study of HEW programs, mainly municipal system. They concluded that: (1)citi- through analysis of case studies, found that zen participation is least effective in the later advisory committees influence the conduct of stages of planning; (2)the structural complexity local public activities and services, and that the of a municipal service system has more to do with the levels of citizen influence than the type of ments in all 50 states. They also apply to floor participative mechanism; (3) citizen participa- actions of the legislatures in 46 states. tion plays a limited role in the determination of These laws have specific limitations on the municipal service performance and little evi- use of executive sessions by multimember gov- dence exists of influence over budgetary alloca- ernmental bodies in all 50 states; provide for tions; and (4) the evidence is weakest on whether prior notice of the meetings of such bodies in 42 citizen participation has any impact on citizen states; require that minutes of such meetings be attitudes. kept for public information purposes in 37 states; A National Science Foundation funded and provide for enforcement by (a) personal report analyzed 215 case studies involving five sanctions against individual violators in 35 municipal functions. The use of citizen boards states, (b)voiding the actions resulting from and indigenous paraprofessionals was probed. improper meetings in 31, and (c)giving citizens Five outcomes were examined, three of which the legal standing to sue violators in 35. corresponded to those used in the Rand and TARP-Michigan analyses. Only increased client STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACTS control was found to be associated with increased levels of participation. Citizen boards Forty-eight states and the District of Colum- were found to be most successful in achieving bia have administrative procedures acts. These client control when the board possessed authori- apply to virtually all state administrative agen- ty to sign off on grant applications or service cies and to an undetermined number of local gov- 289 decisions, to plan for new programs, to investi- ernmental agencies. gate grievances, to review expenditures or budget requests, to review personnel actions, and In 46 states, the administrative procedures to supervise paid staff. acts have one or more provisions governing rulemaking by administrative agencies. Forty- The ACIR-ICMA survey of local officials five states and the District of Columbia provide revealed that citizen participation did not tend to for notification about rulemaking procedures; 42 influence local government to drop staff- states and the District of Columbia provide an developed grant proposals but rather tended to opportunity for citizens to present their com- encourage localities to submit grant proposals. A ments in either written or oral form; and 38 states substantial portion of the respondents reported authorize citizens to petition agencies for rule- that their jurisdictions were persuaded by citizen making action. participation to continue support for a function or activity after federal funding had ended, while Despite the existence of a model act, there is only a few cases arose where citizen interests substantial variation not only among the major caused the unit to drop a service or program once provisions for rulemaking, but also on such the federal grant terminated. The survey con- details as the length of time for notice before cluded that citizen participation mechanisms do actual rulemaking will occur, the procedures for not tend to reduce a local government's fiscal accepting comments, and the procedures for involvement once a program is underway. agencies in responding to petitions requesting rulemaking action. State and Local Requirements and Twenty-five states have a regular publica- Practices tion similar to the Federal Register in which they notify the public of rulemaking actions and STATE OPEN MEETING LAWS publish administrative rules or information about their availability; 26 states codify their All 50 states now have open meeting laws; administrative rules and regulations; and 24 such laws first began to be enacted in 1967, and provide instruction to agency personnel involved have spread rapidly. in rulemaking. State open meeting laws apply to state Thirty-four states have formal procedures legislative committees, state executive branches whereby the legislature reviews the regulations and independent agencies, and local govern- developed by state administrative agencies pursuant to state legislation. Such review may be hearings before a final budget could be advisory only, or it may allow for disapproval or adopted for a city or county; in one other delay of a regulation. state, the proposed county budget was open for inspection before final adoption. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION -In 32 states, statutes expressly required public hearings before city or county budgets At least three states-Hawaii, Iowa, and could be finally adopted; one other state Nebraska-and a few localities have established provided for an election to enact the city ombudsmen offices or similar complaint han- budget, while two others provided for dling services to assist their citizens in disputes written complaints or petitions to protest with the government. Several model acts are items in a proposed city or county budget. available for this purpose. A Uniform Public Assembly Act is available SURVEY FINDINGS to assist state and local governments in facilitating and protecting citizens' rights to hold large Sixty percent of municipal and county public assemblies, subject only to such restric- officials polled in 1978 reported that participa- tions on time, place, and manner of conducting tion in the local budget process usually was the assembly as are appropriate to safeguard the through formal mechanisms such as hearings and civil liberties of nonparticipants. advisory committees; nevertheless, 52% said 290 there was "very little" actual participation in the As of 1976, 32 states had established state process by citizens; only 7% reported "a great offices of volunteerism. Most are in, or closely deal" of participation. Fifty-four percent of related to, the Governor's office and provide a municipal officials, and 65% of county officials substantial presence for citizen participation desired greater citizen participation in their advocates in the central policy councils of state jurisdiction's budgetmaking, while only 2% government, in addition to providing the services desired less. of volunteers in state government. Organized groups participated in over 80%of At least one state-Montana-has had a local budget hearings, according to the 1978 comprehensive set of recommendations dealing survey; the average number of groups was 2.7 for with the whole field of citizen participation in municipalities, and 3.2 for counties. Senior state government proposed to it by a high level citizens were the most frequently represented task force. group at municipal budget hearings, followed in order by social service groups, the League of PARTICIPATORY REQUIREMENTS IN Women Voters, business and industry groups, THE LOCAL BUDGET PROCESS neighborhoods, racial or ethnic groups, taxpay- Forty states (as of 1975) require local budget ers, homeowners, and others. The rankings were hearings or publication of notices about proposed similar for counties, except that taxpayer groups budgets, and even in the ten states where such were stronger, ranking fourth. state requirements do not exist, local budget About 47% of municipalities and 44% of hearings are held about as often as the average of counties in the 1978 survey reported that they the other states. More specifically: provide staff assistance to citizens wishing to -In 35 states, citizens or taxpayers had some participate in the budget process; these figures access to the municipal budget process. rose to over 50% for localities having managers or chief administrators. -In 30 states, citizens or taxpayers had some access to the county budget process. In their narrative responses to the 1978 survey, many localities expressed doubts about -In 23 states, citizens or taxpayers had some the effectiveness of citizen participation in the access to both the city and the county budget formal budget process. Most comments cited process. such factors as the late stage at which hearings -In 38 states, publication was required giving are held, the other processes throughout the year notice of a proposed budget and/or budget which pre-determine budget commitments, the complex and deadening nature of the figures, low only on local issues. Thus, the total number of motivation of the average citizen in overall states authorizing some form of statutory initia- budget matters, and the dominance of special tive is 32. interests. More positive, but less frequently Forty-two states provide for the use of expressed, comments stressed participation in referenda to confirm legislative actions through the budget process as a culmination of a year- popular balloting. In 35 of these states, both state long process of interaction between organized and local laws [for at least some classes of and assisted citizen groups and their local gov- localities) are subject to referendum. Four states ernment. apply the referendum only to state legislation, Perhaps the brightest spot in budget partici- while three apply it only to local laws. pation is the experience of localities having the Fifteen states have all the forms of initiative town meeting form of government. Eighty-six and referendum, including initiatives to amend percent of these localities reported "a great deal" the constitution and pass laws at both the state or "a moderate amount" of citizen participation in and local levels, and referenda to confirm laws at the local budget process, compared to 49% for the both the state and local levels. next highest reporting category of local government (council-manager communities). Many states have special provisions for referenda in fiscal matters. Thirty-seven states STATE BUDCETl NC PROCESSES have local property tax rate limitations, and three-quarters of them [27) have some provision 291 Of the 50 states, 29 have annual budgets, for local referenda to allow the limit to be while 21 have biennial ones. exceeded. States commonly submit their proposed long-term general obligation bond issues to Most state budget processes are not especial- referendum, and 45 states require local referenda ly well geared to citizen participation. Only 17 to authorize local bonds of this type. states provide for hearings in the preparation of the Governor's budget, and even in these cases the About 35% of both municipalities and hearings are largely for state agency and legisla- counties, responding to a 1978 survey, reported tive participation. The legislatures in 37 states, voting on local tax limit changes during the three- however, do hold budget hearings which usually year period of 1975-77. Nearly 20% of the involve the general public, while private organi- municipal referenda and 25O10 of the county ones zations have access to the legislative budget were initiated by citizen action. Bond referenda process in 44 states. in this same period were held by over 28% of the municipalities. INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS Thirty-four state constitutional amendments were initiated by citizens in the 1970-75 Direct balloting to decide at least some period. public policy issues is used in most states and localities, though the authorizations for such Referenda on nonfiscal issues were held by voting vary greatly among the states. Advisory about 28% of surveyed municipalities in 1975-77. votes also are common at the state and local levels. ADVISORY COMMITTEES Direct balloting on issues can be initiated by Municipalities and counties both make citizen petition for amending the state constitu- heavy use of citizen advisory committees. tion in 17 states and for enacting new state and Ninety-five percent of those responding to a 1978 local laws in 13 states. In five states, citizen initiatives can force the state legislature or local survey, reported having one or more such committees, with 11%having 20 or more. governing body to consider new legislation. In three states, citizhn initiatives can be used both The average municipality had 1-5 commit- to enact new laws and to refer statutory tees with 25-49 citizens on each. About half of the proposals to the legislature or local governing municipalities had more than 50 citizens alto- body. Eleven states provide for citizen initiatives gether serving on such committees, and 105 cities reported that the total number of citizens serving to the fundamental representative form of our was in the range of 200-500. government? Does participation outside the electoral process interfere with, and undermine The average county also had 1-5 such elected officials' exercise of their constitutional committees, with an average of 50-99 members powers and responsibilities? Or does it actually on each. Thus, county committees tend to be support and complement their constitutional larger than municipal ones. role? Citizen advisory committees are required at The overview of the contemporary scene in the local level by 53 federal aid programs, and at Chapter 3 identified eight specific purposes of the state level by 34 such programs. citizen participation: (1)giving information to Local planning commissions, most having citizens; (2) getting information from or about largely advisory roles under state law, numbered citizens; (3) improving public decisions, pro- about 800 in a 1970 count. grams, projects, and services; (4) enhancing acceptance of public decisions, programs, pro- CITIZEN SURVEYS jects, and services; (5) supplementing agency work; (6) altering political power patterns and Over 50% of large cities and counties the allocations ofpublic resources; (7) pro- (including cities over 100,000 in population, and tecting individual and minority group rights and counties over 250,000) use citizen surveys to interests; and (8) delaying or avoiding the mak- provide representative samples of citizen views, ing of difficult public decisions. Among the more helping to balance the often unrepresentative general objectives of citizen participation toward element of participation found in public hearings which these specific objectives work is the and some other commonly used forms of partici- reduction of the citizen's sense of alienation from pation. government. On the surface most of these seem clearly compatible with, indeed, indispensable to, the effective functioning of representative MAJOR ISSUES democracy, but some observers raise questions about it. Moreover, a deeper probe raises further Citizen Participation and doubts about the compatibility of some of them. Representative Democracy A full and free interchange of information between the people and their elected representa- In the representative form of democracy tives, as well as between the people and appoint- prevailing in the federal and state governments, ed administrators, clearly is essential to respon- and all but a few local governments (certain sible and well informed public decisionmaking towns and townships), voters elected their and to responsive government. The decisionmak- representatives to make governmental decisions ers need to know what the public wants and how for them. Elections also are used in select the decisions they make work out in practice. For instances where the voters make policy decisions their part, citizens need to know what the directly through the initiative and referendum, officials are doing so that they can hold them and elected officials sometimes share their power responsible. The public also must know the with appointed bodies (like some special reasons for governmental decisions if they are to districts) which have been given authoritative retain confidence in the soundness and equity of decisionmaking powers. Voting for officials-in those decisions. both the nominating and electoral processes- The purist supporters of representative demo- and on ballot issues is the fundamental form of cracy who stress the primacy of citizen participa- citizen participation upon which representative tion through the electoral process contend that democracy rests. the most important channel by which citizens can The general type of citizen participation on communicate information to officials is through which this report is focused, however, is not this the ballot-when they choose their representa- type of citizen involvement, but rather citizen tives or express themselves oh policy issues in participation in governmental affairs outside the referenda. Supporters of other kinds of citizen electoral process. This raises basic questions: participation as an essential information convey- How does, and should citizen participation relate or, on the other hand, point out the impossibility of sending a clear message on a multitude of subject to the restraints of cost and possible issues by voting for candidates, or of "instruct- undesirable slowing down of the governmental ing" a candidate on how to vote on an issue that process. In connection with supplementing may not have emerged yet, or of conveying agency work, as in the use of paraprofessionals information through this means to the bureau- or volunteers, another aspect of cost arises, cracy, where important policy decisions are namely, the need for the affected agency to increasingly made. As for referenda, they note provide supervision and instruction. Staff assist- the frequency with which they are used for votes ance, indeed, is needed in every form of citizen on relatively minor issues. On the entire issue of participation, especially in the use of advisory the electoral process as the channel for register- committees and in the holding of public ing the public's views, moreover, these advocates hearings-the two major forms of citizen partici- of citizen participation stress the low rate of pation. voter turnout in all kinds of elections. The limits Another kind of cost issue arises when it is on voter eligibility, such as age and residence, necessary to enlist participation of persons with they contend, further diminish the value of the low income. If their participation is to be more voting process as an adequate, let alone exclu- than token, it may be necessary to reimburse sive, means of registering the sense of the public them for travel, baby-sitting, time off from work, on issues that are constantly expanding in and other economic costs. In addition, there are number and complexity. On the other hand some costs of employing legal and technical experts for argue that the risk of losing elections has risen in proper representation involving highly complex recent years for elected officials who ignore or issues before administrative bodies, particularly 293 downplay advisory citizen participation pro- the independent regulatory commissions. Those cesses. costs are willingly borne by the special interests There are limits, however, on how full and free most directly involved in the deliberations of the the information interchange can be through administrative tribunal, but not easily borne by citizen participation outside the electoral pro- groups more representative of the general public cess. One is the constraint of costs-it makes a interest or by economically and socially disad- difference whether notices of public meetings vantaged groups. must be published in five daily newspapers Another purpose of citizen participation-"en- instead of just one, whether proceedings of hancing acceptance of public decisions, pro- meetings must be published at all, or whether the grams, projects, and servicesw-is a sound public must be charged for the cost of duplicating objective when it leads to citizen satisfaction, records, to cite only a few examples. These are stability, and popular support for, and confi- the types of issues raised about freedom of dence in, the elected and appointed officials. On information provisions. Another constraint con- the one hand, some officials may try to use citizen cerns interference with the expeditious handling participation to "sell" a decision or program of the public business, a matter which particular- which on its own merits would not stand public ly concerns conscientious administrators. Keep- scrutiny. In other words, citizen participation ing the general public, or select advisory commit- can be manipulated contrary to the general pub- tees, advised of governmental actions at all of the lic interest. main points in the legislative and administrative One way in which this can happen was process can delay final action to the point of demonstrated in the TARP-University of Michi- effectively denying some or all of the benefits the gan evaluation of citizen participation in local program is intended to convey. Opening up all education. It found that the various educational meetings as required under "sunshine acts," advisory committees developed citizen leaders, according to some, puts a damper on frank but the latter achieved influence only to the expression of contending views and encourages extent that they accommodated their views to opposing forces to take positions more "for the those of the professional and administrative elite record" rather than for the purpose of working with whom they had to deal. In the end, their out reasonable compromises. feeling of having influence (when they actually "Improving public decisions, programs, pro- did not) was an exercise in self-deception with jects, and services" and "supplementing agency possible adverse effects on long-term efforts to work" are also desirable goals, but are again make needed changes in school policies. Another facet of this problem is reflected in the Citizen participation having an advisory case study of early experience with the Commu- purpose as well as the extraordinary arrange- nity Development Block Grant. The relatively ments for the protection of certain target groups unrestricted nature of the block grant mechanism (noted above) raises the broader issue relating to strengthened the hand of the chief executive and the exercise of power. This, of course, is: Who are his top generalist administrators as against the citizens who participate? In many programs specialists in such fields as housing and public the law or regulations identify who they shall be. works. With a view toward building a broad base In others, their identity is left unspecified and of political support, chief executives naturally sometimes this is in programs intended to benefit tended to spread the CDBG funds as widely as the more vulnerable sectors of society. Indica- possible throughout their communities, instead tions are that these people, more times than not, of concentrating them within the areas of highest are crowded out by middle income or other need. For the same reason, they tended to groups not basically representative of the pro- encourage participation across the spectrum of gram beneficiaries. Where spokesmen for the less neighborhoods and economic groups instead of advantaged do emerge, they tend to be upwardly giving special attention to the low income and mobile persons, who may not accurately reflect otherwise needy. the group they represent. Generally speaking, The objective of "altering political power well organized, alert, narrowly oriented eco- patterns and the allocations of public resources" nomic or professional interest groups tend to be clearly constitutes the greatest threat to estab- over-represented. 294 lished governmental authority. The determina- The issue, "Who is the citizen who partici- tion of political power patterns is the essence of pates?" was raised in several of the programs the electoral process, as the power to allocate reviewed in this report. In the Title XX (social public resources is at the heart of the power to services) program, considerable difficulty was govern. Yet, those may be legitimate objectives of encountered in obtaining widespread involve- citizen participation in certain select situations. ment by low income consumers of social pro- Such a situation exists when it appears that grams. In the Community Development Block certain groups who are the intended beneficiaries Grant, at least in the early years, much dissatis- of governmental programs will not in fact be the faction was voiced with the alleged under- beneficiaries if normal political processes are left involvement of lower income groups in a program to play themselves out. The poor and unorgan- wherein Congress clearly intended to give those ized most commonly fall in this group. They are groups and their urban neighborhoods priority often poorly prepared, psychologically and attention. The TARP-University of Michigan otherwise, to protect their interests in certain review of citizen participation in eight federally governmental programs presumably "targeted" aided municipal services found that citizen to their needs. participants generally were middle class or Policymakers may consider it necessary, in "aspiring" members of lower income groups. The some instances, then, to invest the chosen influence of "ordinary" citizens was positively representatives of the targeted groups, who are affected only in neighborhood health centers. In outside the regular electoral process, with some the most active program of citizen participa- measure of actual authority to control the tion-Community ActionIModel Cities-par- distribution of benefits under a program. In like ticipation involved mostly middle class citizens manner, under the Community Development and those with prior leadership experience. Block Grant program, to assure that the pro- Business influence was predominant in urban gram's objective of giving high priority to dis- renewal; providers tended to dominate health advantaged neighborhoods is met may require planning; and such citizen leadership as was giving some real authority to neighborhood- developed in education had to accommodate to chosen bodies, lest the distribution of the avail- the professional/administrative elites. able funds be influenced too much by interests- The ACIR-ICMA survey of local officials such as real estate, retail trade, and organized generally found that citizen participation had an labor groups-who, under the normal "policical expansionary effect on localities' expenditures. power pattern," exercise great influence over This was evidenced by the disinclination of publicly supported community development. citizen participants to influence local governments to drop staff-developed grant proposals, change was tied to specific programs rather than the substantial number of respondents reporting to an attitude about government in general. One that citizen participation stimulated localities' of the studies, however, underscored that these involvement in new grant proposals, and the findings were the weakest of those made in its large number who reported that citizen participa- evaluation. tion resulted in continued funding of a service or Actual experience with citizen participation in program from local funds after the federal grant reducing citizen alienation, as well as in relation source had been terminated. These findings to its other declared purposes, suggests a final suggest that, in a period of diminished confidence point bearing on its relationship to the basic in government and demands for restraints on the political process and to making representative public sector, citizens participating through democracy function effectively. This concerns formal participation mechanisms are likely to be the need for realistic expectations about its more expansionary than the public-at-large. This results. Experience cited in this report indicates effect seems natural in view of the fact that that the impact of different kinds of citizen participation usually is in a narrow program area participation is varied, but overall it is modest. and the persons likely to become involved are Undoubtedly this is due to some extent to the those who have an interest in improving or constraints cited earlier-the direct costs of expanding that program. providing a full and free flow of information, and The citizen participation goal of "delaying or the intangible costs of delaying the delivery of avoiding the making of difficult public decisions" service. Responsible officials cannot be expected also has its pluses and minuses, depending upon to be unconcerned about these costs for the sake 295 whether it is in the highest interest of the gov- of a response to the demands for citizen involve- ernment to delay or avoid difficult decisions. ment. Delay is salutary when it means improving the Some of its most avid champions expect that calibre of the decision and its implementation. A they are going to influence officeholders to make delay conceivably also can provide time for the major changes in policy, that they actually are problem involved to move further toward resolu- going to make decisions themselves, or even that tion without additional or massive govern- they are going to achieve a transformation of the mental action. On the other hand, postponement system. Citizen participation outside the elector- of decisions can be a real disservice when it adds al political process can basically be only adviso- to the ultimate cost of a program or project, or ry, except where ordinary political processes do when it means putting off the provision of not assure an adequate voice for certain groups, urgently needed services or the resolution of a particularly the politically impotent and the troubling issue, or when it becomes a convenient disorganized. In other instances, expectations way for responsible officials to escape their about influencing or controlling public decisions responsibilities for making hard decisions. must be kept in realistic perspective. Any other Finally, the goal of "reducing citizens' aliena- course can lead to frustration and discourage- tion from government" through citizen participa- ment for engaging in any kind of participation, tion is entirely compatible with an effectively with a consequent real loss in government functioning representative democracy. Whether effectiveness, and disillusionment and possible citizen participation actually reduces citizen further alienation from all government activities. alienation is another matter, of course. Several of To summarize, then, the objectives of citizen the evaluation studies reviewed in this report participation outside the electoral process and dealt with this issue. The Rand-HEW report the way it works in practice are in many respects concluded that citizen's feelings of alienation essential to the effective conduct of a representa- (lack of trust in government and feelings of tive democracy. Without such citizen participa- powerlessness) are not likely to be reduced by tion, there would be a serious gap between greater participation. People may feel greater elected and appointed officials and the people confidence in their ability to affect a particular who have chosen the former to govern. Some say, program, but not to affect government generally. moreover, that the resort to direct citizen The TARP-University of Michigan study found participation in the electoral process through the more positive evidence of reduced alienation but, initiative and referendum in some cases may be as in the Rand-HEW report, concluded that this due to voter disenchantment with sole reliance on their elected representatives for policymaking, and interests, and delaying or avoiding difficult and to the extent that citizen participation public decisions. Obviously, the various methods outside the electoral process serves to make of citizen participation will be used differently elected officials more responsive, voters will find for these purposes by minority and majority the initiative and referendum less appealing. groups, by those in power and those out of power, Citizen participation does impose certain costs and by those with a stake in providing, consum- and introduce delays which must be kept in ing, or paying for services. Thus, the range of perspective. Care also must be taken to avoid participation methods is used variously by over-optimism about its possible effects. Also, at different groups toward differing ends-thereby certain points citizen participation may conflict adding to the diversity of influences upon gov- with the proper exercise of responsibilities by ernment. duly elected and appointed officials. These exist At the same time, research findings are not where citizens involved are not representative of very clear in their evaluation of the effects of the the entire range of interests affected; where various types of advisory citizen participation. It citizens presumably acting in a strictly advisory seems fairly clear from Chapter 3 that some such capacity actually share in the decisionmaking methods cost less than others and take less time power (other than in those cases where elected and attract greater numbers of participants, officials have determined that such power while some are more politically acceptable than sharing is necessary to enable certain groups- others, and still others have greater potential for particularly the disadvantaged and unor- producing new ideas or resolving conflicts. That 296 ganized-to protect their vital interests); and same chapter also suggests that simpler and where public officials manipulate participating clearer decision processes, adequate training of citizens to further their own personal and pro- citizens and officials involved in the participa- fessional, goals rather than those of the pro- tion process, adequate staff and technical assis- gram or the government generally. tance, and economic assistance or incentives for participation can or might improve the participa- The Proper Use of Advisory Processes tion actually experienced. By these means, it is argued, more of the affected persons would be As the findings have shown, there are many able to participate in governmental decisionmak- different forms of citizen participation which ing processes, and there would be greater may be used to furnish advice to governmental understanding of the process and greater capa- decisionmakers. These, of course, include such bility to enter into a creative and constructive devices as advisory committees, task forces, dialogue. study commissions, public hearings, workshops, Of course, these factors of inclusiveness, meetings, conferences, consultations, polls and creativity, and capability do not tell the whole surveys, and many others. In addition, there are story. If basic interests are too diverse, then a special techniques of group dynamics, mediation, consensus may not develop in the advisory arbitration, and electronic communication which process and the parties may abandon it for the can be used to enhance the quality and timeliness exercise of their power options-such as cam- of interractions between the people and their paigning and voting for a change of government, governments. demonstrating, picketing, going on strike, or As the findings also have revealed, these using such other means as they may muster, or methods of producing advice serve several simply to disengage. Advisory citizen participa- different purposes and are used in different ways tion methods are only one part of the total gov- by different persons and interests within the ernmental decisionmaking process, and there is constituencies of the federal, state, and local gov- no guarantee that they will produce "success" ernments, and the regional and neighborhood from the point of view of any given interest in any organizations serving governmental purposes. given situation. This is one reason why it is so Of prime importance among the purposes are difficult to produce clear evaluations of the improving the quality of public decisions, benefits from citizen participation. Hence, the altering the allocation of public resources, evaluation studies summarized in Chapter 4 of enhancing the acceptance of public decisions, this report understandably are largely inconclu- protecting individual and minority group rights sive. Two other points, however, seem quite clear the proposition that broad based participation is from the background chapters. First, many impossible to achieve and what passes for it is Americans expect a great deal of participation in usually not much more than special interest governmental affairs to be open to them, even pleading. The nation long since has outgrown the though they may not always avail themselves of possibilities of direct dem~iracyexcept in the available opportunities. And secondly, there is a smallest local communities, they point out, so the substantial gap between the amount of influence representative form of government achieved which many participants expect their involve- through the electoral process is the most satisfac- ment to have, and the actually observed effects of tory and only really legitimate form of decision- participation. This gap, some believe, arises making. Citizen participation, they believe, may largely from deficiencies in the present citizen undermine the basic responsibility and authority participation processes, and causes substantial of elected and accountably appointed officials if dissatisfaction. While the legal opportunities for great care is not taken to avoid the dual excesses citizen participation-whether or not they are of trying to get everyone or only a few people in exercised in any given instance-may have a on the act. This view, of course, recognizes that in substantial indirect effect on the actions of public the final analysis citizen participation often officials, direct effects often are limited because influences the exercise of governmental power in citizen participation opportunities are not pro- resolving conflict situations and that the repre- vided until the latter stages of decisionmaking sentative system is the only legitimate decision- (as, for example, providing for public hearings making forum for this purpose. just before a decision actually is made); too few From a very different point of view, it is argued 297 different opportunities are provided for partici- that many activities of government in which pation (perhaps limited to a small advisory citizen participation occurs do not involve either committee and an open public hearing at the end conflict resolution or decisions by elected repre- of the process); and the opportunities provided sentatives. With respect to conflict, successful are much too passive (leaving to citizens' own participation may result in all views being put on devices the initiative and the development of the table, with a satisfactory policy being found capabilities to participate constructively in very to accommodate them all. Thus, what might have complex governmental processes). These propo- been a conflict situation without participation, nents of greater citizen participation propose becomes an amicable agreement on public policy. that the participation processes be opened at all With respect to decisions by nonelect,ed officials, stages of the problem-solving and decisionmak- public participation increasingly has been ap- ing process (beginning with problem definition plied within the bureaucracy. Public policies as and ending with the evaluation of implementa- enacted by elected officials frequently are very tion activities], that a wide variety of informa- broad, leaving a wide range of subsidiary tion dissemination, information collection, and judgments and decisions to be made at the interactive forms of participation be used to discretion of program administrators. In such reach diverse publics at various stages in the cases, citizen participation has been invoked as a process, and that governments take an active means of instilling a degree of responsiveness part in promoting participation and assisting and accountability into the actions taken by participants in effectively communicating their bureaucrats. Thus, the issue of citizens under- views and reacting to government proposals. mining their elected representatives through Opponents of greater participation point to their involvement turns upside down, according what they believe to be apathy on the part of most to this view, with the elected representatives citizens, the difficulties of securing any kind of relying upon the citizens to assist them in their broad based participation (not to mention well own efforts to hold the bureaucracy accountable. informed participation), and the great costs to In the broad sense, then, the issue becomes one government in both money and time which may of determining just how much and what types of be spent pursuing greater participation without advisory citizen participation should be used by significant result. The proponents respond that, both elected representatives and bureaucrats. without broader based participation, issues are Those beginning with a philosophy of legitimiz- left to be decided by a limited number of special ing elections to provide clear authority for interests. To this, the opponents come back with elected representatives and efficient decisionmaking unfettered by great expense and delay, Proponents of this view have recommended opt for a modest amount of participation which that a permanent "National Institute of Citizen allows citizen views to be heard with respect to Participation" be established to serve as a central well developed governmental proposals prior to clearinghouse on research, information, techni- final decisionmaking. Those who begin with the cal assistance, and resources supporting citizen basic philosophy that "the people" know what is participation at the federal, state, and local levels best for themselves, that they are capable of of government, and to provide active stimulation helping to deal with public issues and of for the involvement of citizens at both the policy improving public policy, and that policies made development and implementation stages of gov- with the people's involvement will be better and ernmental programs at the federal, state, and more easily implemented, prefer a more fully local levels, including neighborhoods and com- participatory decisionmaking process which munity organizations. Hence, its supporters urge encompasses earlier stages in the process of national legislation that would authorize such resolving public issues. These advocates would an institute to research, document, monitor, and make greater efforts to promote such participa- evaluate present citizen participation techniques tion and assist it to be productive and effective. and programs at the federal, state, and local They also would make greater use of a variety of levels; and to design, develop, and distribute different participation methods appealing to the educational and training materials for use by various different interests, and emphasize par- government officials and the general public at the ticularly those methods designed to enhance federal, state, and local levels. It also would serve 298 creative two-way interactions between the as catalyst for, and support increased voluntary people and their governments. Opening the involvement in, governmental policymaking and process to active representation by wider spec- program administration at all levels through trums of interests, they feel, is the antidote to the demonstrations, model development, and policy possibility that any single committee, or hearing, recommendations; and would recommend to the or other part of the process could be captured by a President and Congress such changes in federal single (often minority) interest. legislation pertaining to citizen participation as The practical question remains, however, as to may be warranted by its research and experience. how much participation the government can These proponents see the institute involving afford, and the point at which additional efforts citizens and public officials from all levels of gov- may no longer be cost-effective. General answers ernment in its work and endeavoring to be open to these questions are difficult to give. Clearly, it and responsive to all concerned in citizen costs little to run government in an open and participation processes. The institute, they above board manner, perhaps even resulting in explain, would assist and work cooperatively net savings in the long run by reducing mistakes with other federal departments and agencies and enhancing acceptance of decisions. Just as having citizen participation responsibilities-in- clearly, however, some methods of participation cluding affected regional offices of such depart- can be quite costly to government, and should be ments and agencies and the Federal Regional undertaken only when clear benefits are in Councils-as well as with state and local offices prospect in given situations. The use of all of citizen participation to provide relevant participation methods all of the time almost information and technical assistance. The insti- certainly would pass the point of diminishing tute, they urge, should have authority to contract returns. Beyond this, little can be said. An for services from qualified public agencies, effective and efficient citizen participation universities, nonprofit organizations, and pri- process is one which is clearly tailored to the vate consultants in furtherance of its purposes. level of government and nature of the issue. The proposed institute, then, would have a This uncertainty about the nature, impact, best facilitative role, geared to improving the state of methods, and costs of citizen participation has the art, to disseminating increased knowledge prompted some to call for a focused national about citizen participation rapidly throughout effort to experiment with, and evaluate carefully the nation, and to assisting the various levels of present participation processes and require- government and citizen-volunteer groups to ments with a view toward disseminating widely develop greater capacities in this field through the results of such an endeavor. training and other means. In its own operations, its advocates claim, the voluntarily, they really cannot be forced to do so. institute would practice what it preaches with Recent low voting turn-outs give evidence of this respect to the involvement of outsiders, and it problem, for example. Thus, governmental would maximize its influence on the nation by requirements in citizen participation affect gov- working with, and through, other governmental ernmental officials most directly, forcing them to and nongovernmental organizations having open up opportunities for participation, rather similar interests and responsibilities, thereby than forcing citizens to avail themselves of these avoiding the build-up of a large new opportunities. Citizens get involved most bureaucracy. The institute also would be frequently in those instances where the issues politically responsive, to avoid its capture by the involved directly affect them in a clear and bureaucracy. This trait could be provided for by adverse way, or where they are affirmatively giving volunteer citizens a major voice in helping attracted by a governmental outreach program to design the institute's form and working which assists them in participating in a procedures, by designating the institute's top satisfying way without undue sacrifice. The officials as Presidential appointees, subject to primary importance of the institute, so they Senate confirmation, or by establishing the argue, would be its ability to monitor, evaluate, institute as an independent national commission and report on the amount and quality of citizen with overlapping terms to balance its political participation so that citizens and government accountability with a certain degree of continuity officials alike can become more aware of the and stability. benefits to be gained through programs better It should be noted that ACIR's study was attuned to citizen needs. Governmental 299 hampered at many points by lack of reliable regulations alone are not very likely to achieve information about the effectiveness of the this result. various citizen participation techniques, their Proponents contend that the institute would costs, and their suitability in diverse settings. not require great additional expenditures. The The study also found that attitudes about citizen federal government already spends very sub- participation vary quite widely among citizens stantial amounts on citizen participation re- and officials alike, as do levels of understanding search through a variety of departments and and capabilities of effective participation. agencies, and also provides some training and Frequently, discussions of citizen participation technical assistance. But, much of the value of generate more heat than light, and this is present federal research on citizen participation exacerbated by the paucity of good solid data is lost, they maintain, because of inadequate about the results attained and the reasons for sharing of it among researchers and inadequate those results. means of transferring results into the field where In this context, governmental requirements for it can be applied promptly. Relatively small citizen participation-especially when mandated additional expenditures could recapture these on a lower level of government by a higher level- losses, it is argued, and substantially increase the tend to be honored more in the letter than in the value received for present levels of expenditure. spirit of the law. Thus, much citizen participation By working through, and with, existing agencies is pro-forma, hence, ineffective. The processes and organizations, the institute would not create are established merely because they are required, a major new bureaucracy of its own. and what might have been a creative process, Despite assurances that the institute would not resulting in better government, becomes a become a large new bureaucracy, opponents debilitating exercise in additional governmental argue that it would indeed be a new agency of red tape. government, and very few new agencies remain A National Institute of Citizen Participation, small. As the institute sees its ambitious goals then, is proposed by some as a means of helping only partially fulfilled over the years, it inevita- to overcome these difficulties. Some bly would reach out for more staff and greater participation advocates go so far as to assign budgets. Moreover, the critics claim, its purposes their highest priority to this institutional means are so broad as to remain unachievable within the of facilitation, citing the great difficulty of foreseeable future. legislating effective citizen participation. As Such an institute, it is argued, could never they view it, if people will not participate serve effectively the three traditional levels of government, given its location and funding, as another, petition their governments for redress of well as its inevitable incapacity to reflect and grievances, and receive equal treatment under report on the endless variety of citizen participa- the laws in accordance with "due process." The tion practices within the states and their thou- federal civil rights laws have emphasized even sands of localities. Moreover, and perhaps most more fully that minority groups are not to be significantly for this group, the proposed insti- excluded from enjoyment of these and other tute is based on the assumption that persuasion, rights. Specifically with respect to federal aid effective reporting, and good research will programs, civil rights legislation requires that strengthen citizen activism in governmental funds be spent in nondiscriminatory ways. processes. Critics find this assumption foolish Several individual federal aid programs have and without foundation in the real world of specific provisions repeating bans on discrimina- politics, programs, and personal and group self- tion. By this means, federal aids now are required interest. They would concede that such a unit to meet the special needs of minorities, diverse might have some symbolic significance for racial and ethnic groups, various age and income citizen participation advocates, but that is not groups, both sexes, and the handicapped or reason enough for establishing it. Fanciful goals, disadvantaged, as well as the needs of the general unrealistic function, little concern for the real public. Thus, two principles have been estab- bases of citizen apathy, and a further draw-down lished: (1)all the people are to have access to gov- on the federal treasury for yet another experi- ernment, and (2)federal aid is to meet the needs ment in what predictably will be a failure-these of diverse and differentiated groups. The existing 300 are the hallmarks of this institute proposal for its citizen participation requirements in federal aid opponents. programs help to assist the people in the exercise of their constitutional rights of access to govern- Intergovernmental Requirements for ment and help assisted state and local govern- Citizen Participation ments to identify the needs of the diverse groups which are to be assisted fairly and equitably Chapters 3, 4, and 5 in this report have shown under federal aid programs. These, then, are the that citizen participation, at present, is heavily purposes used to justify federal requirements for caught up with intergovernmental mandates. For citizen participation at the other levels of gov- example, state laws in every state require local ernment. governments to be operated in the open, and most Critics of this federal role point out, however, states specifically require budget hearings and that citizen participation is, and always has been voter approval of at least some local fiscal much greater at the local level than at either the decisions such as extraordinary increases in state or federal levels, and that the federal gov- local property tax rates and the issuance of local ernment, especially, is a Johnny-come-lately in general obligation bonds. Furthermore, about 800 such matters-and far too removed from local local planning commissions have been estab- circumstances to be writing specific do's and lished under state law to bring citizens into the don'ts with respect to when hearings should be planning process. held, how they should be advertised, and the At the federal level, 155 federal aid programs precise composition of local citizen advisory require citizen participation in their administra- committees. For the critics, then, federal require- tion by state and local governments. Eighty-nine ments often cause duplication and incompatibili- of these programs specifically require citizen ty. In short, they complicate, confuse, and add advisory committees at the local and/or state expense unnecessarily. Finally, some of the levels, while 55 require public hearings at these critics contend that the federal requirements levels. reflect an unjustifiably skeptical, if not distrust- Justifications for such participation require- ful view of state and local officials, administra- ments stem from long traditions of American tors, and processes-at a time when they never democracy. These are reflected in the First, Fifth, have been more "open" politically and accessible and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Consti- administratively. Thus, the critics recommend tution which, among other things, guarantee to abolition or substantial simplification of federal all citizens the rights to have a free press, aid requirements for citizen participation, leav- exercise free speech, assemble freely with one ing substantially more latitude to state and local officials to work with citizens within their own the chief purpose of these requirements is to legal frameworks and traditions. promote better communication between state- The abolitionists are the most severe of these local program administrators in the field and critics. They contend that because the present affected citizens, witness the predominance of federal aid requirements for citizen participation the citizen boards and committees and public are largely undefined in purpose, are duplicative hearing devices. Only two dozen of the require- of state requirements in many instances, encour- ments; they stress, suggest any real effort to age the perpetuation of the aided programs in achieve some "power sharing." In practice, the others, constitute an artificially imposed and bulk of these conditions play primarily to the largely ineffective condition in still others, such interests of middle class and upwardly mobile conditions are unnecessary in all but a few minority citizens, not to the poor, the disadvan- programs where it is the express purpose of the taged, or the alienated, they emphasize. Moreov- Congress and the President to confer a sharing in er, some of these requirements, in effect, have decisionmaking on specific groups of citizens helped generate a local constituency for the benefiting from a specific federally aided pro- perpetuation of the aided program-sometimes gram. In all but these specifically exempted even when federal funds have been shut off. And, program areas, they recommend that the federal with some, most notably the requirement at- government rely upon state and local govern- tached to General Revenue Sharing, they be- ments themselves to provide adequate levels of lieve the effect has been chiefly a "formalistic" citizen participation. Most of them recognize that one, with meager substantive impact. some states and some localities need to reassess Given what the abolitionists believe to be the 301 their open meeting and other participatory mixed-to-negative general results of these more ordinances, practices, and statutes with a view than seven score citizen participation require- toward assuring that their scope in terms of ments, they believe that omnibus legislation mechanisms, governmental processes, and sub- should be enacted that repeals all but the few that ject areas is sufficiently broad and that their clearly are geared to "power-sharing" purposes. provisions are enforced. In calling for this They have no confidence in any federal effort to review, they emphasize that they too are con- standardize and simplify these conditions- cerned that citizens are assured of having an either across the board or departmentally. Such opportunity to be heard prior to policy and/or an undertaking, they point out, would involve a administrative decisions which directly affect clear sorting out of federal goals in this area, a them. Hence, they recommend that, where task that national decisionmakers would find necessary, such state and local statutes, ordi- and politics would make near impossible. After nances, and practices be amended to achieve the all, it would involve an effort to establish links foregoing goals. between goals and mechanisms and procedures, In advancing their proposals, the abolitionists and this varies greatly from program to program, primarily are concerned with reducing the from recipient jurisdiction to recipient jurisdic- confusion and intrusion which they believe the tion, and from governmental level to govern- more than 150 federally imposed citizen partici- mental level. It would involve new administra- pation requirements now constitute. Affording tive arrangements within the departments and in citizens the opportunity to present their views on any governmentwide effort within the Executive a pending policy or administrative decision, they Office of the President. Either would be compli- believe, should be a concern of the states and the cated, arduous, and, in light of other recent localities, not a goal of federal grant-in-aid parallel efforts, probably only marginally effec- requirements. tive, according to the abolitionist view. More- Even a cursory analysis of the legislative over, it would involve confronting the Congress history of most of these federal requirements, with all of these questions, since an Executive they emphasize, indicates either an ill-defined or Order or departmental directive could not a nondefined Congressional intent. The result achieve all of the above, given the statutory bases has been a welter of varying regulations devel- for many of the differences in the requirements. oped pursuant to administrative discretion and Yet, the abolitionists see meager evidence that most without any attempt at uniformity even on a Congress generally considers this topic to be of departmental basis. They note that by inference overriding significance to the federal system as a whole or certainly to the operations of most of the requirements, begin to make the job of the federal programs to which these requirements have been grant administrator a somewhat more rational appended. one, and begin to get basic participation concerns Any effort to standardize and simplify the back where they belong-at the state and local existing citizen participation requirements also levels. would have to address the question of how Proponents of federal aid requirements for effective such requirements have been in reduc- citizen participation point out, in response to the ing the gaps between citizens, program adminis- critics, that many local governments and state trators, and state-local decisionmakers in en- agencies still operate with little sensitivity to the hancing better program performance and in need for opening their decision processes to strengthening the system generally. Status quo wider participation by affected persons. Thus, defenders of the proliferating pattern of separate while federal requirements may be duplicative requirements cannot ignore these issues, they and unnerdssary for certain states and localities, warn. While the findings of studies on specifical- they do serve the purpose of spreading such ly aided programs and on grant programs practices nationwide in a more uniform manner, generally are anything but clear and conclusive, and provide both money and incentives for these abolitionist critics note that some indicate a participation by many groups traditionally not basic ineffectiveness of these requirements in heard from in the administrative processes even meeting these goals. Hence, they focus on what in the more participative parts of the nation. would make them more effective. They find some Yet, many in this group concede that if federal 302 arguing for a strong and consistent government- aid requirements for citizen participation are wide policy and set of procedures and others, in retained, they should be reformed. Present ones effect, contending that in the very diversity of the usually do not have clearly stated objectives and requirements there is strength. They recognize they often are unnecessarily diverse, placing that still others suggest the need for a much wider undue burdens on recipient governments and federal application of the "power-sharing" ap- citizens alike in "learning the ropes." Present proach, where there is some evidence of success, requirements also do not adequately recognize while some of the advocates are calling for more the existence of citizen participation processes federal funding of citizen participation efforts, already established and working under state and personnel, and beneficiaries. They do not ignore local laws and practices-thereby duplicating, the fact that still others argue for a stronger confusing, and diluting the opportunities for federal commitment in the form of an Executive effective participation, and making the process Branch unit on citizen participation and/or a more costly. In addition, present requirements strong and consistent national policy on the too often contain specific, arbitrary specifica- subject. tions for public notice, representative organiza- Yet, the abolitionists find that none of these tions, and other features of the participation proposals goes to the heart of the problem, which process which do not fit well in diverse situa- they feel is essentially one of attitude-both on tions. Finally, existing requirements too often are the part of state and local officials and on the part formalistic and legalistic, applying mostly at the of citizens. Various studies, they point out, have latter stages of decisionmaking in a way which found that the critical factor in effective citizen will satisfy minimum legal standards but do little participation is the attitude of state and local to encourage the creative use of diverse methods officials, and neither the present melange nor a which could enhance both the opportunities for simplified set of federal requirements does much participation and constructive results from it. to engender a positive approach toward citizen These reformers note that the various groups participation on the part of these officials. which have studied this situation are agreed Indigenous political and statutory factors, they about the need for some simplification, at the maintain, are far more significant and positive. very least, if not major efforts at both standardi- For all these reasons, the abolitionists urge a zation and simplification. The fact that so many near complete federal withdrawal from this area different federal aid programs are involved, and of federal regulation. Such a move, they believe, that some avowedly seek to share decisionmak- would begin to curb the proliferation of federal ing authority with affected citizen groups while efforts in the mandating of across-the-board others focus upon providing better and fuller advice to duly constituted officials, is cited by expected to improve. some in this group in support of a more Still other proponents of federal aid require- incremental simplification approach-program ments for citizen participation argue that those area by program area. requirements now appended to more than seven Those supporting full standardization recog- score federal assistance programs have been nize these wide diversities, but believe that developed laboriously over a long period of years properly developed performance standards (per- and, for the most part, are well adapted to the haps with a few specifically recognized excep- programs to which they are appended. While not tions for meeting the power-sharing goals in perfect, these requirements have been of some certain programs) could meet diverse needs by benefit, and affected citizens as well as officials allowing recipient governments to develop are familiar with their use. Thus, they recom- specific participation processes and techniques mend that existing citizen participation require- most appropriate to meet the performance goals ments appended to federal assistance programs in their own situations. Such performance be retained, and that the present administering standards, they maintain, could require (I)de- agencies in the federal Executive Branch re- cisionmaking processes open to public view; tain responsibility for their administration and (2) opportunities for citizen advice at all signifi- improvement in accordance with the varying cant stages of the program; (3) simple, direct, and goals of these individual programs and the well advertised procedures for participation; differing legislative bases for such requirements. (4) advance distribution of relevant information In urging retention of the existing diverse reasonably needed for effective participation; range of citizen participation requirements, these 303 (5)technical assistance to groups and individu- proponents adopt a position that they feel is als having a demonstrated interest in the issue realistic while still being positive. The present but lacking the technical resources to respond requirements appended to 155 grant programs responsibly or constructively without such help; are geared to varying program needs and, in some (6)economic assistance for participants needing cases, to varying citizen participation goals. to be shielded from undue economic sacrifice, and More than half require boards and commissions (7) training for participants in the process who reflecting the public in various ways in their are not familiar with the procedures and tech- respective membership. One-third require a niques to be used. Within these guidelines, hearing process, while over two-thirds stipulate federal aid recipients would develop their own still other citizen participation devices. These processes and specify the participation tech- procedural variations largely reflect differences niques to be used. The federal government, in the programs affected, wherein hearings are according to this approach, would accept such more suitable to some, citizen committees or processes in the absence of any clear indications boards to others (especially in the human that one or more of the performance standards resources area), and other devices to still others. are not being met. In short, the range of procedures is sensibly and For such a performance requirement to work, realistically geared to the variety of differing these reformers warn, the federal agencies would programs to which they have been attached, have to be conscious of the costs as well as the according to this view. related benefits of any proposals they might Each requirement, moreover, usually embodies suggest to strengthen weak links in recipients' one of three contrasting citizen participation participation processes. With reasonable admin- goals-goals that are distinct and not easily istration on the federal side, however, and federal reconciled or merged. The vast majority, they agency assistance in meeting the performance point out, adhere to the consultation/advisory objectives-rather than hard boiled enforcement goal; two dozen incorporate elements of shared of minimum legal requirements for specified decisionmaking; while a few seek to elicit overall techniques-proponents of this approach believe community views on public programs or in that improved citizen participation opportunities public processes, as with the General Revenue could be provided throughout the nation. Not Sharing, community development, and diverse only would federal requirements be simpler and planning requirements. Different goals, then, can more consistent from program to program, but involve different procedures and are more the effectiveness of citizen participation could be appropriate for certain programs than for others. In effect, the existing array of requirements is likely to be more frequent at the local, recognizes this elemental dimension of intergov- neighborhood, and regional levels, and exercised ernmental efforts to foster citizen participation. at more different stages of activity there than at Even where the essential goal is the same for the state and federal levels. Second, the propor- several grant programs, as with the advisory/ tion of people actually involved from the total consultation approach, they argue that separate population tends to be greater, the more local the and specific requirements create no real adminis- jurisdiction. As a corollary to this second point, trative or political problems. Such conditions, the screening of participants necessarily is more they emphasize, place a specific responsibility on selective for participation at higher levels of gov- specific federal departments and agencies to ernment-organizational representation being mount a special, even a differentiated, effort to relied upon more (instead of individual participa- involve citizens in the state or local decisionmak- tion) as the size of government increases. The ing processes that govern the implementation of greater pressures of time at the higher levels of the affected aid programs. Out of this have come government demand this type of filtering, and varying approaches to, varying attitudes on, and tend to reduce the length of time and intensity of varying degrees of success [and failure) in contact, and the degree of interaction among the encouraging citizen participation. Given the still various interested parties at the upper levels of essentially experimental and delicate intergov- government. Nevertheless, the contacts are there, ernmental nature of these efforts, they caution, and they may be intensified and lengthened if the this piecemeal testing approach is the only issues demand. 304 sensible and realistic one to rely on at this Obviously, the eventual shape of final results point. in federal aid programs is, or may be, affected by After all, too little is known, despite the whatever citizen participation occurs at these numerous evaluation studies, these observers various levels. Some contend that participation maintain, about the key components of citizen requirements should, or do vary according to participation success, especially in light of the the form of assistance-categorical, block, or re- ambitious programmatic, systemic, and attitudi- venue sharing-and the size of the jurisdiction in nal goals that usually are subsumed under the terms of both population and geography. rubric of success. Moreover, the manner in which For a categorical grant from the federal these factors interact in diverse jurisdictional government, development of the federal legisla- and political settings raises an even more tion and the administrative regulations and complicated set of analytical questions. For guidelines may be especially crucial steps for them, these operational and intellectual limita- citizen involvement. This is because the narrow- tions on arriving at any real certainty about the er the grant program, the more decisions are sure road to more effective citizen participation likely to be made at these federal steps concern- suggest that more time for, more experimentation ing the precise types of projects, eligible benefi- with, and more analysis of, the existing require- ciaries, and details of administration. If these ments are very much needed. Hence, either the grants are passed through the states, some abolition of citizen participation requirements in additional state requirements may be added, federal aid programs or a federal effort to develop further restricting discretion at the eventual a standardized governmentwide or even depart- local, regional, or neighborhood level of project mentwide policy on the topic would be folly at administration. Thus, once again citizen influ- this time. ence will have been reduced in the final analysis Another issue with federal aid programs if not applied at the state level. Finally, very little concerns the type and amount of citizen partici- discretion may be left to be exercised by the local pation which should occur at the various levels of or regional body eventually receiving the federal government. This report has pointed out in funds. At this point, it is highly unrealistic to Chapters 3, 4, and 5 that multiple citizen par- encourage citizen participation with any thought ticipation methods are used by all three levels of other than that its impact will be strictly limited government as well as by regional governmen- to the minor discretionary matters left to these tal organizations and neighborhood subunits. recipients. Often, problems arise from citizen Obviously, however, there are different usage misunderstanding of the limited nature of patterns among these levels. First, participation participation which can be provided at this point. This leads, very often, either to outrage or citizen participation, while those believing the disillusionment. federal aid requirements to be appropriate cite Of course, not all categorical grant programs the unevenness of citizen participation practices preempt significant decisionmaking at the point at state and local levels in contrast to the uniform of impact. In fact, some of the restrictions placed guarantees of access to government provided by upon them may be for the purpose of ensuring the U.S. Constitution. In any case, if federal aid that affected groups will be guaranteed a specific requirements for citizen participation are re- type of program which they can help to design in tained, there appears to be broad consensus that specific ways, without undue interference from mild to very extensive reforms are needed in the state or local units handling the funds. In them. The precise nature of these reforms is less those cases, the available discretion is relatively clear. clear already. Block grants leave more room to maneuver at Evaluation of Citizen Participation the ultimate point of program administration. They are much broader in their purposes and The authors of a major study of citizen leave much more discretion for decisionmaking participation in HEW programs reported that by the administering recipient government. Still, their task of evaluation was made difficult by the broad priorities are established at the federal inadequate attention given to evaluation by level, and with some such programs additional HEW. Academics and specialists in citizen restrictions may be added at state levels, before participation have commented on the general the recipient government receives the funds. absence of soundly prepared evaluation studies 305 Again, citizen input is needed at each level of gov- in the federal government and elsewhere. This ernment where the program is taking shape, and situation leads to the question: Is evaluation of participation opportunities provided by the citizen participation feasible, and if so, how can eventual administering unit of government its present low state be improved? should be clearly couched in terms of the degree Those who question the feasibility of valid of discretion still left to be exercised at that level. evaluation cite at the outset the diversity and Participation in these programs at the point of complexity of the objectives of citizen participa- impact is likely to encompass both broad tion. Legislative bodies seldom, if ever, set forth expenditure policies and detailed project design clear objectives in the authorizing legislation or questions, in contrast to concentration on the even in the documented legislative history. latter for categorical grants. Citizens and administrators must try to find General Revenue Sharing leaves almost all of direction from statutes that speak in such vague the discretion about appropriate uses of the terms as "meaningful" or "widespread" or funds to the administering recipient. Thus, "substantial" citizen involvement. Little if any citizen participation in this program does not direction is provided concerning the definition of have to be couched too carefully in terms of the citizen, the kinds of participative mechanisms to limits of citizen inputs which are acceptable to be employed, what procedures to follow in the final recipients. The broadest issues concern- choosing citizens, how agencies are to respond to ing spending priorities are still wide open, and views of the public, and how those views are to be only after these are settled can citizen participa- balanced against other considerations in admin- tion revert to the questions of program and istrators' decisions. project design which serve as the focus in other Lackipg clear legislative direction, potential federal aid programs. evaluators can turn for guidance to the two In sum, there seems to be broad agreement that parties most intimately concerned: administra- state law should provide for citizen participation tors responsible for involving citizens in the at both the state and local levels, and that federal programs, and the citizens themselves. But such law should provide for citizen participation in its guidance inevitably will reflect the respective own affairs. There are basic differences, howev- biases of these two parties. Since the administra- er, about the need for federal aid requirements tor's primary responsibility is to see that the mandating citizen participation at state and local service goals of his program are achieved, he will levels. Those believing it unnecessary cite the tend to think of citizen participation in terms of duplication of state and local requirements for its contribution to those goals. The citizen, on the other hand, will view citizen participation as reduction of citizen alienation, reflecting the need important to the extent that it insures that gov- for strengthening public support for government. ernment decisions are consistent with his own These defenders of evaluation acknowledge interpretation of the public good. that measuring these criteria is not simple. The Further complicating the problem, in the view most obvious approach is to use objective of evaluation skeptics, is the fact that there are measures, such as examining statistics on the some 31 different forms of participation, ranging number of people who attend public meetings from presenting a prepared statement at a public and public hearings as evidence of accessibility, hearing to serving on a citizen committee that and studying the record of public hearings to exercises some degree of program control. ascertain whether the points of view presented Additional evaluation difficulties arise from the represent all affected individuals and groups. complexity of government itself, with its many The problem with using such yardsticks is that and diverse state and local political systems and they may fall short of revealing what impact their interrelationships as well as their relation- citizen participation actually had on officials' ships with the federal government and its many decisions. That measure might be obtained by programs. How can evaluation be meaningful in a careful examination of the record of decision- setting so complex and varied? makers' deliberations, which, with the advent of In short, those who question the feasibility of sunshine and freedom of information laws, is valid evaluation of citizen participation stress now likely to be more available than in the past. the lack of clear legislative direction; the need for Where such a record is not available, decision- 306 heavy reliance upon two parties with opposite makers and their staffs can be interviewed for biases for any kind of informed assessment; and their views on the impact of citizen involvement, the complexity of the task, involving numerous recognizing that because of official self-interest and varied citizen participation mechanisms in a those views should be used only to assist in the highly complicated governmental system where interpretation of effectiveness, rather than serve it is difficult to sort out the precise effects of the as the only basis for that interpretation. Recent- many diverse influences which lead to any final ly, some citizen participation requirements have outcome. They believe that evaluations which begun to call for written statements by decision- attain any degree of validity might cost more makers explaining how citizen views were taken than any benefits that could reasonably be into account in arriving at a final decision. expected, and for that reason contend that the A final consideration, according to those who soundest course would be to abandon all evalua- believe that citizen participation must, and can be tion efforts. evaluated, is to ask the citizens themselves how Those who are more sanguine about citizen they judge the effectiveness of a citizen participa- participation evaluation acknowledge the diffi- tion program. Only the people can reveal whether culties cited, yet they find that these are not they think their rights were respected, their insuperable, in light of the benefits they see from interests were recognized, and the balance of citizen participation and the contribution that their preferences was reflected. An important they believe evaluation can make toward assur- issue here is to assure that the citizens whose ing those benefits. They hold that citizen involve- views are surveyed to get these answers are ment in decisionmaking must be viewed as part representative of the entire class of affected of the general trend toward democratization of citizens. Imaginative and careful development of our governmental institutions. From this they a series of methodologies and measures (both derive such evaluative criteria as accessibility- attitudinal and objective) can provide that meaning opportunities for affected citizens to assurance, according to these supporters of obtain needed information, make their views evaluation. known to decisionmakers, and hold officials In short, the supporters of the concept of accountable; fairness-meaning assurance that evaluating citizen participation believe that it all those affected by a program are given would be irresponsible to fail to evaluate citizen equitable consideration in the decisionmaking participation, however much it may seem that process; and responsiveness-meaning reflec- citizen participation should be accepted virtually tion of public preferences in governmental as a sine qua non of the democratic process; that decisions. Others would add a criterion on meaningful criteria can be derived from democratic experience and principles; and that metho- lives; and (d) avoiding the creation of unrealisti- dology exists or can be developed to enable a cally high hopes regarding the satisfactions and defensible application of those criteria. benefits to be reaped from citizen participation. More specifically the Commission recom- RECOMMENDATION 1. mends that, where lacking, state law provide for, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AT as a minimum, (1)open meetings, (2) open EACH LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT records, (3) effective public information programs, (4) equitably representative advisory The Commission concludes that the fundamen- committees and/or task forces for programs tal mechanism of citizen participation in Ameri- having significant effects on the public or nu- can democracy is, and must be the process of merically significant sectors thereof, (5) public nominating and electing representative public hearings at significant decision points in the officials and, in certain circumstances, balloting making of public policy, (6) regular reporting by on issues through the initiative and referendum. governmental units on their citizen participation Yet, the Commission further concludes that activities along with evaluation of such activi- citizen participation beyond the electoral pro- ties, and (7) the right of citizens to appeal through cess, in both the legislative and executive administrative and judicial channels for the branches, constitutes a vital complementary redress of procedural lapses under this legisla- feature of contemporary American government, tion. Such legislation should apply to both the and is essential for holding elected and appointed executive and legislative branches and agencies officials accountable, exerting a salutary influ- of state governments, local governments, and 307 ence on governmental decisions, contributing to regional organizations which are subject to state improved governmental services, and strength- law. This legislation also should provide for the ening citizens' confidence in, and support for, visible and accountable placement of responsi- government. bility for compliance at each level. In addition, it is recommended that such legislation make The Commission, therefore, recommends that special provisions in specified cases for the governments at all levels provide sufficient involvement of program clientele-including an authority, responsibility, resources, commit- appropriate share in decisionmaking, the use of ment, and leadership for effective citizen partici- volunteers in program administration, the em- pation in their own directly administered activi- ployment of program clientele, and complaint ties, including budgeting and financial services-in those state and local programs with decisionmaking, in addition to the elective direct beneficiaries, and also for the involvement political process. of broad-based community, regional, or statewide At the same time, the Commission recognizes interests, as well as special interests, in those that citizen participation processes, as some- programs, activities, and state or local planning times designed, can compete with the basic and policymaking processes affecting primarily responsibility and authority of elected officials the public at large. Finally, such legislation and can distort the representativeness of such should provide training for citizens and officials processes. The Commission therefore recom- involved in all aspects of citizen participation, mends that legislative and executive branches of and technical assistance for participating citizen all levels of government, when providing in groups with demonstrated need. legislation and administrative practice for citi- The Commission also recommends that laws, zen involvement, exercise caution in (a) selecting charters, and organic documents establishing the types of situations in which citizens are local governments and regional public organiza- empowered to share in decisionmaking; (b) de- tions include citizen participation provisions fining the categories of citizens whose participa- consistent with the state legislation recom- tion is needed to assure fair and equitable mended above. representation of all significantly affected The Commission recommends, further, that the groups; (c) guarding against administrative President and the Congress authorize a review of agencies' exploitation of citizen involvement for the several legislative and administrative provi- the agencies' own narrow purposes or for the sions for citizen participation in the federal gov- perpetuation of programs beyond their useful ernment's own direct rulemaking, regulatory, and program formulation processes, with a view laws be reviewed and amended or supplemented, toward establishing broadly and consistently as necessary, to provide for (1)a broad set of applicable, mutually supportive, yet simple and means whereby citizens may have access to most cost-effective procedures for (1)open meetings, governmental information and decisionmaking (2) open records, (3) effective public information processes in both the legislative and executive programs, (4) the use of equitably representative branches of state and substate units of govern- advisory committees and/or task forces for ment; (2) involvement of the direct clientele of programs having significant effects on the public public service programs as appropriate to enable or numerically significant sectors thereof, (5) such state or local programs to work more public hearings and/or consultation processes at smoothly, responsively, and productively; and significant decision points in the making of (3) balanced involvement of a broad range of public policy, (6) regular reporting by Executive general and special interests in public decision- Branch departments and agencies, and inde- making significantly affecting the general public. pendent regulatory commission, on their citizen Those requirements of state law would be participation activities, along with evaluation of supported, under this recommendation, by ap- such activities, and (7) the right of citizens to propriate training and technical assistance ef- appeal through administrative and judicial forts. channels for the redress of procedural lapses At the local and regional levels of government, under such provisions. Distinctions should be provisions similar to, and consistent with, those made, as appropriate, in the applicability of the proposed above for general state law, are 308 varying citizen participation procedures to the recommended to be incorporated into specific rulemaking, regulatory, and program formula- state laws, charters, and other organic docu- tion processes of the federal government. Re- ments establishing units of local government and sponsibility for conducting this review should be regional organizations. assigned clearly to a politically accountable offi- With reference to the federal government's cial or agency in the Executive Branch, and the direct activities, the Commission recommends review should be performed with clear opportu- that serious consideration be given to more nity for equitably representative citizen partici- uniformly applying the same citizen participa- pation. Results of this review, together with tion processes, as those recommended for the appropriate recommendations for legislative and states and their political subdivisions, through- administrative actions, should be reported to the out the Executive Branch and among the inde- President and the Congress and made public pendent regulatory commissions, with approp- within a specified period of time. riate distinctions being made to recognize differences in applying the general principles to This recommendation affirms the importance differing types of federal activity. A major study, to governments in the United States of using under accountable political auspices, and with citizen participation proceses which reach citizen involvement, is called for. beyond the electoral processes, and urges that all At the heart of American representative levels of government in the nation take steps to democracy is the concept that government is the use such citizen participation processes effec- immediate responsibility of officials elected by tively. At the same time, it is recognized that the citizens. Except for the use of the initiative citizen participation processes are difficult to use and referendum in certain limited cases and the effectively, evenhandedly, and without disap- town meeting form of local government, ours is a pointment. Thus, the recommendation draws representative democracy. For the system to attention to some of the prime difficulties which work effectively, elected officials should know need to be overcome to help ensure success. and respond to the needs and views of the Finally, the recommendation urges specific steps citizenry; and for this to happen there must be which can be taken by the states, by local gov- full and free interchange of information between ernments and regional organizations, and by the the governed and the governors. Officials cannot federal government to institutionalize citizen know what decisions to make unless they know participation effectively and equitably in their what their constituents are thinking and, conver- direct servicing responsibilities. sely, citizens cannot judge the performance of At the state level, it is recommended that state their officials at periodic elections unless they know what decisions they make, and why. -the selection of projects and activities in the Hence, citizen participation activities outside the Community Development Block Grant and electoral process play a substantial role in the level of social service expenditures in assuring fulfillment of this need for the inter- that program; change of information. -the determination of service budgets by Citizen participation plays an equally impor- certain HEW advisory committees; tant role in keeping the bureaucracy responsive. The increased complexity of the economy and -neighborhood health centers, where citizen society, and the consequent expansion of gov- boards have full governing authority or ernment, have increased the number and the limited control over specific decisions; technical nature of problems confronting legisla- -stimulation of localities' participation in tures, generating a vast expansion in legislative grant programs; and delegation of policy responsibilities to administrative agencies. This development places -the exertion of pressure on a local gov- heightened emphasis on the issue of bureaucratic ernment to retain a program even after responsibility. federal grant funds have ceased. Theoretically, accountability is maintained by the authority directly responsible for bestowing In the case of General Revenue Sharing, citizen the power, that is, the legislative body and the participation also appears to have been influen- elected executive. Practically, however, the tial in some cases, though the evidence thus far is theory breaks down, in part, due to the separa- mixed. 309 tion (and sharing) of powers that characterizes Citizen participation can have at least two the federal, state, and many local governments. other significant impacts on the effective func- But, equally, if not more so, accountability is not tioning of government: strengthening of citizen ensured because of the general lack of insistence trust in, and support for, government, and on it by legislative bodies (whether because of improvement of program performance. Current their lack of ability to devote time and resources research, examined in this study, is equivocal on to it, or lack of interest when compared with whether these results do flow from citizen other more appealing duties). As a consequence, participation in any measurable degreei if at all. the term "bureaucracy"-whether fairly or un- In our judgment, however, there is no doubt that fairly-has become almost synonymous with the citizen participation, in some cases, does have idea of unresponsiveness. (and in others could have) these effects. Concern over this evolution of bureaucratic In any case, the findings from our research and isolation and unresponsiveness led directly at our experience with and study of the history and the federal level to Congressional enactment of operation of American government firmly sup- the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. port the conclusion that citizen participation While aimed primarily at the independent beyond the electoral process now is an essential regulatory commissions in the beginning, it part of representative democracy in America, applies now to the entire federal administrative helping to maintain the responsiveness of elected establishment and is the basic law opening up the officials and the bureaucracy to the citizenry. administrative process to public access. In- Given the indispensability of citizen partici- fluencing and controlling the bureaucracy is an pation as a supplement to the basic electoral important focus of similar laws in state and local process, the Commission believes that gov- governments, and of the many forms of citizen ernments at all levels should examine their participation at all levels. existing citizen participation policies and practices with a view to providing the necessary One sure indicator of the significance of citizen authority, responsibility, resources, commit- participation in helping to hold elected officials ment, and leadership to assure that such partici- and administrators responsible is the capacity of pation is effective. citizen participants to influence governmental In urging the improved and expanded develop- decisions. Our study found that such influence, ment and use of citizen participation, the while not always present or in uniform degree, Commission recognizes certain pitfalls that must does occur frequently, as for example in: be avoided in various aspects of existing citizen participation activities. One of these has to do diminish their power, but it also enables them to with the issue of which citizens should, and do pass the buck to others. Thus, the nature of the participate. In certain federal aid programs, participation is critical to a determination of legislation and/or regulations identify which whether a particular kind of citizen participation citizens are to be "targeted," particularly when will complement and abet the normal political they are the disadvantaged or unorganized-in process of decisionmaking or will confuse and short, when they are not likely to be alert to possibly undermine it. Power-sharing situations, defend their own interests. Even in such cases, therefore, should be carefully and clearly deli- however, as the Title XX (social services) and the neated so that the roles of citizens and officials Community Development Block Grant case stu- are well understood by both groups and mutually dies reveal, the "targeted" low income groups respected and supported. were not, in fact, effectively involved. Beyond Another way in which citizen participation such specific identification of participants, it may be employed to undermine official authority was found, generally, that participants tend to be and work against officially declared goals of an elite minority drawn mainly from middle and participation is when the process is co-opted by upper income groups and an upwardly mobile administrators. Some administrators, uncon- lower income group-not a full cross section of vinced of the legitimacy and potential benefits of the citizenry. This suggests that reliance upon citizen involvement, see it as a means of enhancing citizen parhcipation efforts as a supplement to their own personal objectives or those of their the electoral process and as a means of register- program. Such officials tend to co-opt and 310 ing the "voice of the people" must be approached manipulate participation mechanisms, notably with caution lest the "people" turn out to be a advisory committees, so that instead of citizens narrowly based group with only a narrow special serving as detached critics, sounding boards, and interest to be promoted. Thus, care should be proposers of new ideas, they become unquestion- taken to balance the views of all affected ing supporters of the administrator's policies. interests, including the public-at-large. Such a Independent funding and staffing of citizen balance can be approached, for example, through advisory committees is one means of guarding careful delineation of advisory committee mem- against this, while another is the recruitment, berships, and through affirmative outreach to training, and promotion of administrators for affected, but passive, groups and individuals. their ability to use, encourage, and incorporate A second issue requiring caution is the extent the results of evenhanded and effective citizen to which participation constitutes actual sharing participation. in decisionmaking. The most common participa- A final caveat in the use of citizen participation tion techniques-public hearings and advisory concerns the danger of building up false hopes. committees-serve to transmit advice for consid- We are convinced of the value of citizen partici- eration by the responsible officials. In some pation, yet recognize, as indicated in our research cases, however, the role is conceived as one of findings, that governments have produced mixed sharing in decisionmaking and program control. results in inducing people to participate, and This has been a prominent feature of the such participation in many instances has Community Action Agencies, with their "maxi- achieved only modest success in terms of mum feasible participation," in the antipoverty influencing decisions, improving services, or program. It also is a goal of many involved in the improving the attitudes of affected citizens. neighborhood decentralization movement in Realistically, citizen participants should be various urban areas. In such situations, sharing conscious of the limits to their possible influence of control may be justified as a necessary means on public decisions. Citizen participation may of achieving the effective representation of evolve over a period to a point where the advice of groups of citizens who ordinarily have no impact citizens is paid more heed; and, indeed, where in on the political process and are the identified certain situations citizens share a degree of beneficiaries of a particular governmental pro- control; but the constitutional nature as well as gram. The danger is that when loosely used, the dynamics of the system dictate that the role of power-sharing may undercut the authority and citizen participants must, with few select excep- responsibility of legally established officials, tions, be advisory and supplementary to that both elected and administrative. Not only does it played by duly constituted elected and appointed officials. Governments, however, can help to fill gaps and to coordinate the various compo- minimize false hopes by clearly stating at the nents into a broadly applicable and internally outset, for example, the types of decisions which consistent process designed to enhance citizen are susceptible to influence in each instance of roles in state and local government and the participation, precisely who is responsible for responsiveness of such governments to the needs making the final decisions, the timing of the of their citizens. The Commission urges the states decisionmaking process, how much and what to take these steps. type of assistance will be available to participat- In cases where general state laws dealing with ing citizens, and what types of participation citizen participation in local governments and procedures will be used. A realistic approach by regional organizations are lacking or deficient, both citizens and the government will stave off effective citizen participation processes can be many disappointments. required in these political subdivisions through The basic mechanism for institutionalizing provisions in the specific state laws, charters, citizen participation processes at the state, local, and other organic instruments establishing such and substate regional levels of government is subdivisions. Even where the general state laws state law. All states now have open meetings on this subject are adequate, consistent citizen laws; most have laws allowing citizens to become participation provisions in these instruments involved in rulemaking proceedings of adminis- increase the visibility of such provisions, and trative agencies and 34 states have legislative reenforce the efforts to implement them. Care review of administrative regulations; 40 states should be taken, however, to make sure that (as of 1975) require local budget hearings, while conflicts between these general and organic laws 311 37 provide public hearings for the state budget; are avoided. and 47 states have open records laws. State laws At the federal level, the 1976 report of the also provide for state offices of voluntary action Federal Interagency Council on Citizen Partici- in over 30 states, and many such agencies have pation recited a litany of shortcomings in citizen broader citizen participation roles than their participation. These extend to such problems as names might imply. Some states also have a the clarity and sufficiency of authority, inade- "State Ombudsman Act" and a "Uniform Public quacy of resources, and lack of agency initiative Assembly Act." In earlier reports, ACIR has and commitment. Such deficiencies apply to both called for state laws giving citizens explicit legal direct federal and federally aided programs. The authority to contribute to the development of Commission notes that the Administration is state and local budgets, and enabling the crea- reviewing existing citizen participation policies tion of neighborhood subunits of government in and practices in connection with its overall large cities and urban counties. This, of course, is reorganization effort led by the Office of Manage- not a complete catalogue, but it is enough of a list- ment and Budget. We urge that this study be ing to show that state law has contributed expanded and that due attention be given to the heavily to expanding citizen participation oppor- enforcement and evaluative processes. Inadeq- tunities. uacies in these two related areas constituted On the other hand, some of the state laws cited serious obstacles to achieving more definitive above have substantial deficiencies. For exam- judgments in this study of the real condition of ple, the open meeting laws fail to provide for citizen participation in federal agency activities. prior notice of the meeting in eight states, and As with the states, the federal government sanctions against violators are weak in about already has a substantial body of law and regu- one-third of the states. Requirements for local lation relating to citizen participation in the Exe- budget hearings apply to both cities and counties cutive Branch and the independent regulatory in only 23 states. And, of course, some states do commissions. This includes the Administrative not have legislation requiring open records, Procedures Act, the Freedom of Information Act, budget hearings, or the establishment of state- the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Federal level citizen participation offices. Thus, there is Advisory Committee Act, an executive order on hardly a single state that could not improve its federal agency consultation with outside inter- posture on citizen participation by systematical- ests in rulemaking and policy development ly reviewing all of its existing citizen participa- endeavors, and several other actions such as tion laws and regulations, and by taking steps to those establishing offices of public affairs, offices of public counsel, offices of consumer observes that the majority of federal grant affairs,and federal funding of public representa- programs available to state and local recipients tion at various locations within the federal do not presently incorporate citizen participation establishment. Yet, there is no general oversight requirements. of these several provisions. They apply unevenly throughout the federal government, attracting The Commission recommends, therefore, that charges of inadequacy and ineffectiveness con- Congress and the President enact legislation cerning their administration. Legislative propos- establishing general citizen participation poli- als for strengthening some of these practices cies for advisory processes to be applied consis- remain active, however, and this Commission's tently throughout the federal aid system, and that own study, with its necessary focus on grant-in- under such legislation the President designate a aid requirements for citizen participation rather single Executive Branch agency with the respon- than upon citizen participation within the federal sibility and authority to ensure the consistent establishment itself, has not resolved all of these application and evaluation of these policies in the issues. Nevertheless, the Commission is con- administration of federal assistance programs by vinced that these are questions of substantial the various federal departments and agencies. intergovernmental significance and urges that The designated agency should carry out its they be probed fully, using the same principles responsibilities in consultation with affected and guidelines recommended for citizen partici- federal agencies, federal aid recipients, and pation at the state, local, and regional levels. citizens; and it should have authority to adopt 312 While the actual form of participation may vary administrative regulations necessary for com- slightly from one level of government to another, pliance with the act, to recommend executive the Commission believes that the basic principles action by the President needed to realize the goals remain the same and is convinced that a of the act, and to recommend to the President and consistent approach at each level will smooth Congress appropriate additional legislation on intergovernmental relations in this field, thus the subject of citizen participation. The policies holding duplication and potential conflict to a established by this legislation should (a) estab- minimum. lish clear objectives for citizen participation in federal aid programs; (b) enunciate performance RECOMMENDATION 2. standards that encourage the use of timely, effective, and efficient citizen participation CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN methods tailored to diverse situations; (c) pro- FEDERAL AID PROGRAMS: hibit detailed federal specification of exact A POSITIVE AND techniques and procedures to be followed by CONSISTENT FEDERAL POLICY state and local recipients of federal aid; (d) rely, through a certification process, upon citizen The Commission concludes that the federal participation provisions of state and local law government has a responsibility to ensure that and established practices thereunder, to the requirements accompanying financial aid to maximum extent consistent with the objectives state and local governments (and other communi- established in this legislation; (e) authorize the ty service organizations) will be applied in a way expenditure of a reasonable proportion of funds that will strengthen and support public decision- in aided programs for citizen participation making processes by providing consistent oppor- purposes; and (f)authorize the use of federal tunities for citizens to be heard prior to policy research, technical assistance, and training and/or administrative decisions directly affect- resources for the support of citizen participation ing them. At the same time, the Commission objectives in federal aid programs. observes that the more than seven score require- The Commission recommends, further, that ments for citizen participation now appended to a this legislation should repeal, after a reasonable like number of federal assistance programs, transition period, all existing legislative provi- taken as a whole, are diverse, complex, confus- sions for citizen participation embodied in ing, sometimes arbitrary, less effective than they individual federal aid programs, except those might be, and difficult for some federal aid that Congress and the President determine are recipients to comply with. The Commission also justified by a need to confer a sharing in decisionmaking on specific groups of citizens These existing citizen participation processes benefiting from a specific federal aid program.* provide a means, however imperfect, for aiding the people in the exercise of their constitutional The first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to rights of access to government and for helping the U.S. Constitution among other things guaran- governments in identifying the needs of the tee to all citizens the rights to have a free press, diverse groups to be assisted fairly and equitably exercise free speech, assemble freely with one under federal aid programs. These are important another, petition their governments for redress of purposes, fully justifying federal requirements, grievances, and receive equal treatment under purposes that would not be adequately met if the the laws in accordance with "due process." The federal government were to retire from this field. federal civil rights laws have emphasized even Thus, the Commission recommends that citizen more fully that minority groups are not to be participation requirements remain an important excluded from enjoyment of these and other element in federal aid programs. rights. Specifically with respect to federal aid Nevertheless, there is a great need for reform in programs, civil rights legislation requires that these requirements and the way in which they are funds be spent in nondiscriminatory ways. administered. In the first place, federal mandates Several individual federal aid programs have are marked by considerable inconsistency. The specific provisions repeating bans on discrimina- 151 grant programs requiring public participation. By this means, federal aids now are required tion represent nearly one-third of all grant to meet the special needs of minorities, diverse programs. The fact that over two-thirds of the racial and ethnic groups, various age and income programs (70%) are not subject to mandatory 313 groups, both sexes, and the handicapped or citizen involvement creates a strong presumption disadvantaged, as well as the needs of the general of inconsistencies in federal policies. This public. Thus, two principles have been estab- presumption is borne out by an examination of lished; (1) all the people are to have access to gov- the mandating laws and regulations, which ernment, and (2) federal aid is to meet the needs reveals that similar programs within the same of diverse and differentiated groups. department or agency, or programs in the same Citizen participation requirements are now functional area, or programs dealing with like established in 151 federal aid programs by phases of policymaking-such as research or legislation and administrative regulations. These planning-often differ in respect to whether they currently require recipients at the state and local do, or do not require citizen participation. levels, including regional and neighborhood Beyond these inconsistencies are the varia- bodies, as well as private nonprofit organizations in types of existing citizen participation re- tions, to provide opportunities for affected quirements and the detailed application of those persons to be heard during the process of mandates. Eighty-nine of the 151 programs administering federal aids. In two dozen pro- provide for advisory boards or committees and, grams, moreover, they must share decisionmak- of these, 24 exercise some share of decisionmaking authority with special citizen bodies estab- ing in addition to advisory powers. Public lished specifically for the purpose. The federal hearings are required in 51 programs, and in 108 agencies responsible for administering federal programs other types of public involvement are aid programs also are required to be open to mandated. The latter provisions vary with outside advice when they develop or revise respect to whether specific interests must be administrative regulations for their programs. involved and, if so, which ones; at what stage of This comes about under the Administrative the decisionmaking process participation must Procedures Act, the Freedom of Information Act, occur; and the types of participation mechanisms the Government in the Sunshine Act, and mandated. Often it is difficult to discern why executive orders requiring "consultation" with very similar programs, in the same functional affected parties in the rulemaking process. area and frequently in the same department or agency, should require entirely different types of *Congressman Fountain disagrees with this general repeal citizen involvement. provision because numerous committees of the Congress The diversity of federal requirements places have jurisdiction in this matter. He believes that it would be advisable to recommend conforming legislation for each of undue burdens on recipient governments and the grant programs affected. citizens alike in "learning the ropes." Also, by failing to recognize the existence of citizen programs was unknown, as was the general participation processes already established and impact of citizen participation activities generat- working under state and local laws and practices, ed by these programs. This lack of knowledge, these requirements duplicate, confuse, and dilute Rand concluded, stemmed from the absence of the opportunities for effective participation, and systematic monitoring or enforcement proce- make the process more costly. Moreover, present dures. requirements too often contain specific and The Commission's recommendation is in- sometimes arbitrary specifications for public tended to help correct these deficiencies through notice, representative organizations, and other two mechanisms: (1)an omnibus Citizen Partici- features of the participation process which do not pation Act, and (2) a permanently designated fit well in diverse situations. Finally, existing Executive Branch agency to ensure consistent requirements too often are formalistic and administration of the act. The new act would legalistic, applying mostly at the latter stages of establish a general citizen participation require- decisionmaking in a way which will satisfy ment for advisory processes which would be minimum legal standards, and doing little to applied consistently at the federal level from encourage the creative use of diverse methods program to program and agency to agency. The which could enhance both the opportunities for overseeing Executive Branch agency designated participation and the constructive results from it. by the President would be either an existing or a As the above suggests, beyond the issue of newly established unit and could be within or inconsistencies is the question of the effective- outside the Executive Office of the President. It 314 ness of federal participation requirements. Our would assist the various agencies administering research shows that conclusions on the impact of federal aid programs in (a) adjusting their citizen participation in federal programs must be present citizen participation requirements to the tentative because of ineffective monitoring by general format, (b)establishing new require- federal administering agencies and the dearth of ments under the act for programs having none valid evaluation studies. Nevertheless, available previously, and (c)administering the new and studies under qualified auspices pointed fairly adjusted requirements consistently and effec- clearly to wide variations among the programs tively from year to year. examined with respect to the effectiveness of It is important that the designated agency have citizen participation. This conclusion applied to not only the responsibility but the authority to evaluation of citizens' influence on the decision- enforce federal agencies' compliance with the making process, the effectiveness of program general citizen participation policies established performance, and the effect on citizen attitudes by the new legislation. This authority should toward government-three criteria commonly include the critical power to issue the implement- used to judge effectiveness. ing rules and regulations. In developing such These shortcomings stem in part from federal regulations, the agency would be expected to administration of the citizen participation re- enlist the assistance and cooperation of the quirements, as well as the defects of the statutory affected agencies, as well as recipient groups and and regulatory governing provisions. The federal private citizens. Interagency Council on Citizen Participation in The designated agency would be expected to 1976 recited a list of deficiencies in federal report annually to Congress and the President on administration, including: unclear, inadequate, agency compliance and effectiveness under this fragmented, or nonexistent authority and respon- act. sibility for citizen participation in government This recommendation is consistent with Re- agencies; allocation of insufficient agency recommendation 11 of the commission's 1977 sources; and the uneven quality of the policy, report entitled Categorical Grants: Their Role commitment, and initiative of agency leadership. and Design. That recommendation identified A Rand Corporation study of citizen participa- citizen participation mandates as one of over 30 tion in HEW grant programs substantiated these requirements which apply more or less across charges for that department. It found a lack of an the board to the grant system, and asked that overall citizen participation policy at either the they all be simplified, consolidated, and/or stan- departmental or agency level. The actual amount dardized by the means cited above, if not termi- and quality of citizen participation in HEW grant nated after having been found "to be excessively burdensome, either fiscally or administratively, mance standards would require that (1)sig- or to be impracticable to implement." The nificant policy and administrative decisionmak- Commission believes that citizen participation ing processes relating to any federal aid program requirements in federal aid programs, which are being carried out by the recipient government be reformed as suggested here, will not be exces- open to public view, (2) opportunities for citizen sively burdensome or impracticable. advice be provided at the stages of the program Legislation to carry out the ACIR recommenda- involving problem and issue recognition, goal tion on across-the-board requirements has been setting, fact finding and research, problem prepared and introduced in the 95th and 96th definition and revision of goals, development of Congresses as part of the proposed "Federal alternative proposals, analysis of alternatives, Assistance Reform Act." One effect of that recommendation and adoption of preferred legislation would be to accomplish many of the alternatives, implementation of decisions, and objectives of the Citizen Participation Act called evaluation of program results, (3) procedures for for here. participation be simple, direct, and well adver- The new Citizen Participation Act would have tised to attract all segments of the population several important features worthy of further reasonably expected to have an interest, (4)rele- explanation. First, clear objectives would be vant information reasonably needed for effective established for advisory citizen participation participation be provided well in advance of the processes. These would be stated in terms of time specified for response, (5) technical assis- goals to be achieved, rather than procedures to be tance be provided upon request to groups and followed. Such goals spring from the constitu- individuals having a demonstrated interest in the 315 tional rights and nondiscrimination statutes issue but lacking the technical resources to cited above. While these should be recognized in respond responsibly or constructively without this act, the fuller range of objectives identified in such help, (6) economic assistance be provided this report also should be stated, including: upon request to participants having a demon- (1)providing information to citizens; (2) ob- strated interest in the issue but who otherwise taining information from, and about, the general would be precluded or discouraged from partici- public and affected segments thereof; (3) im- pation by the economic loss incurred, and proving public decisions, programs, projects, and (7) training be provided for participants in the services through the use of citizen inputs; (4)en- process who are not familiar with the procedures hancing the acceptance of public decisions, and techniques to be used. The federal agencies programs, projects, and services; (5) sup- could, and should offer suggestions, guidelines, plementing public agency work; (6) altering and perhaps even several "models" of citizen public resource allocations; (7) protecting indi- participation processes which would be accepta- vidual and minority group rights and interests; ble and cost effective. and (8)delaying difficult public decisions, until To assure necessary emphasis on the perfor- better understanding of the issues is developed, mance standards approach, the Commission and avoiding unwise public decisions. These believes that it is vital that the legislation objectives are more fully examined elsewhere in prohibit detailed federal specification of exact this report. They are diverse and they are used techniques and procedures. This report has differently by different segments of both the documented the large number of different forms citizen and official communities. The act should and techniques of citizen participation which recognize this diversity and establish its legiti- exist. At the same time, it has shown that most macy. federal requirements call for the use of advisory The second major feature of the act should be committees and/or hearings at late stages of encouraging the use of effective and efficient decisionmaking processes. These two techniques citizen participation methods by federal aid also are the most commonly specified ones under recipients, in light of the diverse situations they state and local laws, excluding electoral pro- face. This is accomplished by the enumeration of cesses. Evaluations indicate that hearings are not performance standards in the act and by encou- rated high in overall benefits, and advisory raging reliance on processes established under committees also have drawbacks, even though state and local law, to the maximum extent they rated somewhat higher than hearings. Thus, consistent with the act's objectives. The perfor- present participation mandates tend to be duplicative among the levels of government, and In order to fully achieve a consistency of citizen based upon unimaginative and relatively ineffec- participation policies and their application tive techniques. throughout the government, it is vital that this Consistent with the objectives of (a)encourag- act supersede, ultimately, the existing uncoordi- ing diversity and new initiatives in grant nated maze of separate statutory requirements. recipients' development of participation tech- After a reasonable transition period for organiz- niques and (b)minimizing the burden of con- ing the designated agency and issuing the forming with federal requirements, the legisla- necessary rules and regulations, therefore, the tion would provide for compliance through a legislation should provide for repealing with certification process. Thus, if the recipients show some exceptions, all existing legislative provi- that they have state andfor local laws and sions for citizen participation provided in indi- administrative procedures that offer citizens vidual federal aid programs. The exceptions are access to the decisionmaking process equivalent programs-usually those identified as clientele to that set forth in the performance standards of control programs-where program objectives the act, they would be certified as meeting the require the specific citizens benefited to share in participation requirements for any federal aid actual decisionmaking. These are relatively few programs to which the act applied. Such certifi- in number but the individual circumstances vary cation, of course, would be subject to federal sufficiently in some cases, as to the kinds of audit from time to time and to rescission upon a control involved, that they may not lend them- finding, after notice and hearing, that the selves to the across-the-board consistency re- 316 recipient is not in compliance with the cited state quired in this legislation. or local laws and procedures or that such laws Standardization, simplification, greater recip- and procedures are not at least equivalent to the ient discretion in procedural matters, but more federal standards. federal firmness in performance objectives- The new act would authorize the expenditure these are the hallmarks of this recommendation. of a reasonable proportion of federal aid funds by Each is needed in this area and at this time. recipients for support of related citizen participa- Moreover, the stress on performance goals and tion processes, and use of funds and other the de-emphasis of procedural specification, resources available to federal agencies for the along with the greater reliance potentially on support of research designed to improve citizen recipient practices, represents a much needed participation procedures and techniques, as well sorting out of the responsibilities of the differing as for the support of technical assistance to levels in this area. The prime thrust here is on federal aid recipients and training for federal, advisory mechanisms and goals, but ample room state, and local officials, public employees and is left for the "power-sharing" and "consensus- others needing to know more about citizen building" alternatives. For all these reasons, the participation. These authorizations would help Commission is convinced that this strategy to make federal agencies understanding partners represents the most sensible, sensitive, and inter- with assisted governments, rather than stoic governmentally sound approach to end the enforcers of unreasonable and onerous require- present chaos in the field of federally mandated ments. citizen participation requirements. Appendix A

Summary and Analysis of Comments Received by The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Concerning the Draft Report Entitled "Citizen Participation in the American Federal System"

PROCEDURES comment. These copies were sent to 59 national citizens' groups, ten universities and research organizations concerned with citizen participa- Acm normal procedure following the tion, 43 state and local governments and their preparation of a draft report is to submit it to a national associations, 41 federal government group of two to three dozen public officials, agencies, and 11 others. Written responses were researchers, and others qualified to assess the received by ACIR from 30 of the additional 200 topic of the report in an intergovernmental reviewers. In addition, certain Commission context for review and comment. The draft report members and staff met on February 21, 1979, entitled Citizen Participation in the American with two groups of citizens for dialogue about the Federal System underwent such a review in draft report. November 1978, culminating in a "critics" Most of the responses were very thoughtful, meeting at the Commission offices on December and a few provided additional research 5,1978. In addition, because of the special nature references which the staff has endeavored to of this report, the Commission itself held a public incorporate into the background chapters. Most hearing on the report at its meeting on December of these responses also took positions on the 7, 1978. Of the 41 persons invited to participate in recommendation options in the draft report, and these two sessions, 29 attended, and eight a few suggested additional options. Various written statements were submitted for the other comments also were made. hearing (see Appendix B). The comments received at the critics meeting, Some of the critics and certain witnesses at the at the hearing, and subsequently in writing are hearing requested additional time to complete summarized in the two attached tables which are their reviews and suggested that the review described below: process for this report be widened to a much Figure A-1. Views on ACIR's Draft Citizen broader audience, including particularly citizens' Participation Recommendations groups of many types. As a result, the Commis- Received at, and Following, the sion directed the staff to conduct a broader December 7, 1978, Hearing. review. Figure A-2. Summary of Comments on ACIR Subsequently, the staff distributed over 200 Draft Citizen Participation copies of the draft report for review and Report, with Staff Responses. Summaries of the two dialogue meetings follow suggested combining the differentiated approach descriptions of these two tables. in 2C, which they felt to be more practical and better fitted to the diversity among federal aid programs, with the performance standards RESPONSES TO approach of option 2B. RECOMMENDATIONS Some objections to 2B arose regarding the presumed unworkability of the "designated agency" approach and from a misunderstanding Briefly, the responses to the initial draft of its proposed role. Opponents of the designated recommendations appearing in Figure A-1 are agency believed it would displace the individual summarized in Summary Table A-1. grant making agencies in the administration of

Summary Table A- 1

Source of Support for First Draft Recommendations Position Total Statement la & b la(only) 2A 2B 2C Other None Responses

Hearing 1 1 0 3 2 1 4 9 318 Subsequent Written Comment 9 7 1 9 8 6 6 30 Totals 10 8 1 12 10 7 10 39

This summary tabulation shows the greatest citizen participation requirements, although support (18 respondents) for the first part of such displacement is not proposed in 2B. Instead, draft Recommendation 1 calling for general sup- the designated agency's proposed role is to work port of an effective citizen participation process with affected agencies in developing effective at each of the levels-federal, state, and local-in and appropriate performance standards, and their respective direct activities. The second part then to require that such standards be consistent- of that recommendation, calling for caution in ly administered by the various grant making establishing citizen participation processes, was agencies themselves. supported by only ten respondents. Several Another reservation about the designated respondents noted the difficulty of legislating agency approach was the perceived difficulty of such general cautions in an effective way, and finding an agency worthy of being designated, also disagreed with the negative tone of the word willing to accept the designation, and capable of "caution." Positive provisions for fairness, effectively carrying out its unifying role. Others, openness, timeliness, and assistance to citizens however, proposed specific candidates for might have the desired effect without the designation. It should be noted also, that negative connotations, some felt. previous ACIR research has found that the Among the initially drafted options in designated agency approach has been successful- Recommendation 2, concerning citizen participa- ly used in such fields as wages, merit systems, tion requirements in federal aid programs, 2B and environmental affairs, while the weaker lead was the most favored (12 respondents). This agency approach (operating solely by persuasion option calls for a consistent positive approach to among agencies having equal authority) seldom citizen participation throughout the federal aid has been an effective unifier. system based upon clear purposes and related Only one respondent-the National School performance standards. A significant number of Boards Association-favored option 2A which other respondents (ten) preferred option 2C calls for abolition of most federal aid re- which calls for incremental improvements in the quirements for citizen participation. Support for citizen participation requirements of various this option was based upon the closeness of groups of programs. A few respondents elected school boards to the pulse of their own communities, combined with the proliferation of public counsel in each agency, to provide U.S. Office of Education requirements for a great grant programs in each agency to fund many advisory committees which were perceiv- citizen participation, to establish a program ed as duplicative, unnecessary, and counterpro- to train state and local officials and citizens ductive distractions in the education process. in citizen participation, and to require an Arguments against this option, made by at least annual report on citizen participation from nine respondents, cited the unevenness of citizen each agency. participation opportunities provided by diverse It was also suggested that apart from whatever federal aid recipients and the responsibility of might be decided under Recommendation 2, there the federal government to assure the expenditure should be an additional recommendation dealing of its aid funds in accordance with consistently with citizen participation research and evalua- open decisionmaking processes at the ad- tion studies. Too little is known, some argued, ministering levels of government. about the effectiveness of various citizen par- Several other major options were proposed ticipation techniques, despite the expenditure of under Recommendation 2, as modifications of, significant amounts of research funds on this additions to, or substitutes for, options B and C. subject in recent years. A better directed and They are: coordinated research effort might produce more and better results for little greater expenditure. A three-part approach to performance standards, (1)setting basic standards for access to decisionmaking processes in all programs OTHER COMMENTS 319 and for the expression of views and advice by all interests before decisions are made, (2) providing for specified degrees of direct Figure A-2, summarizing all but a few late clientele involvement and control in those comments on ACIR's draft citizen participation programs designed to serve individuals, and report, is organized into six parts: (3) providing special standards for affir- I. The Review Process matively seeking broadened participation in 11. Questioned Phrasings and Concepts those programs designed to be of general 111. Proposed Factual Corrections significance to the whole community and IV. Omissions Cited, and Proposed Additions needing community consensus. Figure A-3 V. Format, Organization of the Report, and summarizes this approach. Effectiveness of Presentation The substitution of a lead agency with a VI. Views on Issues and Recommendations primarily technical assistance and advisory The table also indicates whether the comment role, in place of the designated agency with was made at the critics meeting, at the hearing, in its coordinating role. This lead agency would written statements submitted since the hearing, promote the use of improved citizen par- or came from more than one of these sources (as ticipation practices in the programs of other of February 9). federal agencies, and perhaps provide As Figure A-2 shows, most of the comments assistance to federal aid recipients as well. can be accommodated. Two general points, Each program, then, would improve at its however, need to be mentioned here. own pace under its own legislation and in First, with respect to recommendations, the accordance with its own needs. established role of ACIR staff is to provide a Giving the lead agency the additional broad range of possible recommendations, but to responsibility of drafting appropriate remain neutral with respect to them. It is the legislative proposals for coordinating and/or Commission's role to choose the most ap- consolidating citizen participation re- propriate options. quirements. Second, with respect to proposed additions to Without changing existing citizen participa- the report, time and resource constraints must be tion requirements, enactment of legislation considered. Several worthy suggestions were to provide interagency coordination through made for expanding the scope of the report. In a White House office, to create an office of some cases, it is not possible to do much more Figure A- l VIEWS ON ACIR'S DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION RECOMMENDATIONS RECEIVED AT, AND FOLLOWING, THE DECEMBER 7,1978, HEARING

Recommendations Supported

Commentor 1 2A 2B 2C Other None Remarks

12/7/78 I. Toni Thomas, Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 12/7/78 Lee Gray, Vice President, Interagency Council on Citizen Participation, Washington, DC 12/7/78 Richard Ives, Assistant Director, Division of Budget and Planning, State of Missouri, and Member, Council of State Planning Agencies 12/7/78 Clifford W. Craves, Chief Administrative Officer, San Diego County, CA 12/7/78 Howard W. Hallman, President, X With some features of 2B added. Civic Action Institute, Washington, DC 12/7/78 Nelson Rosenbaum, Senior Research 1 XXX Recommendation 1 should be Associate, The Urban Institute, strengthened by defining the objectives of Washington, DC citizen participation more clearly. Recommendation 2 should be reworked combining features of 2B and 2C. An additional recommendation should be developed on research and evaluation matters. 12/7/78 Harriet Hentges, Executive Director, League of Women Voters of the U.S., Washington, DC Dorothy Height, President, Alliance for Volunteerism, Buffalo, NY Craciela Olivarez, Director, Opposed 2A. Community Services Administration, Washington, DC David A. Crossman, Opposed 2A. The Nova Institute, New York, NY Steven Cohen, Environmental Research Especially opposed to 28 "designated Fellow, SUNY, Buffalo, NY agency." Martin M. Harmuth, Chairman, Opposes 2A. Northeast Dayton Priority Board, Dayton, OH Edward 1. Falk, Professor of Planning, X Clemson University, Clemson, SC William R. Hutchinson, Research Add recommendations to improve Associate, Institute for Behavioral evaluation and research. Research, Inc., Silver Spring, MD

Jon Van Til, President, X X Some features of 2C also are Association of Voluntary Action attractive. Scholars, Boulder, CO Eddie N. Williams, President, X X Need adequate staffing, etc. Opposed 2A. Joint Center for Political Studies, Inc., Option 2B should be modified. Washington, DC Thomas 1. Kimball, Executive Vice I a X Emphasizes need for federal financial President, National Wildlife support. Federation, Washington, DC Thomas A. Shannon, Executive Director, X X Emphasizes duplication of CP resulting and August W. Steinhilber, ~ssociation from federal mandates on top of state Executive Director, National School and local ones. Boards Association, Washington, DC Kent A. Peterson, Acting Deputy X Technical comments offered on Director, Office of Revenue Sharing, portions of Chapter 4 dealing with US. Department of the Treasury, General Revenue Sharing. Washington, DC

Trudi C. Miller, Program Manager, Not sufficient findings to support National Science Foundation, recommendations. Suggests six-nine Washington, DC months of further research. Figure A- l (cont.) VIEWS ON ACIR'S DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION RECOMMENDATIONS RECEIVED AT, AND FOLLOWING, THE DECEMBER 7,1978, HEARING

Recommendations Su~~orted

Date Commentor 1 2A 28 2C Other None Remadis

Oliver Brooks, Chairman, The designated federal agency should Panel on the Local Impact of Maritime be a commission. Opposed 2A. Facilities/Services, Maritime Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC

John C. Wolfe, Executive Director, X Opposes 2A. The National Council of Community Mental Health Centers, Inc., Washington, DC

Secretary Patricia R. Harris, 2A is worst option. Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC

Ken Thompson, and Stuart Langton, With modifications to remove the Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship negativism in Recommendation 1, and and Public Affairs, Tufts University, in Recommendation 2B to avoid a Medford, MA single authoritative agency for citizen participation to improve the performance standards, to permit continued use of detailed federal specifications for citizen participation, and to delete the repeal of existing citizen participation requirements. 2A is irresponsible. Toni Y. Buckson, Definitely opposed to 2A and saw 2B Volunteer Service Corps, and 2C as complementary. City of Baltimore, MD Ruth J. Hinerfeld, President, I a With some revisions, and combined with League of Women Voters of the US., some features of 2B. Opposes the Washington, DC designated agency. Victor H. Harry, Jr., Deputy la Reluctant support for 28. Administrator for Programs and Office of Public Participation, Soil Conserva- tion Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC Belle B. O'Brien, President, Interagency Council on Citizen Participation, Washington, DC Robert J. Rauch, Staff Attorney, X Suggests including the topic of Presi- Environmental Defense Fund, dential influence in agency rule- Washington, DC making. Susan R. Greene, Executive Director, Supports a recommendation combining Alliance for Volunteerism, Buffalo, NY certain features of the options in ACIR's report, and other concepts such as volunteerism. Lawrence Connell, Administrator, la National Credit Union Administration, Washington, DC

Pablo Eisenberg, President, Strengthening existing federal require- Center for Community Change, ments, encouragement from a special Washington, DC White House office, and special provisions for funding and informing citizen groups as suggested. Steven D. Rudman, Administrator, Supports a new White House office of N.W. Portland Neighborhood citizen and community affairs and direct Revitalization, Portland, OR federal support for community-based organizations and the volunteer sector.

William R. Freezle, Acting Deputy la Opposes 2A. Some interest in 28. Associate Director for Intergovernmen- tal Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, la Opposes 2A. Opposes repeal language in Environmental Protection Agency, 28. Washington, DC than recognize the gaps which have been pointed out and to hope that others will help to fill them in some other way. The primary focus for ACIR has to be the intergovernmental aspects of citizen participation, and these are reflected largely through the federal aid system. Thus, citizen participation at any one level of government alone (such as in direct federal activities) is not a primary focus. ACIR's other focus-on decisionmaking processes-comes from the Congression- al mandate for this study. Thus, volunteerism, consumer complaints, and casework by elected officials are secondary in this report. In light of other demands in our work program and our mandate in this study, ACIR focuses on intergovernmental decisionmaking processes in a broad context in this report, but must leave aside detailed treatment of several related parts of the citizen participation topic.

ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMENTS

Nine additional letters commenting on the draft report and recommendations were received between February 9 and March 1, 1979. Very largely, these letters reiterated points made at the "critics" meeting, the Commission hearing, the citizen "dialogues" on February 21, or in written comments received earlier. Of these nine letters, six expressed preferences on the draft recommendations. These preferences have been incorporated into Figure A-1. Additional comments offered which are not covered in Figure A-2 are:

A call for periodic national reports on citizen roles in government (like those on national security, the economy, and the environment), with Congressional hearings. These reports would suggest needed actions, means and resources, and necessary conditions for improved citizen participation, and would spur a continuing national dialogue on these issues. Already successful citizen groups should be used to provide advice and technical assistance to others. They are best qualified to do so with respect to methods of achieving and evaluating success. Many "mechanical" aspects of citizen participation techniques, all options having significant support from one or however, may be adequately assisted by another viewpoint. private consultants. Evaluations prepared The scope of the report was discussed briefly. by consultants or nonprofit research groups It was acknowledged that not all parts of the should be reviewed by representative citizen topic were treated equally in the report, nor could groups and government agencies before they be within the time and resources available to being accepted. ACIR. ACIR's primary focus is on the intergov- Two points in the background chapters ernmental aspects of citizen participation. It was which need clarification are: (1)the emanci- suggested that (1)this be acknowledged in the pation of black voters is still far from report, and (2) ACIR might consider recommen- complete, despite the Voting Rights Act, and ding further studies at some time in the future. (2) the increased roles of professionals, tech- Alternatively, it was suggested that ACIR's nocrats, and experts are even more of an report itself should be revised to set citizen obstacle to citizen participation than recog- participation more fully in the context of the nized in the report. overall health of government and politics in the United States today. The staff has taken these additional comments The quality of citizen participation was into account as fully as possible in the final discussed as one very important aspect which editing of the report. needs further study. Another such aspect is the willingness of elected officials to view citizen participation in a nonadversarial way, and use 325 TWO "DIALOGUE" MEETINGS it constructively. Yet, there is the practical problem of striking a balance between involving Chairman Beame and staff met with two citizens more and paralyzing government there- groups of citizens on Wednesday, February 21, by. The moral suasion of ACIR could be an 1979-one group in the morning and another in important factor in improving the quality of the afternoon. Commissioners Cutler and Deala- citizen participation. man also were present for the morning meeting. It was suggested that a central and visable The purpose of these meetings was to receive "place to go to" for help in improving the practice additional comments on the draft report entitled of citizen participation is essential. This was Citizen Participation in the American Federal called more important at this time than more System, particularly with respect to the recom- legislative mandates for citizen participation, mendations suggested for consideration by the because such mandates already abound. The Commission. revised recommendation language submitted by the Alliance for Volunteerism stresses this point. The help offered might relate to the following six The Morning Meeting "essential ingredients" emerging from the ACIR report (as one participant viewed it):

The meeting began with a clarification of 1) equal access by citizens to governmental Commission procedures for the adoption of decision processes, including governmental recommendations. It was explained that the staff outreach to the public; role is to develop a broad range of recommenda- 2) removal of the mysteries and unknowns for tions, with supporting arguments, representing participating citizens; alternative positions which the Commission 3) making citizen participation more central to might take. The Commission's role is to debate, at governmental decision processes: the two-day Commission meeting, any such 4) clarifying the relationship between citizen alternatives found to be of interest, and to adopt participation and the political process; those which may be agreed upon. Thus, a primary 5) broadened and facilitated access by citizens result of meeting with citizens and receiving to governmental information; and written comments from others was to refine and 6) increased availability of technical assistance expand the set of recommendations for Commis- and training. sion consideration. The objective was to include Some recommendations for smaller, "do it -- Figure A-2 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON AClR DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REPORT WITH STAFF RESPONSES *C--Critic session. (comments received as of February 9,1979) H-Hearing. A-Add~tional comments subm~nedafter the hear~ng. Source of Comment* Comment I AClR Response I. Review Process for the Report Need more time for review (2-12 weeks). Staff informed Commission of this desire. Commission deferred action on report until March 1979, and in- structed staff to consult with a broader range of interested parties. Letters to well over 100 groups sent, allowing more than one month for reply. "Citizens" should be asked to review the report also, Two-hundred additional citizen groups, individuals not just the Washington bureaucracy, especially with and governmental agencies were sent copies of the regard to recommendations. draft report and were invited to comment. A more complete review is needed by federal agencies, Additional federal agencies were asked to review and and by state and local officials. comment. Invitations for public interest group reviews were renewed. Comments received should be analyzed by the staff, This will be done. provided to Commission members well in advance of the meeting at which action will be taken on the report. Citizens should have been involved in the AClR In retrospect, that probably is correct. The project research before the draft report was completed. originally was conceived on a much narrower basis, but it grew in scope and significance as the research progressed.

II. Questioned Phrasing and Concepts

"Upwardly mobile low income" is an inflammatory Nevertheless, it is accurate and was used by cited phrase. sources. Implication that citizen participation "does not work" The new draft will be sensitive to this point. is incorrect or imprecise. There are many examples (especially Community Action Programs) where citizen participation "does work." The findings do not support the "disasters" described in conclusions beginning each option in Recommendation 2. Chapter 3 says that citizen participation can work. C Do not "target" or choose publics in advance for Targeting, which frequently is called for in legislation, participation. Opportunities for participation need to be does not exclude others. Additional groups can be left open to all, because very often the persons and targeted as they are identified. Clarification will be groups who need to be in the process are not identified added in the report. until the process is well along. CIA Chapter 3 places too much emphasis on citizen partici- Chapter 3 makes this point. It will be further high- pation techniques, two-thirds of which are just paper lighted. tigers. Citizen participation is power dynamics; official attitudes are the key variables while techniques are distinctly secondary. The report soft-pedals the need for active support of citizen participation by state and local officials, if citizen participation is to be effective. C In Chapter 3, don't press the citizenlleadership The real world often contains this dichotomy. It should dichotomy; put it in context of elected officials' rela- not be hidden in the descriptive research. Recom- tions with constituents. Avoid polarization in Chapter 6. mendations will deal with this issue. C In Chapter 4, the historical stages of federal citizen The revised Chapter 4 will reflect this. participation requirements were not as distinct as stated, and were "superseded" only by shifts in emphasis rather than by being displaced. C In evaluating federal citizen participation require- We will try to do this, though data are far from ments (Chapter 4)) distinguish between inadequacies adequate. resulting from lack of enforcement and those resulting from the requirements themselves. Enforcement is difficult because the grant cutoff lever is too blunt.

H Chapter 4 says that citizen participation is a good idea, rhis will be highlighted as one interpretation of the x~tit has never really been tried. 'indings. CIA n Recommendation 1, tone down the words "under- The words are appropriate, in the context of the nine" and "distort." 3ptional language of this recommendation. C Ion't separate citizen participation process from Stress on the eight "purposes" in Chapter 3 protects xogram substance. igainst this. H The report has a governmental orientation, as opposed Stress on all eight "purposes" will bring out this point, .o a citizen perspective. It should be more balanced. although the AClR mandate prompts an intergovern- nental orientation. A 'Getting information about people" has sinister over- 411 surveys and the census actually do produce infor- ones which would damage government's credibility. nation about people. Such information is essential to decisionmaking. Much of it is factual rather than atti- Figure A-2 (cont.) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON AClR DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REPORT WITH STAFF RESPONSES (comments received as of February 9, 1979)

Source of Comment* Comment AClR Response tudinal, and would not be covered by "getting citizens' views." Make the distinction between advisory committees We will attempt to do so, whenever possible. which have "official" responsibilities and those which are strictly advisory.

- - Ill. Factual Corrections Need to update pp. 22-26 of Chapter 4 with regard to Mary Hill of CSA will send information, and it will be recent federal activities. incorporated. Evaluation of citizen participation in Iowa Title XX It will be corrected. is incorrect. Corrections for Tables 3-5 and 4-7 were submitted. They will be made.

IV. Omissions Cited and Proposed Additions

CIHIA Chapter 2 should be broadened beyond history and Existence of these other fields of information will be political science to encompass also the background of acknowledged, but cannot be encompassed in detail. citizen participation arising from such fields as social They will be explicitly excluded from the scope of the work and social psychology; public choice theory and study. the use of economic market forces; interest group dynamics (David Truman); party structure and aggregation of individual views (Nye); and political polling. C Chapter 3 does not include citizen participation tech- Citizen participation techniques from the environmen- niques developed and used in the environmental field; tal field are already included, as are taxpayers' should be expanded. Paying taxes is a form of citizen interests. participation. CIA Chapter 3 should deal with antagonisms between The distinction already is there, but will be citizens and "experts." sharpened. H Chapter 3 should discuss the need for creating a Some mention of this will be made in Chapter 4, but method for involving citizens in the development of direct federal citizen participation will be defined out- national issues. side the primary scope of this study. CIA Report should include a section (and recommendations) This topic is too big. The parallels will be noted but the on direct federal regulatory decisionmaking-Chapter4. broader topic will be explicitly excluded. Federal permits and licenses "aid" activities every bit as much as federal grants. C Also, identify points at which citizens have legal re- Citizen participation in direct federal activities will be course on public issues. Expand upon NEPA's role in recognized in passing, but not treated in detail; will be opening the flood gates of direct federal-citizen rela- explicitly excluded from scope of this intergovernmen- tiondhapter 4. tal study.

A The issue of Presidential interference in agency rule- Since this is not a matter of citizen participation re- making after the close of the public comment period quirements transmitted by intergovernmental grants, should be addressed. and is a highly technical legal issue, it will not be dealt with in this report. C/H Chapter 4 should include more about the Voting Rights Direct federal activities will be defined out of the study. Act; special problems with federal citizen participation The special interest and provider control issues in fed- requirements such as their tendency to transfer control eral aid will be dealt with specifically, however. to special interests and providers; public lands planning (Conservation Foundation case study); and NSF study of citizen participation in port development. C If citizen participation in direct federal activities are to Some such mechanisms will be discussed briefly, but be included, Chapter 4 should describe activities like direct federal activities will be explicitly excluded from the White House Conference on Balanced National the scope of the study. Growth and Economic Development; there are five or six such events with major significance. Activities of some major Presidential commissions should be included. A Two additional reports concerning experience with the rhese will be cited and used appropriately. General Revenue Sharing program were submitted, along with several minor technical amendments to the portion of Chapter 4 dealing with this program. A The CZM case study in Chapter 4 should be expanded tc While this might be desirable, it is neither essential nor include Maine and North Carolina, among others. feasible at this stage. C Concentrate more on the analysis of citizen participa- Extensive work on this is now completed. tion requirements in federal aid programs. (Perhaps use information from President's Planning Requirements Review.) pp Figure A-2 (cont.) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON AClR DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REPORT WITH STAFF RESPONSES (comments received as of February 9,1979) - Source of Comment* Comment -IKIR Response Chapter 5 needs more analysis of state and local citizen 1Major new research on this is not feasible, but any participation experience, including the citizen view of additional information available along those lines will such experiences. Ibe incorporated. Chapter 5 should cover state "Administrative Proce- This will be done (except for environmental review dures Acts" (and environmental review systems). It systems). does not relate well to recommendations, as it stands. It should be the basis for Recommendation 2A. The cultural heritage in America affirming the intrinsic Those points will be reflected more fully in the revised value of citizen participation, and the essential need for draft, though these already are covered in Chapter 2. government to provide opportunities for citizen participation, should be considered separately from, but contrasted with, the fact that most participation (whether electoral or other) involves only a portion of the citizens-usually not even a majority. A recent report (November 1978) by Lawrence Johnson The report will be cited and referred to appropriately. and Associates, Inc., identifies exemplary and innovative approaches to citizen participation in 31 communities receiving Community Development Block grants. This study is entitled Citizen Participation in Commu- nity Development: A Catalog of Local Approaches. The report should devote much more attention to citi- Chapter 3 recognizes citizen assistance to government zens as volunteer coworkers with government through- as one of the eight major purposes of citizen participa- out managed its diverse activities not just in policy- tion. It will be further highlighted, though the focus of making. the study is on policymaking.

V. Format, Organization of the Report, and Effectiveness of Presentation -he report is too long; needs an executive summary. A summary will be provided upon completion of the report. iimplify the report by concentration on just a few major The major emphasis will be placed on citizen participa- ssues. Only federal aid requirements for citizen par- tion requirements in federal aid programs. ticipation? Only the bottom-up forms of citizen participation? Make the focus clear in Chapter 1. A clearer differentiation is needed between "citizen rhis distinction will be clarified, though without the participation" (which is a bottom-up, grass roots udgmental overtones. process) and "representative governments" (which is a top-down, elitist process)-Chapter 2. The historical material in Chapter 2 leaves gaps, in- Such additions will be considered, but obviously any cluding Pericles' Funeral Oration, the Federalist Papers, wief chapter on this mammoth topic must be selective, theories of Edmund Burke, and the Office of Education's ~ithan American focus. No major expansion of this citizen education project. zhapter is contemplated. A list of reasons as to why citizen participation "does The "findings" will be sharpened and expanded. not work" is needed-Chapter 3. One source would be a workshop conducted by Judy B. Rosen at the National Conference on Citizen Participation, Washington, DC, October 1,1978. There is a need to clarify the distinctions between con- rhese different forms of citizen participation are not sumer complaint and Congressional casework pro- substitutes for each other and this will be clarified in cesses, on one hand, and other types of citizen partici- :he report. Emphasis will not be on complaints and pation. They are not substitutes for each other- zasework. Chapter 3. The typology of citizen participation "purposes" in 411 eight purposeskere found in the literature and are Chapter 3 is extraordinarily confusing; not tied to ~perative.The overlap arises from disparate view- Chapter 2. Stick with the first three purposes, because ~ointsof the different actors. The purposes will be the others are distinctly secondary and not the focus of identified as to who holds them. citizen participation-or at least divide the purposes into two groups. Reduce the overlap among the purposes. An opposing view indicated that purposes 6, 7, and 8 are far from secondary; they represent different viewpoints. The citizen participation purposes of "giving informa- That assertion assumes that all participation must be tion" and "getting information" are not purposes, but two way. As desirable as that would be, much actual adjuncts to other purposes. participation is one way. Tables 3-7, 3-2, and 3-4 would be improved by classify- We agree and will make the necessary changes. ing the citizen participation purposes in the stubs according to who holds them-agency or citizen. Chapter 5 should make a clearer distinction between Chapter 3 does this already. It will be sharpened and citizen participation in planning vs. financing, and in included in the Chapter 6 "findings." specific programs and projects vs. overall budgeting; the tensions (or conflicts) between the differing levels or tiers of decisionmaking need description. Figure A-2 (cont.) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON AClR DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REPORT WITH STAFF RESPONSES (comments received as of February 9,1979)

Source of Comment* Comment AClR Response ---- C/H/A No clear connection between background chapters The connection will be clarified. and the issues and recommendations in Chapter 6. Chapter 6 should be very clear about the types of pro- These suggestions will be followed. grams subject to recommendations-federal aid vs. direct federal, etc. Also, explicitly say that the recommendations do not deal with all the issues and findings. The relationships between the Congressional request These will be clarified in the Preface to the final report for this study, the concept of the study, and the intended uses of the study are unclear. A clear definition of citizen participation and several These terms lend themselves as much to discussion anc other terms would be desirable. analysis, as to precise definitions. The final report will be as clear as possible, however.

V. Format, Organization of the Report, and Effectiveness of Presentation The principles used in developing recommendations The draft recommendations are in alternative form, and should be clearly stated. each reflects different approaches. Once the Commis- sion has made its choice among the options, Chapter 6 will take on a greater degree of focus. The report is unclear and inadequate, lacks adequate We will do our best to improve the final draft. - - references, and needs additional editing. VI. Views on Issues and Recommendations (Chapter 6)

Make the point that the political "costs" of ignoring The point will be made, though perhaps somewhat citizen participation are going up greatly. Elected more subtly. officials who ignore it don't get re-elected. Need to stress that government should help to equalize Chapter 3 makes this point, and so does Recommenda- the ability of different interests to participate, and to tion 2B. help redress poverty and discrimination. Simple legal opportunity, without assistance, loads the dice against the poor vis-a-vis corporations and other established groups. The purpose of citizen participation is to supplement These points will be further highlighted in the issues the basic political process, not to replace it. Often, it section of the report. gives minorities and the poor new points of entry into the process. The citizenship training aspects of citizen participation are important. The role of federal citizen participation requirements This is consistent with Recommendation 28 and 2C, and is to add national goals for equal opportunity to the an argument against Recommendation 2A. participation processes at state and local levels. This can open such processes and make them more fully inclusive than they might be otherwise. Chapter 2 is especially good, but it does. not relate to It relates to Recommendation 1 rather than to Recom- the recommendations. nendation 2. Chapter 4 is the best underpinning for the proposed rhese points are inherent in Recommendation 2B and recommendations. Stress the finding that there is a 2C. They will be stressed in these options. large community of people who think citizen participation is very important. However, current federal requirements can be met without necessarily providing effective citizen participation. Citizen participation may raise expectations which rhis point will be clarified and is covered in Recom- cannot be delivered. nendation 1.

Recommendations should address both (1) the effec- These are consistent with the present draft, especially tiveness of citizen participation and (2) the goals of Recommendations 28 and 2C. A special point will be simplification and standardization. made of this concept. Recommendation 1 is supported except for the limita- The Commission will choose. tions. A positive concept of what constitutes effective citizen participation should be added. The "cautions" are too negative and impossible to enforce. The key criteria for judging proposed improvements to This view will be noted in the report. citizen participation should be the degree to which they would open up decisionmaking processes to the advice and assistance of citizens. Provide greater detail for each recommendation. Spell These clarifications will be made. out performance standards in options 2B and 2C. Perfor- mance standards may be used in individual programs as well as in groups of programs. Clarify the relationship between the "designated" citizen participation Figure A-2 (cont.) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON AClR DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION REPORT WITH STAFF RESPONSES (comments received as of February 9, 1979)

Source of Comment* Comment AClR Response agency and the "grantmaking" agencies in administering citizen participation under 2B. OMB and the White House both may be inappropriate or unwilling as the "designated agency." No agency will volunteer to be designated. HIA The "designated agency" in Recommendation 2B The President, of course, would be free to make that should be the White House Office of Consumer Affairs. designation if he felt it to be the best option. A A separate "designated agency" for citizen participa- AClR agrees about the integral nature of citizen partici- tion in the federal government, as proposed in Recom- pation. Recommendation 2B would not disturb that. mendation 2B, would be a mistake. Citizen participa- The "designated agency" would simply develop and tion needs to be an integral part of each program's monitor citizen participation guidelines to be adminis- organizational structure. tered by each program agency. A Citizen participation costs should be not simply If citizen participation itself is required, then allowing allowed, as provided in Recommendation 2B, but should the use of federal funds for it is adequate. Such costs be considered an essential component of project costs. would automatically become project costs. C Recommendation 2 is untenable because there are four Recommendation 2 will be limited to federal aid pro- different types of federal citizen participation require- grams and will be flexible enough to apply to contro- ments, and one recommendation cannot apply to all versial and noncontroversial aid programs. four: + noncontroversial federal aid programs, + controversial federal aid programs, + direct federal activities, + federal regulatory activities. Recommendations should be keyed to each type. H The Commission will choose. Recommendation 2A is unrealistic; 2C is status quo; 2B is best. Loopholes in 2B, allowing some programs to be exempt from the general citizen participation policies, should be eliminated. CIA State citizen participation is almost exclusively a re- While there is some truth in this, it is overstated. In any sponse to federal requirements (except for state "goals event, the Commission will choose. projects"). It is mostly functional; not broadly coordina- tive. Therefore, don't give states a big role in place of federal government. The same can be said of many local governments. Recommendation 2A should be rejected. A new recommendation option is needed using a "lead An additional option will be prepared. agency" rather than a "designated agency," and stressing technical coordination, cooperative research, and information exchange rather than regulatory responsibility. This would not necessarily require legislation. This recommendation could be chosen instead of others, or in addition to others. Intermediate options are needed between the draft recom- The "lead agency" option (combined with an evalua- mendations; these should be developed in consultation with tion research coordination and demonstration func- experienced citizen participation people. tion), and detailing the other options will do this. Federal citizen participation recommendations should rhis concept will be incorporated into the options under start with the Administration Procedures Act, and Recommendation 2. then build upon it for programs needing additional procedures-using the interest representation, clientele control and community consensus models. Social services programs, especially, need added emphasis on citizen participation. Recommendation 2 is based on the assumption that The argumentation for Recommendation 2 will be simplification is good, without convincing documenta- strengthened. tion that simplification will be a benefit. The report does not show that federal citizen participation requirements have adverse effects on grant recipients. Clarify "recipients" covered by federal aid recommen- This will be done. tions to include nonprofit organizations as well as state and local governments. Even though Recommendation 2 is labeled as relating This will be done. only to federal aid programs, care should be taken to be certain that the recommendation language actually carries out that intent. Otherwise it will have a much broader effect. Recommendation 2C is in the right direction (it differ- The Commission will choose. entiates), but should be guided by principles in 2B. An additional desirable option in Recommendation 2 This option will be offered. would be to maintain the present diverse federal aid requirements for citizen participation. Source of Comment* Comment AClR Response

C/H/A Much of the evaluation research on citizen participa- A recommendation on this will be developed. tion is poor; demonstrations of how to do it and better coordination of evaluation funds are needed. The state of the art in evaluation research is better than This point will be reconsidered in light of new evidence indicated in the "issues" discussion (Chapter 6, pp. 26-30). presented. The effects of recommendations are not evaluated. Available evaluations of citizen participation efforts are cited. Unfortunately they are not definitive. AClR is not equipped to perform the in-depth, long-term evaluations which would be required to answer this criticism. An important point in citizen participation is that the This point will be made. availability of citizen participation opportunities may be extremely influential even if rarely exercised. As size, complexity, and rate of change in society in- This is recognized in Chapter 2 as one view. creases, a more passive citizen role is required if government is to be most viable. Local school boards are exemplary models of represen- This argument will be noted. It supports Recommen- tative democracy closely in touch with the electorate and dation 2A and the certification procedures in Recom- prone to soliciting information from all sectors through mendation 2B. public hearings, debate, and organizational contacts with PTAs and civic associations. Proliferation of citizen councils and committees to meet state and federal requirements tends to overload the process and divert attention away from the education of students. The background chapters are not a sufficient basis for The "critics" and comment processes already estab- recommendations. While they present a variety of find- lished, and the Commission's own deliberations are ings and viewpoints, they tend to exaggerate conten- similar to the process suggested. Though not as elabo- tion and slight opportunities for reconciliation. Thus, rate, they have the same objective. the options in Recommendation 2 are polar-drop all federal requirements, standardize requirements, or allow agencies to continue tinkering with regulations. Addi- tional research questions and a 6-9 month process for answering them are suggested to seek out points of reconciliation. Daily contacts between constituents and their elected This view will be noted in the report. officials and bureaucracies is not an adequate substitute for formal citizen participation processes. Figure A-3 CHARACTERISTICS OF A THREE-PART APPROACH TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL AID PROGRAMS

Clientele Involvement Community Consensus (additional requirements (additional requirements applied to designated human applied to designated Interest Representation services and housing planning and community, (applies to all federal aid programs) economic, and natural programs, except those given resource development a waiver by OMB) program)

Open Meetings Clientele Committees (with Enhanced Public lnformation Open Records specified decision powers, Program to Promote Broad- Public lnformation Program responsibilities, and public Scale Participation Representative Advisory support) Direct Contacts with Committee (with public Use of Volunteers in Program Community Groups and agency staff support, but Administration Interests to Get Them without decision powers) Employment of Clientele Involved (especially those hearings at Significant Complaint Service not involved on their own) Decision Points (with public Training for Above Roles Technical Assistance to agency analysis and Participating Citizen Groups response) with Demonstrated Need Citizen Right to Appeal Training of Citizens and Procedural Lapses Officials for Constructive Annual Report Stating and Participation in This Process Evaluating the Participation Surveys Record Workshops Conferences

now" types of actions might be more productive citizens' capacity for self-government might be than the global recommendations developed by established, possibly by giving some federal the staff. For example, independent funding and agency responsibility for issuing an annual staffing for advisory committees might be report on citizen roles in government each year. considered. Awards for public officials who The Commission should consider major make outstanding contributions to citizen par- recommendations to the state and local levels, in ticipation might be stepped up, along with work- addition to those aimed at the federal govern- shops for officials at national and regional ment. While Recommendation 1 already did this, conferences, and training of citizens in the it was felt to be too general. procedures of their own local jurisdictions. ACIR also should include citizen participation Personal staffs for local elected officials would as a major element of its general study of "The help to increase the responsiveness of local gov- Future of Federalism," and should keep the ernment. The network of citizen participation citizen participation issue alive by incorporating officials in the federal government might be consideration of it in each of its regular studies. strengthened. Legislative oversight of citizen participation requirements might he strengthen- The Afternoon Meeting ed. Private foundations should be encouraged to support improvements in citizen participation. A The primary focus of the afternoon meeting national dialogue on strategies for improving was on citizen participation at the state and local levels, and how federal requirements affect it. This office should not be under consumer affairs, There should be more in the report about these some felt. levels. Local governments have the most and the Agricultural extension agents are, and have best citizen participation, with states in second been for many years, major resources for citizen place, and the federal government in last place. participation in rural communities. The new (Though, in the morning meeting, the sentiment concept of urban extension agents, now being appeared to be that the federal government does experimented with, may have similar potential. better than the states.) Many states are in the These resources should not be overlooked. early stages of focusing up citizen participation Leaders from the citizen participation and in a broad way, apart from meeting federal aid volunteerism movements, who have gone into the requirements. About 30 states now have offices Carter Administration, find themselves of volunteerism and/or citizen participation. significantly constrained in achieving their goals Federal requirements for citizen participation by provisions of existing law and by lack of at the state and local levels are complex and funds. The publication entitled At Square One, confusing. They need to be clarified, rather than issued by the Federal Interagency Council on repealed. Without them, there would be much Citizen Participation, provides an extensive and less activity than at present. State "sunshine" detailed list of such constraints. Stronger citizen laws are just beginning to take hold, and are not lobbies are needed to achieve desirable adequate substitutes for current federal aid legislative changes, various participants stated. requirements for citizen participation. The New recommendation options for the Com- 338 "enemy" roles of federal, state, and local officials mission's consideration were discussed. These with respect to citizen participation re- included: quirements need to be transformed into coopera- I) the status quo with respect to federal aid tion, mutual support, and facilitation. It is requirements; important to get the word out to state and local 2) a nonauthoritative approach to simplifying officials that there are simple, easy, equitable, and standardizing federal aid requirements; and costfeffective ways of doing citizen par- 3) a new national agency to facilitate the ticipation. improved practice of citizen participation at A central citizen participation office at the na- all levels of government; and tional level could help to promote and improve 4) specific recommendations to the state and citizen participation, and to simplify related local governments, and regional federal aid requirements. However, there was organizations. disagreement about the need for such an office to These options were submitted to the Commission have authority with respect to this latter role. before it acted on the draft report. Appendix B

Hearing on Citizen Participation

In The American Federal System 339 December 7, 1978 Washington, D.C.

Summary of the Statement Both he and I will be glad to answer questions. Presented By We were pleased to accept your invitation to appear today. We will use this time for three purposes: I. Toni Thomas 1) to express our concern about ACIR's process for requesting review and comment on its Special Assistant for Citizen Participation staff's draft report; Office of the Assistant Secretary 2) to make specific recommendations about For Community Planning and expanding this review-and-comment pro- Development cess; 341 U.S. Department of Housing 3) to make a few tentative observations about and Urban Development the substance of the two recommendations in the draft report. Ms.Thomas appeared in place of Msgr. Geno First, however, it will be useful to tell you what Baroni, assistant secretary for neighborhoods, the council is. voluntary associations, and consumer protec- As you may know, ICCP is not an official tion, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban federal organization. It is a purely voluntary Development. Ms. Thomas submitted no pre- professional association. We have more than 200 pared statement. She commented that HUD members, most of whom are federal employees needed more time to study the ACIR draft report. with a responsibility for, or an interest in, citizen She promised a departmental response within participation programs or consumer involvement two weeks, and requested that ACIR take no programs in their agencies. action on the report at its December meeting. (See Mr. Staed, for instance, deals with the public statement submitted for the record by Patricia participation program in the Information Office Roberts Harris, Secretary, U.S. Department of at the Forest Service, in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.) Agriculture. Ms. O'Brien is chief of the Consumer Statement Assistance Office with the Federal Com- Presented By munications Commission. I am responsible for citizen participation in the Office of Consumer Affairs at the Department of Transportation. Lee L. Gary In addition to federal members, ICCP also has a small number of associate members who repre- Vice President sent citizens' organizations. The Interagency Council on The broad purpose of ICCP is to help its Citizen Participation members exchange information, techniques, and experiences that will enhance the effectiveness of 1am here as a representative of the federal citizen participation in government decision- Interagency Council on Citizen Participation making, and will increase decisionmakers' (ICCP). I am Lee Gray, vice president of ICCP and responsiveness to the people. In addition to I am pinch-hitting for the council's president, providing services for our members-offering Belle O'Brien. Also representing ICCP here today training sessions, for instance, and acting as a is Tony Staed, a past president of the council. clearinghouse for information about federal CP activities-ICCP also offers technical assistance Another serious objection was voiced at the to other organizations. A few examples: The critics session: Only one citizens' organization- council worked with Tufts University's Lincolri- the League of Women Voters-had been invited. Filene Center for Citizenship Training to plan We agreed wholeheartedly with the league's and co-sponsor a national conference on CP; it representative when she stressed that many was held in Washington last September. The other citizens' groups should have been included council also worked with the White House Office in that session. of Consumer Affairs; we helped Esther Peter- For two significant reasons, then, we are son's staff set up a task force to identify options gravely concerned about the process followed by for strengthening consumer involvement in ACIR's staff in seeking comments on this draft federal agency decisionmaking. The work of the report: The review time was totally inadequate. task force is referred to in your staff's report. And there was virtually no citizen participation. Now, let me address our first purpose for being This process has not reflected acceptable here: to express ICCP's concern about ACIR's participatory practice. Nor does it reflect ACIR's process of review and comment on this report. own stated principles. Let me quote from ACIR's Our concern about the process makes us feel own statement, which appears on a Commission ambivalent, at best, about the report. On the one publication: "After selecting specific intergov- hand, we were gratified that the Congress had ernmental issues for investigation, ACIR follows directed ACIR to undertake this study. We a multistep procedure that assures review and believe that citizen participation programs comment by representatives of all points of view, throughout the federal government can, and all affected levels of government, technical should be improved. We welcome a careful experts, and interested groups.. . ." 342 examination of CP programs. We are impressed That is a commendable statement. And we by the magnitude of the report drafted by ACIR's would like to see it become a reality in this staff. We look forward to having the opportunity comment process. Here, then, I come to our to study the wealth of data in the report and to second purpose for being present today. ICCP's carefully consider the staff's recommendations. executive committee respectfully submits seven But we have not had that opportunity as yet. recommendations to the Commission: We received the report only about ten days ago. FIRST: That the Commission not vote on That allowed barely a week of study for our this draft report at this meeting. members who had been invited to attend the critics session that your staff held last Tuesday, SECOND: That the Commission postpone its vote on this draft report for at least December 5. We had even less time to consider the recommendations; these arrived separately, three months. three working days before the critics session. THIRD: That the Commission direct ACIR And a significant section of the report-the staff to distribute the draft report issues section-arrived after the critics session to the broadest possible cross- took place. section of citizens' groups, allow- You can understand our ambivalence. There ing them at least two months to was barely time for a few of our executive review and comment on the draft. committee members to skim the surface of the FOURTH: That the Commission direct staff text, in preparation for the critics session. At the to make its draft report available session, we were asked to vouch for the accuracy to all interested federal agencies of factual data we had not been able to scrutinize. for their review and comments. We were asked to comment on questions, principles, issues that the staff had spent many FIFTH: That the Commission direct staff months examining. This hardly allowed us to do to prepare an analysis of all justice to the staff's efforts in developing the comments received. draft. SIXTH: That the analysis of comments be At the critics session, ICCP members voiced submitted to Commission their concern about the unrealistic time-frame for members well in advance of the review and comment. This concern was echoed meeting at which the draft report by virtually all other participants at the session. will be discussed and voted on. SEVENTH: That the Commission publish the ICCP's executive committee has discussed this analysis of comments. concept with Esther Peterson, the President's Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs. She has Given that revised process, the Commission asked ICCP to indicate that she would be will have the benefit of truly representative interested in discussing with the Commission the comment. Given that process, ICCP's executive varied possibilities for oversight and coordina- committee pledges that it will mobilize the tion of citizen participation requirements. Citi- expertise of its 200 members to review and zen participation is an issue of concern to Mrs. comment on this draft report. We will offer a Peterson, since it is so closely allied with the need meaningful response to the data and we will- for consumers to be involved in federal agencies' even more important-present additional decisionmaking. creative alternatives to the recommendations. Since the White House Consumer Office has This brings us to the third purpose of our been surveying consumer involvement and statement: to make a few observations about the citizen participation-as is indicated in Chapter substance of the two recommendations in the 4 of ACIR's draft report-Mrs. Peterson believes draft report. it would be useful to share her staff's perceptions We regret that at this point we can do no more with the Commission. She has requested, there- than react-and superficially, at that-to the fore, that her staff receive a copy of the draft staff recommendations. But we do feel an report and be afforded an opportunity to com- obligation to share these three points with the ment. Commission: On behalf of ICCP, I thank you for inviting us to 343 POINT NUMBER ONE. In our experience with submit this statement. citizen participation, a critical issue is: How many alternatives have been formulated? We are Statement concerned about the paucity of alternatives Presented By presented in Recommendation 2. Many more options exist, we believe, for federal action on citizen participation programs; and we consider Richard lves it crucial for the Commission to have the benefit Assistant Director of examining as many alternatives as possible. Division of Budget and Planning Meaningful participation can yield a full spectrum of options, as opposed to the handful of State of Missouri take-it-or-leave-it alternatives given in Recom- Member mendation 2. Council of State Planning Agencies POINT NUMBER TWO. Again, an overall INTRODUCTION comment on Recommendation 2: Although the recommendation is titled "Citizen Participation would like to thank the Commission for in Federal Aid Programs," the ultimate action 1 inviting me to testify about the draft volume on may well have an impact on all citizen participation programs. In redrafting this recommenda- citizen participation. Today I am speaking on tion, care should be taken to clarify the intent of behalf of the Missouri Division of Budget and the recommendation-and to be certain that the Planning and the Council of State Planning various alternatives do, in fact, reflect that Agencies. We commend the ACIR for under- precise intent. taking a major analysis of this important, timely, and confusing subject of citizen partici- POINT NUMBER THREE. In Recommendation pation. 2, Alternative B provides that the President As the assistant director for planning, Division designate an Executive Branch agency to ensure of Budget and Planning, Office of Administra- consistent administration of an omnibus "Citizen tion, State of Missouri, I am aware of the Participation Act." ICCP's executive committee multitude of citizen participation requirements urges that this oversight responsibility be given in federal grant programs. The Division of Budget to the White House Office of the President's and Planning serves as staff to the Governor of Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs. Missouri in the areas of policy planning, budgeting and tries to make sense out of the wide array SPECIFIC COMMENTS of conflicting federal requirements for citizen participation. In addition, The Council of State Planning Agencies an affiliate of the National Chapter 1-Introduction needs to be revised to Governors' Association of which I am a member, focus on the need for reform of citizen participa- has been concerned about the role of citizen tion requirements contained in federal grant participation within state and local government. programs. Chapter 2-American Traditions of During the last three years, the Council of State Citizen Participation omitted the roles and Planning Agencies and the National Governors' importance of interest groups and political Association have sponsored three studies on polling as vehicles for participation in govern- citizen participation: Techniques of Public In- ment. Chapter 3-An Overview of Contem- volvement, Growth and Investment: New Roles porary Citizen Participation in the U.S. did not for Citizens, and A State Perspective on Pub- discuss the need for creating a method for lic Involvement Programs. At this time, I would involving citizens on national issues which like to submit these reports to the Commission transcend local, state, and regional boundaries. for your review. Examples of issues which could be addressed are I would like to divide my remarks into three foreign trade, productivity in industry, balanced parts. In reviewing the report, the first part will growth, America's future in science and tech- be general comments about the study as a whole; nology, and the future of public education. the second will be specific comments on each Chapter 4-Citizen Participation at the Federal 344 chaptei.; and the third, recommendations. Level omitted reference to federal land management agencies such as the Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of OVERVIEW Defense. We are also concerned that Con- gressional casework was not discussed. A major concern about the report is that it lacks Chapter 5-Citizen Participation in State and a central focus. Specifically, the report has a Local Governments needs to include a discussion large amount of background material on the of state "Administrative Procedure Acts." For historical development of democratic theory and example, Missouri has now established a formal practice within the United States. The report procedure which allows review and comment on should focus more specifically on the details of proposed state regulations. In addition, ap- citizen participation requirements within the proximately 21 states have environmental federal grant system and the details of reform. review systems which are separate from the Second, the report documents a fundamental federal government. paradox in the federal electoral system. In theory, representative government means that franchised citizens elect officials at the local, RECOMMENDATIONS state, and federal levels to make policy decisions about the allocations of public resources. However, the mandating of citizen participation ACIR should probably spend additional time requirements by the federal government implies developing more detailed recommendations. We that representative government is suspect, feel a little uncomfortable with choosing among particularly at the local and state levels. Ap- recommendations which are quite far reaching proximately 120 federal citizen participation without more time to discuss the issues and requirements duplicate each other, duplicate receive guidance from the Governors. state and local practice, and often do not offer any Among the three recommendations, 2A is role for the citizen in real decisionmaking. In probably not feasible. We doubt, even in the long short, federal requirements can build up expec- term or in an inflation-fighting year, that tations which can not be delivered. Congress will smile on the elimination of all Third, the document is too long, local and state federal requirements. 2C is the status quo with officials will not have time to read it. An few changes. executive summary should be produced in a Of the three recommendations, number 2B may separate brief volume. be a realistic compromise. In supporting this re-commendation, I want to stress four important the American Federal System. Having wrestled dimensions. with this issue as both a federal and a local governmental official, I commend the Commission 1. Local and state officials need to be involved for taking on such a complex and sensitive task. in the development of performance stan- My comments are in three parts: dards which may evolve. 2. Federal citizen participation requirements 1) observations on the report, should compliment those already in ex- 2) the draft recommendations, and istence in state and local government. 3) other suggestions. 3. Citizen participation requirements in federal grant programs should contain I. OBSERVATIONS. The report traces the options. What will work in New York City evolution of the concept, illustrates the complexi- may not work in St. Louis. What will work in ty of the issue, and points out the difficulty in St. Louis may not work in Boise, ID. achieving significant changes to current federal 4. If the real target population of citizen policies. It does all of these well. The federal participation is the disadvantaged, funds program case studies are very illuminating, as is need to be provided to pay for their travel the discussion of our theoretical dilemma of expenses, wages lost while participating on moving beyond the American tradition of an advisory groups, and other expenses in- electoral democracy. curred in advisory roles such as telephone My principal criticism of the project is its calls. Finally, please note the report en- limited perspective. Except for the historical titled, A State Perspective on Public In- discussion in Chapter 2, citizen participation is 345 volvement Program. This report prepared treated as a problem for governmental officials, by the staff of the National Governors' particularly federal ones. The report sheds little Association's Committee on Human light on the perspective of citizens wishing to Resources provides examples of optional petition government. Both perspectives are forms of citizen participation which could legitimate, and should be considered when policy be used in a variety of federal programs. changes are developed. This difference may seem subtle, but I believe CONCLUSION that the limitations in the draft recommendations are traceable to the governmental orientation of We see the necessity for a national policy on the research. I recommend that the final report citizen participation. In order to accomplish that include more emphasis on the citizen perspective. objective, two actions are needed. First, the study 1 was pleased to see the report's treatment of should be focused more sharply on the federal aid the theoretical dilemma of citizen participation. system -and related requirements and second, It notes that if the provisions of the Constitution should involve state and local officials in the and Bill of Rights were working on behalf of all formulation of the national policy. citizens, there would be no need for special gov- Thank you, Mr. Chairm'an. I would be pleased ernmental efforts to promote the participation of to answer any questions which you have. citizens in the governmental decisionmaking process. The purpose of these extraordinary Statement mechanisms is to supplement the basic political Presented By process, not to replace it. That concept is Roger Honberger for becoming more widely understood. However, your Commission has often noted that the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Clifford W. Graves Rights probably didn't envision the intergovernmental nature of most public sector programs. Chief Administrative Officer This intergovernmental dimension certainly County of San Diego compounds the communication problem between citizens and governments. I might note that while Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the report describes federal programs well, the the ACIR draft report, Citizen Participation in intergovernmental problem is equally troubling on such local issues as land use, transportation, also goes beyond the assertion to describe the and public safety. characteristics of that obligation. In describing the experiences of such early The language in the remaining lines and the special citizen participation efforts as the Com- discussion is naive in that it implies that citizen munity Action and the Model Cities programs, participation can (or should) be limited to the the report notes mixed results. On the one hand, provisions in the "manual" described there. these programs introduced many persons and Citizens who wish to make their feelings known organizations who were all but disfranchised to should be encouraged to do so and be provided governmental processes and guaranteed them authority, responsibility, and so on; but to expect access. The report correctly notes that many citizens to hew to regulations defining the types minority elected officials and others representing of situations which they are empowered to share lower income areas got their start through just in decisionmaking, and categories of citizens who such programs. are required to participate, and so on, is to The negative side of those programs however, completely ignore the realities of local (and I was their diversionary effect. For many years, might add, federal) political processes. People, they diverted the attention of low income and places, and times often overrule politicians. I minority groups-which your report points out need only cite California's Proposition 13 as a are the primary targets of extraordinary efforts- striking example of this. If this approach were towards a limited number of special activities followed, you would hurt the persons who and away from the broader arena of local comply and aid the more sophisticated. 346 decisionmaking. Typically, the largest Model Recommendation 2. I support option B, which Cities or Community Action program was but a is the most difficult of the three but affords the tiny fraction of the total budget of the local gov- best opportunity for resolving the problems ernment or jurisdiction. Yet, by setting up special identified in the draft report. organizations and special mechanisms Option A ignores natural political dynamics. guaranteeing participation only in those While not stated explicitly, this option would programs, these local jurisdictions were able to appear to put the federal government back to continue to allocate the lion's share of resources where it was 30 years ago. You can't go back. available free from the direct participation of a If some citizen participation requirements are substantial part of its citizenry. Thanks largely abolished, retaining the requirement for "specific to the experiences of the 1960s, neither local gov- groups" is asking for trouble at the local and ernments nor citizens will ever tolerate that federal level. It pits one group against another. again. These same experiences led to the Unfortunately, far too many of the "specific" criticism of the 140+ separate sets of citizen boards are the worst offenders of representati;e participation requirements now attached to citizen participation. I certainly agree that citizen federal programs. participation requirements are duplicative and tough to implement, but simply eliminating them 11. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS. Chapter 6 all is not the solution. contains options for two major recommen- Option B is on the right track. I would eliminate dations. The Recommendation 1 options address on page 17 the language beginning on line 13 the matter of an umbrella general policy on following the word "programs." I believe I citizen participation. The Recommendation 2 understand what staff is trying to get at, but options identify approaches to federal policy again it simply creates a loophole which would reform. lead to the accumulation of the same re- Recommendation 1. I support lines one through quirements that the rest of the recommendations four, but urge you to reject the remainder. There seek to remove. is no question that the draft policy statement in Option C is unacceptable. This is the approach lines one through four, while general, is a that led to the situation described in Chapters 4 necessary reference point, for the specific actions and 5. The report stresses the need for fundamen- that must follow. The key provision is that tal change in the federal approach; this won't government has responsibility to provide oppor- occur incrementally. tunity for effective citizen participation in their programs beyond the elective political process. It 111. SUGGESTIONS. In my experience, I've found that locally initiated programs normally federal activity will be the result of political provide better access to decisionmakers than processes. No federal requirements, no matter federally regulated ones do. This is because the how specific, will substitute for political access is a natural one, based on the political sophistication on the part of interested citizens. sensitivity of local officials (which in my opinion is higher than most federal regulation-writers seem to think), coalitions of interest, and similar Statement factors that no federal requirement can accom- Presented By modate. In San Diego County, for example, I've noticed that elected officials generally go beyond federal or state citizen participation mandates. Howard W. Hallman We're not unique in this regard. President I've also found that citizens (as distinguished from sophisticated special interest groups] tend Civic Action Institute to take a more comprehensive view of their (Formerly Known as Center for interests than federal requirements permit. The Governmental Studies) local governmental response to this is to combine and decentralize public hearings, needs 1am a long-time admirer of the Advisory assessments, and advisory committees and other Commission in Intergovernmental Relations and citizen participation devices. Their principal have often used your reports as excellent obstacle is federal categorical requirements and reference sources. Several times I have partici- 347 timetables. pated in critics' sessions of draft reports, but Therefore, I suggest the ACIR, following up on this is my first opportunity to appear before the this report, develop model p'rinciples to imple- Commission itself. In spite of my admiration for ment its recommendations that will: your work as a whole, I came as a dissenter to the draft report on "Citizen Participation in the -provide uniform citizen participation guide- American Federal System," which you are now lines for all federal programs (as the draft considering. report recommends) requiring identical time The draft recommendations found in Chapter lines to eliminate the costly and confusing 6 contain the central elements of your con- multiplicity of community meetings, needs clusions. The key issues come forward in the assessments, and special committees; three alternatives of Recommendation 2, and -recognize the existence of local citizen each option is derived from a premise that seven- participation programs and provide flex- score requirements for citizen participation in ibility in federal requirements to allow for federal programs are troublesome. Among the the consolidation of federal, state, and local optional reasons offered are these phrases: citizen participation programs for consisten- "largely undefined in purpose," "largely cy, cost effectiveness, and credibility; duplicative of state requirements," "artificially -include technical assistance to communities imposed," "diverse, complex, confusing, ar- for the development of effective participa- bitrary," "a heavy and sometimes confusing tion programs, based on local successes burden on state and local officials." around the country and federally contract These are the premises, but the five previous with firms employing qualified staff to chapters don't contain the detailed evidence to perform these evaluations; and support these conclusions. Chapter 1 lays out -seek continuing advice from locally based some issues to consider. Chapter 2 is an excellent citizen organizations as well as local officials academic treatise on different theories of citizen in refining federal citizen participation participation. Chapter 3 reviews the literature on policies. contemporary practices and comes to mostly favorable conclusions about the positive effects. In my opinion, citizen participation is simply Chapter 4 deals with citizen participation in the an extension of political processes in form and administration of federal programs, and content, and the effectiveness of citizen although the findings are diverse, the over- participation in any local, regional, state, or even whelming evidence indicates that citizen participation is a good idea which has never been quirements for citizen participation." When I fully applied. Chapter 5 describes contemporary first read it, I thought it was a "straw-person," practices of state and local government, but it inserted to draw criticism and make the other doesn't really say whether these practices could choices seem more pallatable by contrast. But adequately substitute for federal requirements. when I discovered that you were developing your In sum, the five chapters are an excellent text- own recommendations without the participation book on citizen participation, but they do not of any citizens directly involved in federal aid provide the factual basis for any of your programs, I realized that you might be serious. recommendations. Yet, the substantive chapters of your report This leads me to conclude that your draft clearly show that the advantages of federal recommendations derive from an a priori com- citizen participation requirements far outweigh mitment of ACIR to work for greater order and disadvantages. So I urge you to abandon this more simplification in the federal system. That's alternative and to set a better example by an admirable objective, but when applied to deferring this entire report until you can have far federal citizen participation requirements, your greater citizen participation in its consideration. case is charted by these a priori values rather Alternative B calls for enactment of "legisla- than the kind of factual study on which ACIR tion establishing general citizen participation usually bases its recommendations. policies for advisory processes to be applied Because you haven't mustered the evidence, the consistently throughout the federal aid system." recommendations are full of the rhetoric of the It also recommends that the President "designate 348 1966s debate on citizen participation, but this a single Executive Branch agency to insure the doesn't reflect the realities of the late 1970s. In consistent application and evaluation of these the '66s some, though not the majority, of citizen policies in the administration of federal participation efforts pursued a confrontation assistance programs." This appeals to a desire for strategy, complete with absolute demands for neatness and order, attributes which I can citizen control. In response, some local officials appreciate from my public administration back- countered with a claim that their elective status ground. Yet, this approach is flawed because made them the true representative of the people federal aid programs are quite dissimilar in their and that other forms of citizen participation were operational modes and therefore in how they not necessary. Even so, neither of these extremes might achieve citizen participation. For instance, represent the dominant trend of the '60s and a contrast parental involvement in Head Start pre- rich variety of participatory practices evolved. school activities with drawing in highly diverse Today we rarely hear a demand for community interests into policymaking for areawide water control. Although I have written a book ad- resources management. To paraphrase Thomas vocating neighborhood government, I find that Jefferson's observation about censorship, if we most neighborhood groups don't want to take must all wear the same shoe, by whose foot will over basic municipal service operations. They the last be measured? If we followed your don't care who collects the garbage or repairs pot- Alternative B, the Office of Management and holes as long as these tasks are accomplished Budget (OMB) would probably be designated as adequately. Nevertheless, they don't want to the Executive Branch agency to set citizen have outsiders determine their fate without participation policies and it would prescribe themselves having a voice in the decisions. They quite constricted standards. In our metaphor, want to be part of things, maybe run a few size 7AA for men and 3AAA for women. This is programs, but most neighborhood activists today simply too tight a fit for pluralistic America. favor a cooperative, solution-oriented mode To me Alternative C makes far more sense: rather than confrontation. This is the attitude "variegated simplification of federal aid re- which federal citizen participation practices quirements of citizen participation." This alter- should build on in the late '70s and into the 1980s. native recognizes that there are problems stem- It is the reality upon which your recommen- ming from the proliferation of requirements and dations should be based. that improvements can occur through a flexible Unfortunately they aren't. Certainly Alter- approach, dealing with clusters of programs native A of Recommendation 2 isn't, for it "according to their similarities in such matters as advocates "abolition of most federal aid re- program objectives, public affected, desired degree of citizen involvement in decision- controversy over citizen participation re- making, and participation mechanism and tech- quirements, it is preferable that the commission niques." This flexibility should be guided by a set enunciate no general policy on citizen participa- of principles, such as your draft presents in the tion if that policy statement cannot be clear and textual discussion of Alternative B (pages 24-25): simple. The language of propxed Recommenda- openness, continuity through all stages, well tion 1 does not meet this test. advertised, advance and accessible information, The first five chapters of the draft report technical assistance for citizens (especially those document the proposition that citizen participa- without many resources of their own), economic tion in administrative decisionmaking is a assistance where necessary, and training for natural and essential aspect of democratic participants not familiar with procedures and practice in the United States. Elected represen- techniques to be used. To these I would add tatives enjoy neither the information nor the time encouragement of general purpose organizations, to "fine tune" the administrative process so as to such as neighborhood councils, which deal with a insure that governmental services and functions number of programs rather than reliance solely are executed responsively and sensitively. One upon single-purpose citizen units. essential purpose of citizen participation, then, is This approach acknowledges that the consent to supplement the normal elective channels of of the governed from whence the just powers of politics in guiding administrative decisions government derive is a continuous process, not toward greater responsiveness to citizen needs merely elections once or twice a year. It and priorities. Such responsiveness is, after all, recognizes that varied methods are needed for the underlying principle of our democratic 349 different programs. And it has the flexibility system. Beyond this pragmatic objective, which is the hallmark of American federalism. citizen participation is also an end unto itself in that it provides citizens with an opportunity to Statement develop a "civic conscience" and a greater sense Presented By of control over their own destinies. These "educative" functions of citizen participation Nelson Rosenbaum have often been forgotten or ignored in the days Senior Research Associate of "hardheaded concern about program The Urban Institute simplification and regulatory reform. However, a democracy is no stronger and no more stable than Myname is Nelson Rosenbaum, I am a the community concern and the commitment to political scientist and senior research associate democratic values manifested by its citizens. at the Urban Institute. The Urban Institute is a Civic responsibility and commitment to private nonprofit research organization es- democracy are not learned in a classroom, but tablished in 1968 to study the problems of the rather in the give and take of conflict and debate nation's communities. Independent and nonpar- over important policy issues. With the decline in tisan, the institute responds to current needs for allegiance to the major political parties and the disinterested analysis and basic information on drop in the percentage of Americans taking an major policy issues. Over the past four years, the active part in elections, citizen participation in institute has sponsored a major research administrative decisionmaking has become all program on citizen participation in ad- the more important as a major socialization ministrative decisionmaking, which I have arena. Some studies cited in the draft report directed. My testimony today is based on the cast doubt upon the efficacy of participation in findings and conclusions of that research effort. I administrative decisionmaking in reducing should point out that the conclusions and "alienation" and building citizen "trust" in gov- interpretations are my own and should not be ernment. As an active researcher in this area who attributed to the Urban Institute or its Board of is intimately familiar with the cited studies, I Trustees. would urge caution upon the Commission in GENERAL POLICY ON utilizing and interpreting these findings. First, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION one should not confuse measurement of attitudes toward a particular administration or policy Given the current state of confusion and with assessment of democratic values and norms. Unfortunately, most of the cited studies participation is to establish some basic rules of assess the former rather than the latter. Second, access, fairness, and efficiency in providing there are severe methodological problems with information, ascertaining citizen views, and many of the studies, including faulty sampling evaluating the competing interests so that an techniques and lack of time-series analysis. In effective framework can be established for any case, I suggest that civic education be viewed mediating and resolving the policy conflict. This as a primary, positive objective of citizen in fact is precisely the objective of the federal participation, not as a potential secondary Administrative Procedures Act, Freedom of benefit. If better research demonstrates that Information Act, Government in the Sunshine existing citizen participation programs have not Act, and federal Advisory Committee Act which fulfilled the educative function, then we need collectively establish a minimum or "default" to find out why and improve the programs framework for citizen participation in federal accordingly. administrative decisionmaking. As In sum, it is not sufficient to advocate "that demonstrated by the federal precedent, the governments at all levels provide sufficient interest representation approach is susceptible authority, responsibility, resources, commit- to standardization because it revolves largely ment, and leadership for effective citizen par- around passive procedural information and ticipation in governmental programs." The participation rights that can be clearly specified language of proposed Recommendation 1 should by statute. Perhaps the single most important be supplemented and revised to reflect a substan- problem with citizen participation in the federal 350 tive conception of what constitutes "effective" assistance system is a lack of a standardized citizen participation. I have suggested that interest representation model which can be effective citizen participation be defined in uniformly applied across programs. terms of two essential objectives: (a) producing The other two approaches to citizen participa- governmental decisions and policies that are tion build upon the interest representation model directly responsive to the needs and priorities of as the basic procedural framework, but modify affected citizens, and (b) generating confidence and expand it in a significant way. in, and commitment to, the procedures and values Most social service and community develop- under which our democratic system operates. ment programs in the federal assistance system utilize what I have called the clientele control approach. The clientele control model is dis- A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ACT tinguished by designation of a particular constituency or clientele group which is vested with Alternatives A, B, and C under Recommenda- some direct form of authority over program tion 2, as currently formulated, are not mutually operation. This "power sharing" is justified by exclusive and fail to reflect an adequate concep- the comparative magnitude of the impacts felt by tual approach to sorting out the need for the designated group vis-a-vis other affected standardization versus the need for diversity. constituencies. The clientele control model is In my view, there are three relatively distinct less subject to standardization than the interest approaches to citizen participation found in the representation approach because the crucial federal assistance system and in federal deci- issue is not procedure per se, but rather the sionmaking itself. The first approach may be effective degree of control granted to a particular termed the interest representation model. The interest grouping. Nevertheless, based upon the interest representation approach reflects the extensive experience with clientele control view that participation in administrative deci- during the 1960s, there is a valuable body of sionmaking is likely to involve organized interest available knowledge regarding the most effective groupings in conflict over relatively narrow and means of organizing affected constituencies, distinct controversies. The interest representa- utilizing different mechanism of power sharing, tion model is the most common approach to and so on. This information could be codified to citizen involvement in administrative decision- stimulate some standardization and uniformity making and the most "normal" from the perspec- in current federal assistance programs that are tive of interest group domination in American based on the clientele control model. politics. The essential challenge of citizen The third model of citizen participation found in the federal assistance system may be called the the act through their own sunshine laws, community consensus approach. Exemplified by "Administrative Procedures Acts," and so on, statutory language that calls for "widespread need do nothing more to comply with federal and extensive" citizen participation, as in the requirements for interest representation in federal Water Pollution Control Act the grant-in-aid system. This would elimi- Amendments of 1972, the community consensus nate much of the discontent over arbitrary approach attempts to penetrate beyond the and inconsistent procedural standards for organized interest groups to seek the views and public hearings, advisory committees, and interests or unorganized and unrepresented other interest representation processes elements of an affected community. Through included in specific authorizing statutes. As such positive "outreach" to the entire community, in Recommendation 2A, all specific statuto- a closer approximation of the overall "public ry language on interest representation interest" can be formulated as a guide to deci- processes would be repealed once the new sionmaking. In essence, the community consen- act was in place. sus model adds another layer of interests to those 2. As emphasized in Alternative C, the Com- consulted and evaluated through the interest mission should recognize that there are representation approach. other approaches to citizen participation The community consensus approach, most than the interest representation model. The commonly found in planning and natural re- clientele control and community consensus source programs because of their broad scope approaches should be standardized by 351 and diverse communitywide impacts, is least category of program to the greatest extent susceptible to standardization across the ele- possible, but it will never be feasible to ments of the federal assistance system. This is establish uniform procedures. Rather, the because: (1)seeking a broad community consen- most useful approach to standardization is sus inevitably involves numerous discretionary perhaps to suggest alternative "packages" of decisions about which unorganized interests techniques that have proven more or less should be organized, which viewpoints should be useful under different circumstances. States given weight as major alternatives, and so on: (2) and localities could then select an approp- there is relatively little experience with commun- riate "package" with federal approval. ity consensus techniques on which to base standardization; (3) under some circumstances, it appears infeasible to identify or generate a OVERSIGHT, EVALUATION community consensus upon a single policy AND ENFORCEMENT option, thus thrusting citizen participation into one of the other two modes. My final point is that responsibility for over- To sum up this discussion with regard to the sight, evaluation, and e,nforcement of citizen alternatives posed under Recommendation 2, my participation requirements should remain with conclusions are the following: the individual program agencies rather than a single Executive Branch agency, as recommended 1. I strongly endorse the recommendation for a in Alternatives 2B and 2C. Standardization does federal "Intergovernmental Citizen Partici- not necessarily imply centralization. As indicat- pation Act," which would establish general ed by the federal experience with the APA and procedures and policies for interest repres- other procedural statutes, general requirements entation in federal grant-in-aid programs. can be enforced by responsible agency officials The act should specify minimum require- (general counsels), by the courts, and by a federal ments in at least three areas: (a) citizen advisory and research agency (the Administra- access to information, (b) opportunities for tive Conference of the United States). While formal citizen participation, (c) administra- utilization of such an eclectic mix of implementa- tive accountability to citizens. The proposed tion methods may not have the dramatic appeal act would build upon the federal precedents of establishing a single citizen participation of the APA, FOIA, and related procedural "czar," it does have the advantage of avoiding the statutes. States and localities that already costly "start-up" and "familiarization" processes meet or exceed the minimum standards of associated with a new agency and the danger of a single dogmatic interpretation of what consti- mechanism will benefit all citizens. tutes appropriate citizen participation. I want to urge the strongest possible considera- On the other hand, I think a strong case can be tion of the likely effect that restructuring of made for a central advisory and study staff that requirements for citizen involvement will have in would develop the standardized "packages" from the administration of federal grant-in-aid social which agencies could choose, would develop service programs. As your draft report points better evaluation methodology for citizen partici- out, "Opportunities for citizen input are the pation programs, would issue interpretive re- rational and necessary components of remaining commendations on points of dispute, and so on. faithful to the tenets of the Declaration of OMB or ACIR itself might admirably execute this Independence, while adapting to the exigencies of function. an evolving mass, heterogenous, urbanized, In brief summary, the Commission should not service-oriented, and bureaucratized society and tamper too dramatically with the present assign- system." And, I agree with you that "the ment of oversight, evaluation, and enforcement objectives of citizen participation outside the responsibility. Authority can be left as is for the electoral process and the way it works in practice first few years of implementation of a new are in many respects essential to the effective "Citizen Participation Act" without great danger. conduct of a representative democracy." Centralization can always be considered at a Citizen input does support and complement the later point if the failure of the program agencies constitutional role of elected officials. Citizen should warrant it. Congress should, however, participation, however, has made a demonstrable 352 designate a single federal agency as the lead difference in the lives of poor and disadvantaged research and advisory staff in the implementa- in America, and this is recent. tion effort. As in the relationship between the Your report describes those legislatively federal Administrative Procedures Act and the mandated requirements which provide basic, Administrative Conference of the United States, though limited, access to the decisionmaking this lead agency would furnish the background process, such as the Administrative Procedures data and backup information necessary for Act, the Sunshine Act, and the federal Advisory successful operation of the overall standardiza- Committee Act. These laws have served this tion effort. nation well in many areas. Statement However, these are broadly applicable requirements, and are not providing a sufficient degree Submitted for the Record By of access to the decisionmaking process in the social service or human resource program areas. Dr. Graciela It is in this area of citizen involvement that I, as director of the federal antipoverty agency, urge Olivarez very special consideration be given to stronger citizen participation requirements in your delib- Director erations. Existing requirements for citizen invol- Community Services Administration vement in the planning and administration of programs specifically intended to serve the poor, 1appreciate the opportunity to present my such as those funded by CSA, HUD, DOL, and views to the Advisory Commission as it studies HEW, were established for positive reasons. the matter of citizen participation in federal, These requirements redressed social inequities state, and local governmental policy, program formed out of racial and socio-economic and fiscal decisionmaking. The Commission and discrimination. They provide for strengthening its staff is to be commended for the thoroughness of relationships between poor and disad- with which it is conducting this study. vantaged citizens and their government, create I applaud and wholeheartedly support current meaningful opportunities for these citizens to efforts to streamline and simplify the business of influence decisions which directly affect their government. Simplification in such areas as lives and make it possible for government pro- grant application and reporting requirements, grams to be planned and operated in a manner elimination of duplicative requests for informa- which begins to meet the needs of intended tion, and increased use of the joint funding beneficiaries. Broadly applicable requirements, or a set of consideration be given to those social service uniform requirements, may not meet this need. programs providing benefits to low income For example, a public hearing and provision of persons. These programs have "clearly enunci- information may be all that is necessary in ated-and primarily power sharing-goals uni- planning for the extension of an airport runway. quely tied to the nature of social service pro- But such requirements will not allow for the grams." input and involvement needed in social services I am mindful that ours is a complex and frag- programs. An antiprogram which does not mented society, that the demands upon elected provide for a means by which the poor can work officials at all levels is great. However, the task of toward the solution of their own problems will making democracy work for the benefit of all not meet its legislated goal of developing self- cannot be expected to be an easy one. sufficiency. Again, I thank the commission for allowing me While I am fully aware of the difficulties and to present my views on this matter. cost of implementing such requirements (most of Statement which would be minimized with more experience Presented By in this area) I would disagree with those who feel citizen participation has failed. Experience with community programming during the past 15 years has shown us that citizen participation has Harriet Hentges not failed. For example, requirements in title XX Executive Director of the Social Security Act have made it possible League of Women Voters 353 for the poor to impact in decisions made of the United States concerning a wide range of social services provided under this act. Public Health service 1am Harriet Hentges, executive director of the legislation requires the involvement of consu- League of Women Voters of the United States. On mers (the majority of whom are poor) in the behilf of the league, I thank you for the planning of health service programs. This has opportunity to appear before the Commission resulted in programs being designed to more today. League members have used ACIR publica- nearly meet the needs of individual communities. tions in their studies of intergovernmental Involvement of the elderly at the project,regional, relations and rely on them for their accuracy and and state levels, required by statute, has resulted fairness. The following is a statement that Ruth in improved services to the aging poor of our Robbins, first vice-president and acting presi- nation. The opportunity to affect decisions on the dent of the League, has asked me to read to you expenditure of General Revenue Sharing monies this morning. has resulted in greater attention and expenditure of funds for human needs-rather than excessive To the Members of the Advisory Commission amounts of money being expended on frills. on Intergovernmental Relations: In addition, citizen participation has reduced Citizen participation has been the hallmark of alienation by bringing about a closer identifica- league activities since our organization was tion on the part of affected citizens with their founded in 1920. Today, leagues are involved in a own government. Also, experience in working on wide variety of federal, state, and locally community projects, serving on governing and mandated citizen participation functions in such advisory boards, and being brought into a diverse areas as energy, environmental quality, working relationship with elected officials and and human resources. It is from 58 years of their staff has provided valuable training in accumulated citizen participation experience citizenship and self-government. that I make this statement today. I would, therefore, hope that the commission The league urges the Commission to expand the does not decide to recommend that requirements opportunities for public comment and testimony for citizen participation be repealed. on the draft report on citizen participation before Should your decision be to recommend the it makes a determination as to the specific establishment of a standardized citizen partici- legislative recommendations to be included in the pation process to be applied throughout the report. Today's hearing should be a first step in a federal aid system, I think it is critical that larger process whereby a representative sample of people who have served as citizen participants view of the length of the draft and the im- under federal requirements can review the draft plications of the alternative recommendations, and provide their suggestions and comments to we could not adequately prepare comment on the the Commission. We would like to register the content of the report for today's hearing. league's concern that the process that is being In closing, we do hope that you will find some used to review this draft will not provide an way to tap a broad base of public opinion in opportunity for the perspective of these groups reviewing this very important report on citizen to be fully aired. At the critics session, held participation. We applaud your efforts and offer Tuesday, December 5, those present were either our support in finalizing a report that may have a citizen participation professionals or govern- significant impact on the nature and direction of ment officials who work in the area. Although the citizen participation. league appreciates the expertise that these Speakirg for myself, I thank you for the individuals can bring to the report, they cannot opportunity to appear 'before the Commission. always provide the Commission with the first hand views of members of citizen advisory Statement boards, members of planning committees, people Submitted for the Record By who have testified in public hearings, or others who have represented their own and community interests before federal, state, and local govern- Patricia Roberts ments. Nor can we be sure that the experts fully 354 reflect the opinions of a broad spectrum of public interest organizations. Without this perspective Harris the Commission cannot make credible recom- Secretary mendations to Congress. U.S. Department Providing the opportunities for citizen par- of Housing and Urban Development ticipants to present their views need not be a costly procedure. League members have considerable experience in reviewing and comment- The Department of Housing and Urban ing on a wide range of subjects-from govern- Development appreciates the opportunity to ment regulations on water quality to housing. comment on the Advisory Commission on Inter- Very often these reviews are conducted by mail, governmental Relation's draft report on citizen with respondents returning their written com- participation, and we apologize for the delay in ments by a given deadline. We are certain that the submitting our comments to you. Commission can find citizen participants who First, we would like to commend the staff of the will gladly cooperate in the effort of broadening Commission for the excellent research and the the base of opinion impacting on the final report. arduous efforts in identifying and codifying the We also ask that the Commission provide history and background of citizen participation sufficient time-we suggest 60 days-for in this country and in federal programs. Your representatives of citizen participants to review treatment of theories, forms, and purposes of the ACIR draft report and prepare comments. citizen participation provide the needed context Characteristically, citizen participants are to assess objectively citizen participation volunteers, whose other duties preclude full-time history, trends, and implications. attention to the review of government draft The Department accepts a strengthened ver- reports. It takes citizens groups a number of days sion of the recommendation which proposed to place the draft in the hands of people who are variegated simplification of federal citizen par- most qualified to review it. Then too, most citizen ticipation requirements. We can not support or participants often need time to insure that their endorse those recommendations which address: comments reflect the consensus of their group. (a) abolishing federal aid requirements for, or (b) Finally, the league would like to request that designating an Executive Branch agency to the Commission accept our written comments on oversee citizen participation. It is our position the draft report in a minimum of 30, but that citizens should be afforded the opportunity refer ably 60 days. A full draft of the report was to participate in administrative as well as politi- not made available to us until December 6. In cal decisionmaking processes which have the potential of, or will impact on, their lives. Since requires major commitments from local public this is assumed to be a right of all citizens, special officials, from staff members and from citizens. efforts must be taken to assure that persons traditionally or systematically excluded from Recommendation 2A participatory processes have the opportunity to ABOLITION OF MOST FEDERAL AID participate. However, this does not relieve REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZEN locally elected officials of their responsibilities PARTICIPATION for program development, administration, and This is the most extreme of the draft report's implementation. recommendations and is the least acceptable to A recent study conducted by Lawrence John- HUD. Among the major deficiencies of this son and Associates, Inc.: Citizen Participation in recommendation are: Community Development: A Catalog of Local Approaches identifies exemplary and innovative It ignores the essential need to assure approaches to citizen participation in 31 com- citizens affected the most by federal develop- munities receiving Community Development ment assistance programs the opportunity to Block Grants. The citizen participation require- be involved in these programs during all ments of the CDBG program and the catalog phases, i.e., planning, program delivery, and are based on the proposition that rebuilding evaluation. urban areas and preserving and revitalizing It overlooks the weak role state govern- urban communities requires the advice and ments have played regarding their citizen commitment of citizens. The involvement of participation policies and actions. 355 residents and other citizens in planning and It does not recognize that certain groups and implementing community development projects members of our society must be given special is an essential step in creating greater local gov- emphasis so that their needs are adequately ernment responsiveness to the needs of the addressed. Citizen participation is one major people who live in such areas and who depend on means of accomplishing this. them for basic services. Citizen participation It is inconsistent with national urban objec- processes are one avenue for citizens to use to tives which call for a partnership of all levels improve their environments. of government, the private sector, neighbor- The research demonstrates the level and value hood representatives, of citizen involvement at the local level. Exam- and citizens in addressing community needs. ples of effective citizen participation include Lincoln, NE, where neighborhood associations Recommendation 2B are involved in preparing neighborhood plans which allows residents to take a positive step in A POSITIVE AND CONSISTENT determining the future of their neighborhoods. In FEDERAL POLICY Spokane, WA, a citizens committee monitors While the thrust of this recommendation is implementation of the CDBG projects they laudable, it is an unrealistic solution for both approved as members of a 15-member communi- HUD and the Administration. Among its weak- ty development task force. The community nesses are: development task force is the main policymaking body of the CDBG program. The citizen It calls for a new high-level structure to participation process in Nashville, TN, is a assure consistent administration of federal relatively unstructured process and relies heavi- citizen participation requirements. This ly on informal communication. They held many ignores Administration's policy to avoid public meetings which allowed citizens to proliferation of federal agencies and creates become involved in the process; citizens are another layer of federal bureaucracy. provided the opportunity to make statements It does not reflect the key issues identified in directly to city officials and neighborhood groups the HUD citizen participation report such as work closely with city officials on particular what programs would be affected, how CDBG projects. citizen participation differs at various gov- Citizen participation is not without difficul- ernmental levels, or how citizen participation ties. An effective citizen participation process should be defined. The notion of anUOmnibusCitizenParticipa- guarding against administrative agen- tion Act" does have some merits, but should cies' exploitation of citizen participa- be carefully drafted given the complexity of tion; (d) avoiding the creation of un- the citizen participation issues. realistically high hopes regarding the satisfactions and benefits to be reaped Recommendation 2C from citizen participation by using VARIEGATED SIMPLIFICATION OF more effective methods of citizen par- FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ticipation. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Thank you for the opportunity to comment on This option is the most promising. It recognizes your report. the need to review the inconsistencies among various federal citizen participation re- Statement quirements rather than removal of all federal citizen participation requirements. To ac- Submitted for the Record By complish such simplification a high-level interagency group should be formed whose objective would be to establish a common set of federal Dorothy Height citizen participation requirements. Such a group President could be part of the White House Interagency Alliance for Volunteerism Coordinating Committee and could achieve the 356 simplification either through an Executive Order, a new omnibus piece of legislation or both. AsPresident of the Alliance for Volunteerism, We urge the Commission to adopt a policy a coalition of 19 national organizations represen- statement on general citizen participation ting some ten-million citizens concerned with policies along the following lines: developing meaningful forms of public participation and volunteerism in this country, I am Citizen participation is said to have at distressed about many features of the process least two significant impacts on the effective culminating in this week's series of "critics functioning of government: (1)strengthening sessions" on the document pertaining to citizen of citizen trust in, and support for, govern- participation requirements at the federal ment, and (2) the improvement of program program level. Although the alliance does not yet performance. In our judgement, there is no have a copy of the recommendations, the purpose doubt that citizen participation in some of my letter is to make some observations to the cases, does have (and in others could have) Commission members with regard to this process these effects. The Department therefore to date, as I understand it, as well as offer recommends that governments at all levels: recommendations for future action by the Ad- 1) provide sufficient authority, respon- visory Commission on Intergovernmental sibility, resources, commitment, and Relations. The alliance became aware of the leadership for effective citizen par- activities of the Commission this week through ticipation in governmental programs; the League of Women Voters which, so far as I am and that aware, is the only organization of citizen- 2) legislative and executive branches of volunteers providing testimony on Thursday, all levels of government, when December 7. In fact, I understand that they were providing in legislation and ad- added to the agenda only after another scheduled ministrative practice for citizen in- participant found it necessary to withdraw. volvement, exercise caution in (a) While I do not take issue with the abilities or identifying the types of programs in experience of those organizations and persons which citizens are empowered to par- you have asked to participate in the critics ticipate and share in decisionmaking; sessions, I do take issue with the fact that the (b) defining the particular groups of Commission and staff appear to have made little citizens whose participation is needed or no effort to significantly expand the oppor- to assure fair equitable representation tunities for citizen participation in the design of of all significantly affected groups; (c) citizen participation standards and guidelines! These omissions occurred not only in the area of wide variety of individuals and citizen participants in the hearing, but also in the organizations who are anxious and capable scheduling of deliberations of the Commission of making meaningful contributions to your providing insufficient time to those that had been deliberations. The Alliance would be invited to review a comprehensive document. pleased to assist the Commission in de- Therefore, I urge the commission to take the veloping a list and procedures for contact- following actions on Thursday, December 6: ing citizen organizations on this matter, as well as other matters before the Commission postpone consideration of the recommen- that impact on both the process and sub- dations contained in the s tudy until your stance of citizen participation. I am confi- next meeting which, I understand, is dent that our board of directors and ex- scheduled for March 1979; perienced staff would be most agreeable to consult with a variety of individuals and give of their time and talent to this end. organizations regarding; a) who should be sent copies of the study, The Commission has before it an important b) who should be invited to submit further opportunity to contribute to the quality of debate testimony or critiques; and the resolution of issues and process pertaining to public participation. We are pleased to mail additional copies of your study to a offer our assistance in nurturing a new considerably expanded list of citizen- partnership between the private and public critics; sectors. I look forward to hearing from you, 357 allow at least 45 days from the time of following Thursday's hearing and critics session. dissemination of the study to the hearing or To that end I have designated the executive deadline to receive written responses; and director of the alliance, Mrs. Susan R. Greene, as hold a series of major hearings on these the primary contact on this matter. For your recommendations designed to significantly information, I have also enclosed materials on the expand the Commission's contact with a Alliance which I believe you will find useful.

a U S. WVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE . 1980 623-37111441