The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

Improving Performance and Accountability in Local Government with Citizen Participation

Pamela D. Gibson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA
Donald P. Lacy, The Ohio State University, USA
Michael J. Dougherty, West Virginia University, USA
One of the important challenges in the new millennium will be to find successful ways to engage
the public in shaping the communities of the future. Building upon the social capital in a
community will be essential. Many indicators suggest that levels of civic engagement, civic
participation, and civic trust declined during the last two decades of the 20th century. The decline
in participation and trust revolve, in part, around the issues of programmatic and individual
performance as well as the accountability of decision makers and individuals for outcomes and
actions. It will no longer be sufficient for public officials and local governments to demonstrate
efficiency (doing more with less) and sound business principles (MBO, TQM, and High
Performance). They must go further to demonstrate their accountability for the appropriate, proper
and intended use of resources.
What is the role of the citizen in a democratic society? The question is more than 2,400 years old
and the debates on the topic have been lively. It is time to make a shift in the public participation
paradigm as we move into a new century. The need to make the shift is created not because the old
paradigms have failed but because the evolution of the civic culture has created a new operating
environment for public officials and it demands a paradigm shift. The challenge is to shift the
paradigm of the political system from the expert/professional model with institutional and
functional separation of powers, roles, responsibilities and duties to one that integrates the citizen
into every aspect of governance. The traditional paradigm provides for linkages to citizens
primarily through electoral politics, public opinion polls, customer satisfaction surveys, public
hearings, organized group activities, and individual contacts. Consultation in the traditional
paradigm is largely passive, while involvement is episodic.
From the early 19th century, two trends have dominated the political participation landscape in
western democracies. One of those trends has been the expansion of the franchise to include
previously excluded categories of residents. The other trend has been the evolution of institutions
that control access to political power such as political parties, interest groups, and entrenched
bureaucracies. Further, the expansion of the franchise and the growth in population has reinforced
the Federalists arguments for a republican form of government with elected representatives making
decisions and citizens relegated to voting or other forms of participation such as public hearings,
forums, petitions, protests, and service on volunteer boards, commissions, or similar types of
activities. Political parties and other institutions for engaging citizens are very focused upon
engineering majorities and minimizing the costs (especially time) associated with too much direct
involvement. Government institutions are likewise reluctant to bear the costs associated with
widespread engagement activities. Thus, the role of the citizen as an engaged partner in the
governing process has been supplanted by governing through positional and organizational leaders
who are bound by rules, procedures and traditions that leaves governing to the experts. (Gibson
and Lacy, 2002). Citizens play a secondary role in setting agendas, developing budgets,
implementing programs, or evaluating outcomes. Further, citizens have only minimal information
about the details of the public's business except in an episodic manner often caused by some news
story that focuses national, state, or local attention on an issue. The result in the minds of many
citizens is that a wide gulf exists between the expectations associated with democratic theory and
the practice of democracy in community governance.
1

Page 1 of 12

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

Many community and public leaders as well as many public officials are beginning to realize that
public participation is important in an environment where the citizens have a diminished trust in
government and are demanding more accountability from public officials (Parr and Gates, 1989).
Chrislip and Larson (1994) contend that the push for reform is a response to demands from citizens
for an authentic role in improving their communities. Created by frustration with the status quo,
[c]itizens begin to collaborate because nothing else is working to address their concerns. And
nothing else is working because there are significant obstacles or barriers to change that civic and
political leadership, as traditionally practiced, have failed to overcome (15).
A study by the Kettering Foundation (1989) indicated that public administrators want relationships
with citizens but found that they create delays and increase red tape. In turn, citizens felt that when
their input was sought, it was rarely used to make administrative decisions. Some citizens felt that
their concerns would be heard only if they organized into angry activist groups.
In an alternative paradigm, citizens would play a significant role at the strategic vision level. The
professional literature and the participation awards from local government associations are filled
with examples of significant levels of community involvement in various activities from strategic
planning and visioning to single purpose activities in functional areas such as economic
development, education, land use, and recreation. Administrators, elected officials, and community
leaders have found that institutionalized neighborhood participation in the policy processes results
in a more informed, effective, and participatory citizenry (Berry, Portney, and Thompson; 1993). In
Nalbandians research on new roles for local government managers, responding professionals said
they could foresee a future in which citizens are fully engaged in local governance through
organizations such as neighborhood councils and would increasingly take over many of the
responsibilities traditionally associated with city councils and administrators such as setting
priorities and evaluating service delivery (1999, 190).
The first change in an alternative paradigm must occur at the conceptual level where the publics
business is the publics business. In the conceptual shift community residents will be actively
encouraged to participate, invited into the process, and fully armed with the knowledge and
information to make participation meaningful. Citizens will help define community goals, develop
agendas, develop strategic initiatives, participate in and review implementation procedures, actively
participate in the measurement of progress, and in assessing impacts of programs.
At the operational level, public officials will be engaged more frequently and effectively with
citizens to understand the desires and expectations of community residents. In the new paradigm,
the moral imperative for engaging community residents will shift to public administrators and
managers. This holistic conceptualization will require effective managerial leadership outside the
policy implementation and management box.
Measures of performance and accountability traditionally have been the primary concern and
central focus of public managers and administrators. They focused on short-term financial
management and control in which accountability was defined in terms of accountants, budget
analysts, and financial directors. Recently however, governments have extended their accountability
focus to include concern for long-term management issues and public sector
performance (Andrews, 2001, 10). Durant contends that accountability must be built into the entire
program structure (1999). Results from his research with the Maryland County Department of
Health and Human Services indicate that reforms must be made to link strategy and structure, to
think strategically about anticipating and overcoming obstacles, and to focus on processes rather
than tasks (331).
Page 2 of 12
2

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

Kearns, however, offers a more useful interpretation of accountability and performance. The
approach embraces a broader conception of accountabilityone that is perhaps messier than the
precise operational definitions, but probably more consistent with the popular usage of the term
(1996, 9). He contends that the popular view includes much more than the formal processes
normally associated with the terms. He advances the proposition that:
the term accountability generally refers to a broad spectrum of public
expectations dealing with organizational performance, responsiveness, and
even morality of government and nonprofit organizations. These
expectations often include implicit performance criteriarelated to
obligations and responsibilitiesthat are subjectively interpreted and
sometimes even contradictory (9).
The creation of the broader definition based upon popular interpretation provides a plausible
explanation for part of the disconnect and distrust that citizens have toward their governments.
Behn broadens the definition of accountability to include not only financial accountability,
accountability for fairness (democratic governance), and accountability for performance, adding
a fourth dimension as well: accountability for personal probity which requires incorporation of
citizen interests into the accountability framework (2001). Governments have internalized the
concepts of accountability and performance in such a way that citizens do not perceive that
public actions often conform to the popular expectations. The concept advanced by Kearns
(1990) fits more closely into popular expectations and perceptions about the nature of the social
compact. Some scholars have found the broader view of accountability to be useful especially
for overcoming some of the problems associated with traditional models of the governance
process. Stivers calls these changed relationships active accountability:
Administrative legitimacy requires active accountability to citizens, from whom the ends of
government derive. Accountability, in turn, requires a shared framework for the interpretation
of basic values, one that must be developed jointly by bureaucrats and citizens in real-world
situations, rather than assumed. The legitimate administrative state, in other words, is one
inhabited by active citizens (247).
For the broader interpretation of accountability and performance to be useful and to satisfy
popular interpretations of the terms, the entire governance paradigm needs to be redesigned.
While a paradigm shift and a redesign of process is important, leaders and public agencies must
actively develop and use a wider variety of means and methods to inform and engage the public in
public business. Leaders must find ways to engage all citizens by developing better and more
frequent use of old tools such as surveys, advisory committees, performance review committees,
and community forums to make participation more meaningful. The development of electronic
communication and instant messaging hold great promise for the future if developed properly.
Public access cable television has been around for a while, but public officials increasingly must
make more effective use of web sites, chat rooms, electronic bulletin boards, electronic town halls,
email and a myriad of other tools to communicate with, inform, and engage citizens. Decisionmakers must be better prepared to meet the expectations and demands for higher standards of
accountability and accessibility in the electronic age. Direct democracy offers the opportunity not
only for citizens to become more informed but also for leaders, planners, and officials to ascertain
what programs and decisions are important to citizens and to demonstrate and communicate
performance and accountability in more meaningful ways.
Page 3 of 12
3

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

Schachter (1997) challenges us to view ourselves as owners of government, not mere customers of
public services. Box (1998) advocates a citizen governance model of conducting the publics
business. King and Stivers (1998) advance a model related to Boxs also placing citizens at the
center of the governing process playing an authentic role in policy formation. Chrislip and Larson
(1994) advocate a fundamental orientation to public policy setting built on a collaborative
relationship between citizens, elected public officials and public managers. At the heart of this
discussion is an examination of the relationship between citizens, elected officials and public
managers.
Nalbandian (1994 and 1999), Golbembiewski and Gabris (1994), and Roberts (1997) also have
furthered the discussion of governmental reform by focusing on the role of public managers. As
citizen expectations for government and their role in government processes change, public leaders
will be challenged to respond to those changes.
Drawing on both Schlesingers cycles of political history model and Kaufmans model of shifts in
public values, Box contends that these larger trends are mirrored at the local level. He maintains
that we are currently on the down slope of a long wave of local government reform, headed toward
an uncertain destination (1998, 18). What are the implications of this push for governmental
reform? According to Box, it means redefinition of roles and processes of creating and
implementing policy that are citizen centered rather than bureaucracy centered (19). Thus, the
current period of governmental reform focusing on changing the relationship between citizens and
government serves as a springboard for developing the concept of citizen governance. Indeed, an
enhanced concept of governance forms the foundation of Boxs model of public management.
Governance includes citizens, elected public officials, and public managers. That model is built on
an expanded concept of governance that he refers to as the way citizens, representatives, and
practitioners can join together in governing communities so that the strengths of each are brought to
bear in addressing the challenges of the next century (19).
Models of Community Planning and Engagement
For the engaged community to develop, grow and flourish, professional administrators and
managers must play a key role in the process to bridge the gap between traditional theory of
governing and the practice of governing an engaged community. To support this argument consider
the following proposition about the governance process as we usually experience it.
Elected officials are focused most often upon engineering the calculus of majorities and building
majority coalitions through electoral politics. Their goal is to seek followers and build a support
base. Rarely are their goals to create partners in the governing processes. Professional
administrators and managers must play the critical role in bridging the gap between the theory and
practice of democratic governance. Public servants will need to guide elected officials through the
mazes of citizen engagement while at the same time developing, fostering and nurturing the civic
participation processes in their governments. A dilemma that every public sector administrator
faces is that of the appropriate role for their activities. The Codes of Ethics and Standards of
Conduct from professional associations such as the International City/County Management
Association and the American Society for Public Administration raise several red flags that cause
some administrator to limit their active roles with citizen engagement processes. Both conduct
standards and ethics codes caution public sector managers about direct involvement in local politics.
The challenge arises when administrators and managers try to provide leadership during situations
where communities are divided and in conflict. In practice, however, local government
Page 4 of 12
4

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

administrators are already engaged in facilitative leadership at the community level, and for some it
has become comfortable.
Many communities are involved in some forms of community engagement processes that involve
residents in various aspects of the governance process. Virtually every local government is either
required or empowered to appoint advisory committees. These citizen committees are most often
appointed in specific sectors to provide advice on specific issues such as land use planning, zoning,
recreation, transportation, economic development, and sometimes on budget and finance.
Occasionally, and more often as a sporadic response to local situations, communities will engage in
a more comprehensive strategic planning processes that engage a larger number of citizens in
processes that are apart from the formal advisory structure. These broader community strategic or
comprehensive planning process have not been studied as systematically as many of the sector
specific planning processes. There are numerous case studies of the typical advisory or sector
planning processes such as economic development, land use and recreation. Yet, there are few
attempts to develop a systematic body of knowledge of local strategic or comprehensive planning
processes that engage the community in non-traditional planning processes.
Several years ago, a team of educators whose members provided programs to assist community
leaders and decision makers in the process of community strategic planning began to explore the
circumstances and conditions that surround the dynamics of community planning. The initial study
was defined by team members in their roles as participant observers in projects with more than forty
local governments in Virginia. The initial results for the framework were presented at a conference
in Richmond, Virginia. (Lacy, Dougherty, Gibson and Miller, 1993). In 2002, a revised version of
the model was presented at a Conference on Community Resource and Economic Development in
Orlando, FL. The various approaches observed among the local governments involved in this study
illustrate the power of the participatory process.
During the study of the selected strategic planning efforts, a number of important indicators were
identified to help evaluate the processes. These included the reason the process was initiated, who
initiated it, and the likely outcomes. The process may be initiated to create a common community
agenda or it may be used as a means to build teamwork among a locality's administrative staff. The
process may be initiated by a member of the organization's governing board and/or by its Chief
Administrative Officer (CAO). The process is most likely to be used following a change in the
organization's political or administrative leadership or when the community is facing an operational
environment that is either in crisis or stagnant. Finally, the process may produce a document
designed to guide the future development of programs and policies. Alternatively, the process may
be designed to provide for a significant reduction in the amount of conflict, tension and stress that
might exist either between or within three basic decision centers members of the governing body,
the administrative team and staff, and/or the community. The resultant classification of models of
engagement includes four broad types of engagement that are discussed in the paragraphs that
follow.
The traditional model is the managerial model. It is the most common of the four strategic
planning models and is closely related to those strategic planning models found in the private
sector. It is top down, follows fairly rigid prescribed steps, is very linear in its application and
provides very little room for meaningful stakeholder participation. The process is initiated by the
community's CAO in order to accomplish one or more of the following purposes:
1. to build a common agenda;
2. to develop greater interaction and communication between members of the administrative
team;
Page 5 of 12
5

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

3. to create a feeling of ownership towards the agenda for the members of the administrative
team; and
4. to develop and enhance teamwork.
This form of strategic planning is used most frequently when it occurs within six to nine months
following a change in the organization's administrative leadership, or anytime after there has been
substantial turnover in key members of the organization's administrative staff. It is most effective
when an organization exists in a very stable or stagnant operational environment that provides little
motivation to search for innovative approaches to solve problems.
A second model is the legislative model. The second most widely used model, it usually is initiated
to develop an action agenda to guide and direct the decisions of the organization's governing body
and administrative team. Usually the organization's CAO and one or more members of the
governing body initiate the process. It is most effective if used when the organization exists in an
operating environment experiencing either rapid growth or significant decline, and the organization
lacks an agenda for action. This second model of local government strategic planning is initiated to
accomplish any combination of the following seven goals:
1. to develop a common agenda;
2. to explore the operational styles and establish operational guidelines;
3. to create understanding between the organization's governing body and its chief
administrative officer;
4. to develop greater interaction and communication between members of the organizations
governing body and its chief administrative officer;
5. to develop and enhance teamwork;
6. to develop community acceptance buy-in of an agenda for use by the organization's
governing body and administrative team as a guide for making decisions and distributing
resources; or
7. to reaffirm and further legitimize an already existing agenda.
In some variations the process is initiated by members of the community's governing body. Under
these circumstances the locality's CAO and administrative staff are likely to be actively involved in
promoting the process. This type of application usually occurs when members of the local
governing body have held office for an extended period. It is most effective when the organization
exists in either a stable or stagnant operational environment with no signs of crisis. The results and
outcomes of the strategic planning process in this situation include: the development of an agenda;
the development of community acceptance, or buy-in of that agenda; and the legitimization of
decisions made by the community's governing body and/or administrative team.
A third model is the limited community participation model. The process is characterized by the
appointment of a Blue Ribbon Commission, usually composed of well-known or well-positioned
community and business leaders. The select commission usually meets for a period of weeks or
months, makes a report, and dissolves. The amount of community input is very limited in most
cases with a limited number of community meetings, forums or surveys. Often the process is
initiated to achieve one or both of the following two purposes:
1. to open up the decision-making process and increase citizen participation and interaction
with the governing body; or
2. to generate harmony within the governing body and/or within the community.
Focusing on one of these two goals, members of the community's governing body usually initiate
the process. The community's CAO and administrative staff also may be involved in initiating the
Page 6 of 12
6

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

process. This type of application usually occurs when there are some mild to moderately strong
divisions between the governing body and the community. It is most effective if used when a
community is experiencing stress during times of dramatic growth or decline. The application of a
strategic planning process under these conditions typically results in the creation of a project report
(usually very general in overall character and scope); reduced stress within the governing body
and/or community; and the creation of common agenda shared between the governing body and
community. For the most part, the activities surrounding the planning process continue for 10 to 18
months. After the citizens complete a report and present it to the governing body, the strategic
planning activities begin to diminish.
The fourth model is the community empowerment model. It is built around extensive community
participation and is designed as an empowerment process to develop a community agenda and
engage the residents of the community over a long period of time. Usually the process is initiated
by a proactive governing body. The organization's administrative team may be involved, but only at
the request of the governing body. It is most effective if used when the community is not under
significant stress and when there are no "open wounds" in the body politic. Also, its effectiveness is
greatest when the community is broadly represented, and when the governing body legitimizes the
process without exercising tight control over it. This type of application typically produces the
following results and outcomes: a community agenda; a lengthy report that takes the governing
body several work sessions to discuss and consider; and community cohesion achieved through a
greater understanding of important community issues and processes. In the most successful cases an
institutionalized process to ensure continued participation by residents is established. A review
board or similar institution is created to provide for regular monitoring of the progress toward the
goals that were established during the process.
Engaged Communities
More recent examples of different forms of engagement from three states have been selected to
illustrate the variety of forms of planned citizen engagement processes where community residents
were encouraged to participate at every level.
In a recent project designed to help rural communities in Virginia develop the capacities needed to
prosper in the Information Age economy, seven counties participated in this multi-faceted project in
which citizens were given the leadership and technology training to run their own community
networks (for a complete description of the project and evaluation, see http://top.bev.net). Whereas
the immediate purpose of the project was to improve economic conditions through business listings
and a virtual business incubator, it was the citizen visioning meetings, the discussion forum, and
new access to governmental pages that stirred citizen dialogue. In many of these counties, citizens
were given their first opportunity to ask questions about board agendas, the local school pages, and
local government committees. Not only did they begin to ask questions, local leaders soon
discovered that they were accountable for updating information and had to respond to this new
electronic medium.
Coshocton County Ohio is another example of extensive efforts to inform and engage the
community in the processes of developing a land use plan for the county. A Commission on Future
Land Uses was appointed by the County Commissioners. The Commission, in turn, recruited more
than 100 citizens to serve on Task Forces to prepare recommendations for 11 key areas of concern
for land use. The meetings of the Commission and the Task Forces were announced on weekly
radio programs and in weekly newspaper columns. The Commission took the initiative to post
reports of each task force on The Ohio State University County Extension web site. The revised
Page 7 of 12
7

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

reports were posted periodically along with scheduled meetings so that interest citizens could stay
informed during the 14 month process. Such processes of using traditional committees structures,
newspapers, radio, and community meetings that are supplement with current electronic
communication provide an insight into a new wave of possibilities of informing and engaging
citizens.
The Ritchie County Development Authority in the Ohio River Valley of West Virginia decided to
hold public meetings around the county it served. About 115 people participated in these sessions,
with three of the meetings drawing over 30 people. While the overall document developed
through the engagement process was not much different than if had been developed solely by the
authority's board of directors, ideas put forth by residents were reflected throughout. This led
to some different ideas literally the last statement at the last meeting was something that had not
been discussed previously and was incorporated into the plan. It also has increased the legitimacy
and acceptance of the plan in the small, rural county. This in turn has permitted the development
authority to seek project partners both among other organizations in the county as well as on a
regional basis in its efforts to follow the recommendations put forth in the plan.
Nicholas County in central West Virginia has recently concluded an eight-month strategic
planning process to help determine its future direction. A select group of about 35 key individuals
representing virtually every major concern was appointed to the Strategic Planning Committee by
the County Commission. This group met in four work sessions three to draft the plan and one to
finalize it. The ideas and energy are reflected in a strategic plan that has been accepted by the
County Commission and is expected to serve as a guide to the entire community.
Morrow County, Ohio, used an extensive process during six months to engage more than seventy
five residents in a process to develop an economic development plan for the county. Extensive
community survey work supplemented the numerous community meetings. The result was a plan
that was adopted with considerably informed community support.
There are numerous examples of states and localities involving citizens in their planning processes.
In the cases of the states of Minnesota and Oregon, the cities of Gresham, Oregon and Scottsdale,
Arizona and Hillsboro County, Florida, strategic planning, budgeting, and benchmarking are
combined into some of the best examples of broad based approaches to incorporating citizens or
stakeholders into the process. In each case, regular reviews of strategic goals and progress are
conducted. Citizens are heavily involved in the processes of planning, budgeting, and evaluating
progress. These five instances provide good examples of citizen engagement in strategic planning
linked to budgets, benchmarks, and monitored by citizen review boards. In addition, each of these
efforts has identified new governance processes in which citizens are improving governmental
accountability through their participation.
Developing Patterns of Community Engagement
An examination of the various cases of community engagement provides some useful lessons about
those factors and conditions that contribute to the success of engagement processes.
Flexibility is one of the key ingredients for establishing a successful community engagement
process for any form of community planning. Each community or public sector organization with
its unique blend of stakeholders/citizens, strengths/weaknesses, and decision-making
roles/responsibilities must design and implement a process that will work effectively in its particular
Page 8 of 12
8

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

environment. A community that begins an engagement process must be prepared to modify

whatever initial model is developed to guide the process. The group dynamics that often emerge
during an engagement process are likely to alter different steps and objectives in the process. It
may even be necessary to alter the timetables established for completing the process.
Further, developing widely accepted measures of success or progress is essential for sustaining
community planning processes. The process must have a structure in which evaluation and
accountability are part of the long term process for sustaining increased levels of engagement.
Unless community residents can see evidence that their participation has meaning and produces
results, a greater degree of cynicism and withdrawal are likely to become part of the community
landscape.
Planning initiatives must have renewal mechanisms built into the processes if they are to have
longevity. Provisions must be made for some form of progress review board or independent
oversight committee to continually monitor progress toward defined goals and strategic objectives.
Further, the process should provide mechanisms to engage community residents in periodic reviews
of the work from the original planning process by using a process similar to the original planning
process. The emphasis on engagement and participation must be as strong as during the initial
process. The timeframe for the review process can be shorter since the review would be based upon
the work and documents from the earlier initiative. Too often there is little systematic effort to
sustain the interest and momentum generated during the original planning process. It is not
uncommon to hear community residents who are invited to participate in a community planning
process say something like: We have done that before and nothing has happened, or Why should
we bother? Nothing happened the last time we did this! Residents most know that the process will
continue through annual reviews and periodic periods of broadened engagement. Further, it is
important to provide opportunities for those who want to continue to participate in some meaningful
way to work toward the identified goals and objectives.
Too little attention is paid to the details of the types of leadership that are needed to create a
successful effort to facilitate community engagement process. When appointments are made to the
Commission on the Future, the Strategic Planning Committee, or the Steering Committee, it
is important for the appointing authorities to treat their appointment decisions as personnel
decisions with the same interest and concerns used to hire fulltime staff. Considerable time must be
devoted to finding a broad representative mix of knowledgeable residents who are known to have
the ability to work in a collaborative manner with others even in circumstances where they may
disagree with the final decision. Selecting individuals with the appropriate leadership qualities are
necessary to build a successful engagement process. Without good leadership, the community
engagement process likely will not produce the desired result nor will it lead to a sustained process
of engagement.
Thus, we have found that the governance process in which community planning is combined with
benchmarking and performance monitoring, is a vital link for reconnecting citizens through the
participatory process and for developing a more visible measure of accountability. Performance
measures and benchmarks can be used effectively to build higher levels of trust among residents.
We contend that these measures must be developed through negotiated processes where community
residents are actively engaged to define desired outcomes, expected accomplishments, and
acceptable results. Communities and governmental organizations that engage residents and partner
with them in all aspects of programming and policy making to define performance standards and
measures of success will enhance, in very significant ways, public perception of accountability.
9

Page 9 of 12

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

Morse suggests that we need to build new patterns of civic interaction. She believes that, [t]here
are capacities that exist in every community that hold strong potential for building new patterns of
interaction that can renew our sense of responsibility and commitment to each other (1996, 2).
Implied in these new patterns of civic interaction is the need for an expanded concept of citizenship.
The convergence of a new leadership paradigm and demands by citizens for an authentic role in
public decision-making calls upon the institutions of government and public officials to nurture
these newly emerging sets of expectations of individual citizens and to build the intellectual,
cultural and institutional infrastructure to support the expectations of consultation and engagement.
Also, implied in Morses observation is the need for action, for a fully engaged pool of citizens.
Citizenship demands more of us than voting, indeed, we need to be reminded that Democracy is
not something that is, but something you do (Center for Democracy and Citizenship, 1995, 2).
Morses statement also encompasses the concept of community and concern for the well being of
the community as a whole. In short, parochial interests must be weighed against the interests of a
much broader community.
Making a shift in the paradigm as an intellectual construct is likely to be less of a problem than
convincing elected officials and the public that there is reason to participate in a process that
provides no assurances that something productive will result from the process. Programs that are
designed to increase participation for the sake of participation are not likely to meet the criteria of
meaningful. Likewise, as Rosener observes, mandating participation does not provide the
assurance that quality participation will occur (1978, 462). The expanded concept of citizen
participation must permeate the entire governance processes. Leaders in this new paradigm must
utilize important civic skills such as: group formation and dynamics; problem solving orientation in
group processes; active listening; willingness to accept differing views; and a mind-set that
recognizes that public decision-making is messy and often contentious. Programs that rest solely on
satisfaction surveys, benchmarking practices, or even electronic interaction provide only the limited
possibilities available. Performance and Accountability must become everyones responsibility in
an expanded governance society. However, if citizens and leaders alike approach public processes
with an eye toward the common good, the result can be very rewarding. Indeed, it can form the
basis for strong and vibrant communities. By opening the entire governance structure to public
participation through agenda setting, strategic planning, program evaluation, and monitoring,
democratic governance can become a permanent part of our civic culture.
Perhaps there is greater reason for optimism than reflected in the assessment by Box (1998) just a
few years ago that we are on the down slope of a long wave of local government reform (5). The
blending together of traditional models of engagement with the potential of the electronic media is
just beginning to feed and strengthen the engagement process. One of the interesting undercurrents
during the past two decades has been the growing number of community groups, neighborhood
associations and civic associations that have become standard features of many local landscapes.
As these civic associations and local engagement groups mature the process of engagement will
have a more formalized infrastructure just outside, but connected to, the governance structures of
communities.
Many communities, such as Columbus, Ohio, have developed formal neighborhood governance
structures that are staffed and supported by the city, but left to make local decisions or
recommendations and function independently of city hall. The engaged community, often born in
single issue protests, is only in its infancy. However, it appears that many of these single
issue/episodic engagement processes have morphed into avenues for public officials to reach out
and tap citizen interests, energy and knowledge. These transformed civic impulses have become
part of the more formalized infrastructure of civic engagement where citizens are brought in the
Page 10 of 12
10

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

governance structure through committees, commissions and task forces or have become part of
formalized neighborhood or civic associations. Only time will tell if the engaged community trend
can be sustained.
About the Authors:
Pamela Gibson has worked in the area of Community Development and Governmental Operations
for Virginia Tech since 1989. During this time, she has developed and conducted seminars and
workshops to support local, regional, state, and community operations. Pams passion is citizen
participation and leadership development in community planning programs. pgibson@vt.edu
Donald Lacy is an Associate Professor and the State Leader, Government and Community Services
with The Ohio State University Extension, Community Development Program. His program
development and research have focused on strategic planning; community involvement/citizen
participation; leadership development; performance evaluation; and benchmarking. lacy.22@osu.edu
Michael Dougherty is an Assistant Professor/Extension Specialist with the West Virginia
University Extension Service. He has been there for 10 years. In that capacity, Dougherty works
with local governments and community organizations on a variety of issues related to
administration, finances, and planning. His research interests include strategic planning and
budgeting and financial management. Michael.Dougherty@mail.wvu.edu
Sources:
Andrews, M. 2001. Adjusting external audits to facilitate results-oriented
government. International Journal of Government Auditing 28(2):10-13.
Behn, R. D. 2001. Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC, Brookings Institution
Press.
Berry, J. M, K. E. Portney, and K. Thomson., 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy, Washington
DC: Brookings Institution.
Box, R. C. 1998. Citizen Governance: Leading American Communities into the 21st Century.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Center for Democracy and Citizenship. http://www.publicwork.org/1_0_about.html
Chrislip, D.D. and C. E. Larson. 1994. Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders
Can Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Durant, R. F. 1999. The Political Economy of Results-Oriented Management in the NeoAdministrative State: Lessons from the MCDHHS Experience. American Review of Public
Administration, 29(4):307-331.
Golembiewski, R. T., and G. T. Gabris. 1994. Todays City Managers: A Legacy of SuccessBecoming-Failure. Public Administration Review 54(6): 525-530.

11

Page 11 of 12

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal Volume 10(1).

Kearns, K. P. 1996. Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Public and
Nonprofit Organizations San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc
Kettering Foundation. 1989. The Publics Role in the Policy Process: A View from State and Local
Policy Makers. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.
King, C. S. and C. Stivers. 1998. Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government
Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lacy, D. P., M. J. Dougherty, P. D. Gibson, and M. D. Miller. 1993. Strategic Planning:
Alternative Models To Empower Communities". Presented at the American Society for Public
Administration Region IV Conference in Richmond, Virginia, September 30, 1993.
Lacy, D. P., M. J. Dougherty, and P. D. Gibson. 2002. "Models of Community Planning".
Strengthening Communities, Enhancing Cooperative Extensions Role, National Community
Resources and Economic Development (CRED) Conference, in Orlando, Florida, February, 25,
2002. [A copy of the paper is posted at: http://srdc.msstate.edu/cred/02conf/cdm.htm]
Morse, S. W. 1996. Pew Partnership for Civic Change. Civic Partners: Building Social Trust,
available online: http://www.cpn.org/cpn/pew_partnership/civic_partners1.html
Nalbandian, J. 1999. Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy: New Roles for Local
Government Managers. Public Administration Review 59(3):187-197.
Parr, J. and C. T. Gates. 1989. Assessing Community Interest and Gathering Community
Support. In International City Management Association, eds., Partnerships in Local Governance:
Effective Council-Manager Relations. Washington, DC: International City Management
Association.
Roberts, N. 1997. Public Deliberation: An Alternative Approach to Crafting Policy and Setting
Direction. Public Administration Review 57(2):124-132.
Rosener, J. B. 1978. Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Its Effectiveness? Public
Administration Review 38(5).
Schachter, H. L. 1997. Reinventing Government or Reinventing Ourselves: The Role of Citizen
Owners in Making a Better Government, State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Stivers, C. A. 1990. Active Citizenship and Public Administration. In G. L. Wamsley et al.
Refounding Public Administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 246-273.

12

Page 12 of 12