The Manifestation of New Public Service Principles in Small-town Government: A Case Study of Grand Island,New York

Abstract

Although New Public Service (NPS) principles are well known, their practice in local government settings has only been limitedly explored. As a means of better understanding governance practices that adhere to NPS principles in local contexts, this study engaged in a case study of Grand Island, New York. Through the analysis of interviews with elected officials and civic servant department heads, it is observed that public servants practice various public engagement strategies for gauging public sentiment and interests in public policy. However, these same public servants point out the challenges of public hearings and social media to understanding their citizens. Information on public servants’ notions of accountability is observed, which relates to how they view the public’s involvement in policy processes. Recommendations for future research are provided as a means of enhancing our understanding and development of more inclusive governance practices.

Keywords

New Public Service local government public engagement in policy public servant accountability governance

A 2019 Pew study observed that public trust in government was at a sixty-year low (Pew 2019). This finding underscores a perception of government accountability and trust that is ubiquitous. Observations of government distrust support notions of a general citizenry with relatively low levels of external political efficacy in reference to influencing government actions, policy development, and day-to-day operations (Campbell et al. 1954; Converse 1972) to the extent that they believe they cannot affect their government’s business. Contributing to this sentiment, Kane (2017) argues that even in local settings, government does not necessarily concern itself with local matters.

According to the New Public Service (NPS) paradigm (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000), public servants place more value on personal, extensively local, kinds of governance that are focused on citizens and what they want rather than on what is going on at higher levels of government. Denhardt and Denhardt (2000) maintain that this focus on the local as opposed to broader macro-level political environments enriches local democratic governance, in addition to trust in local government institutions. Along these lines, Denhardt and Denhardt (2015b) argue that elected officials and civil servants need to engage their citizens in more meaningfully ways. Not only is it argued that this will enhance democratic governance, but it will also contribute to the reversal of negative views about government and trust in respective institutions (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000, 2015b; Glaser et al. 2002; Fung 2006; Kettl 2015).

Although NPS principles have been rhetorically accepted as beneficial to democratic and governance practices, their observance in the actions of local public servants has been lacking. More specifically, there is currently a lack of understanding on whether public servants practice NPS principles. Because of this lack of understanding on how NPS principles are manifested in reality, this case study observes why and how public servants use NPS governance practices within a local government setting. Using the case study of Grand Island, New York and through the analysis of face-to-face interviews with elected officials and local municipal department heads, local town practices are observed. We argue that local public servants practice NPS principles of governance, even if they are not deliberately doing so. As a result of the case study analysis, this research contributes to our understanding of participatory governance at the local level—confirming research completed in other contexts that have observed the challenges of public participation in policy processes using social media, public meetings, and/or town hall events.

Addressing a Disillusioned Public in Theory and Practice

NPS was not the first governance paradigm to be developed as a response to a disinvested public. New Public Management (NPM) developed in response to decreasing public budgets, administrative challenges, and a public that was unsatisfied with expanding public bureaucracies (Osborn and Gaebler 1992; Kettl 2015). To address these challenges, NPM sought to maximize the efficiency of public institutions by directly addressing the demands of residents (Nagel 1997). Based on the logic of NPM, anyone (i.e. customer) could participate in public decision-making whereby they were steered to particular policy prescriptions (King et al. 1998); however, as time passed and NPM practices were employed, it was observed that the powerful and most organized individuals were those that were predominantly able to express their interests to public servants and affect policy as opposed to the average citizen (Nickels and Rivera 2018). As such, Rivera and Nickels (2018) maintain that NPM perpetuated policymaking and public decision-making practices that were based on the participation of the powerful and those with resources, as opposed to being inclusive of all strata of society. In other words, NPM helped to facilitate the continuance of practices associated with “the growth machine” (Logan and Molotch 1987; Stone 1997; Catlaw and Stout 2016), where “less valuable” groups in society are excluded from policymaking (Mills 1959).

In response to NPM’s inability to meet its goals of true inclusivity, New Public Service emerged as a new paradigm. Instead of “steering” customers toward specific policy choices, NPS argues that government institutions “serve” those same individuals as citizens (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000; Light 2001). To serve the public encapsulates the notion that public organizations and policy makers are motivated predominately by the needs and concerns of citizens within their jurisdictions (King and Zanetti 2005). When public servants treat citizens with agency as opposed to clients, the public evaluates government institutions based on their contribution to broader public interests (Sandel 1996). Authentic citizen participation in the development of public interests and subsequent public policies (Denhardt and Denhardt 2015a), enhances government’s democratic legitimacy (Kettl 2015) and civic trust (Strivers 1994; Lucio 2009). Whereas public servants under the NPM paradigm were accountable to market-driven indicators, the same policy actors under NPS principles emphasize citizen-centered accountability.

Although NPS as a governance paradigm has been emphasized within public administration for more than two decades, attempts to directly measure its presence through the actions of public servants has been limited. When researchers have observed how NPS principles are being used, they typically have done so in hindsight of other research questions. Many studies that have observed the practice of NPS principles have done so alongside observing organizational attempts to include the public in policy development and implementation (Denhardt and Denhardt 2015a). Various scholars (Svara and Denhardt 2010; Hatcher 2015, 2018; Stokan and Raliegh 2018) have observed different ways in which public administrators engage the public in authentic participatory processes and their subsequent impact on civic trust. For instance, surveys have been used to solicit citizen opinions and ideas on budgets to understand how publics prefer to engage with governing institutions (Glaser et al. 2006). Alternatively, social media, crowdsourcing, online town halls, wikis, in addition to face-to-face and virtual discussion forums have provided opportunities for citizen engagement that provide authentic deliberative and participatory experiences (Nabatchi and Mergel 2010; Lukensmeyer et al. 2011; Fung 2013) that go beyond traditional interactions with the public that have damaged civic trust because they focus on one-way communication (Wang 2001; Innes and Booher 2004; Rivera and Nickels 2018). Despite the examples that these studies provide, there still is a lack of understanding on why local public servants choose to follow NPS principles.

Although there is a lack of understanding on why some public servants decide to engage the public in these ways, one characteristic of NPS that helps shed light on this is accountability. According to Dunn and Legge (2000), to whom public servants feel they are accountable explains how public policy responds to public preferences. Specifically, public servants find themselves working in situations that contain both partnerships and contractual relationships in which different actors are accountable to different entities (Pollitt 2003). Although it is accepted that public administrators’ accountability can be complex (Mass and Radaway 1959; Romzek and Ingraham 2000), this same complexity contributes to a questioning of democratic legitimacy by the public (Habermas 1975; Knox 2016). Under NPS principles, a public administrator’s authority stems from the citizenry and it is their responsibility to exercise their authority on the citizens’ behalf (Cooper 1991). To this end, accountability in NPS requires that public servants authentically interact with citizens in ways that empower them in the democratic process (Durant and Ali 2013). This empowerment also serves to inform public servants about policy options that are reflective of the public interest, which enhances the legitimacy of governmental decisions (Cayer 1986; Hejny 2019).

Based on these extant studies, there are a number of practices local public servants should practice if they are following NPS as a framework for governance. First, public servants following NPS principles will see constituents as citizens as opposed to clients. Second, public servants will actively strive to engage the public in ways that enhance their understanding of what their interests are as opposed to confirming plans that have already been developed. Third, public servants will see themselves primarily accountable to their citizens as opposed to other political principals. Although there are more characteristics that a public servant might exhibit when practicing NPS principles, these are fundamental requirements in the attempt to authentically engage the public (Denhardt and Denhardt 2015b).

Method

To meet our goal of observing the practice of NPS principles, this case study relied on semi-structured, open-ended interviews with elected officials and civil servant department heads of a small, suburban town. This method of data collection was most appropriate because it provided participants the opportunity to explore tangents germane to the study’s research questions - allowing for the collection of richer and deeper data (Hoffmann 2007; Creswell and Creswell 2018). Elected officials and civil servant department heads in Grand Island, New York were chosen for inclusion in this study because in small-town settings these individuals tend to have the most interaction with citizens while developing local policies. As such, a purposive sample was composed of these individuals because it was believed that they would have the most insight into why and how NPS principles were being expressed in governance (Etikan et al. 2016; Rivera 2018). Moreover, because the intention of this study was to observe how theory was being practiced as opposed to attempting to develop causal explanations, the purposive sample is sufficient for meeting that goal (Battaglia 2008).

Our case, Grand Island, is a town located on the Niagara River in Erie County, New York. The population of the town in 2018 was 21,194 (U.S. Census 2020). Demographically, Grand Island is composed of a generally homogenous population of about 8,288 households, 94.9 percent being White and middleclass. 95% of residents have a high school education or more, and the median household income is $80,569 (U.S. Census 2020). According to the U.S. Census (2020), Grand Island is similar to other suburbs throughout the nation and the Western New York region. Moreover, like many suburban towns throughout the country, citizens of the town typically commute into larger urban areas for employment, in this case Buffalo and Niagara Falls, New York.

Eleven interviews were conducted between the beginning of December 2019 and late January 2020 in individuals’ respective offices. Six of these interviews were comprised of all members of the Town Board and one member of the board that had been voted out of office in the November 2019 election cycle. The remaining five interviews were conducted with civil servant department heads that included the departments of Zoning/Building, Parks, Highway, the County Sheriff Detachment Chief, and the Town Clerk. Although having these two samples of respondents provides a more holistic understanding of how public servants in Grand Island practice NPS, the sampling strategy also provides the opportunity to observe possible differences between elected officials and professional public administrators. Each interview lasted about forty minutes.

Analysis and Results

In the interests of exploring how public servants practice NPS principles, a descriptive analysis was performed. The qualitative data generated through the interviews were analyzed using a framework analysis (Ritchie and Spencer 2002). A separate framework analysis was performed on data generated by elected officials and from department heads. Although the questions asked of all respondents were generally the same, analyzing the data for each of the groups separately allowed for more efficient analysis of in-group dynamics. Because findings presented here are based on a small case study sample, they are used to enhance our understanding of theoretical governance practices and verify previous empirical findings.

First, participants were asked to discuss the various ways in which they engage the public to understand their interests. All the elected officials indicated that they engage in traditional political engagement techniques. One elected official summed up the actions of their colleagues when they stated:

…door-to-door campaigning [and meetings], mailings, encouraging residents that I know to apply for Advisory Board positions and then take an active position as we have 100 advisory board members.

All elected officials indicated using public hearings, advisory board meetings, town hall meetings, and one-on-one interactions as their main interactive strategies to engage the public.

Additionally, most elected officials indicated that they also used social media, such as Facebook, to solicit interests from the public. Those that indicated that they use it, also indicated that they experienced some draw backs. One elected official stated,

…social media is huge in terms of informing residents of happenings within Town Hall. Open town government is great, but social media also brings on a lot of issues that we’re working through. Social media is super helpful though.

Similarly, another elected official indicated that outside of the actions of political campaigning and getting elected they are hesitant about social media’s utility.

…social media, I used it. I don’t intend to use it as much for the job itself because there isn’t much of a forum for discussion. I do an information sharing page, I mean, I don’t want to get into a situation [where] we’re having debates over social media where people tend to say and do things [when] they’re at a keyboard that they wouldn’t necessarily do if they were next to people they were [to] have that discussion with.

Overall, elected officials indicated that social media was something that could not be ignored, and they had to use it to some extent.

Similarly, civil servant department heads indicated that they engage the public in one-way communication, such as through the mail or face-to-face interactions. This was unlike elected town board members that indicated they engaged the public in traditional ways for political reasons. Four of the department heads indicated that their interactions with the public stemmed from an interest in building beneficial, on-going relationships with the community. Department heads expressed that their organizations engaged in outreach initiatives with local residents, provided tours of their facilities to elementary school children, administered presentations and volunteerism connections to high schoolers, in addition to holding various town events throughout the year. Generally, department heads indicated their engagement with the public followed “traditional human interactions” as opposed to virtual ones.

Second, respondents were asked how they specifically engaged citizens in the policy development process. Elected officials indicated that they included the public in the policymaking process through communicating with citizens through email, public hearings and formal face-to-face meetings. Two elected officials indicated that they regularly attempt to engage citizens in the policy process through the use of Facebook. One of these two elected officials summarily stated,

…engage people on Facebook…to ask around and get a feel for how big of a problem this was so we could determine from a policy standpoint where we wanted to head with this thing…I know a lot of times social media helped clarify things.

However, elected officials all agreed that individual face-to-face interactions were their most preferred way of engaging the citizens in the policy process. Preference for this practice stems from elected officials’ perceptions of the public related to their policy knowledge. One official summed up the perception of two others by saying,

…um education is always a big part. There is a lot of legal stuff that people seem to [not] have the information on. I’m lucky enough to have the attorneys to bounce ideas off of and spitball and stuff like that so a lot of times things don’t make sense to explain [to citizens].

Civil servant department heads also generally viewed their engagement with the public in policy development as a unidirectional education process, as opposed to bi-directional. In other words, they see that it is their job to inform the public about what is about to happen or be imposed on the town by the state, as opposed to engaging with the public to develop policies. For example, one department head explained,

…different times of the year we utilize the Grand Island Dispatch and the Isle de Grande, the internet paper. We take ads out to notify people of upcoming changes…We utilize the Town Hall website with information so people can go to the website and find out [and] ask a question…we try to be up-to-date with all the ongoing programs that we offer so that people don’t get surprised by something…. We have, you know, TV stations and the radio stations at times that we will send out a press release.

Alternatively, one department head indicated that they do engage the public in policy development through public hearings; however, they indicated that they are rare and typically cause conflict among and between residents and the department.

Third, respondents were asked to reflect on what were the most effective methods for engaging citizens in these processes. All the elected officials indicated that one-on-one, face-to-face meetings were the most effective mode of engaging citizens in the policy process. One individual summed up the opinions of the others when they said,

…as much as I…I will never hinder a public hearing. And, I always like people to come to them…I prefer when [we] can speak…I’d rather have a one-on-one conversation and keep them after for a talk.

Another elected official stated their preference by saying, “I’ve had it where customers come in, you know citizens, come in and sit in the chair where you are and we’ll talk about this or that.” Another official explained their perception that in-person engagement in the policy process was most effective because “They [seniors citizens] might not all email and the way they’re going to give feedback is through conversation.” However, most of the officials also acknowledged that interaction in policy is situational.

Alternatively, elected public servants were less direct about their perceptions of what was less effective. Two elected officials discussed their frustration with public hearings and town halls. They indicated that engaging the public in scripted ways does not lead to constructive conversations. Both officials partly attributed the lack of effectiveness of public hearings to nondisclosure agreements and other legal red tape that restricts knowledge about policies from being shared with the public. Elected officials were also in agreement on the scope of people that participated in public hearings. Specifically, they indicated that typically the most “vocal” and “opinionated” individuals at meetings were not necessarily representative of citizens.

The other mode of engagement that officials viewed as ineffective was the use of social media in the policy process. One official stated,

I don’t want to say that social media is not effective…Facebook has plenty of people expressing their opinion. But, Facebook and social media generally also has plenty of people sitting silently because they’re afraid of what others will think of their opinions…I keep an eye on social media because for how bad it can get [in] those posts…they can at least give you a rough overview of what some people feel, but you have to be able to weigh those opinions accordingly.

Another official said,

We glean a lot of feedback from Facebook threads, but I’ve learned overtime that we can’t just rely on what people are willing to write online, especially over contentious issues because for every one conversation where someone is taking a stance, there’s five people who will message me privately and say, “I feel differently than this, but don’t want to put it out there in the public for everyone to see.” So, Facebook or really any social media written on public threads can be misconstrued and we always have to take and determine [opinions] based on how things are written and what the issue is.

As such, although elected officials see social media as a necessity for engaging the public, they also view it as a potentially misleading practice.

For civil servant department heads, the effectiveness of different engagement practices was not straightforward. With the exception of one department head that indicated that they occasionally have public hearings, all them indicated that their educational engagement activities seem to be effective. Alternatively, the one that indicated that they occasionally hold meetings did indicate that public engagement in that manner was effective and important to the policy process. As this department head commented,

Yeah, throughout their process, the biggest facet that is there to assist you is having the public hearing where we’re able to hear whether you’re pro or con and be able to make your personal comments to the subject…that helps an elected political body. It may help them make their decision along with recommendations that they may be getting from several advisory boards.

Fourth, respondents were asked to indicate who they perceive they should be most accountable to. All elected officials indicated citizens of the town; however, there was a differentiation made by several in reference to citizens and voters. Generally, four of the six officials expressed they saw themselves accountable to voters that elected them. For example, one official indicated,

…ultimately the people that elect you…I’m very adamant to say, “I am not above you. I am with you.” I am from the people that I am on the Board representing. I am among the people…

Additionally, another official stated that local government officials are accountable “to their voters firstly followed by property owners, and business owners in that order.” Alternatively, two officials expressed their accountability to the whole of residents living within their jurisdiction—“The residency, honestly, is who we’re accountable to doing what’s right [for] them and by them.”

Some officials pointed to the somewhat complicated nature of accountability as a public servant. For example, one individual stated that “Local government has begun to see the same indebtedness to political interests as you see at higher levels of our system”, emphasizing the notion that some elected officials see themselves accountable to entities outside their voting public/citizens. Two individuals expressed the power of political party allegiances and the influence it has on accountability. One stated,

I’m an independent, so I don’t feel indebted to anyone. You have to pivot to governing over party when you’re elected.

Finally, all officials indicated that they were also accountable to themselves (i.e. their own ethics and morals). In the words of one official,

…there are times where we can be doing what’s right for the people without them realizing it. Sometimes because of legal matters and privileged information they may not understand what is legal or appropriate or what’s most protective to them…And then in that sticky situation we just have to know internally that we did the right thing.

Alternatively, civil servant department heads seemed hesitant to respond. Two of the five individuals indicated that they were responsible to the “traditional lines of accountability” based in the civil service system. Another emphasized their professional accountability by stating, “I believe I am accountable to everyone I work with and for.” However, one individual was more elaborate in their explanation:

I mean ultimately the people who are elected to run this town. I think that in the long-run, I mean, you are obviously responsible to the people…in your heart if you’ve done what you thought was right then I think as far as being accountable to the people and the town you’ve done the best you can.

This individual expressed the complexity of accountability by indicating the various actors, in addition to oneself, that they should be accountable to.

Discussion

This study sought to observe how NPS principles are being practiced in a small suburban town. Through the analysis of interviews with elected officials and civic service department heads, NPS principles as manifested in public servants’ engagement of the public in policy practices and their accountability were observed. Overall, it seems that public servants value the contribution and participation of the public in policy development; however, they believe that due to nondisclosure agreements and other state and federal regulations, involving the public more extensively is difficult. Similar to the observations of past research, officials in Grand Island see citizens’ education and depth of knowledge on various policy items as limiting to the overall benefit that such interactions have to policy.

In reference to the ways in which public servants engage the public, respondents indicated a wide variety of methods. Respondents often pointed out that they engage in traditional strategies to solicit information from the public, such as through public hearings, town hall meetings, direct mail, phone conversations, emails, etc. Moreover, elected official also indicated the use of social media with reservations. On the one hand social media is seen a viable tool for disseminating information from the government to the public. On the other, it is not seen as beneficial when soliciting information from the public to understand general sentiment. Additionally, citizens have expressed a fear of publicly discussing their true opinions on policy items to elected officials on social media or even at public hearings because of a concern over what others will think of them. As a result, and in line with previous research, elected officials have indicated they have become skeptical of the value of public hearings (McComas 2001; Innes and Booher 2004; Baker et al. 2005; Denhardt and Denhardt 2015a) and social media (Mazák and Štetka 2015; Wang et al. 2017; Chan 2018) to inform them on citizen preferences and interests.

As a result, elected officials and many civil servant department heads emphasized the benefit of face-to-face, one-on-one, citizen engagement. They indicated that this type of interaction allows for citizens to feel more comfortable in expressing their ideas and interests without fear of public scrutiny or social reaction. This type of process also allows public servants the opportunity to talk though issues with citizens on policy initiatives; thereby, helping to overcome gaps in information and understanding that an individual might have about a specific policy alternative. For this reason, many of the elected officials and department heads indicated their preference for interactions that bring them in direct contact with citizens to establish and maintain more intimate relationships than those that are developed through public hearings or even on social media.

Overall, this case study observed the practice of NPS principles in several ways. First, only one respondent viewed their constituents as clients as opposed to citizens. Indicating that the majority see their constituents as citizens with some level of agency. However, it should be pointed out that public servants in this case study seem to differentiate and prioritize their accountability in relation to various categories of the public in different ways. Specifically, although some public servants feel accountable to citizens living in their jurisdiction in a general sense—warranting their inclusion in policy processes—others differentiate citizens into categories (i.e. voters and residents) and imply a hierarchy of accountability and inclusion in policy processes. Second, all elected officials actively engage in practices that attempt to enhance their understanding of citizens interests. Elected officials prefer two-way communication with their citizens, and dislike one-way communication practices. This is an alternative position to civil servant department heads that view their responsibility to citizens as educational and engage in one-way communication practices more enthusiastically. Third, all respondents indicated that they are accountable to citizens. However, among elected officials there is some discrepancy over what constitutes citizen status (i.e. resident versus voter) in addition to the complexity of accountability in a political environment (Romzek and Ingraham 2000) that can lead to questions of legitimacy among their citizens (Habermas 1975). Additionally, civil servant department heads exhibit a range of perceptions on whom they should be accountable to (Romzek and Ingraham 2000; Denhardt and Denhardt 2015b) that results in their interactions with the public and their engagement in policy processes as situational. As such, this study observes, that among elected officials, fundamental NPS principles are being practiced. However, when it comes more bureaucratic actors, such as civil servant department heads, the practice of some NPS principles is situational.

Conclusion

This study contributes to our understanding of the practice of NPS principles in local government and confirms findings of various other studies in relation to the utility of public hearings, town hall meetings, and social media for achieving higher levels of public inclusivity in policy making. Although the external validity of this study’s findings is limited by the case study method itself, the internal validity of findings are supported by the sampling procedures and the rate of individuals that participated in this project that contain the most germane knowledge to government practices in Grand Island, New York. One other limitation to this study that should be mentioned is the absence of sentiments from citizens and other non-governmental stakeholders - the irony of which is not lost on the authors. As such, we recommend that gaining the perspective of citizens themselves in addition to other actors, would provide for a more holistic understanding of why public servants engage in the practices they do. Therefore, future research should strive to include citizen perspectives that would help to further contextualize and explain public servants’ activities.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our understanding of effective small-town governance practices throughout the United States so that practitioners can be more confident in using some of the methods observed here. Based on what was observed in this study, public servants seeking to engage citizens in public policy processes in small-town settings might consider the following:

Attempt and/or continue to engage citizens in personal, one-on-one, interactions that help to facilitate two-way communication of interests and perspectives;

Public displays of support or opposition to a policy at public hearings and/or town hall meetings may not always reflect actual individual sentiments, but may be the byproduct of individuals attempting to “save face” in front of their neighbors so they are not socially ostracized for having alternative opinions; and

When using social media to engage in two-way communication and education on policy matters with the public, attempt to interact with individuals through direct messaging where their opinions can be expressed privately and candidly without fear of social intimidation

Although these practical take-aways can help to directly enhance our governance practices in the short-term, from an academic perspective this study reminds us that we must continue to develop new and more effective alternatives for citizen involvement in policy processes.

The framework upon which NPS is built that emphasizes transparent public deliberation of policy alternatives by citizens is admirable in its pursuance of democratic values. However, the technology that makes those democratic interactions increasingly possible, also enhances the capacity of individuals and groups to engage in informal social control over those with alternative political and social opinions. As such, to attain the benefits of NPS we must first enhance the framework by acknowledging that the local social systems in which these governance principles are being applied can dictate their success or failure. If all politics is local, the ways public servants engage citizens is uniquely local as well.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This research is based on data collected by Andrew Uttaro for his MPA capstone project at SUNY Buffalo State.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jason D. Rivera

References

Baker

W. H.

Addams

H. L.

Davis

. 2005. Critical factors for enhancing municipal public hearings. Public Administration Review 65 (4): 490–99.

Battaglia

M. P.

2008. Nonprobability sampling. In Encyclopedia of survey research methods, ed. Lavrakas

P. J.

, 523–26. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Campbell

Gurin

Miller

W. E.

. 1954. The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, & Company.

Catlaw

T. J.

Stout

. 2016. Governing small-town America today: The promise and dilemma of dense networks. Public Administration Review 76 (2): 225–29.

Cayer

N. J.

1986. Public personnel in the United States, 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Chan

2018. Reluctance to talk about politics in face-to-face and Facebook settings: Examining the impact of fear of isolation, willingness to self-censor, and peer network characteristics. Mass Communication and Society 21 (1): 1–23.

Converse

P. E.

1972. Change in the American electorate. In The human meaning of social change, ed. Campbell

Converse

P. E.

, 1–16. New York: Russell Sage.

Cooper

T. L.

1991. An ethic of citizenship for public administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

. 2018. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Denhardt

R. B.

Denhardt

J. V.

. 2000. The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review 60 (6): 549–59.

11.

Denhardt

J. V.

Denhardt

R. B.

. 2015a. The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review 75 (5): 664–72.

12.

Denhardt

J. V.

Denhardt

R. B.

. 2015b. The new public service: Serving, not steering (IV). London, UK: Routledge.

13.

Dunn

D. D.

Legge

J. S.

Jr , 2000. U.S. local government managers and the complexity of responsibility and accountability in democratic governance. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 11 (1): 73–88.

14.

Durant

R. F.

Ali

S. B.

. 2013. Repositioning American public administration? Citizen estrangement, administrative reform and the disarticulated state. Public Administration Review 73 (2): 278–89.

15.

Etikan

Musa

S. A.

Alkassim

R. S.

. 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5 (1): 1–4.

16.

Fung

2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review 66 (Special Issue): 66–75.

17.

Fung

2013. Infotopia: Unleashing the democratic power of transparency. Politics and Society 41 (2): 183–212.

18.

Glaser

Mark A.

Denhardt

J. V.

Hamilton

L. K.

. 2002. Community v. self-interest: Citizen perceptions of schools as civic investments. Journal of Public Administration Theory and Practice 12 (1): 103–27.

19.

Glaser

Mark A.

Yeager

Samuel J.

Parker

Lee E.

. 2006. Involving citizens in the decisions of government and community: Neighborhood-based vs. government-based citizen engagement. Public Administration Quarterly 30 (1): 177–217.

20.

Habermas

1975. Ligitimation crisis. Boston, MA: Beason Press.

21.

Hatcher

2015. The efficacy of public participation in municipal budgeting: An exploratory survey of officials in Government Finance Officers Association’s award-winning cities. Public Administration Quarterly 39 (4): 645.

22.

Hatcher

2018. Defining and aligning community development and public administration: Using administrative practices and design to better communities. In Community development and public administration theory: Promoting democratic principles to improve communities, ed. Nickels

A. E.

Rivera

J. D.

, 27–45. New York: Routledge.

23.

Hejny

2019. Democracy, legitimacy and scale: Examining Habermas’ administrative turn through the case of U.S. forest policy. Administrative Theory & Praxis 42 (4): 459–482.

24.

Hoffmann

E. A.

2007. Open-ended interviews, power, and emotional labor. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 36 (3): 318–46.

25.

Innes

J. E.

Booher

D. E.

. 2004. Reframing public participation. Planning Theory and Practice 5 (4): 419–36.

26.

Kane

2017. All politics is local? In the era of Trump, not anymore. February 25. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/all-politics-is-local-in-the-era-of-trump-not-anymore/2017/02/25/9a15bc94-fab2-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html. (accessed March 10, 2021).

27.

Kettl

D. F.

2015. The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

28.

King

C. S.

Stivers

Box

R. C.

. 1998. Government is us: Strategies for an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

King

C. S.

Zanetti

. 2005. Transformational public service: Portraits of theory in practice. New York: Routledge.

30.

Knox

C. C.

2016. Public administrators’ use of social media platforms: Overcoming the legitimacy dilemma? Administration & Society 48 (4): 477–96.

31.

Light

P. C.

2001. The new public service. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

32.

Logan

Molotch

. 1987. Urban forces: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.

33.

Lucio

2009. Customers, citizens, and residents: The semantics of public service recipients. Administration & Society 41 (7): 878–99.

34.

Lukensmeyer

C. J.

Goldman

Stern

. 2011. Assessing public participation in an open government era: A review of federal agency plans. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

35.

Mass

A. A.

Radaway

L. I.

. 1959. Gauging administrative responsibility. In Democracy, bureaucracy and the study of administration, ed. Stivers

, 163–81. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

36.

Mazák

Štetka

2015. Who’s afraid of clicktivism? Exploring citizens’ use of social media and political participation in the Czech Republic. Citizen Participation and Political Communication in a Digital World 32:125.

37.

McComas

K. A.

2001. Theory and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory 11 (1): 36–55.

38.

Mills

C. W.

1959. The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

39.

Nabatchi

Mergel

. 2010. Participation 2.0: Using internet and social media technologies to promote distributed democracy and create digital neighborhoods. In Connected communities: Local governments as a partner in citizen engagement and community building, ed. Svara

J. H.

Denhardt

, 80–87. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

40.

Nagel

J. H.

1997. Radically reinventing government: Editor’s introduction. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16 (3): 349–56.

41.

Nickels

A. E.

Rivera

J. D.

, Eds. 2018. Community development and public administration theory: Promoting democratic principles to improve communities. New York: Routledge.

42.

Osborn

Gaebler

. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

43.

Pew Research Center. 2019. Public trust in government: 1958-2019. https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/public-trust-in-government-1958-2019/ (accessed October 20, 2020).

44.

Pollitt

2003. The essential public manager. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

45.

Ritchie

Spencer

. 2002. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Analyzing qualitative data, ed. Bryman

Burgess

, 187–208. London, UK: Routledge.

46.

Rivera

J. D.

2018. When attaining the best sample is out of reach: Nonprobability alternatives when engaging in public administration research. Journal of Public Affairs Education 25 (3): 314–42.

47.

Rivera

J. D.

Nickels

A. E.

. 2018. Introduction: Democratizing community development policy and administration. In Community Development and Public Administration: Empowering Communities through the Enhancement of Democratic Principles, ed. Nickels

A. E.

Rivera

J. D.

, 1–24. New York: Routledge.

48.

Romzek

B. S.

Ingraham

. 2000. Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown Plan Crash. Public Administration Review 60 (3): 240–53.

49.

Sandel

M. J.

1996. Democracy’s discontent. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

50.

Stone

1997. Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton.

51.

Stokan

Raleigh

(2018). Improving the citizen participatory process in community economic development. In Community development and public administration theory: Promoting democratic principles to improve communities, ed. Nickels

A. E.

Rivera

J. D.

, 109–133. New York: Routledge.

52.

Strivers

1994. The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review 54 (4): 364–69.

53.

Svara

J. H.

Denhardt

. 2010. Connected communities: Local governments as partners in citizen engagement and community building. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation.

54.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. QuickFacts: Grand Island town, Erie County, New York. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/grandislandtowneriecountynewyork (accessed February 26, 2020).

55.

Wang

M. Y.

Hmielowski

J. D.

Hutchens

M. J.

Beam

M. A.

. 2017. Extending the spiral of silence: Partisan media, perceived support, and sharing opinions online. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 14 (3): 248–62.

56.

Wang

2001. Assessing public participation in U.S. cities. Public Performance and Management Review 24 (4): 155–66.