University of Utah

Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the Coproduction of Local
Public Goods
Author(s): Melissa J. Marschall
Source: Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), pp. 231-244
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the University of Utah
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3219867
Accessed: 29/12/2009 05:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Utah and Sage Publications, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Political Research Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
 Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context:
A New Look at the Coproduction of
Local Public Goods
MELISSAJ. MARSCHALL,RICEUNIVERSITY

In this article I examine citizen participation in the realm of local service delivery, addressing two fundamen-
tal questions.First,in whatways do individual-and neighborhood-levelfactorsshapecitizens'perceptionsof
crime and educationas seriousproblems?Second, what leads individualsto get involved in activitiesand
organizationsrelatedto these two local public services?I examinethese questionby mergingtwo distinct
strandsof research-the theoryof coproductionand studiesof politicalparticipation-andconductan empir-
ical analysisusing surveydatafromthe 1989 DetroitAreaStudy(Rosenstone1989) and tract-leveldatafrom
the 1990 Censusof Populationand Housing.My findingsunderscorethe importanceofformalrecruitment,
neighborhoodcontext,and incentivesin understandingwhy individualsparticipatein localeffortsto improve
schoolsand mitigatecrime.

ince the early 1990s, crime and education have con-
sistently appearedat the top of Americans'list of the
most important problems confronting the nation
(Hess and McGuinn 2002; Hochschild and Scott 1998;
Marschalland McKee 2002; Warr 1995). The continued
salience of both issues notwithstanding,studies of political
behavior have largely ignored the question of why Ameri-
cans participatein activities and organizationsrelated to
schooling and public safety Instead, most studies have
focused primarilyon electoralbehaviorsand politicalorgan-
izations. Given Americans'growing concerns about crime
and education, in this articleI explore citizen participation
in these policy domains and investigate two fundamental
questions. First,in what ways do individual-and neighbor-
hood-level factorsshape citizens' perceptions of crime and
education as serious problems?Second, what leads individ-
uals to get involved in activitiesand organizationsrelatedto
schooling and public safety?
To answerthese questions I rely on a relativelyunknown
theory from public administration called coproduction,
which focuses on the role of citizen involvementin the pro-
vision of local public goods and the ways in which institu-
tional arrangements foster this participation (see e.g.,
Pammer 1992; Sharp 1980), and the more traditionalliter-
ature on political behavior.As I discuss in the first part of
this article, combining insights from the theory of copro-
duction with traditionalmodels of political participation
offersa more comprehensivepicture of what citizen partic-
ipation means, how neighborhood context shapes incen-
tives and action, and why recruitmentand mobilizationare
especiallycrucial for stimulatingcitizen action.
My empirical analysis relies on survey data from the
1989 DetroitArea Study (Rosenstone 1989) and tract-level
data fromthe 1990 Census of Populationand Housing. The
PoliticalResearchQuarterly,Vol. 57, No. 2 (June2004): pp. 231-244
1989 DetroitAreaStudy (DAS)is ideal for my analyticpur-
poses not only because it focuses on the nature and extent
of citizen involvement in community activities and organi-
zations, but also because it contains sufficient numbers of
observations at both the individual- and neighborhood-
levels. I estimate fixed effects models using the generalized
estimating equations (GEE) method to examine how indi-
vidual- and neighborhood-levelfactorsinfluence residents'
perceptionsof neighborhood problems and involvement in
school and public-safety activities.' My findings shed new
light on why individualsnot only participatein local efforts
to fight crime and improve schools, but also engage in civic
affairsmore generally
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONAND THE PROVISIONOF
PUBLIC GOODS
Although some research in public administration and
urban politics has focused exclusively on questions of how
and why citizens participatein organizationsand activities
associatedwith the provision of public goods and services
(see e.g., Levine 1984; Ostrom 1996; Percy 1984; Sharp
1980), this area of inquiry remainsrelativelyuntouched by
participationscholars, who tend to study so called 'main-
stream' political behaviors-voting, campaigning, con-
tributing.This is not to say that participationscholars have
ignored such activitiesaltogether.Rather,a number of stud-
ies have examinedthe ways in which citizen involvement in
non-political organizationsinfluences participationin more
traditional, politically oriented activities (Leighley 1990;
Rosenstoneand Hansen 1993; Verbaet al. 1995). In partic-
ular, this literature has focused on how parent-teacher
Since I do not hypothesize that similarindividualswill behave differently
depending upon varying neighborhood conditions, the fixed effects,
GEEspecification(ratherthan a randomeffectsmodel) is appropriatefor
my analyticpurposes (see Zorn 2001).

231
232
232PoLITIcAL
organizations, neighborhood watch groups, homeowner
associations,and other such groups serve as arenasfor the
*developmentof organizationaland communication skills
relevantfor politicalparticipationwhile also fosteringsocial
ties that afford opportunities and inducements for future
political involvement.
Yet, by treatingthese and other 'non-political'organiza-
tions as mere stepping stones to more overt politicalbehav-
iors, extant researchhas ignored the vital role played by a
set of sociopolitical behaviors that are not only far more
common in the everyday lives of individuals, but also of
fundamentalimport for both the provision of local public
goods and the development of vibrant communities (see
e.g., Putnam 1993). As Wildavsky(1979: 253) arguedsev-
eral decades ago, broadeningour conception of citizen par-
ticipation to include the policy implementationstage may
provide a better understanding of citizenship, "afterthe
party is over, as part of everyday life." Indeed, a more
expansive view of citizen participationmay also help us
understand why Americans remain concerned about the
problemsof crime and education despite steadyincreasesin
governmentalexpendituresand attentionin recent years.
TheTheoryof Coproduction
An importantpreliminaryissue involves whether or not
thereis anythingspecial or differentabout the organizations
and activitiesin question;i.e., those relatedto the provision
of local goods and servicesin general,and public safetyand
educationin particular.To addressthis question, it is useful
first to consider the definition of political action typically
invoked in the political behaviorliterature.Politicalpartici-
pationis definedas an: "[A]ctivitythathas the intent or effect
of influencinggovernmentaction-either directlyby affect-
ing the making or the implementationof public policy or
indirectlyby influencing the selection of people who make
those policies"(Verbaet al. 1995: 38). The purpose of indi-
vidual action then, is either to communicatea preferenceor
to influence an outcome. Although the action may be ongo-
ing (as, for instance, is membership in political groups),
more often than not political action is short-lived (voting,
contributingmoney, participatingin a political campaign).
Furthermore,the outcome of these more traditionalpolitical
acts typicallyinvolves a policy end thatis largelyunspecified
and unachievablein the short term (Thomas 1982).
In contrast, citizen action associated with the provision
of local public goods often requires ongoing involvement
and activitiesthat are not simply instrumentalin naturebut
supportiveof governmentaleffortsas well. In other words,
the purpose of citizen participationis as much to commu-
nicate preferencesand influence policymakingas to assistin
the implementationof the public good and to contributeto
its preservationand continuation. In addition, the conse-
quences of citizen participationin local service deliveryare
tangible and reflectboth collective and individualbenefits.
For instance, citizen action in the domain of policing and
public safety may contributeto higher propertyvalues and
RESEARCH
POLITICAL QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
increased safety for neighborhood residents regardlessof
whether or not they participate.
Recognizingthe collective nature of these organizations
and activitiesand the criticalrole of citizen involvementin
the provision of public goods and services, in the 1980s
public administrationand urbanpolitics scholarsdeveloped
what became know as the theory of coproduction(Brudney
1984; Levine 1984; Percy 1984; Rich 1981; Sharp 1980).
Coproduction conceptualizes service delivery as both an
arrangementand a process, wherein citizens and govern-
ment share 'conjoint responsibility'in producing public
services.As Sharp(1980: 109) explains:"urbanservicesare
createdthroughthe interactionof citizen behaviorsand the
activities of public officials and both contribute to the
resultingqualityof urban services."
Coproductionthereforedepends on both the voluntary
actions of citizens and the existence of meaningfulopportu-
nities and arrangementsfor theirparticipation(Gittell1980;
Pammer1992; Sharp 1980). Citizenaction may rangefrom
more institutionalizedor formalroles, as in the case of com-
munity policing and charterschools, to more informaland
supportiveroles, for instance, neighbors keeping their out-
side lights on at night or parentsvolunteeringto help out at
their local school. Although the extent and form of citizen
involvement can vary across service arenasand locales, the
fundamentalpoint is that without active citizen participa-
tion the capacity of government to provide public goods
and services is severelycompromised.Indeed, there is sub-
stantialresearchin public administrationdocumenting the
gains in programefficiencyand effectivenessresultingfrom
coproduction (see e.g., Brudney 1991, 1984; Percy 1984;
Rich 1981). For instance, studies have shown that citizens
provide more than $4.5 billion in services to local govern-
ments throughtheir participationin fire protection(Stinson
and Stam 1976), and that programs like neighborhood
watch are much more effectivein combatingcrime than are
sizable increases in the number of police officers or pur-
chases of technicalequipment (Goldstein 1977).
In fact it is not simply the actions of citizens that matter,
but their attentivenessand communicationas well (Brudney
1984; Rosentrauband Sharp 1981). For coproduction to
work citizens must be informedabout importantaspects of
local public services,the responsibilitiesand duties expected
of them, and the environmentalfactorsthat may affect the
provisionand qualityof these services.For example,in order
to assist police officersfight neighborhoodcrime, residents
should know how to contacttheirlocal police departmentor
neighborhoodwatch groupif they have a problemor impor-
tant informationto report.The key point is that the provi-
sion of public goods and servicesdepends upon the assidu-
ousness of both citizens and public officials, and this
characteristicfurtherdistinguishesthis type of citizen partic-
ipation from other more traditionalpoliticalbehaviors.2
2 For example, electoral behavior research suggests that citizens use
simple heuristics in choosing between candidates, form simple voting
CITIZENPARTICIPATION
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
AND THE
AND THENEIGHBORHOOD
NEIGHBORHOODCONTEXT
CONTEXT
Finally,the theory of coproductionalso underscoresthe
criticalrole of institutionalarrangementsin fosteringcitizen
involvement. Empirical research indicates that coproduc-
tion depends upon the existence of meaningful opportuni-
ties for citizen participation,as well as structuresand pro-
cedures that facilitate the flow of information between
citizens and government(e.g., Ostrom 1996; Pammer1992;
Sharp 1980). For example, in the domain of education,
Schneideret al. (2000) find that school districts character-
ized by parentalchoice programsare successful in stimulat-
ing parents to become more involved in a wide range of
school-related activities.3 In addition, they find that the
presence of institutional structuresthat disseminate infor-
mation and provide other assistance to parents eliminates
gaps in participationlevels among advantagedand disad-
vantaged parents (see also Marschall2000). Other studies
have found that local governments can foster citizen
involvement by institutionalizingparticipatorystructures
such as neighborhood organizationsor alternativedispute
resolutionprograms(see Berryet al. 1993; Sharp 1998).4
In sum, the theory of coproductionmakes severalimpor-
tant contributionsto the study of citizen participation.First,
the theoreticalconcept of coproduction encourages schol-
arly considerationof a broaderrangeof behaviors-includ-
ing discussion, involvement in non-political organizations,
and participation in activities that are more supportive
(ratherthan purposive or instrumental)in nature. Second,
it emphasizes the importance of mobilization and recruit-
ment, not just on the partof citizens, but governmentaland
organizationalactors as well. Finally,because coproduction
focuses on the implementationstage of public policy and
the interdependentrelationshipbetween citizens and gov-
ernmentalactors, it is concernednot simply with individu-
als actingin isolation,but with the broaderinstitutionaland
contextualmilieu in which individualsare situated.
TRADITIONALMODELS OF POLITICALBEHAVIOR
Despite offeringmany significantinsights, the theory of
coproductioncannot by itself adequatelyaddress the ques-
tions motivatingthis study.Instead,to explain citizen partic-
cues, and generally do not follow campaigns in their entirety (Lupia
1994; Lodge et al. 1995). Moreover,declining voter turnout suggests
lower voter involvement and attentivenessin the electoral arena, and
the active participationof regularvoters is limited to elections several
years apart. In sum, unlike citizen participationin the arenasof crime,
schooling, and other public goods, the more traditionalforms of polit-
ical participationare limited in nature and (arguably)yield few local-
ized benefits.
3 These
findingsare net of any selection effectsthat occur as a result of the
nonrandomassignmentof parentsto schools.
4 This institutionalaspect of coproductionis, of course, not restrictedto
the domain of public goods or government institutions. Instead, insti-
tutional arrangements or 'top-down' processes have been found to
directly affect the quality of grassroots political activity and associa-
tional life more generally (see e.g., Tarrow1996; Levi 1996; Jackman
and Miller 1996).
233
233
ipationin civic and politicalaffairsit is necessaryto also con-
sider the literatureon political behavior.Given the breadth
of this literature,I focus the discussion that follows on the
leading explanationsand findings, thereinpaying particular
attentionto individual-and contextual-levelvariables.
Individual-Level
Explanations
The vast majorityof researchon politicalparticipationhas
focused on the resources,attitudes,interests,and to a more
limited extent, social contacts and other mechanisms of
recruitmentand mobilization;paying very limited attention
to the broadersocial, political or economic environmentin
which individualsare situated.One of the most robust find-
ings in this research is the significant effect of individual
socioeconomicstatus (measuredby such variablesas money,
education, and civic orientations)on levels of engagement
(see e.g., Verbaand Nie 1972; Verbaet al. 1995; Wolfinger
and Rosenstone 1980). Higher SES individuals have been
found not only to have more resourcesat their disposal, but
also to possess better interpersonalskills, more social inter-
actions,and greateraccess to avenues(institutionsand activ-
ities) of participation-all of which promotehigher levels of
involvementin politicaland communityaffairs(Rogerset al.
1975). In addition to personal resources,the link between
civic orientations,particularlyefficacyand trust, and partic-
ipatory behaviors, is also well established in the literature
(Abramson and Aldrich 1982; Almond and Verba 1963;
Verbaand Nie 1972). For instance, using panel data and a
reciprocalcausal model, Finkel (1985) finds that internal
efficacyis an importantdeterminantof voting and participa-
tion in politicalcampaigns.Similarly,Berryet al. (1993) find
that internalefficacyis a cause (ratherthan a consequence)
of communallyoriented politicalbehaviors,such as partici-
pating in neighborhood groups, citizen associations, or
crimewatch groups.
Another area on which the political behavior literature
has focused is political interest, where empirical evidence
has consistently demonstrated that those who are more
interestedin and informedabout civic affairsaremore likely
to be politicallyactive (Campbellet al. 1960; Verbaand Nie
1972; Verbaet al. 1995). Since most studies of American
political behavior tend to examine more traditional (and
strictly political) modes of behavior, political interest has
typically been conceptualized in associated terms-for
instance, interest in elections and campaigns, intensity of
partisan preference (Campbell et al. 1960; Almond and
Verba 1963), political discussion, media attention (Verba
and Nie 1972) or self-reportedinterestin politics (Verbaet
al. 1995). Although political interest may be an important
factor in prompting individuals to engage in more tradi-
tional activities and the kinds of community- and service-
oriented behaviors being analyzed here, considering the
multitude of other, more pressing matters (e.g., family,
work, leisure) that compete for individuals'time and atten-
tion, political interestalone may be insufficientto stimulate
action. In particular,because interest in politics ebbs and
234
234
flows, and in light of participatoryacts that areunrelatedto
campaigns, elections, or political parties, including addi-
tional measures that tap the underlying incentives and
motives that fosterother forms of participationmay increase
the explanatorypower of our models.
For instance,given the constraintsof time, attention,and
energy it is possible that individuals who reside in places
with well-functioningpublic institutions have fewer incen-
tives to become involved. On the other hand, in neighbor-
hoods where particularproblemsor issues arevexing to res-
idents (e.g., crime, dilapidated property,drugs) or where
public services are perceivedas unsatisfactory,residentsare
likely to have greater incentives to get involved, or as
Hirschman (1970) argued, exercise the 'voice' option (see
also Lyons et al. 1992). Indeed, this is precisely the issue
addressed in the literatureexamining citizen contacting of
local officials.For example,Jones et al. (1977) find that in
addition to other factors, citizen contacts are a function of
residents' needs for services.5 Of course, incentives vary
across individuals accordingto demographics,preferences,
and resources and also by the domain of the activity.For
example, parentswith children in the local public schools
are likely to have more reason to be involved in school pol-
itics than do people without children or parentswith chil-
dren in privateschools. Likewise,homeownersaremore apt
to view neighborhooddevelopmentsas in their interestand
hence be more likely to devote time and energy to neigh-
borhood causes.
Finally,the literatureon political participationsuggests
that social networks and relationsembedded in institutions
and organizationsplay an importantrole in fosteringpartic-
ipation (Rosenstoneand Hansen 1993; Verbaet al. 1995).
One argument is that the more individuals interact with
others in organizationsand institutions, the more they are
exposed to social norms of political behavior and specific
details about participatoryopportunities (see e.g., Leighley
1990). While this argumentemphasizes more informal or
indirect means of mobilization, others emphasize more
formalmeans of recruitment.For example, Rosenstoneand
Hansen (1993) show that activists, groups, and organiza-
tions directly induce others to participate through direct
personalcontact and recruitment.
Contextand Participation
Neighborhood
Although traditionalmodels of participationfocus pri-
marilyon individual-levelfactors,the significanceof neigh-
borhood and other contextual variableshas not been com-
pletely overlooked. Indeed, political sociologists have long
acknowledged the role of context in shaping attitudes and
5 Note, there is a separatebody of researchinvestigatingboth the deter-
minants of citizen contactingof local officialsand the ways in which this
more instrumentallyoriented behavior might differ from other more
communally oriented behaviors. A detailed review of this work is
beyond the scope of the present analysis;however see Thomas (1982)
for review of this literature.
POLITICAL
RESEARCH
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
behaviors.Huckfeldt (1986: 1) succinctly summarizesthis
perspective:"Individualcharacteristicsalone do not deter-
mine political actions and opinions. Rather,politicalbehav-
ior must be understood in terms of the actor'srelationship
to the environment, and the environmental factors that
impinge upon individual choice." According to this per-
spective, the characteristicsof the broaderenvironmentin
which individualsare situated (i.e., context), independently
influence individual behavior by patterning information
flows and by conditioning individuals' reactions to the
informationthey receive (Books and Prysby 1991; Huck-
feldt 1986). In otherwords, because individualsare situated
in differentcontexts, they are not only exposed to different
informationbut also base their orientationsand behaviors
on differentfactors.
How is informationtransmittedfrom the environmentto
individualssuch that it influencestheir attitudesand behav-
ior? Putnam (1966) addressedthis question in some of his
earliest work, proposing three alternatives mechanisms:
party activity,motivated conformity,and social interaction
(see also Books and Prysby1991). Not surprisingly,Putnam
believed that social interaction, through informal gather-
ings, groups,and highly formal,structuredinteractions,was
the most likely mechanism. Of course, opportunities for
social interactionare not evenly distributedacross contexts
or individuals, but instead covary with socioeconomic
status. Looking exclusively at African Americans, Cohen
and Dawson (1993) find that residing in high poverty
neighborhoods is negatively associated with belonging to
voluntary or church groups, talking to family or friends
about politics, having indirect contact with public officials,
attendingmeetings about community problems,and giving
money to candidates, groups, or political parties or. Simi-
larly,Alex-Assensoh(1997) finds that residence in concen-
tratedpoverty neighborhoodsdecreasesthe likelihood that
both blacks and whites vote in national elections. Finally,
Huckfeldt (1983) and Giles and Dantico (1982) find that
individuals living in lower income neighborhoods are less
likely to engage in communal or social activities.
Although empirical studies have specified a direct rela-
tionship between neighborhood context and participation,
context may also operate on participation indirectly, for
instance, by not only shaping individuals' perceptions of
local problems or particularnorms of behavior,but by also
contributingto the capacity of neighborhood residents to
work togetherto addresslocal problems (see e.g., Sampson
and Raudenbush 1999). A long line of researchon urban
communitieshas identified the link between neighborhood
socioeconomic conditions and social organization-typi-
cally defined as residentialstability,public order, or even
quality of life. According to Ross et al. (2001), socioeco-
nomically disadvantagedneighborhoodsmay generatedis-
order because of limited opportunities (Wilson 1987,
1996), lack of social integration and cohesion (Sampson
and Groves 1989), or lack of formal services (LeClere,
Rogersand Peters 1997). In addition, KasardaandJanowitz
(1974) have found that high levels of homeownershipand
 AND THENEIGHBORHOOD
CITIZENPARTICIPATION CONTEXT
low levels of mobility work togetherto instill in residents a
stake in neighborhood well being. Finally, others have
found that social networks,local ties, and a sense of attach-
ment to place are also linked to residentialstability (Samp-
son 1988; Taylor 1997). As Sampson and Raudenbush
(1999: 610) explain: "participationin social exchange,
friend/kinshipties, and affectiveidentificationwith the local
areaincreasesmutual trust and sharedexpectationsfor col-
lective action in support of the neighborhood"(see also
Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Sampson 1988). In short,
neighborhoodSESand levels of sociabilityamong residents
not only influence the natureand severityof neighborhood
problems such as crime, juvenile delinquency,and dilapi-
dated property,but also neighborhoodresidents'awareness
of such problems.
An ExpandedModelof CitizenParticipation
With this conceptualizationof incentives and context in
mind, the model of citizen participationI propose has two
components. The first specifies the factors influencing
whether or not residentsperceivea serious problemin their
neighborhood, and the second investigates the types of
actions, if any, residents engage in. I hypothesize that the
level and form of participationwill be shaped in largemeas-
ure by the presence of serious neighborhoodproblems and
that contextual factors will operate on participationindi-
rectly through their effects on the nature and magnitude of
neighborhoodproblems. In addition, I incorporateinsights
from the theory of coproductioninto my model of partici-
pation, hypothesizing that residentswho are formallycon-
tactedabout public safetyor school-relatedevents as well as
those who are more involved in civic affairswill be more
likely to not only perceiveneighborhoodproblems,but also
to take action to resolve such problemsthan those who are
either not contacted or civicallyuninvolved.
EMPIRICALANALYSIS
To operationalizeand test my model of citizen participa-
tion, I rely on data from the 1989 Detroit Area Study
(Rosenstone1989), a large-scalesurveyof individualsresid-
ing in the tri-county (Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne)
Detroit metropolitanarea. Since the 1989 DAS focused on
the natureand extent of citizen involvementin community
problems and issues, namely crime and education, it con-
tains a wealth of relevantmeasuresideal for exploring citi-
zen involvement in local service delivery activities. More-
over,because respondentswere matchedto census tracts,in
addition to individual-levelmeasuresI can also identify and
measure the neighborhood characteristicsthat potentially
shape both residents'perceptionsof school and crime prob-
lems in their communities and their involvement these
community issues. For these reasons, the 1989 DAS is par-
ticularlywell suited for the present analysis. Before intro-
ducing the empirical model, I first discuss how neighbor-
hood context is defined and measured.
235
235
Operationalizing Context
Neighborhood
Given the various ways context has been defined in the
literature-for example, as neighborhoods (Alex-Assensoh
1997; Cohen and Dawson 1993; Giles and Dantico 1982;
Huckfeldt 1979, 1983, 1986; Taylor 1998), municipalities
(Oliver 1999, 2000), or counties (Stein et al. 2000)-how
does one go about determiningwhat the appropriateunit of
analysis should be? My answer is that context should best
approximatethe level at which environmental conditions
are expected to operate on individuals. Further,as Huck-
feldt (1986: 10) contends it is not necessarythat contextual
areas representself-contained social units, but instead that
the composition and featuresof these units affect the infor-
mation availableto area residents.
Although the ideal contextual unit of analysis for this
study would be the service delivery jurisdictions (police
precincts and school catchment areas), these areas vary by
service and are rarely,if ever, coterminous.Therefore,I rely
on a measurement strategy that treats the central city of
Detroit and its suburban fringe separately.Since the city of
Detroit has 39 neighborhoods that not only have well
known and well established boundaries, but also demar-
cate community service areas, these neighborhoods define
contextual units for central city residents. Outside of the
central city of Detroit, I define contextual units as the
incorporated suburb (municipality), the township, other
census designated places, or the remaining area of the
unincorporated county.6 While less than perfect, this
approach improves considerably upon past attempts to
measure and test for contextual effects. Of the 922 survey
respondents, 583 live in 37 central city contexts and 339
live in 39 suburban/county contexts, with an average of
13.6 residents in each context.
EmpiricalModeland Measures
The DAS survey asked respondentsabout their involve-
ment in several activities related to schooling and public
safety I utilize responses to these questions to operational-
ize the dependent variablesin the model of citizen partici-
pation. These include: (1) talking to friends and family
about schools or crime; (2) contacting officials about local
schools or crime; (3) attending a meeting about schools or
crime (1 = yes; 0 = otherwise). In addition, I model sepa-
ratelywhetherrespondentsperceivedseriousproblemswith
crime or schools (1 = yes; 0 = otherwise). The basic model
is summarizedas:
ProblemPerception= f (Interestsand Incentives,
Controls,Context)
Recruitment, [1]
Participation= f (Interestsand Incentives,Problem
Perception,Recruitment,Controls,Context) [21
6
Bearingthese distinctions in mind, I referto context as 'neighborhoods'
in subsequentsections of this article for the sake of simplicity.
236 POLITICAL
RESEARCH
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY

- TABLE1
DESCRIPTIVE
STATISTICS

Variable Mean/Proportion StdDev Min Max No Obs

DependentVariables
School problem .665 .472 0 1 927
Talkto friends about schools .648 .478 0 1 927
Contactofficialabout schools .110 .313 0 1 927
Attend meeting about schools .127 .333 0 1 927
Crimeproblem .426 .495 0 1 927
Talkabout crime .819 .385 0 1 927
Contactofficialsabout crime .107 .309 0 1 927
Meetingabout crime .127 .333 0 1 927
Interestsand Incentives
Kids in school .327 .469 0 1 927
Victim of crime .195 .397 0 1 927
Homeowner .624 .484 0 1 919
PoliticalInterest .709 .357 0 1 927
Recruitment
Contactedabout schools .327 .469 0 1 927
Contactedabout crime .281 .450 0 1 927
Associationmember .680 .467 0 1 913
Controls
Education 12.31 2.62 2 17 908
Employed .536 .499 0 1 916
Black .466 .499 0 1 927
Efficacy .648 .207 0 1 905
Context
Detroitresident .629 .483 0 1 927
NeighborhoodSociopoliticalengagement .697 .162 0 1 927
Neighborhoodmedian household income $31.9k 16.7k 1l.lk 102.8k 916

In both models, explanatoryvariablesinclude measures
of individual interests and incentives, formal and informal
recruitmentefforts, demographics and other control vari-
ables, and contextual-levelfactors.In addition,the variables
measuringrespondents'perceptionsof neighborhoodprob-
lems (Schoolproblemand Crimeproblem)areincluded as pre-
dictors of school- and safety-relatedparticipation,respec-
tively.7Below I discuss how the explanatoryvariables are
defined and measured.Table 1 reportsdescriptivestatistics
for all variablesincluded in the model.
I use several measures to operationalizeinterests and
incentives. Politicalinterestis an additive index constructed
7 Given the possibility that similar factorsmay influence the existence or
perception of crime and school problems and residents'propensity to
participatein school- and public safety-relatedactivities, I began by
specifying seemingly unrelatedbivariateprobit models (Maddala1983)
that jointly modeled the problemperceptionand participationequations
using a full-informationmaximum likelihood estimator.This procedure
generates an ancillary parameter (p) that measures the correlation
between the errorterms of the two equations. Since the formaltest for
correlatederrorsconsistentlyfailed to rejectthe null hypothesis (p = 0),
endogeneitywas not a problem for this set of equations.Consequently,I
rely on the more efficientsingle equation specifications.
fromtwo surveyquestions, one of which asked respondents
whether or not they discussed politics in the last year with
friends or family and the other of which asked whether or
not respondentsvoted in the 1988 presidentialelection.8I
also include measures of homeownership, having at least
one school-aged child, and being a victim of crime in the
last year (1 = yes).9 Although I do not expect homeowners
or parentswith kids in school to be more likely to perceive
crime or school problems, recent victims of crime may be
more likely to perceive neighborhood crime as a serious
problem than others (see e.g., Sampson and Raudenbush
1999). Finally,in the Participationmodel, the Schooland
Crimeproblemvariablesare included as additionalmeasures
of interestsand incentives. I hypothesizethat residentswith
greaterinterests and incentives as well as those who per-
ceive crime and school problems as serious, will be more
8 Politicalinterest= 0 if
respondents answeredno to both questions; .5 if
they answeredyes to one question; and 1 if they answeredyes to both
questions.
9 Note, the Kidsin schoolvariableis included only in the school-related
models whereas the Victimof crimevariableis used only in the crime-
relatedmodels.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONAND THENEIGHBORHOOD
AND THE NEIGHBORHOODCONTEXT
CONTEXT
likely to engage in school- and public safety-relatedactivi-
ties than those with fewer interestsand incentives or those
who do not perceiveproblemswith schools or crimein their
neighborhood.
To operationalize formal recruitment, a key aspect of
coproduction, I use a measure that taps whether or not
respondents were explicitly contacted within the last year
about a crime- or school-relatedmeeting or event happen-
ing in their neighborhood (1 = yes). I measure informal
recruitmentas membership in at least one association or
groupunrelatedto neighborhoodschools or public safety(1
= yes).10I expect both formal and informal recruitmentto
be strong predictors of whether or not individuals partici-
pate in school- and public safety-related activities (see
Rosenstoneand Hansen 1993; Verbaet al. 1995). In addi-
tion, since individuals are not likely to be contacted about
crime unless it is a problem, in the CrimeProblemmodel I
expect formalrecruitment(being contacted) to be an espe-
cially important determinant of respondents' perceptions
that crime is a serious problem in their neighborhood. On
the other hand, because parentsare often contactedby their
child'sschool for a varietyreasons,the contactvariablemay
be less importantin predictingwhether or not parentsper-
ceive problemswith their local schools.
The controlvariablesI employ arecommon to much par-
ticipation researchand include a measure of respondents'
education level (years of schooling) as well as measures of
whether they are black or currentlyemployed (1 = yes). In
addition, I include a measure of Efficacy,constructed from
two survey questions. One question asked respondents if
they believed they could influence decisions that affected
their community,whereas the second asked if they felt that
by working together, people in their community could
influence decisions that affectthe community."
The final set of explanatoryvariablesmeasurecharacter-
istics of the broadersocial, economic, and political context
in which individualsreside. To measureneighborhoodSES,
I use median household income (in thousands of dollars),
based on 1990 census tract-leveldata and aggregatedto the
neighborhood level. Since higher SES neighborhoods are
less likely to have serious crime or school problems (Ross
1991; Wilson 1987, 1996), I expect respondentswho live in
such neighborhoodsto be less likely to perceivethese prob-
lems. I also include a dummy variablefor residence in the
city of Detroit (1 = yes) to control for the differentsocioe-
conomic characteristicsof neighborhoods in central city
versus suburban locations. Residents of Detroit should be
more likely to perceive problems with schools and crime,
10
Groups and associationsinclude those classified as ethnic (x23, x24),
religious (x10), professional(x30, x31), political (x25-x27, x21), other
(except x17) in the DAS 6410 codebook (see pp.70-72).
Responses were based on a standard 4-point Likert scale (disagree
strongly,disagreesomewhat, agreesomewhat, agreestrongly).The Effi-
cacy variableis an additive index of these responses, ranging in value
from 0 (disagree strongly for both questions) to 1 (agree strongly for
both questions).
237
237
ceteris paribus, given the greaterlikelihood of actual prob-
lems in the centralcity as opposed to the suburbs.12
The other measure of neighborhood context taps the
level of sociopoliticalengagementamong neighborhoodres-
idents. To construct this variable, I aggregatedindividual
responsesto the survey questions askingrespondentsif they
had: (1) discussed politics in the last year; (2) voted in the
1988 presidentialelection; (3) were members of local asso-
ciations or groups. I then createdan additiveindex for these
three neighborhood-levelvariablesso that the new variable
Sociopoliticalengagementrepresents the proportion of resi-
dents in respondents'neighborhoodwho answeredaffirma-
tively to these three questions. Livingamong neighborswho
are more engaged is believed to increase levels of informa-
tion about activitiesand events and to also create pressures
for social conformity or assimilation (see e.g., Huckfeldt
1986); hence I expect a positive relationshipbetween Socio-
politicalengagementand individual participatoryacts. On
the other hand, it likely that neighborhood Sociopolitical
engagementwill be negatively related to residents'percep-
tions of crime and school problems since neighborhoods
where residents are socially and politically active are more
likely to be stable and hence have fewer serious problems
with crime or schools.
ANALYSISAND RESULTS
Given the absence of cross-level interactions,I estimate
the ProblemPerceptionand Participationmodels as general-
ized estimatingequations (GEE),given as:
Probit(Yij= 1) = 3o*+ 13*Xij
While in generalthe GEEapproachhas much to recom-
mend it (see Zorn 2001), it is appropriatehere not only
because it fits the theory being tested (i.e., the fixed effects
of neighborhood context on individual-level perceptions
and behavior), but also because it provides efficient and
consistent parameter estimates even in the presence of
uncertaintyabout, or misspecificationof, correlationstruc-
tures in the data, and when the number of observations
within contextualunits is relativelysmall (see Masonand Fu
1999 for more details).13
WhoPerceivesNeighborhood
Problems?
I begin with the results of the Problemperceptionmodels,
which are included in Table 2. To simplify interpretation,
12
Obviously,if reliabledata on neighborhoodcrime and local school qual-
ity were available,a directtest of this assumptionwould be possible, and
more generally,the empiricalanalysisof this paperwould be improved.
However,in the absence of such data, I rely on proxies instead.
13 The 30-30 rule of thumb (30 groups with 30 observationsper group) is
widely acceptedas the minimum for fittingrandomcoefficientsor HLM
models (see Kreft1996). However,this rule is not necessaryfor obtaining
consistentand efficientparameterestimateswhen a fixed effects(or GEE)
model is fitted(see Masonand Fu 1999; Hox 1998; Massand Hox n.d.).
238
238 POLITICAL
RESEARCH
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY

= TABLE2 neighborhoodmedianhousehold income (with income at its

DETERMINANTS
OF RESIDENTS'
PERCEPTIONS
OF SCHOOLAND mean) translatesinto a 7 percentage-pointdecrease in the
CRIMEPROBLEMS probabilityof perceiving crime as a problem and a 4 per-
Local Neighborhood centage-pointdecrease in perceiving a problem with local
schools. Similarly,in neighborhoods where residents are
Variable Schools Crime
more socially and politically engaged, problems are less
Victim of crime .217** likely to be cited. These effects are quite substantial.For
(.042) example,a 10 percentage-pointincreasein the proportionof
Kids in school .017 residents engaging in all three activities (voting, discussing
(.034) politics, and belonging to a neighborhoodgroup) translates
into a 6.2 percentage-pointdecrease in the probabilityof
Homeowner .005 -.110**
(.037) (.037) perceiving crime a problem and a 3.8 percentage-point
decreasein the probabilityof perceivinglocal school prob-
Politicalinterest .076 -.022 lems. Finally,the effectsof residencein the city of Detroitare
(.052) (.059) also significantand negative,as hypothesized.These findings
Contactedabout schools/ -.051 .087** attest to the importance of both neighborhood socioeco-
crime (.036) (.042) nomic composition and levels of sociopoliticalengagement
in maintainingneighborhood social organization.The evi-
Associationmember .136** -.032
dence presentedin Table2 suggests that in neighborhoods
(.050) (.036) where residentsare advantagedand active, schools function
Education -.001 -.009 better and crime is not a factor(see also Sampsonand Rau-
(.008) (.007) denbush 1999). And not surprisingly,these neighborhoods
Employed .089** .022 are more likely to be located in the suburbs.
(.033) (.031) A second important finding in the ProblemPerception
Black .028 .014 analysisis the significanteffectsof the recruitmentvariables.
(.059) (.056) Specifically,respondents who indicated having been con-
tacted within the last twelve months about a public-safety
Efficacy .003 -.091 relatedmeeting or event in their neighborhoodwere signif-
(.086) (.093) icantly more likely (by roughly 9 percentage-points)to cite
Detroitresident .342** .153* crime as a serious problem. In the SchoolProblemmodel
(.081) (.090) informal recruitment(association membership) influences
residents'perceptionsof local school problems:respondents
Neighborhoodsociopolitical -.382** -.622**
who indicated being a member of at least one group were
engagement (.191) (.230)
approximately14 percentage-pointsmore likely than those
Neighborhoodmedian -.004* -.007** with no associational memberships to perceive serious
household income (.002) (.003) problems with their local schools. In short, formal and
Wald X2(17) 195.52 140.18** informalcontactingappearsto increaseresidents'awareness
N obs 887 887 about neighborhood problems, a finding consistent with
N clusters 65 65 research on coproduction (Ostrom 1996; Pammer 1992;
Schneideret al. 2000; Sharp 1980) and political mobiliza-
Models estimated with Stata'sxtgee (probit) procedure, with marginal tion (Rosenstoneand Hansen 1993).
effects computed after xtgee. Entries are transformedprobabilitiesand
indicate the change in probabilityof Y for a one-unit change in X when X Finally,these results indicate that incentives and interest
is set at its mean; for dichotomous independent variables,it is the change in neighborhood issues are also important predictors of
in the probabilityof Y for a discretechange in X from 0 to 1. * p < .05, ** whether or not residents perceive school- or crime-related
p < .01, one-tailed test. problems. Specifically,respondents who indicated having
recentlybeen the victim of a crime were significantlymore
likely to perceivecrime as a serious problemin their neigh-
GEE probit coefficients have been transformedinto mar- borhood than were non-victims. Evidence suggests that
ginal effects. being victimizedtends to elevateone'sawarenessand fearof
While differentsets of factorsinfluence individuals'per- crime (see e.g., Skoganand Maxfield1981), therebyincreas-
ceptionsof crimeand school problems,what is clearin Table ing the likelihood of perceivingcrime as a serious problem.
2 is the consistent effect of contextual (i.e., neighborhood- Interestingly,the findingsin Table2 indicatethat homeown-
level) factors across the two policy domains. As hypothe- ers are less likely than non-homeowners(by 11 percentage-
sized, individualsresidingin higher income neighborhoods, points) to perceivecrime as a serious problem.Thus, rather
where serious problemsshould be less prevalent,are signifi- than tapping individuals'interests and stake in the neigh-
cantly less likely to perceive crime or school problems.For borhood, the homeowner variableappearsto be measuring
example, the effect of a ten thousand dollar increase in characteristicsof the neighborhoodsin which homeowners
 AND THENEIGHBORHOOD
CITIZENPARTICIPATION CONTEXT 239
239

TABLE3
OF SCHOOL-RELATED
DETERMINANTS PARTICIPATION

Variable Talkto Friends Contact Officials Attend Meeting

School problem .167** .029* .005
(.044) (.015) (.018)
Kids in school .151** .034** .076**
(.042) (.013) (.023)
Homeowner .063 -.029** -.022
(.046) (.016) (.017)
Politicalinterest .269** .051** .026
(.055) (.023) (.022)
Contactedabout schools .209** .157** .181**
(.047) (.031) (.031)
Associationmember .020 .039** .064**
(.037) (.016) (.018)
Education .015* .005 .007**
(.008) (.003) (.003)
Employed .088** .012 .005
(.042) (.012) (.019)
Black .111** .003 .052
(.054) (.022) (.033)
Efficacy .211** .145** .146**
(.088) (.035) (.041)
Detroitresident .070 .032* -.020
(.062) (.018) (.036)
Neighborhoodsociopoliticalengagement .062 .011 -.084
(.156) (.057) (.081)
Constant -2.33 -5.22 -3.61
(.323) (.681) (.577)
Wald X2(17) 277.42** 342.57** 210.96**
N obs 887 875 887
N clusters 65 65 65
Models estimatedwith Stata'sxtgee (probit) procedure,with marginaleffects computed after xtgee. Entriesare transformedprobabilitiesand indicate the
change in probabilityof Y for a one-unit change in X when X is set at its mean; for dichotomous independent variables,it is the change in the probabilityof
Y for a discretechange in X from 0 to 1. * p < .05, ** p < .01, one-tailed test.

live. In otherwords, homeownersaremore likely to live with
other homeowners, and these neighborhoods tend to be
more stable and have lower levels of crime (Kasardaand
Janowitz 1974; Sampsonand Raudenbush1999).
WhoParticipatesin Schooland PublicSafetyActivities?
residence in the city of Detroit nor levels of neighborhood
sociopolitical engagement appear to matter at all.14How-
ever, as hypothesized, the perception of serious crime or
school problems does influence participation, suggesting
that the effects of neighborhood context on participation

In Tables3 and 4 I present the results of the school- and
public safety-relatedparticipationmodels, respectively For
the most 'part, the findings are consistent across the two
domains and also acrossspecific participatoryacts.
One noteworthy finding is the failure of the neighbor-
hood context variablesto exert any substantive or statisti-
cally significanteffectson individuals'propensityto partici-
pate in school- or public safety-relatedactivities. Neither
14 Note that the Neighborhoodmedian householdincome variable was
dropped from these models for reasons of parsimonyand also theory.
Not only did the variablehave no meaningfuleffect in any of the Par-
ticipationmodels, but also researchon urban communitiessuggests that
neighborhoodSESlikely operateson individualparticipationindirectly
through its effects on neighborhood social organizationand stability
(see e.g., Ross 1991; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999). Therefore, I
include the Neighborhood medianhouseholdincomevariableonly in the
ProblemPerceptionmodels.
240
240 POLITICAL QUARTERLY
RESEARCH
QUARTERLY

- TABLE4
DETERMINANTS
OF PUBLIC-SAFETY
RELATED
PARTICIPATION

Variable Talkto Friends ContactOfficials Attend Meeting

Crime problem .086** .038* .016
(.027) (.022) (.021)
Victim of crime .030 .067** .023
(.030) (.025) (.022)
Homeowner .011 .007 -.009
(.024) (.015) (.017)
Politicalinterest .232** .068** .074**
(.034) (.027) (.029)
Contactedabout crime .094** .131** .189**
(.024) (.025) (.036)
Associationmember .065** .056** .061**
(.023) (.019) (.019)
Education .007 .007* .003
(.005) (.004) (.003)
Employed .022 -.001 .000
(.024) (.020) (.017)
Black .054 .015 .026
(.033) (.021) (.029)
Efficacy -.036 .117** .189**
(.058) (.052) (.042)
Detroitresident -.021 -.010 .003
(.034) (.021) (.033)
Neighborhoodsociopoliticalengagement .050 -.071 .052
(.140) (.080) (.091)
Constant -.961 -3.61 -4.26
(.503) (.475) (.589)
Wald X2(17) 126.60** 272.01** 194.03**
N obs 887 887 887
N clusters 65 65 65
Models estimated with Stata'sxtgee (probit) procedure,with marginaleffects computed after xtgee. Entries are transformedprobabilitiesand indicate the
change in probabilityof Y for a one-unit change in X when X is set at its mean; for dichotomousindependent variables,it is the change in the probabilityof
Y for a discretechange in X from 0 to 1. * p < .05, ** p < .01, one-tailed test.

may indeed be indirect. Residentswho perceive neighbor-
hood schools and crime to be problematicarenot only more
likely to talk to friends and family about these two public
services (by roughly 17 and 9 percentage-pointsrespec-
tively), but are also significantly more likely to contact
school and police officials than those who don't perceive
such problems (by 3 and 5 percentage-pointsrespectively).
The only activitywhere problems do not appearto induce
action is the case of attendinglocal meetings about schools
or public safety.This finding suggests that the purpose of
such meetings may be more to support public institutions
like schools and police departments and to prevent the
developmentof potentialproblemsthan to respond or react
to problems that have alreadytaken root.
In addition to perceptions about neighborhood prob-
lems, other variablestapping residents'underlyinginterests
and incentives to participatealso appearto play an impor-
tant role. With the exception of the Homeownervariable,
other indicators are consistently significant predictors of
school- and public safety-relatedparticipation.Perhapsnot
surprisingly,the Politicalinterest variable has substantial
effects in the Talkto friends models, where the difference
between the minimum value (neither voting in the 1988
election nor discussing politics in the last one year) and
maximum value (having done both) translatesinto a 27
percentage-pointincrease in the likelihood of talking to
friends or family about schools, and a 23 percentage-point
increase in the likelihood of talking about crime. Though
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONAND THE
AND NEIGHBORHOOD
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
CONTEXT
still a significant predictor of other forms of school and
public-safetyinvolvement, the effect of political interest is
substantiallyreduced. Apart from political interest, having
children in school has a consistent, positive effect on the
likelihood of participationin school-relatedactivities.Like-
wise, being a recent victim of crime matters, albeit only
when it comes to contactinglocal police officials.
Finally,across all six forms of participation,the coeffi-
cients for the direct recruitmentmeasures (Contactedabout
crime/schools) are positive and statistically significant.
Indeed, these effects are quite substantialyielding increases
of anywherebetween 9.4 to 20.9 percentage-pointsin the
probabilityof participation.With regardto participationin
public-safety acts, the effects are strongest for attending
meetings, whereas in the school-related participation
models they are strongest for talking to friends. It is not
simply direct recruitmentthat matters. Results in Tables3
and 4 indicate that indirect recruitment,as measured by
associationalmembership,plays an importantrole in foster-
ing participationas well. Individualswho are members of
associations are more likely by between 3.9 and 6.5 per-
centage-pointsto get involved in school- and public safety-
relatedactivities.These resultssupport researchby Verbaet
al. (1995), who find that requestsfor political participation
most frequentlycome from fellow organizationalmembers,
followed by neighbors. Takentogether this evidence rather
convincinglypoints to just how importantmobilizationis in
the process of participationand suggests that the theory of
coproduction provides a useful way of conceptualizing
these and other civic behaviors.
DISCUSSIONAND IMPLICATIONS
In recentyearsAmericanshave become increasinglywor-
ried about the qualityof their schools and the safetyof their
neighborhoods. Interestingly,the heightened salience of
these two public policies has coincided with significant
increasesin spending and media attention.In the domain of
public safety for example, recentyears have witnessed mas-
sive prison construction programsin states like Texas and
California,sizable increases in the number of new police
officers, and spending on new programssuch as President
Clinton'scrime bill (Warr1995). Similarspending increases
have been recordedin the area of education. For instance,
from 1995-2001, per pupil expenditures increased by 10
percent (in constant dollars), comparedto only a 1 percent
increase between 1991-1995 (U.S. Departmentof Educa-
tion 2002). Despite these increasesin expenditures,public
opinion polls continue to show that Americansare willing
to spend even more on crime prevention and education
(Hochschild and Scott 1998; Warr 1995). Is spending the
solution to the problemsof crime and poor schooling?
Insightsfrom the theory of coproductionsuggest that by
itself, spending more money is insufficient.Rather,accord-
ing to this theory, improvements in the quality of local
public goods and services will result from renewed citizen
participationand more vigorous recruitmentand mobiliza-
241
241
tion on the part of government, community organizations,
and local citizens. The solution to the problems of crime
and poor schools, then, may depend more on increasing
levels of citizen participation than on increasing public
expenditures.Unfortunately,most researchon participation
has paid scant attention to less traditional activities and
organizationssuch as those relatedto the provision of local
public goods and services. Therefore,in this study I have
attemptedto addressthis gap in the literatureby examining
not only how individual- and neighborhood-level factors
shape citizens'perceptionsof crime or education as serious
problems, but also how these factors lead individuals to
become involved in activities and organizationsrelated to
these two local public services. By merging two distinct
strandsof research-the theory of coproductionand studies
of political participation-my findings shed new light on
why individuals participate in local efforts to improve
schools and mitigatecrime, and also offerinsights into how
and why context shapes incentives and actions.
Although extant research examines the relationship
between context and political behavior, these studies do
not fully clarifythe underlying mechanism driving contex-
tual effects. For example looking at cities as the contextual
unit of analysis, Oliver (1999: 186) finds that civic partic-
ipation is lowest in homogeneous, affluent cities and high-
est in diverse, middle-income cities. He concludes that
varying levels of local political interest drive this effect:
affluent cities have fewer social needs promoting action
and heterogeneous cities have more competition for public
goods, which stimulates interest and participation.
Although my findings substantiate the general argument
that political interest varies systematicallywith the socioe-
conomic characteristicsof local jurisdictions, they suggest
two important corollaries. First, my results indicate that
political interest varies substantially within cities and this
variabilityis a consequence of not only neighborhood SES
but also neighborhood sociopolitical organization.
Second, my findings suggest that for the most part, con-
text influences civic behaviors indirectly, by shaping the
nature of neighborhood problems and residents' percep-
tions of these problems.
In other researchfocusing on neighborhoodcontext and
its effects on participation,high status contexts have been
found to positivelyinfluence participationlevels, at least for
activities that require sociability (Giles and Dantico 1982;
Huckfeldt1986). The argumentis that context works mostly
through the processes of assimilationand conformity:high
status environments encourage participation through the
informal transmissionof group-based norms, which turns
participationinto social obligation (Huckfeldt 1986). My
findings directlycontradictthis argument,favoringinstead,
the proposition that neighborhood SES operates primarily
on social needs and thus incentives for participation.
The researchpresentedhere also suggests that a broader
conceptualizationof recruitmentand mobilizationis useful
for understandingcitizen participationin the local context.
As the literature on coproduction emphasizes, it is not
242
242
simply friends, neighbors, and associationalaffiliateswho
facilitate participation through mobilization and recruit-
ment; instead governmentalactorsplay an importantrole in
these processes as well. Moreover,citizen contacts serve as
importantmechanismsnot only for recruitingindividualsto
take action but also for disseminating vital information
about local events. Indeed, my results indicate that respon-
dents who are formally contacted are significantly more
likely to be aware of neighborhood crime and also partici-
pate in school- and crime-relatedactivitiesat much higher
rates than respondents who are not contacted. In light of
recent researchshowing a steady decline in levels of politi-
cal engagement among Americans(Putnam 1995; Teixeira
1992; Wattenberg1996), this finding suggests that commu-
nities and governmentsthat take citizen contactsmore seri-
ously could stimulate participation in meaningful ways.
Ostrom's(1996) study of the Braziliangovernment'sefforts
to activelyencouragecitizen participationin the coproduc-
tion of urban infrastructure supports this contention.
Specifically,she found that many urbanneighborhoodsthat
had never undertaken collective action before being con-
tacted were empowered by the opportunity to participate
meaningfully in coproducing an urban service that was
highly valued. Likewise,in their seminal study,Mobilization,
Participation, and Democracy in America, Rosenstone and
Hansen (1993: 74) conclude that citizen participationrises
and falls with effortsof politicalleadersto bring people into
the political process.
The argumentsfor increasingcitizen participationarenot
simply normative, but instead are based on empirical evi-
dence that identifies a criticallink between citizen partici-
pation and the productionof local public goods. In particu-
lar, researchon coproductionhas found that greatercitizen
involvementin the productionof public goods and services
increases government's responsiveness to citizen needs,
ideas, and preferences,and leads to fewer complaints and
misunderstandingson the part of residents (see e.g., Berry
et al. 1993; Brudney1991). In addition,studies have shown
that coproduction positively influences citizen satisfaction
with local services and contributes to more positive atti-
tudes toward government (Brudney 1984; Meier 1995,
1985; Percy 1984; Schneider et al. 2000). It would seem
then, that coproduction is a potentially valuable, albeit
underutilized tool in the domains of public education and
crime prevention.If as Ostrom(1996: 1083) concludes, "no
government can be efficient and equitable without consid-
erableinput from citizens,"a new look at the coproduction
of local public goods is certainlywarranted.
REFERENCES
Abramson,Paul R., and John H. Aldrich. 1982. "TheDecline in
Electoral Participationin America."AmericanPoliticalScience
Review76 (September):502-21.
Alex-Assensoh,Yvette. 1997. "Race,ConcentratedPoverty,Social
Isolation and Political Behavior."UrbanAffairsReview33 (2):
209-27.
POLITICAL
POLITICAL RESEARCH
RESEARCH QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
Almond, Gabriel,and Sidney Verba.1963. TheCivicCulture:Polit-
ical Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Berry,JeffreyM., KentE. Portney,and KenThomson. 1993. TheRe-
birthof UrbanDemocracy.Washington,DC: BrookingsInstitute.
Books,John W, and CharlesL. Prysby.1991. PoliticalBehaviorand
the Local Context. New York: Praeger.
Brudney,JeffreyL. 1984. "LocalCoproductionof Servicesand the
Analysis of Municipal Productivity." Urban Affairs Quarterly 19
(4): 465-84.
.1991 "Coproductionand LocalGovernments."In RogerL.
Kemp, ed., The Provision of Public Services by the Private Sector.
Jefferson,NC: McFarland.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and
Donald E. Stokes. 1960. TheAmericanVoterNew York:Wiley
Cohen, CathyJ., and Michael C. Dawson. 1993. "Neighborhood
Povertyand AfricanAmericanPolitics."AmericanPoliticalSci-
enceReview87 (June):286-302.
Finkel, Steven E. 1985. "ReciprocalEffects of Participationand
PoliticalEfficacy:A PanelAnalysis."AmericanJournalof Political
Science29 (November):891-913.
Giles, Michael,and MarilynDantico. 1982. "PoliticalParticipation
and NeighborhoodSocial ContextRevised."AmericanJournalof
Political Science 26 (February): 144-50.
Gittell, Marilyn. 1980. Limits to Citizen Participation. Beverly Hills,
CA:Sage.
Goldstein, H. 1977. Policing a Free Society. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Hess, FrederickM., and PatrickJ. McGuinn. 2002. "Seekingthe
Mantel of 'Opportunity':PresidentialPolitics and the Educa-
tional Metaphor,1964-2000." EducationalPolicy16 (1): 72-95.
Hindelang, Michael J., Michael R. Gottfredson, and James
Garafalo.1978. Victimsof PersonalCrime:An EmpiricalFounda-
tion for a Theoryof Personal Victimization.Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Hirschman,Albert 0. 1970. Exit, Voice,and Loyalty.Cambridge,
MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Hochschild, Jennifer, and Bridget Scott. 1998. "Trends:Gover-
nance and Reformof Public Educationin the United States."
PublicOpinionQuarterly62 (1): 79-120.
Hox, Joop J. 1998. "MultilevelModeling:When and Why?"In I.
BalderjahnR., and Mathar,M. Schader,eds., Classification,
Data
Analysis,and Data Highways.Heidelberg-Berlin:Springer.
Huckfeldt, Robert. 1979. "PoliticalParticipationand the Neigh-
borhood Social Context."AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience
23: 579-92.
_ . 1983. "Social Contexts, Social Networks, and Urban
Neighborhoods: Environmental Constraints on Friendship
Choice."AmericanJournalof Sociology89: 651-69.
.1986. Politicsin Context:Assimilationand Conflictin Urban
Neighborhoods. New York:AgathonPress.
Jackman,Robert,and Ross Miller. 1996. "ARenaissanceof Politi-
cal Culture?"AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience40 (August):
632-57.
Jones, Bryan D., Saadia, Clifford Kaufman, R. Greenberg,and
Joseph Drew. 1977. "Bureaucratic Responseto Citizen-Initiated
Contacts: EnvironmentalEnforcement in Detroit."American
PoliticalScienceReview71 (March):148-65.
Kasarda,John, and MorrisJanowitz. 1974. "CommunityAttach-
ment in Mass Society"AmericanSociologicalReview39: 328-39.
Kreft, Ita G. G. 1996. "Are Multilevel Techniques Necessary?"
WorkingPaper,Universityof California,Los Angeles.
CITIZEN
CITIZENPARTICIPATION
AND
AND THE
PARTICIPATION NEIGHBORHOOD
CONTEXT
THENEIGHBORHOOD
CONTEXT
LeClere,Felicia B., RichardG. Rogers, and KimberleyD. Peters.
1997. "Ethnicityand Moralityin the United States:Individual
and CommunityCorrelates."SocialForces76 (September):169-
98.
Leighley,Jan. 1990. "SocialInteractionand ContextualInfluences
on Political Participation."AmericanPoliticsQuarterly18 (4):
459-75.
_ . 1996. "Group Membership and the Mobilization of Politi-
cal Participation.Journalof Politics
58 (2): 447-63.
Levi, Margaret. 1996. "Social Capital and Unsocial Capital: A
ReviewEssayof RobertPutnam'sMakingDemocracyWork."Pol-
iticsand Society24: 45-55.
Levine, Charles H. 1984. "Citizenshipand Service Delivery:The
Promise of Coproduction."Public AdministrationReview 47
(March):26-34.
Lodge, Milton, MarcoSteenbergen,and Shawn Brau. 1995. "The
ResponsiveVoter:CampaignInformationand the Dynamics of
Candidate Evaluation." American Political Science Review
89(2):309-26.
Lyons,W E., David Lowery,and Ruth Hoogland DeHoog. 1992.
ThePoliticsof Dissatisfaction.
Armonk,NY:M.E. Sharpe.
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. "Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias:Informa-
tion and VotingBehaviorin CaliforniaInsuranceReformElec-
tions."AmericanPoliticalScienceReview88(1):63-76.
Maddala,G. S. 1983. LimitedDependentand QualitativeVariablesin
Econometrics. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Marschall,MelissaJ. 2000. "TheRole of Informationand Institu-
tional Arrangementsin Stemming the Stratifying Effects of
School Choice."Journalof UrbanAffairs22 (3): 333-50.
Marschall,MelissaJ., and RobertJ. McKee.2002. "FromCampaign
Promisesto PresidentialPolicy:EducationReformin the 2000
Election."EducationalPolicy16 (1): 96-117.
Mason, William M., and Vincent Kang Fu. 1999. "Multilevel
Models, Contextual Effects."Diadactic Seminar, Session 163.
Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association,
Chicago.
Mass, CoraJ. M., and Joop J. Hox. N.d. "Robustnessof Multilevel
ParameterEstimates Against Small Sample Sizes." Working
Paper,UtrechtUniversity
Meier,Deborah. 1985. "Retainingthe Teacher'sPerspectivein the
Principalship."Educationand UrbanSociety17 (May):302-10.
_ . 1995. "How Our Schools Could Be." Phi Delta Kappan 76
(5):369-73.
Oliver,J. Eric. 1999. "CivicInvolvementin Suburbia:The Effects
of MetropolitanEconomicSegregationon Participationin Local
Civic Affairs."AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience43 (January):
186-212.
_ . 2000. "City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan
America."AmericanPoliticalScienceReview94 (June):661-73.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1996. "Crossingthe GreatDivide: Coproduction,
Synergy,and Development."WorldDevelopment24 (6): 1073-
87.
Pammer,WilliamJ. 1992. "Administrative Norms and the Copro-
duction of Municipal Services."Social Science Quarterly73
(December):920-29.
Percy,StephenL. 1984. "CitizenParticipationin the Coproduction
of Urban Services."UrbanAffairsQuarterly19 (4): 431-46.
Putnam,Robert. 1966. "PoliticalAttitudesand the Local Commu-
nity."AmericanPoliticalScienceReview60 (September):640-54.
. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
UniversityPress.
243
.1995. "Tuningin, TuningOut: The StrangeDisappearance
of Social Capitalin America."PS:PoliticalScienceand Politics28
(June):664-83.
Rich, R. C. 1981. "Interactionof the Voluntaryand Governmental
Sectors: Towards an Understanding of the Coproduction in
Municipal Services."Administration and Society 13 (May): 59-
76.
Rogers, D. L., G. L. Bultena, and K. H. Barb. 1975. "Voluntary
AssociationMembershipand PoliticalParticipation:An Explo-
ration of the Mobilization Hypothesis."SociologicalQuarterly
16: 305-18.
Rosenstone, Steven, and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization,
Participationand Democracyin America.New York:MacMillan.
Rosenstone,StevenJ. 1989. DetroitAreaStudy,1989: PoliticalPar-
ticipation in the DetroitArea [Computerfile], 2nd ICPSRver-
sion. Ann Arbor:Universityof Michigan,Departmentof Soci-
ology, Detroit Area Studies (producer). Ann Arbor:
Inter-universityConsortium for Political and Social Research
[distributor],1997.
Rosentraub,M. S., and E. B. Sharp. 1981. "Consumersas Produc-
ers of Social Services: Coproduction and the Level of Social
Services."SouthernReviewof PublicAdministration4 (March):
502-39.
Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky,and Shana Pribesh. 2001.
"Powerlessnessand the Amplificationof Threat:Neighborhood
Disadvantage, Disorder, and Mistrust."AmericanSociological
Review66 (August):568-91.
Sampson, RobertJ. 1988. "LocalFriendshipTies and Community
Attachmentin Mass Society: A Multi-LevelSystemic Model."
AmericanSociologicalReview53: 766-79.
Sampson, RobertJ., and W Bryon Groves. 1989. "Community
Structureand Crime: Testing Social-DisorganizationTheory"
AmericanJournalof Sociology94 (January):774-802.
Sampson, RobertJ., and Stephen W Raudenbush.1999. "System-
atic Social Observationof Public Spaces:A New Look at Disor-
der in Urban Neighborhoods."AmericanJournal of Sociology
105 (November):603-51.
Schneider,Mark,Paul Teske, and MelissaMarschall.2000. Choos-
ing Schools:SchoolChoiceand the Qualityof AmericanSchools.
Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Sharp,Elaine. 1980. "Towarda new Understandingof Urban Ser-
vices and Citizen Participation:The Coproduction Concept."
MidwestReviewof PublicAdministration 14 (2): 105-18.
.1998. "SocialCapitaland CultureWars."A paper prepared
for deliveryat the Workshopon RevitalizingUrbanDemocracy,
Russell Sage Foundation, New York,April 2-3.
Skogan, Wesley G., and Michael G. Maxfield. 1981. Copingwith
Crime:Individualand Neighborhood Reactions.BeverlyHills, CA:
Sage.
Stein, Robert,StephaniePost, and Allison L. Rinden. 2000. "Rec-
onciling Context and ContactEffectson RacialAttitudes."Polit-
ical ResearchQuarterly53 (June):285-303.
Stinson, T. E and J. M. Stam. 1976. "Towardan Economic Model
of Voluntarism:The Case of Participationin Local Govern-
ment."Journalof Voluntary ActionResearch5 (January):52-60.
Tarrow,Sidney. 1996. "MakingSocial Science Work Across Space
and Time: A Critical Reflection on Robert Putnam'sMaking
DemocracyWork."AmericanPoliticalScienceReview90 (June):
389-97.
Taylor, Marylee C. 1998. "How White Attitudes Vary with the
Racial Composition of Local Populations: Numbers Count."
American Sociological Review 63: 512-35.
244
Taylor,RalphB. 1997. "SocialOrderand Disorderof StreetBlocks
and Neighborhoods:Ecology,Microecology,and the Systemic
Model of Social Disorganization."Journalof Researchin Crime
and Delinquency34: 113-55.
Teixeira,Ruy A. 1992. TheDisappearingAmericanVoter.Washing-
ton, DC: BrookingsInstitution.
Thomas, John Clayton. 1982. "Citizen-InitiatedContacts with
Government Agencies: A Test of Three Theories."American
Journalof PoliticalScience26 (3): 504-22.
U.S. Departmentof Education,National Centerfor EducationSta-
tistics. 2002. Statisticsof State School Systems,Revenuesand
Expenditures for Publicand SecondaryEducation.Washington,
DC: U.S. Departmentof Education.
Verba, Sidney, and Norman Nie. 1972. Participationin America:
PoliticalDemocracyand Social Equality.New York:Harper &
Row.
Verba,Sidney,KeyLehmanSchlozman,and HenryE. Brady.1995.
Voiceand Equality:CivicVoluntarism in AmericanPolitics.Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warr, Mark. 1995. "Poll Trends:Public Opinion on Crime and
Punishment."PublicOpinionQuarterly59 (2): 296-310.
POLITICAL
RESEARCH
POLITICAL
RESEARCH
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
Wattenberg,Martin.1996. TheDeclineof AmericanPoliticalParties.
Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Wildavsky,Aaron. 1979. SpeakingTruthto Power:TheArt and Craft
of PolicyAnalysis.Boston:Little,Brown.
Wilson, WilliamJ. 1987. The TrulyDisadvantaged: The InnerCity,
the Underclass,andPublicPolicy.Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press.
.1996. WhenWorkDisappears.New York:Knopf.
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who
Votes?New Haven, CT:YaleUniversityPress.
Zorn, Christopher. 2001. "Generalized Estimating Equation
Models for Correlated Data: A Review with Applications."
AmericanJournalof PoliticalScience45 (April):470-90.
Received: April 1, 2004
Accepted for Publication: June 4, 2004
marschal@rice.edu