In the contemporary policy-implementation process where policies in practice often reflect a compromise, public managers increasingly must consult with the relevant public to learn what that public wants. The purpose of this article is to argue that public managers might sometimes find public-opinion polls valuable as a source of information on public preferences. After explaining when and why this might be the case, the authors illustrate their argument using public-opinion data on the attitudes of Georgia residents toward the issue of Charitable Choice and provide examples of how these data might assist public managers in implementing the program.
Asher, H. (2001). Polling and the public: What every citizen should know (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
2.
Bartkowski, J. P., & Regis, H. A. (1999). Religious organizations, anti-poverty relief, and charitable choice: A feasibility study of faith-based welfare reform in Mississippi. Washington, DC: PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government Grant Report.
3.
Binder, A. (1984). Restrictions on statistics imposed by method of measurement: Some reality, some myth. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 467-481.
4.
Chaves, M. (1999a). Congregations’ social service activities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
5.
Chaves, M. (1999b). Religious congregations and welfare reform: Who will take advantage of Charitable Choice?American Sociological Review, 64, 836-846.
6.
Cnaan, R. A., & Boddie, S. C. (2001). Black church outreach: Comparing how black and other congregations serve their needy neighbors. Philadelphia: Center for the Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania.
7.
Cook, C. D. (1998, January 6). Church purpose: Social service or “saving souls”?Christian Science Monitor, p. 3.
8.
deLeon, P. (1995). Democratic values and the policy sciences. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 886-905.
9.
deLeon, P., & deLeon, L. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 467-492.
10.
Demko, P. (1997, December 11). Faith-based charities to the rescue?Chronicle of Philanthropy, p. 38.
11.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60, 549-559.
12.
Dionne, E. J., & Dilulio, J. J. (1999). What’s God got to do with the American experiment?Brookings Review, 17(2), 4-9.
13.
Etindi, D. (1998). Charitable Choice and its implications for faith-based organizations. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute, Welfare Policy Center.
14.
Greiner, G. M. (2000). Charitable Choice and welfare reform: Collaboration between state and local governments and faith-based organizations. Issue Notes, 4(12). Retrieved October 9, 2000, from http://www.welfareinfo.org/issuenotecharitablechoice.htm
15.
Grettenberger, S. (2001). Churches as a community resource of funding for human services. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.
16.
Haberkern, R. M. (2002). Implementing Charitable Choice at the state and local levels. Issue Notes, 6(5). Retrieved August 13, 2002, from http://www.welfareinfo.org/implementingcharitablechoiceIN.htm
17.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
Hall, P. D. (2000). Philanthropy, the welfare state, and the transformation of American public and private institutions, 1945-2000. Cambridge, MA: Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations.
19.
Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Jacobson, S. K., & Marynowski, S. B. (1997). Public attitudes and knowledge about ecosystem management on Department of Defense land in Florida. Conservation Biology, 11, 770-781.
21.
Kennedy, S. S., & Bielefeld, W. (2002). Government shekels without government shackles? The administrative challenges of Charitable Choice. Public Administration Review, 62(1), 4-11.
22.
Kettl, D. F. (2001). Managing indirect government. In L. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp.490-510). New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Kim, J. O. (1975). Multivariate analysis of ordinal variables. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 261-298.
24.
Kraft, M. E., & Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. Western Political Quarterly, 44, 299-328.
25.
Kramnick, I., & Moore, R. L. (1997). Can the churches save the cities: Faith-based services and the Constitution?American Prospect, 35, 47-53.
26.
Labovitz, S. (1967). Some observations on measurement and statistics. Social Forces, 46, 151-160.
27.
Labovitz, S. (1970). The assignment of numbers to rank order categories. American Sociological Review, 35, 515-524.
28.
Link, M. W., & Oldendick, R. W. (2000). The role of survey research in the benchmarking process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 12(1), 138-164.
29.
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1999). Representation or abdication? How citizens use institutions to help delegation succeed. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 291-307.
30.
McCarthy, J., & Castelli, J. (1999). Religion-sponsored social service providers: The not-so-independent sector. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.
31.
McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 3, 243-277.
Miller, T. I., & Miller, M. A. (1991). Standards of excellence: U.S. residents’evaluations of local government services. Public Administration Review, 51, 503-514.
34.
Poister, T. H., & Henry, G. T. (1994). Citizen ratings of public and private service quality: A comparative perspective. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 155-160.
35.
Posner, P. L. (2001). Accountability challenges of third-party government. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 523-551). New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
Printz, T. J. (1998). Faith-based service providers in the nation’s capital: Can they do more?Charting Civil Society, 2, 1-6.
37.
Reingold, D. A., Pirog, M., & Brady, D. O. (2000, November). Empirical evidence on welfare reform and faith-based organizations. Paper Presented at the 22nd Annual Research Conference of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management, Seattle, WA.
38.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2001). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Selden, S. C., Brewer, G. A., & Brudney, J. L. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public administration: Understanding the administrative role concept. Administration and Society, 31(2), 171-204.
40.
Serra, G. (1995). Citizen-initiated contact and satisfaction with bureaucracy: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 175-188.
41.
Sherman, A. L. (2000). A survey of church-government anti-poverty partnerships. American Enterprise, June, 1-4.
42.
Sherman, A. L. (2002). A report on Charitable Choice implementation in 15 states. Charlottesville, VA: Hudson Institute.
43.
Smith, S. R., & Sosin, M. R. (2001). The varieties of faith-related agencies. Public Administration Review, 61, 651-669.
44.
Swindell, D., & Kelly, J. M. (2000). Linking citizen satisfaction data to performance measures: A preliminary examination. Public Performance and Management Review, 24(1), 30-52.
45.
Tanner, M. (2001). Corrupting charity: Why government should not fund faith-based charities. Cato Institute Briefing Papers, 62, 1-14.
46.
Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47.
Twombly, E. C., & De Vita, C. J. (1998). D.C.—Area ties to religious congregations. Charting Civil Society, 3, 1-4.
48.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002a). Charitable Choice: Overview of research findings on implementation (Rep. No. GAO-02-337). Washington, DC: Author.
49.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002b). Charitable Choice: Federal guidance on statutory provisions could improve consistency of implementation (Rep. No. GAO-02-887). Washington, DC: Author.
50.
Van Slyke, D. M. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 277-296.
51.
Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60, 349-359.
52.
White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2001). Unlevel playing field: Barriers to participation by faith-based and community organizations in federal social service programs. Washington, DC: Author.
53.
Wuthnow, R. (2000). Linkages between religious congregations and nonprofit service organizations. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.
54.
Zimmerman, D. W., & Zumbo, B. D. (1993). The relative power of parametric and nonparametric statistical methods. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 481-517). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
