This study explores the impact of representation in terms of types and loci on the intended outcomes of a child abuse protection policy implemented over 9 years (2011–2019), during which Erin’s Law was introduced in the U.S. states. Using state-level data, we find that gender and minority representation in the political and administrative arena have distinctive effects on policy outcomes and that policy adoption moderates the link between representation and implementation. Our analysis shows that bureaucratic representation significantly decreases child abuse reports per capita and increases investigation rates, with these effects being more pronounced when Erin’s Law is adopted. The marginal effects of bureaucratic representation on reports and investigation rates decrease and indicate non-linear relationships. This study finds that bureaucratic representation provides benefits beyond co-identity groups, but there is little evidence that political representation is moderated by policy adoption when different sources of representation are considered.
AmirkhanyanAAHoltSBMcCreaAM, et al. (2019) Managing racial diversity: matching internal strategies with environmental needs. Public Administration Review79(1): 69–81.
2.
BishuSGKennedyAR (2019) Trends and gaps: a meta-review of representative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration40(4): 559–588.
3.
BrehmJOGatesS (1999) Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
CarrollSJ (2001) The Impact of Women in Public Office. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
5.
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2022) Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau.
ChoiHHongS (2021) Linking political and bureaucratic representation: does minority representation on city councils affect the outcomes of street‐level service?Public Administration99(2): 405–421.
8.
ColemanJJ (1999) Unified government, divided government, and party responsiveness. American Political Science Review93(4): 821–835.
9.
CollinsS (2008) Statutory social workers: stress, job satisfaction, coping, social support and individual differences. British Journal of Social Work38(6): 1173–1193.
10.
Cowell-MeyersKLangbeinL (2009) Linking women’s descriptive and substantive representation in the United States. Politics and Gender5(4): 491–518.
11.
CrossTPFinkelhorDOrmrodR (2005) Police involvement in child protective services investigations: literature review and secondary data analysis. Child Maltreatment10(3): 224–244.
12.
DettlaffAJBoydR (2020) Racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system: why do they exist, and what can be done to address them?The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science692(1): 253–274.
13.
DiyaoluMYeCHuangZ, et al. (2023) Disparities in detection of suspected child abuse. Journal of Pediatric Surgery58(2): 337–343. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2022.10.039.
14.
DrakeB (2024) The “over-reporting” of Black children to child protective services: are we doing equity wrong?International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice. DOI: 10.1007/s42448-024-00202-2.
15.
DruryI (2020) Exploring social equity in child welfare. In: GuyMEMcCandlessSE (eds). Achieving Social Equity: From Problems to Solutions. Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh, 112–124.
16.
FaveroNMolinaALJr. (2018) Is active bureaucratic representation an organizational-level process? The indirect effect of bureaucrats on clients they don’t directly serve. The American Review of Public Administration48(1): 3–17.
17.
FerreiraFGyourkoJ (2014) Does gender matter for political leadership? The case of U.S. mayors. Journal of Public Economics112: 24–39.
18.
FowlerLVallettJ (2021) Conditional nature of policy as a stabilizing force: Erin’s law and teacher child abuse reporting practices. Administration & Society53: 937–962. DOI: 10.1177/0095399720976534.
19.
GoebbelsAFNicholsonJMWalshK, et al. (2008) Teachers’ reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect: behaviour and determinants. Health Education Research23(6): 941–951.
20.
GuulTS (2018) The individual-level effect of gender matching in representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review78(3): 398–408.
21.
HeadleyAMWrightJEMeierKJ (2021) Bureaucracy, democracy, and race: the limits of symbolic representation. Public Administration Review81: 1033–1043. DOI: 10.1111/puar.13358.
22.
HongS (2017) Black in blue: racial profiling and representative bureaucracy in policing revisited. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27(4): 547–561.
23.
JohnstonKYarrowE (2024) Active representation and identity taxation: unintended outcome of representative labour?Public Management Review26(4): 970–987.
24.
JonesDBBaumgartnerFR (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
25.
KanterRM (1977) Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology82(5): 965–990.
26.
KarnigA. KMcClainP. D. (1988). Urban Minority Administrators: Politics, Policy, and Style.New York, Greenwood, 031325852X 9780313258527; 0147-1066.
27.
KeiserLRHaider-MarkelDPDaroliaR (2021) Race, representation, and policy attitudes in U.S. public schools. Policy Studies Journal50: 823–848. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12443.
KennyMC (2004) Teachers’ attitudes toward and knowledge of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect28(12): 1311–1319.
30.
KimHDrakeB (2018) Child maltreatment risk as a function of poverty and race/ethnicity in the USA. International Journal of Epidemiology47(3): 780–787.
31.
KropkoJKubinecR (2020) Interpretation and identification of within-unit and cross-sectional variation in panel data models. PLoS One15(4): e0231349. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231349.
32.
LavertuSWeimerDL (2009) Integrating delegation into the policy theory literature. Policy Studies Journal37(1): 93–102.
33.
LiangJParkSLiJ (2024) Weathering the cutbacks: the buffering role of representative bureaucracy in environmental policy implementation. Public Management Review1–23. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2024.2387815.
34.
LiangJParkSZhaoT (2020) Representative bureaucracy, distributional equity, and environmental justice. Public Administration Review80(3): 402–414.
35.
LongNE (1952) Bureaucracy and constitutionalism. American Political Science Review46(3): 808–818.
36.
LowandeKRitchieMLauterbachE (2019) Descriptive and substantive representation in congress: evidence from 80,000 congressional inquiries. American Journal of Political Science63(3): 644–659.
37.
LukenANairRFixRL (2021) On racial disparities in child abuse reports: exploratory mapping the 2018 NCANDS. Child Maltreatment26(3): 267–281.
38.
MeierKJ (2018) Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: new directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance2(1): 39–56.
39.
MeierKJDhillonA (2022) Gender and the state politics of policy implementation in education: the interaction of bureaucratic and legislative representation in India. State Politics and Policy Quarterly22(3): 344–370.
40.
MeierKJNicholson-CrottyJ (2006) Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: the case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review66: 850–860.
41.
MeierKJO’TooleLJr. (2006) Political control versus bureaucratic values: reframing the debate. Public Administration Review66(2): 177–192.
42.
MeierKJXuX (2022) Critical thoughts about critical mass in representative bureaucracy: a theoretical exploration and empirical illustration. Governance36(3): 887–907.
43.
MeierKJWrinkleRDPolinardJL (1999) Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: addressing the hard question. The Journal of Politics61(4): 1025–1039.
44.
MummoloJPetersonE (2018) Improving the interpretation of fixed effects regression results. Political Science Research and Method6(4): 829–835.
45.
MumpowerJL (2010) Disproportionality at the “front end” of the child welfare services system: an analysis of rates of referrals, “hits”, “misses”, and “false alarms”. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration33(3): 364–405.
46.
MumpowerJLMcClellandGH (2014) A signal detection theory analysis of racial and ethnic disproportionality in the referral and substantiation processes of the US child welfare services system. Judgment and Decision Making9(2): 114–128.
47.
Nicholson-CrottyJGrissomJANicholson-CrottyS (2011) Bureaucratic representation, distributional equity, and democratic values in the administration of public programs. The Journal of Politics73(2): 582–596.
48.
ParkS (2014) The politics of redistribution in local governments: the effect of gender representation on welfare spending in California counties. Journal of Public Policy34(2): 269–301.
49.
ParkS (2022) The construction of social inequity and the role of public bureaucracies. Journal of Policy Studies37(4): 1–15.
50.
ParkSLiangJ (2021) A comparative study of gender representation and social outcomes: the effect of political and bureaucratic representation. Public Administration Review81(2): 321–332.
51.
PoggioneS (2004) Exploring gender differences in state legislators’ policy preferences. Political Research Quarterly57(2): 305–314.
52.
ReingoldBSmithAR (2012) Welfare policymaking and intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender in U.S. State legislatures. American Journal of Political Science56(1): 131–147.
53.
RiccucciNMVan RyzinGG (2017) Representative bureaucracy: a lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review77(1): 21–30.
54.
RiccucciNMVan RyzinGGLiH (2014) Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: an experimental study. Public Administration Review76(1): 121–130.
55.
SabatierP (2007) Theories of the Policy Process. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
56.
SchneiderAIngramH (1993) Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review87(2): 334–347.
57.
SeldenSC (1997) Representative bureaucracy: examining the linkage between passive and active representation in the farmers home administration. The American Review of Public Administration27(1): 22–42.
58.
SeldenSCBrudneyJLKelloughJE (1998) Bureaucracy as a representative institution: toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. American Journal of Political Science42(3): 717–744.
59.
SubramaniamV (1967) Representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review61(4): 1910–1919.
60.
TheobaldNAHaider-MarkelDP (2009) Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory19(2): 409–426.
61.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect (1990) Child Abuse and Neglect: Critical First Steps in Response to a National Emergency. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
62.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau (2023) Child Maltreatment 2021. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-maltreatment.
63.
VallettJDParkS (2023) The politics of expertise in policymaking: the case of Erin’s law adoption and diffusion across the U.S. States. State and Local Government Review56(3): 211–234.
64.
Van RiperPP (1958) History of the United States Civil Service. Evanston: Row Peterson and Company.
65.
Van RyzinGGRiccucciNMLiH (2017) Representative bureaucracy and its symbolic effect on citizens: a conceptual replication. Public Management Review19(9): 1365–1379.
66.
WileyTR (2009). Legal and social service responses to child sexual abuse: a primer and discussion of relevant research. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse18(3): 267–289.
67.
WilkinsVKeiserL (2006) Linking passive and active representation by gender: the case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(1): 87–102.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
