Recently, there has been renewed interest in engaging citizens locally. While political motivations vary, a common goal is to enhance participation and representation by creating formal bodies of community representatives to play an advisory role in policy processes. This paper integrates implementation feasibility and participatory theories to develop a theoretical framework for assessing the implementation of public participation mechanisms. It applies this framework in an analysis of Detroit, which adopted a charter-mandated Community Advisory Council system within the new city council districts in 2012. The research illuminates the limitations of Detroit's system, explaining why citywide implementation continues to lag. The findings underscore the importance of cohesive statutory objectives, institutional reform that supports the coordinated efforts of city agents, clarity of decision rules, dedicated city resources, and commitment on the part of community, political, and administrative leaders in such reforms.
AzungahTheophilus.2018. “Qualitative Research: Deductive and Inductive Approaches to Data Analysis.” Qualitative Research Journal18 (4): 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035
BerryJeffrey M.PortneyKent E.ThomsonKen. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
9.
BhererLaurence.2010. “Successful and Unsuccessful Participatory Arrangements: Why is There a Participatory Movement at the Local Level?” Journal of Urban Affairs32 (3): 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00505.x
BoyerEdward. (1974). “Young Unhappy with Decentralization Move.” The Detroit Free Press, July 22.
12.
BrysonJohn M.QuickKathryn S.SlotterbackCarissa SchivelyCrosbyBarbara C.. 2013. “Designing Public Participation Processes.” Public Administration Review73 (1): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x
13.
CarterP.[Piper Carter Podcast]. October 25, 2022. “Detroit Community Advisory Council (CAC) Candidates Running For District 5 on Nov. 8 YouTube.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u_eF5I6IB4.
City of Detroit Law Department. 2020. Re: Community Advisory Council District 7. Detroit, Michigan.
20.
ClarkJill K.2018. “Designing Public Participation: Managing Problem Settings and Social Equity.” Public Administration Review78 (3): 362–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12872
21.
CollinsBradyDel ReyDana Kalei. 2020. “Participatory Urban Governance Under the Microscope: A Qualitative Study of High-Functioning Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles.” Journal of Urban Affairs44 (10): 1416–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2020.1820873
22.
CollinsBradyMedranoAngel. 2022. “From Parochial to Policy Advocate: Examining Policy Advocacy among Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles.” Cities130: 103882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103882
23.
Community Development Advocates of Detroit. 2013. “[Letter for Advocating Community Advisory Councils].” November 26.
Detroit City Council. 2014a. Re: Membership of the Community Advisory Committee. Legislative Policy Division. Detroit, Michigan.
31.
Detroit City Council. 2014b. Re: Ordinance Combining Citizens’ District Councils and Community Advisory Committees. Legislative Policy Division. Detroit, Michigan.
32.
Detroit City Council. 2019. Formal Session: New Business Agenda. Detroit, Michigan.
33.
Detroit City Council. 2021. Re: Legislative Policy Division Community Outreach Ordinance-Community Budget Priorities Virtual Forum Report. Legislative Policy Division. Detroit, Michigan.
EckerdAdamHeidelbergRoy L.. 2020. “Administering Public Participation.” The American Review of Public Administration50 (2): 133–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019871368
37.
Fernández-MartínezJosé LuisGarcía-EspínPatriciaAlarcónPau. 2023. “Assessing the New Municipalism Reform of Advisory Councils: The Cases of Madrid and Barcelona (2015–2019).” Urban Affairs Review59 (5): 1567–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874221109444
HallasClark. 1972. “Gribbs Urges Defeat of New Charter.” The Detroit News, October 24, 1972.
42.
HallingAskeBækgaardMartin. 2024. “Administrative Burden in Citizen–State Interactions: A Systematic Literature Review.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory34 (2): 180–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023
43.
IrvinRenee A.StansburyJohn. 2004. “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?” Public Administration Review64 (1): 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x
44.
JoSuyeon. 2024. “Democracy in and out of Bureaucracy: Can Participative Management and Public Participation Shape Citizen Satisfaction?” International Public Management Journal27 (2): 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2023.2281378
45.
JunKyu-NahmMussoJuliet A.. 2013. “Participatory Governance and the Spatial Representation of Neighborhood Issues.” Urban Affairs Review49 (1): 71–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087412453704
46.
KweitMary GrisezKweitRobert W. 1981. Implementing Citizen Participation in a Bureaucratic Society: A Contingency Approach. New York, N.Y.: Praeger.
47.
LevineJeremy R. 2017. “The Paradox of Community Power: Cultural Processes and Elite Authority in Participatory Governance.” Social Forces95 (3): 1155–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow098
48.
MarkusGregory B.KringsAmy. 2020. “Planning, Participation, and Power in a Shrinking City: The Detroit Works Project.” Journal of Urban Affairs42 (8): 1141–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2020.1779009
49.
MartinDeborah G.2003. “"Place-Framing” as Place-Making: Constituting a Neighborhood for Organizing and Activism.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers93 (3): 730–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.9303011
50.
MathewsMelissa A.2023. “Toward an Understanding of Civic Engagement Capacities Within a Municipal Civic Participation System.” The Social Science Journal60 (3): 537–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1750122
51.
MeyerMeganHydeCheryl. 2004. “Too Much of a “Good” Thing? Insular Neighborhood Associations, Nonreciprocal Civility, and the Promotion of Civic Health.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly33 (3_suppl): 77S–96S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004265432
52.
MilesMatthew B.HubermanA. Michael. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
53.
MussoJuliet A.1999. “Federalism and Community in the Metropolis: Can Los Angeles Neighborhoods Help Govern Gargantua?” Administrative Theory & Praxis21 (3): 342–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.1999.11643382
54.
MussoJuliet A.WeareChristopherBryerThomasCooperTerry L.. 2011. “Toward “Strong Democracy” in Global Cities? Social Capital Building, Theory-Driven Reform, and the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Experience.” Public Administration Review71 (1): 102–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02311.x
55.
MussoJuliet A.WeareChristopherOztasNailLogesWilliam E.. 2006. “Neighborhood Governance Reform and Networks of Community Power in Los Angeles.” The American Review of Public Administration36 (1): 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282586
56.
MylerKofi. 2013. “Detroit's Population from 1840 to 2012 Shows High Points, Decades of Decline.” Detroit Free Press, July 23.
57.
NabatchiTinaLeighningerMatt. 2015. Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
58.
OlsonMancur.1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
PatemanCarole.1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
PressmanJeffrey LWildavskyAaron. 1984. Implementation. Berkeley; Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
62.
RacoMikeFlintJohn. 2001. “Communities, Places and Institutional Relations: Assessing the Role of Area-Based Community Representation in Local Governance.” Political Geography20 (5): 585–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00012-9
63.
ReckhowSarahDowneyDaviaSapotichneJoshua. 2020. “Governing Without Government: Nonprofit Governance in Detroit and Flint.” Urban Affairs Review56 (5): 1472–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419847531
64.
SabatierPaul AMazmanianDaniel. 1995. “A Conceptual Framework of the Implementation Process.” In Public Policy: The Essential Readings, edited by TheodoulouStella Z.CahnMatthew A., 153–73. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
SirianniCarmen. 2007. “Neighborhood Planning as Collaborative Democratic Design: The Case of Seattle.” Journal of the American Planning Association73 (4): 373–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360708978519
67.
SmithDavid Horton. 1994. “Determinants of Voluntary Association Participation and Volunteering: A Literature Review.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly23 (3): 243–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976409402300305
68.
SmithGraham.2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
ThomasDavid R.2006. “A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data.” American Journal of Evaluation27 (2): 237–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
VoorbergWilliam HBekkersViktor JJMTummersLars G. 2015. “A Systematic Review of co-Creation and co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey.” Public Management Review17 (9): 1333–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
75.
WarrenMark E.PearseHilary. 2008. Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
WeareChristopherMussoJuliet A.JunKyu-Nahm. 2009. “Cross-Talk: The Role of Homophily and Elite Bias in Civic Associations.” Social Forces88 (1): 147–73. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0227
77.
WrightMarcus. 2012. “Citizens Raise Concerns About New Charter Entities.” Michigan Citizen, September 23–29, 2012, A1, A4.
