© British Association of Social Workers
Local Experiences in Citizen Participation in the United States
Melvin B. Mogulof, Ph.D., is currently Fulbright Lecturer at the National Institute for Social Work Training in London. He is Senior Research Associate of the Urban Institute Washington, DC
Summary
The paper is based on a comparative study of citizen participation in seven local agencies in the United States. Each of these agencies were beneficiaries of Federal funds, as well as Federal encouragement and/or mandate to involve those affected by the project in the policy making of the local effort. The paper compares the experiences of these seven agencies with regard to the issues of 'Representation', 'Participation', and 'Decision-Making Influence of Neighborhood Residents'. The following variables were conceived of as particularly influential with regard to the character of citizen participation practices; the size and density of the area's black population (and by inference of all minority population) and the activities of Federal and local professional staff who behaved as advocates on behalf of the affected citizenry
The study concludes that the process of decision-making as the result of citizen involvement in these seven communities, is indeed different. But it is less clear that there are differences in the product of these decisions. As a result it is argued that the case for citizen participation needs to be made on non-instrumental grounds–not that citizen participation helps us achieve any particular goals faster (although it may do that) but that participation represents, in western society, an unfulfilled, and valued goal, in and of itself
In England, as in the United States, the central government has become important force in creating opportunities for citizen involvement in local decision-making. The Skeffington Report promulgated by the Ministry Housing and Local Government has created new expectations with regard to citizen involvement in town planning in Britain. The new community development projects sponsored by the Home Office all seem to be interested in the issues of citizen involvement. And the 'Seebohm Report' talks somewhat vaguely about citizen advisory bodies coupled with the establishment of area social service offices.1
It seems likely that American experience with citizen participation despite (or perhaps, because of) the fact that it is often a euphemism for the involvement of black citizens in public decision-making can be usefulthose concerned with social administration in England. The observations