Citizen Contacting of Municipal Officials:
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators
and Elected Leaders
John Clayton Thomas and Julia E. Melkers
Georgia State University
Although citizen-initiated contacting of municipal bureaucrats has been the subject of extensive research over the past
quarter century, there has been relatively little research on the
contacting of municipal elected officials or on why citizens might
contact elected officials instead of appointed administrators. This
research explores that question by using survey data on citizeninitiated contacts with various elected officials and appointed
administrators in Atlanta, Georgia. The findings suggest a
several-part answer: First, citizens—in Atlanta anyway—usually
prefer to contact city departments directly rather than through
their elected officials, presumably because most contacts involve
concerns about municipal services that a department must eventually address. Second, citizens contact both departments and
elected officials for many of the same reasons; the most prominent reason is perceived problems with services. Third, the contacting of elected officials appears to be influenced by frustration
with the bureaucracy (i. e., dissatisfaction with bureaucratic helpfulness when the bureaucracy is contacted) and also by ignorance
of the bureaucracy (i.e., not knowing who to contact there). We
conclude this article with a discussion of the possible implications
of the findings for public administrators.
J-PART ll(2000):l:51-71
Citizen-initiated contacting of municipal bureaucrats—when
individuals contact government personnel with requests for
services or with complaints—has been the subject of extensive
research over the past quarter century (see, for example, Serra
1995; Sharp 1986; Jones et al. 1977). Anecdotal evidence suggests that citizens often instead take those same requests and
complaints to municipal elected officials, but there is little evidence that explains why citizens might choose elected officials
over appointed administrators (as exceptions, see Clingermayer
and Feiock 1994; Moon, Serra, and West 1993). Do citizens
51/ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
ABSTRACT
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
prefer elected officials because of frustration with the bureaucracy, because of ignorance of where to go in the bureaucracy,
or because of some other reason?
The purpose of this research is to explore why citizens
might contact elected officials rather than appointed administrators at the municipal level. We will seek answers by using survey
data on citizen-initiated contacts with city council members, the
mayor, and municipal administrators in several departments in
Atlanta, Georgia.
THEORY: WHY CITIZENS INITIATE CONTACTS
What we know about citizen-initiated contacts pertains
principally to the reasons citizens contact appointed administrators. A number of generalizations about the factors that underlie
citizen-initiated contact of municipal administrators, which we
will list in an approximate order of importance, can be drawn
from extensive prior research on the topic.
Reasons that Citizens Contact Municipal Departments
• Perceived need for services: Citizen-initiated contacts of
municipal departments have their roots in a need for government
services (e.g., Jones et al. 1977); this is usually a relatively
specific governmental service or modification of service. In addition, the needs that are likely to be crucial in motivating contacts
are those that citizens perceive for particular government services, not some measure of objective need (e.g., income). The distinction is important because objective needs and perceived needs
are often not closely related. Rather than decline as income
increases, perceived needs seem only to change in character
(Thomas and Melkers 1999, 683-86).
52/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
The answer to this question could have significant implications both for public administrators and for elected officials. If
most contacting of elected officials is prompted by frustration
with how the bureaucracy has handled a complaint, public administrators might see a need to be more careful about how citizen
contacts are handled. Absent that care, administrators could risk
increasing intrusion by elected officials on bureaucratic prerogatives. Alternatively, if elected officials are contacted because
citizens do not know where to take complaints in the bureaucracy, administrators perhaps should consider how to publicize
better their availability. Similarly, for elected officials, these
possible reasons for contact raise the question: Is the elected
official viewed more as a grievance mechanism or as a visible
contact point in the maze of government?
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
• Psychological engagement: The very fact that these contacts must be initiated implies a role for the psychological factors
that underlie initiative, including some of the same psychological
factors that influence traditional political participation. Following
Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1996, 272), we summarize these
factors under the rubric of psychological engagement, referring
to various forms of psychological involvement in politics and
government. Included are interest in government, awareness of
government, and personal political efficacy, although political
efficacy has seldom emerged in prior research as a significant
factor in prompting contact of municipal bureaucrats.
• Other social and political involvements: Other types of
social and political involvement have been found to influence the
contacting of municipal bureaucrats, with more involvement
translating to more contacting. This pattern has even been documented cross nationally; Zuckerman and West (1985, 129-30)
report that in countries with strong political parties, involvement
with those parties (e.g., through campaigning) appears to be an
important catalyst for contact.
• Socioeconomic status (SES): Researchers initially
attempted to explain citizen contacts with what has been termed
the socioeconomic model, that is, the standard explanatory model
for traditional political participation that combines SES and
factors that grow from SES, such as psychological engagement
and social and political involvement. But the socioeconomic
model by itself cannot adequately explain citizen contacting of the
bureaucracy, presumably due in large part to the primacy of need
for these contacts. After all, the socioeconomic model relies on
predictors that tend to be directly related to SES, whereas needs
are thought to be inversely related to SES. Other nonlinear
53IJ-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
• A sense of having a stake in the city: A belief that one has
a stake in the quality of municipal services also increases the tendency to initiate contact with municipal departments. Two forms
of stakeholding are of particular note: being a home owner and
having minor children. Home ownership both increases the economic investment in the surrounding neighborhood and decreases
the ability to move, thereby probably making an individual more
likely to seek solutions for perceived service problems that could
threaten neighborhood quality (see also Sharp 1986, 71). Having
young children can have a similar effect, because parents, wanting to provide the best environment for their children, may be
more inclined than nonparents to seek redress for problems. On
the other hand, planning to move from a neighborhood may
imply that one feels less connected to a neighborhood, thereby
making contacting less likely (e.g., Sharp, 1986 156-57).
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
models that employ SES also have been examined, with only
limited success (e.g., Jones et al. 1977; Coulter 1992).
In addition, using SES to attempt to explain contacting at the
individual level has limited value since SES is only a surrogate
for other variables, variables that can and should be measured
directly. Those other factors are so many and so varied, ranging
from needs to political efficacy to social and political involvement, that any findings on an SES-contacting relationship are not
readily interpretable.
The same factors might be expected to be present when citizens contact elected officials. These citizens are likely to be those
who perceive more needs, have a greater stake in the city, feel
more psychologically engaged in local government, and are more
active in other forms of local social and political affairs.
Hypothesis 1: In comparison to other citizens, those citizens who
contact elected officials will perceive more need
for services; have a greater stake in their city residence (e.g., more likely to own their homes and
more likely to have minor children); feel more
psychologically engaged in local government; and
be more actively involved in local social and political affairs.
But the choice to contact elected officials instead of municipal
administrators suggests that other factors may be at work. There
are several possibilities; we will discuss these, not in order of
importance.
• Ignorance of the bureaucracy: To many citizens, the
municipal bureaucracy may appear to be an impenetrable maze.
A citizen, not knowing where to go in that maze to get a problem
solved, might opt for more visible officials—the mayor or a city
council member.
Hypothesis 2: In comparison to other citizens, citizens who contact elected officials will exhibit less knowledge of
local government.
• Frustration with bureaucratic responses: Alternatively, a
citizen might turn to elected officials only after seeking but—in
the citizen's eyes anyway—failing to get an adequate response
from the appropriate municipal department. In other words, those
citizens who report less satisfaction with the bureaucratic
5AIJ-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Why Elected Officials Might Be Contacted
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
handling of their contacts might be more likely to take their complaints to the next level—the mayor or a city council member.
Such a pattern has been documented at the federal level (Moon,
Serra, and West 1993).
Hypothesis 3: In comparison to other citizens, those citizens who
contact elected officials will report less satisfaction
from their contacts with municipal departments.
- Greater political efficacy: It should perhaps not be
surprising that political efficacy has seldom emerged as
a significant predictor of contacts with municipal
departments, since efficacy usually refers to the individual's feeling of likely effectiveness in dealing with
elected officials, not with public administrators. However, the same logic suggests that a stronger sense of
political efficacy could be a contributing factor in determining why a citizen might contact an elected official.
- More political involvements: Those who are generally
more politically active might also be more inclined to
call upon elected officials. Involvement in local political affairs could make citizens more comfortable about
contacting elected representatives. (However, that
greater comfort might be reflected in greater political
efficacy, which could be the proximate cause for contacting elected officials.)
- A stronger role for socioeconomic status: The SES
model, which is a poor predictor of departmental contacting, might prove to be a better predictor of the
contacting of elected officials, since the model is drawn
from work on the more traditional political behavior
that contacting elected officials may resemble. To be
clear, a strong relationship between SES and the contacting of elected officials would not necessarily mean
that SES is a proximate cause of contacting. It would
more likely mean that the analysis has failed to capture
all of the SES-related factors that are proximate causes
of the contacting of elected officials. As we have
argued elsewhere, SES is employed in contacting
research mostly as a surrogate measure—and often
55/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
• A bias toward political behavior: Finally, some citizens
might simply have a preference for contacting elected officials
instead of appointed officials. For lack of a better term, this
tendency might be described as a bias toward political behavior,
which could be evident on any of several dimensions:
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
questionably so—because the desired measure is
unavailable.
These speculations suggest this last hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: In comparison to other citizens, those citizens who
contact elected officials will be more politically
inclined, as evidenced by higher political efficacy;
more involvement with local politics; and higher
socioeconomic status.
DATA AND METHOD
The data for this research come from an extensive survey of
Atlanta residents conducted for the City of Atlanta in the fall of
1995. A draft survey instrument was developed by the authors,
using instruments from citizen surveys in other cities. The instrument was then modified on the basis of feedback from administrators with various departments and from the city administrator's
office.
The final survey instrument asked about usage and other
experiences with municipal services and satisfaction with aspects
of those services, including overall quality, timeliness of services, and helpfulness and courteousness of municipal employees.
In addition to service-specific questions, respondents were asked
about overall satisfaction with life in Atlanta and with the city's
government. Respondents also were asked whether they had ever
contacted a city council member's office, the mayor's office, or a
municipal department and, if so, what responses they received.
The sample was stratified, in that separate random samples
were drawn for each of the six councilmanic districts of the
city in order to permit generalizations from the sample to the
population of each district. Interviews were completed in the fall
of 1995, with 2,257 residents contacted by telephone. Multiple
calls were made to nonrespondents to ensure a representative
sample. Typically, we made eight attempts to reach each respondent at a single number. Calls were made at various times of day
56/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
This theorizing actually suggests that more factors underlie
the contacting of elected officials than have been found to be
influential in bureaucratic contacts. In reality, however, the
probably less frequent contacting of elected officials should be
expected to have fewer significant predictors, not more. In that
light, additional questions for this research are, Will contacts
with elected officials have fewer predictors and, if so, which of
the hypothesized predictors will not prove significant?
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
Variable Identification and Construction
Citizen contacts of the mayor's office and a city council
member's office constitute the two primary dependent variables
in this research. Citizens were asked, In the last twelve months,
have you contacted the office of an Atlanta city council member
with a request for service or complaint? In the last twelve
months, have you contacted the mayor's office in Atlanta with a
request for service or a complaint? They also were asked how
helpful and courteous individuals in those offices were in
response to their calls.
The survey also included a number of questions that
addressed citizen contact with specific city services. Respondents
were asked a general question early in the survey about whether
they had contacted the city in the past year (Have you ever contacted a City of Atlanta official or agency in the last twelve
months with a request for service or with a complaint?). They
also were asked separate questions on possible contacting of each
of ten service areas: parks, recreation and cultural affairs, buildings, traffic signals/markings, streets and road quality, water
services, sanitary services, police, fire, and 911. Analyses of
those service-related administrator contacts are presented in
extensive detail elsewhere (Thomas and Melkers 1999).
Finally, to parallel the questions about specific contacts,
measures of perceived needs were constructed for the city as a
whole and for each of the service areas. For the city as a whole,
following Coulter (1992), Hirlinger (1992), Sharp (1986), and
Traut and Emmert (1993), we used a count of responses to the
perceived needs in the areas of parks and recreation, street lighting, safety, water, streets, buildings, and garbage pickup. This
count serves as a general measure of perceived needs and is one
of the independent variables in the models discussed below. In
addition, we created a separate measure of perceived needs for
51/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
and on both weekdays and weekends in order to reduce the likelihood that we were only reaching respondents who were elderly,
unemployed, or stay-at-home parents. For generalizing to the city
as a whole, this sample size translates to a margin of error for
any particular percentage of +/-2 percent with a 95 percent
degree of confidence. In the final sample, we had a wide variation of respondent age, income, and educational background
(Thomas and Melkers 1999). The sample appears to be relatively
representative of the population, with, for example, the African
American proportion in the sample (64.1 percent) corresponding
fairly closely to the proportion for the city as a whole (approximately 65 percent).
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
each service area using citizen comments about the service area
or related problems. For police services, for example, safety
needs perceived by citizens were tapped using citizen ratings of
safety and crime problems in their neighborhoods. Similarly, for
traffic engineering, perceived needs were assessed based on questions about problems with street signs, street lighting, crosswalks, and the like.
Developing Models of Citizen Contacts of Municipal Officials
(dependent variable) = B,, + B, perceived citizen needs +
Bjignorance of the bureaucracy + B3frustration with the
bureaucracy + B4psychological engagement +
B5social/political involvement + BgStakeholder factors
+Brdemographic variables + error
where
Citizen-Perceived Needs = a count of citizen service-specific
needs based on the level of use and satisfaction with the range of
municipal services. This is a summary measure based on citizen
contact with eleven specific municipal services. Other servicespecific needs are presented in more detail elsewhere (Thomas
and Melkers 1999).
Ignorance of the Bureaucracy = a variable based on the question, Have you ever had a problem finding the correct phone
number to reach an office in the City of Atlanta? An affirmative
answer was viewed as a lack of knowledge of how to contact
municipal officials, especially the less visible administrators.
Frustration with the Bureaucracy = counts of reports of dissatisfaction with city employee helpfulness and courtesy when the
respondent contacted municipal departments. Whenever a citizen
reported contacting a department, he or she was asked about city
5Z/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Because of the dichotomous nature of the dependent variables, we chose logistic regression to analyze the possible determinants of the different contacts (Agresti 1990). Logistic regression is a technique that assesses the strength of independent
variables in affecting the probability that an individual will
demonstrate a particular behavior. In this case, that behavior is
the contacting of the city council and the mayor's office. The
models for the two types of contact were identical, with the
exception of the dependent variable. In the first model, the
dependent variable was the contacting of a city council member's
office; in the second it was the contacting of the mayor's office.
The specific model was as follows:
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
employee courtesy and helpfulness in responding to the contact.
Negative answers (reported discourtesy or lack of helpfulness)
were summed for each respondent across all reported departmental contacts to create two measures of frustration with the
bureaucracy, one for discourtesy and one for lack of helpfulness.
(Respondents who reported no departmental contact were coded 0
on this variable, reflecting no reports of dissatisfaction.)
Social or Political Involvement = respondent reporting of attendance at neighborhood planning unit meetings and local public
hearings.
Stakeholder Factors = aspects of the respondent's life situation
that might have affected the tendency toward municipal contacts,
including home ownership, having children at home, age, and
plans to move from the city.
Socioeconomic Status = the standard operationalization combining income and education, here calculated by adding the ordinal
scores of the two variables, doubling the education score for the
many respondents who would not report their income.
Demographic Variables = the variables of race and sex.
FINDINGS
How often and why do citizens contact their municipal
elected officials? To assess the frequency, respondents were
asked about contacts with the city in general, contacts with each
of a number of specific municipal departments, contacts with a
city council office, and contacts with the mayor's office. The
latter two comprise the contacts with elected officials.
59/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Psychological Engagement = psychological characteristics that
may have contributed to a respondent's tendency to contact municipal officials, such as interest in government or feelings of
political efficacy. For the latter, we created an index based on
responses to these two questions: The average person has much
to say about running a city government. Do you strongly agree,
agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? If you had some complaint
about a city government activity and took that complaint to a
member of the local city council, would you expect him or her to
pay a lot of attention to what you say, some attention, very little
attention, or none at all? Since the data did not provide what we
considered to be an adequate measure of awareness, that third
component of psychological engagement is not included in the
model.
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
As exhibit 1 shows, contacts with elected officials were
much less common than were contacts with administrators.
Only 10.9 percent of respondents reported having contacted their
city council member's office in the last year, and even fewer,
6.3 percent, reported a contact with the mayor's office. Both
proportions are lower than those reported for most municipal
departments, and the cumulative volume of contacts with the
departments greatly exceeds the combined volume of contacts
with elected officials.
Exhibit 1
Citizen Contacts of Atlanta Municipal Officials (n=2257)
Percent Responding Yes
Have you or anyone else in your household contacted the [mayor's
office in Atlanta]/[the office of an Atlanta City Council member] in
the last twelve months with a request for service or a complaint?
Mayor's office
City council member's office
6.3%
10.9%
Have you contacted a City of Atlanta official or agency in the last
twelve months with a request for service or a complaint?
Percent indicating no contacts
Percent indicating only one contact
Percent indicating two or more contacts
66.0%
9.3%
24.7%
Have you or anyone else in your household contacted the City of
Atlanta in the last twelve months with a request for service or a
complaint about. . .
Police
911
Water
Streets
Garbage pickup
Fire department
Buildings
Traffic
Parks and Recreation or Cultural Affairs
6Q/J-PART, January 2001
33.5%
27.2%
17.1%
13.1%
12.0%
8.8%
8.1%
6.6%
5.5%
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
This more frequent contacting of municipal departments
comes as no surprise, given that most citizen contacts with
complaints or requests related to municipal services are likely to
involve matters that a department must eventually address. That
being the case, however, only returns us to the original question,
Why do citizens contact elected officials instead of departmental
administrators?
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
Exhibit 2
Logistic Regression Results: Discretionary Contact of City Elected Officials
-Mayor's Office
Marginal
Std
Means
Error
—City Council Office
Marginal
Std
B
Means
Error
.833***
5.22%
.209
.783***
4.90%
.162
Count of respondent rating of
city employee helpfulness
.487***
3.05%
.119
.458***
2.87%
.101
Has attended public hearings
.769**
4.82%
.216
.817***
.166
Count of perceived needs
.339**
2.12%
.096
.223*
5.12%
1.40%
Interest in the workings of
local government
.493*
3.09%
.167
.456**
2.86%
.130
Difficulty finding the correct phone
number for a city department
.509*
SES
.080
3.19%
.210
.338*
2.12%
.169
-.012
-0.08%
.035
.077*
0.48%
.027
-.225
-1.41%
.306
-.511*
-3.61%
.268
.240
.027
1.50%
0.17%
.168
.072
-.096
.085
-0.60%
0.53%
.154
.057
Intention to move out of the
City of Atlanta
Count of respondent rating of
city employee courtesy
Feeling of political efficacy
Home owner
-.098
-0.61%
.252
.205
.094
0.59%
.219
.122
.227
0.76%
Children at home
1.42%
.173
Age
.002
0.01%
.005
-.006
-0.04%
.005
Race
-.310
-1.94%
.218
-.223
-1.40%
.171
-.111
-1.594
-0.70%
.205
-.166
-1.04%
-2878%
.7063
-1.761
-29.82%
.161
.5690
Sex
Constant
Predicted probability of Y= 1,
estimated at the mean
Goodness of Fit
= significant at the .05 level; *•
6.71%
8.80%
-2 Log Likelihood = 766.39
Nagelkerke R* = .239
% correctly classified: 93.1%
-2 Log Likelihood = 1146.98
Nagelkerke R2 = .235
% correctly classified: 89.5%
significant at the .001 level; *** = significant at the .0001 level
The logistic regression results, as shown in exhibits 2 and 3,
reveal a number of factors that apparently underlie contacts with
elected officials. The predicted probability for the average
respondent is shown in exhibit 2, which alongside the marginal
means permits estimates of the impact of individual variables in
each of the two models.
To begin with, as we have hypothesized, many of the factors that were found to be significant predictors of departmental
61/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Has attended NPU meetings
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
Exhibit 3
Significant Explanatory Models: Elected Offices vs. Municipal Departments
Number (10) of City
Services Where
Independent Variable
is Significant1
Contact of
Mayor's Office
Contact of City
Council Member
Overall/specific service needs
**
*
10
Problems with departmental helpfulness
***
***
NA
*
*
NA
*
*
4
Perceived Needs vs Municipal Departments
Psychological Engagement
Interest in local government
0
Feeling of political efficacy
Other Social and Political Involvement
Attendance at NPU meetings
***
«*»
8
Attendance at public hearings
**
•**
6
*
2
Stakeholding
7
Home owner
Intention to move
Children at home
2
Demographic Characteristics
Age
3
Race
2
1
Sex
*
SES
1
* = significant at the .05 level; • • = significant at the .01 level; • • • = significant at the .001 level
'For a detailed discussion of these models, see Thomas and Melkers (1999).
contacts also proved to be significant predictors of contacts with
elected officials. Most notably, the count of perceived servicespecific needs across a range of municipal services was significantly related to contacts with elected officials, just as it was for
administrative contacts. This measure of perceived service needs
was a significant predictor of contacts with both types of elected
officials at the .001 level. A one-unit increase in the average
respondent's count of perceived needs increased the likelihood of
contacting the mayor's office by 2.1 percent and increased the
likelihood of contacting a councilmanic office by 1.4 percent.
Although these numbers may appear at first glance to be relatively small, even a small change in this predicted probability
62/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Difficulty finding the correct phone number
for a city department
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
was important, since the predicted probability for the average
respondent or individual at the mean was only 6.7 percent for
mayoral contacts and 8.8 percent for councilmanic contacts.
As predicted, contacts with elected officials also appeared to
be motivated by two factors that are different from those that
affect departmental contacting. First, elected officials were
significantly more likely to be contacted by respondents who had
experienced problems when they had contacted departments. This
unhelpfulness rating, reflecting a count of not helpful evaluations
of departmental responses to citizen requests, was significant at
the .0001 level for both mayoral and city council contacts. For a
one-unit increase in the unhelpfulness rating, the likelihood that
the average respondent contacted the mayor's office increased
3.05 percentage points, and the likelihood that the respondent
contacted a councilmanic office increased by only slightly less. A
similar measure of departmental discourtesy in response to these
contacts was not a significant predictor for either type of contact,
however.
Second, respondents who reported having experienced difficulty in finding a correct telephone number for a municipal official were also significantly more likely to then contact elected
officials. Here a respondent's report of difficulty in locating a
number increased the likelihood of contacting the mayor's office
by almost one-third, or 3.2 percent, and of contacting a city
council office by 2.1 percent. (It should be noted, however, that
neither of these factors was tested as a predictor of administrative
63/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Similarly, measures of social and political involvement and
of psychological engagement also emerged as significant predictors of contacts with elected officials, as they did earlier for
contacts with administrators. Contacts with both types of elected
officials were more likely for respondents who reported attendance at public hearings, attendance at neighborhood planning unit
meetings, or more interest in local government. Of these, the
political involvement variables were the more influential. The
marginal means for both attendance at public hearings and NPU
hearings almost doubled the predicted probability of mayoral contact and increased the likelihood of councilmanic contacts by
more than half. Notably, although these factors were also influential with some bureaucratic contacts, the patterns were stronger
for contacts with elected officials, presumably reflecting their
expected stronger political roots. Interest in local government, for
example, proved to be a significant predictor of both mayoral and
councilmanic contacts, but of only four of ten departmental contacts.
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
contacts since there is no theoretical rationale for expecting either
to predict those contacts.)
These latter findings suggest that contacts with elected officials may be less rooted in the stakes respondents have in where
they live than are contacts with the municipal bureaucracy. Perhaps contacts with elected officials are less rooted in primary
needs, as reflected by one's home and family situation, and more
rooted in secondary needs, as reflected in problems experienced
with the bureaucracy and ignorance of whom in the bureaucracy
to contact.
The one socioeconomic variable that does figure modestly in
the contacting of elected officials fits the earlier theoretical
differentiation of the two types of contacts. Socioeconomic status
(SES), as a significant predictor at the .05 level for contacting of
councilmanic offices, may reflect again the more political nature
of contacts with elected officials as opposed to municipal departments. As it is, the marginal mean shows that the impact of SES
is not particularly strong, as a one-unit change in a respondent's
SES resulted in only a .48 percent change in the likelihood of
contacting a councilmanic office.
This only limited significance of SES for either political or
administrative contacts should not come as a surprise, despite the
prominence of SES in prior research on citizen-initiated contacts.
SES has typically been employed in this research as a surrogate
for other unmeasured variables, including needs, awareness, and
efficacy. When most of those other variables can be measured
directly, SES might be expected to disappear as a significant predictor, as happened in this analysis.
The use of SES as a surrogate variable in prior contacting
research may actually have done more harm than good. SES has
been used as a surrogate for too many variables. No measure can
at once be a good indicator for multiple concepts, especially such
distinct concepts as political and governmental awareness or need
64/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Finally, some factors are notable by their failure to emerge
as significant predictors of political contacts. For example, political efficacy proved to be no more significant for these contacts
than it was for administrative contacts. For whatever reason,
efficacy does not appear to figure in any type of municipal contact in Atlanta—or perhaps elsewhere, judging from earlier
research. Furthermore, almost none of the stakeholder and socioeconomic variables proved to be a significant predictor of these
contacts; by contrast race, having minor children, and, especially, home ownership did emerge as significant.
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
for services. Further, SES may not be a very good surrogate for
any of these other concepts. It can hardly be assumed, as has too
often been the case in prior research, that higher SES reflects
lower needs and lower awareness. To test for the actual relationships, we calculated simple correlations between SES and various
measures of needs, awareness, psychological engagement, and
other relevant concepts.
To summarize, the probable causes of the two types of contacts may be similar rather than different. Both types of contacts
appear to be rooted primarily in perceived service needs, other
social and political involvement, and psychological engagement
in local government. As the principal differences between the
two, contacts with elected officials are more likely when respondents either do not know whom to call and therefore call a more
visible office or when they have problems with departments that
may prompt an appeal to elected officials for help. In addition,
contacts with elected officials are not as strongly linked to stakeholding, especially as measured by home ownership. When we
combine these differences we find that contacts with elected officials appear to be rooted in secondary needs—such as problems
experienced with the bureaucracy in trying to address primary
needs—rather than in primary needs—such as stakeholding.
Contrary to what might have been expected, contacts with
elected officials mostly do not resemble political behavior more
than do contacts with municipal administrators. Neither political
efficacy nor any other explicitly political variable proves to be a
more significant predictor of contacts with elected officials than
with appointed administrators.
Contacting of elected officials might also be more common
if elected officials are perceived to be more responsive than are
municipal administrators. The survey included no questions that
651J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
As exhibit 4 shows, SES is only modestly and inconsistently
correlated with these various measures. Most notably, the correlations between SES and the needs variables, for which SES
has most commonly been used as a surrogate, are about equally
mixed between positive and negative signs and in no case reach
even the modest level of .3. Similar patterns are obtained for the
relationship of SES to psychological and political involvement
measures. We also find only a slight correlation between our
only awareness variable—the ability of respondents to find the
correct number to reach an Atlanta municipal office. The frequent prior use of SES as a surrogate for any of these variables
thus seems unwarranted and misleading.
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
Exhibit 4
Pearson Correlations: SES, Income, Psychological
Engagement, Social Involvement, and Needs Variables
Respondent Income
SES
Respondent income
1
0.865**
SES
0.865**
1.000**
Psychological Engagement
Interest in government
Social or Political Involvement
Social involvement index
0.151**
-0.065**
0.173**
-0.015
0.207**
0.201**
.140**
.192**
Needs Variables
Satisfaction with parks and
recreation facilities
Use of parks and recreation facilities
0.196**
0.147**
0.271**
0.222**
Public safety problems in own
neighborhood (ND)
0.080**
0.126**
-0.175**
-0.150**
-0.163**
-0.100**
-0.065**
-0.025
-0.017
0.015
Frustration with the Bureaucracy
Ability to locate a City of Atlanta
phone number
Sense of safety in neighborhood:
day and night
Public safety problems in own
neighborhood (D)
Existence of unsightly buildings
in neighborhood
Quality of streets
Level of traffic hazards
0.046
Garbage problems
0.053
Satisfaction with water services
Overall city needs
-0.061*
-0.044
0.082**
0.081**
-0.035
-0.018
•• = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* = Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
could be used as predictors of expected responsiveness in the
logistic regressions, but questions were asked about the quality of
the response to each reported contact of an elected official or a
municipal department. If these data showed that elected officials
were perceived as more responsive than departmental administrators, we might infer an incentive for future callers to bypass the
departments in favor of elected officials.
66/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Feelings of political efficacy
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
The data in exhibit 5 show a mixed pattern of responsiveness by elected officials. On the one hand, the mayor's office
received relatively low ratings on both helpfulness and courteousness in response to citizen contacts. On both counts, the mayor's
office was rated below most municipal services and well below
city council offices. On the other hand, city council offices
received relatively high ratings on the average, higher than the
ratings of most municipal departments on both helpfulness and
courteousness.
To return to the original question about this comparative
responsiveness, the relatively high ratings of councilmanic offices
imply that citizens are receiving reinforcement to continue to
bring their complaints to these offices. It only makes sense for
citizens to continue to bring complaints to an office that helps
them, sometimes when departments cannot or will not help, and
does so in a courteous manner. The same cannot be said of the
mayor's office, where the treatment the average citizens receive
might prompt them to try elsewhere the next time they have
complaints.
CONCLUSIONS
This research began with the question, Why do citizens,
when they seek help on an issue related to municipal services,
contact an elected official rather than the appropriate municipal
department? The findings suggest a two-part answer. First,
although we did not question them specifically about their
preferences, citizens show a propensity to contact city departments directly rather than go through their elected officials,
presumably because they call about municipal service concerns
that a department must eventually address. In the Atlanta survey,
respondents report much more frequent contacting of departments
than of elected officials.
Second, many of the same factors are present when citizens contact either departments or elected officials. The most
61IJ-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
These contrasting patterns are not difficult to explain. Prior
research has shown that councilmanic offices, especially where
council members are elected by district (as is the case with
twelve of fifteen Atlanta city council members), tend to see the
constituent service role as an important part of their operations
(e.g., Svara 1990, 136-37). As a consequence, Atlanta's districtbased council offices are likely to endeavor to be responsive to
citizen complaints. By contrast, the mayor's office may have less
concern for the problems of individual citizens and so not be as
concerned about being responsive to their contacts.
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
Exhibit 5
Citizen Ratings of Elected Official and Departmental
Helpfulness and Courteousness in Response to Contact
N
Percent Responding
Very Helpful or
Mostly Helpful
How helpful were they? (When you called for help)
238
137
740
367
138
115
65.1%
50.4
68.8
63.8
65.9
59.1
Public Works summary
Garbage collection
Traffic signs or traffic signals
Streets and highways
266
143
287
61.7
50.3
44.6
*Firc Department helpfulness is based on their ability to keep fire damage to i
minimum.
N
Percent Responding
Yes
How courteous were they? (When you called for help)
City council member
237
Mayor's office
134
Water or your water bill
362
Police department (for help)
722
86.1%
77.6
88.1
85.3
Public Works summary
Garbage collection
Traffic signs or traffic signals
Streets and highways
257
140
275
86.8
84.3
82.5
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs
115
75.7
prominent of these factors is perceived problems with services.
Contacts regarding service, whether to appointive administrators
or to elected officeholders, appear to be motivated primarily by
perceived needs related to municipal services. Other social and
political involvements and psychological engagement in local
government also figure prominently in both types of contacts.
Third, our results suggest that citizens make their choices of
whether to contact an elected or administrative official based on
their own general awareness of and direct experiences with the
6S/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
City council member
Mayor's office
Police department (for help)
Water or your water bill
Fire department*
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
Fourth, in contrast to departmental contacts, contacts with
elected officials are somewhat more influenced by the individual's political inclinations—especially other involvements with
local government—and somewhat less influenced by the individual's stakes in the city, especially home ownership. When these
latter two points are combined, contacts with elected officials
seem to be less rooted in primary needs—as reflected by one's
home and family situation—and more rooted in interest in government as well as in secondary needs—as reflected in problems
experienced with the bureaucracy and ignorance of whom to contact in the bureaucracy.
These findings might be read to suggest two contrasting patterns in the contacting of elected officials. First, citizens who are
less knowledgeable about the bureaucracy might be more likely
to bypass the bureaucracy to contact elected officials first about
any perceived service problem. Second more politically inclined
and knowledgeable citizens might contact elected officials only if
they are dissatisfied with how their service problems were
handled by an initial contact with the bureaucracy.
To be sure, these conclusions may not generalize beyond the
case of Atlanta in the mid-1990s. For example, council members
in cities with at-large councils might prove to be much less attractive targets for citizen contacting than is the case with Atlanta's
mostly district-based council members. We cannot know this,
however, until there is more research on the contacting of municipal elected officials. For whatever reason, local contacting
research has continued to focus principally on administrative contacts. One obvious implication of the current research is the need
to broaden this focus to include more studies of the contacting of
69/J-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
workings of local government. For one thing, citizens may prefer
to contact elected officials when they are less knowledgeable
about the bureaucracy, that is, when they do not know which
administrators to contact. Thus, in the Atlanta survey, respondents who reported that they had difficulty finding a municipal
phone number were substantially more likely to contact both a
city council office and the mayor's office. Furthermore, citizens
appear to be more likely to contact elected officials after departmental officials are unable to help them. The perceived unhelpfulness in response to departmental contacts—our measure of
frustration with the bureaucracy—was a significant predictor of
contacting of both council members and the mayor. In a pattern
consistent with how democracy is expected to work, elected officials apparently serve as a grievance mechanism—the next step
for citizens who feel their needs are not met by administrators.
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
elected officials in other cities in order to understand this other
side of contacting behavior.
This research also holds an important methodological implication for any future contacting research. Simply put, researchers
should endeavor to find direct indicators of the concepts they
purpose to measure, rather than settle, was all too common in the
past, for SES as a surrogate measure. As findings here and elsewhere (Thomas and Melkers 1999) have demonstrated, SES is an
unreliable surrogate for most of what it has been said to measure
in contacting research.
Second, another way administrators can keep citizens from
resorting to contacting elected officials is to be more helpful
when citizens call their departments. Admittedly, departments
cannot always help: a traffic light cannot be installed simply
because a citizen requests it. Nonetheless, the high helpfulness
ratings for councilmanic offices are striking, especially since
some problems those offices have been asked to solve are presumably the difficult problems that come to them only after
departments are unable to solve them. If this is true, it suggests
that departments frequently might have been much more helpful.
The recent push for better customer service could help departments in this effort. (Ironically, a push for quality service by the
City of Atlanta is what prompted this survey in the first place.)
As ample earlier research has documented, citizen contacting of municipal officials on service requests or complaints has
become an important linkage between citizens and their local
governments. We now understand a great deal about those contacts when they are with appointive administrators. This research
1QIJ-PART, January 2001
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
To the extent that these findings might prove generalizable
beyond Atlanta, at least three inferences can be drawn for municipal governments and their administrators. First, if cities wish to
see more direct contacting of those who can solve problems, they
should consider installing—and publicizing—a single "action
line," as many other cities have. (The City of Atlanta was considering the establishment of such a number at the time of our
survey.) Alternatively, in the dawning information age, cities
might establish central Web sites through which complaints can
be sent. Action lines or comparable Web sites could be useful in
directing citizens to the appropriate department when they might
otherwise be inclined to call an elected official. This might be
easier said than done, however, because district-based council
members sometimes see such action lines as undermining the
councilmanic constituent service role.
Choosing Between Appointed Administrators and Elected Leaders
has taken a first step toward generalizing that understanding to
contacts with elected officials.
REFERENCES
Agresti, A.
1990 Categorical Data Analysis. New
York: John Wiley.
Coulter, Phillip B.
1992 There's a Madness in the
Method: Redefining Citizen
Contacting of Government Officials." Urban Affairs Quarterly
28:297-316.
Hirlinger, M.W.
1992 'Citizen-initiated Contacting of
Local Government Officials: A
Multivariate Explanation." Journal of Politics 54:553-64.
Jones, Bryan D.; Greenberg, Saadia;
Kaufman, Clifford; and Drew, Joseph.
1977 "Bureaucratic Response to Citizen-initiated Contacts: Environmental Enforcement in Detroit."
American Political Science
Review 72:148-65.
Serra, George.
1995 "Citizen-initiated Contact and
Satisfaction with Bureaucracy: A
Multivariate Analysis." Journal
of Public Administration
Research and Theory 5:175-88.
Sharp, Elaine B.
1986 Gtizen Demand-Making in the
Urban Context. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.
Svara, James H.
1990 Official Leadership in the City:
Patterns of Conflict and Cooperation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, John Clayton, and Melkers,
Julia.
1999 "Explaining Citizen-Initiated
Contacts with Municipal Bureaucrats: Lessons from the Atlanta
Experience." Urban Affairs
Review 34:667-90.
HIJ-PART, January 2001
Traut, C.A., and Emmert, C.F.
1993 "Citizen-initiated Contacting: A
Multivariate Analysis.* American Politics Quarterly 21:23953.
Verba, Sidney; Schlozman, K.L.; and
Brady, Henry E.
1996 Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Zuckerman, A.S., and West, D.M.
1985 "The Political Bases of Citizen
Contacting: A Cross-National
Analysis." American Political
Science Review 79:117-31.
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Clingermayer, James C , and Feiock,
Richard C.
1994 "Campaigns, Careerism, and
Constituencies: Contacting
Council Members about Economic Development Policy."
American Politics Quarterly
22:453-68.
Moon, David; Serra, George; and
West, Jonathan P.
1993 "Citizens Contacts with Bureaucratic and Legislative Officials."
Political Research Quaneriy
46:931-41.
NONPROFIT
AND VOLUNTARY
SECTOR
QUARTERLY
Editor-in-Chief: Carl Milofsky, Bucknell University
Founded more than twenty-five years ago, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly is an interdisciplinary journal serving a wide community of scholars and
professionals who are interested in issues ranging from volunteering to large scale
nonprofit organizations, such as private universities, hospitals, and museums.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly is the oldest and most prestigious
academically focused journal in the field, and is sponsored by the Association for
Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) and by the Program on
Non-Profit Organizations, Yale University.
Recent Article Highlights
Theses on Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness
Robert D. Herman and David O. Renz
The Effects ofExpanded Donor Choice in United Way Campaigns on Nonprofit Human
Service Providers in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area
Joseph J. Cordes, Jeffrey R. Henig, and Eric C. Twombly
with Jennifer L. Saunders
Nonprofit Decision Making and Resource Allocation: The Importance of Membership
Preferences, Community Needs, and Interorganizational Ties
William T. Markham, Margaret A. Johnson, and Charles M. Bonjean
Corporate Philanthropy: What Is the Strategy?
Jerry D. Marx
Quarterly: March, June, September, December
Yearly rates: Individual $67 / Institution $163
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Phone: 805-499-9774 • Fax: 805-499-0871
E-mail: [email protected]
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU, England
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD
M-32 Market, Greater Kailash I
New Delhi 110 048, India
Downloaded from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/ at Pennsylvania State University on September 12, 2016
Journal of the Association for Research on Nonprofit
Organizations and Voluntary Action
Co-sponsored by the Programs on Non-Profit Organizations
at Yale University