Private property and the public interest citizen involvement in state land use control

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coas,tal Zone
i information
Center

- ---------- --

p7j
ENITER

W,09KING PAM:

1-3

14 D
H 106
R()-7 THE.-URBAN STITUTE
WASHINGTON, D..Ce

OCT 19 1977

COASTAL INFORMATION CENTER

This draft is not for general circulation and is not for
quotation without permission of the author(s). Opinions
expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of The Urban Institute or its sponsors

LAND USE CENTER
1226-08 January-1977
WORKING PAPER:
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
IN STATE LAND USE CONTROL

Nelson Rosenbaum

U - S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413

THE URBAN INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON, D.C. ProPertY Of CSC Library

CONTENTS

Foreword

Acknowledgements

PART A -- THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

I. The Emergence of State Land Use Controls ............................. 1

Extra-local Issues ...... *.... ... --- I
The Renaissance of State Government .................................. 4
Patterns of Innovation ............................................... 7
State Land Use Planning .... *******'*'' ...*... **--*---'- 7
Siting of Large-Scale Developments ............................... 11
Protection of Critical Environmental Areas ....................... 14
Summary ............................................................. 13
Notes ... ......................................................... 20
II. Legislative Mandates for Citizen Involvement ........................ 24

Citizen Involvement in Administrative Decision-Making., ............. 25
Procedural Participation Rights ..................................... 29
Systematic Involvement Programs ..................................... 31
Sensitivity of Land Use Governance .................................. 33
The Distance of State Government .................................... 35
Notes ......................... ......... .... ....... ........ ...._,.40
PART B'-- EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

III. Citizen Involvement Programs: A Framework of Evaluation ............ 45

The Procedural Level ................................................ 49
Accessibility ...: ................................................ 50
Efficiency ....................................................... 52
The Policy Level .................................................... 54
Fairness ......................................................... 55
Responsiveness ................................................... 56
The Political System Level .......................................... 61
Trust in Government .............................................. 63
Confidence in politics ........................................... 65
Behavioral Measures .............................................. 03
Notes ............................................................. 67
IV. State Case Studies: Research Design.. ............................... 72
Case Study Selection ................................................ 72
Research Tasks ...................................................... 75
Methodology ......................................................... 78
Citizen Participation Survey ..................................... 78
Elite Interviews ................................................. 80
Documents ...............................................
Notes .....................................................

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES,

Figures

III-1 Framework of Evaluation for Citizen Involvement Programs ........ 47

111-2 Theory of Evaluation ............................................. 48

IV-1 Summary of State Case Studies ................................... 76

Tables

I-1 Diffusion of Legislation Authorizing State Land Use
Planning ....................................................... 8

1-2 Diffusion of Legislation Authorizing State Regulation of
Large-Scale Development Siting ................................ 12

1-3 Diffusion of Legislation Authorizing State Regulation,of
Development in Critical Areas ................................. 16

II-1 Familiarity with Different Levels of Government ................. 37

11-2 Relevance of Governmental Levels to Improving Quality
of Life ....................................................... 37

11-3 Satisfaction with Responsiveness of Different Levels
of.Government ................................................. 39

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I PART A
I THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I

I.' THE EMERGENCE OF STATE IAND USE CONTROLS

Over the past decade' many state governments have reassumed a significant

role in regulating the use of, land. During the 1920s and 1930s, most states

delegated police power authority over land use to counties and municipalities.

Through state enabling legislation, local governments were empowered to plan,

zone, and control the subdivision of land. For over thirty years, there was

little discontent with this fundamental allocation of authority. The

desultory pace of development in the 1930s and 1940s did little to challenge

the capacities of local regulatory agencies. Indeed, given the permissivenes s

of state enabling statutes, most local governments outside of major metro-

politan areas chose to avoid the exercise of land use powers. Within metro-

politan-area jurisdictions, land use conflicts were seen as local urban

problems that rarely merited the attention of rural-dominated state governments.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, these circumstances changed

dramatically, kindling renewed interest in the allocation of authority over

1and use and setting the agenda,for innovative state action over the last

ten years. These changes were of two kinds: 1) the emergence of land

use conflicts which clearly transcended local urban concerns and

2) the reemergence of state governments as powerful vital actors in the

American federal system.

Extra-local Issues

In the 1950s, two major shifts in population--from southern and other

rural areas to the city and from the city to suburbia--precipitated

a dramatic increase in the pace of new resi dential and commercial develop-

ments. In all too many cases, unprepared local governments were overwhelmed

by new growth which strained local treasuries and local public,services. Land

use controls were often exercised in a haphazard and inconsistent manner. Many

decisions were clouded by charges of corruption. The cumulative effects of unguided

development in hundreds of separate jurisdictions soon became evident in the

form of the metropolitan-wide ills which are so evident today--environ-

mental degradation resulting from overly rapid and poorly executed development,

transportation problems stemming from sprawling growth, social tensions pre-

cipitated by residential segregation in the suburbs.

As these problems emerged in the early 1960s and were linked to short-

sighted and parochial patterns of land use regulation, a constituency dedicated

to reform of land use governance gradually arose. Consisting initially of

planners, architects, lawyers, and other land use professionals, the reform

coalition steadily expanded to include many civic associations, environmental

organizations, and business grou@_s. By the mid-1960s, the reform coalition also

included the federal government, which, through a variety of reports, study

commissions, and grant-in-aid programs, attempted to encourage basic change in
growth management practices. 2/ At the core of the changes advocated by reformers

was the assumption of a much more active role by state government in guiding and

supervising local regulatory powers, including the definition of planning

goals and guidelines, the imposition of uniform procedural standards, the

identification of areas and activities of special state-wide concern through

state planning, and the establishment of a state-level ajudicatory body to

handle appeals of local regulatory decisions. These elements of reform were

perhaps most convincingly and influentially advocated in the preparation

of a new Model Land Development Code by the prestigious American Law
3/
Institute.

During the same period in which the movement for general reform of

local growth management practices was gathering momentum, a number of other

specific problems were coming to the fore.

One set of problems involved the siting of large-scale develop-

ments such as power plants, oil refineries, second home communities,, and
4/
surface mines. Due to the scale of these developments, their impacts

inevitably "spilled over" across a number of jurisdictions. They also

produced major demands for state capital investment in transportation

facilities, sewage disposal, and so forth. Beyond these aspects of extra-

local interest, there was also growing concern that highly restrictive local

regulations in somecommunities would impede the growth in jobs and provision of

essential public services provided by large-scale developments. For example,

in several states during the mid 1960s, local opposition to the construction

of power plants prevented the development of new generating capacity needed

to overcome repeated "brownouts" and voltage reductions.

As these problems attained prominence across the nation--oil refineries

in Maine and Delaware, power plants in New York and Washington, second home

developments in Vermont and Florida, surface mines in Montana and Ohio

there were increasing demands from developers and industrialists as well as

environmentalists and land use professionals for special-purpose state laws

to deal with them. Support for innovative state action through reports,

executive orders, and proposed national legislation also came from the
5/
federal government.

A second set of extra-local concerns involved the rapid development and

destruction of irreplaceable natural areas. Such areas--including wetlands,

shorelands, coastal estuaries and beaches, deserts, and mountainous areas--
6/
fulfull a variety of vital functions. They provide wildlife habitat; serve

as.reservoirs and sources for much of the nation's water supply; encompass

most outdoor recreational activities. The frenetic pace of development in

and around natural areas during the 1950s and 1960s promised to destroy

most of this precious natural heritage within one generation. For example,

twenty_-nine percent of the coastal wetlands on Long Island were bulkheaded
7/
and filled for residential development between 1955 and 1964. The quality

of water in such estuaries as Delaware Bay, Narragansett Bay, and Puget Sound

declined significantly between 1955 and 1965 as rapidly expanding industrial

enterprises with shoreline locations discharged their wastes into public
8/
waters. In the Southwest, hundreds of thousands of acres of desert and
9/
mountainous areas were subdivided and sold for second home development. As

these and other problems attained statewide and national recognition, the

demand again rose for special-purpose state programs to protect natural

areas. The federal government helped to set the agenda for state innovation.

at an early stage through proposed national legislation on wetlands, shorelands,
10/
and "critical environmental areas." In the case of shorelands protection a

major federal program was established with the passage of the Coastal Zone
ll/
Management Act of 1972. This program provides substantial grants-in-aid to

the states for the planning and management of land use in coastal areas.

The Renaissance of State Government
By the mid to late 1960s, then, strong discontent had arisen with the way
in which authority over land use was being exercised -- or not being exercised
by local governments. In a number of different areas, reformers looked to the

states to assume a more vigorous and assertive role in land use control.

Prior to the mid 1960s, there would have been grave doubt about t he

capability or willingness of state governments to assume such a role. Indeedl

during the 1950s, critics of land use governance rarely looked to the

states, preferring instead to invest most of their energy in schemes for

metropolitan consolidation and regional government. The states were viewed

as antiquated, tradition-bound, rural-dominated relics of an earlier period

in American federalism. Yet, by the mid 1960s, the states made a

remarkable comeback, assuming the mantle of potential leadership not only in

land use but in many other areas of public policy.

Three factors were of greatest importance in the renaissance of state

government. First, after decades of inactivity dictated by the

malapportionment of state legislatures, the precedent-setting Baker v. Carr
verdict of 1962 shattered traditional pr:sumptions about the rural domination of
12/
state government. From that point onward, malapportioned state legislatures

steadily gave way to more representative bodies with larger numbers of urban

and suburban members. As these new members--oriented to problems of urban

growth, transportation, education, and so forth--came to dominate the 1 'egis-

latures in many states, the realization grew that state goverment could
13/
play a significant role in addressing urban concerns. This applied particu-

larly to areas such as land use control, which relied upon the delegation of

police power authority vested in the states.

Second, the 1960s was a period of extensive modernization and reorganization

of state goverment. While not completely independent of the reapportionment

of state legislatures, this movement had its origins in a long-standing concern

among academics, officials, and politicians that state governments either had
14/
to modernize or wither away. Most state governments were composed of an incredible

array of independent commissions, boards, and agencies, lacking any systematic mech-

anism for executive coordination or oversight by elected officials. State planning

and budgetary control were weak or non-existent. State legislatures functioned

on a part-time basis with small staffs and inadequate salaries. Legislative

oversight was rarely exercised.

The reorganization of state government got under way in the early 1960s

with the advent of strong progressive governors like Rockefeller in New York,

McCall in Oregon, Sanford in North Carolina, and Romney in Michigan. In coop-

eration with newly apportioned state legislatures, they streamlined the executive

branch of state government into a small number of consolidated departments and

introduced a central planning and budget review agency as a integrator of state
15/
government activity. At the same time, under the prodding of organizations like

the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures and the Council of State Governments,
16/
state legislatures were modernizing their own functionsT The result of these

changes was that, by the end of the 1960s, state governments were in a much

stronger position to undertake new policy initiatives.

Finally, the federal government played an important part in strengthening

the capacities of state governments during the 1960s. Federal grant programs

which required area-wi de planning and coordination were enacted in great pro-

fusion during the Kennedy and Johnson years.. While federal programs traditionally

relied on sub-state regional agencies for the area-wide integration function,

most of the new programs also required state plans.. This reflected not only

the general resurgence of state government, but also the realization that

many problems required a broader perspective than regional agencies could

provide. With federally-subsidized planning underway in transportation,

pollution control and mass recreation,and with state planning agencies receiving

general support from the HUD 701 program, the credibility of state supervision
17/
of land use was greatly strengthened.

Patterns of Innovation

In response to these demands and developments, a wide variety of

legislation authorizing a stronger state role in land use governance was

enacted between 1965 and 1975. However, contrary to the views of those who

foresaw or advocated a "quiet revolution" in land use control spreading

rapidly across the nation, the reassertion of authority by state governments

has by no means proceeded without resistance. As recent studies demon-

strate, most reforms of land use governance are concentrated among the
IL8 /
states of a particular region or regions of the country. For example,

mandatory local zoning under state supervision is concentrated exclusively in the

western states; the assertion of state control over coastal wetlands is

limited primarily to the Eastern seaboard states. Only in a few cases has

rapid diffusion occured on a nationwide basis.

To provide a better understanding of the overall scope and pace of

innovation on land use controls, this section briefly examines

the diffusion of three of the most comprehensive types of state land use

reforms: a) statutes which establish a state-level land use planning

process, b) laws which authorize state regulation of large-scale development

siting and c) legislation which sets state standards for development in "critical

areas." These three types of statutes roughly parallel the major recommend-

ations for innovation in land use control made by the Model Land Development

Code of the American Law Institute.

State Land Use Planning. Table 1-1 presents data on the diffusion of legis-
lation which explicitly authorizes the preparation of a formal statewide land use
plan. The listing of a state does not imply that a formal state land use plan has
been officially adopted; only that a planning process has been authorized by statute..

TABIE 1- 1

DIFFUSION OF IEGISIATION AUTHORIZING STATE
LAND USE PLANNING

State Year of Adoption Statute

Vermont 1970 Vt.S.A., Title 10, Section 6001 et. seq.

Colorado 1970, 1971 C.R.S., Section 106-4 et. seq.

Florida 1972

Nevada 1973 Nev. R.S., Section 321 et. seq.

North Carolina 1974 N.C.R.S., Section 113A-150 et. seq.

Georgia 1974

Wyoming 1975 Wyo. S.A., Section 9-856

Massachusetts 1975 Chapter 807, New Laws of 1975

Hawaii 1975 H.R.S., Section 205-12

Connecticut 1976

9
In most cases, the authorizing statute requires,that the plan prepared by an
executive agency must be submitted to the legislation for final review and
approval. In some states, such as Vermont, submitted plans have been rejected
by the state legislature. Indeed, no state legislature has as yet officially

adopted a state land use plan.

The objective of a statewide land use plan is to provide guidance to

state and local agencies in the exercise of their regulatory responsibilities,

acquisition authority, and capital improvement spending. State land use

plans are often viewed as key elements in the regulation of large-scale

developments and the protection of critical environmental areas.

For example, Vermont authorized the preparation of a state land use

plan as part of its effort to control the siting of developments over 10

acres in size. In other states, such as Colorado and Wyoming, the major

motivation-for the preparation of a state land use plan is the desire to insure

that local governments carry out their responsibility for comprehensive

planning in an reasonable and non-parochial manner. In still other states--

i.e. Connecticut and Rhode Island--the authorizing statute derives from a

desire to guide state expenditures on transportation facilities, sewage

treatment, water supply, and so forth in directions that are compa tibld with

a limited rate and pattern of growth.
Ten states have adopted this variety of legislation over a period of

seven years since first passage. This diffusion rate is slightly above

average, if we define the average rate of diffusion for innovative state
19/
statutes in the post-war period as twenty adoptions over twenty years.

There are several "regional clusters" of adoptions--the West (Colorado,

Nevada, Wyoming, Hawaii), the New England states (Vermont, Massachusetts,

Connecticut) and the South (North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia). This clustering

conforms with the normal pattern of emulation and competition among neighboring

20/
states that share close communications links and common problems. With the

exception of Massachusetts and Connecticut, none of the large industrialized

states of the Northeast and Midwest have yet indicated much interest in

state land use planning. In some states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio,

state planning agencies have engaged in preliminary informal exercises on

their own initiativel but a formal planning process with legal status has

not been proposed or considered by the legislature. This inactivity

contrasts with the typical leadership role played by the larger states in

introducing and stimulating the spread of statutory innovations.

The prospects for future diffusion of statutes authorizing state land

use planning have been greatly affected by the demise of the proposed National

Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act sponsored by Senator Henry Jackson
21/
and Representative Morris Udall. That proposed bill provided substantial federal

grants _in-aid for the preparation of state-level land use plans. If the

national bill had been enacted, it is likely that the innovation would have

spread quite rapidly across the nation, despite the sensitive ideological and

intergovernmental issues involved in the assertion of state authority over

planning. Indeed, several of the existing adoptions--including those in

Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia--seem to have been spurred primarily

by the anticipation of federal funding under the proposed national act.

Without federal funding, the prospects for future adoption look best

in the West and South--regions where there are already a number of active

states and where rapid growth continues to be a problem. While recent

attempts to enact a state land use planning bill through the legislature

failed in Washington and Idaho, considerable interest remains -'.n these states.

In the South, legislative study commissions in Kentucky and Tennessee are
examining the need for a formal state land use plan and there are increasing

demands for the formalization of a state plan in Virginia.
Some interest is also evident in the Midwest--particularly Iowa and Mich-
igan. However passage of an innovative statute has been blocked for several
years in both state legislatures and the prospects for enactment in the near

future are not bright.

It does not seem likely, then, that the rate of diffusion will increase
dramatically in the absence of a national land use bill. We anticipate the,

continuation of an average or slightly above average rate of diffusion.

Siting of Large-Scale Developments. Table 1-2 presents basic data on the

diffusion of large-scale development siting legislation. While these statutes

vary substantially in the way in which they allocate operational responsibility

for planning and permitting between state, regional, and local gover=nent

agencies, they each incorporate at least two core elements:

(1) They establish a set of statewide policy criteria
and/or a planning process to identify desirable and
undesirable areas for large-scale development.

(2) They vest a state regulatory agency with the power to
enforce the criteria and/or plans through some form of
state-level review of site applications.

This innovation also exhibits a strong pattern of regional clustering. of

the six states that enacted the innovation by December 1975, four were in

the Northeast. Maine initiated this type of statute in 1970 in response to

heavy pressure for industrial development in its scenic coastal zone. Vermont

followed shortly with a law aimed primarily at the control of major second-

home subdivision developments Two of the more recent enactments, in

Delaware and New Jersey, limit state.-level control of large-scale development sit-

ing to projects on coastal land. The motivation in these cases was primarily to

protect water quality and valuable wetlands from further degradation by heavy

industrial development. Legislative activity in the Northeast continues to

TABLE 1-2

DIFFUSION OF LEGISIATION AUTHORIZING STATE REGUIATION

OF IARGE-SCAIY, DEVELOPMENT SITING

Yearof
State Adoption statute

Maine 1970* * Site Location of Development Act, Me. R.S.i'..
Title 38, Section 481 to 489
Vermont 1970* * Vt. S.A., Title 10, Section 6001
to 6089
Delaware 1971 Delaware Coastal Zone Act. Del. C.A.,
Section 7-7001 to 7-7013
Florida 1972** Florida Environmental Land and Water Manale
ment Act of 1972, F.S.A., Section 380.012 tc,
380.10
NewJersey 1973* Coastal Area Facility Review Act:
N.J.S.A., Section 13:19-i to 13:19-21
Wyoming 1975** Industrial Development Information and Sitinc-
Act. Wyom. S.A., Section 35-502.75 to
35.502.94

Proposed Legislation I
Wisconsin (Defeated by House, 1974)
Idaho (Defeated by Senate, 1975)
New Hampshire (Defeated by House, 1975)
Utah (Defeated by House, 1975)
Iowa (Passed by House, tabled by Senate, 1975)

.Coastal Areas Only
Entire State

1. Reported out to a full chamber during last two sessions.

be vigorous. The New Hampshire legislature narrowly missed passage of a

comprehensive siting statute in 1975 and the Maryland legislature enacted

a closely-related energy facilities siting act in 1975.

Outside the Northeast, only Wyoming and Florida have enacted an innovative

siting law. Wyoming's action seems to be the forerunner of more extensive

legislative activity among the western states. During 1975, large-scale

development siting statutes came very close to approval in the Idaho and

Utah legislatures. Montana and North Dakota passed legislation during 1975

providing state-level control over the siting of large-scale energy conversion

and development facilities. These initiatives form a favorable base from

which to consider more inclusive siting legislation. All of the western

states undertaking legislative activity are reacting to,the same phenomenon--

the initiation of rapid industrial development due to the availability of large,

exploitable energy reserves. I

In the South, Florida's example has as yet stirred no related activity

among the other states of the region. Of course, Florida is in many aspects

unique. It's climate and unique flora and fauna have attracted a far higher

rate of growth than that of any other state in the region and it has historically

been the site of extremely large subdivision developments.

A striking feature of Table 1-2 is again the absence of legislative leader-

ship by the larger, wealthier, and more industrialized states that have tra-

ditionally taken the lead in innovation, such as California in the West, New
22/
York and Massachusetts in the Northeast, and Michigan in the Midwest. Indeed,

the two initial innovators in the Northeast are rural and agricultural states

with small dispersed populations. This pattern seems to reflect the shift in

growth away from the larger states as well as stronger traditions of sophisticated

local siting and development control in these states.

The diffusion rate for large-scale development siting legislation has

been average--six adoptions over a five-year span. Legislative activity has

been consistent, with at least one enactment or vote in a full chamber

every year except 1971.

The diffusion rate of this innovation would also unquestionably have

been increased by the passage of the proposed national land use bill. The

Jackson-Udall proposal placed a significant emphasis on state level siting

control and provided funds for the support of the necessary administrative
apparatus. In the absence of this federal subsidy, many state legislatures

have been reluctant to allocate scarce state funds to support a new

bureaucratic agency. This factor has impeded the passage of legislation

in at least two states (New Hampshire and Utah) and will continue to exercise

a retarding effect. The most likely course of future legislative action is

thus the continuation of an average diffusion rate.

Protection of Critical Environmental Areas. A large proportion of

legislative action on state land use control in the period 1965-1975 was

devoted to the protection of particular types of va lua ble natural areas;

including, most prominently, wetlands, shorelands, and coastal lands. This

piecemeal approach to the preservation of natural areas has aroused some discontent

among environmentalists, ecologists, and planners who advocate a more comprehensive

and inclusive approach to the protection of unique or unusual land areas.

This view first found its-way into prominence in drafts of the ALI Code,

which recommended that the states devote special attention to a broad class

of "critical environmental areas"; including not only a variety of lands

possessing unique ecological significance, but also those characterized

by natural hazards or unusual conditions (i.e., steep slopes, earthquake-
23/
zones, etc.). This approach was first adopted by Florida in 1972 as part

of its Environmental Land and Water Management Act. Florida's action

arose in response to the impact of a severe drought and apprehension about the
24/
destruction of the state's vital acquifer system.

Table 1-3 presents the record of subsequent diffusion of critical

environmental areas legislation among the other states. The typical statute

establishes a set of state policy standards and/or a planning process for the

identification and designation of critical environmental areas. Most statutes

leave state agencies with a broad grant of discretionary authority to define

critical areas boundaries as they see fit. The statutes vary widely in

implementation responsibility. Most provide at least an initial permitting

role for local government, but differ in the strength of review authority

provided to regional and/or state government.

Like the two other innovative statutes, critical environmental areas leg-

islation displays a marked regional focus. The most active region in embracing

this innovation has been the West, where four states have adopted the legislation

over the last three years. Two other western states, Idaho and Arizona, came

close to passing legislation in 1975. In Arizona, for example, proposed

legislation was defeated in the Senate at the last moment by a few votes,

Outside the West, there have been only two scattered adoptions:

Minnesota in the Midwest and Maryland in the Northeast. One feature this statute

shares with the other-two statutes is the absence of action by any of the major

industrial, urbanized states. With the exception of Florida, the innovative

states are largely rural and agricultural, with small populations.

The rate of diffusion through 1975 was somewhat more rapid than

av erage, seven states over a span of four years. Following Florida's

TAing 1-3

DIFFUSION OF LEGISIATION AUTHORIZING STATE REGUIATION
OF DEVELOPMENT IN CRITICAL AREAS

Year of
State Adoption Statute

Florida 1972 Florida Environmental Land and Water Management
Act of 1972, Fla. Stats. Ann., Section 380.05
Nevada 1973 Nev. R.S., Section 321.640 to 32 1.810
Minnesota 1973 Critical Areas Act of 1973. M.S.A., Section
116G.01 to 116G.14
Oregon 1973 O.R.S., Section 215.010 to 215.990
Colorado 1974 C.R.S., Section 106-7-101 to 106-7-502
Maryland 1974 The Public Gen'l Laws of Md., Article 88C, Section
1-12
Wyoming 1975 The State Land Use Planning Act., Wyo. S.A., Section
9-849 to 9-862

Proposed Legislation 2
Georgia (Defeated by House, 1974)
Wisconsin (Defeated by House, 1974)
Iowa (Passed by House, tabled in Senate, 1975)
Idaho (Defeated by House, 1975)
Arizona (Passed by House, defeated by Senate, 1975)
South Dakota (Passed by House, defeated by Senate, 1975)
New Hampshire (Defeated by House, 1975)

1. The Utah legislature passed a critical areas act during its 1974 session, but it was
repealed by statewide referendum, November 1974.
2. Reported out favorably to a full chamber during last two sessions.

adoption in 1972, the pace of action increased in 1973 (three adoptions)

and 1974 (two adoptions), reflecting the stimulus of national publicity and

debate over the proposed Jackson-Udall land use bill. That proposal included

federal grants-in-aid for critical areas protection programs. There was a slow-

down in adoptions during 1975. Despite legislative debate in many states, only

Wyoming enacted a critical environmental areas protection statute in 1975.

Several factors which have recently impeded acceptance of the innovation

are repeatedly emphasized in legislative debates.'

One is that the adoption of special-purpose wetlands and shorelands protection

statutes has diminished the urgency of legislative action on broader critical environ-

mental areas laws. Once wetlands or shorelands statutes, or both, are enacted,

the need for a general critical areas statute seems less pressing.

Another is cost. Difficult fiscal conditions are discouraging

state legislatures from setting up new and elaborate programs, particularly

when the programs promise no significant economic improvements for citizens.

With federal funds no longer in the offing as they were when the Jackson-

Udall bill appeared likely to pass, advocates of critical areas legislation

must now compete with advocates of other state-financed programs.

A third factor, which also affects wetlands and shorelands legislation,

is the argument over compensation to owners of land who will be subject to

severe restrictions on their ability to exercise property rights. In Arizona,

for instance, critical areas legislation was defeated in 1975 due to a dispute

between House and Senate over a just compensation formula.

Summary

The reassertion of state authority over land use has not been a rapid

nation-wide process similar to the extraordinary diffusion of the

Standard Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA) some fifty years ago. After ten years

of public outcry, planning studies, proposed national legislation, and

innumerable state legislative debates, there are still large areas of the nation

in which the states remain passive spectators in the control of land use.

Adoption of the three most comprehensive statutes remains largely regionalized.

More rapid diffusion seems dependent on the passage of a national land

use bill which will foot the costs of planning and administration that many

states are unwilling to bear themselves.

On the other hand, the three comprehensive statutes do display an average,

steady pace of,diffusion which indicates that, like most other innovative

statutes, they will gradually gain acceptance on their own terms as legis-

lative norms. Recent research on the diffusion of statutory innovations

indicates that once a "critical mass" of twenty or so states has acted,
25/
the pace of diffusion picks up markedly among the remaining states. In the

absence of a revived federal initiative, this critical mass stage should be

reached in the mid-1980s for each of the three innovations.

In some of the narrower, special-purpose categories of legislation,

the critical mass point already seems to have been reached. Statutes author-

izing state regulation of power plant siting, protection of shoreland

areas, and preservation of wetlands have diffused at an above average pace over

the last decade. They have been more widely accepted across the different

regions of the nation than the comprehensive statutes. With federal support

for coastal zone programs available, the prospects for further diffusion

of shorelands and coastal protection laws are excellent.

The overall picture then is one of consistent but regionally-focussed

diffusion of the more comprehensive statutes and more rapid and widely-

dispersed adoption of some of the narrower statutes. While this pattern does

not fit the vision of some of the more enthusiastic and committed supporters

of state land use controls, it still merits close attention as a significant

trend in intergovernmental relations and the protection of the environment.

A growing number of states will be struggling with efforts to implement

these innovative legislative mandates over the coming years. The remainder

of this study is devoted to intensive analysis of one major implementation issue:

the effectiveness of citizen involvement in state land use decision-making.

NOTES -- CHAPTER I

1. The substance of the reform coalitionts critique of local land use
controls is perhaps best summarized in the Report of the Task Force
on Land Use and Urban Growth of the Citizens Advisory Committee on
Environmental Quality, William K. Reilly (editor), The Use of Land:
A Citizen's Policy Guide to Urban Growth (New York, Thomas Y. Crowell,
1973). The diversity of the Task Force's composition testifies to the
breadth of the reform coalition by the early 1970s.

Z. See Advisory Conimission on Intergovernmental Relations, Urban and
Rural America: Policies for Future Growth (Washington, D. C.: G. P. 0.,
1968), pp. 134-135; National Commission on Urban Problems, - Building
the American Cit (Washington, D. C. , G. P. 0. , 1969), pp. 237-239.

3. The preparation of a new ALI Code was initiated in 1966 under a grant
from the Ford Foundation. Even in its various draft versions, the Code
was an influential force in shaping state land use reforms. For example,
t-1he Florida Environment Land t:nd Water Management Act of 1972 was
based largely on ALI Code recommendations. The final version of
the ALI Code was published in 1975. The American Law Institute,
A Model Land DeveloRment Code (Philadelphia, The Institute, 1975).

4. On the problems of large -scale development siting, see Special Committee
on Environmental Law, Development and the Environment: Legal Reforms
to Facilitate Industrial Site Selection (Chicago- American Bar Association,
1975); Michael Baran, "Environmental Decision-Making and the Siting
of Facilities," 5 Environmental Law Reporter 50089 (1975); Daniel
Bronstein, "State Regulation of Power Plant Siting, " 4 -Environmental
Law 273 (1973).

5. See Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President,
Electric Power and the Environment (Washington, D. C.: G. P. 0., 1970);
Fred Bosselman and David Callies, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use
Control (Washington, D. C. : Council on Environmental Quality, 1971).

Proposal for national legislation on surface mine sit ing, power plant
siting, and large-scale development siting may be found in Council
on Environmental Quality, The President's 1971 Environmental Program
(Washington, D.C., G.P.O., 1971).

6. See United States Water Resources Council, The Nation's Water
Re source s, (Washington, D. C. : G. P. 0. , 196 8); John Te rborgh,
"Preservation of Natural Diversity, " 24 Bioscience 715 (1974);
The Preservation of Natural Diversity: A Survey and Recommendations,
Final Report to the Department of Interior (Washington, D. C.: The
Nature Conservancy, 1975); John Clark, Coastal Ecosystems (Washington,
D-C. : The Conservation Foundation, 1974).

7. Ralph Green, Wetlands on Long Island (Hauppauge, New York: Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1972).

8. U.S. Congress, The National Estuarine Pollution Study Report
Submitted by the Secretary of Interior Pursuant to P. L. 89-753,
92nd Congress, 2nd Session, March 25, 1970.

9. Robert Cahn, Land in Jeopardy (Boston, The Christian Science
Publishing Society, 1973); William K. Reilly (editor), The Use of Land:
A Citizens Policy Guide to Urban Growth (New York, Thomas Y. Crowell,
1973), Chapter VII.

10. For a review of the origins and evolution of national shorelands
legislation, see Edward Wenk, The Politics of the Ocean (Seattle:
University of Washington, Press, 197Z), Chapter 3* On the "critical"
environmental areas" component of proposed national land use legis-
lation, see Noreen Lyday, The Law of the Land: Debating National Land
Use Legislation, 1970-1975 (Washington, D. C. : The Urban Institute,
1976).

The Nixon Administration's proposed legislation on wetlands.. shorelands,
and critical environmental areas is found in Council of Environmental
Quality, The President's 1971 Environmental Program loc. cit.

11. P. L. 9Z-85Z. On the operation of the coastal zone management
program, see Coastal Zone Management: The Process of Program
Developme (Sandwich, Massachusetts: Coastal Zone Management
Institute, 1974).

12. For an analysis of the impact and implications of the re -apportionment
decisions, see Malcolm Jewell, The State Legislature, (New York:
Random House, Revised Edition, 1969); Nelson Polsby (editor),
Reapportionment in the 1970s (Berkeley, California: University of
California Press, 1971).

13. Lee Greene, Malcolm Jewell, and Daniel Grant, The States and the
Metropolis, (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1968);
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Urban America
and the Fed e ral S ystem (Wa shington, D. C. : G. P. 0. , 19 6 9), Cha pte r 5;
Alan K. Campbell (editor), The States and the Urban Crisis (Englewood.
Cliff s, New Jersey: Prentice, Hall, 1970); Thad Beyle, Sureva, Seligson,
and Deil Wright, "New Directions in State Planning, " 35 Journal of the
American Institute of Planners 334 (1969).

14. See Terry Sanford, Storm Over the States (New York, McGraw Hill,
1967); Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism: A View from the
States (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966); Committee for
Economic Development, Modernizing State Government (New York:
CEQ, 1967); York Willbern, "Administrative Organization, 11 in James
Fesler, The 50 States and !heir Local Governments (New York: Knopf,
1967).

15. See Richard Slavin, "The Expanding Dimensions of State Planning,
in Planning 1970 (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1971);
Institute on State Programming for the 1970s, State Planning, A Quest for
Relevance (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The Institute, 1967); David
K. Hartley, "State Planning" in Frank Smothers (editor), The Book
of the States: 1968-1969 (Lexington, Kentucky: Council of State Govern-
ments, 1968).

16. Citizen's Conference on State Legislatures, State Legislatures: An
Evaluation of Their Effectiveness (New York: Praeger, 1971); Council
of State Governments, Legislative Modernization (Lexington, Kentucky:
Council of State Governments, 1969).

17. Council of State Governments, State Planning and Federal Grants (Chicago:
Public Administration Service, 1969); Bosselman and Callies, Quiet
Revolution in Land Use Control, loc. cit., Elizabeth Haskell, New
Directions in State Environmental Planning, 11 37 Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 253 (1971).

18. Nelson Rosenbaum, Land Use and the Legislatures: The Politics of
of State Innovation (Washington, D. C. : The Urban Institute, 1976);
Robett Healy, Land Use and the States,' (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
University Press for Resources for the Future, 1975).

19. See Jack Walker, "The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American
States, 11 63 American Political Science Review 880, 895 (1969);
Virginia Gray, "Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study, " 67
American Political Science Review 1174 (1973).

20. On regional clustering in innovation and policy-making among the
American states, see Elazar, op. cit. , Chapter 1, Walker, loc. cit. ,
Ira Shankansky, Regionalism in American Politics (Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1970).

21. Lyday, The Law of the Land, op. cit. , discusses in detail the various
versions of proposed national land use legislation, the reasons for
their failure, and the implications of their demise. See particularly
pp. 41-51.

22. On legislative leadership by the larger, more affluent states, see
Walker, loc. cit. ; Gray, loc. cit. ; Ira Shankansky and Richard
Hoffebert, "Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public
Policy, 11 63 American Political Science Review 867 (1969).

23. The American Law Institute, A Model Land Development Code,
Tentative Draft, No. 2, (Philadelphia, The Institute, 197Z), Section
7-201. On the evolution of the concept of critical environmental areas
in the ALI Code, see Daniel Mandelker, "Critical Area Controls:
A New Dimension in American Land Development Regulation, " 41
Journal of the American Institute of Planners 21 (1975).

24. Phyllis Myers, Slow Start in Paradise (Washington, D. C.: The Con-
servation Foundation, 1974); Richard Rubino, "An Evaluation of
Florida's Land Use Law," 46 State Government 17Z (1973).

25. Walker, op. cit. , pp. 894-896.

II. LEGISIATIVE MANDATES FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

One of the most striking aspects of recent legislative enactments

authorizing the exercise of land use controls by state agencies is the

almost universal emphasis on the importance of citizen involvement in

decision-making. Legislative concern with public involvement takes two

forms.

First, there is widespread emphasis upon making citizen involvement

more systematic and progranmiatic--i.e. broadening the scope of participation,

insuring access to all phases of decision-making, integrating public educa-

tion with citizen participation, For example, Oregon's well-known,land use

law of 1973 (S.B. 100) calls for "widespread citizen involvement in all

phases of the planning process." or the Massachusetts Growth Policy

Development Act of 1975 encourages "the initiation of a locally-oriented

participatory planning process.to enable representatives from various
interest groups in each municipality in the commonwealth to evaiuate the

effects of unplanne d and uncoordinated growth and development patterns,form-

ulate future growth and development goals which meet the needs of the diversity

of residents in each municipality ... and to contribute substantially to the

formulation of state growth and development policies and objectives."

The second aspect of increased emphasis on citizen involvement is

detailed specification of procedural participation rights which facilitate

access to administrative proceedings and stimulate governmental accountability.

As part of the general trend toward more concern with procedural due process

evidenced in such statutes as state administrative procedure acts, environ-

mental impact acts, and freedom of information acts, recent land use

25 -

enactments stipulate in great detail public hearing requirements, notifica-

tion procedures, appeal rights for affected citizens, and so forth. Hawaii's

Act 193 (1975), for example, devotes almost one-third of its text to

specification of guidelines for public intervention and participation in

the proceedings of the State Land Use Commission. The Minnesota Power

Plant Siting Act (1972) dictates representation requirements for mandatory

citizen advisory committees at Igreat length and specifies that any "ag-

grieved person" may initiate judicial review of state agency decisions on

power plant siting.

Why have state land use statutes devoted such attention to citizen

involvement? This chapter examines the genesis of legislative mandates for

citizen involvement and how these mandates relate to the general evolution of

administrative practice in American democracy.

Citizen Involvement in Administrative Decision-Making

Prior to the 1930's, the.exercise of administrative discretion was.

rarely viewed as a major problem in American democracy. In the first place,

administrative agencies :typically enjoyed little discretion. Legislatures,

jealous of their own power and prerogatives, tended to prescribe and circumscribe

the authority of administrative bureaucracies in fine detail. As Bryce

noted about the American version of democracy at the turn of the century:

"It is a great merit of American government that it relies very little

on officials (i.e. administrators) and arms them with little power of arbi-

trary interference. The reader who has followed the description of Federal

authorities, state authorities, county and city or township authorities,

may think there is a great deal of administration; but the reason why their

descriptions are necessarily so minute is because the powers of each authority
are so carefully and closely restricted!!'

Second, as a consequence of the overall professionalization of the civil

service and the emergence of a public administration discipline in the early

1900s
many citizens put great faith in the "neutral competence" and "rationality"

of administrators. Their expertise, it was believed, would lead to an accurate
2/
determination and defense of the broad public interest.

These conditions began to change in the late 1920's and early 1930's.

Faced with the pressure of rapid economic expansion and then abrupt economic

'collapse, legislatures created many specialized administrative bureaucracies

and regulatory agencies at federal, state, and local levels. These

bureaucracies were typically provided with broad discretionary powers.

As James Landis noted in his classic essay, the delegation of brcKad

powers to these agencies resulted from a profound feeling of helplessness

on the part of the traditional branches of government: "The adminis trative

process is, in essence, our gAeration's answer to the inadequacy of the
judicial and legislative processes." 3/

To take a relevant example, it was in this period of growing admini-

strative power that the establishment of land use regulatory agencies took

place. Under the leadership of Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover, the

Federal government prepared and publicized the Standard State Zoning Enabling

Act and the Standard City.Planning Enabling Act during the 1920's. Widely

enacted by state legislatures in the 1930's, these laws allowed local govern-

ments to set up independent planning and zoning commissions which were pro-

vided with extremely wide discretion (e.g., "promoting the health, safety,
4/
morals, or the general welfare of the community") . Their decisions were

subject only to often cursory review by local legislative bodies.

During this period of enormous expansion of discretionary authority in

administrative agencies, there was still confidence in the professionalism

of the bureaucracy. Of course, there were some vocal opponents of the

departure from carefully specified mandates and limited authority, but these

critics came primarily from the ranks of the "vested interests" whose actions

were subject to governmental regulation and scrutiny. Since most of the

protest came from those whose activity was deemed to be contrary to the

broad "@ublic interest," the criticism merely reinforced confidence in the

objectivity and responsiveness of administrative agencies. Only a few

observers in law and political science perceived the potential danger to democratic

practice in the delegation of such broad discretionary powers to adminis-
5/
trators who were not subject to direct popular accountability.

It was not until after World War II that public concern about the

control of administrative discretion began to develop into a major force.

This concern was stimulated by a number of factors, including pervasive

discontent with oppressive wartime administrative controls and growing

unhappiness among minority and low-income groups over arbitrary and arrogant

bureaucratic decision making in the development of new social progra ms.

Perhaps the single most important factor in the genesis of the

movement to bring the bureaucracies under greater public control was the

recognit ion that the aggressive, adversary relationship between regulatory

agencies and regulated parties that prevailed during the New Deal era had

been transformed into a more comfortable, cooperative posture. As n=erous

critics and observers discovered, regulators and regulated parties formed

powerful, autonomous "subgovernments," within which bargaining and back-

scratching were the prevailing norms.
This cooptation. or "capture" of the bureaucracies and commissions,

particularly at the federal level, was widespread enough to cause severe

disillusionment with the doctrines of "neutral competence".and "professional

objectivity." Thus, citizens began to demand some means for insuring greater

responsiveness to public- desires and for enforcing the accountability of

administrative officials.

Three groups have been of foremost importance in supporting increased

citizen involvement in administrative decision-making.

First, many social scientists and policy analysts have stressed the need

for direct public involvement because of concern about the distance and non-
71
responsiveness of administrative agencies. These advocates have also

emphasized that direct participation in decision-making is valuable in itself

as a mean s of building a sense of responsibility and self-confidence on the

part of citizens.

Secon d, the citizen involvement has been pushed strongly by many

traditional middle-class supporters of "good government," organized in

neighborhood associations, environmental organizations, and consumer groups.

From the perspective of these citizens, direct participation is valued as

a means of counteracting and overcoming the privileged relationship between

.administrative agencies and the vested interests they are supposed to regu-
8/
late..

Finally, direct citizen involvement has been emphasized and supported by

blacks, poor people, and other disadvantaged groups,.who viewed participation

programs as a means of obtaining greater responsiveness to local needs and

priorities from social service and community development bureaucracies.

The r esponse to demands for greater control over administrative

decision-making has taken two forms over the last thirty years: a@ estab-

lishment of formal, procedural participation rights which can be utilized

at the citizen's initiative and b) authorization of systematic citizen in-

volvement programs which require the agency to seek out and respond to public

priorities and preferences.

Procedural Participation Rights. In the postwar years, the primary.forum.

for the advancement of procedural participation rights in administrative

decision-making has been the federal government.

The landmark Federal Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 was the

opening round in the expansion of the general participation rights and
10/
opportunities of the public. By requiring agencies to meet certain minimum

standards of fairness and openness in their decision-making procedures, and

by vesting citizens with the right to judicial relief in case of agency

failure to comply, the Administrative Procedure Act broke new ground in

enforcing public access and bureaucratic accountability. Minimal involve-

ment opportunities, such as mandatory public hearings or review and comment

on proposed regulations in the Federal Register, were first authorized by

the Administrative Procedure Act and its sub sequent amendments. Following

the normal process of diffusion and emulation, most states and localities

adopted administrative procedure acts of their own during the 1950s and

1960s.

In the 1960s, as federal programs again expanded rapidly and several

new popular movements developed (e.g., civil rights, consumer, and environ-

mental movements), attention again turned to the expansion,and protection of

general public participation rights in administrative decision making. The

most significant acts were the Freedom of Information Act (1966) and the

National Environmental Policy Act (1970), both of which created broad new

information and accountability obligations for administrative agencies and
ll/
made these rights judicially enforceable by the individual citi zen. In the

past few years, these acts have also spread rapidly at the state level and,

to a lesser degree, at the local level.

'The states have also pioneered in the expansion of general procedural

rights and opportunities. Most prominently, it is at this level that

11sunshine laws" or open-meeting acts originated. Most states now have laws

requiring all meetings of state and local administrative agencies to be
12/
open to public attendance. The states' example has recently been followed

by the federal government. A new statute requires that all fed eral agency
13/
meetings be open.

Supplementing the procedural participation rights established by these

general statutes and ordinances, many specific laws incorporate

additional safeguards of access and accountability. For example, in response

to the demands of environmental groups, the federal pollution-control statutes--

the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Amendments of 1972--include liberalized standards for citizen access to
14/
judicial review of agency decisions, Any citizen may sue the agency itself

by requesting a writ of mandamus or may override the prosecutorial discre-

tion of the agency by seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties against

a private violator of pollution standards, The pollution-control programs

also incorporate special rules for public hearings and public access to agency

documents going beyond the general standards set in the Administrative

Procedure Act and related statutes.-

As previously noted, these types of detailed procedural standards are

also being written into recent state statutes on land use and other policy

areas. However, while these types of minimum standards of accessibil ity and

accountability are the essential core of citizen involvement in administrative

decision-making, they are not necessarily sufficient to insure that

an agency will become more responsive to popular preferences. In

the timeless ways of the bureaucracy., minima have a tendency to become

maxima. Open meetings, notification procedures, public hearings, and other

formal rights in and.of themselves do not necessarily produce greater

popular guidance and control., These procedural norms are passive; they may

or may not be used positively to bring about a change in decision-making

patterns. Recognizing these limitations, many groups have demanded more

specific legislative mandates for citizen involvement which place an

affirmative obligation on administrative agencies to solicit participation

in particular policy decisions.

Systematic Involvement Programs. As in the establishment of procedural

participation rights, the federal government has been the innovator and

initiator in the authorization of systematic citizen involvement programs.

The Federal Housing Act of 1954 was the first major statute to

incorporate a specific mandate for citizen participation. After five years

of contentious and frustrating experience with federally financed urban

redevelopment under the Housing Act of 1949, the revised statute sought to

make administrative decision making more responsive to popular needs and

desires by requiring a program of citizen participation in the planning and

execution of projects. The new concept was incorporated in the statute as

a response to critics who claimed that the urban redevelopment had resulted
15/
in a brutal, inhumane approach to social problems.

Congressional attention to the need for systematic citizen involvement

programs accelerated greatly in the 1960s, as vast new social initiatives

were authorized and citizen discontent and militance increased, The well-

known mandate for "maximum feasible participation of the residents of the

area and members of the group served" was incorporated in the Community

Action Program legislation of 1964 as a significant expression of this con-

cern. The desire to keep administrative d-iscretion under control was also

evident in the mandate for "widespread participation" of affected citizens

in the planning and execution of the Model Cities.program (1966).

Because of the prominence of the Community Action and Model Cities

programs in the arsenal of Great Society efforts to aid urban areas, the

experiences with citizen participation under these mandates have been

subjected to an enormous amount of publicity and analysis over the last
decade 16/ Despite the critical nature of much of this commentary, it was

these two federal statutes, more than any other sources, that popularized

and legitimized the concept of systematic citizen involvement programs,

a concept subsequently incorporated in many other pieces of legislation.

Indeed, the need for positive programs of citizen involvement in adminis-

trative decision making seems to have become a new legislative nom--not

only at t@e federal level, but at the state and local levels as well.

As indicated in the preceding analysis, the emergence of this new norm

is hardly sudden or surprising. Demands for positive citizen involvement

programs represent an understandable and appropriate response on the part

of a more knowledgeable and sophisticated public to the enormous increase in

the scope of governmental intervention in citizens' lives and the extensive

grants of discretion to administrative decision-makers who are not publicly

accountable through the electoral process. The American public is far

different from what it was prior to the Second World War. Higher levels

of affluence and mass edu cation have produced a populace that is unwilling

to "leave it to the experts."

To some observers, the emergence of direct citizen involvement

represents a challenge to the traditional representative institu tions of
17/
our democracy. It is true that the authorization of citizen involvement

programs constitutes an admission that legislatures and chief executives

cannot, by themselves, effectively guide and oversee the conduct of adminis-

trative decision-making. Yet it also seems unrealistic to expect our repre-

sentatives to exercise close and systematic control over the enormous range of

administrative agencies and activities in our society. Rather than the failure

of traditional institutions, the gradual acceptance of the new norm of citizen

in olvement represents an adaptation of democratic practice to changed con-

ditions, a recognition that the maintenance of a responsive government requires

a division of labor between representative democracy and direct democracy.

In sum, then, the emphasis on citizen involvement in recent state land

use statutes forms part of a more general movement toward providing af-

fected citizens with a direct voice in administrative decision-making.

This movement finds its roots in the great expansion of administrative

discretion since,the 1920s and the simultaneous growth in the affluence,

education, and sophistication of the American people. Beyond this general

background, however, mandates for citizen involvemen t in state land use

programs also reflect two special factors: a) the extreme sensitivity of

land use decisions and b) the distance and unfamiliarity of state govern-

ment. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a brief discussion of

these factors.

Sensitivity of Land Use Governance

To a greater extent than most other areas of public policy, land use

decisions exercise an immediate and pervasive impact upon the private

lives of American citizens.

Of foremost importance is the effect of land usedecisions upon private

property. The drafting of a comprehensive plan, the approval of a zoning

variance, the recordation of a subdivision plat typically involves thousands

and often millions of dollars in increased or decreased property values

and property taxes. These changes affect not only the owner/developer of the private

land, but also the many citizens who reside or own property in the

surrounding vicinity. The private economic stake of the owner/developer

has, of course, always been recognized in the American legal tradition. Under

the "takings clause" of the federal and state constitutions, compensation for
18/
extreme-diminution of property values caused by regulation is required.

However, the interests and values of surrounding residents and property-owners

are not so explicitly recognized. The demand for special recognition and con-

sideration of their concerns has been a powerful force-behind the emphasis on citizen

involvement found in many recent land use statutes and ordinances. Over the

past twenty years, the scope of these private economic impacts deriving from

land use decisions has greatly increased as. homeownership rates have risen.

With such a large proportion of citizen's capital assets tied up in the value of

residential property, public tolerance of broad governmental discretion over the

land market has understandably lessened.

Land use decisions are also sensitive because they exercise a powerful

influence on many other aspects of a community's lifestyle--e.g., popula-

tion composition, environmental quality, recreational opportunity, and fiscal
19/
stability. In the past ten to fifteen years, these community impacts have

begun to receive as much attention as private economic impacts.. This

attention reflects two developments. First, there has been a marked upsurge

in community commitment and organization in inner-city neighborhoods,

stemming largely from federal programs of the 1950s and 1960s. Second,

in response to the emergence of the envirorunental movement, there has been a

shift in the "mood" of many suburban communities--away from accepting unfettered

entrepreneurialism and rapid development, toward concern about the costs of

growth and the need to preserve open space as a vital community resource. As

a result, land use decisions now generate wider controversy than would derive

from the private economic impacts alone.

The extreme sensitivity of land use governance has resulted in

numerous instances of conflict and confrontation between citizens and

government. Abetted by dramatic increases in the education and income

levels of the American population and by extensive political experience

gained in previous social movements, citizen organization display extra-

ordinary levels of mobilization and sophistication on land use issues.

Citizen groups have demonstrated repeatedly that, if not satisfied with the

fairness and responsiveness of decisions, they can impede, obstruct, and

delay the execution of policy for extended periods of time.

This is not to justify or defend the tactics of all citizen groups.

Governmental decision makers should not be intimidated by the prospect of

citizen opposition and cannot attempt to appease all groups that have the

potential to obstruct and delay. However, in a policy arena involving both

great sensitivity and a 1@rong potential for public mobilization, it is under-

standa le that legislators are sympathetic to demands for citizen involvement

in the hope that delay and obstruction can be kept to a minimum.

The Distance of State Government

A second source of special concern about citizen involvement is the

relative obscurity of state government in the eyes of many citizens. Of

the three primary levels of government in the American federal system, state

government is the least familiar, the least respected, and the least relevant

to core concerns according to a recent nationwide survey of citizens sponsored
20/
by the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. This unfamiliarity

and distance, as noted in Chapter I, has generated much resistance to the enact-

ment of innovative state statutes on land use and has created doubts-about the
21/
political durability of existing state programs. Requiring an active effort

36 -

to solicit citizen involvement on the part of the responsible state agency

is one of the logical means by which a legislature can address this potential

obstacle to the effective implementation of policy.
The relative obscurity of state government is demonstrated by several

findings from the recent nationwide survey. As illustrated by Table 2-1, the

level of citizen familiarity with the issues and institutions of all three

levels of government is quite law, but state government is significantly more

unfamiliar than the others. Fo rty percent of the respondents said that their

familiarity with the federal government was "excellent" or "very good," while

43% expressed similar sentiments about local government. However, the corres-
ponding figure for state government is only 27%. There is thu's a very sub-

stantial disparity between state government and federal/local government in

the size of the interested and attentive constituency. This naturally translates

into some hesitancy and concern on the part of state officials about the perceived

legitimacy of expanding state functions into a new area.

Table 2-2 presents the respondent's assessment of the relevance of

different levels of government to improving the quality of life. While the

federal goverin ent is trusted to do something about the quality of life by

35% of the respondents, only 13% cast a vote of confidence in local government.

However, state government is looked to by an even smaller percentage--.9% of

the respondents. This proportion contrasts even more vividly with the 26% of

respondents who express most confidence in non-governmental organizations and the

17% falling in the None/Not Sure category. Such public skepticismabout the

effectiveness and relevance of state government hardly provides a positive

platform for innovative environmental programs.

37 -

TABLE -II-I

FAMILIARITY WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERMENT-

Excellent Pretty Good Only Fair Poor Total
IFederal
Government 6% 34% 42% 18% 100%
Late
Goverment 3% 24% 49% 24% 100%
kocal
Government 8% 35% 38% 19% 100%

Esurvey Question: How would you rate yourself on how up to date you are on what is going
on in the federal/state/local goverment?

Source: Harris Survey, reported in U.S. Senate, Committee on Government Operations,
Confidence and Concern: Citizens View American Goverment,, 93rd Congress,
lst Session, December 3, 1973, Part 2, pp. 451, 453, 455.

TABLE 11-2

RELEVANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL LEVELS TO IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE

Proportion of Respondents

Federal Government 3 5%

State Goverment 9%

Local Goverment 13%

other (Citizen's Organizations, 26%
Non-governmental agencies,
etc.)

None/Not Sure 17%

Total 100%

Survey Question: Who would you trust most to do something about improving
the quality of life?

Source: Harris Survey, reported in U.S. Senate, Committee on Government
operations, Confidence and Concern: Citizens View American
Government, 93rd Congress, lst Session, December 3, 1973,
Part 2, p. 195.

Table 2-3 illustrates the point that public satisfaction with the respon-

siveness of all levels of goverment is not high, but that the federal govern-

ment fares significantly better than either state government or local government.

Forty-six percent or respondents who had made some specific contact with a

federal agency indicated that they were "highly satisfied" with their experience,

whereas only 39% expressed a similar feeling about experiences with state and

local government. Twenty-four percent of respondents dealing with federal

agencies were "not satisfied at all." At the state level, this proportion

rises to 34% and at the local level to 35%.

It must be noted that these aggregate survey figures conceal significant

differences among particular states and regions of the country in public

perceptions about the relevance, familiarity, and responsiveness of

state government. Yet the summary statistics do document the conclusion that

the burden of proof is upon state government to justify and rationalize its

involvement in novel areas of regulation. The states, despite their recent

rennaissance in leadership and organization, have yet to-establish themselves

in the public eye as dynamic, forceful, and effective jurisdictions. Indeed,

it is only through the successful implementation of innovative programs such

as land use control that state goverment will be able to build reserves of

public understanding and confidence.

In sum,, state governments are currently operating in an "institution-building"

phase of expansion and development. During this period, a special emphasis on

citizen involvement is necessary and appropriate as a means of overcoming public

unfamiliarity and skepticism about the assumption of new roles by state govern-

ment.

TABLE 11-3

SkTISFACTIOII'WITH RESPONSIVENESS OF DIFFERE"T LEVELS OF GOVER'MNT,

Highly Only Somewhat Not Satis- Not Total
Satisfied Satisfied fied At Sure
All
Federal
Goverment 46% 29% 24% 1% 100%

State
Government 39% 26% 34% 1% 100%

Local
Government 39% 26% 35% - 100%

Survey Question: How satisfied were you with your experience with the Federal/State/
Local Government? (Question was directed to respondents who had some
specific contact with a government agency at each level.)

Source: Harris Survey, reported in U.S. Senate, Committee on Government
Operations, Confidence and Concern: Citizens View American Government,,
93rd Congress, lst Session, December 3, 1973, Part 2, pp. 303, 313, 321.

NOTES CHAPTER II

1. James Bryce, The American Commonwealth (1888), quoted in Theodore
Lowi, The End of Liberalism (New York: W. W. Norton and Company,
1969), pp. 128-IZ9.

2. Classics of public administration theory emphasizing scientific manage-
ment and neutral competence include Woodrow Wilson, "The Study of
Administration, 11 2 Political Science Quarterl 197 (1887); Frank Goodnow,
Politics and Administration: A Study in Government (New York:
Macmillan, 1900); Luther Gulick and S. Urwick, Papers on the Science
of Administration. (New York: Columbia University, Institute of Public
Administration, 1937); James Landis, The Administrative Process (New
Haven: Yale University Press, (1937); Leonard White, Introduction
to the Study of Public Administration-(New York: Macmillan, 19 39).

3. Landis, op. cit., p. 46.

4. Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, Article Z. The SSZZA is reprinted
in E. F. Roberts, 'Land Use Planning: Cases and Materials (New York:
Matthew Bender, 1971), pp. 3-10. The discretion of local zoning bodies
is, of course, supposed to be exercised "in accordance with a compre-
hensive plan. 11 Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, Article 3. However,
thi s co nstraint upon administrative discretion has never assumed major
significance in most states. Edward Sullivan and Lawrence Kressel,
"Twenty Years After-Renewed Significance of the Comprehensive Plan
Requirement, 11 9 Urban Law Annual 33 (1975); Daniel Mandelker,
"The Role of the Local Comprehensive Plan in Land Use Regulation,
74 Michigan Law Review 900 (1976).

,The only substantive check upon the broad discretion of zoning bodies
has been the state courts' willingness to require compensation in cases
of arbitrary "taking" of property through regulation. See Frank Michelman,
"Property, Utility, and Fairness: Ethical Foundations of Just com-
pensation Law, " 80 Harvard Law Review 1165 (1967).

5 Early critics of broad administrative discretion include E. Pendleton
Herring, Public Administration and the Public Interest (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1936); Avery Leiserson, Administrative Regulation
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942); Herman Finer,
"Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government, Public
Administration Review 335 (1941).

41 -

6. Classics of the "clientele capture" genre include Marver Bernstein,
Regulating Business by Indep ndent Commission (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1955); Samuel Huntington, "The Marasmus
of the ICC, 11 61 Yale Law Journal 467 (1952); Grant McConnell, Private
Power and American Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1966).

For a contemporary review and critique of the cooptation literature,
see Paul Sabatier, "Social Movements and Regulatory Agencies: Toward
a More Adequate and Less Pessimistic Theory of 'Clientele Capture,
6 Policy Sciences 301 (1975).

7. There are many different strains of scholarly thought supporting
increased citizen participation and bureaucratic responsiveness to
public preferences.

Among the writings on "representative bureaucracy," major sources
include Arthur Larson, " Representative Bureaucracy and Administrative
Responsibility, 11 7 Midwest Review of Public Administration 79 (1973);
Samuel Krislov, Representative Bureaucrac (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, 1974.); Frederick C. Mosher, Democracy and the Public
Service (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968).

Among the "citizenship theorists'.' who emphasize the personal and
attitudinal benefits of direct citizen involvement, see Robert Praeger,
The Eclipse of Citizenship: Power and Participation in Contemporary
Politics (New York: Holt, 1968); Arnold Kaufman, "Human Nature and
Participatory Democracy'' in William Connolly (editor), The Bias of
Pluralism (New York: Atherton, 1969). Citizenship theory.. of course,
figured prominently in the origin of most of the citizen participation
programs of the 1960s, which were aimed at "alienated" blacks and poor
people. See generally Richard Boone, "Reflections on Citizen Parti-
cipation, and the 'Economic Opportunity Act, " 32 Public Administration
Review 444 (1972@; Melvin Mogulof, Citizen Part'icieation:, A Review
and Commentary n Federal Practices and Programs (Washington,
D. C.: The Urban Institute, 1970).

The if countervailing power" school emphasizes the need for citizen
militance in coping with arrogant and distance bureaucracies. See,
for example, Richard Leone, "Public Interest Advocacy and the
Regulatory Process, 11 400 The Annals 46 (1972); Joseph Sax,
Defending the Environment: A Strategy for Citizen Action (New York:
Knopf, 1971); Paul Davidoff, "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning,
31 American Institute of Planners Journal 331 (1965).

8. See Mark Nadel, The Politics of Consumer Protection (New York:
Babbs-Merrill, 1974); Walter Rosenbaum, The Politics of Environmental
Concern (New York: Praeger, 1973); R. Robert Lonowes and Don T.
Allensworth, The Politics of Land Use (New York: Praeger, 1973).

9. On the origins of demands for decentralization and neighborhood power
among blacks and others disadvantaged groups, see Alan Atshuler,
Community Control (New York: Pegasus, 1970); Milton Kotler,
Neighborhood Government (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969); Hans
Spiegel and Stephen Mittenthal, Neighborhood Power and Control:
Implications for Urban Plannin (New York: Columbia University,
Institute for Urban Environment, 1968).

10. On the impact of the Administrative Procedure Act, see Kenneth
Davis, Administrative Law Text (St. Paul: West, (197Z); Richard
Stewart, "The Reformation of American Administrative Law, " 88
Harvard Law Review 1669 (1975); Louis Jaffe, Judicial Control of
Administrative Action (Boston: Little Brown, 1965).

11. See generally Stewart, op. cit., pp. 1748-1756; Ernest Gellhorn,
"Public Participation in Administrative Proceedings" 81 Yale Law
Journal 359 (1972).

12. See Richard Henry (editor), A Summary of Freedom of Information and
Privacy Laws of the 50 States (Washington, D. C. : Access Reports,
1976); Open Government in the States (Washington, D. C.: Common
Cause, 1976).

13. P. L. 94-409 (1976), "Government in the Sunshine Act.

14. For a general overview on citizen access and standing under the
pollution control statutes, see Symposium on Public Participation
in Resource De ci sion -Making, 16 Natural Resources Journal 1-236
(1976).

15. Jame s Q. Wilson, "Planning and Politics: Citizen Participation in
Urban Renewal, 11 Z9 Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
242 (1963); J. Clarence Davies III, Neighborhood Groups and Urban
Renewal (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965).

16. The voluminous commentary on citizen participation in the
Community Action and Model Cities programs is reviewed, cataloged,
and analyzed in John Strange, "Citizen Participation in Community
Action and Model Cities Programs, 11 32 Public Administration Review
655 (1972). See also "Symposium on Citizen Action in Model Cities,
CAP Programs, 11 32 Public Administration Review 377-470 (1972);
Mogulof, op. cit.; E. S. Cahn and B. Passett, Citizen Participation
A Case Book in Democrac (New York: Praeger, 1969).

17. There are many defenders of the efficacy of "ordinary politics"
conducted through representative institutions. They typically characterize
direct citizen involvement as a threat to democratic governments. See,
for example, James Riedel, "Citizen Participation: Myths and Realities,"
32 Public Administration Review 211 (197Z); Herbert Kaufman, "Admin- .
istrative Decentralization and Political Power, 11 29 Public Administration
Review 3 (1969). L. E. Schaller, "Is the Citizen. Advisory Committee
a Threat to Representative Government, 11 24 Public Administration Review
175 (1964). See also Daniel P. Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunder-
standin : (New York: The Free Press, (1969).

18. Joseph Sax, "Taking, Private Property, and Public Rights, 11 81 Yale
Law Journal 149 (1971); Michelman, loc. cit. For a commentary on
the status of the taking doctrine under the new ALI Code, see Peter
Brown, The American Law Institute Model Land Development Code,
The Taking Issue, and Private Property Rights (Washington, D. C.:
The Urban Institute, 1975).

19. The broad community impacts of land development are detailed in
a series of reports published by the Urban Institute in 1976: Thomas
Muller, 'Fiscal Impacts of L-and Development Dale Keyes, Land Develop-
ment and the Natural Environment: Estimating Impacts; Kathleen
Christensen, Social Impacts of Land Development Thomas Muller,
Economic Imp-acts of 1--and Development: Employment, Housing and
Property Values; Philip Schaenman, Using an Impact Measurement
System to Evaluate Land Development.

20. U.S. Senate, Committee on Government Operations, Confidence and
Concern: Citizen's View American Government, 93rd Congress, Ist
Session, December 3, 1973.

21. For example, a critical areas statute passed by the Utah legislature in
1974 was defeated by state-wide referendum. In Oregon, the'land use
program established by S. B. 100 was challenged by an initiative vote
in November 1976. The program survived. In Vern ont, citizen resist-
ance resulted in the legislative defeat of a state land use plan authorized
by previous legislation. See Nelson Rosenbaum, Land Use and the Legis-
latures: The Politics of State Innovation (Washington, D. C.: The Urban
Institute, 1976); Robert Healy, Land Use and the States (Baltimore-
Johns Hopkins University Press for RFF, 1975).

II - 44 -
I
I

I
I PART B
'I EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS: A FRAMEWORK OF EVALUATION

Citizen involvement in administrative decision-making embraces the same

fundamental goals as democratic politics in general: to insure that public

policies are reasonably responsive to public needs and priorities and to

prevent government from overstepping the bounds of its constitutionally-limited

authority. Evaluating the effectiveness of citizen involvement programs thus

addresses the viability of democracy itself under conditions

of growing bureaucratic power and discretion. Can an attentive and active

citizenry mobilize itself for continuing involvement in planning and regulation?

Are the necessary tools for guidance of administrative authority provided to

affected citizens? Can involvement programs balance and counteract the "normal"

domination of administrative decision-making by narrow, intense, well-organized

constituencies?

Underlying this approach to evaluation is the elusive but powerful notion

of the "public interest"--i.e. that view of democratic practice which holds

that decisions should be based upon careful consideration and equitable weighting

of the interests and preferences of all affected citizens rather than only those

who are most effectively organized on a particular issue-. Thus,, the exercise

of citizen influence is not automatically equated with an effective citizen

i olvement program. For example, an involvement program which allows a small
homeowner's group to int 4idate public officials from constructing low-in come housing
lm

in an eligible neighborhood is not necessarily effective from our perspective.
Nor do we equate program effectiveness with methodological proficiency. The proce dures

46 -

of a citizen involvement program may be highly accessible to affected citizens,

but if the actual decisions remain dominated by ideological preconceptions or

special-interest pleadings, the program can be termed effective only in a limited
sense. In short, we approach the evaluation of citizen involvement from a very
specific viewpoint. Democratic practice consists of the search for the broader
public interest, not simply the mediation and reconciliation of narrow, highly-

organized interests. Citizen involvement programs are effective to the extent

that they facilitate the identification of this public interest and stimulate

its protection in administrative decision-making.

Translating this general approach into a systematic framework of evaluation

involves examining the effectiveness of citizen involvement programs at three

different levels: 1) the procedural level, 2) the policy level, and 3) the

political system level (See Figure 3-1). U nderlying this framework of evaluation

is a theory or model which holds that the three facets of program effectiveness are

causally related to each other--i.e. open, accessible citizen involvement procedures

stimulate fair and responsive decisions which in turn produce greater trust

i
n democratic goverment and personal political confidence (See'Figure 3-2). However,

this relationship is by no means axiomatic. There are a variety of intervening

variables which may cause a disjunction between the effectiveness of citizen

involvement programs at different levels. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate

program effectiveness at each level independently.

The remainder of this chapter specifies in more detail the specific criteria

of program effectiveness at each level of evaluation and the available research

strategies for obtaining operational measures of effectiveness.

FIGURE III-1

FRAMU40RK OF EVALUATION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMS'N'r PROGRAMS

LEVEL OF EVALUATION FOCUS OF ANALYSIS CRITERIA OF EFFECTIVENESS EF ECTIVENESS INDICATORS
PROCE.DURAL LEVEL 1. Individual Methods 1. Accessibility 1. Subjective Reactions of
2. Program Components 2. Efficiency Citizens and Decision-
3. Total Program Makers Derived from Surveys.
2. Statistics on Level of Activity,
Numbers of Participants, Expend-
itures, etc.
3. Procedural Rules and Regu-
lations.

POLICY LEVEL 1. Characteristics of Officials' 1. Fairness 1. Subjective Perceptions of
Deci@ion-Making Behaviog 2. Responsiveness Citizens and Decision-Makers
Derived.from Surveys/Interviews.

2. Objective Evidence on
Decision-Making Behavior
Derived from Court Records,
Meeting Transcripts, etc.

3. Scores on Concurrence or 4--
Correspondence Between J
Official Acts and Preferences I
of Affected Citizens.

POLITICAL SYSTEM LEVEL 1. Change in Political Attitudes 1. Trust in Democratic Government 1. Comparative Attitudinal
and Behavior of Citizen 2. Confidence in Political Efficacy Scores Derived from Before-
Participants After or Longitudinal
Surveys of Citizen Partic-
ipants.
2. Increases in Voluntary
Association Membership and
Activity.

M Mo =,M M M

FIGURE 111-2

THEORY OF EVALUATION

Strength of Decision-
Makers'Pre-existing
Attitudes and Policy
Commitments

Program Effective-
ness at Political
Program Effective- Program Effective- System Level
ness at Procedural + ness at Policy + Change in Attitudes
Level 'OF Level Toward Democratic'
Accessibility.and Efficiency Fairness and Responsiveness Government
of Methods and Components of Decision-Making Behavior and Per-
sonal Political
Efficacy

Legal anN/or Tech
nical Constraints
Respolisiveness.

The Procedural Level

This level of evaluation focuses upon the technical quality of the specific

procedures and processes which are used to involve ci tizens in administrative

decision-making. As specified at length in another publication, a citizen involve-
2/
ment program logically consists of three sequential components. These are a)

public preparation, 2) citizen participation, and 3) governmental accountability.

Each of these components fulfulls a necessa ry function in encouraging a closer

correspondence between public policy and public preferences. Whether or not

citizen involvement is conceived or designed on such a programmatic basis, the

procedures utilized can still be evaluated in terms of how well they execute

these necessary functions.

Assessment of the technical effectiveness of citizen involvement procedures

may be carried out at three different plateaus of specificity, depending on the

purposes of the evaluation:

A) Methods--At the most detailed level, one may evaluate the
technical quality of a specific method, such as a public
opinion survey which forms part of the larger citizen
participation component of an involvement program. Or,
one may wish to compare the technical quality of similar
methods--i.e. a public opinion survey vis. a vis. a public
forum carried out as part of the same component.

B) Components--In some evaluations, interest may focus upon
the technical quality of entire components. This requires
an assessment of the balance of strengths and weaknesses
in a combination of methods. For example, while public
opinion surveys, public forums and citizen advisory
committees may each have serious technical weaknesses
as individual methods, they may on balance compensate
for each other and create an effective citizen participation
component as a whole. On this leveli one may also wish
to compare the effectiveness of varied combinations of
methods utilized in different involvement programs.

C. Programs -At the most general level of assessment,
one may wish to develop a general judgement about
the technical quality of the total program. This,
of course, presumes a fairly detailed assessment
of each of three major components of a program.

Two criteria are of primary importance in gauging the technical quality

of citizen involvement procedures: 1) the accessibility of involvement oppor-

tunities to affected citizens, 2) the efficiency of information exchange

between citizens and decision-makers. These criteria are not selected randomly,

but derive from the theoretical approach to citizen involvement specified

above. Accessibility and efficiency are the necessary prerequisites of

program effectiveness at the policy and political system levels. Unless

decision makers are exposed to the full array of interests among the affected

public and enjoy accurate, understandable information about the content and

distribution of these preferences, the groundwork for responding fairly and

sensitively to public needs and priorities is not established. Accessibility

and efficiency are not sufficient conditions to be sure, but a citizen involve-

ment program is unlikely to succeed substantively without these attributes.

Accessibility. This refers to the ease with which affected citizens may

involve themselves if they choose to do so. A method, a component, a program

is accessible if the citizen can utilize it conveniently--without extraordinary

expenditures of time, money, and travel and without meeting artificial barriers

of standing and sophistication.

The evaluation of accessibility depends, of course, upon some estimate

of the appropriate size and scope of the affected public. There are two

options in reaching such an estimate. First, an evaluation may be based upon

the administrative agency's own view of the affected public, which will

likely be evident in the design of the involvement program. The second

alternative is to substitute for the agency's judgment an independent estimate
of,who should be involved. This may be based upon empirical research, the
3/
legislature's mandate, or any other reasonable ground. In either case, the

evaluation should be quite explicit about the conception of the affected public

utilized in measuring the accessibility of involvement processes.

Data resources for measuring the accessibility of citizen involvement

programs include the subjective reactions of program participants to

the procedures utilized as well as objective data concerning numbers of

activities, expenditure levels, rules of procedure, and so forth. The subjective

reactions of program participants may be collected systematically through

surveys and interviews or more informally through observation s in the course of

specific involvement opportunities such as meetings, forums, educational films,

etc. These sources complement each other--surveys provide an overview of the

entire spectrum of methods utilized in the program and observations provide

a detailed feel for participant reaction to specific opportunities.

Supplementing these subjective sources of data are statistics on the

actual levels of activity and expenditure in the program. Of course, by

themselves these statistics indicate nothing about accessibility. The fact

that 200 individuals show up for a public meeting is meaningless without

further information about the size of the base population of affected citizens,

the proximity of the meeting site to population concentrations, and so forth.

However, in conjunction with such background data and with the benefit of

survey findings and field observations, these objective statistics can

assist the evaluator to interpret the accessibility of citizen involvement

processes from a more concrete and realistic perspective.

Efficiency. However accessible the processes of a citizen involvement

program, the basis for program effectiveness at the policy level is not

established unless information is exchanged efficiently between citizens

and decision-makers. A citizen involvement program is largely an exchange

of information. Decision-makers communicate information about how government

is set up to handle different issues, about the economic, social, and environ-

mental stakes involved in these issues, about the specific policy options available

for the resolution of issues, and about the rationale for final policy decisions.

Citizens inform decision-makers about their priorities among issues, about their

preferences among policy options, and about their reasons for dissatisfaction,

if any, with final policy decisions.

Efficiency in exchanging information is crucial for two reasons. First,

administrative agencies are limited in the amount of staff and money they can

devote to citizen involvement programs. Lacking efficient procedures, an

agency may exhaust its resources without insuring that.necessary information

is successfully exchanged. Second, there are limits to the time, patience,

and attention-span of citizens and official dieclision-maiers. Procedures

that produce dull, redundant, and inefficient information exchange can be
expected to have little impact upon policy.decisions--i.e. the typical public

hearing.

There is, of course, some inevitable tradeoff between accessibility and

efficiency. For example, a well-designed representative panel of ci tizens may

provide just as accurate and comprehensive information about the distribution of

policy preferences among the affected public as a large-scale survey or a number

of public forums and meetings. Yet despite the higher cost and time, the survey

or forums may be utilized as a means of promoting a sense of participation among a

larger group of affected citizens. Similarly, a civil suit by a citizen
may be an extremely inefficient way of obtaining information about what
troubles him, but given our legal tradition, broadening the accessibility
of the courts may assume a higher priority than promoting efficiency on the

procedural level.
This is not to say that efficiency must always be sacrificed to enhance

accessibility. For example, a technique that promotes-accessibility such as

a mass mailing of decision documents to registered property-owners in an

area may also be highly efficient compared to alternative public preparation

methods. However, recognizing the inevitability of some conflict, the essential

challenge at the procedural level is to maintain a reasonable balance between
accessibility and efficiency so that the basic objectives of citizen involvement

may be promoted.

In operational terms, efficiency refers to the quality of information

provided by a method, a component, or a program in relation to its cost. By

quality, we mean the clarity, the accuracy, the comprehensibility, the non-

redundancy, the usefulness of the information provided.

The assessment of quality inevitably rests upon the subjective perceptions

of citizens and decision-makers. Reactions of a representative sample of

citizen participants and officials to specific methods, overall components,

or the program as a whole may most easily be obtained through a questionnaire

survey or personal interviews. Examples of the types of questions that were

utilized in the assessment of state citizen involvement programs are provided

in Appendix A.

-.54

Estimating the cost of specific methods, components, and programs is

often more difficult than assessing the quality of the information exchange.

Staff time, overflead, office supplies,and other costs that are difficult

to measure must be added to the direct expenditures incurred--i.e.

postage, printing, rentals, etc. Easiest to estimate are the costs of special

activities such as a survey that is contracted out or a court case in which

legal fees are assessed. Hardest to estimate are the costs of internal con-

tinuous activities such as a citizen "hotline" or preparation for public

hearings. Whatever the difficulty of obtaining cost data, some estimate of

expense should be made since efficiency is such a central aspect of program

effectiveness.

The Policy Level

The central objective of a citizen involvement program is to increase the

fairness and responsiveness of administrative decisions, thereby producing a

close correspondence between public policy and public preferences. At the

policy level of evaluation, our interest thus focuses upon the decision-making

behavior of administrative officials. Do their deliberations incorporate

adequate consideration of the full range of interests and viewpoints articuled

in the citizen involvement program? Do the decisions they produce indicate an

understanding of and sensitivity to the direction of majority or plurality pre-

ferences among the affected public?

Fairness. one of the most fundamental principles of democratic government

is that decision-making should incorporate equitable consideration of all

points of view. Citizens have a right to expect that their interests and pre-
ferences will be considered fairly and sensitively and that the grounds for

acceptance or rejection of a position will be explicitly indicated.

Fairness is, of course, particularly important in administrative decision-

making, since the potential for arbitrary and capricious behavior in the

implementation of broad discretionary mandates is very high and because aggrieved
4/
parties lack the means for gaining redress through the electoral process-.

In recent times, the judiciary has been quite active in striking down the

arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion by administrative officials.

Indeed, the current extension of appeal rights to "ordinary" citizens through

administrative procedure acts, environmental policy acts, and so forth has

resulted in a great expansion of judicial action aimed at enforcing fairness

in agency deliberations. This is certainly an important aspect of the effectiveness

of citizen involvement at the policy level, but the more fundamental criterion

is whether citizen involvement programs stimulate more sensitive and

equitable consideration of alternatives without the imperative of judicial

action. If fair decision-making can only be produced by external requirements,

then a citizen involvement program must be considered only marginally effective

on the policy level.

Evaluation of program effectiveness may be based on either subjective or

objective indicators of fairness. The most important type of subjective data

is the citizen's own perception of fairness. A survey of a representative

sample of citizen participants provides the easiest and most accurate means of

obtaining the affected public's view of agency deliberations. These percep-

tions are, according to our theory of evaluation, a crucial variable in

influencing program effectiveness at the political system level. We would

expect few citizens to increase their trust in democratic goverment and

confidence in their personal political efficacy unless they are convinced that

their viewpoints were equitably considered in the decision-making process. How-

ever, the subjective perceptions of citizen participants may not be an entirely acc-

urate and satisfactory measure of program effectiveness at the policy level since

few citizens may have actually followed the deliberations of the decision-makers

in detail. Thus, it is essential to supplement citizen estimates with other

indicators.

One additional source of subjective data is interviews with the decision-

makers themselves. Inquiries about the relative consideration given to different

viewpoints may be useful if interviews are conducted soon after the relevant
decision is made.-@-' After six months, however, memories are likely to be so hazy

that these subjective estimates have little value. This information is also

likely to be flawed by self-serving and misleading comments by decision-makers..

Perhaps the best source of additional data is direct documentation of

decision-maker's deliberations. With the advent of open meeting laws and the

prevalence of legal challenges to agency actions, transcripts of decision-making

conferences are frequently available. These can be examined, as a judge might,

for direct evidence of fairness in considering alternative interests and pre-

ferences. Such evidence helps to ground the subjective estimates in concrete

detail.

Responsiveness. It is the nature of our government that administrative

agencies are structured to respond only to the most intense and well-

organized interest groupings. The agencies deem themselves

respon sive to the public if the organized interests are satisfied

with the outcome. Normally there is little concern about the broader range of

affected citizens who are unorganized and who lack the knowledge and resources

to press strongly for protection of their interests.

In theory at least, an accessible and efficient citizen involvement program

will counteract this traditional pattern of decision-making by bringing a broader

array of citizens into the process and by providing accurate and useful information

to decision-makers about what they need and want. Whether or not this theory of

citizen involvement works as postulated is the major issue in any assessment

of program effectiveness at the policy level.

There are at least two sets of constraints which may diminish responsiveness

to the broad public interest even if a citizen involvement-program is effective

in clarifying preferences and needs.

First,, decision-makers may have such strong views and pre-existing commitments

on the issues involved that they choose to disregard citizen viewpoints even if

known. Encouraging this tendency is a conception of democracy often found among

administrative officials that downplays the potential contribution of "ordinary"

citizens and relies heavily upon the supposed expertise and competence of technical

staff and organized interest groups. of course, as noted above, citizens are

increasingly armed with rights to judicial review, referenda and other devices by
which a greater degree of responsiveness may be enforced if the original decision is
found lacking. However, most citizens enjoy neither the time nor the resources to

utilize these methods of enforcing accountability on more than a sporadic basis, so

the effectiveness of a citizen involvement program on the policy level still depends

heavily upon the volition of decision-makers.

Second, depending on the nature of the decision involved, there may be

legal and technical constraints upon the ability of administrative officials

to respond to the thrust of opinion among the affected public. This is often

not clearly explained by officials nor well understood by citizen participants,

leading to considerable confusion and false expectations.

In the most general and ideal-typical terms, administrative decision-
7/
making can be divided into three categories or types. The first type may

be termed policy planning. Much liberal legislation does little more than lay

out the general outlines of a problem and designate an administrative agency as

the implementation authority. Administrative decision-makers, with whatever

guidance is available from the statute, thus frequently enjoy broad dis-

cretion in setting the basic directions of policy. In this context, there

is relatively little constraint upon the ability of decision-makers to respond

to public preferences, assuming that such preferences are not grossly antithetical

to the central purposes of the statute.

A second type of administrative decision-making involves the preparation

of rules, regulations, and guidelines--i.e. the translation of general policies

into specific, legally-binding requirements. At this stage, depending on how

much guidance is provided by the statute or administrative policy plans, dis-

cretion may already be considerably lessened. The superior status of the

statute or administratively-adopted plan often forces the process of rule-making

into narrow limits, thus constraining the potential responsiveness of decision-

makers to the members of the affected public who involve themselves at this stage.

However, the extent of constraint should not be overstated since the typical

rule-making process still provides considerable freedom of interpretation

for administrative officials. But any evaluation must acknowledge the possibility

of a conflict at this stage between public preferences and earlier policy

cor itm ents.

The third ideal-typical category of administrative decision-making is

policy execution--the application of rules, regulations, and guidelines to

specific cases. Such cases may involve the regulation of persons or property,

the allocatio n of funds, the provision of services, or other governmental functions.

In theory at least, official discretion is severely constrained at this stage

by prior policy commitments and by the binding legal status of administrative

regulations. Thus, should the thrust of opinion among the affected public be

contrary to prior c itments and established regulations, the potential for

responsiveness may be quite low. Of course, the ambiguity of policy and the

loopholes of administrative regulations sometimes provide considerable room

for creativity in decision-making. For example, the field of land use regulation

has long been characterized by a very loose and uncertain relationship between

plans and zoning decisions, although in recent years, the courts have been

insisting on a closer and more binding linkage. But the essential point is

that while decision-makers may be able to undertake some departures, it is

unrealistic to expect much responsiveness to public preferences at this stage

should those preferences be contrary to existing commitments.

How can responsiveness to public priorities and preferences be measured?

As in the assessment of fairness, citizens' subjective perceptions constitute

the primary data base since these perceptions are the key to program effective-

ness at the political system level. Such perceptions are most easily and accurately

determined through a questionnaire survey or systematic interviewing of a

representative sample of citizen participants. It should be emphasized, however,

that this data is potentially flawed by the fact that many respondents may have

little knowledge or understanding of the general thrust of public opinion on the

issues involved. Citizens can testify accurately about their own preferences on the

issues and whether government has satisfied them, but they may have great difficulty in
making a judgement on the crucial question of whether citizen involvement has

stimulated responsiveness to the broad public interest.

Interviews with decision-makers provide another subjective means of probing

the relationship between citizen involvement procedures and responsiveness

However, as in the assessment of fairness, recollections of the motivation for

decisions may be quite misleading and self-serving.. Thus, this data source must

also be treated with some skepticism.

As an alternative to these subjective estimates of responsiveness, some

researchers have experimented with a more direct and objective measure of "concurrence"

or "correspondence" between public opinion and public policy, usually expressed

in terms of the distance between the mean, median, or modal policy preference of

the public and the policy alternative selected by the responsible governmental
9/
body. The utilization of this procedure rests upon a number of givens: 1) that

policy alternatives can be arrayed on some type of ordinal or interval scale,

2) that the affected public can be accurately and completely identified for

purposes of drawing a representative survey sample, 3) that members of the

affected public who have not involved themselves in some way in the decision-

making process have substantive opinions on the issue or issues involved,

4) that the discretion of governmental decision-makers to respond to public

preferences is not severely constrained.

Given the narrowness of these conditions, the measurement of concurrence

or correspondence has only been utilized in a small number of cases, typically
10/
involving legislative decision-making on general budget allocations. The

potential application of this technique to administrative decision-making

61 -

runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the frequent indetermin-

ancy in the size and scope of the affected public. Nevertheless, in situations

where the technique might be appropriate, an objective measure of this type

would be a valuable adjunct to the more subjective estimates of responsiveness.

The Political System Level

The viability of a democratic political system ultimately rests upon a

certain fundamental level of confidence in the efficacy of political activity

and trust in the integrity and good faith of governmental institutions. Without

such confidence and trust, a cycle of decay saps the vitality of

democratic politics. Levels of political participation decline, government

becomes more and more isolated from the citizenry, the civility of the decision-

making process deteriorates, and coercion increasingly replaces voluntary

compliance as the basis of social order7

One of the main reasons for the proliferation of legislative mandates

requiring citizen involvement is the hope that such programs might help to restore

and buttress the sense of trust and confidence that was so conspicuously

lacking among many segments of the population in the late 1960s and early

1970s. For example, in the Community Action and Model Cities programs of the

1960s, it was anticipated that participation in a citizen involvement program

would tend to build trust and reduce alienation on the part of low-income

citizens. However, the relationship turned out not to be so simple. Participation

without power, involvement without influence had little impact on basic attitudes
L2
toward self and government and created much anger and frustration instead.

We share the view that increasing trust and confidence is an important

objective of citizen involvement programs, but we do not believe that much

change in orientations will be produced by participation per se. Rather, our

framework of evaluation is based upon the proposition that attitude change

is most likely to derive from the substantive effectiveness of the

62 -

program in shaping policy decisions. Satisfaction with the fairness and

responsiveness of decision-making should be a powerful stimulus to positive

attitudes toward the general political system. However, as in the relationship

between the procedural and policy levels of program effectiveness, there are a

number of factors which may affect the strength of the linkage.

First, the proposed hypothesis rests upon the assumption that trust and

confidence are relatively mutable attitudes--that is, they may change rapidly

in response to events. However, there is some question about how much change

in fundamental attitudes like trust in government and personal political

efficacy can be expected in response to discrete events like participation

in a citizen involvement program. Empirical studies of these attitudes suggest

that they are most strongly affected by the content of early socialization

experiences, by the place of the individual in the lifecycle, by the socio-

economic *,tatus of the individual's occupation and by the general national "mood"
13/
transmitted through the mass media.

Second, the proposed relationship also assumes that these attitudes will

be affected by the individual's perception of the general fairness and respon-

siveness of the decision-making process rather than by his personal satisfaction

with decisions. Previous research casts some doubt upon this assumption.

Several studies indicate a sharp distinction between "public-regarding"

individuals who base most of their political attitudes and actions on estimates

of the general public good and "private-regarding" individuals who are much
more concerned with the personal and parochial consequences of political life 14/
7

Thus, it may be unrealistic to expect much increase in trust and confidence

among "private-regarding" individuals in response to perceptions of general

63 -

fairness and responsiveness, unless the decisions involved also happen to

coincide with the individual's personal policy preferences.
In short, while increasing positive attitudes toward the democratic political
system is an important objective of citizen involvement, past research does not
instill confidence that even a highly effective program on the policy level will
have a great impact on such general orientations. Nevertheless, the proposed
hypothesis is credible and testable and evaluation research should incorporate
an analysis of this relationship if possible. Let us briefly consider the specific

criteria of effectiveness and strategies of measurement.

Trust in Government. Trust in government refers to the conviction that the

institutions and personnel of government provide an honest, open, and impartial

forum for the resolution of important policy issues. This conviction is a

crucial underpinning of political interest and activity. If one is not

convinced that government is fair and unbiased, why bother with efforts to

influence policy? The cynicism and alienation from government which has been

documented among numerous segments of the American public represents a
15/
significant barrier to more widespread participation.7.

Trust in government may be measured by any of a number of standard
16/
attitudinal scales which have been in use for many years. The referent of

these attitudinal scales is most often democratic government in general, but

depending on the purposes of the study, these measures may be modified to

measure trust in a particular level of government (federal, state,

regional, local) or in the institutions and personnel of a specific jurisdiction.

Making inferences about the effec t of a citizen involvement program on a

disposition like trust in government requires a much more rigorous approach to

research measurement than is necessary at either the procedural or policy levels

of evaluation. At the political system level, we are not simply interested in

64 -

the citizen's subjective perception of the program. Instead, the challenge is

to determine the independent impact of the program on basic attitudes in a
17/
context that is confounded by many other causative influences.

It is clear that an ex post facto, "after-only" measurement of trust

in government indicates little about the impact of the program, since the

objective of evaluation is to determine change in trust over the course of

time. At minimum then,, a measurement of trust beforp- and after the involve-

ment program is essential to valid inference. Even this design, however,

leaves itself open to conflicting interpretations of data since it does not

"control" for variables such as change in the national mood transmitted

through the media. Thus, an adequate research design must also measure

changes in trust over time among a control grou of similar individuals, thereby

isolating influences in the general environment.

Beyond these essential elements of adequate measurement, evaluation research

may attain additional rigor by utilizing the "quasi-experimental" designs
1:.8/
advocated by Campbell and Stanley. For example, in the time-series design,

measurements of trust would be taken at periodic intervals before the program

begins and after the program ends for both the program participants and the

control group. It would thus be possible to determine whether the measurements

immediately before and after the program are part of a longer term trend or

whether they truly mark a decisive change in attitudes stimulated by the program.

obviously, these more involved designs require substantial resources

and elaborate preparation. In many cases, neither the necessary funds nor

the time may be available for purposes of evaluation. However, we have
emphasized the need for rigorous research design at some length to indicate that
an evaluation should be done well if it is to be done at all. Sloppy research
and misleading inferences may do more harm that good in raising false expecta-
19/
tions about the impact of citizen involvement-

Confidence in Politics. This refers to the individual's sense of personal

confidence in his ability to operate effectively in the political sphere. Even

if an individual has a high level of trust in the honesty and fairness in

government,.he may still hesitate to participate due to a feeling of inferiority
20/
about his own competence and efficacy in politics. We utilize the term

politics here to refer not only to partisan political activity, but to all

efforts aimed at influencing the actions of government.

Confidence in politics may also be measured by a number of standard attitudinal

scales which have been utilized in survey research for many years. However,

some confusion exists about the precise content of the standard scales, so
21/
caution is advisable in selecting an instrument for measurement purposes.

@ The same attention to adequate research design is necessary in measuring

change in political self-confidence as in the assessment of trust in government.

Indeed, the evaluation of change in confidence attributable to a citizen

involvement program may be even more difficult since, in many cases, self-

selected participants in involvement programs are likely.to start out with a

high level of confidence in their political efficacy. If confidence remains

at a high level at the end of a program, interpretation of the impact of the

citizen involvement experience is difficult.

Behavioral Measures. Beyond the attitudinal indicators of trust and confidence,

one may also try to ascertain chan ge in system support by observing trends
in organizational membership and activity among the affected public.
Behavioral consequences of increased trust and confidence include not only
greater participation in officially-sanctioned activities such as elections
and citizen involvement programs, but also more intense activity in private

66 -

interest organizations that attempt to influence policy. Indeed, as many

theorists and scholars have suggested, the richness and vigor of organizational
22/
life is one of the principal indicators of a democracy's health-.

Two strategies of assessment are available for evaluation research. First,

one might inquire directly about the number of organizational memberships and
@L3
the extent of voluntary activity through a sample survey of participants.

Through the same type of research design utilized in the attitudinal research,

the effect of confounding variables could be disentangled by using control

groups, time-series, and so forth.

Second, a more general and impressionistic assessment of increases in trust

and confidence might be obtained by charting the growth of issue-related voluntary

organizations in the affected community over time. A substantial increase in

the number and activity of such organizations in the period following the

initiation of a citizen involvement program would provide at least_22Lima facie

evidence of program effectiveness. This interpretation would, however, be

subject to alternative explanations in the absence of further efforts to verify

a direct impact.

NOTES CHAPTER III

The search for the "public interest" is, of course, a traditional
legitimating principle of decision-making by administrative agencies,
dictated not only by most authorizing statutes but by professional canons
of "rational" and "disinterested" public administration. However, as part
of the post-war disillusiornent with the capacity of administrative
agencies to be objective and impartial, the notion of the public interest
has fallen upon hard times. Many critics and commentators now dismiss
the concept as little more than myth or ideology, a theological construct
which has little relevance to the realities of hard bargaining among the
organized interests and administrative agencies. See Charles Reich,
"The Law of the Planned Society," 75 Yale Law Journal 1227 (1966).

Indeed, most authors recognize that the "public -interest" model
of administrative decision-making was replaced long ago in fact if not
in name by the "interest representation" approach, in which the central
task of decision-making is viewed as mediating and conciliating the in-
terests of whichever organized groups enjoy standing in and access to
agency proceedings. Theodore Levi, The End of Liberalism (New York:
Norton, 1969); Michael Harmon, "Administrative Policy Formulation and
the Public Interest," 29 Public Administration Review,483 (1969).
Ironically, the entire "public interest" movement of the last decade--
with its emphasis on procedural participation rights and intensive advocacy
of underrepresented interests--accords more with the interest represen-
tation approach than with the traditional conception of identifying and
defending the collective interest. Simon Lazarus and Joseph Onek,
"The Regulators and the People," 57 Virginia Law Review 1069 (1971).

Despite this accepted wisdom, it is still possible to retain faith
in the protection of the public interest as a central goal of administra-
tive decision-making and as a practical and feasible guide to agency
action. This faith is based upon the propositions that a) well-designed
citizen involvement programs can provide an accurate idea of what the
affected public, both organized and unorganized, desires and b) agency
procedures and incentives can be structured in such a way that bureau-
cratic self-interest stimulates responsiveness to the direction of
majority or plurality preference among the affected public. This is not
to say that the public interest is automatically equivalent to the direc-
tion of untutored majority or plurality preferences. We do maintain,
however, that if the policy alternatives presented for public consideration
are formulated within the constraints of legal and technical feasibility,
then the public interest must be presumed to coincide with the direction
of majority or plurality preference unless there is compelling evidence that
citizens lack adequate information and experience to gauge their own
interests. For an elaboration of this argument and a discussion of
alternative models of citizen involvement in administrative decision-
making, see Nelson Rosenbaum, "Evolution of Citizen Involvement in Federal
Domestic Programs" in C. Bezold (editor), Anticipatory Democracy (New
York, Random House, forthcoming).

2. Nelson Rosenbaum, Citizen Involvement in Land Use Governance: Issues and
Methods (Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute, 1976).

3. For example, affected populations may be identified through empirical
techniques of impact analysis. For an overview of impact analysis meth-
odology in the field of land use, see Phillip Schaerman, Using an Impact
Measurement System to Evaluate Land Development (Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute, 1976), and references cited therein.

4. For a comprehensive analysis of the problem of achieving fairness in
administrative decision-making, see Richard Stewart, "The Reformation of
American Administrative Law," 88 Harvard Law Review 1669, 1682-1685 (1975).

5. On techniques of elite interviewing which probe the subjective sources of
decision-making, see Lewis Anthony Dexter, Elite and Specialized Inter-
viewing: Handb2ok for Research in Political Behavior (Chicago: North-
western U. Press, 1970).

6. See Joel Aberbach and Bert Rockman, "Administrators Beliefs About the
Role-of the Public: The Case of American Federal Executives," paper
delivered at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, San Francisco, September 1975; Daniel Mazmanian and Paul
Sabatier, "The Attitudes of an Administrative Elite: The Commissioners
and Staffs of the California Coastal Commission," paper delivered at
the 1976 Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association,
San Francsico, April 1976.

7. See Kenneth Davis, Administrative Law Text (St. Paul: West Publishing
Co., 1972); Paul Appleby, Policy and Administration (University, Alabama:
University of Alabama Press, 1975); Robert Presthus, Public Administration
(New York: Ronald Press, 1975).

8. Daniel Mandelker, "The Role of the Local Comprehensive Plan in Land Use
Regulation," 74 Michigan Law Review 901 (1976); A. Dan Tarlock, "Consis-
tency With Adopted Land Use Plans as a Standard of Judicial Review:
The Case Again," 9 Urban Law Annual 69 (1975).

9. See Anne Schneider, "Measuring Political Responsiveness: A comparison
of Several Alternative Methods," in J. Pierce and H. Doerksen (editors),
Water Politics and Public Involvement (Ann Arbor: Science Publishers, 1976).

10. Sidney Verba and Norman Nie, Participation in America (New York: Harper
and Row, 1972); R. D. Hedlund and H. P. Friesma, "Representatives' Per-
ceptions of Constituency Opinion," 34 Journal of Politics 730 (1972).

11. Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, Yale
University Press, 1970); William Gamson, "Political Trust and Its Ramifi-
cations," in G. Abcarian and J. Soule (editors), Social Psychology and
Political Behavior (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1971); Talcott Parsons, "Sane
Reflections on the Place of Force in Social Process," in Harry Eckstein
(editor), Internal War (New York: Free Press, 1964).

12. See Richard Shingles, "CULMLunity Action and Attitude Change: A Case of
Adult Political Socialization," 5 Experimental Study of Politics (1975);
Richard Cole,.Citizen Participation and the Urban Policy Process (Lexing-
ton, Mass.:.Lexington Books, 1974), Chapter 6.

13. Elizabeth Douvan and Alan Walker, "The Sense of Effectiveness in Public
Affairs," 70 Psychological Monographs, Whole No. 429 (1956); Herbert
McClosky and John Schaar, "Psychological Dimensions of Anomie," 30 American
Sociological Review 14 (1965); Edward McDill and J. C. Ridley, "Status,
Anomia, Political Alienation, and Political Behavior," 68 American Journal
of Sociology 205 (1962); M. K. Jennings and Richard Neimo, The.Political
Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1974); David Schwartz, Political Alienation
and Political Behavior (Chicago: aldine, 1973).

14. Edward Banfield and James Q. Wilson, City Politics (New York: Vintage
Books, 1963); James Q. Wilson and Edward Banfield, "Public Regardingness
as a Value Premise in Voting Behavior," 58 American Political Science
Review 876 (1964).

15. Angus Campbell, "The Passive Citizen" in Stein Rokkan (editor) Approaches
to the Study of Political Participation (Bergen: Michelson Institute, 1962);
Joel Aberbach, "Alienation and Political Behavior," 63 American Political
Science Review 86 (1969); Giuseppe De Palma, Apathy and Particip@!tion:
Mass Politics in Western Societies (New York: Free Press, 1970); Sidney
Verba and Norman Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and
Social Equality (New York: Harper and Row, 1973).

16.j A variety of scales measuring trust in government are found in John
Robinson et. al. Measures of Political Attitudes (Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University of Michigan Survey Research Center, 1970). The most widely
used measure is the Survey Research Center's own Political Trust Scale.
See, for example, Angus Campbell, The American Voter (New York: Wiley: 1962).

18. On the need for vigorous research methodology in evaluating the causal
impact of social programs over time, see Carol Weiss, Evaluation Research:
Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren--
tice Hall, 1972). See also Edward Suchman, Evaluative Research: Principles
and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programs (New York: Russell
Sage, 1968).

19. Donald T. Campbell and Julian Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Research (Chicago: Rand McNalley, 1966); Donald Campbell,
"Reforms as Experiments," 24 The American Psychologist 409 (1969).

20. On the hazards of poorly designed and misleading evaluation research, see
Alice Rivlin, Systematic Thinking for Social Action (Washington, D.C.:
Brookings, 1971); Peter:Rossi, "Practice, Method, and Theory in Evaluating
Social Action Programs," in James Sundquist (editor), On Fighting Poverty:
Perspectives From Experience (New York: Basic Books, 1969); Edward
Suchman, "Action for What: A Critique of Evaluative Research" in Richard
O'Toole (editor), The organization, Management, and Tactics of Social
Research (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1970).

20. on the independent impact of political self-confidence on political
participation, see Ada Finifter, "Dimensions of Political Alienation,"
64 American Political Science Review 389 (1970); E. N. Muller, "Cross Nation-
al Dimensions of Political Competence," 64 American Political Science
Review (1970).

Several scholars suggest,.however, that trust in government and
political self-confidence are such closely intertwined orientations that
it may be unproductive to attempt to disentangle their impact on polit-
ical participation. See Giuseppe Di Palma, Apathy and Participation,
op. cit. Chapter 3.

21. The standard measure is the scale of "political efficacy" developed by
the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. See Robinson et. al.,
Measures of Political Attitudes, for this measure as well as related
scales. Examples of its utilization are found throughout the political
science literature.. See, for example, Angus Campbell et. al., The Amer-
ican Voter, loc.cit. For a listing of more than forty studies utilizing
this scale, see David Easton and Jack Dennis, "The Child's Acquisition of a
Regime Norm: Political Efficacy," 61 American Political Science Review
25 (1967).

Recent research indicates that the "political efficacy" scale may
be both conceptually and technically flawed. For example, several scholars
suggest that the political efficacy scale confuses evaluations of personal
political confidence and perceptions of general governmental responsive-
ness to citizen participation. See E.N. Muller, "Cross-National Dimensions
of Political Competence," loc. cit. ; S. H. Barnes, "Leadership Style and
Political Competence," in Lewis Edinger (editor) Political Leadership in
Industrialized Societies (New York: Wiley, 1970).

Other researchers suggest that response set may skew the validity
of the political efficacy scale. J. D. Wright, "Does Acquiescence Bias
the Index of Political Efficacy," 39 Public Opinion Quarterly 219 (1975);
H. Asher, "The Reliability of the Political Efficacy Items," 1 Political
Methodology 45 (1972).

22. This conception of democracy derives, of course, from a long and distin-
guished tradition. Perhaps the classic argument is found in J. S. Mill,
Considerations on Representative Government, edit. Currin Shields
(Indianapolis: Babbs-Merrill, 1958).

Modern restatements of this theme may be found in Carole Pateman,
Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970); Dennis Thompson, The Democratic Citizen (Canbridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1970).

On the relationship between organizational membership and organizational
activity as it affects democratic politics, see Herbert Maccoby, "The
Differential Political Activity of Participants in a Voluntary Association,"
23 American Sociological Review.524 (1958); James Q. Wilson Political
Organizations (New York: Basic Books, 1973). Sidney Verba and Norman Nie,
Participation in America, op. cit., Chapter 11.

23. See, for example, Charles Wright and Herbert Hyman, "Voluntary Association
Memberships of American Adults: Evidence From National Sample Surveys,"
23 American Sociological Review 284 (1958).. For a note of caution on the
use of surveys in measuring voluntary organization membership and activity,
see David Smith, "Comparison of Self-Reported Participation in Formal
Voluntary Organizations with Ratings by organization Leaders," 31 Rural
Sociology 362 (1966).

IV. STATE CASE STUDIES RESEARCH DESIGN

As state land use statutes have diffused across the nation during the

1970s, many. state agencies have gained a substantial amount of experience

in planning and regulating the course of development. As part of this

experience, major efforts have been devoted to the implementation of

legislative mandates for citizen involvement in administrative decision-

making. As yet, however, there has been no systematic empirical assess-

ment of the effectiveness of these state-level involvement programs.

Chapters V through X of this study address the need for such an evaluation

through a series of six comparative case studies of citizen involvement in

state land use de ci sion -making.

The case studies incorporate two major objectives: 1) to provide detailed

policy guidance to state legislatures and administrative agencies on how to

design and implement effective citizen involvement programs at the state level,

2) to demonstrate the practical usefulness of the framework of program. eval-

uation outlined in Chapter HL This chapter specifies the major facets of case-

study research design including the criteria for selection of case study programs,

the specific research tasks undertaken in the assessment, and the research

methods utilized in carrying out these tasks.

Case Study Selection

The six state case studies are divided into three sections. Each set of

two studies deals with a separate category of administrative decision-making:

a) the formulation of policies and plans, b) the preparation of rules and regulatio ns,

73 -

and c) the application of policies and rules to specific cases. This scheme of

comparative analysis was selected both for theoretical and practical reasons.

As specified in the preceeding chapter, the challenges of citizen involve-

ment- -particularly with respect to the identification of the affected public

and the potential for responsivene.ss to public preferences --differ substantially

across the different categories of administrative action. Thus, it is most

approrpiate to make comparisons of program effectiveness within rather

than between cate gories. In order to be most useful on a practical basis

in the design of future citizen involvement programs, the study therefore

includes two program analyses within each category. Additional case studies

in each category would have been desirable for comparative purposes, but were

beyond the resourcesof this study.

Within each category, potential case study programs were initially

screened on the basis of two sets of criteria:

1) Evidence of significant commitment by the administrative
agency to the implementation of citizen involvement programs
going beyond pro forma adherence to statutory mandates. As
screening criteria, we considered expenditure levels, per-
sonnel allocations, publicity and publications about the program,
and so fo rth.

2) The timing of the program. The programs of greatest interest
were those that had recently been completed - -i. e. a final
decision had been made by the administrative agency involved
and citizens had exercised their appeal rights if they chose
to do so. Programs that had not yet run their course and
those that had been completed more than two years previously
were given less consideration in the selection process.

In making the final selection of case studies from the top ranking programs in

each category of decision-making, we attempted to achieve some balance

across the entire group of six states.

74 -

First, we tried to examine a variety of different land use controls--i. e.

general growth management, major facility siting, natural areas protection,

and so forth. These different types of land use issues typically involve

quite different constituencies and produce different kinds of impacts..,Z. Thus,

the challenge of citizen involvement may vary significantly. Of course,

with only two case studies in each category, we could not include a full range

of land use issues. However, each of the two case studies per category does.

deal with a different aspect of land use control.

Second, we attempted to achieve some balance among states in size and

regional background. Size was a relevant criterion because citizen -involve -

ment is likely to be considerably more difficult in states with large, dispersed

populations than in those with smaller and more compact populations. Regional

background was. considered because the various regions of the country differ.

substantially in political traditions and governmental organization. For, example,

the states of the western United States have historically been characterized by

stronger state governments and more vigorous citizen involvement through

initiative and referendum than states in any other region of the nation. To

select case studies only from the western sta te s would thus give a skewed view

of the environment in which citizen involvement programs operate at the state

level. The case studies therefore include at least one state from each of the

major regions: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West.

After the tentative list of six case studies was prepared, requests for

cooperation were made to the relevant state administrative agencies. In all

but one case, permission was granted. In the one case where permission

was denied, a substitute case study was selected that was as similar as

possible. Permission was then secured for the substitute and the final list

of case studies was confirmed as it appears in Figure IV-1.

Research Tasks

The initial task of the state case studies was to describe and analyze

the process of program development. How detailed was the legislative mandate

for citizen involvement? What procedural participation rights were guaranteed

to citizens? Who was delegated operational responsibility for program design?

How were particular involvement techniques selected? What were the budgetary

constraints on program development? Answers to these questions provide

essential background to the assessment of effectiveness by illuminating the

conception of the affected public incorporated in the program and by clarifying

the reasons for the utilization of particular techniques.

The major task of the state case studies was to evaluate the effectiveness

of citizen involvement programs at the procedural and the policy levels. Assess-

ment of program effectiveness on the political system level was eliminated for

two reasons.

First, it was not possible given the time and resource cons traints of our

research effort to conduct a well-designed evaluation on the political system

level. To follow a citizen involvement program from.start to finish could

easily occupy two to three years for the more complex land use decisions.

Surveying a control group in each state as well as the citizen participants

themselves over this extended period time would require far greater research

resources then were available.

FIGURE IV-1

SUKM&RY OF STATE CASE STUDIES

Dates of Responsible State Type of Adminidtra-
state Statutory Authority Land Use Program Program Operation Administrative Agency tive Decision-Making

California Proposition 20 (1972) Development of 1973-1976 California Coastal Zone
California Coastal Plan Conservation Commission Policy Planning

Rhode Island (1965) Formulation of State Land 1969-1976 State Planning Council
Use Policies and Plan

Oregon SB 100 (1973) Preparation of State 1974-1975 Land Conservation and
Planning Goals and Development Commission
Guidelines Rule-Making

North Carolina Coastal Area Manage@ Designation of Interim 1975-1976 Coastal Resources
ment Act (1974) Areas of Environmental Commission
Concern

Minnesota Power Plant Siting Selection of Power Plant 1974-1976 Minnesota Environmental
V
Act (1973) Sites and Transmission Quality Commission
Line Corridors Permitting

Hawaii Land Use Act (1961) Five Year District 1973-1975 State Land Use
Boundaries and Regula- Commission _j
tions Review

77 -

Second, change in support for the political system figures less prominently

as an objective of legislative mandates for citizen involvement in land use

decision-making than in many other areas of policy. In contrast to areas

like community development and social services, in whixh many of the citizens

who participate in decision-making are likely to come from lower-income

segments of the population, most of the citizen participants in state land

use decision-making are likely to come from middle-class strata where feelings

of personal political efficacy are' already quite high and alienation from govern-
2/
ment runs less deep'

Assessing the effectiveness of citizen involvement programs at the pro-

cedural level assumes particular importance due to the novel methodological

challenges faced in the state context: large, widely-dispersed populations;

a low level of familiarity with and knowledge about state government; deficiencies

in statewide media coverage; a paucity of voluntary organizations prepared to

work at the state level. Few state agencies have had prior experience in con-

fronting these challenges and those that have developed state-wide programs under
3/
federal requirements have apparently had little success. Thus, state land use

agencies must typically start from scratch in attempting to devise accessible

and efficient programs.

Evaluation of program effectiveness at the -policy level also assumes special

significance since few state agencies have ever been subjected to intensive

scrutiny about the fairness and responsiveness of their decision-making

processes. State agencies have typically been relatively insulated from public

exposure due to the obscurity of state government and the routine character

of much of their work. As state agencies are thrust into the novel environment

of highly controversial decision-making and extensive public exposure

through citizen involvement programs, the behavioral consequences are

unpredictable. Our six case studies represent one of the first efforts to
gauge the impact of these new conditions upon decision-making behavior at

the state level.

Methodology

The case studies are based upon three primary sources of original

data: 1) a sample survey of citizens who participated in some significant

way in the involvement programs, 2) personal interviews with official

decision makers of each state administrative agency, with key legislative

leaders, and with representatives of major citizen interest groups, 3) a

collection of official transcripts and meeting records 17rom each state which

clarify the process by which decisions were made. This evidence is supplemented

by a number of secondary sources; including media reports, legislative records,

and administrative analyses produced by the state agency itself. Field work

in each state occupied approximately two weeks, during which time a number

of citizen participation activities were personally observed by the researchers

as a further basis for evaluation.

Citizen Participant Surve . As the principal means of obtaining the

affected public's reaction to the procedures utilized in the citizen involvement

program and perceptions of the fairness and responsiveness of administrative

decisions, a questionnaire survey was undertaken of a random sample of citizens

who participated in the involvement program. Sample size was 150 in each

state, except for two cases in which less than 150 individual citizen participants

could be identified.

79 -

The population of citizen participants from which the sample was

drawn was identified from the official re cords of the administrative agency.

Lists were compiled by obtaining the names and addresses of all citizens

who attended a public hearing, informational meeting, or workshop; who

telephoned agency officials; who wrote a letter; or who participated

on advisory committees or task forces. The rationale for this mode of

constructing population lists is that the individuals who participated in one or

more of these ways are likely to have a significant stake in the outcome of

the decision-making process and substantial knowledge about the various

procedures of the involvement program. Thus, we could anticipate a high

response rate to the survey and relevant answers to most of the questions.

Indeed, out of a total of 747 questionnaires distributed by mail in the six

states, 493 were returned for an excellent response rate of 67%.

Of course, this means of constructing the sampling frame is subject

to some question about how accurately it represents the wntire affected public.

Those who participate in one of the ways cited above are a self-selected group

which is likely to be distinguished by a level of sophistication and political

activism above that prevailing among the affected public as a whole. Thus,

the views of this group on program effectiveness may not correspond closely

with the views of the general affected public. But do the members of the

affected public who do not participate in some significant way have any views?

How can an individual respond meaningfully to a question about an event

he did not participate in or a decision he may be only vaguely aware of. Thus,

while we seriously considered the option of attempting a sample survey

of the affected public as a whole - -assuming the population could be accurately

identified--the idea was rejected because we felt that response rates would

be so low and answers to questions so vague and misleading that the results

would not justify the effort.

In sum, our citizen participant survey provides a baseline estimate of

program effectiveness on the procedural and policy levels among the most

active and involved segment of the affected public. The questionnaire

utilized in the citizen participant survey is presented in Appendix A. Six

different editions were produced that were appropriate for ea ch of the

state case studies.

Elite Interviews. A variety of personal interviews was conducted in each

state to obtain the reactions and perceptions of elite groups relevant to the

citizen involvement program.

First, we attempted to interview all of the official de cision-makers of

the state administrative agencies using a semi-structured interview protocol.

Official decision-makers refers to the appointed members of the commissions and

boards --i.e. those who enjoyed a formal vote. We were not successful in obtaining

interviews with all decision-makers because of the size and composition of

some bodies, but a sufficient number was interviewed in each state to obtain

a good grasp of how the contribution of the citizen involvement program was

viewed.

81 -

Second, -interviews were conducted with a selected group of legislative

leaders, including those responsible for the passage of the relevant land use

statute and those responsible for any significant amendments to the statute

relating to citizen involvement. The total number of such interviews in

each state typically amounted to five or six.

Finally, leaders of major interest groups were identified and interviewed

for further perspective on program effectiveness. The major interest groups

were identified through a reputational process of eliciting nominations from
4/
knowledgable observers as well as through examination of official records.

The interviews were totally unstructured and amounted to approximately 15

in each state.

Documents. As a means of grounding the attitudinal assessments in

more concrete detail, we collected whenever possible official transcripts

of public hearings and other decision-making sessions that illuminate how

decision-makers utilized information on citizen preferences and priorities.

In some cases, the administrative agencies themselves produced detailed

summaries of these decision-making deliberations as a means of accounting to the

public. Under these circumstances, we utilized the original documents only as a

crosscheck on the validity of the agency summary. In cases where an agency

summary was not available, we systematically analyzed and summarized the

original documents ourselves as an aid to evaluating the fairness and

responsiveness of decision-making.

82 -

NOTES -- CHAPTER IV

1. Herbert Jacob and Kenneth Vines (edit ors), Politics in the American
States: A Comparative Analysis (Boston: Little Brown, 1965), Chapters
1-4. Ira Sharkansky, RegionalisM in American Politics (Indianapolis,
Bobbs-Merrill, 1970).

2. Citizens who involve themselves voluntarily in land use controversies
(planning, zoning, permitting, etc.) are usually homeowners or landowners
and thus represent the middle to upper-income strata of the American
population. See, R. Linowes and D. Allensworth, The Politics of Land Use:
Planning, Zoning, and the.Private Developer (New York: Praeger, 1973);
Anthony Catanese, Planners and Local Polit7cs: Impossible Dreams,(Beverly
Hills: Sage, 1974). This applies with particular force to involvement
in state land use control, which, because of the distance and unfamiliarity
of state government, usually requires a greater investment of time and
energy by-the citizen participant than that required for participation in
urban land use regulation.

This is not to say that state-level citizen involvement programs should
limit participation to the self-selected few. Indeed, many programs have
reached out to affected citizens in all strata of the population who may
be disaffected from the political system and low in political self-
confidence. Changing their attitudes may thus be an important criterion
of program effectiveness. The point is, however, that change in attitudes
is not viewed as a major goal of citizen involvement by most legis-
lators because the presumption is that most citizen participants
will already be high in trust and confidence. This contrasts, as noted,
with the presumption in social service and community development contexts
that most participants are likely to come from lower-income strata.

3. See, for example, James F. Ragan, et al., Assessment of Public Participation
in the Implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, Final Report to the National Commission.on Water Quality
(Washington, D.C.: The Commission, 1975); Judy Rosener, The CALTRANS
Public Participation Program: Evaluation and Recommendations, Contract
Report to the California Department of Transportation (Irvine, Cal.:
U. Cal. Graduate School of Administration, 1975); Walter A. Rosenbaum,
"Slaying Beautiful Hypotheses With Ugly Facts: EPA and the Limits of
Public Participation," paper presented to the National Conference on Public
Administration, Chicago, Illinois, March 1975; Anthony Scoville and
Adrian Noad, Citizen Participati2n in State Government, Final Report to
the National Science Foundation (Montpelier, Vermont: Environmental
Planning Information Center, 1973).

4. On the "reputational" method of identifying community leaders who are
influential in policy-making the seminal work is, of course, Floyd Hunter,
Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina,
1953). Subsequent research on patterns of influence in policy-making,
including critiques of the reputational approach, has been voluminous.
For a balanced review of the alternative approaches to this subject, see
Charles Bonjean, Terry Clark, and Robert Seneberry (editors), Community
Politics: A Behavioral Approach (New York: The Free Press, 1971).

N 1:7T. @111

- -..--THE--URBAN INSTtTUTE.
21'00 M- Stre
20037

3 6668 00002 4895