Issue Representation in Neighborhood Organizations: Questing for Democracy at the Grassroots

Abstract

In this era of government reinvention and devolution, some have expressed interest in applying that logic to the local level by including neighborhood associations among the mechanisms for delivering urban services. However, if decision-making authority were to be decentralized to a greater extent, there is the possibility that the decisions of these organizational participants might not be reflective of the group they are supposed to represent. This article seeks to examine the issue representation ability of neighborhood associations. Using a unique neighborhood-level dataset from Indianapolis, this analysis reveals how representative the organization's activities are in terms of the issues that are of most importance to residents (other participants and non-participants). In addition, the article presents and tests a model to explain differences in the levels of representation. The findings raise concerns with the wisdom of such devolution as well as highlight the environmental and organizational characteristics that influence issue representation.Community building is important for many of the reinvention initiatives now part of the urban policy agenda. To reform communities, many assume that the devolution of authority over service delivery and planning or other citizen participation will be a useful means of supporting community building efforts. While some argue people-based strategies are best to develop communities, the more common approach is place-based. Under place-based strategies policies are designed to improve the quality of life in a geographic area. It is expected that improvements in the quality of life will reconnect people to the body politic thus establishing a base for community building. For example, targeted anti-crime programs can increase the neighborhood sense of security and facilitate greater interaction in the community, and financial commitments can enhance the physical health of the area.Policies generated from the place-based approach frequently make explicit efforts to integrate citizens into the political process as much as possible. But there are different ways of accomplishing this as evidenced by the wide array of experiments and programs in place across

Cross-Talk: The Role of Homophily and Elite Bias in Civic Associations

“…The relationship between the composition of voluntary organizations and their democratic roles is multifaceted. These associations serve a range of social functions, including representing local interests, providing a forum for deliberation, promoting political tolerance and developing community capacities (Cohen and Rogers 1995;Mendelberg and Oleske 2000;Swindell 2000;Warren 2001). The relative homogeneity of civic associations has differing effects on these social functions depending on whether they are homogeneous in terms of individuals' social characteristics (e.g., SES, race), political ideology (e.g., liberalism, attitudes toward government) or substantive policy positions.…”

Their Members’ Voice

“…Cnaan 1991;Peterson 1970;Ragab et al 1981;Swindell 2000; see Guo and Musso 2007: 312 for an overview). 57 Since then, many scholars have applied one or several of Pitkin's dimensions of representation to civil society organisations and have used them to analyse the relationship between these actors' leaders and constituents (e.g.…”

“…Bramble 2000;Cnaan 1991;Ragab et al 1981). 58 Finally, substantive representation has been explored by examining the value that both leaders and constituents attach to certain issues and assessing to what extent they are congruent (Cnaan 1991;Ragab et al 1981;Swindell 2000). Descriptive representation has been analysed by comparing the income, education, occupation, marital status, gender, race, and religion of organisational leaders and constituents (e.g.…”

“…It also investigates the actual practice of member involvement in EU-level CSOs. Case studies of grassroots or neighbourhood organisations often take both points of view into consideration by combining surveys or interview material gathered among leaders and constituents (Bolduc 1980;Guo and Musso 2007;Liston 2009;Ragab et al 1981;Swindell 2000). As Lavalle et al (2005: 13) point out, "the simple existence of representation does not guarantee representativeness or necessarily its correspondence to the will of those being represented".…”

Does Attitudinal Consensus Lead to Neighborhood Collaboration? An Exploratory Analysis of an Urban Community

“…One primary strategy common to community-building initiatives and increasingly viewed by political figures, philanthropists, scholars, and community organizers alike as essential to the development of bridging social capital is collaboration among community organizations (Fisher, 1999;Mattessich and Monsey, 1992;Swindell, 2000;Wenocur and Soifer, 1997). The growing literature on inter-organizational collaboration illustrates that through collaboration, organizations can share information and pool or exchange concrete resources (e.g., meeting spaces, office facilities, skilled leaders, and political connections) and that, generally, the density of inter-organizational networks is related to organizational success (Mesch and Schwirian, 1996;Wiewel and Hunter, 1985).…”