The Measurement of Municipal Service Quality and Productivity: A Comparative Perspective

Folz, David H.; Lyons, William

doi:10.2307/3380449

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, validity has been explored by comparing the subjective service‐quality evaluation (survey result) with some objective indication of service quality (a service‐performance measure). The majority opinion may be characterized fairly this way: citizen survey results may yield meaningful results when the questions about service quality are specific and directly tied to personal experience (Folz and Lyons, 1986; Percy, 1986; Stipak, 1979). For instance, Parks (1984) found that citizens' own experiences and perception do affect their evaluation of municipal services.…”

Section: Citizen Satisfaction Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Measurement Versus City Service Satisfaction: Intra‐City Variations in Quality?^*

Swindell

Kelly

2005

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. This article illustrates the usefulness of citizen satisfaction surveys to account for variation in citizen satisfaction with public-service quality within a city's boundaries. Methods. The article examines data from 17 local governments and divided into 141 spatial areas to investigate the distribution of satisfaction within cities (as an outcome measure) and the effect of SES variables on variation in satisfaction with jointly consumed services. Results. Satisfaction varies within cities, not all of which is attributable to SES characteristics. This suggests substantive variation in service quality. Conclusions. Local governments interested in developing meaningful performance measures of service outcomes should incorporate properly designed citizen satisfaction surveys implemented at the service-district level. In addition, performance indicators of service inputs and outputs should be disaggregated to the service-district level and matched to citizen satisfaction results in order to allocate and tailor resource policy decisions in a more informed manner.

show abstract

Section: Citizen Satisfaction Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Measurement Versus City Service Satisfaction: Intra‐City Variations in Quality?^*

Swindell

Kelly

2005

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, validity has been explored by comparing the subjective service quality evaluation (survey result) with some objective indication of service quality (a service performance measure). The majority opinion may fairly be characterized this way: Citizen survey results may yield meaningful results when the questions about service quality are specific and tied to personal experience (Folz & Lyons, 1986;Stipak, 1979). For instance, Parks (1984) found that citizens' own experiences and perceptions do affect their evaluation of municipal services.…”

Section: Citizen Satisfaction Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Case For The Inexperienced User

Kelly

Swindell

2003

The American Review of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most citizen satisfaction surveys use filter questions to limit satisfaction responses to only those citizens with direct, personal experience with the service. The resulting small response set is inherently problematic, but no more so than the loss of valuable data on the expectations of service satisfaction from citizens who do not use the service. Borrowing a theoretical framework from the consumer satisfaction literature, this article identifies differences in the mean service satisfaction between inexperienced and experienced users of four common local government services (police, fire, emergency medical, and parks). The authors conclude that both experienced and inexperienced users have important information about service quality for local policy makers, especially when the satisfaction results can be disaggregated by neighborhood. Recommendations for modifying common citizen survey practice follow from the findings.

show abstract

“…Citizen survey results discussed here were used to guide park and recreation planning in a Midwestern community with a population of approximately 300,000. This community, like so many urban areas throughout the nation, is facing fiscal austerity and, consequently, must make effective use of limited resources (Folz & Lyons, 1986;Garman, 1983;Guess & Farnham, 1989;Hatry, Blair, Fisk, & Kimmel, 1987;Reagen, 1989). Effective use of limited resources through policy analysis and responsiveness to citizen demand is becoming increasingly important (Cooper, 1983;Dunn, 198 I;Keehley, 1992;Parks, 1984;Patton & Sawicki, 1993;Peak, Bradshaw, & Glensor, 1992;Percy, 1986;Putt & Springer, 1989;Quade, 1989;Stipak, 1987;Watson, Juster, & Johnson, 199 I).…”

Section: Policy Analysis and Citizen Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Security v. Park and Recreation Service Delivery: Reduced Effectiveness of Public Investment

Glaser

1994

Journal of Urban Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The author surveyed more than 900 residents to assess the extent to which park security, a proxy for fear of crime, impacts park usage patterns. Findings indicate that investments in park and recreation services and facilities may be in vain in many cases because residents are reluctant to use the services. Fear of crime is widespread but is particularly burdensome for selected segments of society. For example, female minorities were especially concerned with quality‐of‐life implications of security issues. In addition, demand for type of security remedies varies as a function of respondent demographics. Thus, local government must be prepared to tailor investment to fit citizen demand. In particular, effective use of park and recreation resources requires a shift in investment priorities to include security enhancements and alteration of public perception of crime.

show abstract

The Measurement of Municipal Service Quality and Productivity: A Comparative Perspective

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Performance Measurement Versus City Service Satisfaction: Intra‐City Variations in Quality?^*

Performance Measurement Versus City Service Satisfaction: Intra‐City Variations in Quality?^*

The Case For The Inexperienced User

Security v. Park and Recreation Service Delivery: Reduced Effectiveness of Public Investment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Measurement of Municipal Service Quality and Productivity: A Comparative Perspective

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Performance Measurement Versus City Service Satisfaction: Intra‐City Variations in Quality?*

Performance Measurement Versus City Service Satisfaction: Intra‐City Variations in Quality?*

The Case For The Inexperienced User

Security v. Park and Recreation Service Delivery: Reduced Effectiveness of Public Investment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Performance Measurement Versus City Service Satisfaction: Intra‐City Variations in Quality?^*

Performance Measurement Versus City Service Satisfaction: Intra‐City Variations in Quality?^*