The effectiveness of citizen participation in local governance: A case study of citizen advisory boards (CABs)

Participation in a democracy requires more than simply voting in elections; it requires involvement in community associations and boards that demand face-to-face interactions on local issues that guide the governance of our communities. My research focused on participation on citizen advisory boards and their effectiveness in local governance. I used a mixed methods approach to assess citizen advisory board effectiveness in local governance, applying both quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques. A survey was sent out to both registered voters (n = 699) and previous members of a local advisory board (n = 259). In addition, I also followed citizen board recommendations and motions and tracked them in meeting minutes through the local decision making process to assess citizen effectiveness in local governance.; Survey results strongly indicate members of citizen advisory boards are more educated, have higher incomes, are longer-term residents and are male. Other significant results from the survey research strongly indicate members of citizen advisory boards engage in their use of civic skills more than non-board members and they acquire or were exposed to civic skills prior to their membership on the citizen board through past club or community oriented activities. In addition, members of citizen advisory boards also have a stronger sense of political efficacy than the average registered voter. However, levels of social trust for local government were low for both groups assessed, with no significant difference between registered voters or citizen advisory board members.; After tracking 157 issues I found 137 issues were supported by the local decision making bodies, rendering an 87% success rate for the citizen advisory boards. Results from tracking recommendations indicate citizen advisory boards are highly effective when their recommendations and motions are reasonable and within scope of the advisory board purview. There was no pattern regarding issues not supported, non-support was not tied to level of controversy nor to neighborhood or regional issues as indicated in other research.