Community Action Boards and Commissions

Our system of government holds that officials who make public policy should be accountable to the public they represent. Elected officials are held accountable through the ballot. Appointed public administrators are not subject to this process. Further, they often hold their positions through several changes of elected administrations, and they have the power to establish major public policy. One means of providing public influence to policy making by appointed administrators is through community boards and commissions. Unfortunately, in past years, public participation in many such boards and commissions reflected even greater public indifference than was demonstrated by the sparse turnout for local elections. Although the public voices considerable concern over the size and power of government bureaucracies, apathy prevails when it is time to make an effort to mitigate the problem.

In an attempt to reverse the trend toward apathy, consumer protection groups worked to increase public awareness of the need for citizen participation (Shor, 1977). The December 1975 issue of Public Management was expressly dedicated to the concern of community involvement. One author reflected on the spirit of the issue by noting that today's public requires more than elected officials representing the citizenry; public involvement is now crucial (Schuttler, [Page 67]1975). Many felt that local government could not be trusted to ensure that the public good was represented in policy. Citizen groups became both watchdogs and possibly assets to government. Schuttler expressed the accolades of citizen involvement by stating that “community involvement can not only prevent social destruction, it can also correct the errors of ego and technical judgment inside our agencies.”

But what resistance or undermining might be expected from agency administrators to the efforts of citizen groups? Might not the agency wish to control citizen participation such that it does not infringe on the programs and policies that technical judgment indicates are best for the public and the agency? Schuttler (1975) does acknowledge possible symptoms of this problem, noting that community involvement has its own special set of problems.

Do the board and commission members represent the electorate of the community? Who finds the time and inclination to participate in such committees, and are these people representative of the community at large? In an era of technological complexity, most citizens do not possess the technical knowledge necessary to evaluate programs and policy accurately. If they do not ask the right questions or understand fully the complexity of issues (including the complexity of the politics influencing policy), how can they be effective? In evaluating the role of councils and commissions in the juvenile justice system, these two points must be emphasized. Boards may be generally oriented to a policy-making role at the mission-and agenda-setting level. However, they may also intervene at the administrative and management level and even the service-delivery level.

What are the issues, who initiates the issues, and how does the commission gather and evaluate information relating to issues? The answers to these questions reveal the influence of the citizen participation on the policy and programs of the agency. At the least effective end of the influence spectrum, the participation program is perceived as an end in itself (participation for participation's sake), rather than as a means to an end (as contributing to the achievement of some goal).

...