Citizen Representation in City Government-Driven Crowdsourcing

Abstract

This article examines the citizen representativeness of crowdsourcing achieved through 311 systems—the non-emergency and quality of life service request reporting systems used by local governments. Based on surveys of San Francisco residents conducted in 2011, 2013, and 2015, our findings suggest that no systematic biases exist in participation rates across a range of socio-economic indicators. In addition, the findings provide evidence that participation may be responding positively to the city’s responsiveness, thus creating a self-reinforcing process that benefits an increasingly diverse and representative body of users. This inquiry builds on earlier studies of Boston and San Francisco that show that 311 systems did not bias response to traditionally disadvantaged groups (lower socioeconomic status or racial/ethnic minorities) at the demand level nor from high-volume users.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1.

References

  1. 311: Charlotte and Mecklenburg County Customer Contact Center (2005). 911dispatch.com. Retrieved from http://www.911dispatch.com/reference/charlotte_311.pdf

  2. Aitamurto, Tanja (2012). Crowdsourcing for Democracy: A New Era in Policy-Making (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2716771). Helsinki, Finland: Parliament of Finland. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2716771

  3. Aitamurto, Tanja; and Helene E. Landemore (2015). Five design principles for crowdsourced policymaking: Assessing the case of crowdsourced off-road traffic law in Finland. Journal of Social Media for Organizations, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aitamurto, Tanja; Jorge Saldivar Galli; and Juho Salminen (2014). Self-selection In Crowdsourced Democracy: A Bug Or A Feature? In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing, Baltimore, MD. New York: ACM Press. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2531602

  5. Auer, Matthew R (2011). The Policy Sciences of Social Media. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 709–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00428.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Behrend, Tara S.; David J. Sharek; Adam W. Meade; and Eric N. Wiebe (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 800. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Black, Alissa (2011). Telephone Interview [Telephone].

  8. Bontis, Nick (2007). Citizen Relationship Management in Canadian Cities: Starting to Dial 311. In Sandford F. Borins; Kenneth Kernaghan; David Brown; Nick Bontis; Perri 6; and Fred Thompson (Eds.), Digital State at the Leading Edge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bovaird, Tony (2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Administration Review, Vol. 67, No. 5, pp. 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bovaird, Tony; and Elke Loeffler (2015). Coproducing Public Services with Service Users, Communities, and the Third Sector. In James L. Perry and Robert K. Christensen (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration (3rd Edition, pp. 235–250). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bovaird, Tony; Gregg G. Van Ryzin; Elke Loeffler; and Salvador Parrado. (2015). Activating Citizens to Participate in Collective Co-Production of Public Services. Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279414000567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bovaird, Tony; Gerry Stoker; Tricia Jones; Elke Loeffler; and Monica Pinilla Roncancio (2016). Activating collective co-production of public services: influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brabham, Daren C. (2013a). Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Brabham, Daren C. (2013b). Using Crowdsourcing In Government (Collaboration Across Boundaries Series). Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Using%20Crowdsourcing%20In%20Government.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bryer, Thomas A. (2010). Across the great divide: Social media and networking for citizen engagement. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.tlgconference.org/communityconnectionswhitepaper.pdf

  16. Chen, Yu-Che; and Daniela V. Dimitrova (2006). Electronic Government and Online Engagement. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 54–76. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2006010104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. City and County of San Francisco (2011). City Survey-2011 Final Report. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2573

  18. City and County of San Francisco (2013). 2013 City Survey Report. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4287

  19. City and County of San Francisco (2015a). 2015 San Francisco City Survey. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/6652-2015%20City%20Survey_final.pdf

  20. City and County of San Francisco. (2015b). City Survey Dataset from 1996-2015. City & County of San Francisco. Retrieved from http://openbook.sfgov.org/webreports/details3.aspx?id=1573

  21. City of Boston Performance Management System (2013). Boston About Results: Performance Managment-Public Works Acheivements. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.cityofboston.gov/bar/scorecard/details.html?contextId=112823395596547&isExternal=_external

  22. City of Chicago (2013). Service Delivery Metrics. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/narr/foia/key_performance_indicators0/city_management_benchmarks.html

  23. City of Knoxville (2013). FY 2013/14 Adopted Operating Budget. Retrieved from http://www.cityofknoxville.org/budget/2013/finalbudget.pdf

  24. City of Pittsburgh (2012, December). Managing for Results Reports: 311 Customer Service. Retrieved from http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/mayor/311_PittMAPS_December.xls

  25. Clark, Benjamin Y.; and Jeffrey L. Brudney (2018). Too Much of a Good Thing? Frequent Flyers and the Implications for the Coproduction of Public Service Delivery. In Eric W. Welch (Ed.), Research Handbook on E-Government. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishers. (In Press)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Clark, Benjamin Y.; and Tatyana Guzman (2017). Does Technologically Enabled Citizen Participation Lead to Budget Adjustments? An Investigation of Boston, MA, and San Francisco, CA. American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 47, No. 8, pp. 945–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016642568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Clark, Benjamin Y.; and Maria Shurik (2016). Do 311 Systems Shape Citizen Satisfaction with Local Governments? In Ed Gibson and Patria Julnes (Eds.), Innovations In The Public And Nonprofit Sectors: A Public Solutions Handbook (pp. 147–166). New York, NY: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clark, Benjamin Y.; Jeffrey L. Brudney; and Sung-Gheel Jang (2013). Coproduction of Government Services and the New Information Technology: Investigating the Distributional Biases. Public Administration Review, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Clark, Benjamin Y.; Nicholas Zingale; Joseph Logan; and Jeffrey L. Brudney (2016). A Framework for Using Crowdsourcing in Government. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 58–76. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJPADA.2016100105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clark, Benjamin Y.; Nicholas C. Zingale; and Joseph Logan (2017). Intelligence and Information Gathering Through Deliberative Crowdsourcing. Journal of Public & Non-Profit Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Delli Carpini, Michael X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment. Political Communication, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600050178942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Eger, Robert J.; Kevin C. Fortner; and Catherine P. Slade (2015). The Policy of Enforcement Red Light Cameras and Racial Profiling. Police Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611115586174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ertiö, Titiana-Petra; Sampo Ruoppila; Marijn Janssen; Frank Bannister; Olivier Glassey Hans Jochen Scholl; Efthimios Tambouris; Maria A. Wimmer; and Ann Macintosh (2014). Supporting ‘participation’ in mobile participation. In Proceedings of the ePart 2014 Conference, Dublin, Ireland (pp. 3–10).

  34. Fioretti, Marco. (2010). Open Data Open Society. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/odos/odos.html

  35. Floreddu, Paola Barbara; and Francesca Cabiddu (2012). Public Decisions and Citizen Satisfaction: The Potential Role Of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Flowers, Michael. (2012). Telephone Interview.

  37. Fugini, Mariagrazia; and Mahsa Teimourikia (2016). The Role of ICT in Co-Production of e-Government Public Services. In Mariagrazia Fugini, Enrico Bracci, and Mariafrancesca Sicilia (Eds.), Co-production in the Public Sector (pp. 119–139). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30558-5_8

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fung, Archon (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, No. s1, pp. 66–75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fung, Archon (2015). Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future. Public Administration Review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ganapati, Sukumar (2011). Uses of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Applications in E-Government. Public Administration Review, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02226.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hartmann, Sarah; Agnes Mainka; and Wolfgang G. Stock (2017). Citizen Relationship Management in Local Governments: The Potential of 311 for Public Service Delivery. In Beyond Bureaucracy (pp. 337–353). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54142-6_18

  42. Horton, Jacqueline (2004). Is the Serpent Eating Its Tail? The Digital Divide and African Americans. The Journal of Technology Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hubert, Rocío; Ana G. Maguitman; Carlos I. Chesñevar; and Marcos A. Malamud (2017). CitymisVis: A Tool for the Visual Analysis and Exploration of Citizen Requests and Complaints. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. New Delhi, India. https://doi.org/10.1145/3047273.3047320

  44. Irvin, Renée A.; and John Stansbury (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jakobsen, Morten (2013). Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Coproduction? Results of a Randomized Field Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 23. No. 1. pp. 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus036

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jakobsen, Morten; and Simon Calmar Andersen (2013). Coproduction and Equity in Public Service Delivery. Public Administration Review, Vol. 73, No. 5, pp. 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jilke, Sebastian; Gregg Van Ryzin; and Steven Van de Walle (2016). Responses to Decline in Marketized Public Services: An Experimental Evaluation of Choice Overload. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim, Soonhee; and Jooho Lee (2012). E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Government. Public Administration Review, Vol. 72, No. 6, pp. 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. King, Cheryl Simrell; Kathryn M. Feltey; and Bridget O’Neill Susel (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kleinhans, Reinout; Maarten Van Ham; and Jennifer Evans-Cowley (2015). Using Social Media and Mobile Technologies to Foster Engagement and Self-Organization in Participatory Urban Planning and Neighbourhood Governance. Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1051320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Krueger, Brian S. (2002). Assessing the Potential of Internet Political Participation in the United States A Resource Approach. American Politics Research, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 476–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02030005002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kushin, Matthew James; and Masahiro Yamamoto (2010). Did Social Media Really Matter? College Students’ Use of Online Media and Political Decision Making in the 2008 Election. Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 608–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.516863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lagan Technologies (n.d.). Extending 311 Call Centers with Self-Service Capabilities. Lagan Technologies. Retrieved from www.lagan.com/uploadedFiles/.../lagan_self_service_product_FINAL.pdf

  54. Linders, Dennis (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Löffler, Elke; Salvador Parrado; Tony Bovaird; and Gregg Van Ryzin (2008). “If you want to go fast, walk alone. If you want to go far, walk together”: Citizens and the co-production of public services. Paris, France: French Ministry of Budget, Public Finance, and Public Services. Retrieved from http://www.govint.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/_If_you_want_to_go_fast__walk_alone._If_you_want_to_go_far__walk_together_.pdf

  56. Mancini, Rob (2012). Raising the Bar for E-Government. Public Administration Review, Vol. 72, No. 6, pp. 829–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02674.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mazerolle, Lorraine; Dennis Rogan; James Frank; Christine Famega; and John E. Eck (2005). Calling 311: Guidelines for Policymakers (No. NCJ 206257) (p. 7). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, US Dept of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=206257

  58. McDavid, James C.; Irene Huse; and Laura R. L. Hawthorn (2012). Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice (Second edition). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  59. McNutt, John G.; Jonathan B. Justice; James M. Melitski; Michael J. Ahn; Shariq R. Siddiqui; David T. Carter; and Angela D. Kline (2016). The diffusion of civic technology and open government in the United States. Information Polity, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 153–170. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-160385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Meijer, Albert (2011). Networked Coproduction of Public Services in Virtual Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to Public Service Support. Public Administration Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02391.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nam, Taewoo; and Theresa A. Pardo (2014). The changing face of a city government: A case study of Philly311. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 31, Supplement 1, pp. S1–S9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Nash, Paul (2011). E-Participation: Looking Beyond Skills and Realising Public Value. European Journal of EPractice, Vol. 12, pp. 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Nelson, Nici; and Susan Wright (1995). Power and participatory development: theory and practice. Rugby, United Kingdom: Practical Action Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  64. Norris, Pippa (2001). Digital Divide?: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  65. Norris, Emma; and Sam McLean (2011). The civic commons: A model for social action. London, England: Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA). Retrieved from http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/385518/RSA-Civic-Commons-Final.pdf

  66. Norris, Donald F.; and Christopher G. Reddick (2013). Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or Incremental Change? Public Administration Review, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02647.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. NYC Mayor’s Office of Operations (2013). Mayor’s Management Report: Department of Sanitation. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/ops/downloads/pdf/mmr2013/dsny.pdf

  68. O’Leary, Rosemary; and Lisa Blomgren Bingham (2009). The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for the Twenty-first Century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. O’Leary, Rosemary; David M. Van Slyke; and Soonhee Kim (2010). The Future of Public Administration Around the World: The Minnowbrook Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Office of the Controller/City and County of San Francisco (2012a). Annual Year-End Performance Measure Report v1.01. Retrieved from http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3669

  71. Office of the Controller/City and County of San Francisco (2012b). Citywide Performance Measures Data: FY 11–12 dataset. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3671

  72. Office of the Controller/City and County of San Francisco (2013). Government Barometer: Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2013. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4007

  73. Parrado, Salvador; Gregg Van Ryzin; Tony Bovaird; and Elke Löffler (2013). Correlates of Co-production: Evidence From a Five-Nation Survey of Citizens. International Public Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2013.796260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Pestoff, Victor (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services. Public Management Review, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Reddick, Christopher G. (2009). The adoption of centralized customer service systems: A survey of local governments. Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Reddick, Christopher G. (2010). Impact of Citizen Relationship Management (CRM) on Government: Evidence from U.S. Local Governments. Journal of E-Governance, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 88–99. https://doi.org/10.3233/GOV-2010-0216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Riccucci, Norma M.; Gregg Van Ryzin; and Huafang Li (2016). Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to Coproduce: An Experimental Study. Public Administration Review, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Rogers, Everett M (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Roulin, Nicolas (2015). Don’t Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater: Comparing Data Quality of Crowdsourcing, Online Panels, and Student Samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Schachter, Hindy Lauer (2012). The state of citizen participation in America. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Schachter, Hindy Lauer; and Kaifeng Yang (Eds.) (2012). The state of citizen participation in America. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Sharrock, Justine (2010). Hello Operator. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://thebolditalic.com/justine/stories/512-hello-operator

  83. Staples, D. Sandy; John S. Hulland; and Christopher A. Higgins (1998). A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 3, No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00085.x

  84. Stritch, Justin M.; Mogens Jin Pedersen; and Gabel Taggart (2017). The Opportunities and Limitations of Using Mechanical Turk (Mturk) in Public Administration and Management Scholarship. International Public Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1276493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. The Government of the District of Columbia (2013). FY 2014 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan, Volume 2 Agency Budget Chapters-Part I: Governmental Direction and Support, Economic Development and Regulation, and Public Safety and Justice. Retrieved from http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume_2_Final.pdf

  86. Thomas, John Clayton (2013). Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management. Public Administration Review, Vol. 73, No. 6, pp. 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Thomsen, Mette Kjærgaard (2017). Citizen Coproduction: The Influence of Self-Efficacy Perception and Knowledge of How to Coproduce. The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015611744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Traunmüller, Roland (2011). Mobile Government. In Kim Normann Andersen; Enrico Francesconi; Åke Grönlund; and Tom M. van Engers (Eds.), Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective (pp. 277–283). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-22961-9_22

  89. Verschuere, Bram; Taco Brandsen; and Victor Pestoff (2012). Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Vicente, María Rosalía; and Amparo Novo (2014). An empirical analysis of e-participation. The role of social networks and e-government over citizens’ online engagement. Government Information Quarterly. Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.12.006

  91. Voorberg, William; Victor Bekkers; and Lars Tummers (2015). A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 9, pp. 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Ward, Stephen; Rachel Gibson; and Wainer Lusoli (2003). Online participation and mobilisation in Britain: hype, hope and reality. Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 652–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Weber, Lori; Alysha Loumakis; and James Bergman (2003). Who Participates and Why? An Analysis of Citizens on the Internet and the Mass Public. Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439302238969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Weeks, Edward C. (2000). The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: Results from Four Large-Scale Trials. Public Administration Review, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 360–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. White, Ariel; and Kris-Stella Trump (2018). The Promises and Pitfalls of 311 Data. Urban Affairs Review, pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087416673202

Download references

Notes

  1. i.

    A contractor in Denver, Colorado utilized 311 to report problems with sidewalks to the city so that they could generate more work for their firm. Thus, it is conceivable that in rare cases 311-enabled crowdsourcing could be used for private rather than public gain—though sidewalks that are repaired still benefit all that use them.

  2. ii.

    With the shift to phone-only surveying in 2015 the company doing the survey alternated using/not using some sections of the survey randomly to assure the survey was not too long. This results in the large difference between the total size of the sample, and the useful number of observations used in the analysis.

  3. iii.

    A supervisor district is political geography within the city of San Francisco. A Supervisor in the San Francisco context is a city councilor or county commissioner with a specified jurisdiction of representation or their District.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Y. Clark.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clark, B.Y., Brudney, J.L. Citizen Representation in City Government-Driven Crowdsourcing. Comput Supported Coop Work 28, 883–910 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9308-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Crowdsourcing
  • citizen participation
  • 311 systems
  • mobile applications