Racial Disparities in Public Meeting Participation? Examining Past Evidence and Nationally Representative Data

Abstract

Are there racial/ethnic disparities in local public meeting participation? To date, very few studies investigating this question centrally or peripherally have relied on nationally representative data. Thus, in this research note, I discuss some of the limitations associated with previous studies that have examined the characteristics of public meeting participants. More importantly, I analyze data provided by the American National Election Studies (ANES) to investigate the extent to which group disparities, especially racial/ethnic disparities, exist in public meeting participation. The analysis of pooled data from the ANES does not reveal, on a general level, racial/ethnic group differences in public meeting participation, but it does suggest that such differences may exist among the economically vulnerable. I conclude with proposals of how to move forward with conducting research on public meeting participation.

Keywords

political participation local public meetings race and ethnic politics civic engagement

Introduction

Public meeting participation can be regarded as an activity important to the preservation of a vibrant, robust democracy, yet as Williamson and Scicchitano (2014) note, the subject of public meeting participation does not elicit nearly as much interest from scholars of political participation as do other forms of political activities. (In this article, I use the term “public meetings” to refer to meetings held or sponsored by governments and their agencies that are open to the public for commentary and input on policy proposals.) To be clear, scholars from various disciplines, such as public administration, communication studies, and environmental studies, have dedicated considerable attention to public meeting participation, especially with regard to the effectiveness of public meetings and what they accomplish (Adams 2004, 2007; Checkoway 1981; Chess and Purcell 1999; Cole and Caputo 1984; McComas 2001b; Ratliff 1997; Rosener 1982). Another question that generates interest is whether those who participate in public meetings in the United States are representative of the relevant population. This question continues to elicit attention from scholars because to the degree that public officials take seriously the input of public meeting participants, whether to incorporate into the implementation of policy or for consideration in future policy proposals, public officials will only be exposed to a lopsided perspective if the meeting participants are highly unrepresentative of the relevant population. This problem is especially heightened in instances where those most affected by the policy proposal attend meetings less than those with lower stakes in the matter. Previous scholars have focused on different types of representativeness such as viewpoint, ideological, or demographic diversity. However, findings concerning whether such participation is skewed toward certain groups have been mixed and therefore inconclusive (Williamson and Scicchitano 2014).

Furthermore, despite the efforts to examine whether participation is skewed along gender, age, and class lines, little attention has been given to the racial/ethnic composition of participants in these meetings. There is an abundance of literature on the relationship between racial/ethnic identity and other political activities, such as vote choice, partisan identification, and running for office (for a good analysis of the literature on race, political behavior, and attitudes, see Hutchings and Valentino 2004), but to date, few scholars have given attention to the relationship between race/ethnicity and public meeting participation (Verba et al. 1993b; Williamson 2014; Williamson and Scicchitano 2014, 2015).¹

This research note not only highlights some of the drawbacks associated with previous studies on public meeting participants but also seeks to remedy these limitations by using data that are representative of the national population to study public meeting participation. Specifically, I analyze pooled data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) to look at whether certain racial and ethnic groups attend public meetings more than others. I also consider a type of public meeting that has attracted less attention from scholars interested in studying group disparities in public meeting participation—the regular meetings of local governing boards such as school boards and city councils. Thus, this study investigates the following questions:

Question 1: Do racial/ethnic disparities exist in public meeting participation? Specifically, are racial/ethnic minorities less likely to attend public meetings than are Whites? (Whites in this article are non-Hispanic Whites).

Question 2: Are there racial/ethnic differences among the most economically vulnerable in the propensity to participate in local public meetings? Specifically, are poor racial/ethnic minorities less likely than poor Whites to attend public meetings?

After investigating these inquiries, I discuss the limitations that accompany relying on the information the ANES provides with respect to public meeting participation. Thus, I briefly sketch ways to move forward with conducting research on public meeting participation.

Summary of Past Studies

Past studies investigating either centrally or peripherally the degree to which public meeting participants are representative of the applicable population have come to conflicting findings about disparities in public meeting participation. Some conclude that participants usually hail from certain socioeconomic backgrounds, have more extreme opinions, and are less trusting of the government than are nonparticipants (e.g. Carr and Halvorsen 2001; Johnson et al. 1993; McComas 2001a). On the contrary, other studies find that public meeting participation is not necessarily skewed toward certain demographic groups (e.g., McComas and Scherer 1998; Williamson and Scicchitano 2014) or certain types of policy preferences (e.g., Gundry and Heberlein 1984; Kihl 1985). (For a detailed summary of the studies, please consult the online appendices on Harvard Dataverse.)

What explains these discrepancies? The mixed and inconclusive results might be attributed to the common methodological practices associated with research on public meeting participation. The results are usually derived from studies that focus on only one or two regions and a single issue. To date, with the exception of a few studies (e.g., Williamson and Scicchitano 2015),² most research looking at differences in public meeting participation has not (1) examined participation across several cities on a national level and/or (2) considered participation in meetings that cover multiple issues such as regular meetings of local governing boards. Furthermore, as noted by Williamson and Scicchitano (2014), most studies on public meeting participation do not employ robust random sampling techniques. Therefore, given these limitations, there are concerns over the generalizability of the studies’ overall conclusions.

In addition, the analyses of data in most of these studies generally do not extend beyond the use of descriptive statistics, t tests, or chi-square tests,³ which while appropriate in the contexts of such studies has limitations for the ability to account for other factors that may affect public meeting participation and that may strongly correlate with differential participation among various groups. Only recently have scholars made efforts to systematically analyze the characteristics of public meeting participants by conducting regression analyses on robust random samples of the population (Williamson 2014; Williamson and Scicchitano 2014, 2015).⁴ While city-, town-, or region-specific studies using a certain set of statistical tools may produce very useful insights, it may be difficult to investigate in a robust way the conditional effects of a group’s political and social characteristics on public meeting participation.

The region-specific approach associated with public meeting research may be partly contributing to another problem as well. As previously mentioned, only a few scholars have looked at racial/ethnic disparities in public meeting participation (Verba et al. 1993b; Williamson 2014; Williamson and Scicchitano 2014, 2015). The lack of attention paid to race/ethnicity may be partly attributed to the focus on regions that are racially homogenous, thus rendering impractical the question of whether racial/ethnic groups were adequately represented in these meetings.

In addition, as noted by some (Adams 2004; Williamson and Scicchitano 2014), public meetings are often criticized as ineffectual forums for citizen participation, where public officials can claim that they have solicited constituent input without ever giving serious consideration to the expressed views of the participants. Thus, less attention is already given to public meeting participation relative to other forms of political participation, and scholars may perceive little value in exploring the racial/ethnic disparities that might affect public meeting participation. However, because public meetings still serve as the most prevalent mechanism for soliciting constituent input in the policy-making process (Williamson 2014), it is not only important to examine the conditions under which the public can influence the decision-making process but also whether there is racial/ethnic parity in public meeting participation.

Race, Ethnicity, and Political Participation

There is a considerable amount of research that examines the effects of race/ethnicity on other forms of political participation. Researchers have shown that compared with Whites, racial/ethnic minorities tend to engage less in conventional forms of political participation, such as voting (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993), and other modes of political activities (Burns, Schlozman, and Verba 2001; M. M. Conway 2000; Verba et al. 1993b⁵). For some groups such as Latinos and Asians, lower rates in political participation, particularly voting, can be attributed to the high numbers of noncitizens within the population and/or lower rates of registration (Garcia and Arce 1988; Lien et al. 2001). Other scholars find that racial/ethnic disparities in political participation are attributed to differences in socioeconomic status (SES) (Tate 1991; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). In fact, some have found that when controlling for SES and other relevant political resources, Blacks are more likely than Whites to vote (Logan, Darrah, and Oh 2012; Olsen 1970) or differences in political participation among racial/ethnic groups diminish (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999; Verba et al. 1993b). Hence, researchers have looked at specific political resources and factors that enhance minority participation, including, but not limited to, church activity, the presence of minority elected officials, and generational status (Bobo and Gilliam 1990; Logan, Darrah, and Oh 2012; Tate 1993, 2003; Verba et al. 1993b). More recently, Holbrook et al. (2016) find that even when accounting for relevant political resources affecting political participation, racial/ethnic differences in participation vary depending on the issue, especially for issues that are considered important to the racial/ethnic group.

Although such studies have explored racial/ethnic differences in various forms of political activities, we know little of whether such differences arise in public meeting participation and even less of the conditions under which racial/ethnic disparities may manifest itself in such political behavior. Admittedly, some researchers do consider attendance at politically relevant meetings, but their studies examine meeting participation as merely one of the several political activities and thus the conditions under which racial/ethnic groups participate more than others in the aggregate of these activities (Holbrook et al. 2016; Leighley and Vedlitz 1999; Verba et al. 1993b). Also, such studies (Holbrook et al. 2016; Leighley and Vedlitz 1999) inquire about meeting participation in a general sense and therefore do not exclude attendance at meetings that are not “public meetings,” as defined in this article. Furthermore, while Verba and colleagues (1993b) ask respondents about participating in public meetings, they combine in one measure the activity of attending local government meetings and that of sitting on local government boards. Thus, a certain degree of ambiguity exists as to whether the racial/ethnic disparities, if present for this measure, are attributed to public meeting participation, board service, or both.

More recently, a few studies concerned primarily with investigating variables contributing to public meeting participation conclude that race/ethnicity has no statistically significant effect on public meeting participation or that certain minority groups are more likely than Whites to participate in such meetings (Williamson 2014; Williamson and Scicchitano 2014, 2015). While Williamson and Scicchitano’s (2014) study does not find evidence of racial/ethnic disparities in public meeting participation, another study conducted by Williamson alone and published the same year concludes that Blacks are more likely than Whites to attend public meetings. The former study examines participation throughout the state of Florida, whereas the latter focuses on participation in a specific Florida county. More recently, Williamson and Scicchitano’s (2015) study corroborates the latter study’s finding of a Black–White difference in meeting participation. To date, this 2015 study (N = 610) is the only one that focuses exclusively on racial/ethnic representation in public meetings using regression models to analyze nationally representative data, which were collected through a random sample telephone survey administered to residents in 12 cities of various sizes across the United States.

Williamson and Scicchitano’s study addresses a methodological gap in research on public meeting participants, but because this study is one of the very few to investigate racial/ethnic representation in public meetings, it would be useful to consider whether other nationally representative data yield similar conclusions. Also, their study controls for a limited number of respondent characteristics: gender, SES, education, age, and the respondent’s sense of political efficacy. Other considerations may affect local meeting participation as well, such as one’s marital and parental status, connection to a community, church attendance, and general orientation toward civic engagement. For example, controlling for predisposition toward civic engagement may diminish existing racial/ethnic differences, but accounting for church membership may reveal actual group differences across various levels of church attendance. Overall, previous studies suggest conflicting accounts concerning the relationship between race/ethnicity and political engagement, but because some studies do find racial/ethnic disparities in political participation, one hypothesis to be explored here is the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): There are racial/ethnic differences in public meeting participation—specifically, minority constituents are less likely than White constituents to attend public meetings.

Minorities, SES, and Political Participation

Moreover, if racial/ethnic minorities are not disadvantaged in public meeting participation, are there conditions under which this disadvantage is manifested in this political activity? For example, “does the same level of education for African Americans provide the same privileges and opportunities as that for Anglos” (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999, p. 1102)? Consistent evidence has demonstrated the robustness of the SES model as an explanation for an individual’s inclination to participate in political and civic activities (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2012; Verba and Nie 1972; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995; Verba et al. 1993a, 1993b). Those with lower levels of education and income are not only less likely to vote than their more well-resourced counterparts but are especially less likely to engage in the more costly political activities. Public meetings may be one of the more costly activities. Regular public meetings, such as city council meetings, occur almost inflexibly on weekdays, and while most occur in the evenings, attendance can be especially burdensome for the most economically vulnerable, especially those with children. Furthermore, active participation in such meetings, like voicing one’s opinions on policies, depends on the acquisition and cultivation of a certain set of knowledge and skills. Thus, the effect of SES on public meeting attendance, especially active participation, may be most pronounced among the economically vulnerable or the educationally disadvantaged. However, does low SES have a similar impact on public meeting participation across different racial/ethnic groups? Alternatively, does the effect of SES differ for the most marginalized minorities than it does for their White counterparts?

Research demonstrates that minorities and Whites experience poverty and disadvantage in ways that are distinct. Poor Blacks and Latinos are more likely than poor Whites to live in economically distressed neighborhoods (Jargowsky 2015). Some scholars claim that high-poverty areas, particularly those primarily inhabited by Blacks, are less likely to possess the type of economic and civic institutions that foster an active political culture (Marable 2015; Wilson 1991). Thus, not surprisingly, Cohen and Dawson (1993) find that Blacks living in the most impoverished neighborhoods engage in lower levels of participation than Blacks living in nonimpoverished neighborhoods. However, their study does not compare poor Blacks or those living in impoverished areas with similarly situated Whites.

Although research finds that low SES or living in high-poverty areas negatively affect participation, some studies suggest that minorities living in low-SES areas are not particularly disadvantaged relative to similarly situated Whites in their political efficacy (Boardman and Robert 2000) or that poor minorities are not underprivileged compared with poor Whites in political participation (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999). Moreover, other research demonstrates that economical vulnerability fails to hinder the political participation of racial/ethnic minorities (Lawless and Fox 2001; Portney and Berry 1997), and some studies even find that experiences with socioeconomic vulnerability might actually be more advantageous for minority political participation than for White participation (Casciano 2007; Shingles 1981).

The aforementioned studies imply that when it comes to public meeting participation, race/ethnicity and SES may exert little or no moderating effects on one another or poor minorities may be advantaged relative to Whites. However, such conclusions may be premature. In addition, to say that the findings of previous studies are likely to extend to public meeting participation suggests that race/ethnicity exerts independent and conditional effects on public meeting participation that are similar to the effects on other forms of participation. This may be the case, but there are reasons to think that the costs of public meeting participation may disproportionately burden poor racial/ethnic minorities in ways that lessen their involvement relative to their White counterparts. As mentioned before, minorities encounter socioeconomic disadvantage and vulnerability in ways that are distinct from the experiences of Whites. Poor minorities are not only more likely than poor Whites to live in areas with a high concentration of poverty, but they are also more likely to experience other forms of multidimensional deprivation (Dhongde and Haveman 2017; Reeves, Rodrigue, and Kneebone 2016). For example, low-income Blacks and Latinos are more likely than their White counterparts to come from a jobless family and lack health insurance as well as a high school degree (Reeves, Rodrigue, and Kneebone 2016). Latinos and Asians are more likely than the general population to reside in crowded housing, experience severe housing cost burden (high housing costs as a proportion of income), and lack English proficiency (Dhongde and Haveman 2017).

These experiences with various dimensions of vulnerability may not disproportionately burden poor minorities relative to poor Whites for certain types of political activities, but they may render the costs of public meeting participation more burdensome for minorities than for Whites. For example, mobilization efforts targeted toward motivating minorities to vote may significantly reduce racial/ethnic disparities in voting among the poor, but comparable mobilization efforts are likely to be lacking when it comes to persuading individuals to attend public meetings. In addition, language barriers among lower-income Asians and Latinos may make public meeting attendance and participation difficult in ways that do not extend to activities such as joining voluntary associations or even donating a minimal amount of money to campaigns because the costs of these activities may be reduced in various ways. For instance, poor minorities who lack English proficiency may have opportunities to join neighborhood organizations staffed by co-ethnics who speak their native language, or they may follow the cues of those they trust to make political donations. Hence, it may be unsurprising that some studies have found that economically vulnerable minorities are not particularly disadvantaged relative to poor Whites in their engagement in these activities. On the contrary, language barriers make it more difficult for poor minority groups to understand the proceedings of public meetings. Furthermore, language barriers, as well as the lack of a secondary education degree, may create unique challenges for gathering information on issues to actively engage with others in public meetings. Therefore, because racial/ethnic minorities confront socioeconomic vulnerability in ways that are distinct from those of their White counterparts, the additional costs that poor minorities experience with respect to public meeting participation may evade similarly situated Whites and hence lessen their engagement in this activity relative to that of Whites. Hence, Hypothesis 2 states,

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Due to more experiences with multidimensional deprivation, poor minorities are less likely than poor Whites to attend public meetings.

Data and Method

The proposed hypotheses can be tested by evaluating the information contained in the responses to the questionnaires associated with the ANES, which also ask respondents whether they have attended a meeting of a local government body. While public meetings are held by various levels of government and by different institutions, the regular meetings of local policy-making bodies (e.g., local councils or school boards) constitute a significant portion of public meetings held annually. During these meetings, local authorities deliberate on and make collective decisions about many important community issues, and constituents are given the opportunity to provide comments concerning such issues. Such meetings also cover multiple agenda items rather than a single issue or policy proposal, so compared with single-issue public meetings, regular local government meetings are more likely to attract a range of participants with different policy interests and concerns. Furthermore, because city council and school board meetings are not merely concentrated in racially/ethnically homogeneous areas but are ubiquitous in all regions of the United States, such meetings provide a ripe opportunity for studying racial/ethnic disparities in public meeting participation.

Given the relevance of recurring local government/school board meetings, I analyze pooled data available from the ANES (6,000+ observations). The ANES administers comprehensive surveys to a nationally representative sample of American adults during the presidential and congressional election cycles. The questionnaire associated with the ANES Time Series Study is usually administered by an interviewer, and since the study’s inception, it has been given during every congressional election cycle, although more recently respondents have taken the survey during every presidential election cycle. The survey asks a comprehensive battery of questions regarding the respondent’s political attitudes, preferences, and behavior, including those that are relevant to local political participation. Questions tapping into relevant political behavior and predispositions were selected for this study. The dependent variable was operationalized by the responses to the following question on the ANES:

“During the past 4 years, have you attended a meeting of a town or city government or school board, or have you not done this in the past 4 years?” (ANES)⁶

As one of the article’s central concerns is whether public meeting participation is skewed toward certain groups, especially certain racial or ethnic groups, I consider responses to questions about the respondent’s demographic profile (race/ethnicity and gender). As previously mentioned, because SES and educational status have been consistently shown to positively correlate with political participation and civic activism (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2012; Verba and Nie 1972; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995; Verba et al.1993a, 1993b), and educational status has also been shown to affect neighborhood-focused activism (Gilster 2014), I incorporate in the analysis variables for the respondents’ income and education. Because I am also interested in whether racial/ethnic disparities are conditional or dependent upon SES, especially upon low SES, I consider the interaction effects of race/ethnicity and income and the interaction effects of race/ethnicity and education. It should be noted that low SES in this study encapsulates those with a family income of less than $20,000. Admittedly, this value does not align with how the federal government defines poverty, which may have been better captured by defining the lowest SES as having a household income of less than $10,000 or also accounting for the number of individuals in the household. However, operationalizing economic vulnerability in either of these ways would significantly limit the number of respondents in the low-income category, especially the number of Asian respondents. Therefore, because the federal definition of poverty is dependent on the number of people in a household but accounting for this consideration would reduce the number of respondents in the poverty category, it is reasonable to use less than $20,000 as the lowest income category and refer to it as near-poverty because living with this income does suggest vulnerability to economic hardships.

In addition, I control for other factors that may affect public meeting participation. The respondent’s marital and parental statuses and length of current residency are accounted for, serving as proxies for the depth of attachment one feels to his or her community as previous scholars have explored the relationship between social connectedness and civic and political participation (e.g. B. P. Conway and Hachen 2005; Putnam 1995). Because regular church involvement has been shown to positively correlate with political participation and community involvement, especially for certain racial/ethnic minorities (Burns, Schlozman, and Verba 2001; Jones-Correa and Leal 2001; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995), I include a control for the respondent’s level of attendance at religious services. Previous scholars have also been interested in whether constituents with more intense or extreme views have a greater tendency than their moderate counterparts to attend public meetings (Johnson et al. 1993; McComas and Scherer 1998). Thus, I evaluate responses to questions about the respondents’ predispositions, especially to determine whether those with strong ideological or partisan orientations are more likely than those with no ideological attachments or moderate ones to attend public meetings.

Previous studies have underscored the link between political participation and orientations motivating participation such as efficacy, trust in government, and a sense of civic duty (Abramson and Aldrich 1982; M. M. Conway 1991; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993). Furthermore, evidence suggests that when civic involvement is accounted for, the gap in participation in certain activities (i.e., voting) between Latinos and Whites is reduced (de la Garza 2004). Thus, I also control for predispositions concerning efficaciousness and trust and whether such feelings translate into action. Specifically, I incorporate a variable that measures the extent of one’s civic engagement.

For this study, I analyze responses drawn from the 2008 and 2012 ANES surveys. Although the ANES study spans several decades, dating back to 1948, only ANES data from the 2008 study to the 2012 study are evaluated. The question concerning attendance at local government/school board meetings was not asked in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2016. The response choices to most of the questions selected for this study are similar across different years, and thus, I was able to generate or recode variables such that their categories were consistent across different years. For additional information on each variable, please refer to the online appendices.

Results

Table 1 presents the results from the logistic models that analyze the effects of different variables on attendance at public meetings. Model 1 analyzes the effects of a limited number of variables on the respondent’s answer to the ANES inquiry about attending a meeting held by a local policy-making body (council or school board). The model restricts the controls to respondent characteristics that are similar to those used in Williamson and Scicchitano’s (2014) study. Model 2 analyzes the effects of race/ethnicity using additional covariates. Results of Model 2 confirm what other scholars have concluded about public meeting and political participation. The more an individual is civically engaged, the more likely that individual is to attend a meeting of local governing or school boards. Consistent with Williamson and Scicchitano’s (2014) conclusions, the more efficacious one perceives of political actions, the more likely he or she is to attend such public meetings. Family income has a limited effect on such public meeting attendance, which somewhat diverges from their findings (Williamson and Scicchitano 2014, 2015). Specifically, individuals with family incomes at or above $100,000 are more likely to attend these meetings than are individuals in lower-income groups.⁷ The results of Model 2 differ from their findings (Williamson and Scicchitano 2014, 2015) in other ways as well. While Williamson and Scicchitano find no or limited evidence of gender, age, and education differences,⁸ I find otherwise. Specifically, women are more likely to attend government/school board meetings than are men. This difference might be explained by the possibility that women are much more likely than men to attend school board meetings, which deal with issues that have been traditionally perceived as “women’s” issues. Age and education also have positive effects on public meeting participation. Individuals in the older age groups (35 and above) report higher levels of attendance than individuals in the 18 to 34 age group. Individuals without a high school degree are less likely than those with higher levels of education to attend such meetings. Also, to a limited degree, individuals who are married or in domestic partnerships are more likely to attend such public meetings compared with those who are not partnered. While those unsure of their partisan affiliations are less likely to attend such meetings than are Democrats,⁹ meeting participation is not skewed toward those with strong ideologies or partisanships, thereby suggesting that individuals with “extreme” opinions are not more likely than individuals with moderate political leanings to dominate such public meetings with their physical presence.

Table 1.

Determinants of Public Meeting Participation.

	Model 1		Model 2
	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE
Race
Black	−0.100	0.122	−0.216	0.138
Hispanic	−0.226^†	0.125	−0.182	0.140
Asian	−0.407	0.339	−0.228	0.330
Native American	0.553	0.507	0.496	0.626
Other (incl. mixed race)	−0.166	0.241	−0.364	0.265
Female	0.194**	0.081	0.200*	0.089
Age group
35–54	0.516**	0.113	0.458**	0.122
55+	0.650**	0.112	0.657**	0.135
Years of residence
2–3	—	—	−0.061	0.192
4–5	—	—	−0.036	0.200
6+	—	—	0.153	0.142
Partnered	—	—	0.195*	0.097
Children	—	—	0.125	0.110
Family income
$20,000 to $49,000	0.203	0.124	0.205	0.136
$50,000–$69,000	0.216	0.140	0.116	0.159
$70,000–$100,000	0.301*	0.149	0.159	0.166
>$100,000	0.570**	0.149	0.410*	0.169
Unreported	0.074	0.209	0.121	0.270
Education
High school diploma	0.172	0.178	0.015	0.193
Some college	0.641**	0.184	0.351^†	0.203
Associate degree	0.748**	0.196	0.380^†	0.220
Bachelor’s degree	1.124**	0.189	0.689**	0.210
Graduate degree	1.218**	0.200	0.630**	0.226
Party ID
Republican	—	—	−0.056	0.121
Independent	—	—	0.055	0.124
Other	—	—	−0.324	0.317
Don’t know	—	—	−0.522^†	0.278
Strong PID	—	—	0.059	0.118
Ideology
None	—	—	−0.144	0.159
Ideological	—	—	−0.034	0.106
Very ideological	—	—	0.100	0.174
Church attendance
Few times/year	—	—	0.028	0.126
1–2 times/month	—	—	0.270^†	0.158
Almost every week	—	—	0.144	0.142
1/week	—	—	−0.060	0.135
2+/week	—	—	−0.206	0.167
Efficacy	2.081**	0.317	1.434**	0.358
Trust government	—	—	−0.276	0.266
Civic engagement	—	—	0.720**	0.040
Election year
2012	−2.084**	0.091	−2.332**	0.103
2016	—	—	—	—
Constant	−2.385**	0.321	−2.505**	0.391
Observations	7,117		6,894
Prob. > F	.000		.000

Note. The dependent variable is whether or not the respondent attended a public meeting. Entries are the coefficients and their standard errors from a logistic regression model. The analyses were conducted with appropriate weights (“svy” STATA command was executed on data). Reference categories for ANES categorical variables are the following: White, 18 to 34 age group, less than two years of residence, less than $20,000 income, no high school degree, Democrat, moderate ideology, never attends church/religious services, and 2008 election year. ANES = American National Election Studies

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

On the contrary, the analysis of the ANES data reveals no evidence that racial/ethnic minorities, in general, are less likely to attend local council or school board meetings than are Whites. Admittedly, Model 1 shows (to a limited degree) a difference between Whites and Latinos (this difference would have been statistically significant at the .05 threshold without the inclusion of the efficacy variable). However, as shown in Model 2, this difference vanishes with the inclusion of additional controls, specifically with the addition of the civic engagement measure. Overall, the coefficients associated with the Black, Latino, Asian, and “other” race variables are negative, but they are not statistically significant.¹⁰ Thus, the analysis of the ANES data suggests that there may be no disparities among different racial/ethnic groups in their propensity to attend local board meetings.

However, do racial/ethnic disparities emerge when we consider other respondent characteristics such as SES? One inquiry in this study is whether the same level of education or income may produce dissimilar effects on public meeting participation across different racial/ethnic groups. To investigate this possibility, I modify Model 2 to create two additional models with interaction terms, Race/Ethnicity × Education and Race/Ethnicity × Income. While the subsequent models, not shown here, reveal no evidence of significant or consistent racial/ethnic differences across different educational levels, they show some differences among individuals with lowest levels of family income (below $20,000). Figure 1 shows that across all educational levels, most minority groups have a lower likelihood of meeting participation than do Whites, but almost all the coefficients associated with these marginal effects are statistically insignificant. The exception is Asians with some college experience, whose predicted probability of attending public meetings is .143 less than that of their White counterparts.

On the other hand, when considering the income component of SES, some racial/ethnic disparities are manifested among certain income subgroups. As shown in Figure 2, Asians and Latinos with the lowest incomes are less likely than their White counterparts to attend public meetings. When holding the control variables at theoretically meaningful values, with Whites as the reference group, the likelihood of participation among those in the lowest income group is reduced by a value of 0.092, when the individual goes from being White (0.119) to Asian (0.027). When the individual goes from being a low-income White to a low-income Latino, the likelihood of participation is reduced by a value of 0.055, from 0.119 to 0.064. However, there are no statistically significant differences between the public meeting participation rate of other low-income minority groups and that of their White counterparts. Again, while there appears to be racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of public meeting participation at higher income levels, these differences are not statistically significant.

Discussion of Results

Lack of Evidence for Racial/Ethnic Disparities

On a general level, the analyses in this study do not produce evidence that race/ethnicity exerts an independent effect on attendance at town, city, or school board meetings. This finding differs from some of the previous studies suggesting the effect of race/ethnicity on public meeting participation. What might account for this difference? For one, some of the previous studies showing racial/ethnic disparities in political participation do not control for propensity toward civic engagement. According to Burns, Schlozman, and Verba (2001), different experiences with nonpolitical institutions, which cultivate political skills, increase the gap in participation between White men and other groups. If propensity toward civic engagement had not been controlled for in this study, the analysis would have revealed disparities in participation rates between Whites and minorities, especially Hispanics. In addition, as mentioned previously, racial/ethnic differences in political activities, such as voting, have been linked to differences in citizenship status between Whites and other groups such as Hispanics and Asians. Unlike voting, however, attendance at meetings does not require citizenship status and thus creates fewer barriers to participation. Moreover, the dependent variable does not exclusively capture whether one participates actively (provides a public comment) at these meetings but rather the inclination to attend these meetings. Perhaps racial/ethnic differences are manifested when the extensiveness of public meeting participation increases (a possibility I take up later). Finally, ANES data on Asians and Native Americans are limited compared with the data on other minority groups, which may have contributed to the statistically insignificant findings on Asians and Native Americans. In general, the considerations above are reasonable, potential explanations but certainly not exhaustive of the reasons that could account for the lack of racial/ethnic disparity in public meeting participation.

The Interaction Effects of Race/Ethnicity and SES

While evidence from the ANES data does not demonstrate, on average, racial/ethnic differences in public meeting participation, it does suggest that some racial minorities are disadvantaged. Specifically, low-income Latinos and Asians are disadvantaged relative to their White counterparts in public meeting participation. As mentioned before, low-income minorities experience socioeconomic hardships that are distinct from the hardships poor Whites encounter because for minorities on average, these hardships extend beyond the possession of insufficient income. The experiences with multidimensional vulnerabilities may make the costs of certain political activities, such as public meeting participation, more burdensome for minorities than for Whites. With low-income Asians and Latinos, specifically, their limited participation in public meetings could be attributed not only to inadequate monetary resources but also to limited English language proficiency. For Latinos, the confluence of these factors, along with a higher likelihood of lacking a secondary degree as well as living in high-poverty areas, may create additional barriers to public meeting participation that elude their White counterparts. Interestingly, low-income Blacks also encounter economic vulnerabilities that are multidimensional and distinct from what low-income Whites confront, but they are not less likely than similarly situated Whites to attend public meetings. However, in some ways, this result is consistent with previous studies concluding that experiences with socioeconomic hardship do not deter Blacks from political participation (e.g. Shingles 1981). In addition, when it comes to public meeting participation, low-income Blacks may not face the same barriers that Latino and Asian immigrants face such as a lack of English proficiency. Further studies should investigate the possible different factors that not only hinder but also motivate public meeting participation among different minority groups, especially with respect to understudied groups such as Native Americans and those identifying as other or biracial.

Interestingly, I find no evidence of racial/ethnic disparities in meeting participation among those with the lowest levels of education, which is unexpected given that presumably for certain minority groups, there should be considerable overlap among those with the lowest levels of education, those lacking a secondary degree, and those with the lowest levels of income. Perhaps, however, the overlap is not substantial enough to result in racial/ethnic disparities in public meeting participation among those with the lowest levels of education. For example, less than half of the ANES respondents with the lowest levels of education also possess a family income of less than $20,000. Alternatively, the lack of evidence for racial disparities among those with lower levels of education may actually reflect the limitations of the data. Specifically, compared with other groups, there are a limited number of Asian and Native American respondents who are categorized as lacking a high school degree or its equivalent. Thus, a comparison of public meeting outcomes between Whites who have lower levels of education and their Asian counterparts, for example, is unlikely to yield statistically significant findings.

In general, there is a lack of evidence to suggest race/ethnicity independently affects public meeting participation, but there is limited support for the conjecture that race/ethnicity exerts conditional effects on such participation. Overall, the conclusions here are consistent with the findings of Williamson and Scicchitano (2014, 2015)—For the most part, minorities, relative to Whites, are generally not underrepresented in public meetings. To be clear, certain groups are underrepresented (Asians and Latinos), but this underrepresentation occurs among the economically vulnerable. However, there may be other variables unknown to us that mediate the relationship between race/ethnicity and public meeting participation. Thus, in the next section, I briefly discuss ways to improve research on public meeting participation, specifically directing attention to interesting, but unexplored, avenues of inquiries.

Moving Forward with Research on Public Meetings

Relying on responses from surveys such as the ANES to determine patterns of public meeting participation can be challenging for various reasons. As mentioned previously, the limited number of respondents fulfilling certain demographic criteria of interest may make it difficult to study public meeting participation. Also, the ANES survey is not consistent in asking about public meeting attendance; in fact, the most recent ANES time series study (2016) did not inquire about attending local council or school board meetings. Given the current limitations with the ANES data, scholars may need to explore other alternatives to generating data for additional research on public meeting participation.¹¹ Whatever alternatives scholars undertake, there are several inquires that are worth pursuing. First, researchers should investigate whether disparities in meeting attendance are conditional upon the type of meeting. Are racial/ethnic disparities insignificant in multiple-issue public meetings, such as regular city council meetings, but more prevalent in meetings devoted entirely to soliciting comments on one specific policy proposal and sponsored by other levels of government?

Furthermore, while research has produced some information on racial/ethnic differences in public meeting attendance, there is an absence of scholarship concerning racial/ethnic differences in activities requiring more time and effort such as speaking at or regularly attending public meetings. Some individuals attend city council meetings not to engage in the policy-making process but rather to support a friend or relative receiving an honor from the local government. Because existing studies and surveys inquire about attendance at public meetings and not about how often respondents attend or express an opinion in these meetings, these surveys do not make a distinction between those who attend to engage in politics and those who attend for ceremonial reasons such as the one stated above. While there may be racial/ethnic equity in public meeting attendance, such equity may be lacking when it comes to who attends meetings frequently or who makes their voices heard in these meetings. Thus, scholars should investigate how often respondents attend and speak at public meetings.

Researchers should also investigate the institutional and environmental factors that may interact with demographic characteristics to influence public meeting participation. Does the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of the local policy-making board affect public meeting participation among certain demographic groups? Previous scholarship has concluded that women and minorities who are descriptively represented are more likely to engage in various forms of political participation than are constituents not descriptively represented (Bobo and Gilliam 1990; Tate 2003; Wolbrecht and Campbell 2007). However, other research suggests that entrenched or long-term descriptive representation at the local level may actually depress local political participation (Spence, McClerking, and Brown 2009). Instead, the increase in size of the local minority population may boost local political participation (Spence, McClerking, and Brown 2009). To investigate how institutional and contextual factors matter, it would be helpful to know the respondent’s city or region of residence to collect relevant information on the city’s government, its fiscal capacity, and the socioeconomic characteristics of its residents, among others.¹² As a comprehensive overview of the gaps associated with public meeting research is beyond the scope of this article, the suggestions above are not meant to be an exhaustive list of recommendations for improving research on public meeting participation.

Conclusion

By analyzing nationally representative data containing a larger number of observations, this study addresses the limitations associated with the capacity of previous studies to investigate group disparities in public meeting participation. Despite the limitations of the ANES, the analysis of its data reveals some useful information about group disparities in public meeting participation. Group disparities, whether it is based on age, gender, SES, ethnicity, or race, merit concern because these disparities are more likely than not to produce distorted information on preferences and opinions, and to the degree that officials incorporate constituent feedback into public policies, such policies may turn out to exacerbate existing inequalities.

Finally, while the presumption in this research note is that studies should go beyond investigating a few cities, I am not arguing for the supplanting of regional or case studies with large-N quantitative studies. Such large-scale research should complement, not replace, existing research that continues to employ the methodology of critically observing a few select cities. Both kinds of research have the potential to produce important and useful insights into local public meeting participation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editors for providing valuable feedback on the manuscript. The author also wishes to thank Jennifer Chudy and Nicole Yadon for their input on analyzing the American National Election Studies (ANES) data. All errors are the author’s own.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Bai Linh Hoang

Author Biography

Bai Linh Hoang is an assistant professor in the political science department at the University of Texas, Arlington. Her research interests include race and ethnicity politics, urban politics, elite behavior at the local level, and political theory.

References

Abramson

Paul R.

Aldrich

John H.

1982. “The Decline of Electoral Participation in America.” American Political Science Review 76 (3): 502–21.

Adams

Brian E.

2004. “Public Meetings and the Democratic Process.” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 43–54.

Adams

Brian E.

2007. Citizen Lobbyists: Local Efforts to Influence Public Policy. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.

Boardman

Jason D.

Robert

Stephanie A.

2000. “Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and Perceptions of Self-efficacy.” Sociological Perspectives 43 (1): 117–36.

Bobo

Lawrence

Gilliam

Franklin D.

1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 377–93.

Burns

Nancy

Schlozman

Kay Lehman

Verba

Sidney

. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Carr

Deborah S.

Halvorsen

Kathleen

. 2001. “An Evaluation of Three Democratic, Community Based Approaches to Citizen Participation: Surveys, Conversations with Community Groups, and Community Dinners.” Society & Natural Resources 14 (2): 107–26.

Casciano

Rebecca

. 2007. “Political and Civic Participation Among Disadvantaged Urban Mothers: The Role of Neighborhood Poverty.” Social Science Quarterly 88 (5): 1124–51.

Checkoway

Barry

. 1981. “The Politics of Public Hearings.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 17 (4): 566–82.

10.

Chess

Caron

Purcell

Kristen

. 1999. “Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?” Environmental Science & Technology 33 (16): 2685–92.

11.

Cohen

Cathy J.

Dawson

Michael C.

1993. “Neighborhood Poverty and African American Politics.” American Political Science Review 87 (2): 286–302.

12.

Cole

Richard L.

Caputo

David A.

1984. “The Public Hearing as an Effective Citizen Participation Mechanism: A Case Study of the General Revenue Sharing Program.” American Political Science Review 78 (2): 404–16.

13.

Conway

Brian P.

Hachen

David S.

2005. “Attachments, Grievances, Resources, and Efficacy: The Determinants of Tenant Association Participation among Public Housing Tenants.” Journal of Urban Affairs 27 (1): 25–52.

14.

Conway

Mary M.

1991. Political Participation in the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

15.

Conway

Mary M.

2000. Political Participation in the United States. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

16.

de la Garza

Rodolfo O.

2004. “Latino Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 7:91–123.

17.

Dhongde

Shatakshee

Haveman

Robert

. 2017. Multi-dimensional Deprivation in the U.S. Social Indicators Research 133 (2): 477-500.

18.

Garcia

John A.

Arce

Carlos H.

1988. “Political Orientations and Behaviors of Chicanos: Trying to Make Sense Out of Attitudes and Participation.” In Pursuing Power: Latinos and the Political System, edited by Garcia

F. Chris

, 125–51. Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame.

19.

Gilster

Megan E.

2014. “Putting Activism in Its Place: The Neighborhood Context of Participation in Neighborhood-Focused Activism.” Journal of Urban Affairs 36 (1): 33–50.

20.

Gundry

Kathleen G.

Heberlein

Thomas A.

1984. “Do Public Meetings Represent the Public?” Journal of the American Planning Association 50 (2): 175–82.

21.

Holbrook

Allyson L.

Sterrett

David

Johnson

Timothy P.

Krysan

Maria

. 2016. “Racial Disparities in Political Participation Across Issues: The Role of Issue-Specific Motivators.” Political Behavior 38 (1): 1–32.

22.

Hutchings

Vincent L.

Valentino

Nicholas A.

2004. “The Centrality of Race in American Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 7:383–408.

23.

Jargowsky

Paul A.

2015. “Architecture of Segregation: Civil Unrest, the Concentration of Poverty, and Public Policy.” The Century Foundation 7. Accessed April 1, 2019. https://clime.newark.rutgers.edu/publications/report/architecture-segregation-civil-unrest-concentration-poverty-and-public-policy.

24.

Johnson

Kajsa N.

Johnson

Rebecca L.

Edwards

Daniel K.

Wheaton

Christopher A.

1993. “Public Participation in Wildlife Management: Opinions from Public Meetings and Random Surveys.” Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 21 (3): 218–25.

25.

Jones-Correa

Michael

Leal

David L.

2001. “Political Participation: Does Religion Matter?” Political Research Quarterly 54 (4): 751–70.

26.

Kihl

Mary R.

1985. “The Viability of Public Hearings in Transportation Planning.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 21 (2): 185–200.

27.

Lawless

Jennifer L.

Fox

Richard L.

2001. “Political Participation of the Urban Poor.” Social Problems 48 (3): 362–85.

28.

Leighley

Jan E.

Vedlitz

Arnold

. 1999. “Race, Ethnicity, and Political Participation: Competing Models and Contrasting Explanations.” The Journal of Politics 61 (4): 1092–1114.

29.

Lien

Pei-te

Collet

Christian

Wong

Janelle

Ramakrishnan

S. Karthick

. 2001. “Asian Pacific-American Public Opinion and Political Participation.” PS: Political Science & Politics 34 (3): 625–30.

30.

Logan

John R.

Darrah

Jennifer

Sookhee

. 2012. “The Impact of Race and Ethnicity, Immigration and Political Context on Participation in American Electoral Politics.” Social Forces 90 (3): 993–1022.

31.

Marable

Manning

. 2015. How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America: Problems in Race, Political Economy, and Society. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

32.

McComas

Katherine A.

2001a. “Public Meetings About Local Waste Management Problems: Comparing Participants to Nonparticipants.” Environmental Management 27 (1): 135–47.

33.

McComas

Katherine A.

2001b. “Theory and Practice of Public Meetings.” Communication Theory 11 (1): 36–55.

34.

McComas

Katherine A.

Scherer

Cliff W.

1998. “Reassessing Public Meetings as Participation in Risk Management Decisions.” Risk 9:347.

35.

Oliver

J. Eric

. 1999. “The Effects of Metropolitan Economic Segregation on Local Civic Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (1): 186–212.

36.

Olsen

Marvin E.

1970. “Social and Political Participation of Blacks.” American Sociological Review 35 (4): 682–97.

37.

Portney

Kent E.

Berry

Jeffrey M.

1997. “Mobilizing Minority Communities: Social Capital and Participation in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Behavioral Scientist 40 (5): 632–44.

38.

Putnam

Robert D.

1995. “Tuning in, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America.” PS: Political Science & Politics 28 (4): 664–83.

39.

Ratliff

Jeanne N.

1997. “The Politics of Nuclear Waste: An Analysis of a Public Hearing on the Proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.” Communication Studies 48 (4): 359–80.

40.

Reeves

Richard

Rodrigue

Edward

Kneebone

Elizabeth

. 2016. “Five Evils: Multidimensional Poverty and Race in America.” The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

41.

Rosener

Judy B.

1982. “Making Bureaucrats Responsive: A Study of the Impact of Citizen Participation and Staff Recommendations on Regulatory Decision Making.” Public Administration Review 42:339–45.

42.

Rosenstone

Steven

Hansen

John M.

1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

43.

Schlozman

Kay Lehman

Verba

Sidney

Brady

Henry E.

2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

44.

Shingles

Richard D.

1981. “Black Consciousness and Political Participation: The Missing Link.” American Political Science Review 75 (1): 76–91.

45.

Spence

Lester K.

McClerking

Harwood K.

Brown

Robert

. 2009. “Revisiting Black Incorporation and Local Political Participation.” Urban Affairs Review 45 (2): 274–85.

46.

Tate

Katherine

. 1991. “Black Political Participation in the 1984 and 1988 Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 85 (4): 1159–76.

47.

Tate

Katherine

. 1993. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

48.

Tate

Katherine

. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

49.

Verba

Sidney

Nie

Norman H.

1972. Participation in America. New York: Harper & Row.

50.

Verba

Sidney

Schlozman

Kay L.

Brady

Henry

. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

51.

Verba

Sidney

Schlozman

Kay L.

Brady

Henry

Nie

Norman H.

1993a. “Citizen Activity: Who Participates? What Do They Say?” American Political Science Review 87 (2): 303–18.

52.

Verba

Sidney

Schlozman

Kay L.

Brady

Henry

Nie

Norman H.

1993b. “Race, Ethnicity and Political Resources: Participation in the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 23 (4): 453–97.

53.

Williamson

Anne R.

2014. “Public Meetings as Sources of Citizen Input: Comparing Attendees with Citizens at Large.” The Social Science Journal 51 (2): 191–200.

54.

Williamson

Anne R.

Scicchitano

Michael J.

2014. “Dimensions of Public Meeting Participation: Evidence from Florida’s Truth-in-Millage Act.” Urban Affairs Review 50 (1): 134–46.

55.

Williamson

Anne R.

Scicchitano

Michael J.

2015. “Minority Representation and Political Efficacy in Public Meetings.” Social Science Quarterly 96 (2): 576–87.

56.

Wilson

William Julius

. 1991. “Public Policy Research and the Truly Disadvantaged.” In The Urban Underclass, edited by Jencks

Christopher

Peterson

Paul E.

, 460–81. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

57.

Wolbrecht

Christina

Campbell

David E.

2007. “Leading by Example: Female Members of Parliament as Political Role Models.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 921–39.