Representative Bureaucracy and Organizational Justice in Mediation
Studies of representative bureaucracy (RB) argue public organizations reflective of the public they serve exhibit better outcomes, especially when serving underrepresented groups. RB theory attributes improved outcomes either to the actions representative bureaucrats take (active representation), or a greater perception of trust and legitimacy toward them by service recipients (symbolic representation), largely treating active and symbolic representation as separate phenomena. We explore the intricate relationship between bureaucracies and the populations they serve by observing the cross-influence between active and symbolic representation, as revealed by self-reported outcomes in discrimination complaints ( = 1,372) referred for voluntary mediation in the United States Postal Service, the REDRESS© program, a context in which mediators are highly limited in representing a claimant's interests given the requirement of impartiality. In exit surveys measuring employee perceptions of organizational justice, we observed the impact of race and gender representation by gauging changes in reported satisfaction when a mediator's race or gender matched the nature of the complaint in cases of race or sex discrimination and sexual harassment, via multivariate regression estimation. These analyses support RB theory regarding sexual harassment complaints, where complainants rated outcomes significantly more favorably for female mediators. We found a negative correlation between female mediators and sex discrimination complaints, as well as African American mediators and race discrimination complainants. To explain this discrepancy, we argue that interactions between symbolic and active representation determine the expectations and perceptions placed on bureaucrats. When a bureaucrat does not meet those expectations, service recipients tend to have a more negative view of organizational justice outcomes.
Nonprofits: A Public Policy Tool for the Promotion of Community Subjective Well-being
Looking to supplement common economic indicators, politicians and policymakers are increasingly interested in how to measure and improve the subjective well-being of communities. Theories about nonprofit organizations suggest that they represent a potential policy-amenable lever to increase community subjective well-being. Using longitudinal cross-lagged panel models with IRS and Twitter data, this study explores whether communities with higher numbers of nonprofits per capita exhibit greater subjective well-being in the form of more expressions of positive emotion, engagement, and relationships. We find associations, robust to sample bias concerns, between most types of nonprofit organizations and decreases in negative emotions, negative sentiments about relationships, and disengagement. We also find an association between nonprofit presence and the proportion of words tweeted in a county that indicate engagement. These findings contribute to our theoretical understanding of why nonprofit organizations matter for community-level outcomes and how they should be considered an important public policy lever.
Awareness of Evidence-Based Practices by Organizations in a Publicly Funded Smoking Cessation Network
This research examines the awareness of evidence based practices by the public organizations that fund services in the North American Quitline Consortium (NAQC). NAQC is a large, publicly funded, goal-directed "whole network," spanning both Canada and the U.S., working to get people to quit smoking. Building on prior research on the dissemination and diffusion of innovation and evidence based practices, and considering differences between network ties that are homophilous versus instrumental, we found that awareness of evidence based practices was highest for quitline funders that were strongly connected directly to researchers and indirectly to the network administrative organization, controlling for quitline spending per capita and decision making locus of control. The findings support the importance of maintaining instrumental (a technical-rational argument) rather than homophilous ties for acquisition of evidence based practice knowledge. The findings also offer ideas for how public networks might be designed and governed to enhance the likelihood that the organizations in the network are better aware of what evidence based practices exist.
