Public Sector ManageMent, truSt, PerforMance, and ... - CiteSeerX

Public Sector Management, Trust, Performance, and Participation A Citizens Survey and National Assessment in the United States MARC: AUTHOR DID NOT PROVIDE AN ABSTRACT SO FIRST PARA WAS REPEATED TO SERVE AS ONE. THIS HAS BEEN QUERIED, AM AWAITING REPLY.

Shlomo Mizrahi Ben Gurion University Eran Vigoda-Gadot University of Haifa Gregg Van Ryzin Rutgers–Newark

ABSTRACT: Measuring citizens’ views toward government and its administrative system is a major element of the new public managerial era. This paper is part of an international project assessing the quality of public sector management and public sector performance as well as public trust and satisfaction with the public sector and the degree to which the public is involved in decision making in the public sector. The theoretical and methodological framework of this project was applied to Israeli society in a longitudinal research project between 2001 and 2009 (Mizrahi, Vigoda-Gadot, & Cohen, 2009; Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2008). In an attempt to internationalize our model and analysis, this paper concentrates on citizen attitudes toward government in the United States using a national survey conducted in March 2010. KEYWORDS: citizens’ attitudes, performance, trust, United States

M

easuring citizens’ views toward government and its administrative system is a major element of the new public managerial era. This paper is part of an international project assessing the quality of public sector management and public sector performance as well as public trust and satisfaction with the public sector and the degree to which the public is involved in decision making in the public sector. The theoretical and methodological framework of this project was applied to Israeli society in a longitudinal research project between 2001 and 2009 (Mizrahi, Vigoda-Gadot, & Cohen, 2009; Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2008). In

266

Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 2, December 2010, pp. 266–310. © 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. 1530-9576/2010 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/PMR1530-9576340207

Mizrahi et al. / Public Sector Management, Trust, Performance 267

an attempt to internationalize our model and analysis, this paper concentrates on citizen attitudes toward government in the United States using a national survey conducted in March 2010. The results are based on an initial and exploratory sample of 1,104 citizens who represent to a great (although not comprehensive) degree the adult population of the United States. The survey was distributed through an online panel of volunteer respondents that included 15,000 potential respondents. Respondents were informed of the basic goals of the survey, and anonymity was guaranteed. The analysis and discussion focus on three main aspects: (a) satisfaction with public services; (b) trust in various public organizations, agencies, and their employees; and (c) the various attitudes and perceptions of the public sector and its employees. Additional analyses will be included in forthcoming research papers.

Theoretical Background In recent decades, new public management (NPM) has been one of the most studied topics in the areas of public policy and public administration (Pollitt et al., 2004). The NPM approach, which emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as part of a reform movement in the public sector, treats bureaucrats as managers and citizens as clients (Hood, 1995; Lane, 2000, pp. 1–10; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). NPM strategies include contracting out or privatizing services, adopting a client-oriented approach, measuring performance and efficiency, and changing the incentive structure of workers from life-long employment to personal contracts. Within the NPM approach, major emphasis is placed on performance measurement and effectiveness evaluation (Pollitt, 2006; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004; Pollitt & Talbot, 2004). Performance and effectiveness are measured using a variety of methods, some of which are also applied to the public sector (Holzer & Yang, 2004; Pollitt, 2006). Opinions and behaviors related to public sector performance may be evaluated both on the extra-organizational level (public opinions/citizens) and on the interorganizational level (employees’ opinions). These two levels complement each other, but this paper deals mostly with the first approach, which makes use of citizens’ opinions regarding the public sector. The literature refers to different aspects of the public’s opinion of the different services it requires (for detailed examples, see Balk, 1985; Bozeman, 1993; Carter, 1989; Hart & Grant, 1989; Local Government Training Board, 1987; National Consumer Council, 1986; Smith, 1993; Thomas & Palfrey, 1996; Winkler, 1987). In the past few years, the need for the collection of data on the attitudinalbehavioral field in all its varieties and the interest in it has risen. These data are aimed at studying the operation and performance of public structures through a general evaluation of the feelings, opinions, and behavior of employees, managers,

268 ppmr / DECEMBER 2010

and the citizens as a group of clients and customers. The accepted view today is that these aspects must be integrated in a wide-considerations system that designs public policy and decides on the characteristics of administration in government and service systems (Weiss, 1996). The countries of North America are relatively advanced in this field. In the recent years, the approach there that public opinions toward government systems’ operation should be evaluated in a systematic and orderly manner has gradually become more accepted. There are many examples: 1. Yearly surveys conducted in different U.S. states aimed at evaluating the performance of local governance structures and of civil servants (e.g., the Georgia State Poll); 2. The American Customer Satisfaction Index–ACSI project, which shows American customers’ satisfaction with various services at the federal level. 3. The Canadian evaluation project of citizens/customers opinions toward different public services (Citizen-Centered Service Network: The Canadian Center for Management Development); and 4. The Euro-Barometer project. However, most performance evaluations related to public sector performance are different from the trust evaluations and result only from a local initiative of the public organizations’ managers themselves. These surveys sometimes turn to citizens for external evaluation, and at other times they test the opinions, feelings, and behavior of the organization’s members themselves. This initiative, despite being congratulatory on its own merit, usually lacks sufficient scientific basis and comparability with similar organizations and public systems elsewhere in the world. Therefore, one of the most important goals of the current study is to lay the ideational and empirical foundations for a behavioral study employing a theoretical model that may also be implemented practically. Such a model may in the future be a comparable and valid measure for the evaluation of the public sector on different levels.

Data and Method The data for our analysis come from an online survey conducted in March 2010 of participants in the CivicPanel project (formerly eTownPanel project), an Internet access panel of approximately 15,000 participants (at the time of the study). Internet access panels are increasingly being used for online research in social, health, and marketing research (Sudman & Wansink, 2002). The CivicPanel project is a university-affiliated, foundation-funded panel created to provide a general population of U.S. volunteers to participate in online surveys about public and civic affairs sponsored by nonprofit organizations and academic researchers. Although volunteers are recruited from various online notices and e-mail lists and are not a random sample of the population, validity studies using the panel suggest that


weighted results from the panel approximate traditional telephone polls based on probability sampling of the U.S. population (Van Ryzin, 2008). Invitations were sent via e-mail to the entire panel, and a total of 1,104 completed the online questionnaire. Given the voluntary, self-selected nature of the panel, there are several sources of bias that may be present in a voluntary sample. While not statistically projectable, the sample nevertheless remains useful for purposes of examining the level of trust in, and evaluation of, the American public sector in a large group of respondents recruited from a broad cross section of the United States.

Measures In this study, we apply 11 different measures. Most of these have already been used in previous studies (i.e., Kacmar & Ferris, 1991; Mason, House, & Martin, 1985; Mizrahi et al., 2009; Oswald, 1996; Schuessler, 1982; Smith, 1981; Thomas & Palfrey, 1996; Vigoda, 2000; Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2008). However, we made alterations as necessary to conform to the American public sector.1 1. Citizens’ satisfaction with public services. 2. Trust in administrative and government institutions. 3. Trust in civil servants. 4. Faith in citizenship involvement. 5. Public sector image. 6. Quality of public personnel. 7. Quality of leadership and management. 8. Transparency and accountability. 9. Responsiveness. 10. Ethics, morality, and integrity. 11. Entrepreneurship and innovation.

Sample The survey was conducted among 1,075 participants who represented to a great extent the American population as reported in the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey. Data were collected during March 2010 using an online panel sample. The geographical distribution of the respondents included most of the states, with a bias toward New York State (133 respondents out of 788 who reported their place of living). The proportion of other states in the sample resembled the distribution of the general population (e.g., California, 57 of the respondents; Florida, 44; Pennsylvania, 41; Texas, 40). Of the sample, 70 percent were women and 30 percent were men; 65 percent reported that they were married or lived in a couple or partnership. Of the sample, 39 percent were age 35–54; 65.3 percent defined themselves as white, 4.7 percent as African American, and


24 percent did not report their race. Of the sample, 17 percent had an elementary or high school education, and 55 percent had partly academic or higher education (23.7 percent of the respondents did not report their education). A breakdown by income showed that 4.3 percent had a very low yearly income (up to $10,000); 11.1 percent reported yearly income of $10,000–25,000; 20 percent reported yearly income of $25,000–50,000; 17.2 percent reported yearly income of $50,000–75,000; 9.1 percent reported yearly income of $75,000–100,000; and 11 percent reported income higher than $100,000 (23 percent of the respondents did not report their income). As mentioned, the geographical distribution does not completely match the population distribution, and the sample is a little biased toward women, relative to the general population.

Findings The survey questions were constructed on a five-point scale where 1 and 5 represented low and high, respectively, levels of satisfaction/trust/quality evaluation. We first present the findings related to satisfaction and trust and then the findings related to various aspects of the public sector performance, quality, and functioning. Satisfaction and Trust Satisfaction with Public Organizations and Agencies

Figure 1 shows the level of satisfaction with various organizations and agencies in the American public sector. It clearly demonstrates the low level of satisfaction with representative political organizations such as Congress (mean = 2.23, S.D = 1.192) and the White House (mean = 2.67, S.D. = 1.334), while, on the other hand, respondents express a high level of satisfaction with organizations related to homeland security such as fire departments (mean = 4.17, S.D. = 0.938), the military (mean = 3.89, S.D. = 1.143), the U.S. Forest Service (mean = 3.59, S.D. = 0.959), and police departments (mean = 3.57, S.D. = 1.148). Yet respondents are less satisfied with the Department of Homeland Security (mean = 2.88, S.D. = 1.129). A detailed description of the statistics for each organization is given in Appendix 1. Trust in Public Organizations and Agencies

Figure 2 shows the level of trust in various organizations and agencies in the American public sector. It clearly demonstrates the low trust in representative political organizations such as Congress (mean = 2.16, S.D. = 1.191) and the White House (mean = 2.68, S.D. = 1.375), while, on the other hand, respondents express a high level of trust in organizations related to homeland security such as fire departments (mean = 4.26, S.D. = 0.870), the U.S. Forest Service (mean = 3.74, S.D. = 0.943), the military (mean = 3.86, S.D. = 1.123), and police departments (mean = 3.63, S.D. = 1.171). Yet respondents have relatively low trust in

Figure 1. Satisfaction with Major Public Organization and Agencies


Figure 2. Trust in Major Public Organization and Agencies



the Department of Homeland Security (mean = 2.94, S.D. = 1.165). A detailed description of the statistics for each organization is given in Appendix 2. Trust in Public Officials and Employees

Figure 3 shows the level of trust in public officials and employees related to the organizations previously discussed. It shows consistency with the attitudes expressed so far. The figure clearly demonstrates the low trust in political representatives such as members of Congress (mean = 2.19, S.D. = 1.176) and the president (mean = 2.94, S.D. = 1.478), while, on the other hand, respondents express a high level of trust in employees of organizations related to homeland security, such as soldiers (mean = 4.6, S.D. = 0.962), firefighters (mean = 4.36, S.D. = 0.810), and U.S. forest rangers (mean = 3.94, S.D. = 0.901). Doctors and nurses are also highly trusted (mean = 3.90, S.D. = 0.939), while employees in organizations related to the management of the financial system such as the Federal Reserve (mean = 2.78, S.D. = 1.136) and the Internal Revenue Service (mean = 2.79, S.D. = 1.118) are less trusted. A detailed description of the statistics for each organization is given in Appendix 3. Public Sector Performance and Quality of Services

Overall, respondents in the current survey provide relatively low evaluations of the American public sector in most aspects. Specifically, the American public sector received low evaluations in the areas of transparency and accountability; responsiveness; and ethics, morality, and integrity. In other areas, such as faith in citizenship involvement, public sector image, quality of public personnel, and quality of leadership and management, the respondents’ evaluations were little better. In the area of entrepreneurship and innovation, the American public sector received the highest evaluations from the survey’s respondents. Figures 4 through 11 show the evaluations for each measure based on the questions presented in the questionnaire. The figures show the percentage distribution of respondents to each statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The mean and standard deviation on that scale are given immediately after each statement.

Conclusion This study demonstrates the fundamental problems of the American public sector in its relations with citizens. The level of satisfaction with many organizations is relatively low, and so is the level of trust in these organizations. While satisfaction level is usually based on past and present experience with public organizations, the reported trust usually represents the way in which citizens view their interactions with the public sector in the future and the extent to which they believe that the

Figure 3. Trust in Public Officials and Employees



“I think that the public sector develops reasonable ways to keep in touch with the public” (Mean = 2.85, S.D. = 1.095).

Figure 4a. Faith in Citizenship Involvement

“The public sector is interested in citizen participation in decision making” (Mean = 2.62, S.D. = 1.148).

Figure 4b. Faith in Citizenship Involvement


“The public sector considers citizens an important factor who should be a part of efficiency- and performance-improvement processes” (Mean = 2.76, S.D. = 1.137).

Figure 4c. Faith in Citizenship Involvement

“Compared with other countries, the public sector in the United States occupies a leading position in developing useful projects for the public” (Mean = 2.95, S.D. = 1.054).

Figure 5. Public Sector Image


“Employees in the public sector are professionals and highly qualified” (Mean = 2.81, S.D. = 1.045).

Figure 6a. Quality of Public Personnel

“The public sector employs only high-quality individuals” (Mean = 2.81, S.D. = 1.045).

Figure 6b. Quality of Public Personnel


“Public leadership and senior management in the American public sector are well qualified and have high professional standards” (Mean = 2.69, S.D. = 1.105).

Figure 7a. Quality of Leadership and Management

“Leaders of the public sector have a clear vision and a long-range view as to where we are going” (Mean = 2.52, S.D. = 1.133).

Figure 7b. Quality of Leadership and Management


“The public sector takes public criticism and suggestions for improvement seriously” (Mean = 2.58, S.D. = 1.125).

Figure 8a. Transparency and Accountability

“Today, more than before, the public sector is willing to be exposed to the public and to the media” (Mean = 2.76, S.D. = 1.174).

Figure 8b. Transparency and Accountability


“The public sector treats deficiencies found by the state comptroller seriously” (Mean = 2.78, S.D. = 1.062).

Figure 8c. Transparency and Accountability

“The public sector encourages its employees to accept criticism and use it to improve services for citizens” (Mean = 2.67, S.D. = 1.106).

Figure 8d. Transparency and Accountability


“The public sector responds to public requests quickly” (Mean = 2.41, S.D. = 1.104).

Figure 9a. Responsiveness

“The public sector is efficient and provides quality solutions for public needs” (Mean = 2.58, S.D. = 1.120).

Figure 9b. Responsiveness


“Citizens of this country receive fair and equal treatment from public officials” (Mean = 2.40, S.D. = 1.139).

Figure 10a. Ethics, Morality, and Integrity

“In the public sector, most civil servants are objective and honest” (Mean = 2.88, S.D. = 1.086).

Figure 10b. Ethics, Morality, and Integrity


“In the public sector, deviations from good moral norms are rare” (Mean = 2.59, S.D. = 1.120).

Figure 10c. Ethics, Morality, and Integrity

“The public sector formulates promising new ideas that improve citizens’ quality of life” (Mean = 2.75, S.D. = 1.075).

Figure 11a. Entrepreneurship and Innovation


“Advanced technology is involved in improving the quality of the public sector in the country” (Mean = 3.27, S.D. = 1.060).

Figure 11b. Entrepreneurship and Innovation

public sector will prioritize the public interest. The fact that trust level and satisfaction results are consistent for most organizations represents the deep problems that the American public sector faces in attempting to gain back its central role in service provision and supervision. Specifically, organizations and agencies related to the representative political system mostly suffer a trust problem, and so do organizations related to the management of the financial system. At the same time, organizations and agencies related to homeland security and national defense enjoy high levels of satisfaction and trust. These indications are consistent to a large extent with findings in other Western countries. These results are also true for the main measures of public sector performance, quality, and functioning where the American public sector received relatively low evaluations in the survey. Specifically, the American public sector received low evaluations in the areas of transparency and accountability, responsiveness, and ethics, morality, and integrity. In other areas such as faith in citizenship involvement, public sector image, quality of public personnel, and quality of leadership and management, the respondents’ evaluations were little better. In the area of entrepreneurship and innovation, the American public sector received the highest evaluations among the survey’s MARC, THIS PARA REPEATS PARA ABOVE--IS THIS OK?


respondents. This paper presents the main findings and points to several areas where improvements are necessary. Future papers will analyze these findings using sophisticated research methods to provide additional insights into the relations between the American public sector and its clients.

Note 1. Additional information on the measures and their scientific sources is available directly from the authors.

References Balk, W.K. (1985). Productivity improvement in government agencies: An ethical perspective. Policy Studies Review 4(3), 475–483. Bozeman, B. (1993). Public management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brudney, J.L. (1990). Fostering volunteer programs in the public sector: Planning, initiating, and managing voluntary activities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carter, N. (1989). Performance indicators: “Backseat driving” or “hands off” control? Policy and Politics 17(2), 131–138. Dutton, J.E., & Dukerich, J.M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal 34(3), 517–554. Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M., & Harquail, C.V. (1994). Organizational image and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2), 239–263. Hart, D.K., & Grant, N.K. (1989). A partnership in virtue among all citizens: The public service and civic humanism. Response to David Kirk Hart. Public Administration Review 49(2), 101–107. Holzer, M., & Yang, K. (2004). Performance measurement and improvement: An assessment of the state of art. International Review of Administrative Sciences 70(1), 15–31. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1), 3–19. Hood, C. (1995). Contemporary public management: A new global paradigm? Public Policy and Administration 10(2), 104–117. Kacmar, K.M., & Ferris, G.R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 51(1), 193–205. Lane, J.E. (2000). New public management. London: Routledge. Local Government Training Board. (1987). Getting closer to the public. Luton, UK. Mason, W.M., House, J.S. and Martin, S.S. (1985). On the dimensions of political alienation in America. Sociological Methodology 15, 111–151. Mizrahi, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Cohen, N. (2009). Trust, participation and performance in healthcare: The case of Israel. Public Performance and Management Review, 33(1), 7–33. National Consumer Council. (1986). Measuring up: Consumer assessment of local authority services. London. Organ, D.W. (1988). O.C.B.: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. New York: Plume. Oswald, J. (1996). Human resources, scientists, and internal reputation: The role of climate


and job satisfaction. Human Relation 49(3), 269–294. Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1), 25–44. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reforms: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pollitt, C., & Talbot, C. (Eds.). (2004). Unbundled governance. London: Taylor and Francis. Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, A. (2004). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organization. London: Palgrave. Schussler, K.F. (1982). Measuring social life feelings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith. T.W. (1981). Can we have confidence in confidence? Revisited. In D.F. Johnston (Ed.), Measurement of subjective phenomena (pp. 119–189). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Smith, P. (1993). Outcome-related performance indicators and organizational control in the public sector. British Journal of Management 4(3), 135–151. Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2002). Consumer panels. 2d ed. Chicago: South-Western Educational Publishing. Thomas, P., & Palfrey, C. (1996). Evaluation: Stakeholder-focused criteria. Social Policy and Administration 30(2), 125–142. Van Ryzin, G. (2008). Validity of on-line panel approach to citizen surveys. Public Performance & Management Review 32(2), 236–262. Vigoda, E. (2000). Are you being served? The responsiveness of public administration to citizens’ demands: An empirical examination in Israel. Public Administration 78(1), 165–191. Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Mizrahi, S. (2008). Public sector management and the democratic ethos: A longitudinal study of key relationships in Israel. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(1), 79–107. Weiss, J.A. (1996). Psychology. In D.F. Kettl & H.B. Milward (Eds.), The state of public management (pp.119–142). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Winkler, F. (1987). Consumerism in health care: Beyond the supermarket model. Policy and Politics 15(1), 1–8.


Percent

Appendix 1. Satisfaction with Major Public Organizations and Agencies

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Neither satisfied nor Somewhat satisfied dissatisfied

Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Percent

Satisfaction with U.S. Forest Service (Mean = 3.59, S.D. = 0.959)

Very dissatisfied


Neither satisfied nor Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied

Satisfaction

Satisfaction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Mean = 3.36, S.D. = 0.983)

Percent


Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Percent

Satisfaction with the Internal Revenue Service (Mean = 2.84, S.D. = 1.150)

Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Satisfaction with the Food and Drug Administration (Mean = 2.94, S.D. = 1.127)

Percent


Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Percent

Satisfaction with the U.S. Postal Service (Mean = 3.50, S.D. = 1.200)

Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Satisfaction with the federal dourts (Mean = 2.91, S.D. = 1.073)

Percent


Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Percent

Satisfaction with the U.S. military (Mean = 3.89, S.D. = 1.143)

Very dissatisfied



Satisfaction

Satisfaction with Congress (Mean = 2.23, S.D. = 1.192)

Percent


Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Percent

Satisfaction with the White House (Mean = 2.67, S.D. = 1.334)

Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Satisfaction with public schools (Mean = 3.10, S.D. = 1.220)

Percent


Very dissatisfied



Satisfaction

Percent

Satisfaction with the local fire department (Mean = 4.17, S.D. = 0.938)

Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Satisfaction with the local police department (Mean = 3.57, S.D. = 1.148)

Percent


Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Percent

Satisfaction with the hospitals and clinics (Mean = 2.94, S.D. = 1.127)

Very dissatisfied



Very satisfied

Satisfaction

Satisfaction with the Food and Drug Administration (Mean = 2.95, S.D. = 1.167)


Percent

Appendix 2. Trust in Major Public Organizations and Agencies

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat

Neither trust nor distrust

Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in the U.S. Forest Service (Mean = 3.74, S.D. = 0.943)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in the Department of Homeland Security (Mean = 2.94, S.D. = 1.165)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in the Federal Reserve (Mean = 2.81, S.D. = 1.121)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Mean = 3.21, S.D. = 1.128)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in the Internal Revenue Service (Mean = 2.81, S.D. = 1.182)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in the Food and Drug Administration (Mean = 2.95, S.D. = 1.169)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in the U.S. Postal Service (Mean = 3.68, S.D. = 1.053)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in the federal courts (Mean = 2.96, S.D. = 1.124)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in the U.S. military (Mean = 3.86, S.D. = 1.123)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in the U.S. Congress (Mean = 2.16, S.D. = 1.191)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in the White House (Mean = 2.68, S.D. = 1.375)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in public schools (Mean = 3.38, S.D. = 1.142)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in the local fire department (Mean = 4.26, S.D. = 0.870)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in the local police department (Mean = 3.63, S.D. = 1.171)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in hospitals and clinics (Mean = 3.62, S.D. = 1.106)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in the Social Security Administration (Mean = 3.06, S.D. = 1.170)


Percent

Appendix 3. Trust in Public Officials and Employees

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in U.S. forest rangers (Mean = 3.94, S.D. = 0.904)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in customs, border, and airport security agents (Mean = 3.23, S.D. = 1.100)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in members of the Federal Reserve (Mean = 2.78, S.D. = 1.136)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in Federal Bureau of Investigation agents (Mean = 3.33, S.D. = 1.084)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in Internal Revenue Service auditors (Mean = 2.79, S.D. = 1.118)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in Food and Drug Administration inspectors (Mean = 2.98, S.D. = 1.126)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in U.S. mail carriers (Mean = 3.92, S.D. = 0.946)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in federal judges (Mean = 3.01, S.D. = 1.122)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in U.S. soldiers (Mean = 4.60, S.D. = 0.962)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in members of Congress (Mean = 2.19, S.D. = 1.176)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in the president (Mean = 2.94, S.D. = 1.478)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in public school teachers (Mean = 3.63, S.D. = 1.105)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in firefighters (Mean = 4.36, S.D. = 0.810)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in police officers (Mean = 3.66, S.D. = 1.100)

Percent


Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Percent

Trust in doctors and nurses (Mean = 3.90, S.D. = 0.939)

Distrust a lot

Distrust somewhat


Trust somewhat

Trust a lot

Trust

Trust in Social Security administrators (Mean = 3.04, S.D. = 1.124)


Shlomo Mizrahi is an associate professor in the Department of Public Policy, School of Management, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel. His research interests include public policy, public sector and new public management, performance measurement, political behavior, the welfare state, regulation and privatization, public choice and game theory,and institutional change. His research projects include public sector performance, participation and trust, public policy, alternative provision of public services and the welfare state, and political and economic aspects of policy making. Eran Vigoda-Gadot is a professor and head of the School of Political Sciences and the head of the Center for Public Management and Policy, University of Haifa, Israel. He is the author and coauthor of more than 120 articles and book chapters and 10 books and symposiums as well as many other scholarly presentations and working papers in the field of public administration and policy, public management, and organizational behavior in the public sector. Currently he is a visiting professor at the Ash Center for Democratic Government, Harvard Kennedy School. Gregg G. Van Ryzin, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs and Administration, University of Rutgers–Newark. Dr. Van Ryzin’s research focuses on the use of surveys and other social science methods to measure the performance of government and nonprofit organizations and to evaluate program outcomes. He also conducts research on citizen satisfaction with public services and other public attitudes toward government. He teaches courses in statistics, research methods, program evaluation, and performance measurement and has published over 25 articles in scholarly journals in the fields of public administration, policy analysis, and urban affairs.