The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery
Abstract
which it was applied. Second, the automated selection of high priority cases by PROMIS was used as a back-up for manual selection during much of the first two years of operation. Eventually the automated selection of high priority cases for special pretrial preparation was discontinued. These factors suggest that, while the PROMIS development may have been instrumental in the establishment of the Special Litigation Unit, the operation of the Special Litigation Unit soon became relatively independent of PROMIS. A more rigorous evaluation, if it named anything, might have named the Special Litigation Unit as an exemplary project rather than the PROMIS system as a whole. An implementation analysis of the type presented here was not conducted. Instead, LEAA relied on information provided by project participants in making the designation decision. 14. Marketing activities include: distribution of a nontechnical description of PROMIS, videotape and film presentations, demonstrations at conventions such as those of the National District Attorney's Association, the conduct of quarterly meetings of adopters and potential adopters, publication of a quarterly newsletter, the conduct of on-site feasibility studies, and preparation of benefit-cost analyses for justifying PROMIS to local funding sources. 15. Technical assistance is provided by INSLAW personnel through site visits as well as through telephone and written communications. It includes help in planning projects; writing requests for proposals and selecting contractors; installing, testing, and modifying the basic software; and establishing training programs. 16. David L. Weimer, The Inducement and Implementation of Innovations for Prosecution Management, Dissertation, Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley, May 1978.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development
Ostrom, E. (1996) · World Development · doi:10.1016/0305-750x(96)00023-x · Cited by 2,637
A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process
Etgar, M. (2008) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0061-1 · Cited by 1,012
Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction
Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12765 · Cited by 848
CONSUMERS AS COPRODUCERS OF PUBLIC SERVICES: SOME ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Parks, R. B., Baker, P. C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S. L., Vandivort, M. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Wilson, R. (1981) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x · Cited by 761
Self-citationToward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept
Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.2307/975300 · Cited by 709
Metadata
- Authors
- Whitaker, G. P.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1980-05
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 240
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2016851153
- Cited by
- 647
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/975377
- The paper
- Whitaker, G. P. (1980). Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/975377
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.