Models for Evaluation of Commonwealth Connect
Chapter 7 evaluated the implementation of Commonwealth Connect, a smartphone app modeled on BOS:311 and subsidized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, across municipalities. An initial analysis attempted to explain variations in the adoption of Commonwealth Connect by the public using demographic composition and the extent to which the municipality embraced the program (Table F.1 ). A later analysis used variables suggested by the coproduction, administrative culture, and imitation models to examine which municipalities joined, promoted, and internally utilized Commonwealth Connect (Table F.2 ).
|
TABLE F.1 Parameter estimates from models using demographic composition and government adoption of Commonwealth Connect to predict custodians per capita in a municipality |
||||||||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
|||||||
|
Beta (SE) |
|
Stand. Beta |
|
Beta (SE) |
Stand. Beta |
|||
|
Median income (in $1,000s) |
(−0.01 (0.02) |
−.13 |
(−0.01 (0.02) |
−.11 |
||||
|
Home ownership |
(0.57 (4.43) |
.04 |
(−0.30 (4.07) |
−.02 |
||||
|
% Blacka |
(2.11 (5.11) |
.07 |
(−1.56 (4.80) |
−.05 |
||||
|
% Hispanica |
(−0.23 (3.95) |
−.01 |
(−1.69 (3.69) |
−.07 |
||||
|
% Immigrant |
(7.58 (5.39) |
.32 |
(5.01 (5.39) |
.21 |
||||
|
Median age |
(0.03 (0.10) |
.05 |
(0.01 (0.09) |
−.02 |
||||
|
Public promotionb |
— |
— |
(1.30** (0.58) |
.27 |
||||
|
City official reports (per 1,000 residents) |
— |
— |
(81.72** (35.10) |
.29 |
||||
|
Adjusted R 2 |
.04 |
.19 |
||||||
|
Note: n = 64 municipalities. |
||||||||
|
a. log-transformed to adjust for skew. |
||||||||
|
b. Dichotomous variable with 1 equal to the variable’s name. |
||||||||
|
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. |
||||||||
|
TABLE F.2 Parameter estimates from models testing the effects of coproduction, administrative culture, and imitation on a municipality’s decision to join, promote, and internally utilize Commonwealth Connect |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined Commonwealth Connect? |
Promoted Commonwealth Connect? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
|
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Beta (std. error) |
Odds ratio |
Beta (std. error) |
Odds ratio |
Beta (std. error) |
Odds ratio |
|
|
Beta (std. error) |
Odds ratio |
Beta (std. error) |
Odds ratio |
Beta (std. error) |
Odds ratio |
||||||||||||
|
Coproduction |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total population (in 10,000s) |
(0.33** (0.12) |
1.39 |
(0.38** (0.13) |
1.46 |
(0.35** (0.13) |
1.42 |
(0.02 (0.08) |
1.03 |
(−0.12 (0.16) |
0.87 |
(−0.11 (0.17) |
0.90 |
|||||||||||||
|
Population density |
0.24 (0.22) |
1.27 |
0.36 (0.24) |
1.43 |
0.26 (0.23) |
1.30 |
0.50 (0.22) |
1.27 |
−0.23 (0.27) |
0.79 |
0.02 (0.28) |
1.02 |
|||||||||||||
|
Road length (millions of meters) |
(−0.04 (0.12) |
0.96 |
(−0.03 (0.13) |
0.97 |
(−0.04 (0.13) |
0.96 |
(0.11 (0.18) |
0.96 |
(0.16 (0.20) |
1.17 |
(0.16 (0.21) |
1.17 |
|||||||||||||
|
% Road length residential (0–100) |
0.03 (0.02) |
1.03 |
0.03 (0.03) |
1.03 |
0.02 (0.03) |
1.02 |
0.06 (0.06) |
1.06 |
0.07 (0.06) |
1.07 |
0.08 (0.06) |
1.08 |
|||||||||||||
|
Administrative culture |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Expenditures per capita (in $1,000s) |
— |
— |
0.15 (0.13) |
1.16 |
0.14 (0.14) |
1.15 |
— |
— |
−0.02 (0.37) |
0.98 |
−0.01 (0.37) |
1.00 |
|||||||||||||
|
Imitation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Free cash (in $1,000s) |
— |
— |
−0.49 (0.28) |
0.61 |
−0.48 (0.28) |
0.62 |
— |
— |
1.83 (1.07) |
6.23 |
1.76 (1.06) |
5.81 |
|||||||||||||
|
Neighboring members of CC |
— |
— |
— |
— |
0.31 (0.13) |
1.36 |
— |
— |
— |
— |
−0.12 (0.19) |
0.89 |
|||||||||||||
|
Adjusted R 2 |
N / A |
N / A |
N / A |
N / A |
N / A |
N / A |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
N |
351 municipalities |
64 municipalities |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
City official reports (per 10,000 residents) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Beta (SE) |
Stand. Beta |
Beta (SE) |
Stand. Beta |
Beta (SE) |
Stand. Beta |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coproduction |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total population (in 10,000s) |
(0.01 (0.02) |
.08 |
(0.01 (0.06) |
.09 |
(0.01 (0.06) |
.06 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Population density |
−0.04 (0.09) |
−.06 |
−0.05 (0.10) |
−.09 |
−0.06 (0.10) |
−.10 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Road length (millions of meters) |
(−0.05 (0.06) |
−.17 |
(−0.06 (0.08) |
−.21 |
(−0.06 (0.08) |
−.20 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
% Road length residential (0–100) |
0.04 (0.03) |
.19 |
0.04 (0.03) |
.19 |
0.04 (0.03) |
.18 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Administrative culture |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Expenditures per capita (in $1,000s) |
— |
— |
−0.12 (0.15) |
−.11 |
−0.12 (0.15) |
−.11 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Free cash (in $1,000s) |
— |
— |
−0.01 (0.14) |
.03 |
−0.01 (0.14) |
.04 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Imitation |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Neighboring members of CC |
— |
— |
— |
— |
0.04 (0.09) |
.07 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Adjusted R 2 |
∼.00 |
∼.00 |
∼.00 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
N |
64 municipalities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
a. log-transformed to adjust for skew. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. During the three months in advance of the streetlight outage audits. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||