Prepare a 700- to 1,050-word paper that explains your view of whether citizen engagement during the public sector budgeting process is a good idea.

Read this week’s article attached.

Prepare a 700- to 1,050-word paper that explains your view of whether citizen engagement during the public sector budgeting process is a good idea.

Include your views on whether citizen engagement in budgeting might be different, depending on if it is a local, state, or federal budget.

Format your paper according to APA standards.

Requirements: 700-1050

Citizen Engagement in the Budget Process

Your Name

University of Phoenix

Contemporary Issues in Public Administration – BPA/461

Dr. Scharlene Ahmed

Date

Citizen Engagement in the Budget Process

This is the introductory section of your paper which grabs the reader’s attention. Introduce the three budgets for the three cities and how you will compare them in your paper. Tip: Avoid starting sentences with “The purpose of this essay is . . .” or “In this essay I will . . .” or any similar flat announcement of your intention or topic.

Citizen Engagement Viewpoint

Explain your view of whether citizen engagement during the public sector budgeting process is a good idea and whether it might be different depending on whether it is a local, state, or federal budget.

Conclusion

The closing paragraph is designed to bring the reader to your way of thinking if you are

writing a persuasive essay, to understand relationships if you are writing a comparison/contrast

essay, or simply to value the information you provide in an informational essay. The closing

paragraph summarizes the key points from the supporting paragraphs without introducing any

new information.

References

The references page always begins on the top of the next page after the conclusion and double-

spaced. All references must be cited in your paper and listed in alphabetical order.

Citizen Engagement in Local Budgeting: Does Diversity Pay Dividends? Author(s): Justin Marlowe and Shannon Portillo Source: Public Performance & Management Review , Dec., 2006, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Dec., 2006), pp. 179-202Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20447626JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/termsTaylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Performance & Management ReviewThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING Does Diversity Pay Dividends? JUSTIN MARLOWE SHANNON PORTILLO University of Kansas ABSTRACT: The literature on citizen engagement in budgeting suggests local governments can improve how they collect, interpret, and incorporate citizen input about resource allocation issues. However; at the moment, it is unclear whether that input, particularly from a more diverse citizenry, is more or less useful to managers. We address this question by examining how a variety of demographic and institutionalfactors affect manager perceptions of citizen engagement among a sample of221 local governments in Michigan and Minnesota. The results suggest that the input managers perceive as useful tends to focus on community concerns rather than parochial concerns. We alsofind that community diversity associates with a clear trade-off, as managers in more diverse communities are more likely to perceive citizen input as focused on community-wide rather than parochial interests but less likely to view that input as useful in making budget decisions. KEYWORDS: budgeting, citizen engagement, citizen input, Michigan, Minnesota Effective public management is in many ways contingent on administrators’ ability to engage citizens in policy decisions. This is especially true in the context of local budgeting because a municipality’s budget is its most important policy statement and its focal point for conflict, compromise, and institutional change. However, despite its centrality to policymaking, municipal budgeting has been widely criticized for its perceived inability to seek out and incorporate citizen input on critical resource-allocation issues. A small but growing body of litera ture describes the structure of this citizen engagement problem and how budget processes might be changed to solve it. Most of those solutions coalesce around the general theme of making the budget process more accessible to citizens by demystifying its technical aspects, transforming statutorily mandated budget hear Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, December 2006, pp. 179-202. C) 2006 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. 1530-9576/2006 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/PMR1530-9576300203 179This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

180 PPMR / December 2006 ings into a genuine dialogue between citizens and their government, and promoting transparency and accountability. However, at the moment, we know little about how administrators perceive the input that citizens provide, which is arguably the most important aspect of citizen participation, for if managers do not view participation as adding value to budget decision processes, they may discount it or even discourage it. This paper addresses this issue by examining patterns and determinants of those perceptions. Managers will view participation as value added, we argue, if it yields insights into the “public good” and “community concerns” rather than entrenched politi cal interests. Several factors may affect manager perceptions, but we are principally inter ested in diversity. We adopt the definition of diversity used by Wise and Tschirhart (2000), who use the term in a broad sense to incorporate race, income, age, work force/lifestyle, and ethnicity. Strong theoretical reasons exist to believe diversity could affect manager perceptions in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, the input received from citizens in more diverse communities is likely to reflect a wider variety of community perspectives and, in turn, reveal to policy makers a broader palate of policy options. At least initial support for this claim can be seen in work that finds larger and more racially diverse communities have more elaborate mechanisms for promoting and absorbing citizen input on budget issues (Ebdon, 2000). Yet, local government budgeting has been characterized as “managing conflict” (Bland & Rubin, 1997), which implies that broader citizen engagement in local resource allocation may simply exacerbate its pluralistic tendencies and inhibit compromise. Citizen input from diverse communities might, therefore. be viewed negatively by administrators because it may make that conflict even more difficult to manage. In this paper we examine this question using data from a survey of chief ad ministrative officers (CAOs) in 221 small to mid-sized municipalities in Michigan and Minnesota. We develop a model that accounts for many of the factors known to influence citizens’ propensity to participate in local budgeting and financial management processes and the type of input they provide. That model includes five different kinds of community diversity: race, age, lifestyle, income, and ethnicity. The results suggest managers in communities with higher levels of racial diversity are more likely to view citizen participation as community-oriented, which sup ports the claim that citizen participation from more diverse communities tends to promote a broader, egalitarian focus in local resource allocation. However, there is a trade-off; managers in more diverse communities are also more likely to feel that input, although community-oriented, is not necessarily useful in making resource-allocation decisions. We discuss the implications of this trade-off for the theory and practice of citizen engagement in local government in general and budgeting in particular.This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 181 The Challenge of Citizen Engagement in Budgeting That public administrators have an obligation to engage the citizens they serve is something of a truism in public administration. In one of the often-cited recent commentaries on the citizen-government dialogue, Box argued that citizens should be viewed as the owners of the community in which they reside rather than merely customers (1998, p. 90). The challenges, rewards, and policy tools related to this and other notions of citizen “co-production” of local government services has been a perennial concern in public administration (e.g., Agranoff & McGuire, 2003; Thomas, 1999), political science (Ostrom, 1990; Percy, 1984), urban planning (Innes & Booher, 1999, 2004), and other fields. Rather than using outdated, often statutorily required, tools of citizen participation such as public hearings, citizen surveys, review and comment procedures, and so on, scholars are advocating for more collaborative participation in the form of citizen task forces, boards, and commissions in which multiple stakeholders can participate in shap ing policy and implementation procedures (Innes & Booher, 2004; Potapchuk & Polk, 1992; Roberts, 1997; Weeks, 2000). This literature tends to paint citizen participation in a positive, communitarian light by contextualizing the current need for participation in the rhetoric of the past. Citizen participation, according to those who advocate for more of it, is a core community value (Putnam, 2000; Schudson, 1998). However, a variety of empirical and normative commentaries suggest these advocates are perhaps too sanguine about the risks, challenges, and unintended effects of citizen engagement (Gruber, 1987; King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998). This call for tempered enthusiasm is especially pronounced in the context of local budgeting, where the technical nature of the resource-allocation process often leads citizens to adopt a “leave it to the experts” attitude (Callahan, 2002). Many have argued administrative professionals can better respond to this challenge by more effectively educating citizens about the importance of budgeting as a method for establishing government priorities (Beckett & King, 2002; Callahan, 2002; Ebdon, 2002; Ebdon & Franklin, 2004). In fact, as other findings suggest, participation is often viewed by professional administrators as unnecessary and forced occupationally, politically, or legally (Berner & Smith, 2004; Orosz, 2002). This situation often leads administrators to discount the benefits and amplify the costs of bringing citizens into the budget process. In this paper we consider a heretofore unexamined aspect of citizen participa tion: how the government, proxied by the local government administrator, perceives citizen participation. We believe the administrator’s perspective is paramount because local budgeting is typically an executive-driven process in which the administrator coordinates most aspects of budget preparation and execution, includ ing when and how citizen participation will occur and whether that participationThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

182 PPMR / December 2006 will affect actual resource allocations (Dougherty, Klase, & Song, 1999; Ekstrom, 1989; Honadle & Lloyd-Jones, 1998; Sokolow & Honadle, 1984). To that end, we explore two interconnected aspects of those perceptions: (a) the degree to which citizen participation is focused on community-wide concerns rather than parochial interests, and (b) how managers perceive the utility of that participation. Does Diversity Create Dividends or Deficits? Diversity is well-established as a core concern among students and practitioners of public administration. However, Wise and Tschirhart’s assessment of social science literature concerning diversity found “that managers are using largely untested assumptions as a basis for diversity policies, strategies, and actions,” which led them to conclude that work still needs to be done in this area (2000, p. 386).1 This paper is the first known effort to determine how diversity as an extra organizational influence-in this case, community demographics-affects public administrator perceptions of the citizen-administrator dialogue. To be consistent with the extant literature, our core theoretical claim is that diversity produces positive results for both organizations and communities. However, as the next section describes, there are compelling views to the contrary.2 THE OPTIMIST’S PERSPECTIVE Because budgeting decisions in smaller municipalities are often concentrated in the hands of one expert administrator, a diverse and engaged citizen population may add value as it might reveal a broader range of policy options and community priorities than what can be identified by a single administrator. The administrator may also be more likely to consider citizens’ input important if he or she views them as unique from his or her own views. The input of citizens from diverse backgrounds may be at odds, but citizens from diverse communities, much like administrators in diverse organizations, are believed to be more sensitive to others with different opinions. Exactly how might those perspectives and their subsequent effects on budgeting vary? Only recently have social scientists of all sorts begun to consider how the unique citizenship experiences of different demographic groups affect how those groups view the role and process of government (Kerber, 1997; Schudson, 1998). Particular group histories may have an interesting and heretofore unrealized impact on how citizens interact with elected officials and professional administrators. This impact includes, but is not limited to, notions of government and professional trust, habits of participation, civic education, civic literacy, intergenerational equity, and fairness. A key example concerns the link between public debt and capital projects. Although it is common to fund large capital projects through debt, leav ing some of the cost to future generations who will enjoy some of the benefit, thisThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 183 practice is not preferred by all cultures. Some indigenous peoples, for example, hold the belief that the current generation has an obligation to improve things for the next generation, in essence “paying it forward” rather than leaving debt to future generations. Another example of this divergence surrounds local service priorities. Consider, for example, that many persons raised within traditional Latino households are expected to care for elders in their homes when the time arises. This cultural expectation does not mitigate the need for local government-provided senior services, but it may lead these families to prioritize alterative local govern ment services such as recreational opportunities for young people. Although advocates for particular demographic groups may be involved in the budgeting process, the lack of direct input from “typical citizens” may also cause the issues of concern to less vocal or less connected political groups to go overlooked. From the public administrator’s perspective, if budget hearings are continually attended by the same, homogeneous group, the information may seem unnecessary because new priorities rarely arise. Ebdon (2002), for example, found that for public administrators the views of people who regularly attend budgeting meetings are less likely to make an impact on the budgeting process than those of citizens who are not regular attendees. These considerations imply that more diverse citizen participation in local budgeting will improve many aspects of organizational performance and citizen satisfaction with local services. THE CYNIC’S PERSPECTIVE The claim that diversity may complicate rather than facilitate budget consensus follows from the traditional, incrementalist perspective on government budgeting. That view characterizes budgeting as an exercise in pluralistic politics whereby a variety of interests attempt to extract resources during the budget process, and policymakers must, in turn, reach compromise among these competing interests. Stability in this otherwise potentially unstable process is attributed to strong in stitutional norms such as “fair share,” respect for tenure and legislative expertise, a focus on near-term goals, and deference to formal and informal procedures that promote compromise (Wildavsky & Caiden, 2003). Although the incrementalist perspective was formulated as the result of research on the federal government budgeting process, it is also generally viewed as a fair characterization of local budgeting (see Forrester & Mullins, 1992; Rubin, 1998). Input from a diverse citizenry might introduce a new and perhaps unwanted form of instability because citizens from cultures other than those that tradition ally make budget policy may not respect the established budget process and norms inherent to it. For example, Nalbandian (1991), while studying professionalism of local city managers, began to explore the effect of diversity on a manager’s ability to administer city government. He quoted a former city manager and past International City/County Management Association president as saying thatThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

184 PPMR / December 2006 diversity increases the representativeness of elected officials and the subsequent range of acceptable policy choices, but it also makes it more difficult to find com mon ground and develop consensus among elected officials who represent those diverse interests (p. 21). Although Nalbandian ultimately concluded that a more heterogeneous community will produce new incentives for citizens to participate in local government, allowing those unique views to be heard ultimately introduces a new kind of complexity to local policymaking (p. 90). Costa and Kahn (2003) reached a similar conclusion following a review of economists’ contributions to the literature on diversity and civic engagement. They argued that diversity imposes increased costs on both the citizens and the government to foster participation (p. 104). However, even though they found that diversity dampens civic engagement, they did not advocate against increased com munity diversity but rather conceded that racial and ethnic equality and equality of access may be more important goals for society than citizen participation in government (p. 109). Manager Perceptions of Citizen Engagement: An Empirical Model This section outlines the empirical model used to test the relation between com munity diversity and manager perceptions of citizen engagement in budgeting. That model includes five diversity measures in addition to several variables previously used (see Franklin & Ebdon, 2005; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Simonsen & Rob bins, 2000; Weeks, 2000) to explain patterns in how citizens and administrators perceive the local dialogue about resource allocation. DIVERSITY Diversity is often equated with racial diversity. We expand that definition to include five types of diversity (racial, income, age, workforce/lifestyle, and ethnicity), each based on the 2000 U.S. Census. Each is expected to have a different effect on manager perceptions of citizen engagement. Our racial diversity measure is based on the Hirschman index often used in the public finance literature (Suyderhoud, 1994) to indicate the degree to which a jurisdiction’s revenue is diversified across different revenue sources. We use this same basic logic to measure the degree to which a community’s population is dispersed across different racial groups.3 The index is calculated as follows: / ~~~~~2 2 1_White Population African-American Population + (Hispanic Population + Other Population TotalPopulation Total Population ) Total Population ) TotalPopulation .75 A community with “perfect” diversity-or a population that is evenly distributed across all four categories-will have a score of 1. To place these findings in context,This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 185 consider that the most diverse city in the sample-Cassopolis, Michigan-has a total population of 1,790 of which 551 (32 percent) are African Americans, 149 (8 percent) are Hispanic, and 184 (11 percent) belong to other racial groups (Asian, American Indian, and others). Its score on the Diversity Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is .790. By contrast, the least diverse sample city-St. Michael, Minnesota-has a total population of 8,918 of which non-whites total 80, or less than 1 percent of the total. Its score on the Diversity HHI is .016. This variable’s distribution suggests there is, in fact, a broad range of racial diversity among the sample cities. The same HHI measure was modified to create a measure of income diversity,4 calculated as: Households w/income 2 Households w/income 2 Households w/income 2 Households w/income 2 1 – $0-$29,999 + $30,000-$59,999 + $60,000-$199,999 + > $199,999 Total Households Total Households Total Households Total Households .75 We also include three diversity measures designed to capture intra-local differ ences in citizen lifestyles and subsequent heterogeneity of demands on local govern ment. The first is the percentage of the municipalities’ residents who receive retiree benefits. This consideration is important because retirees are known to place unique service demands on local governments (e.g., Duncombe, Robbins, & Stonecash, 2003). We also include the percentage of each municipality’s working population over age 16 who commute more than 30 minutes to work. This measure is designed to capture the extent to which the municipality is a bedroom community. Commut ers who reside in bedroom communities have service delivery priorities that are different from residents who live and work within their municipalities’ boundaries (e.g., Bowman & Pagano, 2004; Gainsborough, 2001). Finally, we control for the percentage of the community’s residents born in a foreign country. This measure is designed to capture the fact that recent immigrants have needs in the areas of social services, health care, employment training, specialized education, and other areas that are unique from other minority residents. We also include population because larger communities are likely to have more heterogeneous interests and subsequently higher levels of disagreement about budget priorities (Ebdon, 2000; Miller & Evers, 2002) and to be more likely than smaller municipalities to have established structured citizen participation mechanisms to help manage those demands (Franklin & Ebdon, 2005). INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Our model includes four factors, all drawn from the previously mentioned survey, that are believed to affect the intra-organizational aspects of local budgeting. WeThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

186 PPMR / December 2006 are most interested in the degree to which local budget processes are incremental and focused primarily on recurring annual concerns rather than comprehensive and focused on the long-term, strategic aspects of resource allocation. The latter, it is assumed, will demand more frequent and better quality citizen input because that input is vital to establishing and maintaining long-term support for policy priorities. As a corollary, budget processes that emphasize temporary consensus on short-term issues will not demand the same level of citizen engagement. Form of government is an important consideration because council-manager governments have been shown to be more likely than mayor-council governments to utilize sophisticated revenue forecasting and expenditure analysis techniques (Reddick, 2004), prepare multiyear budgets (Ekstrom, 1989; Forrester, 1991), emphasize strategic planning and long-term policy priorities (Svara, 1990), realize efficiency gains and lower per capita spending for basic services (Stumm & Cor rigan, 1998) and implement other tools and practices designed to promote long term budget stability. Managers in council-manager governments will, therefore, value citizen input that is oriented toward long-term community-wide concerns rather than short-term, parochial interests, whereas mayor-council governments are more directly responsive to near-term citizen demands and interest group pressures such as neighborhood associations and public sector unions. To control for this effect, this model includes the percentage of the municipality’s workforce that belongs to a collective bargaining unit. A group of recent studies in the transaction cost theory tradition have shown that managerial turnover is an important factor in determining whether local policymaking is inclined toward the long or short term (see Clingermayer & Feiock, 2001, pp. 59-92). Longer-serving managers, the theory suggests, develop relationships with citizens and elected officials that diminish the incentive for interest groups to extract short-term gains from current budget-making processes (see Cain, Choudhury, & Clingermayer, 2004). We, therefore, expect a positive relationship between manager tenure, measured here as the number of years served by the municipality’s current CAO, and that CAO’s perception of citizen engagement in budgeting. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS One of the often-cited methods for promoting broader citizen engagement in budgeting is to improve the quality and accessibility of the financial information conveyed through budget documents, financial statements, summary reports, and other materials that describe a government’s financial condition to its citizens (Government Finance Officers Association [GFOA], 2005; Marlowe, 2005). To that end, this model controls for the following three factors that affect the format and perceived quality of financial reporting. The GFOA provides annual awards for excellence in local government budThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 187 geting and financial reporting. Financial documents earning these awards must present a variety of information about the government’s budgeting and financial management practices, fiscal condition, and long-term plans. However, perhaps most important, governments earning these awards have made additional efforts to make their financial information accessible to citizens by outfitting their finan cial documents with nontechnical summary reports, user guides, glossaries, and other features designed to assist readers who may be unfamiliar with the esoteric but necessary detail of budgeting and financial management. It is assumed that managers in governments that have earned these awards will have more positive perceptions of citizen participation because citizens will provide better-informed input. This model identifies those governments that earned the GFOA’s Excel lence in Financial Reporting Award for fiscal year 2002-2003, which was the year preceding the survey distribution and completion.5 Bland and Laosirirat (1997) and others have examined how differences in the type of financial information made available to citizens affects their subsequent perceptions of local budgeting and financial management processes. Minnesota, like many other states, requires its municipalities to disclose to each property taxpayer their property’s assessed value, changes in local tax rates, and reasons for annual expenditure increases beyond inflation. These and other “truth in taxation” plans are designed to enhance citizen oversight of government spending and, in turn, create a locally defined expenditure limit. Truth in taxation is important in this context because it essentially dictates which information is provided to citi zens and, in turn, plays a major role in shaping how citizens form perceptions of their local governments’ budgeting and financial management practices. Michigan municipalities are not subject to these same state disclosure requirements, so the information made available to citizens is subject to greater variability. The empiri cal model accounts for this fact and for any other potential differences between municipalities within these two states by including a dummy variable identifying Michigan municipalities. A municipality’s budgeting and financial management processes are also important when considering how budget policy is made. This model controls for whether the CAO has principal responsibility for both budget preparation and financial reporting. We assume that when these tasks are divided among multiple individuals, it is more difficult to seek out and incorporate citizen input effectively into the budget process.6 Data and Methods In this analysis we use data from a survey of local government CAOs in Min nesota and Michigan. That survey was sent to 337 cities and villages in Michigan and 326 cities in Minnesota with populations 500 to 50,000.7 These jurisdictionsThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

188 PPMR / December 2006 account for 75 percent of the cities and villages identified within this population range by the 2002 Census of Governments.8 A total of 221 usable responses were received for an overall response rate of 33 percent. The survey included two items used here to measure manager perceptions of citizen engagement in budgeting: (a) “The dialogue that occurs between citizens and local government officials in my community advances financial management policies that benefit the entire community,” and (b) “The dialogue that occurs between citizens and local government officials in my community is helpful in creating financial management policy.”9 Responses to these items fell along a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).10 Our central empirical question focuses, not on these individual item responses, but rather on how they combine to form a manager’s overall perception of citizen participation. We, therefore, combine these two measures into a 5-part typol ogy of manager perceptions. An answer of strongly agree or agree on for the first question placed a respondent in the community-based part of the typology, whereas a response of neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree placed them in the interest-based half of the typology. This typology is admittedly simplified, given that simply disagreeing with the statement that participation is community-based does not necessarily imply that it is interest based. We recognize this fact but adopt this nomenclature because it is consistent with our theoretical expectations and provides a good contrast to the community-based label. Neutral responses are placed in this category because they are assumed to be more consistent with the prevailing theory, which suggests citizen input is both interest based and not neces sarily useful to managers. ” I The same process was used to classify responses to the second question. These labels were then combined into a new dependent variable that takes on the values of interest-based, low manager utility, interest-based, high manager utility, community-based, low manager utility, and community-based, high-manager utility. Respondents that answered neutral to both questions were placed in a fifth category of neutral.’2 Table 1, which presents a cross-tabulation of these two variables, suggests two notable trends. First, a strong, positive association exists between these two items. Substantively, as citizen input becomes more community-oriented, it is more likely to be viewed by managers as useful in making budget policy.’3 The opposite is also true: More parochial input is viewed as less useful. Second, we note that manag ers are generally cynical about citizen participation in budgeting, as well over 40 percent of respondents are in the interest-based, low manager utility category. However, nearly one-fourth of the respondents fall in the community-based, high manager utility categories, which suggests notable optimism. Also interesting are the roughly 11 percent of respondents in the trade-off categories of interest-based, high manager utility and community-based, low manager utility. As mentioned previously, these trade-offs are not unexpected.This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 189 Table 1. Cross-Tabulation of Manager Perception of Citizen Engagement Items Item ] Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Total Disagree (%) (%) (%) Agree (%) (%) Strongly 2.71 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 3.17 disagree Disagree 0.45 24.89 9.50 1.36 0.00 36.20 m Neutral 0.00 3.65 23.08 4.07 0.00 30.77 X Agree 0.45 0.45 4.52 18.10 0.45 23.98 Strongly agree 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 4.98 5.88 Total 3.62 28.96 38.01 23.98 9.50 100.00 Notes: N = 221. Correlation = Item 1: “The dialogue that occurs between citizens and local government officials in my community advances financial management policies that benefit the entire community” and Item 2: “The dialogue that occurs between citizens and local government officials in my community is helpful in creating financial management policy.” The distribution for the “combined” dependent variable is interest-based, low manager utility = 41.63 percent, interested-based, high manager utility = 5.88 percent, neutral = 23. 08 percent, community-based, low manager utility = 5.43 percent, and community-based, high manager utility = 23.98 percent. The empirical model described previously was then tested using a two-step process.’4 For the first step we calculate bivariate correlations between each independent variable and the two individual items that comprise the combined dependent variable.15 In the second step we conduct a multivariate test of how the independent variables associate with the final, combined dependent variable. Because the categories of that combined dependent variable cannot necessarily be ranked, the most appropriate method for determining those associations is the mul tinomial logistic regression model.16 The multinomial logit model is a maximum likelihood estimator that allows us to show how a series of independent variables affect the likelihood a respondent will provide a particular response relative to some pre-established comparison category (see Long, 1997, pp. 148-177). 7 Strictly speaking, its core assumptions are the same as traditional ordinary least squares regression. It requires normally distributed variables, no multicollinearity among the independent variables, normally distributed error variances, and no correlation between the independent variables and the residuals. The basic difference between maximum likelihood estimation techniques like the multinomial logit model and traditional ordinary least squares regression is that values of the dependent vari able are estimated not as a function of their actual values but rather as a function of the log of the odds that an individual will provide a particular response. In the context of this analysis, the model estimates show how changes in particular explanatory variables affect the likelihood that a manager’s perception would fallThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

190 PPMR / December 2006 into each category of this typology.”8 Descriptive statistics and descriptions for the variables included in that model are reported in Table 2. Results The previously mentioned bivariate correlations suggested little, if any, relation between the explanatory variables and the individual measures that comprise the dependent variable. 19 We, therefore, turn to the multinomial logit regression estimates, which are reported in Table 3. The coefficients and statistical significance of the indi vidual independent variables suggest no clearly discernible pattern is found for which factor or combination of factors associates with positive manager perceptions. The presence of a CAO who has principal responsibility for both budgeting and financial management is shown to increase the likelihood that the CAO will view participa tion as interest based and useful but less likely to view it as community based and having either a high or low degree of utility. This result seems consistent with the claim that smaller cities with smaller professionalized staffs are likely to respond to see the value in group-based participation. However, none of the other independent variables are significant for more than one category of the dependent variable. The model most accurately predicts citizen participation that is either interest based but has a high degree of utility to managers or community based with low managerial utility.20 Managers are most likely to perceive participation as commu nity based but not especially useful when there is a higher degree of racial diversity, larger numbers of commuters, and a higher percentage of the city workforce that is unionized. Managers in smaller municipalities where the CAO has responsibility for both budgeting and financial reporting are less likely to have this view. A clearer interpretation of the multinomial logit model findings can be derived by showing how changes in the values of the independent variables bring about changes in the predicted probabilities of the dependent variable.21 Table 4 shows how a shift in each statistically significant independent variable from 0.5 SD below its mean to 0.5 SD above its mean affects the likelihood the dependent variable will take on either the interest-based-high utility category or the community-based, low manager utility category relative to the neutral category, holding all the other variables at their mean value.22 These results show that of all the significant independent variables, increased diversity has the strongest effect on the likelihood an administrator will perceive citizen engagement as interest-based-high utility. For instance, a CAO in a community with a diversity index score of 0.07, or where non-whites comprise approximately 3 percent of the population, is 6 percent less likely to view citizen participation as interest based and useful than a manager in a community with a diversity index score of 0.21, or where non-whites comprise approximately 9 percent of the population. This trend can be extended to reveal that in a commuThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 191 B= mw mXo o o oo m m o om mn o oo mcm o mc o n~~~~r 00 n 0 c cr V o> ci um F O .s O0~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 COt~~~~~~~~~~~~c -~~~~~~ U C) O t) C) = u CL = .= ,D = z t X ;z 2 ;^ Ct – cThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

192 PPMR / December 2006 -N ‘- cn00 0Z6 66666& H N Q.J >m w t m o o *_~~~~~~~, r- A c m N N ON – W) IC V o s = >^. , > oo >- m C C It o ) – N oo O ‘C Q It I I g~~~~~~~0 C) C) N lz NV DC Q~~~~~~L lC C) C ) m > C 0 c C) o) C) Itc oo c- i t rc m ‘oIC m = < o m X~~~r m t m n W’ ,C N = o ~. . . . . . . . Q ~~~~~~~~~~ol oc C r- ?- 0 m ” Cm Nt oooUc _o m c0 o o c o o o o o o t .~~~~~~~6011 o – x ~j C106 1066 6 66600 CN ~ A 0 cn 000 0 – – * * Ao no m cr A.) C100 N C0 0t6t 0 0N Q C) . 06 m m V) 00C t r O t Ot CS m ‘t – N z CZ . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 00. %e~~~~~~~C cn 00 W- WC nv et ,, A ? so o Ir, > mn C) N n 00 CD It x o m m o t x . > I I I I I I C t tc~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~cI Q S 11 >~~ 00 r- C tXsm) ON2C) C) =~~~~~~~I C A oo C ‘Icsot OC W- v 0> Oc sF~~~~~~~~: et W tto mtV1 O = t E k > >o o o N t t co. o. ;= M X > ? o O m c ~~~~~~C) = t O .,.. Q~~~~~~~0 gS-l O . O. O4, O . ?.um? .This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 193 Table 4. Changes in Predicted Probabilities of Selected Outcomes Change in Change in Likelihood of Likelihood of Change in Value Interest-Based, Community-Based Independent High Manager Low Manager Variable Utility Utility From To From (%) To(%) From (%) To(%) Racial diversity 0.07 0.21 27.5 21.2 2.1 3.2 Commuters % 3 15 – <1.0 3.2 Foreign born % 2 5 23.2 27.2 Population 4,392 11,490 28.8 26.2 Financial management No Yes 25.1 23.7 5.3 1.3 GFOA No Yes 23.4 28.1 Unionization (%) 30 66 1.5 3.2 Manager tenure 4 yrs. 12 yrs. 26.1 22.3 Michigan No Yes – 4.8 <1.0 Note: GFOA = Government Officers Association. See Table 2 for complete variable descriptions and descriptive statistics. nity where non-whites comprise half the population, a CAO is approximately 30 percent less likely to view citizen participation as interest based and useful. By contrast, diversity is also shown to increase the likelihood a manager will fall in the community-based-low manager utility category. In this case, a manager in a community with a 3 percent non-white population has approximately a 2 percent chance of viewing citizen engagement in budgeting as community based but not necessarily useful. That same likelihood is about 3.2 percent in a com munity where non-whites comprise 9 percent of the population and is as high as 20 percent for the most diverse community in the sample. In general, these findings suggest diversity has contradictory effects on manager perceptions. Managers in more diverse communities are less likely to characterize citizen participation in resource allocation as interest based but useful and more likely to characterize that participation as community based but not useful. These results are consistent with both our theoretical expectations and, perhaps more important, the normative arguments put forth by those who advocate the broader and more inclusive citizen participation structures. From a practice perspective they also provide new insights into one potential reason for the heretofore lack of concerted effort among local governments to actively engage their citizenry.23 Discussion and Implications This paper addresses the interrelated questions of how local public managers perceive citizen participation in the budgeting process and how communityThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

194 PPMR / December 2006 characteristics affect those perceptions. We are particularly interested in how community diversity shapes those perceptions because much of the literature on citizen participation suggests that citizen engagement processes ought to seek out and incorporate the broadest possible range of citizen perspectives. It should be noted at the outset that these findings are preliminary and exploratory. The model fit characteristics for the multivariate analyses are moderate at best, the measurement and modeling strategy has definite drawbacks, and the findings have only modest explanatory power. In spite of these limitations, the results suggest important findings with notable implications for theory and practice. First, our bivariate analysis shows that local public managers view useful input as synonymous with community-oriented input. Although not surprising, this study is perhaps the first analysis to demonstrate this relation empirically. The implication of this finding for practice is that municipalities ought to engage citizens on the premise that budgeting is a far-reaching effort to understand, in tegrate, and prioritize community values-and not merely a technical resource allocation process. Many mechanisms are available to promote that sort of engagement. For ex ample, many communities have successfully integrated their budget processes and documents with their strategic plans, economic development strategies, mission or vision statements, and other statements of the community’s long-term vision (see Marlowe, 2005). Discussing resource allocation in the context of broader, long-term, strategic initiatives is likely to promote the sort of community dialogue found here to be useful to managers. Another strategy might be to shift the agenda for public budget hearings and other formal citizen engagement opportunities away from simply commenting on the proposed budget document and toward the ways that proposed resource allocations will or will not advance the community’s stated objectives.24 “Citizen academies” and other programs designed to provide a select group of citizens an in-depth understanding of local government’s inner workings have also been shown to alter citizen perceptions of government priorities toward broader, community-wide concerns (see Simonsen & Robbins, 2000). We can also speculate that targeted efforts to involve local business leaders and other key stakeholders in budget formation, such as the Delphi and other methods (Bland & Rubin, 1997, pp. 70-76), would have a similar effect. These techniques have been used with some success in particular aspects of the budget process, such as revenue forecasting, and could be expanded to cover the entire budget process. Recent findings on local governments’ use of performance measurement also suggest that the inclusion of performance information during the budget process has a substantial effect on how elected officials and citizens alike perceive the relationship between resource allocation, service delivery, and expectations of government (e.g., Ho, 2006). This essential logic is the basis for the highly popular “cost of government” (Osborne & Hutchinson, 2004) approach employed by theThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 195 state of Washington and other entities as a tool for enacting substantial budgetary and institutional change in response to fiscal crisis. To that effect, incorporating performance information is also likely to shift citizen dialogue toward broader, rather than parochial concerns. Our findings imply these and other attempts to promote a dialogue emphasizing community values over parochial gains and losses will improve the likelihood managers will view citizen engagement as useful in making budget policy. We do not suggest that cultivating and integrating community-oriented citizen engagement is easy. In fact, nearly 70 percent of our respondents view the input they receive as interest oriented rather than community oriented. Nonetheless, these findings suggest managers ought to think about citizen engagement in terms of seeking out the broadest possible cross section of views, that citizen engage ment processes ought to be structured to facilitate participation by the broadest possible segment of the community, and that budget processes ought to be viewed by administrators and other city staff as an opportunity to bring citizens together to discuss strategic goals and directions. Again, these data, along with a wealth of conventional wisdom, suggest this task is extraordinarily difficult, but, as our findings show, it is a task that, if done properly, can help managers more effectively address the challenges inherent to local resource allocation. Important insights on this point could be gleaned by closely examining com munities where managers perceive citizen input as both useful and focused on overall community well-being. These communities’ citizen engagement processes and practices ought to be examined further, particularly from a qualitative stand point. Future research may consider what about these particular communities’ processes are different and why they work. Do they encourage a two-way com munication with citizens that is continuous and ongoing, rather than a one-time annual notice and comment structure? Have they formed unique collaborations with other community associations or organizations? Are their processes oriented toward education and engagement rather than selling a prepared budget to the community at the end of the process? Qualitative work might also help to clarify other important but subtle aspects of the managers themselves, such as how their perceptions of citizen engagement change over time and how their experiences in other communities affect their perceptions of citizen engagement in their current community. We mention these and other related questions in our conclusion, and we hope that future work in this area follows that recommendation. Our results also show an inherent trade-off between community diversity and the utility of citizen engagement in budgeting. As a community becomes more racially diverse, its citizen engagement is more likely to be considered community oriented but not useful, and less likely to be interest oriented but useful. Future research should explore why and how this trade-off happens. One potential expla nation is that citizen dialogue in more racially diverse communities emphasizesThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

196 PPMR / December 2006 community values such as tolerance and equity that are difficult to translate into budget policy. Future research should explore the dialogues taking place within diverse communities and determine how they are different from more homogenous communities. Part and parcel to this issue is the question of how diversity and other community characteristics shape citizen input. Future research should look to the rich literatures in sociology, anthropology, political science, linguistics, and other fields that delineate how and why cultural experiences shape collective percep tions of the role of government. It could be that the unique experiences of racial or ethnic minorities lead them to contribute to the budgeting dialogue in unique ways. Future work might also consider different methods of measuring diversity. Our model includes measures that treat diversity as synonymous with an equal distribution of different racial, income, and other groups within the community. However, diversity may have differential effects on managerial perceptions in communities where the population is evenly divided between two racial groups, or where one dominant racial group competes or collaborates with a smaller or less prominent group. We also did not control for two other groups of potentially important variables. One group is community demographics such as education level and workforce composition and financial characteristics such as property tax rates and incidence, local government debt obligations, and other financial factors that could potentially affect citizens’ perceptions of local government. A second group is characteristics of individual managers such as tenure, educational background, work history, and others that are likely to shape how managers view citizen participation. Future work should control for these potentially important considerations. Notes 1. Recent work (Pitts, 2005) has taken up this challenge by examining the relation between intra-organizational diversity and organization performance. Those findings suggest reliable but nonetheless mixed evidence in support of the claim that diversity associates with positive out comes. It is important to note the distinction between diversity and representation or “representa tive bureaucracy” (see Dolan & Rosenbloom, 2003) in this context. Pitts found that diversity has a mixed effect on performance in which having managers and teachers who are representative of their students has a clear positive effect. We are primarily concerned here with diversity. 2. Unfortunately, this analysis does not control for the demographic characteristics of elected governing board members, which is clearly an important consideration, as decades of research has shown that, for a variety of institutional and behavior reasons, minority elected officials in local governments tend to view representation, policymaking, and other aspects of the governing process differently than white elected officials (see Engstrom & McDonald, 1982; Hajnal, 2001; Welch, 1990). Nevertheless, recent findings from the urban politics literature show that minorities comprise only a small portion of governing board membership in smaller municipalities such as those examined here. For example, a recent study of conflict among local governing boards in 55 small municipalities in Wisconsin (Ihrke & Niederjohn, 2005), a sample with demographic characteristics nearly identical to the Michigan and Minnesota communities examined here, found that minorities comprise just over 3 percent of city council membership.This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 197 We, therefore, have little reason to believe minority representation will have a systematic effect on how citizens or administrators perceive their local budget process. 3. Costa and Kahn (2003) used a similar measure. 4. This measure was derived from the 2000 U.S. Census, which reports income in terms of the number of people in 16 categories. Our measure collapses those categories into a four category measure by aggregating respondents from each five adjacent categories and allowing households with incomes greater than $199,999 to stand as their own category. This weighting of respondents in the wealthiest categories is designed to capture the unique service demands often associated with individuals within this highest income bracket. Scores on this index are much higher and more tightly distributed than the racial diversity index. Cities with lower scores on this index tend to have more households in the middle-upper and upper income categories. 5. See Evans and Patton (1983) for a different perspective on the incentives and rewards surrounding the GFOA Excellence programs and their predecessors. 6. That variables included in this model are measured at different levels of aggregation implies the need for a multi-level modeling strategy such as hierarchical linear modeling. This approach might be more appropriate in understanding the interactions among individual, or ganizational, and community-wide influences on manager perceptions. We recognize this fact and how it limits our ability to draw definitive conclusions for these results, but we make no attempt to model manager perceptions in a multi-level framework. Future work should more directly consider this issue. 7. With only a few exceptions, all municipalities in Minnesota are incorporated as cities. 8. The sample cities were drawn from membership lists maintained by the Michigan Mu nicipal League and the Minnesota League of Cities. Nonmember municipalities were excluded from the sample, which is why it excludes approximately 25 percent of the jurisdictions within its population range. This exclusion was necessary because the survey instrument was designed to be completed by a professional, appointed public administrator, but almost all nonmember cities do not have full-time, professional staff. 9. It is important to note that no attempt was made to distinguish between citizen participa tion in operating as compared with capital budgeting processes. This distinction is important, given that capital budgeting processes tend to revolve around a long-term planning process that may be more effective at absorbing citizen input. Moreover, large capital projects tend to be more salient than operating expenditures because the former usually result in large, potentially disruptive construction projects that may directly affect citizens’ day-to-day lives (Bunch, 1996; Forrester, 1993; Pagano, 2002). Although we do not believe this lack of distinction creates any serious validity issues for this study, it is worth noting that future research ought to draw a clearer distinction than we have here, and perhaps attempt to contrast citizen participation in both types of budget processes. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this insight. 10. Admittedly, these survey items are subject to two different types of bias. The first is a potential social desirability effect (see Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991, p. 141). That is, because professional public administrators are socialized to view citizen engagement as a desirable aspect of resource allocation, they are unlikely, even in an anonymous survey, to express an opinion to the contrary. The second potential bias follows from the fact that the survey items make an implicit assumption that a citizen dialogue is or should be happening. This assump tion is supported by two pieces of evidence. First, as previously mentioned, both Michigan and Minnesota have stringent open budget meeting requirements that are likely to result in at least some citizen dialogue relative to communities in states in which citizen participation is optional or participation requirements are not strictly enforced. Second, the results of an addi tional unreported item from this survey show that approximately 70 percent of the respondents strongly agreed, agreed, or were neutral in response to the statement “Citizens in my com munity provide local government officials with input regarding financial management issues.” In other words, a clear majority of the respondents do not disagree with the assumption that some dialogue occurs. Nonetheless, we recognize these potential biases as restrictions on our ability to draw definitive conclusions.This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

198 PPMR / December 2006 11. Potential problems from this classification choice are minimal given that answers of neutral appeared in only 14 percent of the responses classified as anything other than neutral on the new typology. 12. The combination of these two items may create an additional validity concern because the second item captures manager perceptions of the content of citizen input, but that input may in fact be contingent upon the community’s financial management policies, which are captured in the first item. We recognize this potential limitation, and we thank an anonymous reviewer for this important insight. 13. Spearman’s rho for these two variables was .73. 14. Our original intent for this first step was to estimate two different ordered logistic regres sion models (see Long, 1997, pp. 114-119) to evaluate the relations between the independent variables and individual variables that comprise the final dependent variable. However, the results of the Brant test (Brant, 1990) indicated these data do not adhere to the key ordered logit model assumption that the independent variables exert the same effect on the likelihood of each category of the dependent variable. This result is likely because the observations are not evenly distributed across all five variable categories for both items. It is, therefore, inappropriate to carry out any sort of multivariate regression analysis on these two variables. 15. Because the dependent variables are measured at the ordinal level but assumed to follow a continuous underlying distribution, it is appropriate to use correlation measures that can be interpreted in the same manner as conventional Pearson’s r coefficients. For the binary inde pendent variables such as council-manager government and the GFOA award, we calculated biserial correlations, and for the independent variables measured at the interval-ratio level we calculated polyserial correlations. The statistical significance of these relations was determined with a simple log likelihood ratio test (Bobko, 2001, pp. 12-65). 16. For other applications of the multinomial logit model in the public administration lit erature, see Teske and Schneider (1994), Ruggiero, Duncombe, and Miner (1995), Brown and Potoski (2003), and Clingermayer, Feiock, and Stream (2003). 17. In this case we utilize interest-based, low manager utility as our comparison category because it has the largest number of responses and, according to much of the extant literature, is the most likely outcome. Relevant diagnostic tests of the multinomial logit model assumptions were conducted. The diagnostics included (a) simple Pearson correlations among the independent variables, which indicated no notable multicollinearity problem; (b) the Hausman test of the independence of irrelevant alternatives assumption, which did not reject the null hypothesis of independent categories, thus suggesting the outcome categories are, in fact, independent; and (c) the likelihood ratio test for combining outcome categories, which rejected the null hypothesis that particular categories of the dependent variable could be collapsed. However, the previously mentioned skewed distribution of both the dependent variable and several of the independent variables suggests a heteroskedasticity problem. That problem was addressed by estimating the multinomial logit model with the Huber/White/sandwich estimator of variance, which produces standard errors similar to traditional robust standard errors. 18. The multinomial logit model demands that data used in its estimation must meet two additional unique assumptions. The first is the independence of irrelevant assumptions, which states that the probability of one outcome relative to another outcome is unaffected by any other third outcome. The second is that categories of the dependent variable are independent and cannot be combined. Appropriate statistical tests showed that the data used in this analysis adhere to both assumptions. 19. None of the correlations exceed .23, and only two correlations?between Item land the percentage of the community consisting of commuters and between Item 1 and manager tenure?are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. These correlations are available from the authors on request. 20. The pseudo-/?2 measure suggests the overall model has modest explanatory power. How ever, caution should be exercised when interpreting model fit measures in multinomial logit and other limited dependent variable regression models because the dependent variable does not have the same sort of variance as a continuous variable. Unlike the R2 measure in a traditionalThis content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 199 ordinary least squares regression model, the pseudo-7?2 reported here describes changes in the log-likelihood. It is, therefore, an approximation rather than a true measure of variance. See Long (1997) and DeMaris (2002) for a broader discussion of goodness-of-fit measures in limited dependent variable regression models. 21. This deviation is done by allowing the independent variables of interest to vary, one at a time, while holding all the other independent variables constant. 22. For dichotomous variables such as the GFOA award and the financial management cen tralization measure, the same change is illustrated when the variable shifts from no to yes. The blank cells in Table 4 are those for which the independent variable did not have a statistically significant effect on that particular category. 23. Although diversity has the largest overall effects on managers’ predicted attitudes, it is also worth noting that other factors such as the larger numbers of foreign-born citizens, earning the GFOA s Excellence in Budget Presentation Award, and longer manager tenure all increase the likelihood a manager will view participation as interest based but not useful. These impacts are not as pronounced, but they are clearly discernible. No single variable has a comparable effect on the likelihood a manager will view citizen participation as community based but not useful. 24. This focus on community goals is certainly an objective of many local government performance budgeting systems, although at the moment, evidence is mixed on whether the implementation of performance measurement changes managerial perceptions of the budget process (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005). References Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Beckett, J., & King, C.S. (2002). The challenge to improve citizen participation in public budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 14(3), 463-486. Berner, M., & Smith, S. (2004). The state of the states: A review of state requirements for citizen participation in the local government budgeting process. State and Local Government Review, 36(2), 140-150. Bland, R.L., & Laosirirat, P. (1997). Tax limitations to reduce municipal property taxes: Truth in taxation in Texas. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1), 45-58. Bland, R., & Rubin, I. (1997). Budgeting: A guide for local governments. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association. Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regression: Applications for industrial organizational psychology and management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bowman, A. O’M., & Pagano, M.A. (2004). Terra incognita: Vacant land and urban strategies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Box, R.C. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st cen tury. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brant, B. (1990). Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 46(4), 1171-1178. Brown, T.L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 441-468. Bunch, B.S. (1996). Current practices and issues in capital budgeting and reporting. Public Budgeting and Finance, 16(2), 7-25. Cain, C, Choudhury, E., & Clingermayer, J.C. (2004). Turnover, trust, and transfers: An examination of local government budget execution. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(8/9), 557-576.This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

200 PPMR / December 2006 Callahan, K. (2002). The utilization and effectiveness of citizen advisory committees in the budget process of local governments. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 14(2), 295-320. Clingermayer, J.C., & Feiock, R.C. (2001). Institutional constraints and policy choice: An exploration of local governance. Albany: State University of New York Press. Clingermayer, J.C., Feiock, R.C, & Stream, C. (2003). Governmental uncertainty and leadership turnover: Influences on contracting and sector choice for local services. State and Local Government Review, 35(3), 150-160. Costa, D.L., & Kahn, M.E. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 103-111. DeMaris, A. (2002). Explained variance in logistic regression: A Monte Carlo study of proposed measures. Sociological Methods and Research, 31(1), 27-74. Dolan, J.A., & Rosenbloom, D.H. (2003). Representative bureaucracy: Classic readings and continuing controversies. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Dougherty, M.J., Klase, K.A., Song, S.-G. (1999). The needs and financial problems of small and rural localities: The case of West Virginia. Public Budgeting and Finance, 19(3), 16-30. Duncombe, W, Robbins, M.D., & Stonecash, J. (2003). Measuring citizen preferences for public services using surveys: Does a “gray peril” threaten public funding for educa tion? Public Budgeting and Finance, 23(1), 45-72. Ebdon, C. (2000). The relationship between citizen involvement in the budget process and city structure and culture. Public Productivity and Management Review, 23(3), 383-393. Ebdon, C. (2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 14(2), 273-294. Ebdon, C, & Franklin, A. (2004). Searching for a role for citizens in the budget process. Public Budgeting and Finance, 24(1), 32-49. Ekstrom, CD. (1989). Budgetary practices in smaller units of government. Public Budget ing and Finance, 9(2), 76-86. Engstrom, R.L., & McDonald, M.D. (1982). The underrepresentation of blacks on city councils: Comparing the structural and socioeconomic explanations for South/non-South differences. Journal of Politics, 44(4), 1088-1099. Evans, J.H., & Patton, J.M. (1983). An economic analysis of participation in the Municipal Finance Officers Association Certificate of Conformance program. Journal of Account ing and Economics, 5, 151-175. Forrester, J.P. (1991). Multi-year forecasting and municipal budgeting. Public Budgeting and Finance, 11(2), 41-61. Forrester, J.P. (1993). Municipal capital budgeting: An examination. Public Budgeting and Finance, 13(2), 85-103. Forrester, J.R, & Mullins, D.R. (1992). Rebudgeting: The serial nature of the municipal budget process. Public Administration Review, 52(5), 461-413. Franklin, A., & Ebdon, C. (2005). Are we all touching the same camel? Exploring a model of participation in budgeting. American Review of Public Administration, 35(2), 168-185. Gainsborough, J.F. (2001). Bridging the city-suburb divide: States and the politics of regional cooperation. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(5), 497-512. Government Finance Officers Association. (2005). GFOA awards for recognition. Available at www.gfoa.org/services/awards.shtml, accessed July 12, 2005. Gruber, J. (1987). Controlling bureaucracies: Dilemmas in democratic governance. Berke ley: University of California Press.This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Marlowe and Portillo / CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN LOCAL BUDGETING 201 Hajnal, Z.L. (2001). White residents, black incumbents, and a declining racial divide. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 603-617. Ho, A.T.-K. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of Midwestern mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217-237. Honadle, B.W., & Lloyd-Jones, M. (1998). Analyzing local governments’ fiscal condition: An exploratory analysis of three tools. Public Budgeting and Finance, 18(2), 69-86. Ihrke, D.M., & Niederjohn, N.S. (2005). Conflict on city councils in Wisconsin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(4), 453-462. Innes, J., & Booher, D.E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 412-423. Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436. Irvin, R.A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision-making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65. Kerber, L. (1997). The meanings of citizenship. Journal of American History, 84(3), 833-854. King, C.S., Feltey, K.M., & Susel, B.O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-326. Long, J.S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marlowe, J. (2005). The budget as a citizen communication tool: IQ report. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association. Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180-190. Miller, G.J., & Evers, L. (2002). Budgeting structures and citizen participation. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 14(2), 233-272. Nalbandian, J. (1991). Professionalism in local government: Transformations in roles, responsibilities and values. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Orosz, J.F. (2002). Views from the field: Creating a place for authentic citizen participation in budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 14(3), 423^42. Osborne, D., & Hutchinson, P. (2004). The price of government: Getting the results we need in an age of permanent fiscal crisis. New York: Basic Books. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: Evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pagano, M. A. (2002). Municipal capital spending during the boom. Public Budgeting and Finance, 22(2), 1-20. Pedhazur, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Percy, S. (1984). Citizen participation in the co-production of urban services. Urban Af fairs Quarterly, 19(4), 431-466. Pitts, D.W. (2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 615-631. Potapchuk, W.R., & Polk, M.A. (1992). Building the collaborative community: A select bibliography for community leaders. Washington, DC: Program for Community Prob lem Solving.This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

202 PPMR / December 2006 Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Reddick, C.G. (2004). Assessing local government revenue forecasting techniques. Inter national Journal of Public Administration, 27(8/9), 597-613. Roberts, N. (1997). Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting direction. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 124-132. Rubin, I. (1998). Tax, class, and power: Municipal budgeting in the United States. Cha tham, NJ: Chatham House. Ruggiero, J., Duncombe, W, & Miner, J. (1995). On the measurement and causes of technical inefficiency in local public services: With an application to public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(4), 403-428. Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. New York: Free Press. Simonsen, W., & Robbins, M.D. (2000). Citizen participation in resource allocation. Boulder, CO: Westview. Sokolow, A.D., & Honadle, B.W. (1984). How rural governments budget: The alternatives to executive preparation. Public Administration Review, 44(5), 373-382. Stumm, T.J., & Corrigan, M.T. (1998). City managers: Do they promote fiscal efficiency? Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(3), 343-351. Suyderhoud, J.P. (1994). State-local revenue diversification, balance, and fiscal perfor mance. Public Finance Quarterly, 22(2), 168-194. S vara, J.H. (1990). Official leadership in the city: Patterns of conflict and cooperation. New York: Oxford University Press. Teske, P., & Schneider, M. (1994). The bureaucratic entrepreneur: The case of city manag ers. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 331-340. Thomas, J.C. (1999). Bringing the public into public administration: The struggle continues. Public Administration Review, 59(1), 83-88. Weeks, E.C. (2000). The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 360-371. Welch, S. (1990). The impact of at-large elections on the representation of blacks and Hispanics. Journal of Politics, 52(4), 1050-1076. Wildavsky, A., & Caiden, N. (2003). The politics of the budgetary process. New York: Longman. Wise, L., & Tschirhart, M. (2000). Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: How useful is diversity research for public-sector managers? Public Administration Review, 60(5), 386-394. Justin Marlowe is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Adminis tration at the University of Kansas. His teaching and research interests include public budgeting andfinancial management, municipal management, and research methods. Shannon Portillo is a doctoral student in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Kansas. Her teaching and research interests include public law, gender, and race/ethnicity.This content downloaded from 99.68.61.19 on Sun, 03 Sep 2023 00:35:36 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.