The State of the States: A Review of State Requirements for Citizen Participation in the Local Government Budget Process

• Author: Maureen Berner,Sonya Smith
• Date: 01 August 2004
• Published date: 01 August 2004
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X0403600205
• Subject Matter: Practitioner's Corner

State and Local Government Review
Vol. 36, No. 2 (Spring 2004): 140–50
PRACTITIONER’S CORNER
The State of the States: A Review of State
Requirements for Citizen Participation in
the Local Government Budget Process
Maureen Berner and Sonya Smith
Citizen participation, civic engage- Advisory Council on State and Local Bud-
ment, and community involvement
geting. One of the key recommendations in
are current topics in public admin-
the report calls for improving access to all
istration literature stemming from the larger
stakeholders in the budget process, includ-
framework of governance. The interest is not
ing citizens. This recommendation suggests
limited to academic publications; professional
that developing mechanisms to identify con-
publications have been actively promoting
cerns, needs, and responsibilities of citizens
citizen outreach efforts. Prime examples in-
is a fundamental responsibility of local gov-
clude special topic issues of Public Management
ernment.
and PA Times on citizen involvement in early
Before academics and practitioners argue
1999. The Academy Panel on Civic Trust and
for more, or more effective, citizen participa-
Citizen Responsibility also has called for all
tion efforts, current efforts need to be put into
levels of government to seek innovative ap-
context. How common are efforts to involve
proaches for broadening citizen input into
citizens in budgeting? A complete answer to
public policy making and implementation
this question would include understanding
(Christopher 1999). Ironically, this interest
both statutorily required participation ef-
in public participation comes at a time when
forts and those efforts that go beyond legal
the percentage of citizens who trust govern-
mandates. The f‌irst part requires a national
ment is less than a third of what it was three
overview of state budgetary requirements for
decades ago, and citizens are highly apathetic
public participation in local government bud-
and frequently cynical of local government. It
geting. An understanding of the second part
is a time of “thin democracy” (Simonsen and
can be gained only by state-by-state analyses.
Robbins 2000; Berman 1997).
It is important to understand both parts to
The local government policy area that is
determine whether public participation ef-
most ripe for increased citizen participation
forts meaningfully affect budget policy or
is the budget process. In 1998 the Govern-
outcomes.
ment Finance Off‌icers Association published
This research covers state statutes affect-
Recommended Budget Practices: A Framework
ing citizen participation, broadly def‌ined, in
for Improved State and Local Government Bud-
the budget process for a city or county gov-
geting, the recommendations of the National
ernment of any size. Data on state require-
140
State and Local Government Review

---

State Requirements for Citizen Participation in the Budget Process
ments are categorized according to six com-
to involve the public in government decision
mon types of participation efforts. The results
making (Berner, forthcoming). For example,
yield a basic understanding of public partici-
in an examination of local government–spon-
pation, at least the required form of it.
sored community development, Glaser, Den-
This study f‌inds that the emphasis of state-
hardt, and Grubbs (1997) suggest that infor-
mandated public participation is on commu-
mation and communication are tools that can
nicating information about proposed bud-
be used to secure participation from citizens
gets, not necessarily on seeking change or
until they become more engaged in the actual
on communicating results. The results also
decision-making process. One interpretation
highlight the fact that state attitudes toward
of these two goals is that they are mutually
public participation in local government pro-
exclusive, the f‌irst implying that a decision
cesses vary signif‌icantly. The theory that local
has already been made and the second, that
governments are creatures of the state and
the decision is still open. Many off‌icials stop
therefore have no inherent power is univer-
at the f‌irst goal of educating the public, which
sally accepted. However, states vary in terms
might lead to stronger support for decisions.
of how much control they give local govern-
There are several reasons for off‌icials to em-
ments in general, and even how much is given
brace the second goal and make additional
to counties versus cities (Spiggle 2000; Zim-
efforts to involve the public in decision mak-
merman 1981).
ing. One is that doing so helps develop even
stronger community support for policy. An-
Recent Work on Participation
other is based on believing that citizens can
provide insight and information, leading to
The attention on new ways to involve citi-
better public policy decisions (Simonsen and
zens implies that current efforts to engage the
Robbins 2000). The second reason is distinct
public are lacking in some way. Statutory re-
because it implies interaction between the
quirements for interaction, even the most ba-
public and government and the active use of
sic form of information sharing, do not imply
public opinion in policy formation.
that any meaningful participation is actually
Regardless of the goal, the research in this
taking place. “For most citizens, the reality of
area focuses on how to engage citizens at the
the public participation process rarely meets
local level (Callahan 2000), even if the issue
the promise of democracy” (Timney 1998,
goes beyond city or county boundaries. In
95). We know that citizens value government
a recent symposium on the issue, Bardach
(Smith and Huntsman 1997). A citizen’s per-
(2003, 115) explores the possibilities of pub-
ception of active democracy may be grounded
lic “engagement” def‌ined as when “policy-
in the idea that he or she has the opportunity
makers (1) attempt—sometimes voluntarily
to effectively participate, but for many, par-
and sometimes not—to bring citizens into
ticipation stops after ballots have been cast.
a problem-solving process that goes beyond
This lack of participation is particularly true
the simple representation of citizen interests
in terms of budgeting. “Rarely has [citizen
and (2) do this in a structured and semi-pub-
participation] been encouraged in setting
lic manner.” The symposium then examines
budget policy” (Simonsen, Johnson, and Bar-
three techniques: a series of government-
nett 1996, 2). However, the existence of state
community meetings or hearings on local
requirements for local governments is a sign
environmental impacts of siting a weapons
that states take participation seriously—seri-
testing and training range (Siegel 2003), a
ously enough not to leave it to chance.
collaborative task force on social service de-
The practical political purpose of involving
livery (Good 2003), and deliberative polling
citizens centers on two main goals: to inform
used successfully to determine public utilities
the public of government decision making and
management and state energy policy (Fishkin
Spring 2004
141

---

Berner and Smith
2003). In all three examples, the issues were
be apportioned to various areas such as health
meaningful to community-level actors.
care and defense. These and other innova-
King, Feltey, and Susel’s (1998) article on
tive practices have been employed effectively
authentic participation highlights the need
in certain circumstances, but it is diff‌icult to
to improve government’s ability to work
translate these concepts into regular local
with the public. They def‌ine authentic, or
government practices.
effective, participation as participation “that
It is important to note that there have been
works for all parties and stimulates interest
some examples of research on improving
and investment in both administrators and
regular participation, such as the case study
citizen” (1998, 317). They present a strong
of citizen surveys used in Auburn, Alabama,
case for the necessity and desirability of par-
by Watson, Juster, and Johnson (1991). In
ticipation. In a series of focus groups and ex-
another example, Berman’s (1997) research
pert interviews, all participants agreed on its
on cynical citizens found that municipalities
importance, but they also acknowledged that
used public hearings, open meetings, citizen
the systems in place to encourage participa-
panels, surveys, and voter referenda to elicit
tion were inadequate. Participation would in-
participation. While Berman found that use
crease, the authors argue, if people have a real
of a variety of these methods, in addition to a
opportunity to inf‌luence both administrative
range of information-sharing and reputation-
processes and outcomes by (1) empowering
building techniques, was associated with less
and educating citizens, (2) reeducating ad-
cynicism in local government, he also called
ministrators, and (3) enabling administrative
for more research on the eff‌icacy of the dif-
structures and processes.
ferent strategies. Other examples include Pre-
If participation is valued and increasing
isser (1997), Simonsen and Robbins (2000),
it involves, in part, changing structures and
Sprague (2000), and Monte Domecq (1998).
processes of administration, how are those
Research shows that practices to involve
changes made? Although King, Feltey, and
the...