Abstract
This field notes provide insights into how local officials value different participatory procedures used to inform and invite the public to participation activities, and participatory mechanisms used to solicit public input during budget decision-making processes. The analysis is based on a framework that helps categorize and assess traditional, non-digital participatory practices versus modern, digital ones. Using survey responses from local officials in Oregon, the findings reveal greater value for modern methods like government websites and social media to inform and invite residents to public participation activities, but more traditional methods like public hearings and citizen committees to solicit their input. The author offers practical suggestions for fostering meaningful public engagement, and the need for practitioners is to be adaptable to innovative strategies that guarantees their participatory procedures and mechanisms are inclusive, accessible, and responsive to the changing needs of communities.
When it comes to public engagement, there is no set of recipes that local governments can follow because the needs for public engagement are context-specific.
The extant body of scholarship on public participation underscores the importance of instituting foundational participatory procedures and mechanisms to foster meaningful public engagement. In their quest to facilitate meaningful engagement, local government managers are often compelled to navigate through a myriad of experimental practices. On the one hand, participatory procedures have been discussed as methods that lead the public to be informed about participation opportunities and proposed decisions. The methods range from traditional, non-digital practices like newspaper notices to modern ones relying on digital platforms like websites and social media sharing.
On the other hand, participatory mechanisms comprise approaches of engaging and collecting citizen inputs to inform final decisions. Similar to participatory procedures, these mechanisms range from traditional, non-digital practices like town hall hearings to modern, digital practices like online computer-based simulators. A consensus emerging from scholarly discourse posits that the employment of a diverse array of participatory procedures and mechanisms amplifies the efficacy of public engagement by mitigating the constraints inherent to singular methodologies (Adams 2004; Creighton 2005; Ebdon 2002; Ebdon and Franklin 2006; Franklin, Ho, and Ebdon 2009; Fung 2006; Irvin and Stansbury 2004; Nabatchi 2012; Thomas 1995).
In addition to advocating for a plurality of practices, there is a recognized need to expound our understanding of whether and how local officials value various participatory procedures and mechanisms. This exploration is a foundational step toward evaluating their effective adoption and implementation. Empirical research indicates that a significant number of US local government entities endorse a broad spectrum of initiatives aimed at engaging the community (DeSantis, Glass, and Newell 1992; Franklin, Ho, and Ebdon 2009; Selden, Brewer, and Brudney 1999; Yang and Callahan 2005). However, their worth is meaningless if the implementers don’t value them (Yang and Callahan 2005; Yang and Pandey 2011; Zhang and Liao 2011). Hence, scholars conclude that effective implementation of participatory procedures and mechanisms is contingent upon local officials’ perception of their contributory value to decision-making (Marlowe and Portillo 2006; Moynihan 2007).
This paper is motivated by two considerations to examine the extent to which Oregon’s local government managers value different participatory procedures and mechanisms in budget decision-making processes. The first consideration is informed by the 2012 revised budget law that aimed at addressing inconsistencies in local budgeting practices and introduced significant changes to budget appropriations, exceptions, transfers, and supplemental budgeting practices. It further outlined six objectives to standardize budget processes and enhance budget transparency and public engagement in the process (Oregon Department of Revenue 2012).
The objectives are:
To establish standard procedures for the preparation, presentation, administration, and appraisal of budgets of municipal corporations;
To provide a brief description of the programs of a municipal corporation and the fiscal policy that is to accomplish these programs;
To provide estimates of revenues, expenditures, and proposed taxes;
To provide specific methods for obtaining public views in the preparation of fiscal policy;
To provide for the control of revenues and expenditures for the promotion of efficiency and economy in the expenditure of public funds; and
To enable the public, taxpayers, and investors to be apprised of the financial policies and administration of the municipal corporation they are interested in.
The law delineates a series of procedural steps designed to accomplish the specified objectives. It places significant emphasis on the involvement of citizens throughout various stages of the budgetary process, including preparation, approval, adoption, and execution. Furthermore, the law mandates that local governments notify their residents on impending participatory opportunities. This is to be achieved through the issuance of public notices, which may be distributed via newspapers with widespread circulation, direct mailing, hand delivery, or placement in conspicuous places within a jurisdiction, including on the official government website. It further specifies budget committees and public hearings as the primary modes of collecting citizen input and fostering interaction with the community (Oregon Department of Revenue 2012).
Despite the budget law’s emphasis on more traditional, non-digital procedures and mechanisms of participation, there is an observable shift toward digital communication and engagement initiatives among local governments in Oregon and elsewhere. For instance, municipal governments like the City of Albany, McMinnville, and Salem in Oregon have begun to experiment with computer-based budget simulators as innovative digital tools to engage citizens and gather their priorities on various budgetary decisions. To foster engagement, some local governments have also turned to social media platforms as a means to disseminate information about governmental actions and to extend invitations to the community for public forums. However, the degree to which local officials value these modern, digital practices of participation within the realm of budgetary decision-making remains largely unexamined.
Consequently, the second motivation of this study is to bridge this knowledge gap by assessing how local government managers in Oregon value the traditional, non-digital participatory practices in comparison to modern, digital-based participatory practices. This study is both timely and worthwhile, particularly in light of technological advancements and the post-Covid-19 era prompting local governments to adopt alternative modes of information dissemination and community engagement.
The paper is organized as follows. This first section introduces the focus of the study. The second section sets the stage for understanding local officials’ perceptions based on the literature on potential strengths and limitations of participatory procedures and mechanisms. The third section describes the research methodology, including the study sample and data collection procedures. The fourth section presents the empirical findings, and the fifth section concludes with a discussion on the implications of these findings, emphasizing the necessity for local governments to be embrace innovative participatory practices to enhance their engagement with residents.
Locating the Values of Participatory Procedures and Mechanisms in Decision-Making
In the realm of public participation literature, research underscore the significance of employing a mixture of methods to inform and invite the public to engage in participatory activities (termed here as “participatory procedures”) and a mixture of methods to engage and solicit citizen input (termed here as “participatory mechanisms”). Predominant methods for informing and inviting participants in local budgeting include announcements via local newspaper, meetings, and events, distribution of first-class mail or posters, utilizing social and mass media channels, and publishing notices and information on the official governmental websites (Berner and Smith 2004; Muthomi and Thurmaier 2021). For the engagement and solicitation of citizen input, prevalent methods include public hearings, neighborhood meetings, advisory committees, surveys, focus groups, written memorandums, budget simulations, and televised participation with call features (Creighton 2005; Franklin, Ho, and Ebdon, 2009). Evidence from studies indicate that both citizens and governments derive extensive benefits from implementing a variety of these participatory procedures and mechanisms (Ebdon and Franklin 2006; Irvin and Stansbury 2004).
However, the growing trends of electronic governance initiatives and evolving technologies could potentially alter how local officials value traditional, non-digital participatory procedures and mechanisms. For instance, empirical studies indicate that many US local governments have proactively embraced digital innovations such as social media and website to enhance information transparency and foster public engagement (Bearfield and Bowman 2017; Feeney and Brown 2017). Even though social media are increasingly been utilized for disseminating information regarding governmental actions and progress, they are not universally employed across local governments (Jong et al. 2023; Reitano, Jones, and Johnson 2021), partly due to concerns over potential social and political biases (Feeney and Porumbescu 2021).
Traditional media outlets like local newspapers historically have been preferred for the publication of public notices related to budgeting due to their broader local reach (Berner and Smith 2004). Yet, the declining trend in newspaper readership, influenced by the rise of digital news sources, may prompt local governments to pivot toward digital notification methods despite existing legal mandates for publication in local newspapers (Hayes and Lawless 2018; L’Heudé 2023; Nielsen 2015). The reliance of first-class mail and posters could be shifting in Oregon given the increasing numbers of people facing homelessness, of which such notices end up not reaching their final destination due to lack of valid postal addresses (Golabek-Goldman 2017).
Meanwhile, mass media (TV or radio) and social media platforms present alternative avenues for information dissemination to online registered users who may choose to share the information within and across groups. However, their primary risk involves selection bias attributed to the fact that the information only reaches active platform users without any assurance of further distribution of the information among peers (Zhang, Hill, and Rothschild 2018). Furthermore, while government websites have shown the potential to enhance public access to government products and services, studies have highlighted concerns regarding the general use of electronic government platforms (Huang and Benyoucef 2014).
Relating to engagement strategies, an increasing number of local governments are adopting computer-based budget simulation tools such as Balancing Act and Next 10, which facilitate engagement with residents on matters of revenue shortfalls and budget balancing amidst competing priorities (Liao 2023). Although budget simulations have been in existence for more than a decade (Simonsen and Robbins 2000), computer-based simulations require some level of technical expertise from both local government managers and participants (Ebdon and Franklin 2006; Liao 2023). Also, computer-based simulations like the Balancing Act that require participants to balance the budget do not provide clear assessment of whether participants thoroughly consider the information provided or engage in critical thinking in balancing the budget (Mallinson 2018).
Nonetheless, computer-based budget simulations could shift how local officials value other approaches like public hearings and town hall meetings that do not necessarily attract participants with adequate knowledge about budget processes (Adams 2004; Ebdon 2002; Thomas 1995), neighborhood meetings that tend to have incomplete representation (Chaskin 2003; De Morris and Leistner 2009), surveys that fail to demonstrate the intensity of service needs and opinions (Thomas 1995), or focus groups and advisory committees that are costly and have limited representation (Callahan 2002; Irvin and Stansbury 2004). Moreover, computer-based budget simulations have the potential of achieving multiple outcomes to residents such as educating them about government budgeting, learning about budgetary priorities, collecting public preferences and input, influencing final budgetary decisions (Ebdon and Franklin 2006; Liao 2023).
Local officials are thus likely to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of various participatory procedures and mechanisms in striving to balance the strategies of information sharing and public engagement. But we should not assume they will readily adopt a specific approach without considering them valuable in budget decision-making processes. Given the ongoing evolution of modern participatory procedures and mechanisms, which does not entail the outright replacement of traditional practices, a traditional-modern framework (Table 1) could help assess how local officials value these diverse practices, with the aim of adopting a blend of practices deemed most effective within their communities. Furthermore, the traditional-modern framework facilitates the exploration of innovative approaches adopted by local governments to inform and engage their residents.
Analytical Framework.
Source: Authors.
Sample, Data, and Method
A survey methodology was employed to assess how local officials in Oregon value different participatory procedures and mechanisms used during budget deliberations. Oregon is comprised of 36 county governments and about 240 incorporated municipal governments that are subject to the budget law. Leadership within the county governments include a range of elected officials such as the County Sheriff, County Auditor, District Attorney, and County Commissioners; one of whom is designated as the Chair. The governance structure varies across the municipalities, with some operating under a council-manager, mayor-council, or commission form of government. For the purpose of this study, invitations to participate in the survey were extended to the chairpersons of county governments and a representative from among mayors, local government managers, or chief administrative officers, depending on the availability of their contact information.
The researcher compiled a list of 209 potential respondents by gathering the email addresses of local government officials that were publicly available on their respective government websites. Between February and May 2023, these individuals were invited via email to participate in the study, with two follow-up reminders sent during this period. The invitation email included a link that provided direct access to an anonymous online survey tool. Participants were explicitly informed that their involvement in the survey was completely voluntary, and they retained the right to withdraw from the study at any moment without encountering any consequences.
The survey yielded a 24% response rate, with 51 out of 209 invited participants completing the survey. Among these responses, a significant majority, 88% (45 respondents), were from individuals representing municipal governments, while the remaining 12% (six respondents) were from those representing county governments. Within the subset of municipal government respondents, a majority of 55% (25 respondents) reported operating under a mayor-council form of government, whereas 45% (20 respondents) indicated they functioned under a council-manager system. All respondents from county governments confirmed operating under a commission form of government (Table 2).
Study Respondents by Structure and Level of Government.
The study utilized a modified version of survey questions that were previously employed in comparable research (for instance, Yang and Pandey 2011), with the aim of evaluating the perceptions of local government managers toward various participatory procedures and mechanisms identified in Table 1. The questions read:
Participatory procedure: How important are the following platforms for informing and inviting citizens during local budget decision-making processes? Participatory mechanism: How important are the following mechanisms of engaging and collecting citizen inputs during local budget decision-making processes?
Participants were asked to express their preferences using a 5-point Likert-type scale, where a rating of 1 signified the least important option, and a rating of 5 denoted the most important option. The survey was constructed using the Qualtrics platform, with configurations tailored to guarantee that participants’ identities remained anonymous to the researcher. All quantitative data gathered were coded and subsequently analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 28.0.
Findings
The survey results reveal insightful trends in how local officials in Oregon value different participatory procedures and mechanisms for public engagement in the budgeting process. Table 3 indicates that local officials’ value traditional, non-digital methods like word-of-mouth (m = 3.61) and mails and posters (m = 3.53) and modern, digital methods like social media (m = 3.65), and government websites (m = 3.98) to inform and invite the public to participation forums. The detailed findings in Table 3 further underline the distinctions of local officials’ valuation. The high valuation of government websites (70%) and social media (60%) confirms their role as key information-sharing platforms in the digital age. Interestingly, traditional methods such as mail/posters (56%), and word-of-mouth (52%) are still considered very to extremely important by a significant portion of participants, highlighting the continued relevance of these methods in certain contexts or among specific demographics. Conversely, the diminished value placed on newspapers and television/radio announcements, especially the latter with only 10% of participants finding it valuable, reflects broader shifts in media consumption patterns and the challenges of reaching a fragmented audience through these media channels.
Perceived Importance of Participatory Procedures.
Note: NI = Not important at all; SI = Slightly important; N = Neutral; VI = Very important; EI = Extremely important; M = mean; SD = Standard deviation.
The findings from Table 4 regarding how local officials value different participatory mechanisms for engaging residents in local budgeting processes reveal a clear preference for traditional, non-digital forms of collecting public input such as public hearings (m = 4.37) and citizen committees (m = 3.86). The high valuation of public hearings (83%) and citizen committees (66%) underscores the importance of direct, interactive forums for gathering public input. Interestingly, the computer-based budget simulation method is valued significantly less important (62%), which could indicate potential challenges regarding the financial cost or skepticism regarding their effectiveness or accessibility.
Perceived Importance of Participatory Mechanisms.
Note: NI = Not important at all; SI = Slightly important; N = Neutral; VI = Very important; EI = Extremely important; M = mean; SD = Standard deviation.
The results in Tables 3 and 4 also revealed consistent trends in participants’ responses when comparing local governments’ results, as well as the different forms of government (results not included here). However, the analysis could not draw many comparisons due to the limited number of responses from participating local governments. Overall, the findings in this study suggest a complex landscape of public participation practices, where local officials are balancing the reach and efficiency of modern digital tools with the direct and interactive participation afforded by traditional face-to-face methods.
Discussion
This study highlights important insights and trends regarding how local officials in Oregon approach public participation in budget decision-making processes. The findings reveal that local officials value both traditional and modern methods for informing and inviting the public to participation forums, but greatly prefer traditional, non-digital methods for soliciting public input. These valuation of traditional and modern participatory procedures and mechanisms exemplify the commitment of local officials in Oregon to inform and involve the public in budgetary decision-making processes, in alignment with the stipulations of the state’s budget law.
In their quest to promote information accessibility and citizen involvement in budget making process, local officials need to adhere to the legal mandates while adapting to technological advancements and changing public expectations. This adaptation is crucial for managing trade-offs found in different participatory practices. The recognition of the role of digital platforms such as websites and social media in increasing information accessibility align with broader trends in electronic governance and digital democracy. The reliance on digital tools in the promotion of information accessibility aligns with empirical findings by Bearfield and Bowman (2017) and Feeney and Brown (2017) regarding local governments’ efforts to enhance information transparency about government processes, news, and finances, as well as foster dialogue about public priorities and policy decisions. Thus, the potential of these digital platforms to reach a broader audience and inform diverse demographics or those who might not access the information through traditional means cannot be underestimated.
The preference for direct, interactive participatory mechanisms such as public hearings and citizen committees by local officials in Oregon reflects their commitment to listening and soliciting input from the public during budget decision-making processes. However, it is crucial to recognize that the utilization of such mechanisms does not necessarily equate to meaningful engagement. Notably, public hearings have historically been critiqued as among the least effective forms of public participation activities (Arnstein 1969). This criticism stems from the limited opportunity for the public to substantially engage and influence budgetary decisions due to constraints in timing. Moreover, public hearings often function primarily as platforms for the dissemination of governmental decisions and actions to the public (Adams 2004; Ebdon 2002). Conversely, while citizen committees offer a higher degree of engagement compared to public hearings, they are inherently restricted to a select group, potentially comprising elite members of the public. Thus, they may not adequately represent the broader spectrum of public interests (Ebdon and Franklin 2006; Irvin and Stansbury 2004).
Liao’s (2023) observation regarding the increasing interest among local governments in utilizing computer-based budget simulations signifies promising avenues for expanding public engagement in budgetary deliberations. Several municipalities in Oregon, such as the City of Albany and the City of McMinnville, have experimented with tools like the Balancing Act, although indications from this study suggest a lesser degree of endorsement from local officials. This cautious approach toward computer-based budget simulations could be attributed to various factors, including concerns about the associated costs, a perceived lack of commitment from officials to leverage digital engagement opportunities, and apprehensions regarding the effectiveness of online engagement tools in fostering substantive dialogue and facilitating high-quality decision-making processes between government officials and participants (Mallinson 2018).
Overall, this study underscores the significance of understanding how different participatory practices are valued by those within the government, as they directly influence the design and implementation of public engagement activities (Yang and Pandey 2011). Furthermore, reference works by Nabatchi (2012), Ebdon and Franklin (2006), and Fung (2006) acknowledge the complexity of designing and implementing public participation activities, and recognize the need for employing a multiplicity of participatory practices to leverage the limitations inherent in any single method of public engagement.
The study adds to the ongoing discourse surrounding the absence of universally applicable guidelines for local governments to adhere to in the realm of public engagement, recognizing that the efficacy of such engagement is inherently dependent on contextual factors (Kavanagh, Lemmie, and Carcasson 2023). It emphasizes the significant role played by local officials’ perceptions and values in shaping practices of public participation, while also stressing the importance of continuous adaptation and innovation within participatory governance frameworks.
With the above lessons, several limitations persist. First, the reliance on survey questions for evaluating local officials’ valuations of public participation practices, while useful, highlights the need for more qualitative approaches to understand the underlying motivations and rationales. Interviews, focus groups, or case studies could offer deeper insights and motives for using certain participatory procedures and mechanisms, including the perceived effectiveness, challenges, and opportunities associated with these practices. Such qualitative approaches could also explore the impact of local context, including political culture, demographic characteristics, and technological infrastructure, on the adoption and adaptation of participatory practices.
Second, the low response rate from county governments raises questions about the applicability of the study’s findings across different levels of local government. Future research could address this gap by targeting a more balanced sample of local government managers, potentially revealing important differences in how public participation practices are valued and implemented across these levels. Such research could also examine how structural and institutional factors at the county level influence the adoption of participatory procedures and mechanisms, providing a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities for enhancing public participation in different governmental contexts.
Conclusion
This paper contributes to the broader literature on public participation in budgeting by examining how local officials in Oregon value different participatory procedures for informing and inviting the public to participation forums, and mechanisms for soliciting their input during budgeting. The existing budget law provides the baseline for a mix of participatory procedures and mechanisms to be employed by local governments. While the findings in this study do not cast doubt on local officials’ adherence to the provisions of the budget law, they do raise questions regarding the effectiveness of valued participatory mechanisms in fostering meaningful engagement among residents. One potential avenue through which local officials in Oregon could enhance engagement is by implementing Participatory Budgeting (PB) initiatives. PB is a relatively novel approach that provides ordinary citizens with direct power to voice, vote, and oversee decisions pertaining budgetary and resource allocations (Wampler 2012). PB has been extensively utilized in numerous local governments across the United States, offering a variety of benefits for both residents and governments (Gilman 2016). However, the reluctance of local governments in Oregon, including in the major municipality like Portland, to embrace PB initiatives is noticeably concerning to residents (Labbe 2018; Peel 2024).
Fundamentally, the current study calls for flexibility in adopting and adapting public participation practices in local governments. This flexibility is crucial for local officials aiming to stay relevant and effective in their participatory practices, given the rapid pace of technological change and evolving public expectations. The practical implication of this flexibility can be reflected in local governments’ ability to continuously evaluate and adjust their approaches to public participation, ensuring that these strategies remain inclusive, accessible, and responsive to the changing needs of their communities. For instance, the growing interest in computer-based tools like the Balancing Act presents an opportunity for local governments to gather public preferences from individuals who may not have the time to participate in traditional, in-person public forums. Moreover, the significant advantages offered by such technological tools in educating residents about the budgetary trade-offs that inform local officials’ decision-making processes should not be overlooked.
Footnotes
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
