Citizen involvement in the county budget process in Georgia.

Alexander, Ross ; Paterline, Brent ; Hulsey, John 等

Introduction and Literature Review

This study addresses a simple research question: How involved are citizens in the county budget process in the state of Georgia? It also addresses some secondary research questions: To what degree are citizens involved in the county governmental process in general? How has the Taxpayers Bill of Rights affected citizen involvement in the county budget process in Georgia? How involved should citizens be in that governmental process? Do budget professionals desire more or less citizen involvement in the county budget process? How do citizens participate in that governmental process, and what, specifically, can be done to increase their involvement? In order to measure the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process in Georgia, the authors of this study surveyed budget and finance directors in all 159 counties in the state because they are the most qualified to comment upon the level of citizen involvement in the budget process, the effect of their involvement on the budget process, the various methods of citizen participation in that governmental process, and whether or not increased citizen involvement in that aspect of local government is even desirable.

Many scholars argue that any citizen involvement in local government (including the budget process) is positive and should be cultivated and encouraged by both elected and appointed officials. (1) Others, however, note that citizen participation in the county budget process does not always have the desired positive outcomes. (2) These differences aside, most public administration scholars agree that citizen participation in government is desirable and should be encouraged, but they concede that such involvement is episodic and sporadic at best, and can, at times, prove detrimental to the functioning and administration of government. (3) Sidney Verba, Kay Scholzman, and Henry Brady contend that while it is important to understand who participates in the governmental process, it is equally important to understand what they say and what they desire from government as a result of their participation. (4) Renee A. Irvin and John Stansbury argue that citizen participation is almost always desirable, but there are conditions that determine when it is effective and when it is not. Consequently, it is the responsibility of managers and elected officials to facilitate situations whereby citizen participation can have the most positive impact upon the governmental process. (5) Kaifeng Yang adds that it is vital that citizens believe that their participation in government is worthwhile and will have a substantive effect on policy decisions. Public administrators, in turn, must trust citizens and believe that their input is both genuine and meaningful. (6)

Few studies exist which examine the role of citizens in the county budget process. Most scholars and practitioners agree that citizen involvement in that governmental process is limited, except when tax increases are proposed. It appears that the financial intricacies of the budget often confuse, bore, or simply do not pertain to many citizens. Nonetheless, these studies agree that citizens should be more involved in the county budget process. (7) Defining, exactly, what role citizens should play in that process, however, is more difficult.

This study will contribute to the literature on citizen involvement in government in several ways. First, it focuses on the budget process at the county level of government exclusively. Second, its findings suggest that not only are citizens relatively uninvolved in that governmental process, but also that many county budget and finance officials do not particularly desire their input. Third, it finds that even when county budget and finance officials support and cultivate citizen involvement, their efforts may not translate into increased citizen participation in government.

Taxpayer's Bill of Rights

The enactment of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TBOR) by the Georgia legislature in 1999, which seeks to prevent indirect taxation and to enhance the rights of an individual property owner in opposing a tax increase, has had a significant impact on the budget process for county commissioners, budget and finance professionals, school boards, and city councils. TBOR has directly affected the tax assessor function of local government, influenced the administration of the budget process, and heightened the responsibilities of taxing authorities in Georgia.

Before the adoption of TBOR, local governments could have enacted "back door" tax increases based on the inflationary growth in the jurisdiction's digest. County commissions could levy the same millage in the current fiscal year as they did in the previous fiscal year and generate additional tax dollars as a result of the inflationary growth in the digest? TBOR seeks to apprise citizens of such tax increases, facilitate their participation in the budget process, and empower them to offer feedback. According to the provisions of the law, local governments must:

1. calculate a roll back millage rate to compensate for inflationary growth in digest value

2. in the event of a property tax increase, hold three public hearings to discuss the increase

3. publish a notice of the increase in the jurisdiction's legal organ

4. issue a press release to local media explaining the increase.

An additional caveat of this law requires that in the event that public hearings must be held, one of the three hearings must begin between six and seven o'clock in the evening. Two of the three required public hearings, however, might coincide with other mandatory hearings associated with the millage rate process. Local government officials must also publish a notice in newspapers a week in advance of these required public hearings. While this process is ponderous, strict adherence to these procedures must be observed before the jurisdiction's digest can be approved by the State of Georgia's Department of Revenue. TBOR may be riddled with cumbersome calculations and detailed procedures, but it offers an opportunity for substantive citizen involvement in the county budget process. (9)

Methodology

The authors of this study mailed a one-page survey to budget and finance directors (or the person most responsible for the budget) in all 159 Georgia counties. The survey primarily elicited responses regarding citizen involvement in the county budget process. It also sought to measure citizen involvement in the county governmental process in general. The survey asked respondents to provide demographic data about their respective counties, including population and annual operating budget (general fund). It also asked budget and finance officials to comment on the level of citizen involvement in their county's budget process, the level of citizen participation in their county's governmental process in general, the impact of TBOR on the level of citizen involvement in their county's budget process, the degree to which citizens should be involved in that process, and whether or not they would like to see more or less citizen involvement in that aspect of local government. Next, respondents were asked to rank the methods of citizen involvement in the county budget process from those that occur most frequently to those that occur less frequently (e.g., phone calls, e-mail, faxes, face-to-face contact, attendance at public meetings, via elected officials or media). In an open-ended fashion, the survey also asked respondents what, specifically, could be done to encourage greater citizen involvement in the county budget process. (10)

Budget and finance officials were chosen to respond to the survey for several reasons. First, they are most familiar with the county budget process, including the financial intricacies, nuances, legal regulations, and political pressures associated with it. Second, they are most familiar with the impact of TBOR on the level of citizen participation in the budget process in their respective counties. Third, they could comment substantively not only upon the level of citizen participation in the budget process, but also upon the level of citizen participation in the county governmental process in general, with a high degree of authority. Finally, budget and finance officials could best identify the methods by which citizens are currently involved in the county budget process and can offer solutions or strategies for increasing citizen participation in that governmental process.

Results

The authors of this study received answers to their survey from 102 county budget and finance directors (out of a possible 159), an encouraging sixty-four percent response rate. In those responses, one immediately sees a tremendous variation in both population size and annual operating budget among the counties. Some counties have less than 5,000 residents while others have more than 1,000,000. (11) Similarly, some counties have annual operating budgets of less than three million dollars while others utilize billion dollar budgets. (12) In sum, the demographic diversity of Georgia counties yielded a wide range of perspectives, opinions, political pressures and realities, and priorities among respondents to this survey.

The dependent variable for this study, citizen involvement in the county budget process, was measured on a Liken-type scale--the higher the score, the greater the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process. (13) The variable has a mean of 2.0, a median of 2.0, and a standard deviation of .92. Seventy-five percent of county budget and finance officials who responded to the survey reported little citizen involvement in their county's budget process. Only two percent stated that citizens were very involved in their county's budget process.

Six independent variables were used as predictors of the dependent variable--level of citizen involvement in the county budget process. These include: (1) county population; (2) the annual operating budget of the county; (3) citizen involvement in the county's governmental process; (4) the degree to which TBOR has affected the county budget process; (5) the county budget or finance director's attitude toward citizen involvement in the budget process; and, (6) whether or not county budget and finance officials desired more or less citizen involvement in the budget process.

Most budget and finance officials reported that citizens in their county were not very involved in their county's governmental process in general. Less than three percent stated that citizens had a great deal of involvement in the county governmental process. A majority of those surveyed (82.4%) did not believe that TBOR affected the level of citizen involvement in their county's budget process. Responses to the query "how involved citizens should be in the budget process" were mixed. Nearly thirty-four percent believed that citizens should be involved in a county's budget process; twenty-nine percent replied that citizens should not participate in that governmental process. Responses were also mixed concerning the desire of county budget and finance officials to have more citizen involvement in the budget process. Forty-five percent favored greater citizen involvement in the county budget process; twenty-six percent preferred less.

The zero-order correlation results for all of the variables in this study are presented in Table One. (14) The strongest predictor of citizen involvement in the county budget process is the level of citizen involvement in the county governmental process in general (r = .60). Those counties that had a higher level of citizen involvement in the county governmental process in general saw more citizen involvement in the county budget process. There were three other significant predictors of citizen involvement in the county budget process. First, counties had higher rates of citizen involvement in the budget process if budget and finance officials believed that citizens should be more involved in that governmental process (r = .43). Second, counties in which budget and finance officials believed that TBOR affected the level of citizen involvement were more likely to have higher rates of citizen involvement in the county budget process (r = .33). Third, counties in which budget and finance officials desired more citizen involvement also had higher rates of citizen involvement in the county budget process (r = .21)

In order to fully determine the influence of the independent variables on the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process, the authors of this study performed a multivariate regression analysis. (15) For this analysis, the full range of scores on the dependent variable of citizen involvement in the county budget process were utilized, dichotomized variables were treated as dummy variables, and ordinal measures were treated as interval. Only standardized regression coefficients were used to assess the relative importance of each independent variable. The results of the regression model are presented in Table Two.

The dependent variable, level of citizen involvement in the county budget process, was regressed upon the aforementioned six independent variables. The total amount of variance explained by the regression model is forty-three percent ([R.sup.2] = .43). The results of this analysis show that the strongest predictor of citizen involvement in the county budget process is citizen involvement in the county government process in general (beta = .44). This relationship is significant at the .01 level. There also is a strong positive relationship between a budget/finance official's attitude toward citizen involvement and actual citizen involvement in the county budget process (beta = .41). Budget and finance officials who supported citizen involvement were more likely to see a higher level of citizen participation in their county budget process. This relationship is significant at the .01 level. Interestingly, budget and finance officials who favored a higher level of citizen involvement in the county budget process had a lower level of citizen involvement than those officials who desired less citizen involvement (beta = -.24). This relationship is significant at the .05 level. None of the other three independent variables--county population, county budget, or the impact of TBOR--are significant predictors of citizen involvement in the county budget process.

With regard to the more open-ended, qualitative data, budget and finance professionals responded overwhelmingly that citizens demonstrate their involvement in the county budget process primarily through phone calls, e-mails, faxes, face-to-face contact, and attendance at public meetings. They participated in the county budget process less frequently via elected officials or media. These results were relatively constant among all counties, regardless of population or annual operating budget. When asked to propose specific methods to increase citizen involvement in the county budget process, budget and finance officials offered the following suggestions:

* More meetings with citizens

* More public notices of meetings in media outlets

* Conveying, in understandable terms, how the budget works and what the budgetary process involves, including offering budget seminars for citizens

* Creating a citizen panel to offer input into the budgetary process

* More personal contact between budget professionals and the public

* Surveying citizens to determine budget priorities

* Explaining better how budget issues directly affect citizens

* Threatening to raise taxes

Most budget and finance officials expressed frustration with citizen involvement in the county budget process, explaining that citizens only seem to become substantively involved when issues of taxation or others directly relating to them arose. Many complained that, despite TBOR requirements for additional public hearings to discuss proposed tax increases, few citizens participated at all, only one or two per year in many cases. Budget and finance officials dismiss these frequent participants largely as "extremists" whose input they view as harmful to the county budget process. While many budget professionals stated that they would like to have more citizen participation in their county's budget process, they complained that current input is often motivated by self-interest and politics and usually proves to be irrelevant, uninformed, and, generally, not very helpful.

Discussion of Results Citizen Involvement in General

Not surprisingly, this study found that citizens are not significantly involved in the county budget process. Seventy-five percent of respondents to the survey reported little citizen involvement in their county's budget process; only two percent claimed that citizens were very involved in that governmental process. This finding can be attributed to several factors. First, since citizen involvement in the local governmental process in general is limited, one would expect that trend to remain constant with regard to the county budget process as well. Considering that only three percent of respondents to the survey reported that citizens were greatly involved in their county governmental process overall, it would be unrealistic to assume a large or even moderate level of citizen involvement in the county budget process. Second, the intricate nature of the budget process is technical, detailed, and befuddling to many. Even if budget and finance officials attempt to make the process more "citizen-friendly" it might still be overwhelmingly technical and confusing to the average citizen. Third, unless the budget debate focuses on a tax increase, most citizens consider the process irrelevant or unimportant.

In the open-ended portion of the survey, many budget professionals explained that citizens elect commissioners to represent their interests in the county budget process so they do not have to become directly involved. Many added that as professionals they are required to uphold the public interest in budgetary and finance matters so that citizens need not involve themselves in the process to a large degree. To be sure, most budget and finance officials stated that it would be beneficial for citizens to become more involved in the county budget process and most would welcome such involvement, but many concede that this is an unrealistic expectation.

One might explain this finding by examining Georgia's political culture. Georgia can be characterized as a 'traditional' state whereby many citizens may consider voting as their only participatory obligation or role in the government process. They may believe that the actual work of governing should be left primarily to elected officials who they have chosen or the professional administrators appointed by those whom they have elected. In more progressive states (e.g., Minnesota or Wisconsin), citizens have a stronger tradition of participating in government processes than one finds in traditional states (e.g., Georgia and many other southern states). This distinction is worth noting because as state and regional political cultures vary, the expectation of citizen participation in government in general may be relatively high in some states but relatively low in others.

How Involved Should Citizens Be in the Budget Process? (Part One)

Budget professionals offered mixed responses when asked to comment on how involved citizens should be in the county budget process. Whereas thirty-four percent stated that citizens should be relatively involved, twenty-nine percent believed that they should be relatively uninvolved. This ambiguity tends to support Yang's argument that administrators do not always trust the motivations of citizens who become involved in governmental process. (16) Moreover, since most citizens remain relatively uninvolved in the county government and budget processes, budget professionals may be wary of those who choose to participate either wholeheartedly or even sporadically because these officials have become accustomed to executing their duties with little, if any, citizen "interference."

Similarly, only forty-five percent of respondents to the survey expressed a desire to see more citizen involvement in the county budget process; twenty-six percent favored even less involvement. This hardly represents a ringing endorsement for citizen involvement efforts at the county level. Despite an emphasis in the literature and among officials to the contrary, citizen involvement in the county budget process does not seem to be a priority among many budget professionals surveyed in this study. In fact, more than a quarter desire less citizen involvement in the county budget process, a result that can he described as significant and one that many would find disconcerting. Many budget and finance officials may simply view citizen participation in the county budget process as less than genuine, subversive, irritating, or counterproductive. Perhaps they do not believe that citizens can contribute substantively in a positive manner to the county budget process and thus see increased citizen participation as doing more harm than good.

Variable Analysis of Predicting Citizen Involvement in the County Budget Process

County Population

The authors of this study theorized that county population would be a significant predictor of citizen involvement in the county budget process. They believed that it would be easier for citizens to participate in the budget process (and the government process in general) in smaller counties with less governmental bureaucracy, fewer employees, and perhaps a "closer" connection between elected and appointed officials and the public. This assumption proved false; population did not affect the level of citizen participation in the county budget process or the degree that budget and finance officials consider citizen input.

County Yearly Operating Budget

Similarly, budget size did not have an impact on citizen participation in the county budget process. The authors of this study theorized that the smaller the budget, the smaller the county, and the more "direct" the connection between the public and the county government, the greater the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process. This assumption also proved to be incorrect; counties possessing small budgets, intermediate budgets, and large budgets all considered citizen input about the same, that is, not much.

Citizen Involvement in the County Government Process

The strongest predictor of citizen involvement in the county budget process was overall citizen participation in the county governmental process in general. The more citizens were encouraged to participate in all aspects of county governance, the more they were encouraged to participate in the budget process. Not surprisingly, if citizens believe that their participation will have a substantive, positive effect on the local governmental process, they are more likely to participate in it. Similarly, if local government officials (including budget and finance officials) cultivate an environment of participation with palpable rewards, citizens may be more likely to participate in all county government activities because they realize that their involvement could reap substantive benefits. Unfortunately, as the results of this study show, few budget and finance officials actively encourage or cultivate citizen participation efforts.

Effect of TBOR

According to the findings of this study, TBOR has had little impact on the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process. An overwhelming majority of respondents to the survey (82.4 percent) maintain that the law, which sought to cultivate citizen participation, had not affected their county's budgetary process either positively or negatively. Despite formal legislation mandating that counties adopt measures to make it easier for citizens to participate, including more public notices and meetings, this effort to guarantee citizens certain rights, privileges, and recourse on matters of taxation has failed to increase citizen involvement in the county budget process.

The findings of this study further suggest that for those budget and finance officials who believe that TBOR has had an affect on citizen participation (albeit a small percentage of those surveyed), the rate of citizen involvement in the budgetary process has increased in those counties. Less than twenty percent view TBOR as important to the cultivation of citizen participation efforts in the county budget process. Perhaps more budget and finance officials should view the law as a tool to aid the county budget process rather than an impediment, nuisance, or unnecessary statute meant to constrain the execution of their duties.

How Involved Should Citizens Be in the Budget Process? (Part Two)

As explained earlier, citizens are relatively uninvolved in the budgetary process at the county level in Georgia. Those counties where budget and finance officials stated that citizens should be actively involved in that governmental process enjoyed a higher rate of citizen participation. Few officials, however, consider citizen participation a positive contribution to the county budget process. If budget professionals and county government officials in general considered citizen input valuable and were less suspicious of the motivations behind citizen involvement in the governmental process (including the county budget process), perhaps they would desire greater citizen involvement in that process and do more to promote it. Based on the findings of this study, however, this appears unlikely.

More or Less Involvement?

Less than half (forty-five percent) of the respondents to the survey expressed a desire for greater citizen involvement in the county budget process; approximately a quarter (twenty-six percent) stated that they would like to see less citizen involvement in that governmental process. According to the results of the regression analysis presented earlier, budget and finance officials who want more citizen involvement in the county budget process actually reported less citizen participation than those who do not wish to see increased citizen involvement in that governmental process. This disheartening finding shows that despite the best efforts of a dedicated few, their efforts may be for naught. In other words, an investment in promoting citizen involvement may have a negative payoff for many budget and finance officials. It appears that the motivations for citizen involvement and the behavior of citizens are hard to predict, making it even more difficult for budget and finance officials to include citizens in the county budget process. This may explain why few of these budget professionals encourage citizen involvement, respect the contributions and motivations of citizens who do become involved, and seek greater citizen participation in the county budget process. As Vigoda, Kirlin and Kirlin, Timney, and Yang argue, citizens should be viewed as partners or valued stakeholders, not adversaries or impediments, in governmental process. (17)

How Citizens Get Involved

As the qualitative, open-ended results of this study show, when citizens get involved in the county budget process, they do so through traditional avenues of participation, that is, phone calls, e-mails, faxes, face-to-face contact with budget officials, and attendance at public meetings. Less frequent methods of citizen participation occur via elected officials or media. Citizens who chose to be involved in the budget process feel comfortable enough to contact officials directly whether it be face-to-face, at a public meeting, or through some form of technology.

When respondents to the survey offered suggestions for improving the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process, they emphasized increasing the number and frequency of public meetings and notices in the media. Many, however, recognized that more meetings and notices usually does not translate into increased participation. It thus appears that these 'traditional' suggestions may not meet the demands of citizens and may waste the time and resources of the county government. Government officials might offer different, more innovative (yet realistic and cost effective) strategies for improving the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process. According to officials surveyed in this study, increased citizen involvement in the county budget process can best be achieved through better explaining and presenting the budget itself and educating the public regarding its importance in not only the functioning of the county government but in their lives as well.

In a less technical and confusing format, budget and finance officials could present relevant budget information in an educational, citizen-friendly format, explaining budget priorities, impacts, and strategies. Many budget professionals stated that these seminars could be an innovative method of increasing citizen involvement in the county budget process, but most remained skeptical of any efforts to increase such involvement. Almost every budget/finance official who offered an open-ended response to the survey noted that the only method of increasing citizen involvement in the county budget process is by threatening to raise taxes because citizens only seem to get involved when their pocketbooks are affected directly. Taking this into account, budget and local government officials, if they wish to increase citizen involvement in the county budget process, need to convey that many issues relating to the budget directly affect the daily lives of citizens.

Significance of Findings

As this study has shown, citizens are relatively uninvolved in the process of local government and even less so in the county budget process. But what effect does this lack of participation have? Is it damaging to democracy or government service delivery at the local (county) level? What can citizens gain through active participation in the county budget process? The answers to the first two questions are too complex to address here, but this study can address the third query.

As discussed earlier, many citizens, especially those in states with traditional political cultures, view voting as their primary and perhaps only obligation in participating in government. They believe that the work of governing should be left to elected and appointed officials. Except for those rare occasions when taxes may be raised, many citizens are either disinterested, uninformed, or unwilling to participate in the county budget process because they may believe that it is not their role or responsibility. This may soon change. As government continues to devolve in the federal system, counties will have to assume greater fiscal responsibility for service and program delivery. As counties grow, expand, and develop economically (as is the case for many counties in Georgia), their budget and finance decisions and processes will not only involve greater amounts of capital and resources, but will also affect citizens more so on a daily basis. Given these pending circumstances, it would benefit citizens to become more directly involved in the county budget process to ensure that decisions concerning resource allocations benefit them and their community. In so doing, citizens can have a voice in determining development and fiscal priorities in their communities, including the building of new schools and public buildings, road construction, economic development projects, green space preservation, and recreation programs.

Conclusion

Several conclusions can be drawn from the findings of this study. First, citizens are not very involved in the budget process at the county level in Georgia and many budget and finance officials contend that they should not be involved. Second, county budget and finance officials do not value citizen input and participation in the budget process; in fact, most would like to see even less citizen involvement in that governmental process. Third, TBOR has failed to encourage greater citizen involvement in the county budget process. Fourth, citizen involvement in the county budget process is positively correlated with citizen involvement in the county governmental process in general: the higher the rate of participation in the county governmental process in general, the higher the rate of citizen involvement in the county budget process. Fifth, the efforts of county budget and finance officials to encourage citizen participation in the budget process sometimes result in lower levels of involvement.

In sum, this study presents a bleak picture for those seeking to increase citizen involvement in the governmental process in general. Despite the passage of legislation geared towards increasing the level of citizen involvement in the county budget process in Georgia, citizens remain uninvolved and/or disinterested in that governmental process. Perhaps more disheartening or alarming is the realization that many budget and finance officials do not view this as a negative outcome.

The extent to which the results of this study can be applied to other cases is seemingly positive. They can be "exported" to other states that have similar geographic, demographic, political, economic, and social characteristics as Georgia, which has an extremely high degree of variation among counties in terms of race, urban/suburban/exurban/rural distinction, wealth, tax base, political climate, and economic growth rates. (18) While these results deal exclusively with Georgia, they might prove useful to scholars and county administrators struggling with similar problems in other states.

ENDNOTES

(1) See, for example, "Promises of Participation," University of Southern California Neighborhood Participation Policy Brief I (April 2003): 1-5; Maureen Berner, "Citizen Participation in Local Government Budgeting," Popular Government 66 (Spring 2001):23-30; Aimee Franklin and Brandi Carberry-George, "Analyzing How Local Governments Establish Service Priorities," Public Budgeting and Finance 19 (September 1999):31-46.

(2) See, for example, Carol Ebdon and Aimee Franklin, "Searching for a Role for Citizens in the Budget Process," Public Budgeting and Finance 24 (March 2004):32-49.

(3) Richard C. Cole, "Citizen Participation in Municipal Politics," American Journal of Political Science 19 (November 1975):761-81; Robert Goodin and John Dryzek, "Rational Participation: The Politics of Relative Power," British Journal of Political Science 10 (1980):273-92; Michael W. Hirlinger, "Citizen-Initiated Contacting of Local Government Officials: A Multivariate Analysis," Journal of Politics 54 (May 1992):55363; Sidney Verba, Kay Scholzman, and Henry Brady, "Citizen Activity: Who Participates? What Do They Say?" American Political Science Review 87 (June 1993):303-19; Mary Timney, "Overcoming Administrative Barriers to Citizen Participation: Citizens as Partners, Not Adversaries," in Government is Us: Public Administration in an Anti Government Era, eds. Cheryl Simrell King and Camilla Stivers (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998), 88-101; Eran Vigoda, "From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration," Public Administration Review 65 (September/October 2002):527-40; John J. Kirlin and Mary K. Kirlin, "Strengthening Effective Government--Citizen Connections through Greater Civic Engagement," Public Administration Review 65 (September 2002):80-85; Renee A. Irvin and John Stansbury, "Citizen Participation in Decision-Making: Is it Worth the Effort?" Public Administration Review 64 (February 2004):55-65; Brian Adams, "Public Meetings and the Democratic Process" Public Administration Review 64 (February 2004):43-54; Lisa Blomgren-Bingham, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O'Leary, "The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government," Public Administration Review 65 (September 2005):547-58; Kaifeng Yang, "Public Administrators' Trust in Citizens: A Missing Link in Citizen Involvement Efforts," Public Administration Review 65 (May 2005):273-85.

(4) Verba, Scholzman, and Brady, "Citizen Activity," 303-19.

(5) Irvin and Stansbury, "Citizen Participation in Decision-Making," 55-65.

(6) Yang, "Public Administrators' Trust in Citizens," 273-85.

(7) Ebdon and Franklin, "Searching for a Role for Citizens in the Budget Process," 32-49; "Promises of Participation," 1-5; Berner, "Citizen Participation in Local Government Budgeting," 23-30; Franklin and Carberry-George, "Analyzing How Local Governments Establish Service Priorities," 31-46.

(8) For details regarding the provisions of TBOR, see Georgia Department of Revenue, "Property Tax Guide for the Georgia Taxpayer: Taxpayer Bill of Rights," http://www.etax.ptd/adm/taxguide/rights.shtml (accessed April 15, 2006), 125. The Tax Digest is a listing of all property and property values in the county. It includes real estate, personal property, and exempt property, and is the basis on which property taxes are calculated. Millage refers to the calculation to determine property tax rates.

(9) See Georgia Department of Revenue, "Property Tax Guide for the Georgia Taxpayer: Taxpayer Bill of Rights," http://www.etax.dor.ga.gov/ptd/adm/taxguide/rights.shtml (accessed April 15, 2006), 1-25.

(10) The survey asked respondents to answer the following questions: What is the population of your county? What is the yearly operating budget of your county? How would you describe the level of citizen involvement in your county's budget process? How would you describe the level of citizen involvement in your county's government process in general? How has TBOR affected the level of citizen involvement in your county's budget process? In your opinion, how involved should citizens be in the budget process in your county? Would you like to see less citizen involvement, the same level of citizen involvement, or more citizen involvement in your county's budget process? Rank the methods of citizen involvement in your county's budget process. What, specifically, can be done to encourage or facilitate more citizen involvement in the budget process in your county?

(11) The mean population of the counties surveyed is 54,866.12, with a median population of 23,324.50, and a standard deviation of 10,140.27.

(12) The mean annual operating budget is $44.97 million, with a median of $13.97 million, and a standard deviation of $12.92 million.

(13) Likert-type scales generally ask respondents to what degree they either agree or disagree with a given statement, or to rate the level of effect of a given variable. The Likert employed in this study used a range of five responses to rank "level of involvement." For example, a score of "1" being "not at all involved," and a score of "5" being "very involved."

(14) Pearson's Correlation Coefficient was used to determine the zero-order correlations between the variables in this study. The instrument is used to measure the linear or straight-line relationship between two variables with a score of+ 1.00 and -1.00. The coefficient expresses the strength of the relationship, and the direction of the relationship is indicated by the sign (positive or negative) of the correlation coefficient. A zero-order coefficient includes no control variables.

(15) Multiple regression is a statistical technique that allows one to use two or more independent variables as predictors of a dependent variable, showing the effects of each independent variable on the dependent variable while controlling for the effects of each independent variable. The effect of each independent variable is measured by a standardized regression coefficient and the variance (R2) tells how well a set of variables explains a dependent variable.

(16) Yang, "Public Administrators' Trust in Citizens," 273-85.

(17) Ibid.; Vigoda, "From Responsiveness to Collaboration," 527-40; Kirlin and Kirlin, "Strengthening Effective Government--Citizen Connections through Greater Civic Engagement," 80-85; Timney, "Overcoming Administrative Barriers to Citizen Participation," 88-101.

(18) For details on the diverse nature of the state of Georgia in the areas of race, urban/suburban/exurbanrural distinction, wealth, tax base, political climate, and economic growth rates, see Glenwood Ross, "Demographics of Georgia I: Population and Projections to 2030," Fiscal Research Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, Fiscal Research Center Report No. 120, http://www.aysps.gsu.edu/frc/801.htm (accessed June 1, 2007), 1-43; Ken Heaghney, "Georgia's Economy: Trends and Outlook," Fiscal Research Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, Fiscal Research Center Report No. 145, http://www.aysps.gsu.edu/frc/801.htm (accessed June 1, 2007), 1-28; Richard Hawkins, "A Georgia Fiscal History of the Past Forty Years," Fiscal Research Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, Fiscal Research Center Report No. 127, http://www.aysps.edu/frc/475.htm (accessed June 1, 2007), 1-42.

ROSS ALEXANDER is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at North Georgia College & State University in Dahlonega, Georgia; BRENT PATERLINE is a Professor of Criminal Justice at North Georgia College & State University; JOHN HULSEY is the Finance Director of Jackson County, Georgia.

Table One
Zero-Order Correlations among Variables (N = 102)

 (1) (2) (3) (4)

(1) Citizen Involvement in 1
 Budget Process
(2) County Population .01 1
(3) County Budget .02 .97 1
(4) Citizen Involvement in .60 ** .06 .08 1
 Government
(5) Taxpayers Bill Affected .33 ** -.05 -.04 .38 **
 Involvement
(6) Attitude Toward Citizen .43 ** .09 .10 .43 **
 Involvement
(7) Desired Citizen .21 * .05 .08 .37 **
 Involvement
 (5) (6) (7)

(1) Citizen Involvement in
 Budget Process
(2) County Population
(3) County Budget
(4) Citizen Involvement in
 Government
(5) Taxpayers Bill Affected 1
 Involvement
(6) Attitude Toward Citizen .14 1
 Involvement
(7) Desired Citizen .14 .76 ** 1
 Involvement

** p < .01

* p < .05

Table Two
Standardized Regression Coefficients for Level of
Citizen Involvement in the County Budget Process

 Citizen Involvement
Independent Variables in Budget Process

County Population -.05
County Budget .01
Citizen Involvement in .44 **
 County Government
TBOR has Affected Involvement .13
Attitude Toward Citizen Involvement .41
Desired Citizen Involvement -.24 *

** p <.01

* p < .05

[R.sup.2] = .43