Does Technologically Enabled Citizen Participation Lead to Budget Adjustments? An Investigation of Boston,MA,and San Francisco,CA

Abstract

Citizen participation in government can provide a broad range of benefits to governments and citizens alike. Advances in information technologies have enabled new types of citizen participation with governments. However, we currently lack an understanding of how these new types of participation, particularly those that generate information on community needs, influence resource allocations. This article focuses on one of these new technologies, 311 systems, and how citizen requests might influence departmental budget allocations. We track budget allocation in the cities of Boston and San Francisco for 106 departments or subunits from FY2005 to FY2013. Our findings indicate that there is no significant resource benefit for departments using 311 versus those that do not. While departments using 311 do have larger budget allocations than those that do not, those departments had larger budget allocations prior to the implementation of 311. And while data generated in the 311-enabled citizen participation are increasingly used to measure departmental performance, the findings of this study show that this information has little to no effect on the allocated share of the budget for departments.

Keywords

local government budget allocation coproduction 311 systems

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alford

(2002). Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Administration & Society, 34, 32-56. doi:10.1177/0095399702034001004

Andrews

Shah

(2005). Citizen-centered governance: A new approach to public sector reform. In Shah

(Ed.), Public expenditure analysis (pp. 153-216). Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Behn

R. D.

(2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63, 586-606.

Berner

(2001). Citizen participation in local government budgeting. Popular Government, 66(3), 23-30.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2013, September 17). Per capita real GDP by metropolitan area (chained 2005 dollars). Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=2#reqid=70&step=10&isuri=1&7007=-1&7036=-1&7090=70&7035=-1&7006=1446041860&7001=21000&7002=2&7003=1000&7004=NAICS&7005=1&7093=Levels

City and County of San Francisco. (2002). Composition and salary, charter of the city and county of San Francisco § Section 2.101. Retrieved from http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/charter_sf/articleiilegislativebranch?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_ 2.100

City and County of San Francisco. (2004). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2005 (No. File No. 040725, ordinance 197-04). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=82

City and County of San Francisco. (2005). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 (No. File No. 051130, ordinance 203-05). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=83

City and County of San Francisco. (2006). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2007 (No. File No. 060729, ordinance 202-06). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=84

10.

City and County of San Francisco. (2007). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 (No. File No. 070773, ordinance 174-07). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=70

11.

City and County of San Francisco. (2008). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 (No. File No. 080725, ordinance 140-08). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=71

12.

City and County of San Francisco. (2009). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 (No. File No. 090779, ordinance 184-09). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=72

13.

City and County of San Francisco. (2010). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2011 (No. File No. 100701, ordinance 190-10). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=991

14.

City and County of San Francisco. (2011). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2012 (No. File No. 440387, ordinance 147-11). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2390

15.

City and County of San Francisco. (2012). Consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance: Fiscal year ending June 30, 2013 and fiscal year ending June 30, 2014 (No. File No. 120591, ordinance 164-12). San Francisco: CA. Retrieved from http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3358

16.

City and County of San Francisco. (2015). 2015 San Francisco city survey. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=6652

17.

City of Boston. (2004, June). The FY05 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author.

18.

City of Boston. (2005, June 21). The FY06 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/fy06.asp

19.

City of Boston. (2006, June 20). The FY07 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/fy07.asp

20.

City of Boston. (2007, June 19). The FY08 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/fy08.asp

21.

City of Boston. (2008, June 18). The FY09 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/fy09.asp

22.

City of Boston. (2009, June 19). The FY10 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/fy11.asp

23.

City of Boston. (2010, June 22). The FY11 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/fy11.asp

24.

City of Boston. (2011, June 21). The FY12 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/fy12.asp

25.

City of Boston. (2012a, June 18). Boston about results—Performance goals. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/06%20Budget%20and%20Performance%20Goals_final_tcm3-37457.pdf

26.

City of Boston. (2012b, June 18). The FY13 adopted budget. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/budget/fy13.asp

27.

City of Boston. (2013, December 16). Boston City Council members. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/councillors/

28.

City of Boston Performance Management System. (2013, September). Boston about results: Performance management—Public works achievements. Retrieved from http://www.cityofboston.gov/bar/scorecard/details.html?contextId=112823395596547&isExternal=_external

29.

City of Chicago. (2013, December 1). Service delivery metrics. Retrieved from http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/narr/foia/key_performance_indicators0/city_management_benchmarks.html

30.

City of Knoxville. (2013). FY 2013/14 adopted operating budget. Retrieved from http://www.cityofknoxville.org/budget/2013/finalbudget.pdf

31.

City of Pittsburgh. (2012, December). Managing for results reports: 311 customer service. Retrieved from http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/mayor/311_PittMAPS_December.xls

32.

Clark

B. Y.

Brudney

J. L.

(2016a). Representation and beyond: Coproduction and the new information technology (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2473543). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2473543

33.

Clark

B. Y.

Brudney

J. L.

(2016b, February). Too much of a good thing? Frequent flyers and the implications for the crowdsourcing & coproduction of public service delivery. Presented at the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, San Francisco, CA.

34.

Clark

B. Y.

Brudney

J. L.

Jang

S.-G.

(2013). Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: Investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73, 687-701. doi:10.1111/puar.12092

35.

Clark

B. Y.

Shurik

(2016). Do 311 systems shape citizen satisfaction with local governments? In Gibson

Julnes

(Eds.), Innovations in the public and nonprofit sectors: A public solutions handbook (pp. 147-166). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

36.

Clark

B. Y.

Zingale

Logan

Brudney

J. L.

(2016). A framework for using crowdsourcing in government. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1868283

37.

de Sousa Santos

(1998). Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Toward a redistributive democracy. Politics & Society, 26, 461-510.

38.

Duncombe

(1996). Public expenditure research: What have we learned? Public Budgeting & Finance, 16(2), 26-58.

39.

Dworak

R. J.

(1980). Taxpayers, taxes, and government spending: Perspectives on the taxpayer revolt. New York, NY: Praeger.

40.

Franklin

A. L.

A. T.

Ebdon

(2009). Participatory budgeting in Midwestern states: Democratic connection or citizen disconnection? Public Budgeting & Finance, 29(3), 52-73. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5850.2009.00936.x

41.

The Government of the District of Columbia. (2013, August 8). FY 2014 proposed budget and financial plan, Volume 2 agency budget chapters—Part I: Governmental direction and support, economic development and regulation, and public safety and justice. Retrieved from http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_Volume_2_Final.pdf

42.

Guo

H. (David)

Neshkova

M. I.

(2013). Citizen input in the budget process: When does it matter most? The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 331-346. doi:10.1177/0275074012443588

43.

A. T.

(2007a). Citizen participation in performance measurement. In Box

R. C.

(Ed.), Democracy and public administration (pp. 107-118). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

44.

A. T.

(2007b). Exploring the roles of citizens in performance measurement. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1157-1177. doi:10.1080/01900690701225341

45.

Jordan

M. M.

Hackbart

(2005). The goals and implementation success of state performance-based budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 17(4). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=10963367&AN=19384466&h=pqkptLfilhqfO2SoT0I7b%2Bn5RE8xgRywAriEj2CbJjGBSdga%2Fwpxb82Jrn%2FuSu0nDeZGFd5EVbB8xG2bVQXE9Q%3D%3D&crl=c

46.

Joyce

P. G.

(2007). Linking performance and budgeting: Opportunities in the federal budget process. In Breul

J. D.

Moravitz

(Eds.), Integrating performance and budgets: The budget office of tomorrow (pp. 19-70). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

47.

McDavid

J. C.

Huse

Hawthorn

L. R. L.

(2012). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

48.

Melkers

Willoughby

(2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65, 180-190.

49.

Meyer

(2013, November 15). INVESTIGATOR: 311 calls for help a mystery. WKYC. Retrieved from http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/11/13/311–calls-help-problems/3508331/

50.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

51.

NYC Mayor’s Office of Operations. (2013, September). Mayor’s management report: Department of Sanitation. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/ops/downloads/pdf/mmr2013/dsny.pdf

52.

Office of the Controller/City and County of San Francisco. (2012a, October 30). ANNUAL YEAR-END PERFORMANCE MEASURE REPORT v1.01. Retrieved from http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3669

53.

Office of the Controller/City and County of San Francisco. (2012b, November 1). Citywide performance measures data: FY 11-12 dataset. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3671

54.

Office of the Controller/City and County of San Francisco. (2013, February 14). GOVERNMENT BAROMETER: Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2013. Retrieved from http://www.sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4007

55.

O’Toole

D. E.

Stipak

(2002). Productivity trends in local government budgeting. Public Performance & Management Review, 26, 190-203. doi:10.2307/3381277

56.

Poister

T. H.

Streib

(1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325-335.

57.

Roberts

(2008). The age of direct citizen participation. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

58.

Shah

Shen

(2007). Citizen-centric performance budgeting at the local level. In Shah

(Ed.), Local budgeting (pp. 151-178). Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

59.

Thomas

J. C.

(2012). Citizen, customer, partner: Engaging the public in public management. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

60.

Wang

(2002). Assessing performance measurement impact: A study of U.S. local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 26, 26-43. doi:10.2307/3381296

61.

Wholey

J. S.

Hatry

H. P.

(1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52, 604-610. doi:10.2307/977173

62.

Willoughby

K. G.

Melkers

J. E.

(2000). Implementing PBB: Conflicting views of success. Public Budgeting & Finance, 20(1), 85-120. doi:10.1111/0275-1100.00006

63.

Woolridge

J. M.

(2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.