Participation in public budgeting has long been recognized as a means to enhance transparency, improve performance, and build trust in governance. However, significant barriers such as the complexity of financial information can limit meaningful engagement. This paper addresses these challenges by introducing a “Color of Money” taxonomy designed to simplify budgetary concepts and foster informed decision making. In addition, we describe the implementation of a workshop-based initiative—called a “finance academy”—which was created by the finance leadership of a research-intensive public university. With the goal of fostering collaboration and trust, the finance academy aimed to educate senior leaders and fiscal staff on key budgetary issues faced by the university. While these efforts are especially timely given the mounting fiscal pressures facing higher education, they are more broadly applicable to public and nonprofit organizations of various sizes and complexities. Ultimately, we argue that demystifying financial processes and investing in the education of various institutional actors can enhance transparency, build institutional trust, and support long-term financial sustainability.
AfonsoW. B. (2017). Citizens engaging government: Participatory budgeting in Greensboro, North Carolina. Public Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7–42.
2.
CarrollD. A. (2009). Diversifying municipal government revenue structures: Fiscal illusion or instability?. Public Budgeting & Finance, 29(1), 27–48.
3.
DelaneyJ. A.DoyleW. R. (2018). Patterns and volatility in state funding for higher education, 1951–2006. Teachers College Record, 120(6), 1–42.
4.
DoyleW. R.DziesinskiA. B.DelaneyJ. A. (2021). Modeling volatility in public funding for higher education. Journal of Education Finance, 46(4), 563–591.
5.
EbdonC. (2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(2), 273–294.
6.
EbdonC.FranklinA. (2004). Searching for a role for citizens in the budget process. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(1), 32–49.
7.
EbdonC.FranklinA. L. (2006). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public administration review, 66(3), 437–447.
8.
FayD. L.ZavattaroS. M. (2016). Branding and isomorphism: The case of higher education. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 805–815.
9.
FowlesJ.FredericksonH. G.KoppellJ. G. (2016). University rankings: Evidence and a conceptual framework. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 790–803.
10.
FroelichK. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268.
11.
GraweN. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. JHU Press.
12.
GuoH.NeshkovaM. I. (2013). Citizen input in the budget process: When does it matter most?The American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 331–346.
13.
HongS. (2015). Citizen participation in budgeting: A trade-off between knowledge and inclusiveness?. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 572–582.
14.
KimS. (2025). Bringing citizens to the table: The impact of participation costs on budget participation. Public Performance & Management Review, 48(2), 288–313.
15.
LeeJ.KimS.LeeJ. (2022). Public vs. public: Balancing the competing public values of participatory budgeting. Public Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 39–66.
16.
LeeJ.KimS.LeeJ. (2023). Mutual efforts for mutual trust: Impacts of citizens' knowledge and governmental communication channels on trust in participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Affairs, 23(4), e2879.
17.
McLendonM. K.HearnJ. C.MokherC. G. (2009). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of political factors in state higher education funding. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686–713.
MoynihanD. P. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizen summits in Washington, DC. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(2), 164–188.
ParkJ.ButlerJ. S.PetrovskyN. (2023). Understanding public participation as a mechanism affecting government fiscal outcomes: Theory and evidence from participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(2), 375–389.
23.
PrenticeC. R.ClerkinR. M. (2023). The influence of nonprofit financing and operations on the acquisition of unrestricted and restricted donations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 34(1), 211–225.
24.
ReitanoV. (2018). An open systems model of local government forecasting. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(5), 476–489.
25.
ReitanoV.JonesP. A. (2023). Local government forecast practices: Time horizon and budgetary influence. Public Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 26–50.
26.
RossmannD.ShanahanE. A. (2012). Defining and achieving normative democratic values in participatory budgeting processes. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 56–66.
27.
ShonJ.HamidullahM. F.McDougleL. M. (2019). Revenue structure and spending behavior in nonprofit organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(6), 662–674.
WamplerB. (2012). Participatory budgeting: Core principles and key impacts. Journal of Public Deliberation. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2012.21
30.
WilskerA. L.YoungD. R. (2010). How does program composition affect the revenues of nonprofit organizations?: Investigating a benefits theory of nonprofit finance. Public Finance Review, 38(2), 193–216.
