1 Lawrence Technological University College of Management An Exploratory Study of Priority Based Budgeting: Identification of Public Values and Public Priorities through Citizen Engagement in Government Budgeting Decisions Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Business Administration Sheryl Warren Mitchell 2014
2 COPYRIGHT BY Sheryl Warren Mitchell 2014 All Rights Reserved
4 LAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: IDENTIFICATION OF PUBLIC VALUES AND PUBLIC PRIORITIES THROUGH CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT BUDGETING DECISIONS by Sheryl Warren Mitchell Master of Science in Administration, Central Michigan University, 1996 Concentration: Public Administration Bachelor of Arts, University of Michigan - Dearborn, 1991 Concentration: Political Science Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Management in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DISSERTATION COMMITTEE CHAIR: Anne Kohnke, Ph.D. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Jacqueline M. Stavros, DM & Lee E. Meadows, Ph.D.
5 ABSTRACT This qualitative study explored the Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) process and how government leaders can use PBB to engage citizens in budget decision-making by focusing dialogues on public values and priorities. Multiple sources of data were used including twenty in-depth interviews with government officials and PBB experts. The results found that PBB is a strategic tool for long-term planning that incorporates a collaborative and visionary process. Using grounded theory for data analysis, a Values Based Budgeting Framework was developed based on thirteen propositions that illustrate how civic engagement and civic innovation supports and leverages the successful implementation of PBB. This framework incorporates strategies for capacity building alternatives in program and service delivery and citizen-driven performance measures. The results of this study found that PBB is a tool for engaging citizens in a strategic planning process that builds the social value of government entities by increasing access, inclusion, transparency, trust, respect, and accountability. The findings indicated that through citizen engagement, PBB: (1) gives voice to the public in government decision-making, (2) builds a shared sense of community that enriches the government organization and the community, (3) allows for a government budgeting strategy that is proactive, innovative, and increases transparency by providing access to understandable information and platforms for meaningful and deliberative dialogues, (4) supports deliberative and participatory governance, (5) builds collaborative partnerships immersed in inclusive planning for the delivery of programs and services, (6) addresses the challenges to internal collaborative conversations by increasing awareness across the organization, enlightening participants of their shared roles, and building trust, and (7) by including performance measures and management as a component of PBB, an opportunity is provided to improve and quantify performance, emphasize customer service, increase communication, and shift the focus to outcomes.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The successful completion of my doctoral dissertation was made possible through the support of many friends, family, and colleagues. I give thanks for being abundantly blessed by the compassion, caring, and guidance that I received from each of you. First, I want to recognize and thank the members of my dissertation committee. Dr. Anne Kohnke who chaired the committee and whose insights illuminated my pathway to a successful completion. Dr. Jacqueline Stavros who provided tremendous guidance, initiated my understanding of Appreciative Inquiry, and infused SOAR (Strengths-Opportunities-Aspirations-Results) into my personal and professional outlook. Dr. Lee Meadows, from Walsh College, who has provided unrelenting encouragement since the time he taught my very first Master s class and was the initial person to inspire me to pursue my doctorate degree. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Tom Marx for interviewing and accepting me into the doctoral program. Thank you to Dr. Richard Bush, Dr. Nadia Shuayto, and Dr. Patricia Malone who reviewed and provided insightful guidance for my qualifying paper and initial dissertation drafts. In addition, there are many talented instructors at Lawrence Tech who modeled and ignited my passion for positive leadership and organizational change, including Dr. Patty Castelli and Dr. Chris Emmons. The lessons learned throughout my research on Priority Based Budgeting have immensely impacted my personal and professional perspective and will last a lifetime. I am most indebted to the generous support from the co-founders of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting for providing me unlimited access to their innovative approach to government budgeting: Chris Fabian and Jon Johnson. Also, thank you to all of the participants of this study who took time out of their busy schedules and shared a wealth of information to support my research. My colleagues from the University of Phoenix who provided invaluable support and advice in developing my research and writing skills were extremely helpful. Thank you to Dr. Janisse Green and Dr. Linda Brown.
7 My Cohort IV Colleagues were a phenomenal group who instilled in me the power of teamwork, perseverance, and a positive outlook. Thank you dear friends for your years of support and encouragement: Drs. Dorthe Heinsohn (my homey), Major Loyd Beal III, Matt Bennett, Rachelle Gray, Jeff Hymel, Michael Schwartz, and Donald James. My perspective on public service and good governance was immensely impacted through the experiences gained from working with the City of Detroit and Oakland County. I am tremendously fortunate to have worked with role models that exemplified the true meaning of commitment to public service: Former Oakland County Commissioner Eric Coleman, and from the Detroit City Council, the dearly departed, but eternally remembered Mel Ravitz, Maryann Mahaffey, Erma Henderson, and Clyde Cleveland. My heartfelt appreciation goes to my extended family and friends who supported me through both the challenges and joyous celebrations of this journey. This was a life changing experience and your faith and boundless support reinforced my spirit and I am eternally grateful to have you in my life: Mary K. Ward Harvel and the Ward Family, Cherryl R. Thames, Mishelle Y. Kennedy, Cynthia Hall, Glenda P. Evans, Robert Schiller, Deborah Macon, Dr. Laurel Sills, Wright Mitchell, Moneka Sanford, Deborah Dean, and Julia Ruffin. And, last but certainly not least, my family is thanked for their unconditional love and encouragement that made this opportunity possible. My parents Gladys and Clarence Warren, and my Aunt Dorris and Uncle Isaac Marks who were always my staunchest cheerleaders and are now my guardian angels. My dear cousin Gregory K. Harris who keeps me centered on what s really important. Phyllis Austin and Louis Theriot, who have demonstrated that undying love and family devotion transcends all things. And, of course, the love of my life, my son Allen W. Mitchell. Your patience and understanding through many late nights made pursuing my dream possible. I am in awe of the exceptional young man that you have become. You fill my heart with extreme joy, infinite happiness, and immense pride.
8 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 8 Table of Contents Table of Contents...8 List of Figures...11 Chapter One: Introduction...12 Introduction...12 Background...14 Problem Statement...15 Purpose of the Study...17 Research Questions...17 Unit of Analysis and Participants...17 Significance of the Research...18 Key Contributions of the Study...21 Overview of the Methodology...30 Limitations of the Research...32 Operational Definitions...34 Organization of the Dissertation...37 Chapter Two: Literature Review...39 Introduction...39 Organization of the Review...39 Search Strategy...41 Public Administration...44 Government Budgeting...68 Public Values...87 Citizen Engagement and Participation Literature Review Summary Chapter Three: Methodology Introduction Research Design Research Methodology Research Questions Unit of Analysis and Population Data Collection Interview Guide and IRB Process Interview Protocol Data Analysis Validity, Reliability, and Credibility Role of the Researcher Summary...173
9 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 9 Chapter Four: Findings Research Questions Characteristics of Sample Participants - PBB Practicing Governmental Unit Participants Non-Governmental Organizations Conceptualizing the Meaning of PBB Exploring the Meaning of PBB How does PBB Connect with Existing Government Budgeting Process Identification of Public Values Through Citizen Engagement in PBB Process Identification of Public Priorities Through Citizen Engagement in PBB Process PBB - Citizen Engagement and Transformation Emergent Themes Summary of the Findings Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion Introduction Summary of the Findings The Meaning of Priority Based Budgeting Values Based Budgeting Framework Emphasis on Civic Engagement Identifying Public Values Identifying Public Priorities Capacity Building Emphasis on Civic Innovation Understanding PBB PBB and Traditional Government Budgeting Values Based Budgeting and Traditional Government Budgeting Implications for Practices and Recommendations Relationship of Results to Theory Implications for Future Research Limitations of the Study Summary Reference List Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H...357
10 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Key Concepts in New Public Administration 52 Table 2.2 Core Elements for a New Public Administration Theory in the 21 st Century 53 Table 2.3 Summary of New Public Administration Attributes 55 Table 2.4 Similarities in the Changes Sought by the New Public Administration and Reinventing Government 60 Table 2.5 Comparison of Traditional Budgeting and Budgeting for Outcomes 76 Table 2.6 PBB Community Practitioners 82 Table 2.7 Key Elements of Participation 102 Table 2.8 A Taxonomy of Participation 103 Table 2.9 Levels of Public Involvement 105 Table 2.10 Engagement Streams Framework 112 Table 2.11 Engagement Streams Framework Processes 114 Table 3.1 Typology of Basic Research 134 Table 3.2 Qualitative Research Approaches 137 Table 3.3 Grounded Theory Process 139 Table 3.4 Research Methods and Relevant Situations 143 Table 3.5 Mapping of Research and Interview Questions 144 Table 3.6 Appreciative Interview Structure Aligned with 4-D Cycle 146 Table 3.7 Community and Participant Profile Questions 157 Table 3.8 Methods to Ensure Validity in Qualitative Research 165 Table 3.9 Case Study Tactics for Four Design Tests 166 Table 3.10 Researcher Positioning Aspects of PBB Study 171 Table 4.1 Descriptive Attributes of 20 Participants 177 Table 4.2 Descriptive Attributes of Governmental Unit Demographics 180 Table 4.3 Category Summary of PBB 184 Table 4.4 Q1: Coding Summary of the Meaning of PBB 187 Table 4.5 Preferred Future for PBB 199 Table 4.6 Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool Key Components 205 Table 4.7 Q2: Coding Summary of PBB Connection with Existing Budgeting Process 227 Table 4.8 Q3: Coding Summary of Public Values Identified Through Citizen Engagement in PBB Process 235 Table 4.9 Citizens in Public Deliberation 247 Table 4.10 Core Principles for Public Engagement 250 Table 4.11 Stakeholder Groups in Public Deliberation 253 Table 4.12 Approaches to Citizen Engagement 255 Table 4.13 Key Elements for Designing Citizen Participation 256 Table 4.14 Large PBB Communities and Citizen Engagement 257 Table 4.15 Q4: Coding Summary of Public Priorities Through Citizen Engagement in PBB Process 260 Table 4.16 Transformation Traditional Budgeting and PBB 272 Table 4.17 Emergent Theme from Respondents Public Values 274 Table 4.18 Emergent Theme from Respondents Civic Innovation 275 Table 4.19 Emergent Theme from Respondents Transformation 276 Table 5.1 PBB Approaches to Citizen Engagement 297 Table 5.2 Summary Description of Civic Innovation Approaches to Public Participation 303 Table 5.3 Government Leaders Movement Towards Positive Community Engagement 315 Table 5.4 The Uncertainties Within Government Organizations 319 Table 5.5 Paradigm Shift from Traditional to Values Based Budgeting 321 Table 5.6 Propositions 333
11 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. PBB Influence on Values Based Budgeting Framework Figure 1.2. Civic Engagement Framework Figure 1.3. Evolution of Government Budgeting Figure 2.1. Literature Research Map Figure 2.2. Framework of Administrative Responsibility Figure 2.3. Participatory Budgeting Cycles Figure 2.4. PBB Process Model Figure 2.5. Public Value Strategic Triangle Model Figure 2.6. Public Value Framework Link to Accountability and Performance Figure 2.7. Comparison of Government Organizational Hierarchy and Government Needs/Resources Determination Hierarchy Figure 2.8. Modified Spectrum of Participation with Communication Modes Figure 2.9. Goals of Deliberation Framework Figure 3.1. Research Design Methodology Figure 4.1. High Performance Organization Model Figure 4.2. Structure of the Public Values Universe Figure 4.3. Strategy Map Figure 5.1. Conceptual Framework for PBB Research Figure 5.2. PBB Influence on Values Based Budgeting Framework Figure 5.3. Civic Engagement Framework Figure 5.4. Evolution of Budgeting
12 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 12 Chapter One: Introduction Introduction Osborne and Hutchinson (2004) in The Price of Government argued that we are in a perpetual and possibly permanent fiscal crisis. Local units of government, which are experiencing a decline in operating revenues from property tax dollars, are simultaneously facing rising expenses and an increased demand for services. This continues to hold true as more residents lose their jobs and homes due to the ongoing downturn in the economy. The prediction of a state of permanent fiscal crisis was supported by the recent survey of 501 elected officials by the National Association of Counties (NACo, 2012), which found issues related to the economy, jobs, and budgets remains a paramount concern to government leaders. The NACo study showed that in 2012, and for the long-term, government officials are focused on the impact of the economic downturn and the resultant lack of tax revenue to pay for the increases in services demanded by their constituents. The fiscal crisis is not a temporary trend, and government budgets must adapt and reshape to the new normal (p.1) of revenue, staffing, and levels of service delivery (NACo, 2012). Making cuts in local government is more than an undertaking to reduce a bloated bureaucratic system. Local governments exist because they provide essential services including: health care, services for underserviced families, public safety, libraries, after school programs, job training, and economic development. Because of the downturn in the economy, local governments are making reductions in personnel and critical services just as families are finding themselves increasingly in need of additional support services from local government.
13 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 13 The budgeting processes for local units of government (county, city, village, township) are increasingly confronted with challenges in aligning their limited expenditures with community values and expectations. The National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (2008) noted that a good budgeting process is not simply an exercise in balancing revenues and expenditures one year at a time, but is strategic in nature, encompassing a multi-year financial and operating plan that allocates resources on the basis of identified goals (p. 2). The challenge becomes aligning the goals and resources of government with the expectations of the citizenry. The real crisis on our hands is whether our [government] organizations have the capabilities to address current fiscal realities and still meet the objectives of government and the expectations of our constituents (Fabien, Collins, & Johnson, 2008, p. 15). Nearly a decade later, the 2004 prediction of the fiscal crisis being permanent in nature appears to hold true. A 2010 national survey of cities and counties anticipated that the impact of the recent fiscal crisis on local municipalities would worsen in 2011 and 2012, resulting in the elimination of approximately 500,000 local government jobs (National League of Cities, 2010). The survey also revealed that jobs eliminated would primarily be in the areas of public safety, public works, public health, social services and parks and recreation (p. 1). There is the very real likelihood that these reductions in essential services will negatively impact all residents and particularly those who are most in need of public assistance. Government budgeting decision-making needs to address the challenge of providing public services within new normal of diminished financial resources.
14 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 14 Background State and local units of government are facing an extended period of persistent fiscal challenges, that are projected to extend until the year 2017, due to the economic downturn and housing crisis that have negatively impacted their local tax base and revenues (United States General Accounting Office, 2007) and beyond due to long-term unfunded pension obligations (Farmer, 2013). Traditional methods of governmental budgeting are generally an accounting exercise that are incremental in nature and do not provide decision-makers with a strategy for achieving fiscal health. Traditional budgeting approaches have limited impact as a strategic tool because a majority of the organization s analytical and political resources are focused on modifications to the most recently adopted budget (Kavanagh, Johnson, & Fabian, 2010). A budgeting approach was needed that provided a strategic alternative to incremental budgeting (p. 1), particularly during periods of declining financial resources. Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) was developed to provide a new budgetary lens that focused the conversations of budgetary decision-makers on identifying the community s highest priorities (Johnson & Fabian, 2008). As a priority-driven approach to government budgeting, PBB identifies the most important strategic priorities and allocates resources to those programs or services that receive the highest ranking (Kavanagh et al., 2010). PBB incorporates citizen engagement and collaborative conversations, which are then leveraged to contribute to the identification of priorities that reflect the values of the community. At the start of this study, the Center for Priority Based Budgeting reported that over thirty communities have already incorporated PBB into their budgeting process as a means of establishing strategic priorities utilizing
15 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 15 various degrees and approaches to citizen engagement (Johnson & Fabian, 2008). In 2014, a reported 60+ communities have adopted the PBB process as an holistic approach to making better informed financial and budgetary decisions that identify and preserve the most highly values programs and services (Center for Priority Based Budgeting, 2014). The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has identified PBB as a leading practice for financial strategies in local government (International City/County Management Association, 2012). Citizen engagement, as part of the governmental budgetary process, is a growing area of study. Citizen engagement has been well researched (Berner, Amos, & Morse, 2011; Cornwall, Robins, & Von Lieres, 2011; Glaser, Yeager, & Parker, 2006; Marlowe & Portillo, 2006; Petts, 2008). The majority of studies referencing citizen engagement as part of the budgetary process (Bingham, Nabachi, & O Leary, 2005; Ebdon & Franklin, 2004; Ebdon & Franklin, 2006; Justice & Dulger, 2009; Marlowe & Portillo, 2006; McCall, 2009) or participatory budgeting (Franklin, Ho, & Ebdon, 2009; Naylor, 2010; Wampler, 2000) address the traditional incremental approach to budgeting typically found in government. To date, very limited scholarly research has been published that explored PBB as a model for evaluating and prioritizing the allocation of resources (Middleton, 2013; Oettinger, 2011). There exists a knowledge gap in the government budgeting literature relative to the role of citizen engagement in relation to values and priorities, as part of the PBB process. Problem Statement The National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting Practice (2008) indicates that the key characteristics of a good budgeting process include: a long-term focus, budget decisions based on results and outcomes, and the involvement of
16 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 16 stakeholders. The lack of citizen engagement and meaningful dialogues undermines the integrity of the process and fosters public distrust of the decision-makers (Bourgon, 2007; Jennings, 1995). This traditional incremental approach to government budgeting results in decision-making that lacks meaningful citizen engagement in determining what programs and services are valued and expected. Traditional government budgeting approaches do not provide a mechanism for resource allocation that is aligned with the most valuable programs and services (Kavanagh et al., 2010). For the incremental government budgetary process to remain unchanged perpetuates a climate of bureaucratic paralysis (p. 14). This impedes strategic thinking, innovation, engagement, and partnerships (Fabian, Collins, & Johnson, 2008). The traditional incremental approach to governmental budget decision-making lacks citizen engagement and dialogue to prioritize the programs and services that are valued and expected. PBB offers a government process for budgeting that provides for citizen engagement and the alignment of expenditures with the values and priorities of the community. The real problem is the limited understanding relative to PBB and the role of citizen engagement in fostering meaningful dialogues, focusing on public values, and providing guidance for budget priorities and thereby the alignment of resources. This qualitative study addresses the need for increased understanding about the PBB model and how it can be used effectively by local government organizations to engage citizens in identifying public values and public priorities as part of the government budgeting decision-making process. The study discovers in what ways the PBB process reframes dialogues and focuses on values and priorities to provide guidance for budget expenditures.
17 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 17 Purpose of the Study This study addresses the gap in the literature of government budgeting by understanding and exploring the PBB process in order to learn how it can be used effectively to engage citizens in identifying public values and priorities. This study discovered if the PBB process, by reframing dialogues and focusing on values and priorities, could provide guidance for budget expenditures and thereby align resources with public values and priorities. This research provides a meaningful contribution to the field of public administration. Research Questions The main research focus was understanding the PBB process and how it is used by local government leaders to engage citizens? The following sub-questions are: 1. What is PBB? 2. How does PBB connect with existing government budgeting processes? 3. How are public values identified through citizen engagement in the PBB process? 4. How are public priorities identified through citizen engagement in the PBB process? Unit of Analysis and Participants The unit of analysis for this study included the governmental entities that comprise the community of PBB practitioners. During this study, over 30 communities were identified as PBB practitioners. A convenience sampling method (Fink, 2006) was applied in which participants were selected based on those respondents who are willing and available to be interviewed. Efforts were made to obtain a cross-section of
18 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 18 respondents from different levels of governmental units (county/city, suburban/urban) and individual participants (elected leaders, government officials, and citizens). It was not anticipated that all communities that are PBB practitioners would agree to participate. Ten PBB practicing communities participated in the study providing one respondent each. In one instance, three individuals from the responding community were interviewed. Eight individuals from non-government organizations who were identified as PBB subject matter experts were also interviewed. Four of these lengthy interviews were unstructured and were conducted at the start of this research. The interviews with PBB experts took place over multiple in-person, telephone, and communications and were helpful in identifying key themes and sub-questions that would later formulate the interview guide. In total, 20 in-depth interviews were conducted. Multiple rounds of interviews were conducted in person, by telephone, and/or with respondents depending upon the circumstances. In addition to the interviews with key officials (12 PBB governmental practitioners and eight PBB experts), the study included the review and analysis of printed and electronic material. Significance of the Research Stakeholders are defined as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization s objectives (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Citizens are key stakeholders in the community. The lack of citizen engagement in the local government budgetary process results in decision-making that is primarily an accounting exercise and resource allocation and is not aligned with the values and priorities of stakeholders (Fabian et al., 2008). This situation negatively impacts trust in the local government and its leaders. A change is needed to reestablish trust and to address the
19 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 19 pervasive situation in which the citizens, employees, and others with a vested interest are not engaged in identifying the spending priorities of their local unit of government. Citizen engagement provides an opportunity to empower and enlighten members of the community. This increases social value because the resources, inputs, processes or policies are combined to generate improvements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole (Emerson, Wachowicz, & Chun, 2001, p. 1). Providing for inclusion, access, and transparency, government leaders can foster a culture of shared identity, trust, and respect. This study builds upon the current literature in the area of PBB (Fabian, Collins, & Johnson, 2008) and transforms traditional public budgeting theory (Smith & Lynch, 2004). PBB draws on the theories of Budgeting for Outcomes (Osborne & Hutchinson, 2004a), Performance Based Budgeting (Roth, 1992), Participatory Budgeting (Wampler, 2000), and Citizen Participation (Langston, 1978; Sheedy, MacKinnon, Pitre, & Watling, 2008), which will be delved into as part of the literature review. The importance of this study is that it discovered that by incorporating citizen engagement into a participatory budgetary planning process, the government leaders and community are provided insight on public values and priorities as a basis for strategic budgeting decisions. This study contributes to the study of public administration by expanding the understanding of citizen engagement in budgetary decision-making. Citizens are looking for authentic participation where they are seen as partners rather than subjects (Berner et al., 2011, p. 155). Expanding the deliberative decision-making beyond the circle of elected officials and government administrators to include employees, citizens, businesses, and nongovernment organizations provides a mechanism that will reflect
20 PRIORITY BASED BUDGETING: ENGAGEMENT PROCESS 20 community values and priorities into the budgeting process. This will further reinforce the democratic principles of transparency and accountability in government. There is a need in the government budgeting decision-making process to be able to allocate resources that meet the expectations of the public. This holds true relative to prioritizing programs and services during periods of declining revenues for local governments. The real and imminent danger of communities not making these oftentough decisions is reflected in the growing number of cities facing bankruptcy. The topic of the impact of ill-advised and uninformed financial decisions is now being reflected in the increasing number of municipal bankruptcies. A 2014 article in Governing notes: Elected officials practically everywhere are forced to make difficult financial decisions without the benefit of knowing exactly how the mechanics work. This has always been true to some extent, but the learning curve is much steeper now led by people whose understanding of intricate financial dealings is limited. And yet, they have no choice but to engage in those dealings. They don t always know the right questions to ask, and if a decision comes back to haunt them. (Farmer, 2014, p ) The implications can be overwhelming to government leaders who are facing long-term fiscal challenges due to unfunded pension obligations, a constantly changing regulatory climate, and opaque accounting methods. The uncertainty and lack of transparency can leave citizens distrustful of their government leaders. The focus of this study holds importance to the research and practice of public administration. Without citizen engagement and a public values based budgeting framework within the government budgeting process, the priorities of both residents and