610 forum

What Should We Do? Public Attitudes about How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress

RICHARD ELLING*, KELLY KRAWCZYK** & JERED CARR***

*Department of Political Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA, **Department of Political Science, Auburn University, Alabama, USA, ***Department of Public Affairs, University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA

ABSTRACT Despite strong scholarly interest in the topic of fiscal stress, little attention has been paid to understanding how the general public thinks local governments should respond to situations where declining revenues endanger service levels. This study reports findings from a survey of 660 residents undertaken between November 2006 and January 2007 in the US state of Michigan to examine their support for eight potential strategies to cope with fiscal stress in five different local government services. We find that the public has a surprisingly nuanced perspective about these strategies and on their use for different services. Our findings may provide local policymakers with some insights about how to respond to fiscal stress.

KEY WORDS: Fiscal stress, local governments, citizen attitudes

Local government fiscal stress has been the subject of scholarly inquiry since at least the 1970s, but academic interest in the topic has surged since the Great Recession battered the fiscal condition of local governments around the world. The literature examining fiscal stress in local governments has largely focused on identifying the factors that contribute to fiscal stress (Clark et al. 1976, Nathan and Adams 1976, Bahl 1978, Rubin 1982, Scorsone and Plerhoples 2010) and how local government policymakers have attempted to cope with it (Levine 1980, Wolman and Davis 1980, Levine et al. 1981, Pammer 1990, Kloha et al. 2005, Pynes and Spina 2009, Anderson 2011). Largely missing from this body of research, however, is exploration of how the public thinks local elected officials should cope with fiscal stress. Public views on this topic may have been ignored in the past because of perceptions that the public lacks sufficient understanding of potential options or are unwilling to confront the hard choices that coping with fiscal stress demands.

Correspondence Address: Professor Jered Carr, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Public Affairs, Bloch School of Management, 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA. Email: carrjb@umkc.edu.

Local Government Studies, 2014 Vol. 40, No. 3, 380–402, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.823408

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Popular and scholarly desciptions of public attitudes often suggest that a ‘free lunch’ mentality exists among the public when it comes to paying for the public services they demand. They are often described as favouring increased spending at the same time they believe their taxes are too high or oppose efforts to raise the revenues needed to pay for core services (Arrington and Jordan 1982, Sears and Citrin 1982, Winter and Mouritzen 2001, Gorchow and Wisely 2007a, 2007b). However, there is reason to believe this description overstates the case. For example, Welch’s (1985) study of public attitudes in one midwestern state found with regard to local government programmes and spending that less than 10% of the public could be classified as ‘free lunchers’. This group favoured increased spending for at least some purposes but was not willing to increase taxes, impose or increase user fees, or seek increases in intergovernmental aid. Almost half of those she studied were classified as ‘taxers’, as they expressed a greater willingness to pay more taxes to fund increased spending. Another 40% were classified as ‘probably realistic revenue raisers’. This category included people who, while not willing to raise taxes to finance more spending, supported one or more of the following strategies: new user fees, securing increased revenue through intergovernmental aid coupled with taxing to raise revenue at the grantor level, or reallocating spending among programmes.

We build on the work of Welch and the others who have examined public attitudes about local government tax and spending policies in two basic ways. First we examine their attitudes about the use of eight potential strategies for confronting such stress. Too often, studies that focus on public attitudes about how revenue shortfalls should be managed focus almost exclusively on their preferences about tax increases. However, increasing local taxes is just one way public managers may seek to cope with fiscal stress (Scorsone and Plerhoples 2010). Consolidating the service operations of multiple governments, transfer- ring responsibility for providing services to county governments and increasing reliance on contracting arrangements with governments and other suitable ven- dors are potential options. Similarly, reducing the size of the municipal work- force or the compensation paid to employees are additional strategies that may receive consideration in times of fiscal stress. Is the public more likely to support strategies that raise revenues or those designed to reduce costs? To date, we do not know, but given the serious political and legal obstacles to raising taxes in many communities, it is important to examine a broader range of approaches to resolving revenue shortfalls in local governments.

Second, we examine public preferences for responding to revenue shortfalls in five specific service areas. Residents are likely to consider certain services to be more important and worthy of continued funding than others. As Rubin (2005, p. 156) observes:

In a city with many functions, budget requests are weighed according to importance or urgency, within revenue constraints. In this competition some departments have historically succeeded better than others. Police and fire departments do well – they can claim they are saving lives – but

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 381

streets and public works, which are less glamorous and cannot claim to save lives, are sometimes shortchanged. Parks and recreation are often at the bottom of the list – nice to have if there is plenty of money but the first to be cut if there is a dip in revenues.

The outcomes of referenda in which advocates of tax increases commit to using the revenues only for specific services provide some evidence for the proposi- tion that voters consider some services to be more worthy of support than others. For example, property tax millage requests on municipal ballots in Michigan during the 2006 elections had a 62% rate of approval when tied to public safety, as opposed to 37% in the case of parks and recreation, 36% for roads and 30% for general operations (Citizens Research Council of Michigan 2007). We expect that public support for strategies other than tax increases will also depend upon which service areas would be most directly harmed by the reduction in revenues.

The next section outlines the setting of this study and the research design used to examine these questions. We do not find evidence of the contradictory views so often attributed to local residents. Instead, the findings show the public is able to differentiate among the different options and seem able to provide policy- makers with guidance about how fiscal stress should be addressed. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this work and offer suggestions for how future research may build upon our findings.

The research context and design of the study

The US state of Michigan provides an excellent context in which to examine these questions. Fiscal stress is not a new condition for Michigan, and many of the state’s local governments have operated in an environment of serious and sustained fiscal stress for many years (Citizens Research Council of Michigan 2008, Michigan Emergency Financial Advisory Panel 2007, Kloha et al. 2005).1 Highly restrictive tax limitations prevent local property tax revenues from rising proportionately with the annual growth in the property tax base.2

Compounding this problem is the fact that over the last 10 years, state policy- makers have used cuts in shared revenues to local governments to help balance the state’s budget.3 The reductions in funding to local governments from the state’s unrestricted revenue-sharing programme have exceeded $2.1 billion over the last decade (Citizens Research Council of Michigan 2008). Finally, more conventional sources of fiscal stress are also impacting many Michigan municipal governments, including declining population, aging infrastructure and the closing of manufacturing facilities (Michigan Emergency Financial Advisory Panel 2007). The sustained environment of local fiscal stress in Michigan makes it an excellent context in which to examine this topic. Fiscal stress is not an abstract concept to the residents of this state; few cities have not taken steps of one sort or another to address revenue shortfalls over the last decade (Michigan Emergency Financial Advisory Panel 2007).4

382 R. Elling et al.

Strategies for coping with fiscal stress

We examine our two research questions with data from 660 randomly selected Michigan residents surveyed in the late fall of 2006 and early winter of 2007.5

The survey examined attitudes towards the use of eight specific strategies for coping with fiscal stress affecting the provision of five core services typically provided by local governments in the US. Practical limitations in the length of the survey did not permit us to explore all of the potential strategies that might conceivably be used to address fiscal stress or the full range of services local governments provide. Instead, we asked respondents to indicate the extent of their support for eight common strategies that fall into two broad categories. The first category of strategies increases the funding available to support services at existing levels and quality. The second set seeks to reduce the cost of service provision while still maintaining service levels and quality.

Increasing local revenues. The first set of strategies addresses the revenue-cost imbalance by seeking to increase funds available to provide services.6 These include:

● Increase local taxes to generate additional funding for the service. ● Seek more state or federal government aid to support the service.

Reducing service production costs. The second set of strategies seeks to reduce the costs of providing services by attacking production costs in one of two different ways. One approach is to reduce the costs of municipal employees involved in delivering a service. The survey examined two options for this approach:

● Lay-off some of the employees who currently deliver the service. ● Reduce the compensation of the employees who deliver the service.7

A second avenue for reducing production costs is to transition from in-house production of public services to lower-cost providers. With these strategies, the municipality becomes the customer of an external service provider. The survey examined four options, with the key differences in the strategies being the permanence of the change in production arrangements and the specific provider group identified:8

● Contract with a non-governmental (for-profit or non-profit) organisation to provide the service.

● Purchase the service on a fee-for-service basis from a neighbouring local government.

● Jointly provide the service with other local governments by combining some of the personnel, equipment and funds from two or more neighbouring local governments.

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 383

● Transfer the entire responsibility for funding and delivering this service to a different unit of government. In our survey, this unit was county government.9

Combining the municipality’s personnel, equipment and funding dedicated to this service with similar resources from another local government, or transferring the responsibility for providing the service to a county government, are actions that are difficult to reverse. These four strategies also contain distinctions in the service providers that enable respondents to make choices among strategies based on their attitude towards the provider organisation.

Omitted strategies. Three other strategies were not included in the survey due to limitations on the number of questions that could be asked. First, even though some respondents may prefer to discontinue certain services rather than employing the strategies examined in the survey, respondents were not asked if the service in question should be discontinued. There are practical as well as legal reasons why a local government cannot simply stop delivering various services and some government tasks are difficult to cut or deliver by alter- native means (Pynes and Spina 2009). Second, the respondents were not asked if they supported the devolution of responsibility for service delivery to the public, through increased use of volunteers, neighbourhood associations and public–private partnerships (Levine 1984). Finally, respondents were not asked if their municipal government should be consolidated with one or more of its neighbours. This approach is one that many in the media and business com- munity suggest as a solution to the lack of adequate funding available to support existing levels of local government services (Michigan Emergency Financial Advisory Panel 2007, Dzwonkowski 2007, Gorchow and Wisely 2007a, 2007b). It is also one of the few strategies for confronting fiscal stress for which the views of Michigan residents have already been examined. A 2007 survey of residents from the three most populous counties in metropoli- tan Detroit found the consolidation of entire units of local government received less support than did the sharing of discrete services among those units (Wisely 2007).

Support for fiscal stress strategies in the context of different services

Thompson and Elling (2000) have shown that the support expressed by Michigan residents for contracting varied significantly across service areas, but support for other possible strategies to address fiscal stress has not been exam- ined in this way. The respondents in this study were asked to indicate their support for the eight strategies to confront revenue shortfalls in the following five services:

● Maintaining and repairing streets and roads. ● Fire-fighting.

384 R. Elling et al.

● Trash and garbage collection. ● Police street patrol. ● Operation of parks and recreational programmes.

While each of these is a core service regularly provided by municipal govern- ments in Michigan and the US (Citizens Research Council of Michigan 2005), as a group they differ in terms of potential production economies, likely transaction costs created when contracting for the service, the application of police or regulatory power, historical experience as a contracted service and the visibility of the service to the public (Brown and Potoski 2003, Thompson and Elling 2000).

Findings

We begin our analysis by reporting levels of overall support for particular strategies regardless of the functional area concerned.10 As Table 1 details, mean support for a given strategy across all five service areas varies from a high of 3.84 in the case of seeking more intergovernmental aid, to 1.77 in the case of reducing the compensation of local government employees. Increasing local government own-source revenues is significantly less popular than seeking more aid from state or national government. While consolidation of service delivery with a neighbouring unit of government ranks as the second most popular strategy overall, transferring responsibility for providing a service to the county government was considerably less attractive. Finally, the least two popular strategies were to lay off local government employees or reduce their compensation.

The coefficients of variation indicate substantial variation in the attitudes of our respondents. Looking first at the two revenue-enhancing strategies (Table 2), we see that only in the case of garbage and trash collection do less than 70% of respondents support efforts to secure financial assistance for another level of government. The picture with respect to increasing local taxes is quite different, however. This option is attractive to the respondents only in the case of the two public safety functions, where majority support exists in the case of fire protection, and near-majority support exists for maintaining police patrol capabilities. Given that police and fire protection typically constitute a large share of local government budgets, the fact that a sizable proportion of our respondents express a willingness to impose addi- tional taxes is significant. On the other hand, for all five services the proportion of residents who strongly oppose tax increases is substantially greater than the proportion expressing strong support.

The two strategies that involved cutting employee costs were unpopular regardless of the service involved. Fewer than 20% of respondents favour such strategies in any service area (see Table 3). Limited support for lay-offs is perhaps explicable in the context of residents not wishing to see a diminu- tion in either the quantity or quality of service provided.11 Our research

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 385

confirms the findings of previous studies showing the public opposes the use of non-governmental providers to deliver public safety services (Thompson and Elling 2000). However, Table 4 shows that majorities support contracting with either for-profit or non-profit providers in the case of street maintenance, garbage collection and parks and recreation services. There is also majority or near majority support for contracting with a neighbouring local government in all five service areas.

Table 1. Overall support among Michigan residents for particular strategies to address local govern- ment fiscal stress

Strategy

Mean degree

of supporta

Coefficient of

variationb

Median overall support

Percentage strongly

supporting use of strategy in all five

service areas

Percentage strongly opposing use of strategy in all five service

areas

Seek more intergovernmental aid

3.84 0.26 4.00 15.4 1.9

Consolidate service delivery with a neighbouring local government

3.47 0.30 3.60 6.0 3.2

Contract with another unit of local government

3.09 0.34 3.20 2.6 5.1

Contract with a non- profit or for-profit organisation

3.05 0.34 3.20 2.6 4.7

Increase local taxes 2.66 0.43 2.80 1.2 13.5 Transfer responsibility

for the service to county

2.55 0.44 2.40 1.0 9.0

Lay-off local government employees

1.83 0.47 1.60 0.7 26.4

Reduce compensation of local government employees

1.77 0.48 1.60 0.9 28.6

Notes: aThe response options for agreement or disagreement with the use of a strategy in a particular service area were as follows: 1= ‘strongly disagree’, 2 = ‘somewhat disagree’, 3 = ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 4 = ‘somewhat agree’, and 5 = ‘strongly agree’. The aggregate measure was calculated by summing a respondent’s scores for a particular strategy across all five service areas and then dividing this total by five. A case was excluded if a respondent did not indicate a preference for a strategy across all five service areas. Hence the number of cases on which the overall measures are based are smaller than the total N of 660. The valid responses for increasing taxes is 591, for seeking more intergovernmental aid is 590; for lay-offs of local employees is 569; for reducing local employee compensation it is 570; for contracting with non-profit or a for-profit organisation it is 535; for contracting with another unit of government it is 568, for consolidating service delivery with a neighbouring unit of local government it is 567; and for transferring responsibility to the county it is 555. bIndicates the coefficient of variation. The CV is calculated by dividing the standard deviation for the distribution of responses for a variable – in this case mean agreement with a particular strategy – by the mean for that same variable. An approximate rule of thumb is that a CV greater than 0.30 indicates substantial variation.

386 R. Elling et al.

T a b le

2 . S u p p o rt fo r tw o re v en u e- en h an ci n g st ra te g ie s to

d ea l w it h fi sc al

st re ss , b y se rv ic e ar ea s

In cr ea se

lo ca l ta x es

S ee k in te rg o v er n m en ta l ai d

F u n ct io n a

P er ce n ta g e

ag re ei n g b

M ea n

ag re em

en tc

C V d

D if fe re n ce

in p er ce n t st ro n g ly

ag re ei n g

an d st ro n g ly

d is ag re ei n g e

P er ce n ta g e

ag re ei n g

M ea n

ag re em

en t

C V

D if fe re n ce

in p er ce n t st ro n g ly

ag re ei n g an d st ro n g ly

d is ag re ei n g

M ai n ta in / re p ai r st re et s

an d ro ad s

3 1 .4

2 .6 2

0 .5 8

− 2 6 .6

8 4 .3

4 .1 2

0 .2 8

4 1 .0

F ir efi g h ti n g se rv ic es

5 2 .1

2 .9 5

0 .5 2

− 1 5 .1

7 6 .2

3 .9 4

0 .3 3

3 3 .3

C o ll ec t g ar b ag e/ tr as h

2 7 .7

2 .2 6

0 .6 3

− 3 9 .6

5 3 .7

3 .3 0

0 .4 6

8 .5

P o li ce

st re et

p at ro l

4 7 .7

2 .8 2

0 .5 4

− 2 0 .0

7 3 .2

3 .8 5

0 .3 6

3 0 .9

O p er at e p ar k s/ re cr ea ti o n

p ro g ra m m es

3 2 .0

2 .6 3

0 .5 7

− 2 5 .8

7 3 .0

3 .8 5

0 .3 5

3 0 .9

N o te s:

a T h e n u m b er

o f v al id

re sp o n se s v ar ie s sl ig h tl y ac ro ss

th e fi v e fu n ct io n al

ar ea s.

W it h re sp ec t to

th e st ra te g y o f in cr ea si n g lo ca l ta x es , th e n u m b er

o f v al id

re sp o n se s ra n g ed

fr o m

6 1 8 fo r tr as h /g ar b ag e co ll ec ti o n , to

6 4 2 in

th e ca se

o f p o li ce

st re et p at ro l. In

th e ca se

o f th e in te rg o v er n m en ta l ai d st ra te g y, th e n u m b er

o f v al id

re sp o n se s ra n g ed

fr o m

6 1 8 fo r tr as h an d g ar b ag e co ll ec ti o n to

6 4 1 fo r p o li ce

p at ro l.

b C el l en tr y is th e p er ce n ta g e o f re sp o n d en ts sa y in g th ey

ei th er

‘s tr o n g ly

ag re e’

o r

‘s o m ew

h at ag re e’

w it h th e u se

o f a p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y.

c C el l en tr y is th e av er ag e d eg re e o f su p p o rt w h er e 1 = ‘s tr o n g ly

d is ag re e’ , 2 = ‘s o m ew

h at d is ag re e’ , 3 = ‘n ei th er

ag re e n o r d is ag re e’ , 4 = ‘s o m ew

h at ag re e’ , an d 5 = ‘s tr o n g ly

ag re e’ . d In d ic at es

th e co ef fi ci en t o f v ar ia ti o n . T h e C V is ca lc u la te d b y d iv id in g th e st an d ar d d ev ia ti o n fo r

th e d is tr ib u ti o n o f re sp o n se s fo r a v ar ia b le – in

th is ca se

m ea n ag re em

en t w it h a p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y – b y th e m ea n fo r th at sa m e v ar ia b le . A n ap p ro x im

at e ru le o f th u m b

is th at

a C V

g re at er

th an

0 .3 0 in d ic at es

su b st an ti al

v ar ia ti o n . e C el l en tr y is th e d if fe re n ce

b et w ee n th e p er ce n ta g e o f re sp o n d en ts ‘s tr o n g ly

ag re ei n g ’ w it h th e u se

o f a

p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y an d th e p er ce n ta g e w h o ‘s tr o n g ly

d is ag re e’ . A

n eg at iv el y -s ig n ed

d if fe re n ce

in d ic at es

th at

th e ex te n t o f ‘s tr o n g d is ag re em

en t’ ex ce ed s th e ex te n t o f

‘s tr o n g ag re em

en t’ . T h is m ea su re

co n v ey s in fo rm

at io n o n d if fe re n ce s in

in te n si ty

o f su p p o rt o r o p p o si ti o n .

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 387

T a b le

3 . S u p p o rt fo r tw o st ra te g ie s d es ig n ed

to re d u ce

th e co st s o f in -h o u se

p ro d u ct io n o f fi v e lo ca l g o v er n m en t se rv ic es

L ay -o ff lo ca l g o v er n m en t em

p lo y ee s

R ed u ce

th e co m p en sa ti o n o f lo ca l g o v er n m en t em

p lo y ee s

F u n ct io n a

P er ce n ta g e

ag re ei n g b

M ea n

ag re em

en tc

C V d

D if fe re n ce

in p er ce n t st ro n g ly

ag re ei n g an d st ro n g ly

d is ag re ei n g e

P er ce n ta g e ag re ei n g

M ea n

ag re em

en t

C V

D if fe re n ce

in p er ce n t st ro n g ly

ag re ei n g an d st ro n g ly

d is ag re ei n g

M ai n ta in /r ep ai r

st re et s an d

ro ad s

1 5 .4

1 .8 6

0 .6 2

− 4 8 .1

1 5 .7

1 .8 7

0 .6 4

− 4 7 .6

F ir efi g h ti n g

se rv ic es

1 3 .3

1 .7 6

0 .6 4

− 5 5 .6

1 3 .1

1 .6 9

0 .6 7

− 6 1 .2

C o ll ec t g ar b ag e/

tr as h

1 3 .9

1 .9 1

0 .6 2

− 4 6 .8

1 3 .2

1 .8 5

0 .6 3

− 4 9 .1

P o li ce

st re et

p at ro l

1 4 .3

1 .7 6

0 .6 7

− 5 5 .6

11 .7

1 .6 8

0 .6 6

− 5 8 .3

O p er at e p ar k s/

re cr ea ti o n

p ro g ra m m es

2 0 .1

1 .9 6

0 .7 9

− 4 7 .6

1 5 .5

1 .8 6

0 .6 3

− 4 8 .6

N o te s:

a T h e n u m b er

o f v al id

re sp o n se s v ar ie s sl ig h tl y ac ro ss

th e fi v e fu n ct io n al ar ea s. W it h re sp ec t to

th e st ra te g y o f la y in g -o ff lo ca l g o v er n m en t em

p lo y ee s, th e n u m b er

o f v al id

re sp o n se s ra n g ed

fr o m

6 11

fo r tr as h /g ar b ag e co ll ec ti o n , to

6 3 3 fo r m ai n ta in in g st re et s. In

th e ca se

o f re d u ci n g lo ca l g o v er n m en t em

p lo y ee

co m p en sa ti o n , th e

n u m b er

o f v al id

re sp o n se

ra n g ed

fr o m

6 0 9 fo r tr as h /g ar b ag e co ll ec ti o n , to

6 3 4 fo r p o li ce

p at ro l.

b C el l en tr y is th e p er ce n ta g e o f re sp o n d en ts sa y in g th ey

ei th er

‘s tr o n g ly

ag re e’

o r ‘a g re e’

w it h th e u se

o f a p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y.

c C el l en tr y is th e av er ag e d eg re e o f su p p o rt w h er e 1 = ‘s tr o n g ly

d is ag re e’ , 2 = ‘s o m ew

h at

d is ag re e’ , 3 = ‘n ei th er

ag re e n o r d is ag re e’ , 4 = ‘s o m ew

h at ag re e’ , an d 5 = ‘s tr o n g ly

ag re e’ . d In d ic at es

th e co ef fi ci en t o f v ar ia ti o n . T h e C V is ca lc u la te d b y d iv id in g th e st an d ar d d ev ia ti o n fo r th e

d is tr ib u ti o n o f re sp o n se s fo r a v ar ia b le

– in

th is ca se

m ea n ag re em

en t w it h a p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y – b y th e m ea n fo r th at

v ar ia b le . A n ap p ro x im

at e ru le

o f th u m b is th at

a C V

g re at er

th an

0 .3 0 in d ic at es

su b st an ti al

v ar ia ti o n . e C el l en tr y is th e d if fe re n ce

b et w ee n th e p er ce n ta g e o f re sp o n d en ts ‘s tr o n g ly

ag re ei n g ’ w it h th e u se

o f a p ar ti cu la r

st ra te g y an d th e p er ce n ta g e w h o ‘s tr o n g ly

d is ag re e’ . A

n eg at iv el y -s ig n ed

d if fe re n ce

in d ic at es

th at

th e ex te n t o f ‘s tr o n g d is ag re em

en t’ ex ce ed s th e ex te n t o f ‘s tr o n g

ag re em

en t’ . T h is m ea su re

co n v ey s in fo rm

at io n o n d if fe re n ce s in

in te n si ty

o f su p p o rt o r o p p o si ti o n .

388 R. Elling et al.

T a b le

4 . S u p p o rt fo r co n tr ac ti n g an d co n so li d at io n to

re d u ce

co st s o f p ro v id in g fi v e lo ca l g o v er n m en t se rv ic es

C o n tr ac t w it h a n o n -p ro fi t o r a fo r- p ro fi t o rg an is at io n

C o n tr ac t w it h an o th er

u n it o f g o v er n m en t

F u n ct io n a

P er ce n ta g e

ag re ei n g b

M ea n

ag re em

en tc

C V d

D if fe re n ce

in p er ce n t

st ro n g ly

ag re ei n g an d

st ro n g ly

d is ag re ei n g e

P er ce n ta g e

ag re ei n g

M ea n

ag re em

en t

C V

D if fe re n ce

in p er ce n t

st ro n g ly

ag re ei n g an d

st ro n g ly

d is ag re ei n g

M ai nt ai n/ re pa ir st re et s an d ro ad s

5 9 .2

3 .2 1

0 .4 6

− 1 .1 5

6 0 .3

3 .2 5

0 .4 4

0 .1

F ir efi g h ti n g se rv ic es

4 7 .6

2 .8 3

0 .5 5

− 1 6 .9

5 6 .7

3 .1 2

0 .4 8

− 6 .1

C o ll ec t g ar b ag e/ tr as h

6 3 .0

3 .4 4

0 .4 0

8 .5

4 8 .7

2 .9 6

0 .5 0

− 9 .4

P o li ce

st re et

p at ro l

3 5 .2

2 .4 8

0 .6 1

− 2 8 .2

4 9 .5

2 .9 4

0 .5 2

− 9 .8

O p er at e p ar k s/ re cr ea ti o n

p ro g ra m m es

5 8 .5

3 .3 0

0 .4 4

2 .0

5 4 .1

3 .0 7

0 .3 3

− 5 .2

C o n so li d at in g p ro d u ct io n /p ro v is io n w it h a n ei g h b o u ri n g

lo ca l g o v er n m en t

T ra n sf er ri n g re sp o n si b il it y fo r fu n ct io n to

co u n ty

g o v er n m en t

M ai nt ai n/ re pa ir st re et s an d ro ad s

7 5 .8

3 .7 5

0 .3 5

1 9 .5

5 4 .7

2 .8 9

0 .5 2

− 5 .1

F ir efi g h ti n g se rv ic es

6 6 .5

3 .4 4

0 .4 2

7 .1

2 6 .0

2 .3 3

0 .6 1

− 1 9 .0

C o ll ec t g ar b ag e/ tr as h

6 0 .4

3 .3 2

0 .4 3

3 .2

3 4 .0

2 .5 3

0 .5 8

− 2 3 .2

P o li ce

st re et

p at ro l

5 9 .6

3 .2 4

0 .4 7

0 .3

3 4 .6

2 .4 9

0 .5 9

− 2 4 .9

O p er at e p ar k s/ re cr ea ti o n

p ro g ra m m es

7 0 .2

3 .5 6

0 .4 0

1 2 .1

3 7 .4

2 .6 2

0 .5 6

1 9 .0

N o te s:

a N u m b er

o f v al id

re sp o n se s v ar ie s sl ig h tl y ac ro ss

th e fi v e fu n ct io n al

ar ea s. W it h re sp ec t to

co n tr ac ti n g w it h a n o n -p ro fi t o r a fo r- p ro fi t o rg an is at io n , n u m b er

o f

v al id

re sp o n se s ra n g ed

fr o m

5 9 2 fo r tr as h /g ar b ag e co ll ec ti o n , to

6 3 3 fo r p o li ce

st re et p at ro l. In

th e ca se

o f co n tr ac ti n g w it h an o th er

lo ca l u n it o f g o v er n m en t, n u m b er

o f

v al id

re sp o n se s ra n g ed

fr o m

6 1 3 fo r tr as h /g ar b ag e co ll ec ti o n , to

6 3 4 fo r p o li ce

p at ro l.

b C el l en tr y is p er ce n ta g e o f re sp o n d en ts sa y in g th ey

ei th er

‘s tr o n g ly

ag re e’

o r

‘s o m ew

h at

ag re e’

w it h u se

o f a p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y.

c C el l en tr y is av er ag e d eg re e o f su p p o rt w h er e 1 = ‘s tr o n g ly

d is ag re e’ , 2 = ‘s o m ew

h at

d is ag re e’ , 3 = ‘n ei th er

ag re e

n o r d is ag re e’ , 4 = ‘s o m ew

h at ag re e’ , an d 5 = ‘s tr o n g ly

ag re e’ . d In d ic at es

th e co ef fi ci en t o f v ar ia ti o n . C V is ca lc u la te d b y d iv id in g st an d ar d d ev ia ti o n fo r th e d is tr ib u ti o n

o f re sp o n se s fo r a v ar ia b le – in

th is ca se

m ea n ag re em

en t w it h a p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y – b y th e m ea n fo r th at v ar ia b le . A p p ro x im

at e ru le o f th u m b is a C V g re at er

th an

0 .3 0

in d ic at es

su b st an ti al

v ar ia ti o n . e C el l en tr y is

th e d if fe re n ce

b et w ee n th e p er ce n ta g e o f re sp o n d en ts

‘s tr o n g ly

ag re ei n g ’ w it h th e u se

o f a p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y an d th e

p er ce n ta g e w h o ‘s tr o n g ly

d is ag re e’ . A

n eg at iv el y -s ig n ed

d if fe re n ce

in d ic at es

th at

th e ex te n t o f ‘s tr o n g d is ag re em

en t’ ex ce ed s th e ex te n t o f ‘s tr o n g ag re em

en t’ . T h is

m ea su re

co n v ey s in fo rm

at io n o n d if fe re n ce s in

in te n si ty

o f su p p o rt o r o p p o si ti o n .

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 389

There is even greater support for consolidating services with a neighbouring community. Next to securing additional intergovernmental fiscal aid, this is the most popular strategy for dealing with fiscal stress. Anywhere from 60% – in the case of police street patrol – to 76% – in the case of maintaining streets and roads – of respondents express some degree of support for consolidation of service delivery with a neighbouring community. These findings are consistent with a 2007 survey of residents of the three most populous counties of metropolitan Detroit (Wisely 2007). Transferring service responsibility entirely to the county government is far less popular, however, with majority support existing only in the case of street maintenance.

How service area matters

Table 5 indicates the relative acceptability of the different strategies varies across the five service areas in consistent ways. The two public safety functions are clearly viewed differently than the other three service areas. There is stronger support for increasing local revenues to support police and fire ser- vices and less support for reducing staffing levels or employee compensation in these two service areas. Police patrol and fire services are the only services where support for local tax increases ranks first or second in popularity. There is less enthusiasm for contracting out, and relatively little enthusiasm for transferring authority for such services to another unit of government. In short, the public endorsed the status quo of traditional service delivery for public safety functions.

A different picture emerges in the case of the other three local services. The public was more willing to support the options that challenge the status quo of service delivery for these functions. The preference for seeking intergovern- mental assistance remains high, but less support exists for increasing local taxes, while greater support exists for contracting out the production of these services either to a for-profit organisation, a non-profit organisation or another local unit of government. Finally, with respect to street and road maintenance and parks and recreation programmes, there is stronger support for consolidation of service delivery with another local unit of government and the transfer of responsibility for delivering these services to county govern- ments. These findings are consistent with those of a 2007 survey of metro Detroiters (Wisely 2007).

Our findings about the level of support for contracting with for-profit or non-profit organisations are consistent with those expressed by the Michigan residents surveyed in the mid-1990s (Thompson and Elling 2000). While overall support for contracting is stronger than it was a decade ago, the same fundamental pattern of variation in support for contracting across service areas is evident in both studies. Like the earlier group, residents surveyed in 2007 largely reject the use of contracting in the case of public safety functions.

390 R. Elling et al.

T a b le

5 . V ar ia ti o n in

su p p o rt fo r st ra te g ie s fo r d ea li n g w it h fi sc al

st re ss

ac ro ss

fi v e lo ca l g o v er n m en t se rv ic es

S tr at eg y

R an g e in

% su p p o rt

fo r st ra te g y ac ro ss

fi v e

se rv ic e ar ea sa

M ai n ta in /r ep ai r

st re et s an d ro ad s

F ir efi g h ti n g

se rv ic es

C o ll ec ti o n

o f g ar b ag e

P o li ce

p at ro l

O p er at e p ar k s an d

re cr ea ti o n p ro g ra m m es

R a n k o f p er ce n ta g e su p p o rt fo r u se

o f a p a rt ic u la r st ra te g y a cr o ss

th e fi ve

se rv ic e

a re a sb

In cr ea se

lo ca l ta x es

2 7 – 5 1

4 (2 .6 2 )

1 (2 .9 5 )

5 (2 .2 6 )

2 (2 .8 2 )

3 (2 .6 3 )

S ee k m o re

ai d fr o m

st at e/ fe d er al

g o v er n m en ts

5 4 – 8 4

1 (4 .1 2 )

2 (3 .9 4 )

5 (3 .3 0 )

3 .5

(3 .8 5 )

3 .5

(3 .8 5 )

L ay -o ff lo ca l em

p lo y ee s

1 3 – 1 9

3 (1 .8 6 )

4 .5

(1 .7 6 )

2 (1 .9 1 )

4 .5

(1 .7 6 )

1 (1 .9 6 )

C u t th e p ay /b en efi ts o f lo ca l g o v er n m en t em

p lo y ee s

11 – 1 5

1 .5

(1 .8 7 )

4 (1 .6 9 )

3 (1 .8 5 )

5 (1 .6 8 )

1 .5

(1 .8 7 )

C o n tr ac t w it h a fo r- p ro fi t o r a n o n -p ro fi t

o rg an is at io n

3 3 – 5 9

3 (3 .2 1 )

4 (2 .8 3 )

1 (3 .4 4 )

5 (2 .4 8 )

2 (3 .3 0 )

C o n tr ac t w it h a n ei g h b o u ri n g lo ca l g o v er n m en t

(c it y,

to w n , to w n sh ip ) to

p ro v id e se rv ic e

4 5 – 5 7

1 (3 .2 5 )

2 (3 .1 2 )

4 (2 .9 6 )

5 (2 .9 4 )

3 (3 .0 7 )

C o n so li d at e se rv ic es

w it h a n ei g h b o u ri n g ci ty , to w n ,

o r to w n sh ip

5 5 – 7 2

1 (3 .7 5 )

3 (3 .4 4 )

4 (3 .3 2 )

5 (3 .2 4 )

2 (3 .5 6 )

T ra n sf er

re sp o n si b il it y to

co u n ty

g o v er n m en t.

2 7 – 4 2

1 (2 .8 9 )

5 (2 .3 3 )

3 (2 .5 3 )

4 (2 .4 9 )

2 (2 .6 2 )

N o te s:

a P er ce n ta g e o f re sp o n d en ts ei th er

‘s o m ew

h at

ag re ei n g ’ o r ‘s tr o n g ly

ag re ei n g ’ th at

a p ar ti cu la r st ra te g y sh o u ld

b e p u rs u ed , ro u n d ed

to n ea re st w h o le

p er ce n ta g e.

b C el l en tr y is th e ra n k fo r a sp ec ifi c se rv ic e ar ea

o f a g iv en

st ra te g y,

ex p re ss ed

in te rm

s o f m ea n su p p o rt . T h e fi g u re

in p ar en th es es

is m ea n su p p o rt .

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 391

Implications and conclusions

These findings improve our understanding of the extent to which the public indicates a basic recognition of the choices that must be made to confront fiscal stress in local government. The public must be able to consider strategies for confronting fiscal stress beyond tax increases. Given the legal and political obstacles to increasing local government taxes in Michigan and many other states in the US, local government officials often look for other options.12 Our analysis of these survey responses confirms that variation exists in public support for different strategies for coping with local government fiscal stress and that the variation is clearly related to the type of service in question. These findings have a number of implications.

Our sample of Michigan residents reports views similar to the people surveyed by Welch (1985) in the 1980s. Rather than being the ‘free-lunchers’ identified in conventional wisdom, they are more accurately described as Welch’s ‘probably realistic revenue-raisers’. There was very little support regardless of service area for cutting costs through lay-offs or reductions in employee compensation, yet there was strong support for seeking more intergovernmental assistance and at least some degree of support for increased local taxes – especially in the case of police and fire services. Had we included the option of imposing or increasing user fees, the proportion of the public seen as responding realistically to the problem might have been even larger. This conclusion of a fundamental realism on the part of residents is tempered to some extent by the low probability that local units of government will be able to secure increased aid from either state or federal sources in the forseeable future. Steep ongoing reductions in state aid have been an important source of the fiscal stress faced by local governments in Michigan and many other states (Scorsone and Plerhoples 2010).13 The federal stimulus package passed in 2009 helped to offset the cuts in the revenues states provide local governments, but for the most part these funds were one-time grants of aid and came with significant limitations on how the aid could be used (Cox 2009).

A second finding from this study is that in times of fiscal stress it is clearly better to be a police officer or a firefighter than a librarian or a trash collector. Our data make this evident in several ways. First, only in the case of the two public safety functions is there reasonably strong support for local tax increases to maintain existing service levels. Second, outside of police and fire services there is strong evidence that residents are willing to consider new structures of service delivery that promise to maintain service levels at lower costs. In the case of streets and roads, trash and garbage collection, and parks and recreation services, roughly 60% expressed support for contracting with a for-profit or a non-profit provider while near majorities or full majorities support contracting for service delivery with a neighbouring unit of government. Majorities of varying size also supported consolidating the provision of each of five different service areas with neighbouring units.

392 R. Elling et al.

Our findings on the structure of public opinion about using these strategies for coping with fiscal stress may contribute to our understanding of how local government policymakers choose to confront this issue. Table 6 summarises findings from a 2009 University of Michigan survey of how local government officials in Michigan planned to deal with budgetary issues in the 2009–2010 fiscal year. This survey asked about a more extensive range of actions (13) than our 2007 survey, but there is sufficient overlap between the two surveys to assess whether or not their plans reflect the preferences of Michigan residents.

We see a connection between the two sets of findings and believe it suggests that the plans of these local govenrment officials are informed to some extent by local public opinion. The small percentage of governments that planned to increase property tax rates is consistent with the limited support for this approach among our sample of Michigan residents. Officials’ plans to avoid employee lay- offs are also consistent with limited resident support among our Michigan sample, as well as the findings of Reilly et al. (2007) regarding the budget strategies pursued by a large number of urban areas across the US.14 Similarly, the fact that the number of jurisdictions planning to increase public safety spending exceeded the percentage planning to reduce spending for these func- tions is consistent with our finding of stronger public support for maintaining public safety programmes. The percentage of local officials reporting their jurisdiction planned to increase their use of services contracting (or outright privatisation) was small (16%), but was still four times greater than the percen- tage indicating plans to do less of these activities (4%). And finally, again consistent with our findings showing public support for contracting, the officals

Table 6. Projected changes in reliance on fiscal strategies by Michigan local governments for fiscal year 2009–2010a

Strategy Decreaseb (%) No change (%) Increasec (%)

Property tax rates 17 59 18 Privatising or contracting out services 4 75 16 Number and scope of interlocal agreements 2 59 32 Employee lay-offs 2 84 11 Level of public safety spending 18 51 26 Amount of services to be provided 24 66 9 Reliance on rainy day funds 11 42 44 User fees 7 66 23

Notes: aThe Michigan local government officials surveyed were asked whether they planned to ‘greatly decrease’, ‘somewhat decrease’, ‘make no change’, ‘somewhat increase’, or ‘greatly increase’ their reliance on 13 particular strategies that would impact either spending levels or revenue levels. The percentage that responded ‘don’t know’ to any of these questions is excluded. All of the data from the spring 2009 CLOSUP study can be accessed at http://closup.umich.edu/michigan-public- policy-survey/spring-2009-data. bPercentage of local government officials saying they would either ‘greatly’ or ‘somewhat’ decrease reliance on a given strategy. cPercentage saying they would either ‘greatly’ or ‘somewhat’ increase reliance on a given strategy.

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 393

reported a desire to expand the use of service agreements with other units of government. In our view, this congruence suggests that local officials may have an accurate idea of what strategies their residents will support.

Finally, we believe our findings provide some insights about how local govern- ment decision-makers might successfully address fiscal stress.15 The public in our sample clearly has more tolerance for the use of certain remedies for some services than for others. If residents understand that neither the state nor the federal government are willing to provide the resources necessary to maintain existing service levels, then the residents will be more likely to support increases in taxes (and/or the imposition of user fees), especially in the case of public safety functions.

Expanded services contracting is also an option that the public will often support. The residents we surveyed seem open to contracting out non-public safety services or reassigning delivery responsibilities for these services through collaboration between neighbouring governments, or transferring responsibilities to other units of government. In fact, the data from these two surveys of Michigan public officials and a sample of the state’s residents suggest that the public may be more open to this option than the government officials.

Directions for future research

Local governments in the US are likely to be forced to confront significant fiscal stress for the foreseeable future, and policymakers need a better understanding of the structure of public opinion on this issue. This article describes the attitudes held by the general public in Michigan about the use of several common strategies to address local government fiscal stress and illustrates how these preferences are not independent of the service area expected to be affected by the shortfall. We see this study as a necessary first step in establishing how the attitudes about these strategies depend upon the services most directly affected. Future research can build upon our work by examining how differences in the fiscal condition of particular municipal governments, as well as the individual characteristics of residents, are related to their attitudes about these strategies.

We also encourage other scholars to replicate this research in other settings. We see no reason to believe that these findings are not generalisable beyond this particular time period, state or country, but additional studies are necessary to confirm this proposition. Future work should also expand the range of strategies about which residents are queried. There are additional insights to be gained from distinguishing between contracting with for-profit firms and non-profit organisations. Support for user fees as a means to maintain local government services needs to be added to the repertoire of responses to fiscal stress. Another strategy to add would be creating special, single-purpose, service districts.16

Finally, while the five service areas in this study are core services that constitute a substantial proportion of spending by local governments, it would be useful to know what residents’ views are with respect to other service areas such as libraries, building code enforcement and economic development activities.

394 R. Elling et al.

Pursuing these lines of inquiry may offer more specific guidance for state and local policymakers regarding how different communities of stakeholders approach the challenges of managing fiscal stress.

Finally, we acknowledge some weakness in this study stemming from limita- tions in our data collection strategy and our procedure for measuring public attitudes about these strategies. Phone surveys are vulnerable to selection bias due to differences within the population in the willingness to answers calls from survey organisations. As a consequence, the people in our sample are slightly older and more likely to be female than the Michigan population as a whole. In addition, the problem of accurately measuring public preferences in a study like this is always a concern. For instance, none of the eight strategies were strongly endorsed by the respondents. The average response for even the most popular option, seeking additional intergovernmental aid, still falls below the ‘somewhat agree’ level. They were able to respond in this way because we did not force them to rank their preferences for the use of these strategies. Also, we relied on their stated preferences rather than forcing them to reveal their preferences through the use of a budget constraint or some other strategy. It is not clear if our findings would change if we had measured public preferences differently, but it is something readers should consider when assessing this study. We encourage others to build on our work by utilising measures that more effectively reveal the tradeoffs residents are willing to make so that their communities are able to respond to fiscal stress. These kinds of insights will prove invaluable to local government officials as they work to confront this issue in their communities.

Notes on contributors

Richard C. Elling is Professor of Political Science at Wayne State University in Detroit. His published work examines public personnel management, state manage- ment and state legislative term limits, among other topics. His most recent publica- tion is a co-authored chapter, ‘Toward interlocal collaboration: lessons from a failed attempt to create a fire authority’ in the edited volume, Municipal shared services and consolidation: a public solutions handbook (ME Sharpe, forthcoming).

Kelly Krawczyk is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Auburn University, teaching in their MPA programme. She has seven years of applied experience in US-based non-profits and international non-governmental organi- sations (NGOs), and has work forthcoming in Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly and the International Journal of Public Administration. Her research interests include US non-profits and international NGOs, local governance and citizen engagement.

Jered B. Carr is the Victor and Caroline Schutte/Missouri Professor of Urban Affairs and Director of the L.P. Cookingham Institute of Urban Affairs at the Henry W. Bloch School of Management at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. His current research and teaching interests focus on civic engagement, regionalism and rightsizing municipal governments. His research has been

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 395

published in a wide range of journals in public administration, political science and urban affairs.

Notes

1. Michigan also has a large number of small governments. Sixty percent of the state’s 1,776 city, village and township governments had fewer than 2,500 residents in 2,000 (Ryan and Lupher 2003). This structure of many local governments with small tax bases and independent service operations makes Michigan municipalities more vul- nerable to the problems of fiscal stress than local units in states where the average population is higher.

2. Thus, even when home values were increasing in the late 1990s and the early part of the current decade, these provisions limited annual increases in property tax revenues to less than 3%. In many cases they also decreased the property tax rate that local officials could impose on property in the jurisdiction on virtually an annual basis. See Feldman et al. (2003).

3. This practice is happening throughout the US (Cox 2009). 4. Michigan’s largest city, Detroit, filed for bankruptcy in July 2013. If approved, it will

be the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history. 5. See the appendix for an explanation of survey design and the demographic character-

istics of the respondents. The authors express their appreciation to the Center for Urban Studies at Wayne State University for executing the survey that provided the data for this research.

6. The use of a third revenue strategy – imposition or greater reliance on user charges or service fees – was not examined due to constraints on the number of questions that could be included. Also, the two separate strategies of seeking increased federal aid and seeking increased state aid were combined into a single strategy for the same reason.

7. Employee compensation includes salaries along with the cost of employee benefits. Ideally, these two components of compensation would have been examined sepa- rately, but limitations on the number of questions that could be included in the survey prevented making this distinction.

8. There is a large research literature that highlights potential differences in behaviour between for-profit and non-profit vendors. See Brown and Potoski (2003) and Carr et al. (2009). Ideally, the respondents would have been asked to indicate their views on these two service providers individually, but, again, limitations in the number of items that could be included in the survey prevented us from exploring this distinction.

9. The responsibility for provision and/or production of a specific service might be transferred to governments other than counties. State provision might be an option or, more likely, the creation of a special-purpose district (Carr 2004).

10. Respondents not providing answers for all five service areas with regard to a particular strategy are excluded from the aggregate measure of support.

11. It is possible that the option of reducing costs via employee attrition would have been supported by the respondents.

12. The strategy that the largest percentage of local government officials in the 2009 CLOSUP study (44%) said they planned to rely on more heavily was using ‘ending balances’ or ‘rainy-day funds’.

13. In the early years of this decade, state aid constituted a larger proportion of local government revenue than local property tax revenues for many Michigan local governments. See Ryan and Lupher (2003) for a detailed discussion of the local government revenue in Michigan in the 1990s.

396 R. Elling et al.

14. One recent study of how 120 of the largest cities and counties in the US responded to fiscal stress concluded that there exists a ‘… reluctance, or inability, of local governments to reduce wages and benefits to employees in the face of financial difficulty’ (Reilly et al. 2007, p. 52). Perhaps, a lack of public support is part of the reason for this reluctance.

15. The use the term ‘success’ here both in the sense of political feasibility, and the likelihood that the changes pursued will reduce the objective severity of the problem to at least a substantial degree.

16. The 2009 Michigan local government survey asked about reliance on user fees. Roughly one-quarter of the respondents said their jurisdiction planned to increase such fees while only 7% said they planned to decrease them.

References

Anderson, J., 2011. Rightsizing government: the literature and the Detroit experience. State and Local Government Review, 43 (3), 224–232.

Arrington, T. and Jordan, D., 1982. Willingness to pay per capita costs as a measure of support for urban services. Public Administration Review, 42 (2), 168–170.

Bahl, R., ed., 1978. The fiscal outlook for cities: implications of a national urban policy. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Brown, T. and Potoski, M., 2003. Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13 (4), 441–468.

Carr, J., 2004. Perspectives on city-county consolidation and its alternatives. In: J. Carr and R.C. Feiock, eds. City county consolidation and its alternatives: reshaping the local government landscape. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 3–24.

Carr, J., LeRoux, K., and Shrestha. M., 2009. Institutional ties, transaction costs and external service production. Urban Affairs Review, 44 (3), 403–427.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan, 2005. Catalog of local government services. Memorandum 1079, September. Livonia, MI: CRC.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan, 2007. Local ballot issues in the 2006 general election. Notes 2007-001, April. Livonia, MI: CRC.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan, 2008. Michigan’s fiscal future. Research Council Report 349, May. Livonia, MI: CRC.

Clark, T., Rubin, I., Pettler, I.C., and Zimmerman, E., 1976. How many New Yorks? The New York City fiscal crisis in comparative perspective. Chicago, IL: Center for Comparative Community Decisionmaking, University of Chicago.

Cox, R.W., 2009. Seeding the clouds for the perfect storm: a commentary on the current fiscal crisis. State and Local Government Review, 41 (3), 216–222.

Dzwonkowski, R., 2007. Too many local governments, too little coordination. Detroit Free Press, 29 January, p. 3C.

Feldman, N., Courant, P., and Drake, D., 2003. The property tax in Michigan. In: C. Ballard, P. Courant, D. Drake, R. Fisher, and E. Gerber, eds. Michigan at the millen- nium: a benchmark and analysis of its fiscal and economic structure. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 577–602.

Gorchow, Z. and Wisely, J., 2007a. Blurring city lines: mergers could save suburbs money, boost services, experts say. Detroit Free Press, 29 July, p. 1A.

Gorchow, Z. and Wisely, J., 2007b. Mergers met with mixed feelings: community pride holds back support. Detroit Free Press, 29 July, p. 14A.

Kloha, P., Weissert, C., and Kleine, R., 2005. Developing and testing a composite model to predict local fiscal distress. Public Administration Review, 65 (3), 313–323.

Levine, C., ed., 1980. Managing fiscal stress: the crisis in the public sector. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 397

Levine, C., 1984. Citizenship and service delivery: the promise of co-production. Public Administration Review, 44 (2), 178–189.

Levine, C., Rubin, I., and Wolohojian, G., 1981. The politics of retrenchment: how local governments manage fiscal stress. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Michigan Emergency Financial Advisory Panel, 2007. Michigan’s defining moment: report of the emergency financial advisory panel. Lansing, MI: State of Michigan.

Nathan, R. and Adams, C., 1976. Understanding central city hardship. Political Science Quarterly, 91 (Spring), 47–62.

Pammer, W.J., 1990. Managing fiscal strain in major American cities: understanding retrenchment in the public sector. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Pynes, J.E. and Spina, S., 2009. Council-manager conflict and cooperation in times of fiscal distress. State and Local Government Review, 41 (3), 208–215.

Reilly, T., Schoener, S., and Bolin, A., 2007. Public sector compensation in local govern- ments. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27 (1), 39–58.

Rubin, I., 1982. Running in the red: the political dynamics of urban fiscal stress. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Rubin, I., 2005. The politics of public budgeting: getting and spending. Borrowing and balancing. 5th ed. New York: Chatham House.

Ryan, E. and Lupher, E., 2003. An overview of local government expenditures in Michigan: patterns and trends. In: C. Ballard, P. Courant, D. Drake, R. Fisher, and E. Gerber, eds. Michigan at the millennium: a benchmark and analysis of its fiscal and economic structure. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 257–277.

Scorsone, E. and Plerhoples, C., 2010. Fiscal stress and cutback management amongst state and local governments. State and Local Government Review, 42 (2), 176–187.

Sears, D. and Citrin, J., 1982. Tax revolt. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thompson, L. and Elling, R., 2000. Mapping patterns of support for privatization in the mass public: the case of Michigan. Public Administration Review, 60 (4), 338–348.

Welch, S., 1985. The ‘more for less’ paradox: public attitudes on taxing and spending. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 310–316.

Winter, S. and Mouritzen, P., 2001. Why people want something for nothing: the role of asymmetrical illusions. European Journal of Political Research, 39 (1), 109–143.

Wisely, J., 2007. Most metro residents back sharing of services. Detroit Free Press, 24 August, p. 1B.

Wolman, H. and Davis, B., 1980. Local government strategies to cope with fiscal stress. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Appendix

Description of survey design

The Survey Research Unit at Wayne State University’s Center for Urban Studies conducted telephone interviews with 660 Michigan residents between 29 November 2006 and 21 January 2007. The sample was generated using Ci3 software. A list of prefixes for each area code in Michigan was compiled from the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) and screened against previous samples generated by Survey Sampling Inc. to validate prefixes that are currently in use in the state. These prefixes were loaded into Ci3, and the software then randomly generated the last four digits of each phone number. Phone numbers were proportionally generated for each prefix based on 2000 census data for each county in the state.

398 R. Elling et al.

Statement read by telephone interviewer

Respondents were read the following introduction and then presented with eight options for dealing with fiscal stress in five different service areas.

In recent years many local governments in Michigan have had budget problems that make it difficult for them to continue providing various public services. The next set of questions ask your views on how you think local governments should deal with a situation in which local revenues to support programmes as in the past are inadequate. I will ask you about this in terms of various specific services performed by local governments. For each such service or function I will give you a list of strategies that a local government might pursue in responding to this situation. For each strategy please tell me whether you agree with that strategy or disagree with it.

Strategies presented to respondents as read by interviewer

1. First of all, with regard to maintaining or repairing streets and roads, should your local municipal government (city, village, or township)?

1a. Increase my local taxes to generate additional funding for this service: ( ) strongly agree ( ) somewhat agree ( ) not sure/don’t know ( ) somewhat disagree ( ) strongly disagree

1b. Seek more state or federal government aid to help pay for this service: ( ) strongly agree ( ) somewhat agree ( ) not sure/don’t know ( ) somewhat disagree ( ) strongly disagree

1c. Contract with a for-profit or non-profit organisation to provide this service at a lower cost: ( ) strongly agree ( ) somewhat agree ( ) not sure/don’t know ( ) somewhat disagree ( ) strongly disagree

1d. Lay-off some employees to reduce costs: ( ) strongly agree ( ) somewhat agree ( ) not sure/don’t know ( ) somewhat disagree ( ) strongly disagree

1e. Consolidate the provision of this service by combining my local government’s personnel, equipment, and funds with those from one or more neighbouring governments: ( ) strongly agree ( ) somewhat agree ( ) neither agree nor disagree ( ) somewhat disagree ( ) strongly disagree

1f. Purchase this service from a neighbouring local government instead of providing it in-house:

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 399

( ) strongly agree ( ) somewhat agree ( ) neither agree nor disagree ( ) somewhat disagree ( ) strongly disagree

1g. Cut the pay or benefits of local employees who provide this service: ( ) strongly agree ( ) somewhat agree ( ) neither agree nor disagree ( ) somewhat disagree ( ) strongly disagree

1h. Transfer the entire responsibility for funding and delivering this service to county government: ( ) strongly agree ( ) somewhat agree ( ) neither agree nor disagree ( ) somewhat disagree ( ) strongly disagree

The same response options are repeated for four additional service areas:

2… fire fighting services? 3… trash and garbage collection? 4… maintenance and operation of parks and recreation services? 5… police street patrol?

Table A1. Selected demographic characteristics of survey respondents

Variable Cases Mean Min/max value

Scale variables Age 641 51.00 18/95 Years living in current residence 657 14.24 0/95 Adults, aged 18 and older, living in household 656 1.94 1/5 Children, aged 5–17, living in household 656 0.52 0/10

Categorical variables Gender 660 (100%) Male 253 (38.3%) Female 407 (61.7%) Race/ethnicitya 640 (100%) White/Caucasian 544 (85.0%) Black/African American 59 (9.2%) Latino/Hispanic 10 (1.6%) American Indian/Aleut/Eskimo 10 (1.6%) Asian/Pacific Islander 4 (0.6%) Arab/Middle Eastern 3 (0.4%) Other 10 (1.6%) Marital statusa 656 (100%) Now married 387 (59.0%) Separated 5 (0.8%) Never married 115 (17.4%) Widowed 67 (10.2%) Divorced 80 (12.1%) Cohabitating 2 (0.3%)

Own/rent residencea 650 (100%)

(continued)

400 R. Elling et al.

Table A1. (Continued)

Variable Cases Mean Min/max value

Own 559 (86.0%) Rent 88 (13.5%) Don’t know 3 (0.5%) Education (highest degree/accreditation achieved)a 652 (100%) None (did not graduate high school) 27 (4.1%) High school graduate w/diploma or GED 275 (42.2%) Apprenticeship certification 25 (3.8%) Associate degree in vocational program 54 (8.3%) Associate degree in academic program 49 (7.5%) Bachelors degree 132 (20.2%) Masters degree 75 (11.5%) Professional school 3 (0.5%) Doctorate 9 (1.4%) Other 2 (0.3%). Don’t know 1 (0.2%) Personal income in 2005a 550 (100%) Under $20,000 89 (16.2%) $20,000–$24,999 52 (9.5%) $25,000–$29,999 72 (13.1%) $30,000–$34,999 62 (11.3%) $35,000–$39,999 106 (19.3%) $40,000–$44,999 98 (17.8%) $45,000–$49,999 38 (6.9%) $50,000–$74,999 18 (3.3%) $75,000 and above 6 (1.1%) Don’t know 9 (1.6%) Household income in 2005a 324 (100%) Under $20,000 13 (4.0%) $20,000–$24,999 7 (2.2%) $25,000–$29,999 14 (4.3%) $30,000–$34,999 15 (4.6%) $35,000–$39,999 16 (4.9%) $40,000–$49,999 25 (7.7%) $50,000–$59,999 33 (10.2%) $60,000–$74,999 41 (12.7%) $75,000 and above 131 (40.4%) Don’t know 29 (9.0%) Current employment statusa,b 787 (119.2%) Employed and working full-time 245 (37.1%) Employed and working part-time 89 (13.5%) Unemployed 36 (5.5%) Retired 209 (31.7%) Student 66 (10.0%) Home-maker 93 (14.1%) Temporarily laid-off 8 (1.2%) Other 41 (6.2%) Political party identificationa 630 (100%) Democrat 223 (35.4%) Republican 144 (22.9%) Independent 190 (30.2%) Other 56 (8.9%) Don’t know 17 (2.7%) Strength of Democratic Party identificationa 223 (100%)

(continued)

How Local Government Officials Should Confront Fiscal Stress 401

Table A1. (Continued)

Variable Cases Mean Min/max value

Strong Democrat 135 (60.5%) Lean Democrat 87 (39.0%) Don’t know 1 (0.5%)

Strength of Republican Party identificationa 144 (100%) Strong Republican 78 (54.2%) Lean Republican 62 (43.1%) Don’t know 4 (2.7%) Political ideologya,c 641 (100%) Very conservative 53 (8.3%) Conservative 194 (30.3%) Moderate 251 (39.2%) Liberal 97 (15.1%) Very liberal 24 (3.7%) Don’t know 22 (3.4%)

Notes: aRefused and missing values excluded for this total. bPercentage information is portion of 660 respondents indicating the category, and not the 787 valid responses. This number is greater because the survey included questions on matters unrelated to fiscal stress as well, for which the response rate was higher. Employment category responses exceed 660 because respondents were asked to indicate all employment status categories that apply. cRespondents were asked, ‘How conservative or liberal do you think your viewpoints are?’

402 R. Elling et al.

Copyright of Local Government Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.