ABSTRACT Social equity is politically polarized, with advocates contending that it is a governance mandate and opponents claiming that it promotes reverse discrimination and inefficiencies. When implementing policies and programs, local bureaucrats must maneuver within this legal, ethical, normative, and political battlefield. This polarization can also be seen in budgeting processes when municipalities decide what to prioritize within their budgets. While some are leading their budgeting process with social equity, others may be incorporating equity considerations into budgets directly but calling it something different, indirectly through processes and programming on the back end, or not at all. Through a mixed methods approach, we investigate how Colorado bureaucrats infuse social equity into their 2024 budgets, informing a framework we present that maps types of social equity infusion. By categorizing current social equity budgeting (SEB) practices into Leading with Equity, Equity Considering, Implicit Equity, and No Equity, this study shows that SEB practices vary across municipalities based on context. Overall, we find that equity infusion does not often occur. When it does, most of the work is done through internal training and culture shifts through social equity officer leadership. However, we also find that municipalities are seeking out other ways to support historically marginalized populations, including leveraging external grants and taxes to fund necessary services such as workforce housing and childcare.
Kennedy et al. (2026) studied this question.