Participatory Budgeting Real Money, Real Power

1. Participatory Budgeting Real Money, Real Power Maria Hadden, Project Coordinator, The Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP)

2. About PBP Founded in 2009, incorporated as nonprofit in 2011 History Mission To empower community members to make informed, democratic, and fair decisions about public spending and revenue. Program Areas Public Education Technical Assistance Research & Evaluation Staff 3 in New York City office, plus 3 field staff in California and Chicago

3. Why participate in budgeting? Policy without the rhetoric Money talks, people pay attention Public budgets are taxpayer money

4. A ladder of budget participation Full participation Participatory budgeting Limited participation Citizen boards or councils Focus groups and town halls Consultation Informing Online games Hearings and deputations Listening

5. What is participatory budgeting? A democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget

6. Making real decisions about real money (NOT a consultation) An annual cycle (NOT a one-off event) Usually for part of a budget (NOT the whole budget) What is participatory budgeting?

7. How does it work? How does it work? Residents brainstorm ideas Delegates develop proposals Residents vote The top projects win funding

8. Public assemblies Brainstorm ideas and select delegates

9. Delegate meetingsDevelop proposals

10. Vote on proposals

11. Implement projects

12. Real Money, Real Power Re-inventing Democracy Through Participatory Budgeting

13. Where has participatory budgeting worked? 1,500+ PB processes in the world! Europe Cities, States, Counties, Public housing, Schools, Community organizations North America Asia Africa Latin America Porto Alegre, Brazil

14. Porto Alegre, Brazil 1989 • 1.5 million residents (50,000 participants per year) • Decide as much as $200 million in spending per year (20% of budget) • Key victories: • Doubled sanitation coverage • Doubled the number of students in schools • Expanded bus service to neglected areas

15. Participatory budgeting in North America Building Participation from the Bottom-Up Targeted Outreach Accessible Design Grassroots Leaders Strategic Funds

16. Participatory budgeting in North America in North America 2001: Toronto Community Housing 2001: Guelph, Ontario 2012: Vallejo, CA 2006: Plateau Borough, Montreal 2009: 49th Ward, Chicago 2013: San Francisco 2011: New York City

17. Toronto Community Housing 2001 • Second largest public housing provider in North America: 164,000 tenants • As many as 6,000 tenants per year have allocated up to $9 million in capital funds per year

18. Guelph, Ontario 2001 • PB based in Neighbourhood Support Coalition, which includes 14 grassroots neighborhood groups and representatives of agencies, foundations, and the city. • ~$250,000 budget pot from city, county, province, and foundation sources • Neighborhood groups identify program and capital priorities, then delegates decide via consensus how to divide up funds

19. Chicago’s 49th Ward 2009 • 60,000 residents, NE Chicago • $1.3 million (Alderman Joe Moore’s discretionary budget) • Funds for capital projects only • First PB Cycle: April 2009 – April 2010 • Completed three cycles, for 2012-2013 cycle has expanded to 4 wards

20. New York City 2011 District 8, Manhattan, Melissa Mark-Viverito (D) $6 Million reaching 500,000 residents District 32, Queens, Eric Ulrich (R) District 39, Brooklyn, Brad Lander (D) District 45, Brooklyn Jumaane Williams (D)

21. Who does what Community Decision-Makers Organizers and Support Council Member Offices District Residents Vote on Projects Citywide Steering Committee Design and oversee process Community Voices Heard Community Engagement Lead Budget Delegates Develop project proposals The Participatory Budgeting Project Technical Assistance Lead District Committees Implement and manage PB locally District Stakeholders Propose Ideas Research & Evaluation Team

22. Outcomes 1) Better Decisions • 2,400 residents identified 2,000 project ideas to address community needs • Over 300 active volunteers contributed approximately 20,000 volunteer hours to research, revise and develop 78 full project proposals • 6,000 voters chose top projects

23. Outcomes 2) Stronger Communities More community participation - especially by underrepresented groups • 2,000 assembly participants: 94% spoke, 63% had household income less than Area Median Income, 64% people of color, 64% women More community networks and collaboration • Over 350 organizations engaged in discussions about community improvements • Over 100 organizations collaborating on District and City-Wide Committees

24. Outcomes 3) More Public Support • 92% said assemblies were good or great • 90% said voting process was good or great • 94% increase in media coverage for participating Council Members

25. New York City 2012 - 2013 District 8: Melissa Mark-Viverito (D) District 19: Dan Halloran (R) District 33: Stephen Levin (D) District 23: Mark Weprin (D) $9.4 million reaching1.3 million residents District 39: Brad Lander (D) District 44: David Greenfield (D) District 32: Eric Ulrich (R) District 45: Jumaane Williams (D)

26. Vallejo, California 2012 • 117,000 residents • First citywide PB process in US • $3.2 million (sales tax revenue) • $200,000 allocated for implementation of process • Funds for capital projects and programs & services • 20-member Steering Committee designed and governs process

27. Why participatory budgeting?

28. Public education

29. Deeper democracy

30. More informed decisions

31. Fairer spending

32. Stronger communities

33. Accountability and transparency

34. Connects officials with residents

35. For more info Website: http://www.participatorybudgeting.org Twitter: @PBProject Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ParticipatoryBudgetingProject Maria Hadden, Project Coordinator: Email: maria@participatorybudgeting.org