You are hereHome ›
Participatory Budgeting (New York, New York)
Problems and Purpose
New York City has a historically corrupt and non-transparent budgetting process. The New York City Council is also known for its extremely non-transparent funding structure whereby the Speaker of the Majority can determine a City Council Member's discertionary budget within a range of $3-$11 Million Dollars. The New York City Council has also had a slew of corruption scandels linking council members to patronage and clientialism. In this climate, Participatory Bugetting in New York City (PBNYC), for Fiscal Year (2012-2013) is the largest pilot program of Participatory Budgetting to be implemented in the United States. PBNYC aims to bring about greater transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement into the New York budgeting process with the dual aims of 1) having citizens directly create and vote upon projects and 2) bring about greater civic awareness and ultimately putting pressure for a more transparent budgeting process.
While Participatory Budgeting has proven to be a successful model for citizen engagement throughout the world, starting in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 1989, it has yet to take hold in the United States (Fung 2011). Since starting in Brazil, PB has expanded to more than 300 municipalities worldwide (Cabannes n.d.; Wampler 2004; Wampler and Avritzer 2005). The only other instance of PB in the United States is in the 49th Ward of Chicago. PB is a generative process that can take many forms depending on the size of the political unit to which it is applied. PB is inextricably linked to the given political structure that empowers PB--i.e., city level, state-wide level, etc. For example, the 1988 Brazilian Constitution set up the structural spaces in which PB could flourish (Baiocchi et al. 2011, p. 39).
While it is often recognized that PB has large potential and impact in the developing world, it is less clear if PB is a transferable model for the United States. Writing in a recent World Bank Organization report about PB, expert Brian Wampler notes “one of the reasons why participatory budgeting is transferable to other locations, especially in developing countries, is that clientelism and social exclusion are everyday realities in many part of the developing world” (Shah 2007).
When discussing Participatory Budgeting (PB) it is important to distinguish the many types of participatory democratic innovations, some even involving budgeting, from the specific form of PB understood as Brazilian Participatory Budgeting style that first took this form in Brazil in 1989.
In Brazil, the Workers Party (PT) is a democratic socialist party, which used PB as a way to mobilize citizens and win popular support and legitimacy. Motivations for implementing PB in the United States are different as the U.S. has disparate political and social environment than Brazil. Joe Moore, Alderman of Chicago’s 49th District, was the first to ever implement PB in the United States.
Originating Entities and Funding
PBNYC was co-chaired by two organizations, Participatory Budget Project (PBP) and Community Voices Heard (CVH). These organizations co-chaired the City Wide Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the four council member districts participating as well as representatives from differenct community based organizations (CBOs) in New York City. Additionally, each district was comprised of a District Steering Committee comprised of citizens and representatives from local organizations and civic associations within each of the four districts.
The council member's offices provided funding for the process, some of it directly, some through in-kind donations, and some channeled through CVH through the expense fund process. The process received outside grant and donor support. Though notably the research and evaluation team, run through the Urban Justice Center (UJC) lacked specific monies to run the process. The process also received around $200,000 less than anticapted to run the process, therefore the majority of staff on the governance level were donating their time and resources to staff and run PBNYC.
Each council member pledged to put at least $1 Million of their discretionary funds, money that goes to capital infrascture projects, to projects voted upon by residents of the community.
The process began in September 2011 with the final vote in March 2012. The process began with district information sessions in which community members, leaders, and civil society organizations came together to learn more about the process and volunteer to serve on the District Steering Committees. The District Steering Committees helped to divide each district into Neighborhoods, which hosted a first round of Neighborhood Assemblies in October 2011. At these events community members learned about the process and broke up into smaller groups to brainstorm potential projects in their neighborhoods - there are four or five neighborhoods within each district. At these neighborhood assemblies people signed up to be Budget Delegates – the people who met between November and February to actually create and draft proposals. You did not need to be a resident of a given district to come to a Neighborhood Assembly or serve as a budget delegate. You did need to be a resident in the community in order to vote; however, the vote is open to all people aged over 18 including non-citizens.
Budget Delegates worked directly with city agencies in the specific thematic committiess such as Transporation, Parks and Recreation, and Education etc. and draft these proposals. In February 2012 a second round of Neighborhood Assemblies took place in which people deliberated, discussed, and commented on the proposals. After these revisions there was a community-wide vote in March 2012 for projects. Council Members pledged to fund at least $1 million dollars in projects. As outlined below, Council member Lander ended up putting over $5 million to fund PBNYC projects. Additionally, Council Members have pledged to try to find other revenue streams, including expense funds, to fund additional project ideas beyond those that were voted upon which proved true during the course of the process.
Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction
Throughout the various stages of the process there were moments and opportunities for deliberation, decisions, and public interaction. The District Committe members decided where to hold all events and worked directly with the Council Members' offices to publicize events. At the first round of Neighborhood Assemblies, Council Members were present, speaking, and interacting directly with residents and stakeholders in the community. These were opportunities to meet new people neighborhoods and discuss both the common and disparate themes and problems. In the first round of Neighborhood Assemblies citizens deliberated and drew up project proposals. There was a wide exchange of ideas as they brainstorm edall the different parts of their communities where they wanted to see capital improvements made.
The list of projects from these first round of Neighborhood Assemblies were consolidated and then presented to the people who signed up to be Budget Delegates. Each Budget Delegate group was divided by theme based on the project proposals from each district's compilation of Neighborhood Assemblies, for example Parks and Recreation and Transporation. Each Budget Delegate committee has a faciliator who is either trained as a moderator or already serving on the District Committee. At these committees, experts from the specific government agencies involved in the projects for example if a project is about Education a staff member from the Education Department attended, and consulted the delegates in the process. The Council member offices serves as an intermediary between Budget Delegates and City agencies.
The bulk of deliberation and discussion took place in the Budget Delegate theme groups as they were typically comprised of a small enough number of people to enable true discussion and deliberation. Some theme groups had subcommittees such as within a committee such as Streets and Sidewalks subscomittee within the broader Parks and Recreations committee. Budget Delegates met roughly every other week over a span of many months and often communicated through email and phone. Therefore there are many different opportunities for deliberation, engagement, and discussion. The level of online interaction varied through the districts with D-39 and D-8 using online tools the most for the process. In D-39, 180 project proposals were submitted online; 40 in D-8; 17 in D-45, and 8 in D-32. D-45, D-8 and D-39 all use social media as part of their project Council member communication strategy including facebook, twitter, and blogs. The various demographics within each district and Council member capacity with technology influenced the usage of Internet Communication Technoogies (ICT) in PBNYC. Overall, the process was extremely "low tech."
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
Preliminary Budget Options from the Votes:
District 39: 2,200 Voters Total $1.4 Million
1. Renovation of two dysfunctional bathrooms at PS 124 ($150,000, 958 votes)
2. Innovative community composting system near Gowanus Canal to turn 1 ton/day of food waste into soil ($165,000, 919 votes)
3. Planting 100 new trees on blocks throughout the district with few or no trees ($100,000, 767 votes)
4. New technology for PS 130 and PS 154 ($140,000, 758 votes)
5. Repairing Prospect Park pedestrian paths to prevent flooding, and adding trash cans in the park ($205,000, 648 votes)
6. Repairs and safety improvements at the dangerous Prospect Expressway/Church Avenue pedestrian crossing ($200,000, 606 votes)
7. New books and equipment for the Kensington public library to enhance the branch’s use for meetings, storytelling, rehearsals, and small performances promoting Kensington's cultural diversity ($80,000, 582 votes)
District 8: 1,132 Voters Total $1.54 Million
- Transportation for Seniors and Meals-on-Wheels Delivery Van ($100,000) - 579 votes. The transportation and Meals-on-Wheels vans will be operated by Union Settlement Association.
- Security Cameras in Several NYCHA Developments ($525,000) - 499 votes
Includes Jefferson, Johnson, Betances, Millbrook, Washington, Taft, Clinton, & Wagner complexes.
- Playground Improvements ($500,000) - 300 votes. At both Douglass and Millbrook Houses.
- A Home for Harlem RBI and Dream Charter School ($250,000) - 292 votes
- Ultrasound System for Metropolitan Hospital ($105,000) - 252 votes
- New Technology for New York Public Library's Aguilar Branch ($60,000) - 248 votes
District 45: 1,100 Voters $1.05 Million
1. The installation of two security cameras at several locations district-wide.
2. Funding towards the purchase or renovation of a space for a proposed community resource center.
3. The installation of flood lights in each park in the district.
4. The purchase of desktops, laptops, a security cart and a smartboard for students at the CAMBA Beacon Program located at P.S. 269 Nostrand.
District 32: 1,639 Voter total $1.32 Milion
1. Technology Upgrades at PS47, PS317/MS318, PS114.
2. Cascade (Oxygen Refill) System for Volunteer Fire Departments
3. Water Pump for Volunteer Fire Departments to Alleviate Flooding
4. Pagers for Four Volunteer Fire Departments
5. Knights of Columbus, Rockaways – Handicapped Bathroom Upgrade
6. Gazebo-Bandstand/Outdoor Performance Space on Shorefront Parkway
7. Library Vending Machine in Breezy Point
8. Six Argus Security Cameras for the 100th Precinct (3 locations)
9. Library Renovation/Upgrade at Peninsula Library Branch
Analysis and Criticism
There is concern about scalability and feasibility of the project. Although tentatively four additionally Council Members have signed up for the second cycle. Some contend that CBO's are too deeply imbedded in the process lacking the neccesary resources to maintain the process. There was also concern about how represenative the process was, as people made active decisions to participate with an emphasis on deepening particiaption not necesarily ensuring the most representation across the spectrum. Within the process of deliberation and decision making are the traditional critiques of deliberative processes such as re-establish socio-economic divides and favor those able to speak and be heard. The micro-decision making of moderator effects and organization of district level committees as well as Council Member resources created variation in the process.
Concerns regard resources not only of CBOs but also of Council member offices as the process is very labor intensive. Addition concerns relate to the political nature of the process including Council member motivations. At what point can the political motivations be seperated from a desire for genuine civic engagement? Is this process about bringing people to vote for projects and build coaltions around their Council members or to form deeper civic associations and bonds? If the project is ambitiously aiming to do all of these things how can they be achieved with substantative political and capital resources?
While the first cycle of participation has come to a close, there is concern about the ability to for citizenly to effectively monitor the projects implemented. PB in the United States has not used Internet Communication Technologies (ICT) as effectively as PB in some other places including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic to name a few. Therefore, the question through which tools will participants follow up on project monitoring and implementation is yet to be seen.
Lastly, how to turn PBNYC into a process that calls for greater transparency and accountability for larger sums of money is a challenge. The Participatory Budget Project co-Founder and Brown Professor Gianpaolo Baiocchi notes "The challenge is to use the discretionary funds as a stepping stone towards other kinds of decision-making. Imagine how transformative it would be to actually control the way the city works and runs!"