Choose for Cheetham was a youth-led participatory budgeting initiative in Manchester, UK, in which young people and applicant organisations collectively voted to allocate over £200,000 to community projects in Cheetham Hill.
Problems and Purpose
The “Choose for Cheetham” initiative was implemented to address inequalities affecting young people in Cheetham Hill, including limited opportunities, safety concerns, and a lack of influence over local funding decisions. Existing funding mechanisms in the area had previously raised concerns about fairness and representation, promotion Hope for Cheetham and Young Manchester to seek for a more equitable way to effectively distribute youth-focused funding in Cheetham Hill [2,3]. Its purpose was to empower children and young people to achieve their ambitions through voting on and seeing community-led projects implemented in Cheetham Hill. This initiative resulted in over £200,000 distributed to youth-focused social action, play services, mentoring and wellbeing projects to become implemented [3].
Background History and Context
Cheetham Hill is a diverse inner-city neighbourhood in Manchester, England, with a population of just over 20,000. The area faces significant socioeconomic challenges, including above-average unemployment, below average educational results and concerning levels of crime and antisocial behaviour [3]. Approximately 30% of residents are under 19, higher than other parts of Manchester, making youth-focused investment particularly significant [3]. It is also an area with a powerful sense of local identity, due to high levels on immigration producing a culturally rich and diverse community.
Thus, the C4C project was specifically aimed at tackling systematic problems such as lack of opportunity and the history of no influence on the part of youth on local investments [2]. The main goal of the project is to provide routes to young people, thereby dismantling the culture of gangs through provision of alternative routes. This provides the youth with a taste of democratic power [2]. Furthermore, the project strives to ensure that youth aren’t marginalised by systematic racism.
Traditional grant-making processes in the UK have frequently been criticised for elite capture, cultural bias and favouritism, whereby well-connected or established organisations are disproportionately likely to receive funding [2]. In Cheetham Hill this tension was directly relevant, as several members of the Hope for Cheetham steering group were themselves applying for funding, raising concerns about the fairness of conventional allocation methods. Choose for Cheetham was implemented in direct response to these concerns, adopting participatory budgeting as a more transparent and democratic alternative.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The Hope for Cheetham steering group acted as the lead organising entity, overseeing the overall direction of the project. Having previously distributed funding only among existing member organisations, the steering group recognised that this approach excluded new organisations and lacked meaningful youth involvement, leading them to adopt PB as a more democratic alternative. In January 2025, the steering group met formally to agree on the structure of the voting events, how votes would be combined and weighted, and what would constitute a successful outcome [2]. The initiative was also supported by Young Manchester, who played a key role in coordinating and facilitating youth participation throughout the project [2]. Additional expert support was also provided by Shared Future, who specialise in setting up participatory budgeting programmes and were commissioned to assist with design aspects of the process. Shared Future developed templates and guidance materials to support smooth delivery and produced an evaluation report which assessed the effectiveness and outcomes of the initiative [2].
Funding for the initiative was provided by the Youth Endowment Fund and the #iwill fund, which enabled the allocation of over £200,000 to community-led projects and activities for young people in Cheetham Hill [3].
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Participation in the “Choose for Cheetham” programme was based on local engagement and community involvement. Young people primarily heard about the initiative through local youth organisations and networks connected to Young Manchester, which played a central role in outreach and communication [2]. Recruitment focused on encouraging participation from children and young people within the Cheetham Hill area, particularly those already involved in local community groups and activities.
Organisations applying for funding were selected based on their locality or their existing record of working within the Cheetham community and supporting young people in the area [2]. This ensured that proposed projects were closely connected to local needs and experiences. Applicants were also encouraged to promote the initiative and spread awareness of the voting events throughout the community, regardless of whether their own projects were successful. This helped increase visibility of the programme and broaden youth participation.
The recruitment process aimed to be inclusive and accessible rather than competitive or exclusive. Invitations to participate were largely distributed through existing community relationships, local organisations, and face-to-face engagement. Young people aged 8–18 were eligible to participate in the voting process, with efforts made to create a welcoming environment for diverse groups within the community [3]. By relying on trusted local networks and community-based outreach, the programme sought to maximise participation while ensuring that decision-making reflected the voices and priorities of local young people.
Methods and Tools Used
The “Choose for Cheetham” initiative implemented a youth-led participatory budgeting model that integrated co-design, deliberation, presentations, and voting to directly engage young people in decision-making [3]. Prior to the voting process, Young Manchester organised youth co-design sessions in December 2024 and January 2025 to shape the initiative’s structure and format [3]. These sessions influenced the project’s name, event activities, and food provision, all of which aimed to encourage youth participation, enjoyment, and meaningful engagement during the event.
Hope for Cheetham played a significant deliberative role in organising the process. The group discussed the criteria for funding decisions, the voting procedures for youth participants, the method for combining youth and applicant votes, and the indicators of a successful process [3]. The stated objectives included increasing youth empowerment, promoting fair decision-making, fostering community bonding, ensuring trust between organisations, and recognising risks such as low turnout, community tensions, and the potential for young people to feel overwhelmed or excluded [3].
To enhance accessibility, applicants seeking funding completed simplified application forms and received information packs, alongside support from Young Manchester’s staff [3]. Applicants were subsequently assessed against funding priorities identified by young people through surveys and in-person discussions. The established priorities included safety, arts opportunities, diverse sports activities, career support, increased green spaces, and inclusive community activities [3].
Decision-making occurred through two voting events. At the youth event, attended by over 100 participants, young people listened to presentations from 21 applicant organisations and visited stalls that explained the potential impact of each project [3]. Subsequently, youth voters aged 8 to 18 casted votes using numbered tokens distributed across multiple projects to promote fair and broad outcomes. Two days later, a separate voting day for applicants facilitated deliberation and voting. Votes from both groups were then combined using a weighted 60/40 system that prioritised youth votes, reinforcing Hope for Cheetham’s commitment to empowering young people in decision-making [2].
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The participatory budgeting process combined public interaction, deliberation, and democratic decision-making through a structured community event. Young people first attended a large youth voting event where applicant organisations delivered short presentations outlining their proposed projects [3]. Then, participants were encouraged to visit information stalls, speak directly with applicants, ask questions, and discuss the potential benefits of different projects with peers and organisers. This interactive format allowed young people to engage critically with proposals before making decisions. Alongside the youth event, applicant organisations also participated in a separate deliberative meeting where they discussed community needs, reflected on gaps in local provision, and voted on proposals. Facilitators guided discussions to ensure equal participation and balanced consideration of all projects. The final funding decisions combined both youth and applicant votes through a weighted system that prioritised youth influence while still incorporating organisational perspectives [2].
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
When evaluating the success of Choose for Cheetham, it is vital to differentiate between outcomes and effects. Outcomes relate to the immediate, substantial results that can be physically measured. Effects refer to the longer-term, wider impacts of the project which are less tangible and tend to be more personal.
Outcomes:
The initiative achieved its primary outcome of granting young people real and direct influence over funding decisions, with over £200,000 allocated to community projects reflecting the priorities and interests of local young people [2]. Young Manchester expressed strong satisfaction with the distribution of votes and the projects that ultimately received funding, suggesting the results genuinely reflected youth-led preferences rather than organisational interests [2]. A further structural outcome was the redesign of the funding process itself to reduce the potential for unfair influence. Concerns had been raised that applicants already connected to the Hope for Cheetham steering group could hold an advantage over new organisations, and in response the participatory budgeting model and weighted 60/40 voting system were specifically designed to prevent more powerful organisations from dominating allocation decisions [2]. According to organisers, this helped ensure participants viewed the process as transparent and fair [2].
Effects:
Beyond its immediate outcomes, the initiative produced several wider effects on participants and the broader community. Over 200 people attended the youth voting day, with many young people taking part in a genuinely democratic decision-making process for the first time [5]. Organisers reported that participants actively enjoyed the process and left feeling empowered by seeing their direct influence over which projects were implemented [5]. The initiative also had a positive effect on inter-organisational relationships within Cheetham Hill, with new connections formed between applicant organisations and community members that would not have occurred otherwise [2]. The process successfully supported groups that had been historically underrepresented or marginalised, with steering group members recognising the importance of fair representation and equitable resource distribution, and a strong sense of community spirit emerging among those involved [2, 5]. Ultimately, Choose for Cheetham can be viewed as an exemplar model for expanding youth voice in participatory budgeting, demonstrating how such processes can strengthen democratic and civic engagement whilst building trust and community-led decision-making [2].
Analysis and Lessons Learned
In the upcoming section, we will undertake a critical evaluation of the Choose for Cheetham project by applying Smith’s analytical framework of democratic and institutional goods; namely, inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency and transferability [1, pp.12-13]. This framework application will allow us to determine the extent to which the Choose for Cheetham Participatory Budgeting project lived up to all the required “democratic goods”. Aligned with the rest of this case study, much of the information provided in this analysis derives for an Interview with one of the directors of Shared Future who was involved in designing the Choose for Cheetham participatory budgeting format [2].
Inclusiveness
Inclusiveness, for Smith, requires more than simply allowing people to attend as it demands attention to who has the right to participate, how the demos is constituted, and whether the design of the process gives all citizens a genuinely equal opportunity to express their views and influence the outcome [1, p.21]. Crucially, Smith distinguishes between formal equality, where everyone technically has the right to contribute, and substantive equality, where resources and support are provided to ensure that right is meaningful for those who are less confident or experienced [1, p.22].
Choose for Cheetham was broadly inclusive by design. The process was open to all young people aged 8-18 in Cheetham Hill, meaning the demos was constituted based on local residence and age rather than any selective criteria that could have systematically excluded particular groups [2], [1, p.21]. The interview revealed that the process offered young people a genuine taste of democratic power that they should rightfully have, and that they held real authority over how resources were distributed [2]. This moves the process beyond formal inclusion into something closer to substantive empowerment.
Smith also raises the question of self-selection bias, which is the concern that only already engaged or confident young people will choose to participate [1, p.21]. This is a legitimate tension in Choose for Cheetham, since attendance was voluntary. However, the evidence suggests the process did not replicate existing inequalities [1, p.21]. The event was designed to be accessible and enjoyable, held during school holidays with refreshments, family-friendly spaces and volunteer stewards to support participants [3]. The passport stamp system, which required young people to visit at least ten stalls before voting, ensured that all voters engaged broadly with the available projects rather than gravitating only towards familiar ones, which helped level the quality of participation across attendees.
Smith also asks whether institutional rules, norms and expectations risk undermining the contributions of certain citizens [1, p.21]. The simplified application forms, detailed information packs and support provided to applicant organisations addressed this on the organisational side. For young participants, the voting booklet and structured event format provided scaffolding that reduced the advantage held by more experienced or articulate attendees. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of twenty-one projects presented within a single afternoon remains a genuine limitation because younger or less confident participants may have found this overwhelming, potentially affecting the depth and equality of their engagement
Overall, Choose for Cheetham demonstrated a serious commitment to inclusiveness that went beyond procedural box-ticking. By giving young people the weightiest share of the vote, and designing the event to lower barriers to participation, the process made a credible attempt to ensure equal opportunity to affect the output [1, p.22]. However, the voluntary nature of attendance and the scale of the event meant perfect inclusiveness was not fully achievable.
Considered Judgement
Choose for Cheetham demonstrated very strong elements of considered judgement throughout the process, particularly due to the information that was provided to the youth participants before they voted for their preferred projects. Smith argues that the legitimacy of citizen participation within political decision making depends upon citizens being able to make judgements that are reflective and thoughtful [1, p.24]. Rather than encouraging ill-informed or superficial voting, the participatory budgeting process attempted to ensure that young people were meaningfully and genuinely engaged in terms of understanding the types of projects presented before casting their votes [5]. Participants were provided with detailed information through presentations, project stalls and voting booklets which allowed the young people to evaluate how the variety of projects would solve or aid issues within Cheetham Hill [2]. The organisers of the event genuinely wanted young people to make decisions which would directly improve their lived conditions, such as tackling the needs they personally recognised, which meant the enforcement of informed participation was extremely present. This strongly fulfils Smith’s criteria that democratic participation is only meaningful when citizens can make informed decisions based on the information provided to them [1, p.24].
Smith also outlines that considered judgement requires citizens to engage with perspectives beyond their own private interests and appreciate the experiences of others with different social backgrounds and views [1, p.24]. Evidence from the Choose for Cheetham event shows that this requirement was achieved through the structure of the event itself. Young participants were required to engage with multiple projects before voting, which encouraged them to consider and vote for projects that related to a wide range of community issues rather than simply voting for initiatives that directly benefited themselves [5]. This was particularly significant because there was concern that particular groups could have been underrepresented, however evidence from organisers presented that participants remained conscious of broader community representation as the participants widely supported projects they believed would empower a range of young people, not just themselves or their friends [5]. In this sense, the process encouraged what Smith describes as the ability to place ourselves in the position of others, which allowed participants to successfully move beyond purely self-interested preferences [1, p.24].
Furthermore, the process appears to have contributed to longer-term civic learning and democratic development. Suggestions that the initiative effectively worked alongside PSCHE education in schools by helping young people to develop their understanding of citizenship and democratic participation [2]. This shows that considered judgement is not just about making a single informed decision but is about cultivating reflective and engaged citizens capable of future democratic participation. There was also a strong sense that the process left a legacy of empowerment, because participants were able to see the projects that they voted for become implemented and make an impact in their communities [2].
However, there were still some limitations to the extent to which considered judgement was achieved. Despite participants being provided with information and opportunities increasing engagement, the process involved mainly children evaluating a large variety of projects within a relatively limited timeframe. This means that some decisions could have been shaped by immediate personal preference or emotional appeal rather than real considerations. Nevertheless, compared to many conventional democratic process where citizens have limited engagement with policy details, Choose for Cheetham demonstrated high levels of commitment to fostering informed, reflective and community-orientated decisions among young participants [2].
Popular Control
Popular control requires that citizens hold genuine influence over the decisions that affect them, rather than being included in a process where the important choices have already been made [1, p.23]. Smith is particularly concerned with whether participation extends meaningfully across the different stages of decision-making, and whether citizens can see how their involvement shaped the outcome [1, p.17].
Choose for Cheetham held up well against these demands. The interview revealed that compared to conventional grant distribution, this process was considerably more open and responsive, with participants genuinely able to critique and feed back into the process [2]. This matters because most participatory processes tend to involve citizens only at comfortable, low-stakes moments, keeping the more consequential decisions in the hands of institutions [1, p.23]. Choose for Cheetham did the opposite as young people were brought into the heart of funding allocation itself, not invited to comment on decisions already established by more powerful actors.
The structural design of the voting process reinforced this. By holding the youth vote before applicant deliberation took place, organisers insulated young people's preferences from the influence of more established organisations [3]. The 60/40 weighting then ensured those preferences carried the greatest share of the final outcome. Young people could also see directly which projects received funding as a result of their votes, meaning the connection between their participation and the eventual decision was visible and traceable [1, p.17].
Smith acknowledges that some innovations may lack broad political salience [1, p.23], and Choose for Cheetham was a locally scoped process rather than a city-wide political intervention. However, the goal was never broader political transformation. It was simply to give young people in Cheetham Hill real authority over what projects got implemented within their community, and the evidence suggests that goal was met.
Transparency
Transparency was another significant democratic good achieved within the Choose for Cheetham participatory budgeting process. Smith distinguishes between two types of transparency: internal transparency, directed towards participants, and external transparency which is directed towards the wider public if the institutions is to have a significant effect on public decisions [1, p.25]. Together, these two requirements determine whether citizens can genuinely scrutinise the activities of organisations and institutions, which is something Smith argues is fundamental to building trust and confidence within any democratic system [1, pp.25-26].
Internal Transparency concerns whether participants have a clear understanding of the conditions in which they are engaging in the democratic process, and whether their participation amounts to genuine decision-making power rather than mere co-option [1, p.25]. Choose for Cheetham demonstrated several features of internal transparency. Applicants received detailed information packs and support from the staff at Young Manchester, which ensured they remained informed about the whole structure and the power that their participation held within the process [2]. An abundance of information was available and given to the youth participants at the voting event, such as information packs and voting booklets which were designed to take notes on for the voters to remain informed about their role in the process [3]. Additionally, the weighting of votes which was 60/40, favouring the youth voters, was clearly explained so that the young people would understand the value of their opinions [2]. The whole initiative was clearly understood by all participants, which applicants feeding back and stating that the process felt transparent around the whole decision-making process [2]. This aligns with Smith’s argument that democratic legitimacy requires citizens to understand their role in the process and the value that their participation carries [1, p.25]. Underpinning all of this was the organisational culture at Young Manchester, in which strong values of transparency and accountability are deeply embedded [2]. This culture gave staff the confidence to take risks and push transparency further than is commonly seen in youth and adult democratic processes, which built the conditions for genuine internal openness, rather than a superficial or performative version of it [2].
External transparency concerns the ability of the wider public, who may not be directly participating to have the ability to scrutinise institutions/organisations whose decisions have significant public impact [1, pp.25-26]. Smith argues that institutions must operate publicly if they are to be perceived as trustworthy [1, pp.25-26]. Choose for Cheetham strongly met this criterion. The youth voting event was made public due to social media presence, word around the community and online websites promoting the event [2]. The youth voting day was open to the public in which over 200 attendees and their families came, which ensured the decision-making process was not confined to a small group which could have led to biased decisions. Additionally, a professional video documenting the day was released by Young Manchester on YouTube, as well as a publicly available evaluation report released by Shared Future [4,3]. The strong efforts to make this project widely known within Cheetham Hill shows that this project was committed to enabling high levels of external transparency, meeting Smith’s requirement.
Efficiency
Smith's efficiency criterion evaluates the demand that participation places on citizens and institutions, and whether these are worth bearing individually and socially [1, p.26]. In practice, this means weighing whether the time, money and administrative effort required are justified by the value of the outcomes produced.
On this metric, Choose for Cheetham performs well. The process distributed over £200,000 in community grants within approximately six months, requiring around £15,000 in facilitation and engagement costs [2]. The programme also captured "the best of both worlds" in terms of deliberation, transparency and participation [2], which reflected a broader sense among organisers that the process delivered high levels of value relative to its costs. This judgement was echoed in the evaluation report, which describes the outcome as having successfully balanced youth empowerment, organisational diversity and community benefit [3]. Applicants similarly rated their satisfaction highly, with average scores of 4.55 and 4.00 out of 5 at the youth and applicant events [3], suggesting participants broadly felt their investment of time was worthwhile.
The acceptable costs associated with this innovation were not prohibitive. Young people were asked to engage for approximately three hours at the voting event, whilst applicants attended two structured sessions across the process [3]. In return, participants received direct influence over a substantial amount of funding, civic learning opportunities, and visible community outcomes. These deem conditions Smith would recognise as justifying the demands placed on citizens [1, p.26].
Transferability
Transferability assesses the extent to which a democratic innovation can be replicated across different contexts, and Smith identifies several dimensions along which this must be evaluated. These include whether the model can operate at larger scales, whether it’s limited to particular political systems, whether its restricted to certain types of issues and the degree to which transfer has occurred [1, p.27].
Participatory budgeting as a broader model already demonstrates a high level of transferability across space. Originating in Porto Alegre, Brazil, it has since spread across South America, Europe and the UK, which demonstrates that the core principle of citizen-led funding allocations can function across vastly different political and cultural contexts [6, p.29]. The Shared Future evaluation report itself notes that youth-led PB has rapidly expanded in Scotland, where all 32 local authorities have committed to spending 1% of centrally allocated budgets through PB, which indicates meaningful institutional transfer at a large scale [3]. Choose for Cheetham built upon this existing tradition whilst adding its own innovations, such as the hybrid voting model between young people and the applicants [2]. The interview revealed that this model captured the “best of both worlds” in terms of deep deliberation, consideration and participation [2]. It was also addressed that other areas are not taking up this model, despite its clearly beneficial community outcomes, which suggests that barriers to transfer are not inherent to the actual model, but relate more closely to institutional will and awareness.
In terms of scale, Smith raises the question of whether democratic innovations can function effectively in larger contexts [1, p.27]. Choose for Cheetham distributed over £200,000 across 21 applicant organisations and was likely the largest youth-led grant-making process of its kind in the UK [3]. This demonstrates that the model is likely capable of being transferred into larger contexts handling larger sums of funding, as the project ran incredibly smoothly which how the model would likely hold well if applied to larger contexts.
However, transferability across culture and political contexts is where the model may face the most pressing limitations and is where Smith’s framework demands the most critical attention [1, p.27]. The success of Choose for Cheetham was heavily dependent on specific local conditions, such as high levels of organisation support from Young Manchester, strong levels of civic engagement, the presence of experienced youth workers with deep community knowledge and a steering group that already had connections to applicants [2]. These factors may not be present in other areas, which means in communities where there is low civic engagement, lack of youth-focused organisations and where political systems are less receptive to sharing decision-making power with young people, difficulties may arise.
Additionally, Smith raises the question as to whether certain models are limited to types of issues [1, p.27]. Choose for Cheetham was focused on implementing projects that young people believed would be beneficial for their community, in terms of aiding local issues such as a lack of safe hangout spaces [3]. Replicating this process in the context of more complex political issues may face difficulties, however this is not to undermine its strong potential to be successfully replicated in other areas. Transferring this model may require substantial adaptation if the issues it aims to solve vary considerably, however this simply means the transfer would have to be thoughtful and context-specific, which is possible if the resources are available.
Overall, Choose for Cheetham was a model that genuinely demonstrated a strong potential to be transferred across space, evidenced by the spread of PB in recent years, as well as a strong ability to become scaled up. Its transferability across different cultural and political contexts would be conditional and dependent on organisational infrastructure, community trust and institutional commitment. However, the outcomes of this model were so positive and exceeded expectations of organisers, which suggests that this project would likely have a positive impact if transferred to other areas [2].
See Also
References
- Smith, G. (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/soton-ebooks/detail.action?docID=452029#
- Hall, J. (2026) Interview Transcript (Director, Shared Future)
- Shared Future (2025) Choose for Cheetham Youth Participatory Budgeting 2025. Available at: https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Choose-For-Cheetham-Evaluation-2025.pdf
- Young Manchester (2025) Choose for Cheetham – Children and Young People Take the Lead in Funding Decisions! YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byaXHQsWYIM
- NHS GM PCCA TEAM (2025) Live Well Live: Shifting Power to Communities using Participatory Budgeting. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=347vuQMeO-s
- Cabannes, Y. (2004) ‘Participatory Budgeting: A Significant Contribution to Participatory Democracy’, Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), pp.27-46. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/095624780401600104
