Toronto experimented with a participatory budgeting process from 2015-2017. Over the three-year pilot project, nearly1,700 residents cast votes and selected 37 projects worth $1,870,000 in total.
Note: the following entry is missing citations. Please help us verify its content.
Problems and Purpose
Participatory budgeting has been used around the world to improve the relationship of citizens with their governments. The Toronto pilot project was initiated with the hope was that there would be greater transparency in government, increased civic engagement of residents, as well as strengthened and empowered communities and local budget decisions.
Background History and Context
During the 2014 budget deliberations, the Toronto City Council directed the City Manager to develop a participatory budgeting pilot in select wards in the City. This was on the basis of strong advocacy from Councillor Shelley Carroll, among others. Three wards were selected: Ward 33, Oakridge in Ward 35 and Rustic in Ward 12. They were selected on the basis of their City Councillor (in the case of Ward 33) or their status as a designated Neighbourborhood Improvement Area. Each ward was provided with a $150,000 funding allocation to be used for specific citizen-developed ideas.
The first year of the pilot was deemed a success, with the per-ward funding increased from $150,000 to $250,000
The City of Toronto had previous experience with participatory budgeting, with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) using some form since 2002 to provide residents an opportunity to decide how to spend capital funds to improve their communities.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The initiative was funded by the City of Toronto, with a per-ward-year funding allocation set out of the Operating Budget. City staff and pilot ward city councillors delivered the process.
Environics Research Group was also brought at the end of the 2015 project to conduct a formal evaluation.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
All residents 14 or older in the relevant wards were invited to participate. While the pilot was advertised to different communities, the net was cast as wide as possible to maximize participation.
Methods and Tools Used
A similar process was followed in all three wards selected with three steps:
1) A community outreach, engagement and information phase. City staff and councillors promoted the project and encouraged participation. Information about the project was shared via social and traditional media.
2) A community brainstorming and proposal development phase. A series of community meeting were held to brainstorm projects and to workshop ideas with City staff in terms of cost and viability.
3) A community vote phase. Each pilot shortlisted projects and then a vote was held in the community. Participants were able to select up to three projects.
Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction
Deliberation and design occurred during the second phase of the project where community members worked together to brainstorm and develop project proposals for inclusion on the ballot. The decision making process itself was done via binding vote, with those projects that were selected by the community members going ahead.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
During the three years of the pilot, 37 projects with a total cost of $1,870,000 were earmarked, completed or are in progress. Examples of projects include: lighting improvements in parks, the construction of a bicycle locker, and accessibility improvements.
The selected projects tended towards improvements to existing public amenities such as parks and roads.
Environics Research Group was also brought in after the 2015 initial pilot for a formal project evaluation. They found that satisfaction with the process was high and that there were benefits in terms of learning, community engagement, and local investment.
The full pilot report has not yet been released but is due to be released in mid-late 2018.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
The Environics report noted that participation at many of the community meetings, during the voting process, and in the evaluation process itself is lower than expected. While Environics only conducted an analysis in 2015, the challenges with participation continued even with the larger budget allocation of subsequent years. Both 2017 and 2016 saw lower participation rates than 2015. Importantly, Ward 33 saw the highest level of participation and this is likely connected to the strong championing of the program by then-councillor Shelley Carroll.
The City Manager is in the process of reporting on the pilot and will provide an evaluation and recommendations to City Council in mid-late 2018.
See Also
Participatory Budgeting
References
External Links
https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/participatory-budgeting/
