"Idee in Fuga" is the first Participatory Budgeting (PB) initiative to be carried out in an Italian prison. It aims to strengthen detainees' participation in decision-making and create a bridge with the outside community by using crowdfunding for participants’ proposals.
Problems and Purpose
"Idee in Fuga" is a Participatory Budget initiative that attempts to go beyond more traditional applications of the method. It does so in two forms:
1. It brings PB into a new and unprecedented environment, the prison. Usually, PB processes are promoted by local governments with the aim of engaging citizens in deliberation on public policies and to give them the opportunity to decide on a small fraction of the available budget. Recently, there have been some PB initiatives that go beyond the logic of local governments to include other institutional settings, but it had never been tried in a prison1.
2. It breaks up with the idea of a pre-determined budget to finance proposals made by participants. With "Idee in Fuga", its promoters have included fundraising as another step in the process and created an opportunity for civil society to participate in it. Thus, there’s a community of detainees who deliberates and chooses the proposals and another community that finances them2.
"Idee in Fuga" is an opportunity for different actors to meet, understand each other and find common ground. One of its purposes is to contribute to the re-education path of detainees and to improve relations with prison authorities and the outside community. Moreover, the project intends to broaden participation beyond existing representative structures, thus building trust among detainees. It also attempts to show that it is possible to create new work dynamics between external volunteers and the detainees. Dynamics that take their needs into account and empower them in the process instead of falling into a more paternalistic logic of charity. Above all, "Idee in Fuga" is a novel experiment that is being tried because the opportunity emerged3.
Background History and Context
Participatory Budgeting in Italy
Italy was among the first European countries to implement Participatory Budgeting (PB) initiatives. In 1994, the country had a previous (isolated) experience with PB in a small municipality (comune, in Italian) of 14.000 inhabitants called Grottammare (Marche region)4. However, it was only in 2001 that BP initiatives got off the ground, mostly inspired by Porto Alegre’s experience (Brazil) that became known globally after the the first World Social Forum5.
Until very recently, Italy’s experience with PB has been closely tied to territorial entities such as municipalities (comuni) and boroughs (municipalità), in the case of large metropolitan areas. This differs from other countries like France and Canada where PB has spread to different environments such as schools, universities and other de-centralised entities. In the first years, local administrators, researchers and other actors created the movement Rette del Nuovo Municipio (New Municipality Network) in order to circulate ideas on PB and promote the method within local government’s participation agendas. However, the network had almost disappeared in 20096.
While most PB processes have been financed directly through municipal funds, some regional governments (Giunte Regionali) have also co-financed some initiatives, namely in Emilia-Romagna, Lazio and Tuscany. Nonetheless, after some years of growth in PB initiatives throughout the country, the period after 2008 saw a considerable reduction in the number of processes. This was mainly due to a new Law barring local governments from collecting a property tax for the first home, which was one of the municipalities main financing sources. After a seven year period of stagnation, there has been a new wave of initiatives from 2015 onwards, mainly in large metropolitan areas like Bologna, Milano and Roma and in other centre-north cities. However, the tendency is for initiatives that are highly dependent on existing public funds, which leads to intermittency7.
How did it start?
"Idee in Fuga" is the first time a PB process is attempted inside a prison. The closest example happened in 2017 in Montreal (Canada) where PB was used as a form of increasing ex-detainees reintegration in society. While the process did include some detainees on furlough, it did not occur inside a prison precinct8. The idea occurred in 2016 to an intern working at BiPart, a Milano based social enterprise working with PB. The intern had his first contact with the Bollate prison in Milano through an acquaintance. After a visit to the precinct, he proposed to carry a PB project there to his coordinators and they’ve agreed9.
Bollate is a model prison, famous for having the lowest recividism rate (20%) in the country. In Italy, 70% of detainees (on average) return to prison after having served their sentence. Bollate’s authorities have a constructive approach to the institution’s role in reintegration and have opened it to civil society initiatives. As a result, the institution has developed a tradition of participatory practices that include detainees in decision-making through the creation of ward commissions and a Cultural Committee composed of an educator, external volunteers and inmates from every ward10.
After several meetings with prison authorities, the education coordinator and the inmate commissions, "Idee in Fuga" started gaining form and generating enthusiasm among its proponents and potential participants. It took approximately two years between these early conversations and the approval of the project’s regulations by the authorities in charge of prison administration (P.R.A.P, Provveditorato Regionale dell'Amministrazione Penitenziaria) in March 2018. However, the initiative only had its official start in February 2019 because its organisers needed time to establish a communication strategy and prepare the deliberative assemblies with detainees11.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The absence of an operational budget has turned "Idee in Fuga" into a highly collaborative process. Until now, there have been several actors involved in organising, supporting and funding the initiative.
Organisers
BiPart is in charge of most organizational aspects, including the methodological implementation of the PB, external communication and procedural aspects of participation. It counts with specialised staff for the purpose, paid through the enterprise's own budget. Within Bollate, procedural aspects have been co-managed with a prison educator who mediates contacts with the administration and detainees. For a certain period there was also a collaboration with an association – Gruppo della Trasgressione – working with rehabilitation practices inside the prison. One of the association’s psychologists, who knows the detainees well, participated in the preparation and conduction of the first assemblies.
Supporters
Other than its promoters, "Idee in Fuga" also depends upon the support of the Centre for Social Studies (Portugal) as a research partner working alongside BiPart inside Bollate. CES has been in charge of conducting research on the project since its beginning, in particular on how the participants perceive the initiative, how it has empowered them and changed their relationship with prison authorities. Another key partner is the Association Autori di Immagini that has called italian illustrators to donate artwork that will be used to finance the projects chosen by detainees. They’ve also helped collecting this artwork and organizing exhibitions.
Moreover, "Idee in Fuga" has also been supported by BASE, the manager of the co-working space where BiPart is located, who has helped with the external communication and provided spaces for events. Some video-making companies have also been producing small videos for external communication, including interviews with participants. Finally, the project has received non-financial support and recognition from different institutions, including Italy’s Ministry of Justice, Milano’s Metropolitan City and Milano’s 8th Borough. The municipality of Milano did not endorse the project officialy, but has helped with diffusion through its communication channels12 13.
Funding
"Idee in Fuga" does not have an operational budget neither pre-allocated funds for the detainees proposals. Funds to implement initiatives are currently being collected through donations, but will mostly depend upon a crowdfunding campaign set to start in early October (2019). This crowdfunding will be hosted in the platform “Produzioni dal Basso” and will be accompanied by a communication campaign featuring some of the project’s proponents. The artwork donated through the collaboration with Autori di Immagini is central to the campaign because it will be rewarded to donors, who can choose their favourite works from a catalogue14. Moreover, the crowdfunding will be seconded by musical and theatre performances with the purpose of raising awareness to the fundraising15.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
"Idee in Fuga" is intended for all detainees inside Bollate prison. One of the early aspects identified by the initiative’s promoters was that, despite their vital role in the process, existing representative commissions were loosing their respectability among other prisoners. Some saw these commissions as spaces serving its members personal interests instead of those of the entire community. Thus, a PB initiative is a mechanism that allows all detainees interested in decision-making to participate more actively16.
The selection and communication with potential participants faced several hindrances, in particular due to prison dynamics. Bollate is divided by wards and the detainees in each have limited to almost no contact with each other. Moreover, there’s absolute gender division making it impossible to follow a single process for men and women. To complicate things even more, detainees have no access to the internet and every communication step must pass through the prison’s authorities. As a result, early diffusion of the initiative depended mostly upon word of mouth and leaflets distributed by the different commission members17.
There was not a clear profile amongst participants. However, it is possible the detainees who choose to attend the assemblies are those more predisposed to this kind of initiatives, in particular those following a rehabilitation path. Moreover, there is a possibility that some participants are using the process as an instrument to obtain a reduction in sentence time or furloughs. However, these conjectures require further inquiry18.
Methods and Tools Used
Since it’s the first time a Participatory Budgeting (PB) initiative is attempted in a prison, the method suffered several procedural changes when compared to more traditional contexts of implementation. However, it is important to stress that despite the limitations faced by detainees due to their condition, the process has (so far) been considerably inclusive of their voices and desires. Participants had the possibility to participate in:
1. Informative assemblies that served to inform and include them in the process.
2. Deliberative assemblies where they’ve discussed and presented their needs and desires and worked to turn them into concrete proposals.
3. Preselection and ranking of initiatives in order to define which will be developed in more detail.
4. The planning and designing of proposals. Limited to those who made proposals.
Promoters and facilitators chose not to use any particular tool or technique during the assemblies due to some restrictions. First, because of prison logistics: the spaces used for the meetings changed constantly and did not have the adequate conditions to implement deliberative techniques like World Café or Town Meeting. Second, because of time restrictions: assemblies lasted for periods of only one and a half hour19.
"Idee in Fuga" also brings a new methodology into PB: crowdfunding. This is not merely a tool to fund the proposals, but also a method to engage the outside community in the process. Those who donate have the chance to consult the initiatives proposed by detainees and now a little more about the difficulties they face in prison and the dynamics they’re implementing. This not only increases the overall credibility of the process, but can also help building more trust between the inside and outside communities20.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Planning the PB process
The methodology applied in "Idee in Fuga" followed BiPart’s approach to PB processes with local governments, but adapted to the specificities and limitations of a prison. Communication inside Bollate is limited and time runs differently from life outside. Both its preparation and the process itself have been conducted in constant triangulation between BiPart, administrative personnel and detainees.
An important aspect is that "Idee in Fuga" is not a single PB initiative, but in fact two parallel processes: one with men and another with women residents. First, because these two populations have no contact whatsoever with each other. Second, because there are five times more men than women in prison and a common process would have been unfair to participants in female wards. Another key element is that it is possible to distinguish two dynamics: those carried out inside the prison, aimed at deliberation and proposal planning outcomes, and those outside, focusing on fundraising21.
Informative Assemblies
The first assemblies were carried out soon after the project’s official start in February 2019. They were mostly informative, happened in every ward, and lasted approximately 30 minutes. The assemblies main objective was to inform its participants about the project and to explain the steps of the process, in particular the dynamics of deliberative assemblies22.
Deliberative Assemblies
The second assemblies were mostly deliberative, happened once in every ward and lasted for approximately 2 hours. Their main objective was to elicit participants’ ideas, that they could discuss them with each other and build alliances. These assemblies had more participants in some wards that others but, in the end, all wards had one. Overall, they were very lively, substantive and well participated. Assemblies were conducted by a facilitator whose role was to invite participation, guarantee everyone had a say in the discussion and guide the participant’s desires and demands into concrete proposals. Initially, the organisers had expected each of these assemblies would produce a small number of proposals, but this objective turned out to be impossible to reach. Thus, they became mostly a space for brainstorming, critical reflection and discussing the feasibility of the ideas. Above all, these deliberative assemblies served to give participants the means to structure their ideas in a correct manner23.
Everyone who advanced and submitted a proposal during deliberative assemblies had the opportunity to participate in a general assembly with people from all wards. The purpose of this inter-ward assembly was to confront ideas coming from different groups, avoid repeated proposals and to create a space for detainees to meet and relate. In sum, it helped to overcome existing restrictions that prevent the normal flow of ideas and communication between participants, thus turning apparently fragmented deliberative spaces into a single, consistent process.
After all assemblies, participants still had the chance to present their proposals through a form created specifically for this purpose. This form included a title, some key questions, a brief description of the proposal, what problems or needs it addresses and the required resources. Even those who did not participate in any of the meetings could fill a form and advance a proposal. Moreover, while participants could present a proposal in a collectively, they had to distinguish the person in charge from the collaborators in order to facilitate design procedures and communication with other actors. In the end, the organisers created two catalogues: one with 47 proposals distributed in male wards and a second with 11 proposals divulged among female detainees24 25.
Preselection
After circulating the proposals among detainees for a time period, the process entered a phase of pre-selection or ranking. It would be logistically and financially impossible to plan and design all 58 proposals, thus the number had to be reduced to a feasible one. Initially, the organisers thought about 20 proposals (10 male + 10 female), but in the end the number was reduced to half (5 male + 5 female). In a two-day journey, detainees had the opportunity to support all initiatives they deemed relevant and worth of advancing to a planning phase. The logistics of the process was managed by representatives of the Cultural Committee who guaranteed the possibility of participation in their own wards. After the ranking, the organisers met with the prison director and other administrative personnel to discuss the feasibility of the most supported proposals and decide upon the final 1026.
Planning and design
"Idee in Fuga" is currently in the phase of planning and design of the 10 pre-selected proposals. It is a stage that depends highly on the availability of both the organisers and the prison’s personnel. The proponents also participate, but in a more reduced manner and mostly to guarantee the design respects the essence of their proposal. In order for detainees to participate more actively in this stage it would be necessary for them to have more access to information and more freedom to discuss their proposals with the prison’s technicians. The process has (so far) been extremely slow due to the lack of availability to meet and discuss the proposals.
Voting
Voting is scheduled for early October (2019) when the organisers expect to have the 10 initiatives properly planned and ready to present to detainees. Participants will have the chance to vote in as many proposals as they wish to. In the end, the 10 initiatives will be ranked according to the number of votes. The most voted among male and female initiatives will be the ones implemented in the Bollate prison27.
Crowdfunding
In "Idee in Fuga", fundraising is also an important element of the process since the outside community also has the chance to participate in it. At the moment, the organisers are focused on the communication campaign to be launched after the voting in October. There will be testimonial videos featuring some of the proponents and other supporting activities already explained above28.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
It is too soon to know whether the crowdfunding campaign will be successful enough to finance the most voted proposals. There is a high risk of disillusionment among participants if the remaining process takes to long or the fundraising campaign fails to meet the objectives set by the organisers. In the case it is successful, the project will have brought a novel financing concept into PB methodologies.
However, it is already possible to infer some results. First, participation levels during the deliberative phase were encouraging. Organisers estimate an average of 12 to 14% of Bollate’s total number of inmates participated in the Assemblies. As expected, some wards had more participants and others less29. That there were 58 proposals in total also indicates the participants interest to participate in decision-making within the prison. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the objective of broadening the spectre of participation beyond existing commissions was met. Whether this was manly due to the participants enthusiasm with "Idee in Fuga" or to other factors requires further research.
Second, the process has created the opportunity for new channels of dialogue between detainees and the prison’s authority. The fact that deliberation occurred without any noticeable incidents and the fact that participants are still enthusiastic about the project, despite the delays, indicates "Idee in Fuga" may have contributed to reinforce mutual trust at Bollate. Nonetheless, this conclusion also needs more research.
Third, the enthusiasm of many actors and entities who somehow contributed to the process and the media coverage it attained in the beginning may indicate an interest of some sectors of the civil society for what happens inside the prison. This interest will be put further to test during the crowdfunding campaign. Also, and independently of the fundraising stage, the project has already created an opportunity for the broader community to know more about the problems faced by detainees and their resoluteness to address them30. Whether this helped changing the outside community’s perception of those inside needs to be measured.
Finally, even if this is still an ongoing process, other correctional facilities have already expressed their interest in reproducing the initiative31.
Analysis and Lesson Learned
The novelty of the concept of a PB in a prison makes that no studies have been carried for similar contexts. "Idee in Fuga" includes a research component that will contribute a critical analysis of the process and suggestions for a second BP at Bollate or its expansion to other correctional facilities. However, the ongoing monitoring and research is yet to produce any substantial results.
Until now, the research process has included an in-depth questionnaire with those that have been more involved in the process: the detainees who submitted proposals. The survey intended to study different dimensions. First, it focused on subjective aspects of the participants, namely how "Idee in Fuga" affects their emotions, desires and expectations. One of the key aspects it tries to ascertain is whether participation is instrumental – used as a way to be seen as well-behaved – or the result of their enthusiasm with the process and as something that contributes to their personal growth. Second, the survey tried to understand whether the chosen procedures managed to overcome the difficulties and limitations posed by prison dynamics. That is, if "Idee in Fuga" was perceived by participants as a single process. Third, the questionnaire included a series of “performative” questions that invite respondents to reflect on their involvement in the process as well how it changed their relationship with other detainees and prison authorities32.
In the upcoming voting session, participants will be invited to answer a second, shorter questionnaire. This is intended for a broader number of participants, in particular those who had a smaller involvement in the deliberative process and simply decided to vote the projects. It will address more general aspects, such as time spent in prison and sentence time, but also whether the process gives hope to detainees. Once both questionnaires have been analysed, they’ll be complemented with semi-structured interviews in order to explore more in-depth some aspects that may result less clear and new avenues of inquiry brought up by the data.33
Given the lack of an operational budget to conduct the process, it is remarkable what "Idee in Fuga" has achieved so far. The network of support its organisers managed to put in march and the media coverage is encouraging for the concept and its future. Nonetheless, there are also some visible shortcomings that require attention from all actors involved. First, working without an operational budget has exerted considerable weight on the organiser’s financial status and has limited its capacity to hire more personnel. Prison may have its own dynamics, but if there were more people dedicated to the initiative it would have been possible to carry a more in-depth and prolonged deliberative process. This would potentially increase the number of participants and their involvement and empowerment during the entire process. Moreover, the organisers would be facing less difficulties during the current phase of planning and designing of preselected proposals. Thus, one of the first recommendations is that future implementations of this concept should consider securing operational funds as a priority.
Second, such an initiative requires more compromise from the prison’s administrative personnel. If things sometimes were slow and difficult in Bollate, which is an “good outlier” in the correctional facilities universe, organisers may wonder what would happen in other prisons that are less committed to participation and less open to civil society initiatives. In order to face this challenge it is recommended that, in the future, organisers give proper consideration to institutional engagement and relations during all phases of the process, in particular during early stages of methodological design.
Third, monitoring and research needs to play a bigger part within the process. The experimental nature of such a novel concept requires in-depth analysis that can not only give a better picture of the achievements but also an overview of shortcomings and how they can be better addressed. Despite the inclusion of a research component to "Idee in Fuga", it was not given the same priority when compared to more procedural aspects. Monitoring and research should be a structural element of all proceedings and during al phases of process in order to obtain useful indicators for future implementation. The ideal scenario would be to consider a research team as part of the operational costs.
See Also
References
1Interview with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
2Ibid.
3Interviews with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”) and Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES). Conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
4Fanesi, Pier Paolo. 2012. “Costruire un bilancio partecipativo: l’esperienza di Grottammare.” PRISMA Economia - Società - Lavoro. https://doi.org/10.3280/PRI2012-002007.
5See more on: https://participedia.net/method/174
6Interview with Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
7Ibid. See more on: Allegretti, Giovanni. 2009. “I bilanci Partecipativi in Europa: Una ricerca comparativa nel Vecchio Continente.” Quale Stato, no. 3–4: 287–302; Bartocci, Luca, Giuseppe Grossi, Daniele Natalizi, and Stefania Romizi. 2016. “Lo stato dell’arte del bilancio partecipativo in Italia.” Azienda Pubblica 1: 37–58.
8See more on: https://participedia.net/case/5101
9Interview with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
10Ibid.
11Ibid.
12A list of all supporters can be found in BiPart’s website: https://www.ideeinfuga.org/users/all#rete
13Interview with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
14The list of proposals can be found in BiPart’s website: https://www.ideeinfuga.org/idea/carcere-di-bollate-9. The catalogues are also available as attachments to this case.
15Interview with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
16Interview with Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
17Interview with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
18Interview with Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
19Ibid.
20Interviews with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”) and Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES). Conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
21Interview with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
22Ibid.
23Ibid.
24Ibid.
25The list of proposals can be found in BiPart’s website: https://www.ideeinfuga.org/idea/carcere-di-bollate-9. The catalogues are also available as attachments to this case.
26Interview with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
27Ibid.
28Interviews with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”) and Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES). Conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
29Interview with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
30Interview with Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
31Interviews with Stefano Stortone (co-cordinator of “Idee in Fuga”) and Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES). Conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
32Interview with Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at CES), conducted by Francisco Venes (July 2019).
33Ibid.
External Links
Idee in Fuga (website): https://www.ideeinfuga.org/
Rette Nuovo Municipio (website) http://www.nuovomunicipio.net/chisiamo.htm
Bollate prison (website): https://carceredibollate.it/le-nostre-attivita/
Gruppo della Trasgressione (website): http://www.trasgressione.net/
Autori di Immagini (website): http://www.autoridimmagini.it/associazione/about/
BASE (website): https://base.milano.it/
Produzioni dal Basso (website): https://www.produzionidalbasso.com/
Notes
The first submission of this entry was written based on semi-structured interviews conducted by Francisco Venes with Stefano Stortone (“Idee in Fuga” co-coordinator, member of BiPart team) and Giovanni Allegretti (researcher at the Centre for Social Studies) in July 2019. The views expressed in the current version are are not necessarily those of the original submitter or interview subjects.
