Participatory Budgeting

Why implement participatory budgeting?

Participatory budgeting is a form of civic engagement that puts decision-making in the hands of communities. The vision of PB is to create a stronger civil society where people are more engaged and have greater agency to determine how public dollars are spent. In turn, PB processes help local governments understand community priorities and focus their funding streams accordingly.

In practice, participatory budgeting entails a local government specifying a portion of its budget for community investment. Community members develop ideas for projects that may be funded under the allocation, and then vote on a short-list of proposed projects. This process enables residents to decide for themselves how public funds are spent. It also fosters accountability, since communities typically play a role in monitoring implementation. 

Surveys show that while Americans have more trust in local government compared to the federal government, Black, Latinx, and other people of color generally have less trust in local government than white Americans. Communities combating legacies of systemic discrimination, underinvestment, and nonrepresentative leadership report lower levels of trust in political bodies. However, historically marginalized communities report higher levels of political trust when they feel that institutions are willing and able to address injustices.

What are the potential benefits?

Participatory budgeting provides residents with a direct voice in the allocation of public funds. Through a PB process, policymaking is more likely to reflect the lived experiences, needs, and preferences of a diverse population. When approached with a focus on equity, participatory budgeting can achieve the following outcomes:

• More robust and inclusive community engagement. Participatory budgeting can be a mechanism for empowering historically marginalized groups, including youth, low-income populations, people of color, and undocumented residents, to actively participate in shaping local policies. These populations may include youth, noncitizens, and the formerly incarcerated—populations who are typically not reached through conventional community outreach processes. Communities directly affected by various economic and social challenges have valuable insight as to how public funds can be allocated to address needs.
• More responsive, effective, and inclusive government. By offering a platform for community members to share diverse perspectives, innovative ideas, and valuable feedback, participatory budgeting fosters greater inclusivity and encourages contributions that might otherwise go unheard. This approach motivates public officials, elected representatives, and school administrators to actively listen to and address community concerns. As a result, local governments and institutions can improve their effectiveness and responsiveness to the needs of the community.
• Increased trust in government. For communities looking to address persistent underinvestment, participatory budgeting provides a means to combat historic wrongs. By enabling direct and engaged involvement in a public decision-making process that yields concrete outcomes, PB has the potential to ease apathy, distrust, or frustration in government-community relationships while building trust in—and approval of—public officials and institutions.
• More equitable resource allocation and more effective projects. In many participatory budgeting processes, community members have the chance to vote on proposed projects that emerge from the community visioning phase. The projects with the most votes are prioritized for implementation, ensuring that public investments align with the broader community’s preferences. By harnessing local knowledge to guide spending decisions, resources are more likely to be allocated equitably toward projects that address the community’s actual needs. For instance, when residents have a direct influence on how tax dollars are spent, these resources are more likely to be distributed fairly and used more efficiently.

How do you design and implement an equitable program?

The participatory budgeting design and implementation process varies depending on the local context, but typically follows an annual cycle when funding from a municipal, institutional, or school district budget is allocated for community decision making. Localities have historically focused on funding categories like educational programming, affordable housing, public services, or community development that hold significance for underserved groups.

A group consisting of public officials, administrators, leaders, or organizers begins by educating local decision-makers about the concept. They then identify available discretionary funding, obtain approval to allocate these funds for the process, designate relevant staff members, and announce the approval and impending launch of the initiative. Following the identification and approval of a budget, the design phase of a participatory budgeting process usually spans three to six months. A complete cycle, from conception to implementing approved projects, can take five to eight months and typically unfolds in five phases: 1) planning and design; 2) idea collection and proposal development; 3) voting; 4) evaluation; and 5) implementation and monitoring. To achieve the potential benefits described above, the implementers of PB can integrate equitable practices such as those described below throughout each stage of the process.

1. Planning and Design 

During the planning and design process, the group responsible for implementing the PB process defines their goals, develops or revises a “rulebook” for the process, and establishes roles and responsibilities. 

• Establish a representative steering committee. The process should include a diverse and representative steering committee made up of local residents and key community partners that direct the participatory budgeting process. This committee will promote the PB process and enhance its effectiveness by facilitating broad participation, particularly among underrepresented groups. Members of the steering committee can serve as facilitators, conduct outreach, provide logistical support, and mobilize widespread community involvement. 
• Designate sufficient dollar amounts for PB and allocate funding according to need. The Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) suggests allocating $1 million per 100,000 people in a project area to ensure that: 1) invitations to participate are enticing, 2) the process has a noticeable impact on communities, and 3) participants perceive it as valuable. While PB can grant communities discretion over any dollar amount, designating larger allocations increases the probability of addressing participants' most pressing concerns. Likewise, budget allocations should consider need, wherein communities with legacies of disinvestment receive a larger share of the total allocation. 
• Compensate committee members and dedicate adequate staff resources to support the process. To incentivize and recognize participation in the steering committee, Elizabeth Crews, the Director of Strategic Initiatives at PBP, advocates for financial compensation to steering committee participants and delegates. This monetary support to participating community members is essential to the design of an equitable PB implementation process, as it compensates for the time, energy, and additional responsibilities that participants take on. As a best practice, institutions should allocate staff and funding to support the facets of PB implementation. The PBP suggests allocating at least one dollar per resident for an implementation area. For instance, a city of 300,000 residents should have an operating budget of $300,000.
• Establish guidelines for the PB process. The steering committee convenes to draft the rules that will guide the process. This phase of rule-making is imperative to establish transparency, ensuring understanding of roles and how decisions will be made. During this phase, the committee also defines priorities and foundational principles that will underpin the entire process. Steering committees can embed equity practices at this foundational stage. 
• Create a publicly accessible guidebook. PB best practices necessitate the creation of a guidebook that is publicly accessible, legible, and transparent. A guidebook,also referred to as a rulebook, supports the organization and institutionalization of PB. Each PB process is unique to its implementing institution, so publicizing clear definitions, uses, policies, and timelines for PB creates another layer of accountability. Many PB-implementing institutions, including those in Oregon, Nashville, and Los Angeles, created and published online guidebooks containing their respective PB principles. They typically include a table of contents, introduction from the leading institution, and explanations of the various aspects of the PB process.
• Apply an equity lens to proposal development. The guidebook presents an opportunity to establish a framework to evaluate project proposals on their potential to advance equity and respond to community needs. Marin County outlined their equity goals in their rulebook, and each proposal is assessed on key criteria including alignment with County equity goals, demonstrated project need, cultural responsiveness, and the projected benefits and outcomes.

2. Idea Collection and Proposal Development 

After the committee establishes a framework and guidelines, the process enters a phase of idea collection and proposal development. Through a series of community events, the committee can gather ideas and educate community stakeholders about the PB process. As these ideas are refined into concrete proposals, it is crucial to apply an equity lens, ensuring the projects developed reflect the voices of participants and community needs. Facilitating an inclusive ideation phase will lead to final proposals on the voting ballot that reflect the diverse priorities of historically marginalized communities. 

• Recruit community-based, grassroots organizations to facilitate outreach and engagement. Organizations and grassroots groups with established trust and long-term connections with underrepresented communities, including low-income populations, communities of color, immigrants, and/or youth, should assist in outreach and recruitment for PB idea collection events. Their involvement ensures that the PB process is accessible and equitable for individuals from diverse backgrounds. 
• Conduct intentional, multi-platform outreach to engage underrepresented populations. To ensure the idea collection process is inclusive, a jurisdiction may host events which focus on engaging underrepresented populations, such as youth, non-English speakers, and Black and Latinx communities. The goal should be to attract budget delegates that are reflective of community demographics and include people who are not yet engaged. To accomplish this, organizers should consider employing a diverse array of technology platforms, in conjunction with traditional in-person and hybrid engagements, that can support targeted outreach to underserved populations. As part of their PB process, Evanston, Illinois conducted digital outreach and engagement efforts to reach priority populations.
• Identify budget delegates. The committee should identify potential "budget delegates" who can facilitate the process of developing project proposals for the voting ballot. Their role is to conduct inclusive outreach and facilitate collaborative decision-making. After the brainstorming phase, the steering committee conducts an orientation for the budget delegates. The delegates assemble in teams organized by community groups to refine initial project ideas into well-developed proposals. Throughout this process, they receive guidance and support from public officials, administrators, and experts familiar with the technical feasibility of project elements. 
• Structure meetings to encourage broad participation. Event organizers should also consider options that encourage broader participation (i.e., hosting meetings during non-work hours, providing refreshments, childcare, and translation services). When considering operational costs, institutions should consider methods to increase participation, particularly from members of vulnerable groups. Compensation in the form of direct payments to participants, travel vouchers, child care services, and complimentary meals at meetings can increase attendance and participation in PB programming. 
• Proposal refinement. Steering committee, PB participants, and city staff will refine the community-generated ideas into detailed proposals, focusing on local objectives such as need, feasibility, and equitable impact. 

3. Voting

The next phase involves inviting the public to vote on and select proposals to be funded. Once the delegate teams complete their proposals, the projects are showcased in an accessible manner to the community. Residents then have the chance to cast their votes to support the projects they wish to see funded. This democratic process ensures that the projects with the highest number of votes receive funding.

• Decrease barriers to voting. To prioritize equity in the voting process, jurisdictions can decrease barriers to voter participation for groups typically excluded from political processes. For instance, Marin County welcomes votes from all community members, including those who are 14 years of age or older, regardless of immigration status, prior incarceration or housing situation.

4. Evaluation

After the community vote, local officials, along with the steering committee and PB participants, often in collaboration with researchers or professional evaluators, review the process. They conduct surveys among participants and analyze data to pinpoint potential enhancements for the next year's process. A formal evaluation may extend into the implementation phase to gauge longer-term results and outcomes.

• Culturally responsive surveys. Design and distribute surveys in multiple languages to ensure all non-English speaking PB participants are heard in the evaluation. 
• Form an inclusive evaluation committee. Establish a sub-committee of members from diverse backgrounds to oversee the evaluation process. 
• Adjustments based on findings. Use the evaluation to make adjustments to future PB cycles. If the evaluation reveals disparities in participation or that funded projects did not adequately address equity concerns, modify the process to better meet equity goals.

5. Implementation and Monitoring

Once the voting process is complete, the municipality, agency, district, or institution funds and executes the selected projects. Community participants stay engaged to help monitor progress and address any issues that may arise. A best practice for monitoring PB is to measure outcomes against evaluation metrics, such as the 15 key evaluation metrics developed by the North American Participatory Budgeting Research Board, Public Agenda, and the Participatory Budgeting Project. These metrics focus on three engagement themes: 1) Civic and Political Life; 2) Inclusion and Equity; and 3) Government.

Where is it happening?

Grand Rapids was one of the first jurisdictions to begin a participatory budgeting process to determine the allocation of ARPA funds in June 2021. Since then, many other cities and counties across the U.S., including Evanston, Nashville, South Lake Tahoe, Central FallsI, Chelsea, and several jurisdictions in Oregon have passed legislation committing millions of ARPA funds to communities through PB processes.

Grand Rapids, Michigan

In June 2021, the City Commission of Grand Rapids allocated $2 million in funding from ARPA for projects selected through a PB process. The allocation of funds across three designated wards aligns with the Participatory Budgeting Project’s best practice for municipal budgeting, which recommends allocating $1 million for every 100,000 residents in the population. Each of the three wards selected two members and  Mayor Rosalynn Bliss selected one additional person per ward, thus bringing the total steering committee representation to nine people across the wards. Doug Matthews, Assistant City Manager of Grand Rapids, explained that the City’s goal was to test the PB concept, increase community understanding of the budgeting process, and generate pilot projects that could be scaled. Between August 2021 and November 2022, the PB process received over 2,000 proposals from community members for potential projects. The citizens then publicly voted to award 12 projects to receive funding. The selected initiatives address community issues such as childcare, civic education, and mental health crisis response.

Oregon

In October 2022, a coalition of five collaborating nonprofit organizations came together to form Youth Voice Youth Vote and launch Oregon’s first participatory budgeting process. Tasked with designing and voting on how best to distribute $500,000 of ARPA funds, Youth Voice Youth Vote PB invited youth ages 13-25 within State Senate Districts 24 and 25 and House District 50 to design and vote on COVID-19 relief and recovery projects. With the support of state legislators and city staff from the aforementioned districts, the PB steering committee, made up of 12 youth members aged 14-25, produced a Rulebook outlining the values, process, timeline, and community engagement opportunities for Oregon’s first PB process. As of January 1, 2024, the coalition has selected five winning projects related to youth empowerment and is in the implementation stage of its PB process.

Marin County, California

In July 2022, the Marin County Office of Equity launched the brainstorming and ideation phase of its PB process. The County asked residents to submit ideas for how $2.5 million in federal funding should be spent to benefit their communities. To ensure that underrepresented groups were able to participate in the process, the County employed several equity practices. This included establishing a PB committee comprised of community members, creating an publicly accessible Rulebook, setting broad voting eligibility criteria (i.e., anyone 14 years of age or older who lives, works, or attends school in the County, regardless of immigration status), coordinating with community-based organizations to source ideas, and offering free grant-writing support to groups submitting proposals. Over 3,700 residents voted on 104 grant proposals that drew from over 200 community ideas submitted to the County. Community members selected 16 winning projects based on the vote, with winning proposals receiving up to $250,000 in grant funding. Eight ideas, considered runners-up, received awards of $10,000.

Acknowledgements

This brief was initially researched and drafted by Richard France of Estolano Advisors, with contributions to the final draft by Ashley Thomas of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy.