Everyone Counts: Could "Participatory Budgeting" Change Democracy? 9780801456060

Table of contents :
Contents
Everyone Counts. Could “Participatory Budgeting” Change Democracy?
This Is What Democracy Looks Like?
Money Talks
Importing Democracy from Brazil
Coming to a City near You
The Problems with Potholes
Scaling Up Local Democracy
Stepping Up
Notes
About the Author and the Participatory Budgeting Project

Citation preview

E VE RYON E COUNTS

McCourtney Institute for Democracy The Pennsylvania State University’s McCourtney Institute for Democracy (http://democracyinstitute.la.psu.edu) was founded in 2012 as an interdisciplinary center for research, teaching, and outreach on democracy. The institute coordinates innovative programs and projects in collaboration with the Center for American Political Responsiveness and the Center for Democratic Deliberation.

Laurence and Lynne Brown Democracy Medal The Laurence and Lynne Brown Democracy Medal recognizes outstanding individuals, groups, and organizations that produce exceptional innovations to further democracy in the United States or around the world. In even numbered years, the medal spotlights practical innovations, such as new institutions, laws, technologies, or movements that advance the cause of democracy. Awards given in oddnumbered years highlight advances in democratic theory that enrich philosophical conceptions of democracy or empirical models of democratic behavior, institutions, or systems.

CO RNEL L SEL EC T S an imprint of

C or n el l Un i v er sit y P r e s s Ithaca & London

Cornell Selects, an imprint of Cornell University Press, provides a forum for advancing provocative ideas and fresh viewpoints through outstanding digital and print publications. Longer than an article and shorter than a book, titles published under this imprint explore a diverse range of topics in a clear and concise format—one designed to appeal to any reader. Cornell Selects publications continue the Press’s long tradition of supporting high quality scholarship and sharing it with the wider community, promoting a culture of broad inquiry that is a vital aspect of the mission of Cornell University. Copyright © 2014 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 2014 by Cornell University Press First printing, Cornell Paperbacks, 2014 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lerner, Josh, 1978– author. Everyone counts : could participatory budgeting change democracy? / Josh Lerner. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8014-5665-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Budget process—United States—Citizen participation. 2. Political planning—United States—Citizen participation. 3. Local budgets—United States—Citizen participation. 4. Political participation—United States. I. Title. HJ2051L47 2015 352.4'80973—dc23    2014033136 Cornell University Press strives to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books. Such materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free papers that are recycled, totally chlorine-free, or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit our website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu.

Contents

This Is What Democracy Looks Like?  3 Money Talks  5 Importing Democracy from Brazil  10 Coming to a City near You  16 The Problems with Potholes  24 Scaling Up Local Democracy  33 Stepping Up  43 Notes  45 About the Author and the Participatory Budgeting Project  49

v

Everyone Counts Could “Participatory Budgeting” Change Democracy?

W

hen a politician has held office for seventeen years, they’ve probably done a lot right. But when that same politician suddenly faces a bruising runoff election, chances are they’ve done something terribly wrong. In 2007, Chicago alderman Joe Moore was rapidly becoming one more example of our mounting frustrations with government. The Participatory Budgeting Project, headquartered in Brooklyn, New York, stepped in to transform disillusioned voters into a new movement to reinvent democracy in Chicago and beyond. For more than a decade, Moore was a rising star on the city council. He led the charge to secure living wages for big box store employees. He also gained acclaim for championing environmental regulations on coal-fired power plants and for a resolution against the war in Iraq. But in the 2007 election, Moore was in trouble. No, he hadn’t been accused 1

of corruption. (Historically, more Chicago aldermen have gone to jail than into higher office.)1 Instead, he’d done something all too ordinary: He’d lost touch with his constituents. This problem should sound familiar. Trust in government has plummeted across the United States, sinking below 20 percent by some metrics.2 What makes Moore’s story special, however, is its resolution. When voters no longer trust a politician, they usually elect a replacement. Once they lose trust in that person, the cycle repeats. Moore was fortunate to win his runoff—squeaking by with 51.6 percent of the vote. After the election, he set out to regain his constituents’ confidence. He enlisted my organization, the Participatory Budgeting Project, to try something radical. Handing the power of the purse back to the community, we invited residents of his ward to decide how to spend a portion of their taxes through a $1.3 million experiment in “participatory budgeting.” Instead of changing the person at the top, we would try to change the democratic system itself.

2

This Is What Democracy Looks Like?

O

ddly, as much as we gripe about politicians, most Americans still consider the United States a model for democracy. We have open elections for everything from president to district court judges. We have a free press that covers elections from every angle imaginable. We extol the virtues of voting, and the power of being able to choose our leaders. Parties across the political spectrum champion democracy, as do movements from the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street. Though US citizens love democracy in theory, we often hate it in practice. We deeply distrust elected officials, vote at low rates, and increasingly seek to downsize government. Democracy has become the political version of kale: Almost everyone says it is good, but few want to eat it. Our problem is not with democracy as a concept. A national survey in 2006 found that more than four-fifths of US voters expressed interest in participating in a delibera3

tive political meeting where they could discuss solutions for pressing public problems.3 Younger people, racial minorities, and those with lower incomes were among the most eager to attend. In practice, though, invitations into public life often amount to little more than clicking on an online petition or enduring hours of scripted three-minute deputations at a zoning hearing. We need better opportunities to participate in ways that are personal, effective, and engaging. Fortunately, democracy is not a static concept. In recent decades, visionaries have developed new ways to engage the public. These include 21st Century Town Meetings that engage thousands of people, Citizens’ Initiative Reviews of ballot measures in Oregon, and Deliberative Polls that have yielded more informed public opinions in countries across the globe.4 These particular processes are novel, but the United States has a long history of participatory democracy. For centuries, small town residents in New England and elsewhere have come together in town meetings to make fiscal and policy decisions. Many of today’s innovations strive to scale up and expand public deliberation. So far, however, most of these experiments have lacked something vital in politics—power.

4

Money Talks

W

hen I first heard of “participatory budgeting,” it did not sound particularly powerful. I was at the University of Toronto, on a quest—like many an eager grad student—for that mind-blowing new idea that would change everything, or at least change how people could participate in government. First, I turned to technology for solutions. If our centuriesold political institutions were ailing, perhaps a dose of modern technology could reinvigorate them. If people were indifferent to public meetings and polling stations, perhaps they would show up for something else online. Logging into a discussion forum on the internet was much easier than finding one’s way to a municipal building or library for a public gathering. Meeting online entailed no travel or childcare costs, and it required a smaller portion of one’s scarce free time. Online participation also could deliver rich data to people and help them reach more thoughtful judgments. 5

But there was a problem. The people who actually participate in online forums tend to be affluent and white—the same people who already have the loudest voices in politics. Researchers have found that this digital divide persists even as we all become more tech-savvy.5 Focusing primarily on online participation would likely widen the power gap that already exists. So I began to search for participatory processes that excited the people normally underrepresented in politics, such as less affluent citizens and people of color. My professors suggested that I take a look at participatory budgeting (PB). PB did not sound exciting. But despite its dull veneer, I gave it a chance. I attended my first PB session at a University of Toronto conference. Expecting to hear presentations from researchers and experts, I instead found myself watching a skit put on by a handful of public housing tenants. In twenty minutes, they reenacted a year of PB meetings. It was messy, confusing, and absolutely fascinating. In 2001, Toronto Community Housing, the second largest public housing authority in North America, had launched PB for its capital budget. Thousands of tenants decided how to spend nine million Canadian dollars to improve their buildings and grounds. The participants in this skit were hardly the “usual suspects.” The leaders of PB at Toronto Community Housing were barely scraping by; tenants’ aver6

age household income was around CAD$20,000. Most came from historically marginalized communities, including recent immigrants, people of color, and those with disabilities. And these unusual suspects were hooked on PB. They devoted countless hours to meetings on mind-numbing topics such as capital spending criteria and procurement policies. Afterwards, they were so jazzed that they wanted to share their passion with others. After seeing their skit (and their enthusiasm), I gave participatory budgeting a chance. I learned about the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, where the leftist Workers Party first launched PB in 1989, shortly after the country’s transition from dictatorship to democracy. The Workers Party had won the mayoral election on a platform of social justice and community empowerment, and it followed through on that promise by giving ordinary people the power to decide how city money would be spent in their neighborhoods. This “pro-poor” program effectively reinvented local democracy by scaling up the grassroots deliberation of small town meetings to the city level. Using the PB process, people decided how to spend part of the city budget through an annual series of neighborhood, district, and citywide assemblies. At these meetings, community members and elected budget delegates discussed community needs and set spending priorities. Each year, tens of thousands of people turned out to manage up to a fifth of the 7

city’s budget. This was no mere consultation. Porto Alegre’s residents were making real decisions about real money. The results were dramatic, as documented by researchers such as Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Gianpaolo Baiocchi.6 In 1989, less than half of the city’s residents had basic sanitation service. After eight years of PB, 98 percent of households had water and 85 percent were served by the sewage system. In the same time span, half the city’s unpaved streets were paved and the number of students in elementary and secondary schools doubled. Public housing construction accelerated and bus companies expanded service to neglected communities. Even the number of neighborhood associations increased. These changes benefited the entire city, but particularly its poorest districts. PB soon spread throughout Brazil, then across Latin America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Countries such as the Dominican Republic and Peru passed laws requiring that all local governments implement PB. The United Nations and World Bank named it a best practice of democratic governance. Most PB processes concerned municipal spending, but states, counties, schools, and housing authorities also began using it for their own budgets. I wrote a report for the City of Toronto on the Porto Alegre and Toronto Community Housing experiences. City officials were intrigued, but not enough to launch their own PB system. To get a first-hand observation of the process operating at the city level, I had to travel to Latin America. 8

By the time I moved to New York in 2005, PB had become the most widespread international model of participatory democracy, practiced in over 1,500 cities around the world. In the United States, however, PB remained something you spread on a sandwich.

9

Importing Democracy from Brazil

I

n 2005, I started working with a small but growing group of advocates determined to bring PB to the United States. I connected with Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Mike Menser at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. Baiocchi was a Brazilian transplant to the United States, who had written the book (or at least one of them) on the Porto Alegre experience. Menser was a philosophy professor, union organizer, and avid fan of urban agriculture, economic democracy, and death metal music. Within a year, we had a resource website up at www .participatorybudgeting.org. We spoke at conferences, wrote articles, and tried to spread the word. Slowly, well, very slowly, people began to hear our message. Then they began to speak up, but not as we had hoped. Most were dismissive: “That’s crazy.” Or, “You’ll just have the same loonies come out and dominate the process.” Even if it could work, critics argued, “No elected officials will ever 10

sign up for that.” And above all, “Sounds interesting, but that wouldn’t work here.” By way of reply, Baiocchi and I published an article in 2007 titled “Could Participatory Budgeting Work in the United States?”7 It was an academic article and, at the time, an academic question. But not for long. In 2009, we launched the first PB process in the United States.8 Through our public talks, we had connected with Joe Moore—the same alderman who’d barely survived a 2007 runoff. As a member of city council, Moore found PB interesting but doubted it would fly in Chicago without the mayor’s support. However, it occurred to him that he had direct authority over a modest pot of money. As a means of reengaging his frustrated constituents, he launched the first US experiment in PB-style democracy. Moore’s 49th Ward encompasses two square miles, including the neighborhood of Rogers Park. It is home to approximately 60,000 diverse residents who speak over eighty languages. The ward has a vibrant arts scene, dozens of community groups, and bloggers who loudly debate the latest happenings in what they call the People’s Republic of Rogers Park. So, how does one of the nation’s most diverse neighborhoods bring opinionated residents together to make difficult budget decisions? Moore started by setting aside his $1.3 million “menu money,” the discretionary budget that each alderman receives for capital infrastructure projects. I then 11

teamed up with Gianpaolo Baiocchi to form the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP), a nonprofit organization that could support PB in the 49th Ward, and elsewhere. In April 2009, we invited leaders of all the ward’s community organizations and institutions to form a steering committee, which decided the timeline and structure of the process. A series of neighborhood assemblies starting in November enabled residents to brainstorm initial spending ideas and identify community representatives who could transform those ideas into concrete proposals. The self-selected representatives, along with steering committee mentors, split into six committees focused on themes such as public safety, transportation, and parks. They spent four months meeting with experts, conducting research, and developing budget proposals. Some local skeptics worried about what residents would propose. Would they rush through inappropriate projects or focus merely on their personal needs? Not quite. The ward’s Public Safety Committee, for instance, received many requests for security cameras. To learn more, they visited the neighborhood’s twenty-four-hour camera viewing center. As community representative Marilou Kess­ ler explained, “Everyone [on the committee] came—about fifteen to sixteen people on a workday. It was astonishing cooperation.”9 The trip shifted the committee’s priorities. They learned that the cameras were used only occasionally, mostly by specialty police teams, and were not continuously 12

monitored. After police explained that lighting is more effective at deterring crime, the committee began to prioritize street light proposals. Exhibiting the same diligence as the Public Safety Committee, the Transportation Committee members set out to identify sidewalks most in need of repair. In the middle of the Chicago winter, they walked almost every block of the ward. “I will never look at sidewalks the same way again!” laughed Dena Al-Khatib, one of the sidewalk inspectors. Community representatives moved well beyond their initial assumptions and priorities. As Laurent Pernot of the Transportation Committee said, “At the community meetings everyone was complaining about their block. . . . But now every single committee has taken stewardship of the whole ward as their mission.” After months of work and more neighborhood assemblies, the community representatives presented a ballot including thirty-six specific budget proposals, then helped organize a publicity campaign. The Arts and Other Committee put together an exhibition of proposals at Mess Hall, a local cultural center. Andy De La Rosa, an artist on the committee, found himself swayed by the proposals from other committees. “This is all extra,” he said of his own committee’s proposals for murals, artistic bike racks, and historical markers. “I hope people vote for the streets.” On April 10th, all ward residents age sixteen and over, regardless of voter registration or citizenship status, were 13

invited to vote on the proposals at a high school. In the week beforehand, 428 residents voted early at the alderman’s office—more early voters per day than during the 2008 presidential election that sent Chicago resident Barack Obama to the White House. On the final voting day, people streamed into the school cafeteria to read proposals, consult with community representatives, and select up to eight projects on paper ballots. In the end, 1,652 residents voted not to elect someone to decide for them, but to make their own decisions about the ward. The turnout vastly exceeded expectations, considering the newness of the process, lack of media coverage, and absence of any other elections on the ballot. The $1.3 million residents allocated was sufficient to fund the fourteen most popular projects. The proposal to fix sidewalks received the most votes, and other winning projects added bike lanes, community gardens, murals, traffic signals, and street lighting. Every committee had at least one proposal funded. On evaluation surveys, roughly four-fifths of respondents rated the process as “good” or “very good.” Nearly 90 percent said they would participate again next year—high marks for a budget process. After the PB vote, Moore committed to continuing the process in future years. As he wrote in a letter to constituents, it “exceeded even my wildest dreams. It was more than an election. It was a community celebration and an affirma14

tion that people will participate in the civic affairs of their community if given real power to make real decisions.” Moore’s colleagues were less impressed. For the next budget cycle, no other aldermen followed the 49th Ward’s example. Perhaps they were waiting to see whether voters rewarded or punished Moore for his experiment. After barely squeaking by in his 2007 runoff, would Moore win another term? Yes, he would. In 2011, Moore won in a landslide, with 72 percent of the vote. According to Moore, PB was the most common reason people gave for reelecting him. Sharing power had made him more popular and, in that sense, a more powerful elected official. Nonetheless, no other alderman signed up for the next cycle of PB. Why not? Some simply refused to give up power. Without term limits, many had built solid power bases during their many years in office. They had little to gain from PB. Others feared that PB would merely turn out the usual suspects. Indeed, the 49th Ward’s PB participants did not reflect the full diversity of the community. Turnout was no less representative than for other community meetings, but also no better. After the thrill of the first year, turnout began to decline. Perhaps most important, no one was advocating for PB to spread, or working to make this growth possible. Would it just remain a $1.3 million experiment in one ward in the corner of Chicago? 15

Coming to a City near You

W

hen we founded the Participatory Budgeting Project in 2009, our first challenge was to make PB happen somewhere in the United States. After our success in Chicago, we searched out opportunities for expansion. And we asked for help. If we teamed up with more community partners, would elected officials listen? We reached out to local community organizations in New York City, Boston, San Francisco, and elsewhere to organize public forums. At each event, core community groups brought in allies and local elected officials to hear about Chicago. The first round of talks occurred in New York City. As in Chicago, New York’s city council members have their own discretionary funds. In 2011, each of the city’s fifty-one elected members represented roughly 160,000 people and received $3–$11 million in capital funds for physical improvements to public spaces.10 Why such a wide range? Be16

cause the council speaker decided how much each district got, based not on the district’s need but rather on political patronage—even though many of the city’s poorer neighborhoods suffered as a result.11 Could PB offer a better alternative? In 2010, we asked this question at two public events in collaboration with the grassroots group Community Voices Heard, which had already been organizing to win PB for the New York City Housing Authority budget, inspired by the Porto Alegre and Toronto Community Housing experiences. At the events, Joe Moore spoke about his experience, and Community Voices Heard shared their passion for PB. The elected officials in attendance were intrigued. In the question-and-answer session after our presentation, we saw gears turning as they pondered how they could make PB work in their own districts. After months of follow-up discussions, New York City council members Brad Lander (D), Melissa Mark-Viverito (D), Jumaane D. Williams (D), and Eric Ulrich (R) launched a joint PB process. In a rare example of bipartisanship, each committed to letting residents decide at least a million dollars of their district’s capital discretionary funds. Diverging from our approach in Chicago, we launched Participatory Budgeting in New York City (PBNYC) as a multidistrict process. Community Voices Heard, which had built a strong reputation organizing low-income women of color around public housing and welfare programs, played a 17

lead role in securing broad community support and foundation funding. To make the initiative participatory from the get-go, we brought together dozens of citywide organizations in a committee to help design and support the process. In the summer of 2011, we worked with the steering committee to craft a rulebook for the PB process, laying out basic guidelines, timeline, roles, and responsibilities. Starting in the fall, each district then held neighborhood assemblies and worked with volunteer delegates to craft ideas into full proposals. Funding was starting to trickle in to support this work, but not as much as we’d hoped. As we moved the process along, we decided to convene an international conference coinciding with the March vote, so that more people could see the magic in action. On short notice, we put out invitations and a call for session proposals. We hoped to attract at least a hundred people. In March 2012, the project proposals in the participating PB districts began to come together. To maximize voter turnout, dozens of organizations mobilized hundreds of volunteers to knock on doors, make calls, and speak to anyone who would listen. Community Voices Heard hired canvassers to do targeted outreach in marginalized communities, such as the Bangladeshi enclave in Brad Lander’s district. At the end of March, the polls opened. In schools, libraries, community centers, and other spaces across the districts, nearly 6,000 people voted for their top projects. People of 18

color and low-income people made up a higher percentage of the voters than in typical local elections. Inspired by the turnout, several council members put more money into the pot, bringing the total up to $5 million. Interest in our conference also exceeded expectations. Over 250 participants from seventeen countries streamed into panels and workshops at Brooklyn’s Pratt Institute and went on site visits to observe the voting. A movement was building. Even the media started paying attention. The Atlantic asked if PB might be “the hottest idea in democracy since the voting machine.”12 The New York Times dubbed it “revolutionary civics in action.”13 Shortly after the vote, we began working in California to take PB citywide. During our road show in 2011 and 2012, we had spoken a couple times in the city of Vallejo, nestled in the San Francisco Bay area north of Berkeley. The most diverse city in the country, according to a recent Brown University study, Vallejo had roughly 117,000 residents.14 In the aftermath of the economic crisis, Vallejo had become the largest US city to go bankrupt. Its residents had lost faith in their dysfunctional city government. After bankruptcy, Vallejo’s voters narrowly passed a new 1 percent sales tax. Council Member Marti Brown, who had attended our PB conference, saw an opportunity. She started organizing to let the public decide how to spend part of the tax windfall, estimated at $10 million per year. 19

After months of discussions, the Vallejo Council narrowly approved PB for 30 percent of its sales tax revenue. On the losing side of the 4–3 vote sat the mayor and his council allies, who vigorously opposed the proposal. For them, it was obvious that the funds should be used to hire more police. The majority of the council members, however, wanted to try something new. They sought to rebuild public trust and put Vallejo on the map for something positive. Vallejo hired the Participatory Budgeting Project to implement its process. During the summer of 2012, we once again set up a steering committee of civic organizations to design and govern the PB process. We then collected 819 project ideas from 806 residents, and we spent five months supporting more than a hundred volunteer budget delegates and city staff as they whittled down the list to thirty-six priority projects. Among those weeded out: a drag racing demonstration strip, billboards to encourage “respectable attire,” and reducing the noise from ice cream trucks. In May 2013, 4,000 people turned out to vote. With both infrastructure projects and public programs eligible for funding, the twelve winners included college counselors and scholarships, small business grants, street lighting and repairs, and a cost-saving spay and neuter clinic. For legal reasons, the elections results had to go back to the Vallejo Council for approval. Though PB began with only a narrow majority in support, the council unanimously voted to fund 20

the winning projects. It also decided to continue the process beyond its first cycle. City staff initially had been as skeptical as the mayor. They, too, now recognized the value of the process. As City Manager Dan Keen said, “PB has brought together community members and city staff in a way that I have never experienced in my thirty-year career in public service. The residents are able to engage with staff, ask questions, and get to the heart of real community issues.”15 The city’s code enforcement manager, of all people, was even more glowing: “We haven’t seen this brightness, this synergy in years. This process is amazing—that citizens can come here and ask these questions and we can have this exchange. . . . This is what makes me want to get up and come to work in the morning.”16 Vallejo got much-needed positive press, and new life breathed into its local government.17 In the fall after the PB vote, voters elected four new council members. All four had served on the city’s PB steering committee. Meanwhile, our ongoing public presentations led to new PB processes. San Francisco and St. Louis started PB at the district level, and we expanded into new wards and districts in Chicago and New York City. The first university processes kicked off, with students at Brooklyn College and faculty and staff at San Antonio’s Palo Alto College deciding on campus improvements. We also teamed up with the City of Boston to launch a citywide youth PB process, in which 21

young Bostonians between 12 and 25 years of age decided how to spend $1 million. We planted seeds of democracy across the country, then nourished and supported communities as they engaged with this innovative new process. We built strong relationships with local organizations that helped PB take root. And we provided critical tools to support staff on the ground: training, guides, handouts, games, presentations, tech tools, evaluation surveys, and more. Foundations began to take notice, investing more money in our work and in local PB processes. But even as dozens of grassroots organizations embraced PB, many stayed on the sidelines. Often the process was too demanding. It could sap the limited staff and resources of small organizations. Often, it was a step or two away from these groups’ top policy goals, such as affordable housing and good jobs. Sometimes, PB simply failed to deliver, even when groups organized their hearts out to win particular projects. In the second year of PBNYC, for example, the grassroots group Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE) advocated for public housing improvements through the PB process. They championed two projects designed to renovate and reopen community centers at housing developments. After months of phone calls, door knocking, and working with city staff, however, neither proposal received enough votes to secure funding. Instead, the 22

funds went to tree-planting, school computers, and a dog park. FUREE was furious. It seemed that residents’ pets would get improved community spaces but needy public housing tenants would not.

23

The Problems with Potholes

W

hen we give public talks, one criticism always comes up: “Won’t communities with the most power and money dominate PB, like they do with everything else?” PB started out in Brazil as a “pro-poor” program, in which poor people participated more often and won more funding. But would this same pattern repeat in the United States? For the first few years in the United States, the answer was a definite maybe. Poor people in the United States did not flock to PB. In the favelas (shantytowns) of Brazil, the basic infrastructure improvements funded by PB remain a top priority. Residents are desperate to pave their mud streets and install sewer systems. In the United States, the streets are already (more or less) paved, and fixing potholes is more a middle-class concern. Instead of satisfying basic needs, PB has often provided an outlet for creativity, such as underpass murals, artistic bike racks, and yes, dog parks. 24

PB is not inherently pro-poor in the United States. But sometimes it still works out that way. In the first year of PBNYC, winning projects included playground improvements at public housing projects, a meals-on-wheels delivery van for low-income seniors, and new books and technology for public libraries in low-income neighborhoods. Some of New York’s most marginalized communities turned out in large numbers. In Brad Lander’s Brooklyn district 10 percent of voters were Bangladeshi immigrants, compared with under 4 percent in the previous local election. In Melissa Mark-Viverito’s district, composed mostly of East Harlem and the South Bronx, 22 percent of PB voters had household incomes less than $10,000, compared with 4 percent in the local election.18 Why did public housing improvements win funding in some districts but not others? The answer may lie in the nature of democracy itself. Mark-Viverito’s district has the most public housing of any district, and the residents of these developments have consistently provided enough votes for housing improvements to win funding. By contrast, Council Member Stephen Levin’s district, where FUREE organized, has much less public housing. Stretching along the Brooklyn waterfront from hipster Greenpoint to historic Brooklyn Heights, the district’s park and environmental issues were more pressing for most residents. People vote largely for projects that benefit their community. More residents would directly benefit from the dog park than the 25

public housing improvements, and the final tally in Levin’s district reflected this reality. But PB can also inspire altruistic voting on behalf of projects that benefit other communities, when people are given the chance. This is where our work at the Participatory Budgeting Project matters most. We coach local staff and organizations on how to make PB fair, so that community members have the chance to make a fully informed choice about how to spend their tax dollars. For example, we advise staff to limit the number of projects that each budget delegate committee puts on the ballot. If one committee lists too many projects, its proposals tend to split the vote. We also recommend holding voting in places that attract underrepresented voters, such as ethnic supermarkets and train stations in low-income neighborhoods. More affluent people consistently turn out in higher numbers, whereas others need more support and encouragement. Staff need to bring the vote to the people. These practices can address challenges such as those in Levin’s New York district in 2013, when the dog park won funding over public housing improvements. In that instance, the ballot overflowed with public housing proposals—six in total, making up over a third of the alternatives given to voters. Each person could vote for up to five projects, and for those unfamiliar with the housing developments, it was hard to tell which of those six proposals most deserved support. Would it be “Upgrades to Wyckoff 26

Community Center” or the “Gowanus Community Center Upgrades?” And the district’s voting sites were not exactly targeted. There were over thirty polling stations, well more than any other district. Voting sites were spread throughout the district, but there were more voting times at a trendy cafe than at the public housing developments. Levin’s district had the best first year turnout in the PBNYC election, but people of color and low-income residents turned out in relatively low numbers. In the end, none of the six public housing proposals got enough votes. The top five proposals consumed the entirety of the million dollars set aside for PB in the district, leaving no funds for the Gowanus Community Center Upgrades, which came in sixth place. If the two community center proposals had been combined, however, their vote count might have passed the threshold for funding. The following year, we worked with Levin’s office and local organizers to try a different approach. This time, the public housing committee submitted just three projects for the ballot, and one was listed under a different committee. Levin’s office made the voting sites more accessible for underrepresented populations by adding more sites at community centers and public housing developments. More prepared than before, FUREE again sought to organize voters. The changes made a difference. Overall voter turnout was down in the district, but people of color and low-income res27

idents were better represented. As a result, two of the three housing projects secured funding. FUREE was ecstatic. The affluent park enthusiasts who dominated the first year’s vote split their support between “Give Our Parks a Drink I” and “Give Our Parks a Drink II,” identical water fountain proposals at two different parks. By learning from experiences such as these, PB has become fairer than other budget processes. Low-income residents, youth, recent immigrants, and people of color now tend to be better represented in PB votes than in other local elections. Funding allocated through PB is more likely to go to projects in lower income neighborhoods. While money and power continue to dominate traditional politics, they have far less influence on the results of PB elections. Some critics maintain that this could be because PB is small potatoes. Fixing a community center is not so different from filling potholes. Both require modest budget allocations compared to the billions of dollars at stake overall. Worse still, PB could be distracting people from bigger issues. Are participants just rearranging chairs on the deck of a budgetary Titanic? In some cases, that might be true. Few US processes involve only $100,000. Even repairing a playground’s water fountains and sprinklers can cost five times that amount. That said, even small sums represent a large slice of a given year’s discretionary spending. Most budget funds are designated in advance for fixed costs, such as labor contracts and 28

mandatory repairs. Whereas PB allocates a tiny slice of the total city budget pie in places like Chicago, it accounts for most of the discretionary funds in each participating ward. But even for the smallest processes, the biggest benefits can appear after the initial funding has been allocated. The story of Keith Christiansen (a resident of Lander’s district) is a prime example. As The New York Times reported, Christiansen first got involved in PB to create a green lab and outdoor teaching space at the middle school where he taught.19 He became a budget delegate, and his Education Committee researched other schools in the district. While visiting Public School 124, Christiansen discovered something more urgent than his original idea. At this elementary school, the girls’ bathroom stalls had no doors, so most kids avoided using the bathroom all day. For Christiansen, having a functional bathroom trumped having a new green lab, so he stopped advocating for his own school and instead championed a new proposal to fix the PS 124 bathrooms. “Now,” he reflected, “I’m arguing for some complete strangers’ toilets.” His proposal won more votes than any other proposal on the ballot. The following year, the bathrooms were repaired. But the same problem persisted at other schools. When more school bathroom repairs popped up as PB proposals, parents became frustrated that such basic repairs had to go through PB instead of being earmarked in the regular budget. 29

They were right. But being right didn’t change school funding protocols. Through PB, however, residents could shine a brighter spotlight on this injustice. Heightened public awareness and greater political pressure had an effect. “We’re starting to see the fruits of participatory budgeting (PB) in bigger ways,” reported Council Member Lander, after the New York City Council and the mayor set the budget for 2014–2015.20 “This year, in response to increased demand, the Council pushed the Department of Education to increase funding to improve school bathrooms across the board . . . and we won a doubling of funding, from $50 million to $100 million.” In this way, PB indirectly affects millions of dollars in government spending. It channels and amplifies the public’s priorities. It prods officials to be more responsive. It sparks new questions about how we invest our shared resources, as well as how we raise revenue to make those investments. These discussions often reshape the political landscape. In New York City, PB’s success helped galvanize support for Lander and Mark-Viverito’s Progressive Caucus. In the 2013 municipal elections, their alliance doubled its council seats. Running on a reform platform, Mark-Viverito won the race for council speaker to become the second most powerful official in her city. The caucus soon enacted broad rules reforms that reallocated discretionary funding equally across the city, and awarded an additional funding boost to low-income districts. 30

In a sense, PB serves as a giant community-building and community-organizing process, masquerading as a budget process. It uses money as a carrot to get people engaged in powerful new ways. It transforms participants, such as science teacher Keith Christiansen. It alters the balance of power in political institutions, such as New York City Council. The PB process also broadens political participation, builds new community leaders and more active citizens, and deepens relationships between government, organizations, and residents. In Chicago, the majority of active participants reported no or little previous involvement in civic activities and organizations. In New York, a third of active participants reported participating more in local organizations after PB. Participants in that city also reported significant increases in skills such as public speaking, negotiating, building agreement, and contacting officials. Those with low incomes and less education learned the most. And in Vallejo, the majority of active participants said their view of city government improved after PB. Despite all these benefits, the critics have one thing right. More money needs to be on the table. PB’s impacts multiply when more people have more power to allocate more dollars. This is where advocacy and organizing matter most, and this is one reason we always seek to partner with local community organizations. In New York City, for example, we have worked with Community Voices Heard and dozens of community part31

ners to grow the city’s PB process into the largest in the United States. In just three years, it has grown from four districts to twenty-three—nearly half of the city. The funds at stake have grown fivefold, to over $25 million. In cities without such strong coalitions of partners, such as Chicago and Vallejo, PB has expanded more slowly, if at all. Every month, new community groups and officials begin advocating for PB. But for each new leader who steps forward, a dozen more potential partners hang back. Why? Mainly because PB requires a ton of work. It is infinitely easier for a handful of staff to set a budget than to engage thousands of people over a yearlong process. Democracy takes time. That’s why our organization is working to make PB less onerous. If we can scale back the work required, could we enable PB to scale up in size?

32

Scaling Up Local Democracy

I

n April 2013, Alderman Moore sent out an e-mail blast that gave PB supporters goose bumps. Moore was meeting with President Obama to discuss how the federal government could replicate his experiment. As an avid follower of his home city’s politics, Moore explained, the president had monitored the ward’s process and was considering using PB on a national level. The e-mail quoted a White House spokesman: “Should the US use its proceeds to fund mental health or offer more foreclosure relief? Keep the museums and national landmarks open, or ease the burden on college students facing insurmountably high tuition? With limited funds to spend, why not allow the citizens themselves to make these tough choices?” A PB supporter working at the White House called me in a panic to find out where Moore’s meeting with Obama was taking place. It took a few minutes, but I eventually managed to communicate a key piece of overlooked information: 33

Moore’s e-mail went out on April 1st. The majority of PB supporters had failed to realize that the alderman’s e-mail was an April Fool’s prank. The misinterpretation proved more prescient than foolish. In September 2013, less than six months after the prank e-mail, the White House reached out to PBP to explore how the federal government could support PB. This time, it wasn’t a joke. The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy had published an Open Government National Action Plan in 2011 that outlined how the Obama Administration would make the federal government more transparent and accessible to ordinary Americans. The plan pushed agencies to dump mountains of data into the public domain, but it had failed to connect government with people on the ground. The action plan was not winning over disenchanted Americans, nor was it influencing the policy choices of elected representatives in Congress. The early success of PB in the United States provided a new model for beefing up the participation side of open government. In the second National Action Plan, released in December 2013, the White House suggested PB as a best practice: “The United States will promote community-led participatory budgeting as a tool for enabling citizens to play a role in identifying, discussing, and prioritizing certain local public spending projects, and for giving citizens 34

a voice in how taxpayer dollars are spent in their communities.”21 The federal government set out to promote local participation by helping streamline and scale up PB. The Office of Science and Technology Policy was especially interested in exploring how technological innovations could make PB easier and more effective. Perhaps the greater scope of federal spending could help PB grow exponentially and achieve economies of scale. The White House connected us with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and we explored how federal housing and community development funds could be allocated through PB. We also helped organize a “national convening” at the White House in May 2014 to map out plans for taking PB to the next level. Around sixty city staff, community organizers, and national experts rolled up their sleeves (revealing punk-rock tattoos, Rolexes, and every­thing in between) for a day of deliberation. Amid these White House discussions, we realized that the Participatory Budgeting Project needed to shift its role. As dozens of cities lined up to launch PB, we could not continue deploying our limited staff in so many places. While still providing some direct local support, we decided to focus more on developing the common tools and resources that could enable PB to grow dramatically across the United States, and beyond. We also partnered with other national 35

organizations for this work to have more impact together than we could by working alone. Thanks to new funding from foundations and hundreds of individual donors, we have been able to invest more in this new role, serving as a backbone support organization for the growing PB movement. This approach is bearing fruit by making PB easier to implement and more effective than before. We set up a research board to develop consistent evaluation metrics and instruments to assess impacts and guide the evolution of PB. We are integrating new tech tools that bridge the digital divide and reduce the workload. These tools are helping to engage residents via text messages, collect and process spending ideas, generate standardized ballots and materials, and tally voter data. We also are designing new training and toolkits to enable community members to play a stronger role in both advocacy and implementation. Some PB advocates, however, are pushing for more drastic changes, such as reducing processes to just a month or two, or conducting them mostly online. So far, the results of such experiments have been worrisome. Shorter processes have struggled to develop project ideas that both win community support and meet expert approval. Proposals rushed onto the ballot often run into technical problems when implemented. It takes city staff several months to develop budgets, and asking ordinary citizens to do so in less time can lead to frustration. 36

Most initiatives in the United States have focused on face-to-face engagement, with online and digital engagement playing a secondary role. Some tech developers and their supporters, however, are advocating to switch this balance. As Tech Crunch’s Gregory Ferenstein lamented, PB processes in the United States “have not incorporated the modern features of digital voting and deliberation.”22 Fixing this outdated model would require “bringing the principles of Silicon Valley innovation to the democratic process.” Small PB processes in San Francisco and Chicago have experimented with online and digital voting. This paperless approach has cut down significantly on the workload, but at a cost. Whereas face-to-face PB meetings and voting have disproportionately attracted low-income residents and people of color, online PB has attracted a disproportionate number of affluent white people. In Chicago’s 49th Ward in 2014, for example, people of color made up 48 percent of the total PB voters (higher than the 42 percent rate in the local election). Only 27 percent of digital voters were people of color, however. Digital voting gave more voice to white residents, who already participate in higher numbers. It empowered those with the most power, reinforcing power inequalities. This is not to say that online PB must be avoided, but it should be complemented by strong face-to-face engagement. Even better, tech tools can help facilitate face-to-face participation by enabling organizers to more effectively recruit and engage residents. 37

Tech tools could also help boost turnout. PB votes in the United States have generally turned out less than 4 percent of the eligible population. This is extremely high for a community engagement process, but less than for official local elections. In some Latin American cities, voting via mobile phone and internet, combined with much more government staff and resources, have boosted turnout higher. If local governments in the United States invested as much resources and technology in PB as they do in other elections, they could engage millions more people Beyond the numbers, however, there is a deeper, qualitative impact of face-to-face engagement: transformative learning. By engaging in months of focused discussions and field research with diverse residents from all walks of life, participants often transform their views of both the community and themselves. I first learned this lesson in 2005, when PB in the United States still seemed like a pipe dream. I was dipping my toes in the idea by researching the practice in Rosario, Argentina. That city of over a million residents had built a reputation as a hotbed of democratic innovation. It had decentralized municipal government, launched an urban agriculture program, expanded worker-owned cooperatives, and built perhaps the strongest PB process in the country. Even so, at my first PB meeting, I was skeptical: the highlight was a shouting match between political party hacks. A militante from the opposition party had signed up as a 38

budget delegate, intent on disrupting and discrediting the process. This didn’t look promising, but I went back for another meeting. This time, people focused on a presentation from the city’s Department of Health. When I started interviewing participants, I began to understand why people kept coming back, even after the frustrations. More than anything else, it was an interview with Simona that turned my intellectual curiosity into a driving passion. Simona, a forty-nine-year-old teacher, hadn’t been involved in her community before PB. Frustrated with party politics, she signed up as a budget delegate and quickly discovered the complexities of Rosario’s government and people. She learned about different classes and cultures and shifted her priorities to hospital and food programs for kids. She learned to participate in new ways, such as talking with neighbors in the plaza or going to community meetings. She also learned to value city government and her role therein, as she explained in an interview: “Before, I wondered why should I care about some traffic light if I knew my thoughts wouldn’t count? Now when I’m driving, I pay attention to the quality of the sidewalks and trees. If I see a problem, I report it to people at the city.”23 This learning had a deep impact, best captured in a story that surprised even Simona. Every Tuesday night, she brought her son to play rugby at a club near one of Rosario’s shantytowns. After dropping him off during a cold and 39

windy evening, she saw a family walking alongside the road. Their dark skin and cheap clothes hinted that they lived in the shantytown, and they were lugging a bunch of bags and a baby. She drove past them, then stopped. She called out and asked if they wanted a ride. They were shocked, yet gracious, as they piled into the car. She dropped them off near their shack. I asked why she invited random shantytown dwellers into her car on a dark night in a dangerous neighborhood. “I never would’ve done this before,” she said, “but now I feel more comfortable and open with different people. Through participatory budgeting, I met week after week with people from different classes. You learn about the needs of others. You learn to respect them and give importance to their needs. You learn this by sitting at the table with someone who doesn’t necessarily speak well, but is still able to convey his heart and his suffering.” PB participants in the United States may not rub shoulders with shantytown residents, but the experience still can have a deep personal impact. In Chicago’s 49th Ward, for example, Maria Hadden felt little connection to local government before getting involved with PB. “The only relationship I had with the City of Chicago prior to PB,” she recalled, “was receiving and paying for parking tickets!” She had moved to Rogers Park in late 2007 and soon became one of thousands embroiled in the fallout of the national housing crisis, when the developer of her building 40

abandoned it—unfinished and in debt. She was working full time, going to grad school part time, representing her neighbors in court and managing the half-vacant thirtynine-unit building where she lived. Searching for solutions to this personal housing crisis, for two years Maria met with social service agencies, community development corporations, banks, attorneys, and contractors. “Everywhere we turned for help, all we found were dead ends. By the fall of 2009, I was exhausted and incredibly disenchanted by local government and the social safety net that seemed nonexistent in Chicago. We were truly on our own and powerless to change our situation.” That was when PB launched in her ward. “I saw a flyer that asked if I wanted to help Alderman Moore spend $1 million,” Maria remembered. “I was available. The meeting was down the street. So I grabbed a neighbor and went.” She was so intrigued that she signed up for the Parks and Environment Committee. She wasn’t pushing any pet projects and knew that PB wasn’t going to address her immediate housing needs, but she made time for it. The process gave her hope. “Even though it was a relatively small amount of money and it couldn’t directly help me,” she explained, “I felt that PB directly addressed a gaping hole. Through PB I found a space where community needs met community means, where solutions could be created and implemented. I found this to be a pretty rare opportunity in Chicago.” 41

Thus, it was an inspired Maria who reached out to PBP to get more involved in our work. She soon joined the organization as a project coordinator, and she now travels across the country—and across the world—to help PB grow. Talking with Simona, Maria, and so many other passionate participants, I realized that what draws people to PB is deeply personal. PB provides a meaningful community experience. It offers people an all-too-rare opportunity to come together with neighbors to make decisions that matter. It moves beyond partisan politics and token consultations, beyond lobbying and protest. It gives people a chance to discover the best in themselves and in their community.

42

Stepping Up

M

ore and more people are getting this chance, which offers new hope for the future of democracy. In the United States, the number of PB participants and dollars allocated has roughly doubled each year since 2011. PB is also being used or considered for a growing range of budgets, including for districts, cities, schools, school districts, universities, housing authorities, agencies, court settlements, community benefits agreements, community coalitions, and even community grants from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. This explosion of democratic energy comes at an opportune time. As our broken system of (un)representative democracy leads to a never-ending story of budget crises and electoral gridlock, trust in government has sunk to abysmal depths. Politics has become a dirty word. In Chicago, Alderman Moore recognized it was time for elected officials to start governing with the people, rather 43

than for the people. To make participatory democracy work, he moved beyond listening and consultation. He shared real power with his constituents. Since launching Moore’s process in 2009, we have brought PB to over forty communities across the country. We are working with dozens of officials and hundreds of organizations to expand this democratic innovation even more widely. People are organizing public forums, writing to their elected officials, sharing videos and materials with friends, and meeting with school and university administrators. At the Participatory Budgeting Project, we are thrilled to have ignited this movement—to have made community participation deeply meaningful for so many people. We are even more excited now to weave these individual experiences into a broader movement for more participatory democracy. We seek a democracy in which we all have the power to make the decisions that affect our lives, with the necessary support to make such decisions wisely. Even with our assistance, in the places where interest in PB has turned into action, just one or two persistent advocates have usually led the way. An activist in St. Louis. A professor in Long Beach. A city staff member in Boston. These champions have joined us in transforming democracy one million dollars at a time to make sure that everyone counts. Perhaps even you.

44

Notes

1  See http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-02-18/ news/9201150929_1_ald-city-hall-chicago-city-council. 2  Pew Research Center, Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, April 18, 2010), http://people-press.org/report/606/ trust-in-government. 3  Michael A. Neblo et al., “Who Wants to Deliberate— And Why?,” American Political Science Review 104, no. 3 (2010): 566–583. 4  Carolyn Lukensmeyer, Bringing Citizen Voices to the Table: A Guide for Public Managers (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2013); “Healthy Democracy,” 2013, http://healthy democracy.org; “The Center for Deliberative Democracy,” 2013, http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls; Matt Leighninger, The Next Form of Democracy: How Expert Rule Is Giving Way to Shared Governance—And Why Politics Will Never Be the Same (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2006); Tina Nabatchi et al., eds., Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and 45

Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 5  Cindy Long, “Mind the Gap,” NEA Today, March 18, 2008, http://www.nea.org/home/9302.htm. For broader context on participation and the digital divide, see Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady, The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012). 6  Boaventura de Souza Santos, “Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre: Toward a Redistributive Democracy,” Politics and Society 26, no. 4 (December 1998), 461–510; Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005). 7  Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Josh Lerner, “Could Participatory Budgeting Work in the United States?” The Good Society, 16, no. 1 (2007): 8–13. 8  Josh Lerner and Megan Wade Antieau, “Chicago’s $1.3 Million Experiment in Democracy: Participatory Budgeting in the 49th Ward,” YES! Magazine, April 20, 2010, http://www. yesmagazine.org/people-power/chicagos-1.3-millionexperiment-in-democracy. 9  See http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/ chicagos-1.3-million-experiment-in-democracy. 10  Josh Lerner and Donata Secondo. “By the People, For the People: Participatory Budgeting from the Bottom Up in 46

North America.” Journal of Public Deliberation 8, no. 2 (2012). http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art2/. 11  See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/nyregion/ quinn-on-cnn-denies-being-vindictive.html. 12  See http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2012/04/ budget-and-people/1790. 13  Soni Sangha, “Putting In Their 2 Cents,” New York Times, March 30, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/ nyregion/for-some-new-yorkers-a-grand-experiment-inparticipatory-budgeting.html. 14  See http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/09/07/ which-u-s-cities-are-most-least-racially-diverse. 15  City of Vallejo Press Release, January 30, 2014. 16  Personal communication, February 2013. 17  To see examples of recent press coverage, see the online news archive at http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/city_hall/ departments___divisions/city_manager/participatory_ budgeting/p_b_in_the_news. 18  All data from Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center, “A People’s Budget: A Research and Evaluation Report on the Pilot Year of Participatory Budgeting in New York City,” September 2012. 19  Sangha, “Putting In Their 2 Cents.” 20  See http://bradlander.com/blog/2014/06/26/aprogressive-responsible-transparent-budget-for-nyc.

47

21  See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/12/06/ united-states-releases-its-second-open-government-national-action-plan. 22  See http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/11/san-franciscoto-test-online-participatory-budgeting. 23  Josh Lerner and Daniel Schugurensky, “Who Learns What in Participatory Democracy? Participatory Budgeting in Rosario, Argentina, ” in Democratic Practices as Learning Opportunities, ed. Ruud van der Veen, Danny Wildemeersch, Janet Youngblood, and Victoria Marsick (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2007), 85–100.

48

About the Author Josh Lerner is Executive Director of the Participatory Budgeting Project and author of Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics (MIT Press, 2014). He completed a PhD in politics at The New School for Social Research and has spent over a decade developing and researching innovative democratic processes in North America, Latin America, and Europe. Follow him on Twitter: @joshalerner.

Participatory Budgeting Project The Participatory Budgeting Project is a nonprofit organization that empowers people to decide together how to spend public money, primarily in the United States and Canada. It creates and supports participatory budgeting processes that deepen democracy, build stronger communities, and make public budgets more equitable and effective. For more information see www .participatorybudgeting.org and @PBProject.