This page is not available in SpanishWould you like to continue on the Brennan Center home page in Spanish?to the Brennan Center in Englishto the Brennan Center in SpanishThis page is not available in SpanishWould you like to continue on the Brennan Center home page in Spanish?to the Brennan Center in Englishto the Brennan Center in SpanishGiving Americans a louder voice in political processes is central to restoring trust in government.It's no secret: levels of satisfaction with America's political system — consumed by partisan enmity and unable to address a host of urgent challenges — have dipped to alarmingly low levels.Recent surveys have found a large majority of Americans want substantive changes to the system, think most politicians are corrupt, and say US democracy is “in crisis and at risk of failing.”But that's not the whole story.Though polls find low levels of trust in the federal government, they also show that state and, especially, local governments — where people tend to have closer contact with their representatives — are much more popular.Meanwhile, nearly four out of five US respondents to a Pew poll released last year supported the idea of ​​“creat[ing] citizen assemblies where citizens debate issues and make recommendations about national laws.”Nearly as many backed the idea of ​​letting people vote directly to pass laws on some major issues, as is often done through state referenda and other ballot initiatives.Support for both ideas was higher in the United States than in Britain, France, or Germany, the three other countries Pew surveyed — perhaps reflecting America's extensive history of deliberative and direct democracy.A separate 2019 poll found strong support for several innovative approaches to local civic engagement, such as holding community discussions on relevant issues, surveying residents' views, or proposing how to spend public money.These findings suggest two things: Americans are hungry for a louder voice.And their satisfaction with government is closely connected to their ability to participate effectively in the democratic process and impact political and governmental decision-making.Enhancing civic participation by finding new ways to engage people in political processes is, therefore, central to restoring trust in the system.The reform that does this more directly than perhaps any other is Participatory Budgeting (PB), which allows city residents to collectively determine how a portion of their local government's budget is spent.This paper provides a brief overview of PB's history, both internationally and in the United States, and explains how it typically works.It then uses interviews with people involved in PB processes around the United States and Canada to better grasp which approaches have proven most successful.Two major positive impacts of PB emerged from the interviews.The first is that it served to boost civic participation, strengthen community ties, and demystify city government, resulting in residents' increased sense of civic agency.Second, it helped identify community needs often overlooked in a city's conventional outreach process.Interviewees also identified several operational pitfalls that localities should be aware of when considering or implementing PB.Among them were:Continuing to improve our understanding in this area is crucial because the North American processes vary greatly, particularly regarding the details of implementation.Past studies have drawn lessons from interviewing elected officials about the PB processes in their districts.But there's been relatively little attention paid to the views of the people who are often most central to the day-to-day implementation and management of PB: advocates who successfully organize to launch PB processes and in some cases go on to help run them, staffers in the offices of elected officials or city agencies who play key roles in administering PB, volunteers who serve as budget delegates or in other leading roles, and expert observers.By focusing on those who are on the front lines of the process, this paper aims to provide insights for PB advocates, elected officials, legislative and agency staffers, volunteers, and anyone else creating, running, or helping to run a PB process.And, for those less familiar with PB, it is an introduction to the opportunities and challenges that PB offers.No two participatory budgeting processes are exactly alike, but in the United States and Canada, it typically works like this:PB was pioneered by the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre in 1989 in response to grassroots social movements calling for government transparency and responsiveness in the face of rampant clientelism and corruption.It has since spread to over 7,000 cities around the world and has been recognized by the United Nations as a best practice of democratic governance.PB hasn't been a runaway success everywhere.In Peru, researchers found it did not have an impact on basic water supply, a much-needed service.And in Indonesia, low-income neighborhoods received less than their fair share of the PB budget because of low participation rates among poor residents.But Brazil, where nearly half of the country's 250 largest cities adopted PB during its first two decades, remains a key success story.Brazilian cities have typically allocated relatively large sums of money to the process, ranging from 5 to 15 percent of a city's total budget and sometimes as much as 100 percent of capital spending projects.Porto Alegre and the city of Belo Horizonte each have contributed the equivalent of hundreds of millions of US dollars to PB projects thus far.This commitment has produced impressive results.Two separate studies have found that Brazilian cities that adopted PB achieved substantial declines in infant mortality compared to those that didn't.A study by the World Bank linked PB to “reductions in extreme poverty.”Researchers have concluded that Brazilian cities with PB programs “improve the lives of their citizens.”Direct democracy has existed in America since (male, property-owning) colonial New Englanders gathered on village greens to deliberate and vote on public issues.During the Progressive era, it played a key role in efforts by many western states to rein in the power of corporate interests.But it was not until 2009 that Chicago Alderman Joe Moore, working with the Participatory Budgeting Project, launched the United States' first PB process.Two years earlier, Moore had nearly been voted out of office by constituents who felt he was not responding to their needs.At a social justice forum, he learned about Porto Alegre's experience with PB and thought it might be a way to give residents of his ward a louder voice as well as counter Chicago's notoriously patronage-dominated politics.Eight other Chicago wards have since adopted PB.Canada's first process began in 2002 at Toronto's housing authority, and the process has spread Canadian scores of other US and cities, several of which are explored in this paper.To this point, the improvements to living conditions achieved by PB in Brazil appear not to have been replicated in the United States or Canada.PB researchers have identified several important differences between how each place tends to run PB that likely explain this.For example, Brazil's processes are usually citywide, while those in the United States and Canada are often limited to one or more council districts or wards.In Brazil, residents tend to have more control over the process, including often getting to decide the amount of money to be spent.And PB in Brazil was explicitly designed to reduce economic and political inequality, with strong mechanisms embedded to ensure that resources go to the communities in greatest need.In North America, there's much more variation in the commitment to this goal.But achieving the kinds of material improvements seen in Brazil need not be the goal for PB in North America, at least in the short and medium terms.Successful PB processes can play an important role in strengthening democracy and civic participation by letting decision-makers better understand and prioritize a community's needs;by helping to restore trust in government among residents, especially those from underserved communities;and by serving as a gateway to other forms of political participation, such as voting, getting involved in other local campaigns, or even running for office.While some American and Canadian PB processes have flourished, becoming yearly features of their city's budgeting cycles, others have struggled to grow their participation or have been downsized or eliminated.In background conversations for this paper, some PB advocates noted what they see as the relatively slow rate at which new processes are launching, especially over the last five years — even accounting for the Covid-19 pandemic.At this stage in PB's growth, it's more important than ever to continue gathering knowledge on how to make it as effective and enduring as possible.To better understand why PB thrives in some cities and fails in others, I conducted phone interviews with 23 people involved with PB processes in eight different locations.Interviewees were identified using a contact list maintained by the Participatory Budgeting Project, as well as through additional research by the Brennan Center.The interviewees for this project provide crucial insights into what helps advance PB's goals and what hinders them.Among other key issues, they saw the role funding plays, the impact of a process's rules and restrictions, and the largest-looming threats to genuine popular control of the process.Their candid views on issues like these — organized into seven overarching takeaways — offer important guidance for those designing and implementing PB in the United States and Canada.Secondarily, by underscoring the value of these insights, the project encourages much-needed further study of the experiences of key actors beyond elected officials.Of course, this paper is not comparable to the rigorous expert assessments conducted for most processes on behalf of city governments.For one thing, it aims as much as possible to avoid characterizing or making judgments about the processes, in favor of letting interviewees speak for themselves.And though the pool of interviewees is diverse in terms of race, gender, and role in the process, it isn't intended to provide a representative sample from which sweeping broader conclusions can be drawn.It's also worth noting that many of the insights found here will not be new to PB specialists.But hearing them directly from people who have the closest view of the process can allow even experts to gain a more nuanced and specific understanding of the opportunities and challenges PB presents.The following basic information about each city examined for this study offers context for interviewees' responses.Durham, N.C.Durham launched its PB process in 2018 when the city council voted to allocate $2.4 million, divided equally among the city's three wards.In its first cycle, Durham's process generated 517 project ideas, with 10,179 people — out of a city population of about 275,000 — voting on the proposals that made the ballot and over 100 applying to be budget delegates.A second cycle was completed in 2021, although the amount allocated for projects was reduced to $1 million in total.Because of a shift in community needs exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, proposals were required to be service projects, funded through grants to local nonprofits, rather than capital projects, as was the case in the first cycle.Greensboro, NCGreensboro conducted its first cycle as a pilot in 2015 after a multiyear advocacy campaign by local activists.Since then, two additional cycles have been completed, with a fourth currently underway.For every cycle, each of the city's five council districts receives $100,000 to allocate to projects, with a total of $200,000 in additional funding for program administration.Total turnout for the first two cycles was around 1,200 voters each time, out of a city population of about 280,000.But this figure jumped to over 4,000 by the third cycle.The official evaluation for the first cycle found that non-white residents were slightly underrepresented as voters and participants in the PB process when compared to their numbers in Greensboro's total population.But they were overrepresented when compared to their share of the electorate in conventional local elections — perhaps a more meaningful measure.PB was launched in 2013 in Hamilton's Ward 2 — one of the city's 15 wards — with $1 million in discretionary funds allocated to the ward.The first cycle saw turnout of 1,024, which dropped to 550 in the second cycle, out of a total ward population of about 38,000.The program was shuttered at that point.Long Beach, Calif.In 2014, the city of Long Beach in Los Angeles County launched PB processes in District 9, one of nine city districts, using $295,000 in discretionary funds.The process lasted for three cycles before it ended.In the first cycle, 2,676 people voted, out of a total district population of about 50,000.Since 2019, a different PB process, run by a local nonprofit with grant funding, has provided social programs that support parents with young kids.New York City launched PB in 2011, with separate processes in four of the city's fifty-one council districts.In 2014, the city created a central office to help coordinate and provide resources for PB, but individual council members continue to run the processes in their districts.When the Covid-19 pandemic interrupted the 2020 cycle, 33 council districts were participating, each allocating at least $1 million for projects.Council District 39, which includes neighborhoods in central and western Brooklyn, was one of the original four districts to pioneer PB and completed its eleventh cycle in April.The process allocated $1.5 million for capital projects and an additional $50,000 for programmatic projects run by nonprofits.In 2021, 5,446 voters turned out, out of a district population of about 154,000.PB was launched in San Francisco's District 7 in 2013. The amount of money allocated has grown over time, and this year it will be nearly $1 million, $250,000 of which must go to traffic-safety projects.Several other districts adopted PB after seeing it in District 7, but all have since ended their processes.Total turnout in District 7 has averaged around 2,100 people, out of the district's roughly 84,000 residents.San Jose, Calif.PB was launched in 2015 in District 3 after work by Councilmember Raul Peralez (D) and Mayor Sam Liccardo (D).The amount allocated for projects began at $100,000 and ultimately peaked at $250,000.The program ran for five cycles before ending in 2020. Turnout averaged around 500, in a district of about 100,000 residents.Toronto conducted three cycles of a pilot PB program in three separate neighborhoods from 2015 to 2017. In the first year, each neighborhood received $150,000 to spend on projects, which was increased to $250,000 for the second and third years.Turnout for the three neighborhoods combined averaged about 550 per cycle, out of a total eligible population of around 66,000.The city ultimately declined to expand the pilot into a citywide program.Below are the seven most important takeaways that emerged from the interviews, along with supporting quotes from interviewees.Versions of each of these points were emphasized by multiple interviewees.Give residents current control.Interviewees from several different cities described a range of ways in which the process became co-opted or undermined by other interests, making it less democratic and bottom-up than intended and leading residents to become disillusioned.Interviewees said projects approved by voters were too often changed, delayed, or canceled by big-city bureaucracy or by individual agency staff.(Some staff countered that there are practical, financial, and legal issues they are required to consider before projects can be implemented, suggesting that solving this challenge will not always be straightforward).In Hamilton, Ontario, a local councilor sought to control the process and ultimately used it for political gain.Numerous interviewees stressed that for PB to succeed, residents must have confidence that they are actually running the process and that their votes matter — that is, that when they turn out to support a project, it will be implemented in a timely manner and in a form that is close to what was asked for.“Participatory Budgeting kind of risks becoming co-opted.It just becomes another box for the city to check.Like: 'This is what we did for public input.'And when that happens, it becomes undermined.”—Vincent Russell, Greensboro (Russell, a professor of communications at Western Carolina University, was president of the grassroots organization that worked to create PB in Greensboro. He then served as an evaluator of the process for its first cycle.)Provide enough project funding to motivate residents.Interviewees recounted the challenges that arose when too little money was allocated for PB projects.Most importantly, it was difficult to excite volunteers about the process or motivate them to volunteer if the amount at stake was not large enough to allow for ambitious proposals that might have a lasting impact on their communities.Exacerbating this issue was the extensive time commitment that PB often required of volunteers and city staff.For many, the relatively small amounts of money being considered were not worth putting in the time to organize or attend meetings, refine proposals, and mobilize voters.Ultimately, interviewees said, cities should ensure they are making a sufficient financial commitment to PB for it to be successful.The striking consistency with which this point was stressed raises the question of whether it would be better not to conduct PB processes at all in cases where the funding allocated is too low, since an unsuccessful process resulting from underfunding can lead to disillusionment among residents and city officials.“I was told by the residents, 'Unless we get more money, we're just not going to do it.It's not worth the time.'And that's been the biggest challenge.”—Gary Hytrek, Long Beach (Hytrek, a professor of sociology at California State University, Long Beach, played a key role in getting Long Beach's PB process approved and launched in 2013–14 and went on to help run it.)Don't forget funding for full-time staff.Many interviewees strongly emphasized that asking staff from city agencies or elected officials' offices to run PB on top of their existing responsibilities is a mistake — as is asking volunteer residents to do it on their own with no compensation.The workload — community outreach, project development, coordination with city agencies, and so on — is just too great.Overloading city staff or volunteers burns them out, and lacking full-time staff dedicated to community outreach can lead directly to lower participation rates.Further, failing to fund dedicated, independent staff tends to mean the process is run by staff from the office of the elected official, making it easier for them to control the process and make politically expedient decisions.For all these reasons, interviewees stressed the importance of allocating enough money to program administration — that is, separate from the money that goes to fund projects — to hire at least one full-time staff member, and ideally more.Again, the widespread and strongly held nature of this view among interviewees suggests that PB advocates should make a funded full-time staff a requirement for launching a PB process.“That is probably the number one reason why other districts either didn't start it or didn't keep with it — because it is a tremendous amount of work ...The Supervisor and I completely believe in the power of Participatory Budgeting — but it's a lot of work for not having separate staff to do it.”—Erica Maybaum, San Francisco (Maybaum served as a legislative aid to Supervisor Norman Yee. She was responsible for running PB for five of the seven years that it existed under Yee.)Limit restrictions on the types of projects allowed.Because most PB processes only involve one annual budget cycle, ongoing funding for a project can rarely be assured.As a result, many processes require that proposals be capital projects or other one-time expenses.This means that projects providing community services often aren't allowed.Some processes were also subject to strictly enforced legal, compliance, cost, or zoning restrictions that limited the types of proposals that could appear on the ballot.Interviewees noted several challenges posed by these restrictions.In some cases, residents felt that only service projects would address their most urgent needs, especially a year or two into the process after several capital projects had already been approved.More broadly, seeing project ideas rejected before they could be put on the ballot was said to dampen residents' enthusiasm for the process, reducing participation rates.In several cases, interviewees described successes in which organizers found ways to work around or relax restrictions.Some interviewees suggested that in setting rules for the process, organizers should aim to include as few limitations of this kind as possible.“There was a lot of demand for other projects that couldn't be accommodated.If we hadn't limited it to certain capital projects, we would have probably had more interest and momentum.”—Rich Whate, Toronto (Whate was brought into the city manager's office to run the PB pilot program for the 2016 and 2017 cycles.)You can never do enough outreach.Interviewees spoke about the need for energetic, deliberate, and thoughtful outreach that is conducted over a lengthy period of time and in locations where residents naturally find themselves.They noted that this outreach was especially important for reaching underserved communities and should be conducted in multiple languages.Some said insufficient outreach — usually because of a lack of resources rather than any deliberate choice — was the primary cause of lower-than-expected participation rates.Even some of those who said this outreach had occurred added that more of it could have further increased participation.“[Organizers] need to be thinking at least a year to get out there and get the idea on the radar and to identify key community leaders and work with them to make sure the process is designed so that it does include their community.But also so that there's trust — because without that, I don't think we would have had half the level of participation we did.”—Norman Kearney, Hamilton, Ontario (Kearney, at the time a graduate student in political science at Carleton University, spearheaded the campaign to win PB and then played a leading role in running it during its first cycle.)Be clear from the outset about what PB can and can't do.Interviewees said some residents, encouraged by organizers to think big, went into the process imagining that PB could deliver almost any project they could envision.But limited budgets, city regulations, and restrictions on the types of projects that can be proposed mean the final product may be more modest.As a result, interviewees stressed the need to manage residents' expectations about what PB can and cannot accomplish to avoid disenchantment with the process.Some interviewees acknowledged, however, that this could conflict with the obvious need to excite residents about the possibilities of PB in order to convince them to participate.Ultimately, organizers need to find the right balance—communicating in compelling terms what PB can achieve, without overpromising.“It's important to manage those expectations.PB is not there to solve all of the issues.But it can start a conversation and open up the doors of government so that more and more people can get involved.”—Andrew Holland, Durham, North Carolina (Holland was hired by the city to oversee the PB process as budget engagement director.)Don't be afraid to experiment.Several interviewees laid out innovative ideas aimed at avoiding potential pitfalls.To prevent richer neighborhoods from having an advantage, organizers in Hamilton created a recommended list of proposals that prioritized underserved communities.And to avoid implementation delays, Greensboro let voters choose shovel-ready projects that were approved through the city's conventional planning process.Beyond these specific ideas, the lesson is that PB offers ample room for experimentation, and a willingness to be flexible can be key to success.“What we found is that we kind of exhausted the process in these small neighborhoods in three years.Had we been able to maybe tweak it halfway through and try a new neighborhood or try a different type of scope, that might have told us even more interesting things about its potential.”—Whate, TorontoThese responses from interviewees were not as consistently or strongly held as the takeaways above.But most were expressed by multiple interviewees, and they contain insights that can be valuable for PB processes going forward.PB processes served to boost civic participation, strengthen community ties, and demystify city government, making it easier for residents to wield influence going forward.“We saw folks step up and learn about what democracy looks like and how it should function.We've seen individuals become much more involved in local politics—as elected leaders, as members of commissions and boards.We've seen residents interact across space in ways they've never done before — neighborhood associations, for instance, sharing resources and having folks go from one neighborhood association meeting to another and sharing some of their concerns.”—Hytrek, Long BeachPB helped identify ground-level community needs that had been overlooked in the city's conventional outreach process.“In our community was a basketball court that flooded a lot, and so people couldn't use it.So we went in and did some work in the area funded through PB, and it made that court more useful, and that makes a park more usable...That might be something that feels kind of low down the city totem pole — they're dealing with police issues and how to create more affordable housing and things like that.But that stuff could really matter to a community.”—Jeff Lail, Greensboro (Lail chairs the city's PB commission, on which he has served for two years.)PB processes that use a council member's discretionary funds can give that council member too much control.“[PB] should be treated more seriously, incorporated [through] policies and bylaws, and not left up to [one person].Because that also really tips the scales of power in the process.If people think if they rock the boat too hard, the councilor is going to say, 'No, enough's enough,' that's really not empowering at that point.That's just kind of a nicer form of consultation.”—Kearney, HamiltonMoving too many PB functions online can create access challenges, especially for underserved communities.“Not as many people participate online.And there's also that technology gap, where there's a lot of people who want to see these community funded ideas but don't communicate in English or don't have access to the internet or something like that.So we've seen the number definitely drop.”—Angelica Ramdhari, New York City (Ramdhari has been volunteering in the District 39 process since 2018 as a budget delegate and later a facilitator.)Budget department staff may not be well suited to running PB.“[PB] is by and large an outreach project...Most people who work in the budget office are numbers people and are focused on that aspect in an overarching way for the city.They weren't hired for their outreach skills.”—Karen Kixmiller, Greensboro (Kixmiller is an analyst in Greensboro's budget department, where the city houses its PB process. She works closely with volunteers and other city staffers to administer PB.)It's crucial to keep volunteers informed about the status of their proposals.“People wanted to know what happened to their request, and they weren't being given that information back...Keep the person who submits the original request engaged throughout the whole process.”—Antonina Ettare, San Jose (Ettare was a lead PB volunteer for two cycles, serving on a committee of 12 volunteers who worked with residents and city staff to vet projects and get them approved for placement on the ballot as well as conduct outreach to the community.)Conducting separate processes for each city district, and allocating the same amount of funding to each, can conflict with PB's equity goals.“If one of the purposes of Participatory Budgeting is to promote social justice, to promote equity, requiring money to be spent equally across all five districts makes that very challenging.Because in Greensboro, the east side of the city has been neglected, divested from, and if we're talking about equity, they really need more of the money.But they required that it be spent equally, so rich folks in the west side of Greensboro get the same amount of money from PB as poor folks on the east side of Greensboro.”—Russell, GreensboroThe comments from interviewees underscore an important reality about PB: Effective, well-organized PB processes can build trust in government, strengthen civic ties, address urgent local needs, and give underserved communities a louder voice in decisions that intimately affect their day-to-day. day life.Less effective processes, by contrast, can lead to demoralization and disappointment, potentially further decreasing trust in government for some residents.So exactly how PB is set up and implemented is crucial.Though interviewees' experiences views and varied widely, by and large, most saw certain key decisions — often taken by policymakers and organizers at the outset — as essential in determining the level of success of the process: Is enough funding provided both for projects and PB management?Are government-imposed constraints on residents' choices kept as minimal and flexible as possible?Are residents given ultimate control of the process when conflicts with government inevitably arise?Ultimately, these questions point to a larger reality: the more that city governments are prepared to fully lean into PB by providing necessary resources and by genuinely trusting and empowering residents, the more successful it is likely to be...................................................Acknowledgments