Participatory Budgeting An Introduction Background Participatory Budgeting (PB) It is important to remember that PB is not empowers communities, about giving away power or reducing gets more people involved the influence of elected politicians. It in democracy and improves is about sharing responsibility more widely. Only a fixed and relatively small local public services. amount of total public spending is It has a proven track record of opened up to public decision making increasing levels of participation, through PB. But often they are the funds engagement and empowerment in a most important to local people, and range of community settings. trusting citizens can have a big impact on their respect for and engagement Major developments such as devolved with . Community Budgets, elected Police Commissioners and the establishment There is no fixed definition because of NHS Clinical Commissioning innovative PB projects constantly Groups all cry out for effective ways challenge existing explanations. of letting local people have an input However the short definition is: on spending priorities. ‘Local people deciding PB has been evolving in the UK on how to allocate since 2000, when a delegation of part of a public budget’ community activists from Salford and Or…… Manchester visited Brazil to understand how PB works and how it might be ‘If it feels like we have decided, implemented in the UK. it’s PB. PB was first introduced in the city of If it feels like someone else in Brazil, in 1989 when has decided, it isn’t.’ public funds were very restricted and demands for democratic reform were strong. Since then it has successfully empowered people in extremely deprived communities. Its tools and principles are now used in many places across the world. There are over 2000 cities worldwide using PB, the list includes UK, USA, Canada, Spain, France and Germany. It is recognised as good practice by international institutions, including the World Bank, UNESCO, OECD, the UN and DFID. Participatory budgeting directly involves local people in making decisions over how public money is spent in their community. This means engaging residents, community groups and representative of all parts of the community to discuss and vote on spending priorities, make spending proposals, and vote on them, as well as giving local people a role in scrutiny and monitoring.

PB Models

There is no set way to start to set way is no PB: doing There on designed be should process the and of local circumstances the basis of a number However, objectives. or evolved, have models common the UK so far. in evolving, are pot A discrete Pot: Grant Community a particular of money for or theme, area children a neighbourhood or for e.g. using PB. is allocated people, and young voluntary and sometimes Community, projects for propose statutory groups a them at present funding and then residents where event, decision day funding. should receive on which vote or wards funds to Devolved this is Typically neighbourhoods: funding or partnershipeither council closer which is devolved funding, services where are frontline the to funding can be used The delivered. sector projects. and/or third public for a to presented usually bids are Again, or perhaps through public meeting, which a vote for an online process funding. receives who determine services: mainstream for Funding the original closely follows more This within citizens All model of PB. Brazilian public which on vote to able are area an additional services should receive in setting also involved funding and are the localitythe priorities which will for the money is used. shape how

within those priorities. votes for schemes it wants to implement to schemes it wants for votes then be allocated before the community before then be allocated a community’s priorities. Funding can Funding priorities. a community’s be used as a first phase to help identify help to phase first a as used be community plans, and parish plans cancommunity plans, for projects. Neighbourhood charters, projects. for budget or to allocate part allocate budget or to budget of that and social enterprises. an entire the priorities set used to for money distributed by trusts, charities trusts, by money distributed It can be its adaptability. demonstrating and public health boards. As well as as well As boards. and public health partners themes, are budgets, and areas schools, clinical commissioning groups groups clinical commissioning schools, of PB forms Innovative of situations. the time and new all being developed are including those of housing associations, including those of housing associations, a wide range suit to PB can be adapted to a range of different public budgets public of different a range to – it has also been applied in the UK – it has also been applied in the UK not limited to local authority to not limited budgets young people, and health. But PB is people, young themed: for example, children and children example, themed: for sports facilities. often authorityare they where wide improving assets such as assets improving or local neighbourhoods or areas, community centres and communitycentres certainto specific been have They people, health and wellbeing, health and wellbeing, people, for children and young and children for road improvements, activities improvements, road behaviour, the environment, environment, the behaviour, including crimeincluding and anti-social spending on serviceson spending in the UK have allocated allocated have UK the in Currently, PB programmes programmes PB Currently, The Benefi t PB is most effective when effectively at key services. Involving it is inclusive, helping bring the community not only gives about real change in the them greater understanding of the relationship between citizens, financial situation, but enables them communities, public sector to be part of the solution. officials and elected bodies. • Improving services – PB ensures that services are better tailored to Expenditure cuts have required difficult local circumstances, and improves decisions to be taken, and Participatory resident satisfaction. By involving Budgeting techniques can be valuable people in deciding what services in determining the opinions of residents, they need and want in their area, business or other stakeholders. With an services can be more responsive increasing number of judicial reviews as and targeted. This can bring greater communities and individuals challenge

s of PB efficiencies and develop a sense funding priorities, this is one way to of shared responsibility between persuade the courts that meaningful service providers/commissioners consultation and engagement has and residents. taken place. • Strengthening and renewing It can create other benefits too, democracy – PB builds relationships including: between residents, councillors and • Building stronger communities and officers; providing a stronger role for empowered citizens PB offers greater councillors as community leaders community cohesion, as diverse and demonstrating people come together to make and accountability to their decisions, they meet others from electorates. This in turn develops their community, sometimes for the mutual trust and confidence in first time. This builds understanding representative democracy and and fosters community cohesion. encourages more people to take an If people are enabled to vote on active part in their community. how to spend money, they can Many international examples show feel empowered to take positive that when PB is done well citizens action themselves, and take greater come to respect political leaders, are ownership over their area. more willing to pay local taxes, or even • Better understanding of the pay more tax. But only where they complexities of setting public know they can also influence how that budgets and choosing between money is then spent. competing priorities – In a time of financial restraint and tough budget choices, PB can be used to prioritise budgets and target resources more PB has changed (for the better) out of all recognition my relationship with Officers and Elected Members’ Chris Parsons Resident Eastfield, N. Yorks.

I approached this as a local officer would, who thought I was in charge and I knew best. I was very firmly told by the residents that I wasn’t in charge and I didn’t know best – and they were absolutely right Stuart Pudney Deputy Chief Executive, Yorks Police Authority Values, Princi p les andSt The PB values, principles and standards document that can be found on the PB Network website sets out the minimum expectations for the way PB is implemented in the UK, and helps to ensure integrity in PB projects. It is hoped projects will continue to raise the bar to make PB a high quality engagement experience, which remains inclusive and accessible to everyone. Maintaining standards will help to keep those crucial core benefits of PB, such as community empowerment, social cohesion and responsive services.

The nine values are:

1. Local Ownership 2. Direct Involvement 3. Support for representative democracy andards of PB 4. Mainstream Involvement 5. Accessibility 6. Transparency 7. Deliberation 8. Empowerment 9. Shared responsibility

There is more information within the document “Unpacking the Values, Principles and Standards” which sets out the distinct values, principles and standards needed to run a successful PB programme on the PB website http://pbnetwork.org.uk/values-principles-aned-standards-for-participatory-budgeting/

The PB N e In 2012 the PB Network was Vision established to promote the The vision of the Network is for PB to be concept of PB and advocate recognised as a key and effective tool for: for its wider use. The PB Network provides free • addressing inequalities in service resources and runs events and choices and resource allocation; seminars across the UK and is • engaging and empowering citizens supported by the PB Partners in discussions on public budgets; (see more overleaf. and Information • stimulating co-production and t mutual responsibility between The National PB Network exists

work citizens and the state. to promote the use of PB across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland Goals and Wales. It acts as a hub for The goal for the next 5 years is to move information and research on PB in the PB beyond allocating small pots of UK and internationally, to resource money to voluntary and community improvements in the growth of PB. groups, towards a tool for repeatedly The national PB Network builds on the distributing elements of mainstream success of the previous work promoting public budgets. The goal is that public PB across the UK by Local councils, services routinely offer some form of community activists, academics and PB for mainstream budget choices, and agencies like, the Consultation Institute, that as a norm people expect it to be OXFAM UK, Church Action on offered. and thousands of PB practitioners. The Network has developed and will Organisation continue to develop Policy Briefs It is open to, brings together and is which are intended to provide a quick run by individuals and organisations, snapshot on a given theme or topic. As including PB Partners, that are well as making available videos, case committed to the principle that studies, toolkits and reports of PB both public spending is more effective in the UK and around the world. It also when citizens are actively involved. It produces a regular online newsletter. is independent of all political parties All these resources can be found and other organisations. Its way of on its website www.pbnetwork.org.uk organising mirrors the co-operative and transparent principles of PB. It meets approximately twice a year and annually elects a small steering group to co-ordinate its work between the wider network meetings.

The PB P PB Partners are experts in processes that can really empower the field of PB. Operating citizens and help drive innovation in across England, Scotland, public services. As a social enterprise, Wales and Northern Ireland, clients can be confident that the work the Partners do leads to sustained they can assist in developing change and represents excellent value meaningful community for money. engagement programmes that really ‘make people count’. They provide a range of flexible and affordable support services, including: PB Partners, are a social enterprise AR that involves the leading experts in 1. Strategic work on community the field and work closely with a range engagement policy and of consultation, engagement and implementation T NERS democracy experts and campaign 2. Facilitating of planning meetings, organisations. Partners collaborate with chairing public meetings The Consultation Institute to deliver PB training, and with academics at the 3. Back office support to PB University of Westminster’s Centre for programmes the Study of Democracy among other 4. Bespoke training to staff, elected higher education institutions. They also members and local residents provide financial and secretarial support to the PB Network. 5. Writing reports, undertaking research and evaluation To date PB Partners have worked with over 100 PB project providers, including Local 6. Presenting to stakeholders at Authorities, Police Authorities, Housing conferences, workshops and Trusts, Health providers, Parish Councils community events and others. PB Partners have worked with Partners offer a number of standard the Big Local/Local Trust to provide training support packages, from an introductory and support to Big Local areas involved day or half day briefing, to a 4 day in PB. Also the Scottish Government to support package to get PB programme implement PB programmes within councils underway and ensure success, or more across Scotland. detailed 8-10 day packages to help to Building on over 15 years experience mainstream community participation of running successful PB projects, and into core budgets. involving the PB Partners is administered by Shared leading experts Future CIC, a social enterprise with on PB in the UK, a track record in quality community PB Partners will engagement and development. help to deliver Information on PB Partners services can community be found at: www.pbpartners.org.uk engagement Over £150,000 was made directly made Over £150,000 was support to available these projects, but partners funding match bringing this amount. In increased significantly £30,000 example South for Manchester in the available funding was of police areas, Longsight and Wythenshawe £30,000 another by matched which was a where Wigan, In the city council. from Higher happened on the programme the matched the council estate, Fold financial £6,000. Alongside funding by support free staff time, considerable and communications use of venues support further. the money reach made format, its own Each Division followed so in Stockport than hold a rather the decisionstook they event single askingout on the street residents crime reduce would which initiatives MutualGain wellbeing. and improve shared the learning that was ensured action PB regular learning sets. through their and MutualGain Partners delivered Division and PSCO’s to training initial Training Police the Sedgleyleads at Park then local early in 2015, and since centre into the work has developed facilitation These approaches. of different a range using a and recorded compared were and forms evaluation mixture of video, takers. visual minute

12 PB events that took place in place took that events PB 12 2014 and JanuaryDecember 2015. During the later partDuringlater the of early2014 and 2015 Greater (GMP) Police Manchester scalethe largest began of Participatoryexperience in theBudgeting running England. of West North 11 divisions of all Embracing and Police Manchester Greater working in partnership closely Housing with Councils, Voluntary and Providers, Organisations, Community Commissioning Clinical and Rescue Fire Groups, Services and in some cases sector organisations. private working onPB Partners, behalf of MutualGain ran several sessions over training in the and assisted months out of the programmes. roll of PCSO’s teams Dedicated supported Inspectors by and Neighbourhood Policing the coordinated Teams CASE STUDY : Greater Manchester Police The Stevens report into the future of • Improve the levels of trust between policing, published in 2014, advocated communities and service providers for the establishment of Police PB Units (particularly the Police) inside every force. The Independent Police Commission chaired by Lord • Give ‘voice’ and ownership to Stevens said: community leaders to make their neighbourhoods safer places for “local community engagement has to everyone be made a routine component of police work and a core responsibility of those elected to hold the police to account.” The initiative follows many examples of the Police tackling crime through Greater Manchester’s PB programme building stronger communities. is so far the most ambitious attempt Since 2008 numerous forces have to realise that vision. A large scale experimented with PB, mostly using and coordinated initiative to reduce funding through the Home Office. the influence of criminal activity Examples include the recently and reduce the fear of crime in announced Seaham PB funded by the deprived communities. Enjoying Durham Constabulary, and the Cheshire the support of senior leaders Police and Crime Commissioners in GMP, and demonstrating the programme in early 2015 saw around power of partnership working and 700 residents engage in making their neighbourhood focussed policing the area a better place to live. project aimed to: For more information please go to the • Re-connect the affected PB Network website: communities with functioning www.pbnetwork.org.uk and legitimate decision making processes located within 1.5 miles radius of within 1.5 miles radius located of Crook the centre the for approval / landowners if be developed to proposal secured. funding was

The 12 organisations and projects that 12 organisations The “Its500k Up 2U”£ bidding for were included: This funding met set criteria. • organisation profit being a not for • all projects must be physically • capital bids all projects were • landlord have all projects had to underwentEach application sustainability the checks and satisfied the project was panel that appraisal in if successful deliverable potentially securing funding. with worked Durham Council County successful who was the organisation for fully the project ready develop to of capitaldelivery and commencement a year had up to applicant The works. their project and meet all progress to statutory obligations. and appraisal projects The

What was It’s Up 2 U £500K? It’s was What public has ideas about how Everyone money should be spent. local people the gave Up 2 U £500K’ ‘It’s of projects to on a range vote to chance funding. which should receive decide, help the community to to aim was The happened in what over control have on thethem a say and give their area them. to matter things that community set aside for £500,000 was town facilities within 1.5 miles of Crook asked to - the community were centre spent. this money was on how vote Durham County Council, in DurhamCouncil, County Towns partnership3 with £500,000 of had Partnership, projects in funding for capital were public The area. the Crook and say their have to invited projects their favourite for vote Primary School Crook at in 2013February CASE STUDY : Durham

Discussion Voters could talk to other local people Voters were given three votes; they were about the merits of the projects and required to award three points to their share their views. Discussions with others first choice project, two points to their helped voters with their decisions on second choice and one point to their third who to vote for, but they didn’t need to choice. Voters had to cast all three votes agree with others. Everyone was entitled and vote for three different projects. to their own opinion and their own vote. More information can be found Voting on: http://www.durham.gov.uk/ article/2547/Its-Up-2-U-500K Voters were asked to vote for the projects, which they would like to see funded. To be eligible to vote they had to live, work or volunteer in the 3 Towns Partnership areas. Any young person attending secondary school and meeting the above criteria was also eligible to vote. Voters had to attend the voting event on 23 February 2013. Other people attending to present projects or help out, who did not meet the criteria above, did not have a vote. were allowed in first, allowed were others who by followed In total had turned up. 815 people attended The events. the eight mix of communication helpedtechniques out reach organizers mix ofa diverse to individuals. The PB team asked for ‘bids’ for for ‘bids’ for asked PB team The services on the appear could that services All menus. had Decide!’ ‘You services. council be mainstream to In meet one had to addition, they cabinet prioritiesor one of the five (LAP) Partnerships Area of the Local over by the LAPs priorities identified then servicesThese were the past year. being put before Cabinet to presented to later given “menu” the in together participants. the value Inevent total, of the services just menu was on the under £750,000. so spend, to £280,000 had LAP Each make decisions about trade-they had to ‘Reducing of: under the categories offs ’, Youth of Levels ‘Raising Behaviour’, Anti-Social ‘Tackling the Quality‘Improving GCSE results’, ‘Improving and Realm’ of the Public Cleanliness’. about the campaign people heard As the for register to encouraged they were follow. to were that events Decide!’ ‘You least at had capacity for Each event participants Pre-registered 100 people.

the and within involvement of perceptions level participation the improve develop improve and engagement amongst Tower Tower amongst and engagement in all walks Hamlets residents and not of life, to just in relation services.council Including the joining of voluntary and organisations as associations local as encouraging well in involvement politics. performanceserviceslocal of giving- and design to the power residents choose services the process through and then shape those services Groups. the Steering through Hamlets community - helping Tower not all backgrounds people from process this in involved get to only the experience learn from but also to in of involvement levels improving services.other council • To • To The aims for the project were: aims for The • To In Tower Hamlets during - 2009 Tower In carried was Decide!” “You 2010, Borough. the whole out across £2.38 allocated Cabinet The year a two for per year million of £4.76 million)period (total theadded by with £300,000 (PCT)Trust local Primary Care of over A total two. in year over allocated was £5million period. year the two CASE STUDY : Tower Hamlets Delivering the projects: After the events had been completed, all No two LAPs were the same in their of the LAP Steering Groups and all of the preferences. Every one of them services that had been purchased were purchased substantially different invited to an evening event nicknamed services with their money. However, ‘Service Speed Dating’. Each service was there were several popular items: invited to bring along a rough outline • Youth inclusion programmes of what they were planning to do with • Early GCSE’s in a mother tongue the money allocated to them (providing • Street lighting more detail than had been available at • Drug outreach workers the events). The LAP Steering Groups • Extended learning and family based could then negotiate with the services learning the sort of changes they would like to • Youth disabilities projects make. This led, at the end of the event, to • Greening projects such as shrub beds a rough blueprint between each Steering Group and the services purchased in The second year of 2010 You Decide! that area as to what was going to be events were also a success. The events delivered. Many of the services were attracted 770 residents from a broader changed quite considerably because of set of communities than in 2009. The resident involvement and many of the feedback from the events was a marked Steering Group members welcomed improvement over that achieved in 2009. this as a way of shaping services for their local area. More information can be found at: http://participedia.net The project was funded for two years following an annual cycle:

• February – April 2009: Decision events where the budget for financial year 2009-10 was allocated. • April 2009-March 2010: Projects from year 1 delivered and monitored. • January – March 2010: Decision events where the budget for financial year 2010-11 was allocated. • April 2010 – March 2011: Projects from year 2 delivered and monitored. in local grass engage to between for to link way involvement funding scale effective active effective opportunities an small an local decisions. roots organisations and initiatives, initiatives, and organisations roots not been have including those that funded. previously local community and local Processes. democratic larger numbers of people in the numbers larger NP. of the Leith work people to have a say in what what in a say have people to happens in their area. • Encourage • Increase • Provide • Provide The main aims of £eith Decides are to: main aims of £eith Decides are The • Provide Since 2011/12 Edinburgh City Council 2011/12 Edinburgh Since has run the PB £eith decides project which is based as its namesake suggests, North NP’s in Leith, East Edinburgh. 50% of the delegates PB programme the Leith to Fund Grant Community in grants is allocated and Community £1,000. Giving local peopleof up to a the decision‐making over power has Fund Grants Community devolved the number increased dramatically decisions, local in people engaged of people with veryreconnecting local this haverated Participants democracy. the decision‐ highly and value approach making opportunity. February 2015 sees £eith2015 sees February fifth consecutive Decides’ participatorybudgeting In 2010, Leith (PB) event. Neighbourhood Partnership use of a the (NP) piloted participatory budgeting some ofallocate to approach Grant its 2010/11 Community such a pilot was The Fund. decided toit was that success hold a £eith Decides event PB annually. CASE STUDY : £eith decide CASE STUDY xxx

More information can be found on: can be found information More on by members of the community. members on by http://www.pbpartners.org.uk applications for 2014/15 to be decided 2014/15 to for applications http://www.edinburghnp.org.uk £eith Decides’ fifth event received 37 received fifth event £eith Decides’ http://participedia.net post, in libraries and at an event. The an event. and at in libraries post, http://awards.cosla.gov.uk/2013/03/ applications, by scoring projectsscoring by by applications, to 26 projects from a choice of 42 a choice 26 projects from to made the decision to allocate £22,885 allocate to made the decision In 2013/14 over a thousand participantsIn 2013/14 over COSLA Excellence Awards site. Awards Excellence COSLA pioneeringwork.the on Read more Local Authorities (COSLA) for their for (COSLA) Authorities Local award from the Convention of Scottish the Convention from award In an 2013 £eith Decides achieved To learn more about our work or ask any questions about Participatory Budgeting, contact us by phone or direct email:

Telephone: 07963 706106 Email: [email protected] Website: www.pbnetwork.org.uk

You can also find us on social media: @ukpbnetwork https://www.facebook.com/groups/ PBintheUK