N P B Y C

N P B Y C

N P B Y C

A People’s Budget: A Research and Evaluation Report on Participatory Budgeting in New York City Year 2

By the Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center with the PBNYC Research Team

P B N Y Report Authors Research Advisory Board Acknowledgements

Alexa Kasdan Andreas Hernandez The authors would like to acknowledge the Director of Research and Policy Marymount Manhattan College contributions of many people in developing Community Development Project at the this report. We’d like to thank the thousands Urban Justice Center Ayse Yonder of community residents who volunteered their Pratt Institute time in this year’s participatory budgeting Lindsay Cattell process. This report would not have been Research and Policy Associate (former) Celina Su possible without their contribution to the Community Development Project at the City University of New York research. Urban Justice Center Michelle Ronda Additionally, we would like to thank the Pat Convey Marymount Manhattan College participating Council Members; Melissa Research and Policy Associate Mark-Viverito, Brad Lander, Jumaane D. Community Development Project at the Josh Lerner Williams, Eric Ulrich, Daniel Halloran, David Urban Justice Center Participatory Budgeting Project Greenfield, Stephen Levin and Mark Weprin; their staff, particularly Alex Moore, Rachel Rachel Swaner Goodman, Michael Freedman-Schnapp, Joe New York University, Taranto, Andrew King, Ari Gershman, Rudy Wagner School of Public Service Guliani, Lisa Bloodgood, Ashley Thompson, Jake Adler, Stefen Ringel, Monique Waterman Ron Hayduk and Erica Goldstein. Queens College Many thanks to members of the Research Santa Soriano Advisory Board (see full list to the left) Community Service Society for their thoughtful feedback on research design, implementation and analysis. Thank you also to the committed students that helped with this project, particularly those from Queens College, Marymount Manhattan College and NYU’s Wagner school.

Thank you to all the interns and volunteers that contributed to this research, particularly Tina Mann and Fredrick (Fritz) Tucker.

Thanks to all who took time to review the report including Josh Lerner, Isaac Jabola- Carolus, Pam Jennings, Sondra Youdelman, Erin Markman and Celina Su.

Finally, thank you to MTWTF for the design of this report.

This research was made possible through the generous support of the following: New York Foundation, Scherman Foundation, New York Community Trust, Robert Sterling Clark Foundation and New York Women’s Foundation. Table of Contents

5 Introduction 7 Background 10 Research Methodology

14 City-wide Findings

39 District Details 41 District 8 49 District 19 57 District 23 65 District 32 73 District 33 81 District 39 89 District 44 97 District 45

105 Conclusion

111 Appendix

3 The PB Steering Committee meets to discuss issues around Year 2 of the PB process.

N P B Y C Introduction

In 2012–2013, New Yorkers participated in Year 2 of Participatory Budgeting in New York City. Through participatory budgeting (PB), Participation community members—instead of elected officials alone—decide how public funds should be spent, from start to finish. They exchange in Year 2 of ideas, collaborate to develop project proposals, and then vote on Participatory which proposals should get funded. Once the funds are allocated, community members monitor project development to ensure Budgeting was accountability. nearly double Last year’s Participatory Budgeting process (2011–12) was a historic first in New York City. Almost 8,000 New Yorkers participated, that of Year 1. in four districts ranging from Park Slope to the Rockaways to Mott Haven. In Year 2 of PB (which took place from September of 2012 to April of 2013) the process doubled. Over 13,000 residents from eight Council Districts across four boroughs—Republican and Over 13,000 Democratic—voted on how to spend almost $10 million of public people voted on money. Just like Year 1, PB engaged many New Yorkers left out of traditional political processes and mainstream community activism: how to spend youth under 18, people of color, low-income earners, women, almost $10M immigrants, and ex-offenders. These participants built leadership skills, interacted with their elected officials, and expanded their of public money. social and political networks.

5 Participants brainstorm ideas for how to improve their neighborhood during a neighborhood assembly in East Harlem. Background

How the NYC Budget Works NYC Annual Budget Timeline1

To understand why Participatory Budgeting is unique, it is helpful February to consider how PB compares to the traditional budgeting process Mayor releases the Preliminary Budget in NYC. As indicated in the figure to the right, each February, the for the following fiscal year Mayor releases a preliminary budget. The City Council then holds hearings on the Mayor’s budget, where community members can testify about their concerns and priorities, but have no opportunity to play a meaningful or decisive role in what gets funded and what does City Council holds public hearings not. The following month, the City Council submits a response to the Mayor’s budget, which may or may not incorporate what they have heard at the public hearings. Behind closed doors, the Mayor and City Late March Council then do some more negotiating, and the City Council holds City Council issues a response to more hearings. In Late April, the Mayor releases his executive budget, the preliminary budget which in the last several years has included cuts to critical services such as senior centers, child-care slots and HIV/AIDS services. The City Council then must fight with the Mayor, and community groups Late April and activists must protest to restore these cuts. Finally, in late June, Mayor releases the Executive Budget the City Council and Mayor approve a budget. This annual process, known as the “budget dance” exemplifies the centralization of power, inequity and lack of transparency that tends to characterize typical City Council holds public hearings government decision-making. A fiscal year starts July 1st and ends June 30th. The budget for one fiscal year includes expenditures (all the money that the city government thinks it will spend), and revenues (everything it expects Mayor and City Council negotiate and create a balanced budget to bring in through taxes and fees).

Early June City Council votes on budget

Mayor decides whether or not to veto increases made by City Council

Late June City Council votes on adopted budget

7 How Participatory Budgeting Works

N Neighborhood P B Y C Assemblies September–November

At public meetings in each district, the Council Members present information on the budget funds; residents brainstorm project ideas and select budget delegates.

Evaluation, 1,500 people participated in Delegate Orientations Implementation 41 assemblies. November & Monitoring April & onwards

Delegates and other participants Delegates selected at the assemblies evaluate the process, then continue to learn about the budget process, project meet and oversee the implementation development, and key spending areas, of projects. then form committees.

Annual PB Cycle

Voting Delegate Meetings April November–March

Delegates meet in committees to Delegates present the final project transform the community’s initial project proposals and residents vote on which ideas into full proposals, with support projects to fund. from Council Member staff and other experts. 13,000 people voted citywide.

Project Expos March

Delegates return to the community in another round of meetings to present draft project proposals and get feedback.

8 Eligible Participatory Budgeting Projects: New York City FY 2014 Budget For the first two years of PB, Council Member discretionary funds were used to pay for only vs. Budget for PBNYC capital items. There is a very strict test for funding projects in the city’s Capital Budget. In order to be eligible for PB, a project must meet all of the following three conditions:

1. Cost at least $35,000 2. Have a “useful life” of at least five years 3. Involve the construction, reconstruction, acquisition or installation of a physical public improvement

$71.3 Billion Total NYC Expense Budget2

$15.5 Billion Total NYC Capital Budget3

$46 Million Expense Discretionary Funds4

$547 Million Capital Discretionary Funds5

$9.8 Million Total amount allocated to PB

PB is a small 0.014% 0.063% 1.8% fraction of of the Total NYC of the NYC of Discretionary Capital Expense Budget Capital Budget Funds Allocated By the overall City Council budget:

9 Research Methodology

Throughout the PB Process, the PB-NYC Research Team, led by Over 8,200 the Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center, conducted over 8,200 surveys, 30 observations and 63 in-depth surveys, interviews in the eight participating City Council districts. We collect- 30 observations, ed quantitative and qualitative data to examine participation at key points in the PB process, to examine the impact PB has on civic and 63 in-depth engagement and governance and to conduct ongoing evaluation interviews of the process. Specifically, data was collected at neighborhood assemblies and the vote. Researchers also conducted interviews throughout the cycle.

Methods

Background and Secondary Research

Researchers collected data on the NYC budget, population demo- graphics and voting patterns in the participating districts to explore how PB impacts government spending and operations, and to conduct a comparative analysis of participation in PB. Data sources include census data, the General Social Survey and 2009 voter data from the Voter Activation Network and Catalist.

Surveys and Evaluation Forms

Over 8,200 surveys were collected to examine who participated in PB, how they learned and changed from the process and what outreach methods were most effective. Survey respondents included:

• Neighborhood Assembly participants: 924 • Voters: 7,300

10 In-depth Interviews

Researchers conducted 63 in-depth interviews with past and current budget delegates to examine how and why people participated in PB, what participants learned from PB, how they changed from City-wide the process, and how it affected relationships between city officials, Findings city staff and community members. Researchers also conducted 15 interviews with organizations that work with immigrant, youth or formerly incarcerated populations and collected 82 exit interviews with PB voters.

Observations District 8 Findings Researchers collected 30 observations of PB meetings and events to examine the dynamics of participation in PB.

District 19 Findings Roadmap for report

The following report has ten sections. District 23 Findings

This includes a citywide section, which presents aggregated data on participation, civic engagement, outreach and proposed and funded projects for the eight participating City Council districts. District 32 Findings

The subsequent sections provide a more detailed breakdown for each of the districts: 8 (Mark-Viverito), 19 (Halloran), 23 (Weprin), 32 (Ulrich), 33 (Levin), 39 (Lander), 44 (Greenfield) and 45 (Williams). District 33 Findings

The report concludes with a set of recommendations for future participatory budgeting processes in NYC and beyond. District 39 Findings

District 44 Findings

District 45 Findings

Recommendations

11 Participating NYC Council Districts: 8, 19, 23 and 32

Council Member District Neighborhoods Total PB Amount Key Demographics Unique Characteristics Participants Allocated

Melissa 8th Manhattan Valley 2,063 $1,903,000 50% of the district’s The district encompasses Mark-Viverito* Man El Barrio/ to 6 winning population identifies Central Park and Randall’s (Democrat) Bnx East Harlem projects as Hispanic/Latino/a, Island Mott Haven 23% as Black/African American, and 19% Neighborhoods span from as White 6 the Upper West Side to the East Harlem/El Barrio to 40% of residents are the South Bronx lower income (less than $25,000)7 High concentration of public housing

Dan Halloran 19th College Point 1,191 $995,000 53% of the district’s The district has no (Republican) Qns Auburndale- to 7 winning population identifies subway stations Flushing projects as White, 28% as Asian Bayside and 15% as Hispanic District borders Nassau Whitestone or Latino/a8 County Bay Terrace Douglaston 50% of the district has Little Neck a household income over $75,0009

17% of the district’s population is 65 years and older10

Mark Weprin 23rd Hollis Hills 1,273 $979,000 37% of the district’s The district has no (Democrat) Qns Queens Village to 6 winning population identifies as subway stations Little Neck projects Asian and 31% as White11 Douglaston District is largely Bayside 58% of the district has a comprised of residential Bellerose household income over neighborhoods in eastern Floral Park $75,00012 Queens Glen Oaks New Hyde Park 52% of residents primarily Has the second highest Hollis speak a language other concentration of Asians Hollis Park Gdns than English13 in NYC Holliswood Fresh Meadows Oakland Gardens

Eric Ulrich* 32nd Belle Harbor 1,010 $1,442,500 68% of the district Most of the district is (Republican) Qns Breezy Point to 7 winning identifies as White, 14% located on a peninsula Broad Channel projects Latino/a, 14% African known for its beaches and Rockaway Park American14 parks Rockaway Beach 40% of the district is Only a portion of the middle income district participated in PB ($25,000- 75,000)15 District was greatly impacted by Hurricane Sandy

12 Participating NYC Council Districts: 33, 39, 44 and 45

Council Member District Neighborhoods Total PB Amount Key Demographics Unique Characteristics Participants Allocated

Stephen Levin 33rd Brooklyn Heights 2,632 $1,058,000 74% of the district’s The district spans the (Democrat) Bkln DUMBO to 5 winning population identifies waterfront from Greenpoint Greenpoint projects as White16 down to Boerum Hill Parts of and includes downtown Williamsburg, 65% of residents have Brooklyn Park Slope and a college education17 Boerum Hill There is a large amount of public housing is this district

Large Orthodox Jewish population

Brad Lander* 39th Cobble Hill 3,107 $950,000 to Large Bangladeshi The district is intersected (Democrat) Bkln Carroll Gardens 6 winning population in Kensington by the Gowanus Canal Columbia projects and contains several Waterfront 66% of the district’s parks and cemeteries. Gowanus population identifies as These geographical Park Slope White, 14% Hispanic and characteristics create Windsor Terrace 13% Asian18 distinct neighborhoods Borough Park including higher-income Kensington 57% of residents have Park Slope, Kensington a college education19 with its large Bangladeshi population and finally Borough Park, a Jewish enclave.20

David Greenfield 44th Borough Park 1,719 $1,000,000 71% of the district’s The Borough Park (Democrat) Bkln Midwood to 5 winning population identifies neighborhood is home Bensonhurst projects as White 21 to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish 68% primarily speak communities in the city a language other than English22

41% of the district’s population is under the age of 2523

Jumaane D. 45th Flatbush 1,035 $1,480,000 76% of the district’s Has the largest foreign- Williams* Bkln East Flatbush to 4 winning population identifies as born population in (Democrat) Flatlands projects Black/African-American24 Brooklyn, made up of Parts of Midwood immigrants from Jamaica, and Canarsie 45% of residents have Haiti, Trinidad and a college education25 Tobago26

* Indicates that Council Member participated in 2011-12 and 2012-13 cycles of Participatory Budgeting

13 City-wide Findings

From September 2012 to April 2013, eight Council Members: Year 2 of PB Melissa Mark-Viverito (D-8), Dan Halloran (D-19), Mark Weprin (D-23), Eric Ulrich (R-32), Stephen Levin (D-33), Brad Lander (D-39), engaged 13,889 David Greenfield (D-44) and Jumaane D. Williams (D-45), serving eight people: distinct constituencies, took part in the second year of participatory budgeting in NYC. Based on an aggregate analysis of over 8,200 1,546 surveys, 63 interviews, 30 observations and multiple secondary data sources collected across the eight districts, researchers developed Neighborhood a set of citywide findings. Assembly Overall, the data show that Year 2 of PB expanded upon the success of Year 1 by bringing together over 6,000 more New Yorkers attendees than Year 1, many from diverse backgrounds and who would not otherwise participate in politics or have contact with government. The 274 data show that these New Yorkers did not just show up to meetings, Budget Delegates but also actively participated by sharing their perspectives, proposing projects for the community, and developing closer connections with 13,035 other residents, community organizations and their Council Members. Voters PB Cycle Neighborhood Budget Voters Total PB Assembly participants Delegates Participants

Year 1 2,138 251 5,985 7,736

Year 2 1,546 274 13,035 13,889

Participation in Year 1 vs. Year 2

Due to the addition of four council districts in Year 2 of PBNYC, there were several shifts in who participated and how many people engaged in PB from its pilot year. Notable changes include the increase of the Asian population, voters born outside of the United States and participation for those that had never worked with others towards community change. Overall participation in the PB vote increased from 6,000 in Year 1 to over 13,000 in Year 2. This can be attributed, in part, to a robust outreach and mobilization operation, organized by Community Voices Heard along with the District Committees in each district. Korean and Bangla speaking outreachers were hired in specific districts to increase turnout of those populations at the vote. However, without the same level of resources for outreach,

14 neighborhood assembly attendance dropped from Year 1 to Year 2, despite the addition of four districts. Aside from lack of outreach, other possible explanations for the drop in attendance include a lack of civic infrastructure in several of the new participating districts. Additionally, some districts focused more on setting up many neighborhood assemblies in each district rather than making sure all the assemblies had high turnout. Finally, a large portion of those that participated in Year 1 of PB, did not return for Year 2. This could be due to the fact that some of the winning projects from Year 1 have yet to be implemented, causing disillusionment or frustration among participants. For subsequent years, it will be important to ensure ongoing monitoring of projects and targeted outreach to past participants to ensure the sustainability of civic engagement for PB participants.

Residents of District 39 attend a project expo to learn about the different projects that will be on the participatory budgeting ballot.

15 Who Participated in PBNYC?

In Year 2, PB Engaged 13,889 people, including: 1,546 neighborhood assembly participants, 274 Budget Delegates and 13,035 voters. In addition, hundreds more joined the process as volunteer members of the Steering and District Committees. Demographic information collected at key points during the process points towards several trends in participation, with many similarities and select differences from Year 1, including the following:

Percentage of PB voters who had never PB mobilized long-term residents, many of whom had NOT worked with others in their community previously worked for community change. to solve a problem

• 77% of neighborhood assembly participants and 68% of PB voters have lived in their present neighborhood for 8 or more years; a slight change from Year 1 where 75% of neighborhood 50% assembly participants and 78% of PB voters had lived in their neighborhood for 8 or more years.

• 38% of neighborhood assembly participants and 50% of PB voters had never worked with others in their community to solve a problem before PB; an increase from Year 1 where a third of neighborhood assembly participants and 44% of PB voters had never worked with others in their community to solve a problem before PB.

PB mobilized a diverse cross-section of New Yorkers. PB voters “All kinds of people, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, everything identified as: was there. And that made me feel good… It was nice seeing so many people giving ideas, and giving their opinions about the 14% Hispanic or neighborhood and it’s good because they live here and they Latino/a should have a voice.”

12% Black — Budget Delegate Interviewee #61, District 8 8% Asian • 14% of PB voters identified as Latino/a; 12% as Black; 8% as 4% Other Asian and 4% as ‘Other.’

• A higher percentage of African Americans participated in neighborhood assemblies (30%), compared to the full population in the eight districts (17%).

• Asians made up a greater share of PB voters in Year 2 (8%) than in Year 1 (2%).

• Women were 66% of neighborhood assembly participants, 60% of budget delegates and 62% of voters in the PB process, which is about the same as Year 1.

16 • A higher percentage of people with low-incomes (under $35,000) voted in PB (40%), compared to the full population in the eight districts (34%) and in the 2009 local elections (29%).27

Women, people of color and non-English speakers actively participated in PB meetings and discussions.

• 92% of women spoke during the small group discussions at neighborhood assemblies. Women comprised

• 90% of participants who identified as Black or African American, at least 60% of 89% of Hispanics or Latinos and 88% of Asians spoke during the participants small group discussions at neighborhood assemblies. in each stage of • 92% of Spanish speaking participants spoke during the small the process group discussion at neighborhood assemblies and 82% made specific budget proposals.

• Participants that identified as Black or African American were 92% of Spanish the most likely to volunteer to be budget delegates. speakers spoke • 55% of Spanish speaking participants volunteered to be budget at neighborhood delegates, compared to 46% of English speaking participants; an increase from Year 1 where 42% of Spanish speaking assemblies participants volunteered to be budget delegates.

People of color and low-income people were more likely to participate in the neighborhood assemblies than vote in PB.

• 30% of neighborhood assembly participants identified as African American or Black compared to only 12% of PB voters.

• 18% of neighborhood assembly participants identified as Hispanic or Latino/a compared to only 14% of PB voters.

• People with incomes below $35,000 made up a much larger share of neighborhood assembly participants than PB voters.

People with higher levels of education are more likely to participate in PB than people with lower levels of education.

• People with college or graduate degrees made up 55% of neighborhood assembly participants and 67% of PB voters.

• People with a high school diploma or less made up a smaller share of neighborhood assembly participants (19%) and PB voters (19%) compared to the full population in the eight districts (42%).

17 Non-English speakers and immigrants were more likely to vote in Year 2 of PB than Year 1, but these populations were still underrepresented compared to the overall district populations.

• 24% of Year 2 PB voters were born outside of the United States 24% of PB Voters compared to 19% in Year 1 and 35% of the overall population in Year 2 were in the eight districts. born outside of • 14% of Year 2 PB voters reported that they primarily speak a language other than English compared to 50% of the overall the USA compared population in the eight districts. to 19% in Year 1

Residents attending a neighborhood assembly in District 8.

18 Opportunities and Challenges of Involving Schools in PB

In Year 2 of PBNYC, 10% of people surveyed at neighborhood assemblies and 6% of people surveyed at the vote learned about PB through a school. Citywide, PB voters decided that 12 of 45 winning projects (26%), and $2.4 million of $9.8 million (24%) would be directed towards school improvements. Schools are a proven way to engage people in PB, and school-related projects are often popular at the polls. A deeper look reveals the specific benefits and challenges of school participation in PB.

Schools engage youth and immigrants in PB

Local public schools are core community institutions that are uniquely positioned to engage certain populations in participatory budgeting. First, schools are a major point of outreach for youth participation in PB. Schools not only inform youth about PB but also help to foster interest in civic and political issues, which in turn has been shown to correlate with a higher GPA and desire to learn.28 For example, one civics class at City-as-School in Manhattan integrated PB into their curriculum by requiring students to attend neighborhood assemblies. PB gives youth real-life examples of the political process, working in communities, building consensus and understanding the budget process.

“…if it wasn’t for this class I would have not known [about PB]. Cause I thought I didn’t care about politics.”

— Student #9

Once students are engaged, schools can then reach another key demographic through schools: immigrant parents who may have limited community connections. This is especially true for undocumented immigrant families where parents may have little community involvement due to fear, long work hours or language barriers but are very involved in their children’s education. In these cases, schools act as a point of entry for community participation for immigrant parents.29

Schools can have disproportionate influence on the PB process

However, there are some challenges to school involvement in PB, since schools have significant institutional power and can end up having a strong impact on the process. Many parents get involved in PB, and then volunteer for the education or schools committee, which tend to be very popular. Interviews with budget delegates reveal that

19 many delegates push for a particular project in their child’s school, instead of focusing on the larger good of the community. This can also pit schools against each other as they each vie for limited PB funds.

Once a project for a school is on the ballot, schools have a significant advantage over many of the other PB projects since through an extensive network of parents, they often have relatively large and easily mobilized constituencies. This effect is amplified if the school also serves as a voting location. As one budget delegate explained:

“Schools already have a formidable ability to organize and motivate people, particularly parents, through pre-existing things like sports teams and Parent-Teacher Associations. If a school has a stake in participatory budgeting, they can get more of a turnout with a single mimeographed letter to parents… As such, schools walk away with the lion’s share of money.”

— Budget Delegate email comment

These challenges can be mitigated by active city council staff and facilitator support.

Best practices include:

• Encouraging education committees to bundle projects, meaning that a committee will combine several projects into one item on the ballot, so several schools each get some money. This helps to ensure that schools (and delegates) work together to get funding and more clearly distribute the funding among several schools. As PB progresses, this could also mean that every school in the district could expect to get funding every few years.

• Actively encouraging voters to review all the projects on the ballot and cast all of their votes.

• Prominently displaying project posters and info sheet binders at voting sites, to highlight other projects on the ballot.

• Hold voting locations at or near all projects on the ballot, not just schools.

20 PB connected people that otherwise would not have engaged with one another

“Everyone has a lot of respect for each other and helped flesh out ideas. We worked collectively even though we each have our own projects. We met interesting people of different backgrounds, we wouldn’t have met otherwise.”

— Budget Delegate Interviewee #14, District 33

“Neighborhood assemblies were great. Now in daily life, especially with social media, we find ourselves increasingly bubbled in. We don’t talk to people who don’t necessarily agree with us. These people are citizens exactly like me, and even though I think they’re dead wrong, they have just as much power in the citizenry as I do, and they have to be dealt with in some way. In our normal everyday lives, we don’t often have to deal with that.”

— Budget Delegate Interviewee #3, District 39

“People from all over the district were represented in PB and this is one of the things that I cherished the most. I got to meet people that under any other circumstances I would not have met.”

— Budget Delegate Interviewee #50, District 8

Mobile voting site in District 8

21 How did Participatory Budgeting compare to previous patterns of civic engagement?

One of the most striking findings about who participated in PB is how the data compares to other types of civic engagement, particularly voting patterns in local NYC elections. Similar to Year 1, Year 2 of PB engaged specific communities that have traditionally been uninspired by and skeptical of politics. People of color, low-income people and some immigrant groups turned out at higher rates than in previous elections.

Attitudes about politics among PB mobilized many people who do not traditionally participate PB participants in the political process and some who tend to be skeptical of the NYC government.

• 52% of PB voters disapprove of the way government business is conducted in the New York City government. 52% 50% • 46% of neighborhood assembly participants and 34% of PB voters are unlikely voters30 in regular elections.

PB voters that Neighborhod disagree with the assembly partici- • 50% of neighborhood assembly participants think that way government pants that think government needs a lot of changes or that it needs to be business is government need conducted in NYC drastic changes completely changed.

• 62% of neighborhood assembly participants agreed with the statement that the public has little control over what politicians do in office. 34% 50% • 50% of Year 2 PB voters had never worked with others in their community to solve a problem before PB, compared to 44% of Year 1 PB voters.

PB voters who are PB voters who never unlikely to vote in worked with their People of color and low-income people participated in PB at higher regular elections community to solve rates than traditional electoral politics. a problem before PB Melissa Mark-Viverito, District 8

• Hispanics or Latino/as were 39% of voters in the 2009 City Council elections.31 However, 54% of PB voters identified as Hispanic or Latino/a.

• 21% of PB voters had a household income less than $10,000 compared to 4% of the district’s voters in the 2009 City Council election.32

22 Dan Halloran, District 19

• 13% of PB voters had a household income less than $35,000 compared to 1% of the district’s voters in the 2009 City Council election.33

Mark Weprin, District 23

• Asians were 15% of voters in the 2009 City Council elections.34 However, 22% of the district’s PB voters identified as Asian.

• 18% of PB voters had a household income less than $35,000 compared to 5% of the district’s voters in the 2009 City Council election.35

Demographics of PB Voters compared to Eric Ulrich, District 32 Voters in 2009 City Council Elections

• Black or African Americans were 6% of the voters in the 2009 Voters in 2009 City City Council elections.36 However, 13% of the district’s PB voters Council Elections identified as Black or African American. PB Voters

• 45% of PB voters had a household income less than $35,000 compared to 10% of the district’s voters in the 2009 City District 8 Council election.37

David Greenfield, District 44

• 12% of PB voters had a household income less than $15,000 compared to 1% of the district’s voters in the 2009 City Council election.38 39% 54% 4% 21% Latino/as Voters with income Jumaane Williams, District 45 less than $10,000

• 89% of PB voters identified as Black or African American District 45 compared to 79% of the district’s voters in the 2009 City Council election.39

• 28% of PB voters had a household income less than $25,000 compared to 6% of the district’s voters in the 2009 election.40

79% 89% 6% 28%

African Americans Voters with income less than $25,000

23 Engaging Disenfranchised Populations: Immigrants, Youth and the Formerly Incarcerated

By reducing the barriers to participation, and encouraging inclusion, PB gives a voice to populations that are usually marginalized in political discussions. Three populations in particular are barred from voting in general elections but can participate and vote in participatory budgeting: immigrants who are not U.S. citizens, youth under the age of 18, and formerly incarcerated individuals on parole with a felony conviction. While PB opens doors to political participation, there remain distinct challenges to engaging each of these groups in PB. Below are research findings and best practices from a series of observations and interviews.

Immigrants

In the second year of PB, 5% of voters surveyed identified as immigrants who are not U.S. citizens. It is estimated that 9% of New Yorkers are undocumented immigrants.41 While this is almost certainly an underestimate (due to fear of reporting immigrant status and deportation), it indicates that more can be done to engage the immigrant community. PB materials were translated into various languages and interpretation was available at some meetings, but this was not always available. In addition, while some districts held specific meetings and assemblies for targeted languages, not all of the districts did so. Interviews with PB participants and representatives from various immigrant organizations reveal the following:

The major barriers to participation for immigrants in PB are language access, lack of time, fear and lack of knowledge about the process.

“…people are afraid of participating in any kind of community or government based program because of the fear their immigration status creates.”

— Organization #3

Schools can be a central space to facilitate and encourage civic engagement amongst immigrants.

“…I think it can start with the youth, to share with their parents what goes on and maybe bringing them to meetings…”

— Organization #3

24 Community-Based Institutions are key resources to build trust and engage immigrants.

“…they’re (undocumented immigrants) just not open to directly communicating with government unless there is an entity that is promoting it or telling them that it is safe and that it’s ok for them to engage in these kinds of conversations.”

— Organization #1

“…I think there are many religious leaders who could be interested in helping educate the community about PB and definitely helping them get more resources for their neighborhoods.”

— Organization #3

Key outreach strategies include trust building, flexibility and promoting benefits of PB.

“…making sure that they understand that this is a safe space where they can voice their concerns and they can help their communities without any risk of deportation.”

— Organization #3

“…being flexible and having meetings on the weekends or providing an online portal that’s more accessible and you know it adjusts to their schedule and their needs as well.”

— Organization #3

Undocumented immigrants are not apathetic to the issues in their community and with the right outreach PB can be the perfect opportunity for them to civically engage.

“They want to participate, they want their voices to be heard, and they want to find solutions.”

— Organization #6

Youth

Unlike in general elections, PB allows people as young as 16 to vote and youth as young as 14 to serve as budget delegates. In Year 2 of PB, 12% of neighborhood assembly participants and 3% of voters identified as youth under 18. Some districts made distinct efforts to engage youth through hosting youth assemblies, creating youth budget delegate committees and creating multimedia materials

25 such as a rap video to attract youth. Some districts also created partnerships with specific principals and teachers to incorporate PB directly into student’s curriculum. Interviews with PB participants and youth and teachers from various schools that participated in PB indicate the following findings:

Youth lack awareness of Participatory Budgeting (PB).

“…a lot of people don’t know that these things are going on, especially teenagers…if I hadn’t taken this class I probably would never have known…if this was brought up more often, more classes like this did happen a lot of people would be interested in going.”

— Student #1

Youth should conduct outreach to their peers.

“If there are youth already going to that district…speak about it. Because the adults that we know, they can say as much as they want about it, but coming from a fellow youth…a perspective that is similar to ours [helps].”

— Student #7

Youth in District 23 exercise their right to vote in participatory budgeting.

26 Schools are a key institution to engage young people about PB.

A large majority of the students interviewed did not know about PB prior to their involvement in their government class at school. The school was a major point of outreach for these youth and many cited ways that schools could get more youth involved. Civic engagement in turn can positively impact student’s education as civic involvement has been shown to correlate with higher GPA and desire to learn.42

Media can play an important role in engaging youth in civic participation.

Students felt that social media and other forms of media, such as videos, could play an integral role in attracting youth. For example, students at ICHS, a high school for new immigrants, created innovative videos about PB with the assistance of the Center for Urban Pedagogy. In addition, a video explaining the PB process through a rap song was created by one of the council districts and some students thought it was a good way to attract youth:

“…the rap video, that was interesting…things like that would work…people in my class really liked it and I know a couple of people are still participating in it because of things like that…”

— Student #4

Formerly Incarcerated

Those individuals who are released from prison but remain under supervision by the state through parole or probation are not allowed to vote. PB breaks down this barrier by allowing these individuals to participate. However, there are still various challenges to civic engagement for the formerly incarcerated that impact their participation in PB. Interviews with PB participants and organizations that work with the formerly incarcerated led to the following findings:

Institutional and legal restrictions are barriers to civic engagement.

Upon reentry from prison, individuals are faced with political disen- franchisement, lack of Federal benefits and restrictions on their ability to access employment and educational opportunities.43 All of these barriers create a sense of stigma, which in turn contributes to a reluc- tance on the part of the formerly incarcerated to engage in civic life.

“…some of them don’t want people to know that they are formerly incarcerated because they’re afraid…they may not be able to continue getting the services they get if they announce that they’re incarcerated.”

— Organization # 3

27 Financial instability and lack of education are barriers to civic participation.

Upon release from prison many formerly incarcerated individuals have limited financial means and return to impoverished neighborhoods. As mentioned above, they face employment barriers that restrict their ability to find meaningful work as many employers will not hire them. Engaging the formerly incarcerated community in civic engagement is virtually impossible if their basic needs of food and shelter are not being met.

“…a lot of our participants are the guys on the other side of the table, they’re in the shelter system, going to the food pantries… it’s really difficult to find someone with good intentions, some measure of financial stability and home and life stability to find time and motivation to be civically engaged.”

— Organization #1

Community-based Institutions are key resources to build trust and engage the formerly incarcerated in civic participation.

Association with a community organization can create a more positive image of the formerly incarcerated to the overall community which in turn allows for greater community participation.44 Through their work CBO’s form trusted relationships with individuals and can act as a source of outreach for the PB process. Examples of organizations that can be key sources for PB are GOSO (Getting Out, Staying Out) and WORTH (Women on the rise telling her story).

PB can be utilized for skills development and job-readiness training.

PB can be a great resource to build on key skills needed in the workforce, like communication and public speaking, as well as being a great addition to a resume. A PB participant speaks of the ability of PB to improve the skills he already has as well as develop those that he lacks:

“…it helps us, it sharpens some of the skills that we have…with the social skills and communication [skills] on a daily basis…”

— Interviewee #3

28 PB can also be a networking tool to link individuals to other opportunities, organizations and programs:

“…the first interaction that a lot of my participants have had with our city council office is through PB and they can be told about other programs that they might not have ever heard of or didn’t know existed.”

— Organization #1

A sign advertises the PB vote.

29 How did people find out about participatory budgeting and what motivated them participate?

How People Learned About How People Learned Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote

City Council Word of 37% 26% Member mouth

Community Friend, family 32% 19% group or neighbor

Friend, family 26% Flyer/poster 19% or neighbor

City Council Email 33% 18% Member

Flyer/poster 22% Email 13%

Community 13% group

Interestingly, people found out about the neighborhood assemblies and the PB vote through different channels, a significant change from Year 1 where participants heard about neighborhood assemblies and the vote through the same channels. While there was variation across districts, overall, participants were most likely to hear about the neighborhood assemblies through social networks, community organizations, their Council Member and by email, which was similar to Year 1. However, word of mouth, family and friends and flyers were the most common ways that people heard about the vote. In addition:

African American and Latino/as heard about PB through their social networks (i.e. friends/family, community groups and word of mouth).

• 44% of Black or African American neighborhood assembly participants and 43% of Hispanic or Latino/as heard about PB through a community group.

• 35% of Black or African American neighborhood assembly participants and 34% of Hispanic or Latino/as heard about PB from friends and/or family.

• 29% of Black or African American PB voters heard about PB through Word of Mouth.

30 Youth and Immigrants heard about PB through word of mouth and from family and friends.

• 42% of PB voters under the age of 18 heard about the vote from family and/or friends compared to 18% of voters over age 18.

• Voters who were immigrants were most likely to have heard about the vote via word of mouth (23%) and family or friends (19%).

Community groups helped to bring people with lower incomes into the PB process.

• 47% of neighborhood assembly participants with a household income below $35,000 heard about PB from a community group compared to 29% for participants with a household income above $35,000.

• 16% of PB voters with a household income below $35,000 heard about PB from a community group compared to 12% for PB voters with a household income above $35,000.

White and higher income people were likely to hear about PB through their Council Member and e-mail.

• 37% of PB voters with incomes greater than $75,000 heard about PB through the internet or an e-mail and 21% through their City Council Member.

• 37% of White PB voters heard about PB through the internet or email.

People participated in PB because they wanted to be involved in their community and have a say in community decisions.

“I came to vote because I like to have a say in my community. This gives an opportunity to make your voice heard.”

— Voter Exit Interview #83, District 19

“The opportunity to help community decide 1 million dollars. I liked the opportunity to be involved.”

— Voter Exit Interview #8, District 45

“I think it is an important thing. It’s important that we have a say in projects that matter for the community.”

— Voter Exit Interview #76, District 44

31 How did City Council Members benefit from Participatory Budgeting?

In addition to the benefits PB brings to participants such as skill building, enhanced civic engagement and leadership development, elected officials make considerable gains from the process. These include: heightened visibility in the media, deeper connections to constituents and increased awareness of the issues and concerns of their constituents.

PB increased the amount of media coverage that the Council Members received over the course of the year.

Council Member Press Coverage Increase Due to PB

39

240 82

37 64 31 36 158 164 152 141 44 132

35 84

56

Melissa Dan Halloran Mark Weprin Eric Ulrich Stephen Levin Brad Lander David Jumaane D. Mark-Viverito District 19 District 23 District 32 District 33 District 39 Greenfield Williams District 8 District 44 District 45

Press Coverage Mentioning Council Member

Press Coverage Mentioning Council Member + Participatory Budgeting

32 Participants valued the Council Members’ involvement in the process and felt it brought the Council Member closer to the community.

“Feeling of more positivity about the Councilmember; communication was great, his office would call, email, provided donuts and coffee – when they did the presentation for the project expo the Councilmember’s office was very helpful. Gives the Councilmember a great boost -- he didn’t have to do this, and he did, and that’s meaningful.”

— Budget Delegate Interviewee #22, District 23

“Well I always saw him (Council member) really positively, but this made me feel more confident because he is doing pretty good work. I will get involved with PB and with lots of other things too, definitely.”

— Budget Delegate Interviewee #32, District 45

“I think this process has really given me a deeper appreciation to the work that the Council Member does by her just giving this power back to the people.”

— Budget Delegate Interviewee #60, District 8

Council Member Stephen Levin speaks during a neighborhood assembly in District 33.

33 What projects were proposed? What changes did PB participants want for

Total projects proposed city-wide: their communities? 1,641 In previous years, the eight Council Members each focused large Top categories: chunks of their capital discretionary funds on school improvements Parks, Playgrounds, Public Space Improvements (260) and park improvements, with the individual Council Members using Public Access Institutions (237) smaller amounts to address other needs within their districts. Projects Public Health and Sanitation (163 that were proposed at neighborhood assemblies by community Transportation Improvements (156) Security (150) members tended to be consistent with these past trends, but there were some differences. There were many projects around public health and sanitation, traffic, street repairs, lights and security cameras throughout all the districts, areas that had previously not What projects were ineligible? received as much funding from the Council Members. These were the Total ineligible projects proposed same areas of concern for PB participants in Year 1. In addition, some city-wide: participants wanted projects that were ultimately ineligible for PB. In 800 (49%) reviewing the proposed projects for all eight of the council districts, Top ineligible categories: the following trends emerged [see more detailed breakdown in the Public Health and Sanitation (101) district sections]: Community Centers/Programs (100) Public Access Institutions (95) Parks, Playgrounds, Public Space • The average number of project proposals per district was 234, Improvements (80) down from 489 in the first year. Transportation Improvements (77) • School improvements and park improvements were in the top five projects for seven of the eight districts. What projects made it on the ballot?

Total projects that were voted • Street lights and security cameras were in the top five projects on city-wide: for five of the districts. 122 • 49% of project proposals were ineligible in Year 2 compared to Average cost of projects city-wide: $277,717 17% in Year 1, as they were too expensive or too cheap, outside of district boundaries, not capital projects, or covered by other Most expensive project: funding streams. $675,000 (E-tech support for schools in District 45) • The most common types of ineligible projects were related to street cleanliness and sanitation and programs for community Least expensive project: centers. $30,000 (Park Department beach vehicle in District 32)

Top categories: Schools & Libraries (34) Parks & Recreation (24) Transportation (17)

34 Winning Projects by Type

Housing: 1 Winning Projects Youth: 1 City-wide

Transpor- tation: 3

Health & Total overall Sanitation: 4 Schools & Libraries: 12 funds allocated to all winning Community Facilities: 7 projects: $9,807,500 Parks & Recreation: 10

Public Safety: 8 Number of Projects: 46 Table 1 Additional Funded Projects

Project District Cost Average cost Fort Totten Park Sidewalk Improvements 19th $100,000 of a project: Bird Watching Platform at Osprey Landing and 19th $100,000 Beautification of Parson’s Beach $213,206

Upgrade Bayside Historical Society “Officer’s Club” 19th $150,000

Mobile Computer Cart PS 31/32/41/79/159 19th $175,000

Wi-Fi Classroom PS 98/130/184/193/Bell Academy 19th $350,000 Highest cost

Installation of Fitness Equipment 32nd $75,000 project:

Parks Department Beach Vehicle 32nd $30,000 $500,000 (D8 Installation of security cameras) Gowanus Community Center Upgrades 33rd $150,000

Upgrades to Wyckoff Community Center 33rd $425,000 Tree Guards as Part of Neighborhood Reclamation 33rd $35,000 Lowest cost Projector for Celebrate Brooklyn & BRIC Art Center 39th $40,000 project: Safe Auditorium Upgrade for Performing Arts PS 131 39th $100,000 $35,000 (D19 Police cameras and D23 Roof John Jay High School Media & Filmmaking Lab 39th $100,000 Repair – Queens County Farm Museum Total $1,830,000

35

City-wide Summary

The citywide data provides an important snapshot of Year 2 of PBNYC: who participated and why, what people learned and how they developed through PB, how PB shifted attitudes towards government and civic engagement matters, and how participating Council Members and districts benefited from the process. Overall, we see that PB brought together thousands of New Yorkers from diverse backgrounds, many of whom do not typically participate in politics or have contact with government. These participants developed close connections with Council Members, neighbors and organizations in their districts, gained valuable leadership skills and knowledge about government and learned to work collaboratively to solve community problems.

From Year 1 to Year 2, we saw an increase in overall turnout, including a considerable spike in those who voted for PB projects. At the same time, we saw a decrease in participation in the early phases of PB including the neighborhood assemblies and budget delegate committees. Many of those that participated in Year 1 did not return for a second try at PB. This could be due to less “hype” for the second year, time constraints or frustration with slow implementation of winning projects. These findings reflect the need for more resources for targeted outreach, particularly during the beginning phases of PB, more streamlined and efficient engagement of budget delegates and strong monitoring and oversight of winning projects.

To learn more about how PB varied across the participating districts, researchers took a closer look at participation demographics, outreach and mobilization, project ideas and winning projects for each of the districts. The following chapters include data specific to council districts 8, 19, 23, 32, 33, 39, 44 and 45 as well as a highlighted community that was mobilized by PB and a winning project in each district. For the districts that also participated in Year 1 (2011-12) of PB, there is a comparison of Year 1 and 2.

Left: Posters describing the projects that will be on the ballot in District 44.

37 People attend a presentation by the Participatory Budgeting Project describing the PBNYC process. District Details Bronx

District 19 Dan Halloran

District 8 Melissa Mark-Viverito

Manhattan

Queens

District 23 District 33 Mark Weprin Stephen Levin

Brooklyn

District 39 Brad Lander

District 45 Jumaane D. Williams

District 44 David Greenfield

District 32 Eric Ulrich 39 District 8 Bronx Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito

Technology Centers at YouthBuild and Carver Senior Center

Laptops for District 8 Schools

Installation of Security Cameras at Johnson, East River, Douglass and Millbrook Houses

SMART’s Mobile Cooking Classroom

Solar-powered Greenhouse at Millbrook Houses

Basketball Court Renovations at Thomas Jeffer- son Park Manhattan

Queens

Brooklyn District 8

Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito

Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito’s district encompasses three distinct neighborhoods: Manhattan Valley on the Upper West Side, El District 8 Overall Barrio/East Harlem on the Upper East Side, part of Mott Haven in the South Bronx, Central Park and Randall’s Island. Half of the residents Population: 47 in Council District 8 identify as Hispanic or Latino/a, with the largest 162,734 concentration in Mott Haven. People who identify as Black or African American comprise 23% of the district, while people who identify as White make up 19% of the district.45 The district is linguistically diverse Number of PB with 42% of residents citing Spanish as their primary language and 11% indicating languages other than English and Spanish.46 Participants: Similar to Year 1, District 8 saw a high level of participation by 2,063 various community-based organizations which mobilized populations that usually do not participate in politics. Community organizations and the Council Member’s office conducted specific outreach to public Neighborhoods: housing residents, people of color, low-income people, seniors, youth and the formerly incarcerated. These outreach efforts were displayed Manhattan Valley in the high levels of participation by many of these groups, including: El Barrio low-income people, people of color, seniors and non-English speakers. District 8 saw many proposals for projects related to parks and public East Harlem spaces, public housing and community center improvements and Mott Haven programs. Central Park “PB allows us to give decision making power to disenfranchised Randall’s Island residents. We learn a great deal from them through the process, as they provide us with a more accurate assessment of community needs and ultimately we all develop a collective vision for the community. This allows us to build social change together.”

— Andrew King, Director of Community Affairs, Office of Melissa Mark-Viverito, District 8

41 Who Participated in District 8?

In District 8, PB Engaged 2,063 people, including: 349 neighborhood assembly participants, 60 budget delegates and 1,770 voters. Demographic information collected at key points during the process 2,063 points towards several trends in participation, including the following: people (1,632 in Year 1)

Race/Ethnicity

349 • A higher percentage of Black or African Americans participated neighborhood in all stages of PB (Neighborhood Assemblies: 50%; Budget assembly Delegates: 42%; Voters: 31%) compared to the overall population participants of the district (23%). (680 in Year 1) • People who identify as Hispanic or Latino/as made up a larger share of Year 2 PB voters (54%) compared to Year 1 PB voters (50%) and 2009 local election voters (39%).48

60 • A higher percentage of Black or African Americans were Budget neighborhood assembly participants in Year 2 of PB (50%) Delegates compared to Year 1 of PB (41%). (61 in Year 1)

Language and Country of Birth

1,770 • 38% of Year 2 PB voters reported that they were born outside voters of the U.S. compared to 28% of Year 1 PB voters and 24% of the (1,048 in Year 1) overall district population. Countries of origin included Puerto Rico (145 voters), Mexico (78) and the Dominican Republic (50).

• 30% of PB voters in Year 2 reported Spanish as their primary language compared to 13% of Year 1 PB voters and 42% in the district overall.

Latino/as in • 10% of neighborhood assembly surveys and 24% of voter District 8 made up surveys were completed in Spanish. 54% of PB voters in Year 2 Gender (Compared to 50% in Year 1 and 39% in 2009 • Women were more likely than men to participate in all phases of local elections) PB; Neighborhood assemblies (71%), Budget delegates (67%) and Voting (68%).

42 • A larger share of women voted in PB (68%) compared to the 2009 local elections (60%).49 38% of PB voters in Year 2 reported that they were

Income born outside of the U.S. • A higher percentage of people with incomes under $15,000 participated in all phases of the PB process compared to the overall population of the district.

• A higher percentage of people with incomes under $35,000 voted Voters reporting household incomes under $15,000 in Year 2 of PB (68%) compared to Year 1 of PB (61%).

• 41% of PB voters had household incomes under $15,000 41% compared to 27% of voters in the 2009 local elections.50

27%

Age

• A higher percentage of people over the age of 65 were neighborhood assembly participants (25%) and PB voters (19%) PB voters Voters in the in Year 2 2009 local compared to the overall population of the district (11%). elections

• Young people (ages 15 to 24) participated in PB at levels consistent with the overall population of the district.

Residents of District 8 decide how to cast their votes in the second year of PB in NYC.

43 Formerly Incarcerated in the 8th How did people hear about participatory district budgeting in District 8? Formerly incarcerated people and those still on parole are often disenfranchised Almost mirroring Year 1, people in District 8 were most likely to hear politically, economically, and about the neighborhood assemblies through community organizations educationally. This combined with social ostracization impede the formerly and were most likely to hear about the vote through word of mouth. incarcerated from fully taking part in Throughout the process, community groups played a significant role community life. To more fully engage in getting the word out about participatory budgeting. this population in District 8, the Council Member’s office and District Committee worked with Getting Out, Staying Out How People Learned About How People Learned (GOSO), an organization that works Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote directly with the formerly incarcerated. in District 8 in District 8 Through this partnership, four formerly incarcerated individuals became absorbed in the process and Community Community 42% 17% volunteered to be budget delegates on group group the education committee. Part of the motivation behind volunteering was a Flyer/poster 30% Flyer/poster 13% desire to give back: “In my high school we didn’t have computers…to keep me Friend, family Friend, family focused and I ended up dropping out of 28% 15% school…The biggest part is just giving or neighbor or neighbor back.”51 This experience was then City Council City Council used to develop a project for laptops 24% 11% Member Member for eight schools throughout District 8. After many meetings and hours of work with the other budget delegates on the Email 18% Email 4% education committee, they were able to put this project on the ballot. On voting Word of day, this project received 857 votes, 31% mouth the second most in District 8 and will receive funding this fiscal year. PB has served as a way for formerly incarcerated individuals to take part in the life of their communities and provides participants with important social skills and ties, job-like PB volunteer does outreach for the vote in District 8. experience, and confidence. It has even led to sustained ties between the formerly incarcerated and their Council Member: “A couple of the guys (GOSO members) have started to stop by the office more often, using it as a community hub, even after PB, showing a continued engagement with City government.”52

44 What projects were proposed in District 8, what made it on to the ballot and what won the vote?

In September and October of 2012, District 8 held neighborhood assemblies that allowed community residents and stakeholders to propose projects to improve their neighborhoods. This process produced 287 project ideas, of which 109 were ultimately deemed 287 eligible for PB. Ideas around street lights and security cameras, Projects community centers/programs and park improvements were the most proposed common types of projects proposed. Following the neighborhood assemblies, participants volunteered to be budget delegates and formed committees to develop specific projects from the ideas proposed at the neighborhood assemblies. During this process, which included months of research, consultation with government agencies and deliberation, the 287 ideas were 21 whittled down to 21 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph Projects listed below shows the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in on ballot District 8.

Projects on District 8 Ballot

Total Number: 21 6 Total Cost: $6,331,000 Projects Average Cost: $301,476 selected by voters

Transportation: 1

Community Facilities: 1

Health and Sanitation: 2 Housing: 6

Youth: 3

Parks and Schools and Recreation: 3 Libraries: 5

45 Winning Projects

1,770 voters cast a ballot for their top five projects in District 8. Table 2 shows the projects that were selected.

Winning Project Solar Powered Greenhouse in Table 2 Millbrook Houses 6 Winning Projects: District 8 $300,000 533 out of 1,770 votes

The most local “farm to table” dining Project # of Votes % of Voters Price imaginable will be enjoyed by the Installation of Security Cameras at Johnson, 964 54% $500,000 residents of Millbrook Houses, once East River, Douglass and Millbrook Houses their PB-funded solar powered greenhouse is up and running. After Laptops for District 8 Schools 857 48% $450,000 making it to the ballot but not winning the vote in Year 1 of PB, the solar Technology Centers at YouthBuild and 706 40% $100,000 powered greenhouse was on the ballot Carver Senior Center in Year 2 and received 533 votes to SMART’s Mobile Cooking Classroom 534 30% $180,000 win funding. Local youth will gain experience growing fresh fruits and Solar-powered Greenhouse at Millbrook Houses 533 30% $300,000 vegetables, managing a farm, and running a business. They will learn Basketball Court Renovations at 501 28% $300,000 about nutrition and receive the benefits Thomas Jefferson Park of local produce in their diet. The solar Total $1,903,000 powered greenhouse will operate year- round on clean, renewable energy. Budget delegate Raymond Figueroa Jr. sees the greenhouse as a way of promoting physical, social, and economic health among disconnected youth in the neighborhood’s public housing. “Consider this project as an investment… in growing community in the most organic sense of the word… This is a project that over time that will… [pay] for itself… as a result of the renewable energy, and in terms of the income that is generated as a result of the youth based businesses that will be realized… Just think investment and community development!”53

Budget delegates present the projects that will be on the ballot at a project expo.

46 Lessons Learned/ Summary from District 8

The data collected from PB participants in Melissa Mark-Viverito’s Council District 8 show high levels of participation for low-income people, people of color and seniors, which was very similar to Year 1 of PB in District 8. One significant change was that participation among non-English speakers and foreign born residents increased dramatically – Spanish speakers accounted for 30% of PB voters in Year 2 compared to 13% in Year 1. The Council Member’s office reached out to community groups, conducted focused outreach and had interpretation and translated materials at PB events to include people that normally don’t participate in politics. Community Voices Heard also conducted targeted outreach to compliment the Council Member’s office in District 8, which led to a process that was representative of the overall population of the district. These strategies proved to be successful and the district saw higher rates of participation for several of these groups. Also similar to Year 1, many of the projects proposed at neighborhood assemblies were projects focused on public housing, whether for increasing security, improving parks and green spaces or building repair, due to the high concentration of public housing in the district. This resulted in six projects related to public housing being on the ballot and two receiving funding. In the end, Mark-Viverito allocated more than the minimum required of $1 million, funding six projects for a total of $1.9 million.

Participants discuss possible project ideas at a neighborhood assembly in District 8.

47 District 19

Council Member Dan Halloran

Bronx

MacNeil Park Rehabilitation Structural Restoration of Poppenhusen Institute Police Cameras

Kayak and Canoe Launches

Art Room Renovation at PS 98

Special Needs Playground Equipment SMART Boards at PS 32/129/130/159/184/193 Bell Academy

Queens District 19

Council Member Dan Halloran

Council Member Dan Halloran’s district includes the Queens neighborhoods of College Point, Auburndale-Flushing, Bayside, District 19 Overall Whitestone, Bay Terrace, Douglaston and Little Neck. Just over half of the residents of the district identify as White, 28% Asian and 15% as Population: 56 Hispanic or Latino/a.54 The district has a large immigrant population, 155,237 39% of residents are foreign born and 54% primarily speak a language other than English. The population of the district also has a large senior population, 17% are 65 years of age or older and 50% of Number of PB residents have a household income over $75,000.55 In District 19’s first year of PB, participation was mostly Participants: consistent with the demographics of the district. Participation 1,191 among older and well-educated residents was somewhat high, while participation among non-English speakers and Hispanic or Latino/ as was low. Since the district does not have any subway lines, there Neighborhoods: were many project proposals around transportation issues, such as street repairs and traffic signals. Besides transportation projects, College Point improvements to schools, libraries and parks were other areas that Auburndale- received considerable attention through the PB process. Although the councilmember was arrested the week before the PB vote, the process Flushing continued with strong community support. Bayside

“I’d say that some of the community got a better understanding Whitestone of what capital and expense funding is. Many people think Bay Terrace the city has the ability to just hand out money to whoever they want.” Douglaston Little Neck — Erica Goldstein, Budget Director and Constituent Liason, Office of Dan Halloran, District 19

49 Who Participated in District 19?

In District 19, PB engaged 1,191 people, including: 90 neighborhood assembly participants, 17 budget delegates and 1,170 voters. Demographic information collected at key points during the process 1,191 points towards several trends in participation, including the following: people

Race/Ethnicity

• The majority of participants in all phases of PB in District 19 90 identified as White. neighborhood assembly • A higher percentage of Asians were neighborhood assembly participants participants (31%) compared to the overall population of the district (28%).

17 Language and Country of Birth Budget Delegates • 17% of PB voters reported that they were born outside of the U.S. compared to 37% of the overall population of the district.

• 13% of neighborhood assembly participants and 12% of PB voters primarily speak a language other than English at home compared with 54% of the overall population of the district. 1,170 voters

Gender

• Women were more likely to participate in all stages of the PB Asians made up process than men.

31% of neighbor- • Women made up a larger share of PB voters (65%) than 2009 hood assembly local election voters (54%).57

participants • Men were more likely to participate as the PB process moved forward. (Compared to 28% of the overall population of the district)

50 Income

• People with incomes under $35,000 participated less as the PB Women’s share process moved forward. of the vote

• People with incomes above $75,000 voted in PB at a higher 65% percentage than in the 2009 local elections.58 54%

Age

• People over the age of 65 were more likely to participate as the PB process moved forward.

PB voters Voters in the • Young people (ages 15 to 24) were underrepresented throughout in Year 2 2009 local the PB process compared with the overall population of the elections district.

Budget delegates discuss the viability of projects proposed at the neighborhood assemblies.

51 Youth in the 19th district How did people hear about participatory

For Year 2 of Participatory Budgeting, budgeting in District 19? the voting age was lowered from 18 to 16. As a result, across the eight In District 19, people were most likely to hear about PB through a districts, more youth under the age of community group. People also commonly found out about the process 18 went to neighborhood assemblies, served as budget delegates, and voted by seeing flyers or posters, from friends and family and by e-mail. than in Year 1. Most of the youth who became involved with PB did so in affiliation with a community organization or How People Learned About How People Learned educational initiative. For example, in Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote District 19 and 23, the community group in District 19 in District 19 MinKwon Center worked with youth to form a budget delegate committee Community Community where they developed project 39% 26% group group proposals. One student said of PB: “it’s empowering…You can have a say in the community, as to how it can be shaped Email 27% Email 15% and what can be done for it.”59 In District 19, many of the youth are Friend, family Friend, family 24% 20% second-generation immigrants, and are or neighbor or neighbor starting to discuss problems relating to their schools and local government. Almost half of the youth in District 19 Flyer/poster 22% Flyer/poster 24% participating in PB reported already being involved in their community. City Council City Council 20% 9% Another student said, “I think that PB is Member Member a very good opportunity to get involved because you have the chance to show Word of 18% up and speak for your community and mouth contribute to help it.”60

Residents of District 19 at a neighborhood assembly ask questions after the opening presentation.

52 What projects were proposed in District 19, what made it on to the ballot and what won the vote?

In September and October of 2012, District 19 held neighborhood assemblies that allowed community residents and stakeholders to propose projects to improve their neighborhoods. This process produced 45 project ideas, of which 19 were ultimately deemed eligible 45 for PB. Projects Following the neighborhood assemblies, participants volunteered proposed to be budget delegates and formed committees to develop specific projects from the ideas proposed at the neighborhood assemblies. During this process, which included months of research, consultation with government agencies and deliberation, the 45 ideas were whittled down to 18 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph below shows the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in 18 District 19. Projects listed on ballot Projects on District 19 Ballot

Total Number: 18 Total Cost: $3,440,000 Average Cost: $191,111 7 Projects selected by voters

Community Facilities: 2

Public Safety: 2 Schools and Libraries: 6

Transportation: 2

Parks and Recreation: 6

53 Winning Projects

1,170 voters cast a ballot for their top five projects in District 19. Table 3 shows the projects that were selected.

Winning Project SMART Boards in 7 Public Schools Table 3 $245,000 7 Winning Projects: District 19 347 out of 1,170 votes

Thanks to the Education Committee in District 19, seven public schools in Project # of Votes % of Voters Price District 19 will be receiving the benefits Structural Restoration of Poppenhusen Institute 614 52% $250,000 of SMART Boards in their classrooms. SMART Boards are touch-screen MacNeil Park Rehabilitation 383 33% $100,000 blackboards connected to hard-drives, enabling teachers to save notes from Police Cameras 360 31% $35,000 past lessons, access the internet Kayak and Canoe Launches 354 30% $150,000 in the classroom, highlight and clip information, and engage students of SMART Boards at PS 32/129/130/159/184/193 347 30% $245,000 different learning types in a variety of Bell Academy ways. Best of all, instead of pitting Special Needs Playground Equipment 313 27% $150,000 different schools against one another Art Room Renovation at PS 98 220 19% $65,000 for funding, District 19’s Education Committee ensured that children Total $995,000 throughout the district would benefit from the project by devising a plan to award four to six SMART Boards to one middle school and six elementary schools each. Moreover, in a world of Additional Funded Projects rapidly changing technology, it may prove more economical to upgrade In addition, the following proposed projects either did not win the each school’s digital capabilities often, PB vote or could not be funded through PB because of a budgeting rather than provide a single school with thirty computers that will soon be technicality. These projects will be funded by another pot of non-PB obsolete. money and indicate the additional benefits that PB can bring to the district beyond those projects that win the vote.

Project Cost

Fort Totten Park Sidewalk Improvements $100,000

Bird Watching Platform at Osprey Landing and Beautification $100,000 of Parson’s Beach

Upgrade Bayside Historical Society “Officer’s Club” $150,000

Mobile Computer Cart PS 31/32/41/79/159 $175,000

Wi-Fi Classroom PS 98/130/184/193/Bell Academy $350,000

54 Lessons Learned/ Community Fight for PB Allocation After the Arrest of Council Member Summary from District 19 Halloran

Joining PB for Year 2, the data collected from participants in District On April 2nd 2013, just days before the 19 show that participation was fairly consistent with the overall Participatory Budgeting vote was to be held, Council member Daniel Halloran demographics of the district. People who identified as White and had (R-19) was arrested along with State college or graduate degrees were slightly overrepresented compared Senator Malcolm Smith and four others. to the overall population of the district, but the large Asian immigrant He was accused of trying to rig the Republican ballot line of NYC’s mayoral community also made up a significant portion of participants. election for Malcolm Smith and agreeing Community groups were a key outreach resource for District 19 in its to steer $80,000 in discretionary first year of participating in PB. Participants were more likely to have funds to a company in exchange for heard about PB through a community group than any other method. bribes. He later plead not guilty to these charges.[i] Even after the arrest, Flyers and posters throughout the district also proved effective in more than 1,170 residents of District getting the word out about PB meetings and the vote. At PB meetings, 19 cast their votes for Participatory many projects were proposed around school improvements, park Budgeting projects, despite remarks by improvements and transportation infrastructure. Although only City Council speaker Christine Quinn, who said, “Council member Halloran seven of the 18 projects on the ballot officially won, all of the Council will have no input in how funds are Member’s discretionary funds were allocated towards projects from PB. distributed in his district, period, end This led to five additional projects receiving funding. of conversation.”[ii] Not only did these residents understand the importance of voting for PB projects, they also fought to ensure that the winning projects would receive funding. Residents that had been participating in PB created a sign-on letter to City Council Speaker Chris Quinn and Chair Council’s Queens Delegation, Leroy Comrie, calling on them “to honor our work and the wishes of the local residents by funding those projects that received the most votes Young residents of District 19 learn about the in last week’s participatory budgeting process.”[iii] The group noted that projects that will be on the ballot in their district. “Council Member Halloran’s arrest should not impede the participatory budgeting process and his constituents should not be punished—especially when participatory budgeting is a proven method for injecting transparency, accountability, and democracy into the budget process, and can ward off the risk of corruption that plagues the member item system.”[iv] Residents took ownership over the PB process and in the end, the advocacy paid off, and all seven of the winning PB projects were funded in the final budget.[v] The arrest also sparked an important public dialogue about City Council member items and several public officials highlighted participatory budgeting as a key example of how to counteract corruption and fraud in city spending.[vi]

55 District 23

Council Member Mark Weprin

Martin Van Buren High School Queens County Farm Museum Technology Upgrade roof repair

Glen Oaks Volunteer Ambulance Corps emergency equipment

Cunningham Park music stage

Portable Security Cameras Queens Cunningham Park enhancement of picnic area District 23

Council Member Mark Weprin

Council Member Mark Weprin’s district includes 14 Queens neighborhoods including Hollis Hills, Queens Village, Bellerose, Fresh District 23 Overall Meadows and Oakland Gardens. The district has the second largest Asian population of all NYC Council districts, 37% of residents identify Population: 63 as Asian. Additionally, 31% of the district is White, 14% Hispanic or 151,382 Latino/a and 12% Black or African American.61 56% of residents have at least some college education and 33% have household incomes over $100,000.62 Number of PB Participation in PB in District 23 was weighted towards well- educated, White residents, especially as the process moved forward; Participants: 61% of PB voters identified as White and 66% reported having a 1,273 college or graduate degree. At neighborhood assemblies, 12% of participants identified as Black or African American and 11% as Hispanic or Latino/a similar to the overall population of the district. At Neighborhoods: the neighborhood assemblies many projects were proposed around park and public space improvements, community programs and Hollis Hills school improvements. Queens Village

“PB really allows us to engage a broad spectrum of the Little Neck community in ways we never had before. Typically, people Douglaston contact the office when they need help, and we have a robust constituent services operation that helps many people every Bayside day. But by definition, that’s just a limited number of people. Bellerose So PB allows us to reach out to a broader group, to people who care about civic engagement; to people who want a say Floral Park in the City budget. I think that is the biggest benefit, for local Glen Oaks residents to be active in the civic process and engage with others in the community.” New Hyde Park Hollis — Ari Gershman, District Office Manager, Office of Mark Weprin, District 23 Hollis Park Gardens Holliswood Fresh Meadows Oakland Gardens

57 Who Participated in District 23?

In District 23, PB engaged 1,273 people, including: 221 neighborhood assembly participants, 54 budget delegates, and 1,116 voters. Demographic information collected at key points during the process 1,273 points towards several trends in participation, including the following: people

Race/Ethnicity

• The majority of participants in all phases of PB in District 23 221 identified as White: 61% of neighborhood assembly participants, neighborhood 58% of budget delegates, and 61% of PB voters. assembly participants • People who identified as Hispanic or Latino/a were less likely to vote in PB (6%) compared to the 2009 local elections (11%).64

• People who identified as Asian were more likely to vote in PB (22%) compared to the 2009 local elections (15%).

54 • Asians and Latino/as were underrepresented in the PB process Budget compared to the overall population of the district. Delegates

Language and Country of Birth

• 29% of PB voters reported that they were born outside of the 1,116 U.S. compared to 45% of the overall population of the district. voters • 18% of PB voters reported that they primarily speak a language other than English at home compared to 52% of the overall population of the district.

Those who identified as Gender Asian made up • A larger share of women voted in PB (64%) compared to the 22% of PB voters 2009 local elections (54%).65

(Compared to 15% in 2009 • Men were more likely than women to participate in neighborhood local elections) assemblies (51%) and as budget delegates (52%) in District 23.

58 Women made up

Income a larger share of PB voters (64%) • The income levels of neighborhood assembly participants and PB voters were consistent with the overall population of the than 2009 local district. election voters

• A higher percentage of people with incomes below $35,000 voted (54%). in PB (18%) compared to the 2009 local elections (5%).66

Voters reporting household incomes under $35,000 Education

18% • People with a college or graduate degree made up the majority of participants in all phases of PB in District 23.

5% Age

• 7% of PB voters were young people (ages 15 to 24) compared to PB voters Voters in the 12% of the overall population of the district. in Year 2 2009 local elections • A higher percentage of seniors (ages 65 and over) and middle aged people (ages 45 to 64) were PB voters (65%) compared with the overall population of the district (44%).

59 Asian Community in the 23rd district How did people hear about participatory

District 23 is home to the second budgeting in District 23? highest proportion of Asian-Americans in New York City; 37% of the overall District 23 participants mostly heard about the neighborhood district population identifies as assemblies from the Council Member or through an email. For the Asian, which amounts to over 50,000 residents.67 Although over a third of vote, flyers and posters and community groups seemed to be the most the district identifies as Asian, this effective for turning out voters. community has traditionally been neglected during the political process. Indeed, only 15% of voters in the 2009 How People Learned About How People Learned 68 local elections were Asian. Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote To ensure that the Asian in District 8 in District 8 community in District 23 was more fully represented in the PB process, Council Member Mark Weprin’s office took many Email 50% Email 11% steps to reach out to this community. Flyers were printed in Chinese and City Council City Council Korean to reach out to residents who 43% 20% are less comfortable speaking English. Member Member In addition to translated materials, Community Community Korean and Chinese interpreters 33% 19% were available at neighborhood group group assemblies to allow immigrants to participate. These were important Flyer/poster 27% Flyer/poster 23% steps because over 50% of the district primarily speaks a language other Friend, family than English.69 Additionally, community 13% or neighbor organizations like the MinKwon Center helped with outreach, especially to the Korean youth, which formed their own special budget delegate committee. The Council Member’s office also made sure to plan PB events at places where the Asian community already go on a regular basis. The Bayside Senior Center, with its predominantly Chinese Residents of District 23 attend a population, was used as a location for a neighborhood assembly and a neighborhood assembly. polling site. Overall, these efforts resulted in higher levels of participation of the Asian community in PB than in general elections in District 23. While participation was not quite at the same levels as the overall district population, people who identify as Asian represented a larger share of PB participants (22%) compared to the 2009 local elections (15%).70

60 What projects were proposed in District 23, what made it on to the ballot and what won the vote?

In September and October of 2012, District 23 held neighborhood assemblies that allowed community residents and stakeholders to propose projects to improve their neighborhoods. This process produced 138 project ideas, of which 23 were ultimately deemed 138 eligible for PB. Ideas around park improvements, community center/ Projects programs and school and library improvements were the most proposed common types of projects proposed. Following the neighborhood assemblies, participants volunteered to be budget delegates and formed committees to develop specific projects from the ideas proposed at the neighborhood assemblies. During this process, which included months of research, consultation with government agencies and deliberation, the 138 ideas were 13 whittled down to 13 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph Projects listed below shows the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in on ballot District 23.

Projects on District 23 Ballot

Total Number: 13 6 Total Cost: $2,070,000 Projects Average Cost: $159,231 selected by voters

Public Safety: 1

Transportation: 1

Parks and Recreation: 2 Schools and Libraries: 7

Community Facilities: 2

61 Winning Projects

Over 1,100 voters cast a ballot for their top five projects in District 23. Table 4 shows the projects that were selected.

Winning Project Queens County Farm Museum Roof Table 4 Repairs 6 Winning Projects: District 23 $35,000 535 out of 1,116 votes

Located in Glen Oaks, Queens, Project # of Votes % of Voters Price sandwiched between the Grand Central, Glen Oaks Volunteer Ambulance Corps 594 53% $40,000 Cross Island, and Little Neck Parkways, emergency equipment this 47-acre farm founded in 1697 is New York City’s oldest and largest Queens County Farm Museum roof repair 535 48% $35,000 remaining farm.71 Queens County Farm, a property of the New York Martin Van Buren High School 445 40% $129,000 City Department of Parks, produces Technology Upgrade vegetables, eggs, honey, wine, and wool Portable Security Cameras 441 40% $100,000 products.72 Local schools take field-trips to Queens County Farm, where students Cunningham Park enhancement of picnic area 424 38% $375,000 are educated about life in the colonial era, as well as contemporary crop- Cunningham Park music stage 422 38% $375,000 growing, animal-raising, and food and Total $979,000 textile production.73 Unfortunately, the Queens County Farm Museum building has recently suffered from leaky windows, walls, and roof. When Participatory Budgeting came to District 23, the Queens County Farm Museum became an obvious target for funding. During the Project Expo in February, one of Council Member Mark Weprin’s staff explained, “[T]his project is $35,000 to redo their roof, which is very badly needed. They need re-shingling.”74 With this money, field-trips, weddings, community Participants at a project expo. gatherings, and farming should continue unabated for years to come.

62 Lessons Learned/ Summary from District 23

In its first year participating in PB, District 23 engaged over 1,200 people and the data collected from these participants suggest that most identify as White. Although the majority of participants were White, people who identified as Hispanic or Latino/a and Black or African American participated in PB at levels consistent with the overall population of the district. And while Asians were underrepresented in PB compared to the district population overall, their participation increased as the process moved forward and they turned out for the PB vote in higher numbers than in the 2009 local election. In addition, income levels for PB participants were consistent with the overall district. Unique among all of the districts, in District 23 men represented a majority (51%) of neighborhood assembly participants, though women were 64% of PB voters. Many projects proposed in District 23 were concerned with improvements to parks, community centers and programs and improvements for schools and libraries. Although improvements to schools and libraries represented the majority of projects on the ballot, only one of the six winning projects was for a school. Rather the residents decide to use most of their $1 million to improve parks, make repairs to community facilities and provide equipment to a local non-profit.

63 District 32 Queens Council Member Eric Ulrich

YMCA Upgrades Brooklyn

Dayton Towers Upgrades

Technology Upgrades at PS 317 and PS 114 and Gym Safety Upgrades at Scholars Academy Traffic Island Landscaping

Broad Channel Library Upgrades Mobi Mats – ADA Ramps for Beach Access

Rockaway Freeway Dog Park Upgrades District 32

Council Member Eric Ulrich

Council Member Eric Ulrich’s district is located at the end of the A subway line in Queens and includes 14 neighborhoods. But District District 32 Overall 32 was unique from the other districts in that only a portion of the district participated in PB. The five participating neighborhoods were Population: 77 Belle Harbor, Breezy Point, Broad Channel, Rockaway Park and 38,309 Rockaway Beach. This part of the district largely identifies as White (68%) with 14% of residents identifying as Black or African American and 14% Hispanic or Latino/a.75 Nearly half of the district’s residents Number of PB have a college education (45%) and 40% of the district has an annual household income between $25,000 and $75,000.76 Participants: This section of southern Queens stretches across a long, narrow 1,010 peninsula, save for the neighborhood of Broad Channel, which is on a neighboring island. Due to its location, this portion of the district was drastically impacted by Hurricane Sandy. Many homes and Neighborhoods: community institutions were destroyed, including the Council Member’s office, and residents were displaced, all of which severely impacted Belle Harbor the PB process. To adjust for the impact of Hurricane Sandy, some Breezy Point neighborhood assemblies were cancelled and the budget delegate phase was drastically altered to accommodate the capacity of the Broad Channel district as they worked to rebuild their communities. Despite this Rockaway Park setback and the severe hardship endured by residents of this district, the community was able to regroup, propose and develop projects Rockaway Beach and ultimately hold the vote.

“Council Member Ulrich is a firm believer in the participatory budget process. Our constituents really enjoy the process and it gives them an understanding of the city budget while getting them involved in local government. PB gives the taxpayers a new understanding of how things are funded and they are usually shocked to find out how much certain projects can cost. Eric [Council Member Ulrich] has allocated millions of dollars in capital projects since being elected, but never did it receive as much attention as it did after participatory budgeting. Our constituents were extremely proud of what they worked for.”

— Rudy Giuliani, Chief of Staff, Office of Eric Ulrich, District 33

65 Who Participated in District 32?

In District 32, PB Engaged 1,010 people, including: 60 neighborhood 1,010 assembly participants and 976 voters. It is important to note that Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath impacted participation in all people phases of PB. Demographic information collected at key points during (1,632 in Year 1— the process points towards several trends in participation, including Hurricane Sandy the following: impacted Year 2 participation)

60 Race/Ethnicity neighborhood assembly • The majority of participants in all phases of PB in District 32 participants identified as White. (380 in Year 1) • 13% of Year 2 PB voters identified as Black or African Americans and 11% as Hispanic or Latino/a compared to 3% and 4% respectively of Year 1 PB voters.

• African Americans and Latino/as participated in neighborhood 976 assemblies at levels consistent with the overall population of the voters district. (1,639 in Year 1)

Language and Country of Birth

• 15% of PB voters were born outside of the U.S which is the same as the overall population of the district.

• 89% of PB voters reported that English is their primary language 13% of PB voters compared to 83% of the overall population of the district. identified as Black or African American and 11% as Hispanic Gender or Latino/a • Women were more likely to participate in the PB process than men. (Compared to 3% and 4%, respectively, in Year 1) • Turnout among women was high for all phases of PB as compared to turnout in the 2009 local elections.78

66 Income

• 63% of PB voters had incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 compared to 40% of the overall population of the district. 63% of PB voters

• People with household incomes over $75,000 were less likely to had incomes vote in Year 2 of PB (23%) compared to Year 1 of PB (55%). between $25,000 and $75,000

(Compared to 40% of the overall population) Age

• Middle aged people (ages 35 to 64) were the majority of PB participants in all phases of the process.

• Seniors (ages 65 and over) were less likely to participate in Year 2 of PB compared with Year 1 of PB.

A group of residents in District 32 attend a neighborhood assembly before Hurricane Sandy hits.

67 How Hurricane Sandy Impacted the How did people hear about participatory PB Process in the 32nd district budgeting in District 32? When Hurricane Sandy hit New York City on October 29, 2012, Year 2 of Most PB participants heard about PB through their social networks PB was already in the middle of the (family and friends or word of mouth), though significant door- neighborhood assembly phase. While seven of the eight districts only faced knocking from community groups also helped to turn out voters. minor disruptions due to the storm, the situation was much different in District 32. A large portion of District 32 is on How People Learned About How People Learned a peninsula that faces out towards the Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote ocean. This area, the Rockaways, was in District 32 in District 32 hit extremely hard by the storm. Houses were damaged, boardwalks destroyed, Someone came streets flooded, residents displaced Email 45% 41% to my door and 1.5 million cubic yards of sand from the beaches was washed away.79 Friend, family Local buildings that supported the PB 31% Email 3% or neighbor process, including the Council Member’s office, were unusable for months Community Friend, family following the storm. 28% 10% group or neighbor Given the extent of the devastation in the Rockaways, the last City Council Community 28% 2% neighborhood assembly was canceled Member group and the PB process temporarily put on hold. But PB in District 32 could not City Council News story 22% 1% be stopped. When the process picked Member up again, the Council Member’s office worked closely with a dedicated group Word of 21% of residents to develop projects for the mouth ballot. After many hours and months of work, budget delegates put nine projects on the ballot. Though voting was delayed by a week, almost 1,000 people managed to vote in District 32. To accommodate for this, and allow as many residents to participate as possible, the Council PB participants in District 32 attend a meeting Member set up an absentee voting to learn about the process. system where residents were able to print out a ballot online and email, fax, or mail the ballot to the Council Member’s office. In the end, seven projects won funding, totaling $1.4 million. Despite the devastating effects of Sandy, PB served as a space where the residents of District 32 could come together, brainstorm, develop and vote for projects that will help rejuvenate their community.

68 What projects were proposed in District 32, what made it on to the ballot and what won the vote?

In September and October of 2012, District 32 held neighborhood assemblies that allowed community residents and stakeholders to propose projects to improve their neighborhoods. This process produced 76 project ideas, of which 71 were ultimately deemed eligible 76 for PB. Ideas around improvements for parks, schools and libraries Projects and transportation were the most common types of projects proposed. proposed Following the neighborhood assemblies, participants volunteered to be budget delegates and formed committees to develop specific projects from the ideas proposed at the neighborhood assemblies. During this process, which included months of research, consultation with government agencies and deliberation, the 76 ideas were whittled down to 9 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph below shows 9 the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in District 32. Projects listed on ballot

Projects on District 32 Ballot

Total Number: 9 Total Cost: $1,547,500 7 Average Cost: $171,944 Projects selected by voters

Schools and Libraries: 1

Community Parks and Facilities: 3 Recreation: 5

69 Winning Projects

976 voters cast a ballot for their top 5 projects in District 32. Table 5 shows the winning projects.

Winning Project Mobi-Mat Ramps Table 5 $180,000 7 Winning Projects: District 32 418 out of 976 votes

Due to its position on a peninsula, District 32 has many beaches that Project # of Votes % of Voters Price draw people from around the City. Technology Upgrades at PS 317 and PS 114 and 665 68% $324,500 But Hurricane Sandy destroyed many Gym Safety Upgrades at Scholars Academy of these beaches, tearing up the boardwalk and displacing 1.5 million Dayton Towers Upgrades 621 64% $38,000 cubic yards of sand.80 This extensive damage motivated residents to rebuild YMCA Upgrades 581 60% $300,000 their community, including the beaches. Traffic Island Landscaping 531 54% $50,000 Even after being told that FEMA would handle the rebuilding of the waterfront, Broad Channel Library Upgrades 438 45% $250,000 the district committee coordinated with FEMA and came up with projects Mobi Mats – ADA Ramps for Beach Access 418 43% $180,000 that would not only restore their loved Rockaway Freeway Dog Park Upgrades 220 37% $300,000 beaches, but make them better than ever. One such project will ensure that Total $1,442,500 even people with disabilities can enjoy the beaches as well as anybody else. Three portable Mobi-Mat ramps will soon provide wheelchair access to the beach on 80th, 126th, and 141st streets. Additional Funded Projects

In addition, the following proposed projects either did not win the PB vote or could not be funded through PB because of a budgeting technicality. These projects will be funded by another pot of non-PB money and indicate the additional benefits that PB can bring to the district beyond those projects that win the vote.

Project Cost

Installation of Fitness Equipment $75,000

Parks Department Beach Vehicle $30,000

70 Lessons Learned/ Summary from District 32

Eric Ulrich’s district experienced the biggest change from Year 1 to Year 2 of the four returning council districts. This was due to the devastating effect that Hurricane Sandy had upon the district. Sandy caused the district to temporarily halt the PB process as residents rebuilt their homes and lives. Since residents of this area were focused on rebuilding, it was challenging at times to engage people in PB. Despite this traumatic event and resulting barriers, the Council Member’s office, District Committee and residents worked together to ensure that there were projects for the ballot and that the residents still remaining in the area knew about the PB vote. Outreach through door knocking and allowing absentee voting ensured that there was still robust participation from all segments of the community. Participation among people identifying as Black or African American increased by 10% and 8% for Hispanics or Latino/as. People with low and middle-incomes also made up a larger share of voters in Year 2 than Year 1. One facet that remained the same was that only a portion of Eric Ulrich’s Council District 32 engaged in participatory budgeting. As a result, only about 38,000 people in The Rockaways were targeted for participation compared to an average of 150,000 in the other seven districts. This led to Distirct 32 having the largest per capita percent of PB participants. Despite the small population and the effects of Sandy, the district was still able to engage over 1,000 people and decide on how to spend over $1.4 million.

71 District 33 Queens

Council Member Stephen Levin

East River State Park Dog Run Manhattan

MS 8 Technology Funds

District-wide tree planting

PS 34 Playground Renovations

PS 31 Technology Request

Brooklyn District 33

Council Member Stephen Levin

Council Member Stephen Levin’s district in Brooklyn includes the neighborhoods of Brooklyn Heights, Greenpoint and parts of District 33 Overall Williamsburg, Park Slope and Boerum Hill. Almost three-fourths of the district identifies as White, 14% as Hispanic or Latino/a and 6% Population: 83 as Black or African American.81 65% of the district has a college 170,735 education and 46% have household incomes over $75,000. There is also a very large youth population in the district with 33% of residents under the age of 25.82 Number of PB Despite most residents of District 33 being White, wealthy and well-educated, participation in PB among low-income people Participants: and people of color was fairly robust due to outreach by the Council 2,632 Member’s office and community groups to the seven large public housing developments in the district. 37% of neighborhood assembly participants identified as Black or African American, 20% as Hispanic Neighborhoods: or Latino/a and 36% have household incomes below $25,000. The combination and interaction of these different populations Brooklyn Heights led to a diverse set of project proposals at the neighborhood Greenpoint assemblies. There were many project proposals for school and park improvements, but also proposals for specific improvements to NYCHA Williamsburg developments in the district. Park Slope

“We are in a democracy and we are supposed to be engaging Boerum Hill in our government as citizens. A lot of people wonder, ‘What is my job as a citizen? To vote? What does that matter?’ But to actually expand a much fuller expression of what it is to be citizen is amazing. Council Member Levin understands that and we are all really happy to be involved.”

— Lisa Bloodgood, Community Liaison & Environmental Advisor, Office of Stephen Levin, District 33

73 Who Participated in District 33?

In District 33, PB engaged 2,632 people, including: 173 neighborhood assembly participants, 40 budget delegates, and 2,632 voters. Demographic information collected at key points during the process 2,632 points towards several trends in participation, including the following: people

Race/Ethnicity

• A higher percentage of African Americans participated at 173 the neighborhood assemblies (37%) compared to the overall neighborhood population of the district (6%). assembly participants • Participation among people who identified as White increased as the PB process went along.

• The race/ethnicity of PB voters was consistent with the overall population of the district. 40 Budget Delegates Language and Country of Birth

• 25% of PB voters reported that they were born outside of the U.S. compared to 20% of the overall population of the district.

2,632 voters Gender

• Women were more likely than men to participate in all phases of the PB process.

• A larger share of women voted in PB (62%) compared to the African Americans 2009 local elections (52%).84 made up 37% of neighborhood

assembly Income participants • A higher percentage of people with low incomes (under $35,000) (Compared to 6% of the participated at neighborhood assemblies (52%) compared to the overall district population) overall population of the district (30%).

74 • Participation among people with lower incomes (under $35,000) decreased as the PB process moved forward. 25% of PB voters

• People with very high incomes voted at higher rates for PB than reported that they they did in the 2009 local elections.85 were born outside of the U.S.

(Compared to 20% of the overall district population) Age

• Young people (ages 15 to 24) were more likely to participate at a neighborhood assembly (25%) than vote in PB (2%). 52% of PB voters • A higher percentage of middle aged people (ages 35 to 54) in Year 2 reported voted in PB (52%) compared to the overall population of the district (26%). household incomes under $35,000

(Compared to 30% of the overall district population)

Residents propose ideas about how to improve their neighborhoods at a neighborhood assembly.

75 Public Housing Residents in the How did people hear about participatory 33rd district budgeting in District 33? District 33 has seven public housing developments in the district During the Neighborhood Assembly phase, most participants heard and the Council Member’s office about PB from the Council Member or from a community group, has a longstanding relationship with the residents of the nearby whereas for the vote, most people heard about PB through word of Gowanus Houses. This relationship mouth and from friends and family. was strengthened by community organizations such as Families United for Racial and Economic Equality How People Learned About How People Learned (FUREE), who helped keep the Council Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote Member’s staff and the participatory in District 33 in District 33 budgeting volunteers in close contact with the residents of public housing. Community Community Most importantly, the residents of 38% 13% public housing themselves were one group group of the most active groups during the City Council City Council process. District 33 was one of only 38% 10% two districts with a Public Housing Member Member Committee during the Budget Delegate Friend, family Friend, family phase. These delegates ended up 25% 21% or neighbor or neighbor with six projects on the final ballot, making them the second most prolific committee in the city in that regard. Email 24% Email 11% Though none of these project received enough votes to win funding at the time of the vote, Council Member Levin Flyer/poster 18% Flyer/poster 22% used additional discretionary capital funds to allocate $425,000 for upgrades Word of 31% to the Wyckoff Community Center and mouth $150,000 to initiate upgrades for the Gowanus Houses Community Center. The Gowanus Houses Community Center was the project that received the next most votes after the initial vote winners. Residents examine project posters in District 33.

76 What projects were proposed in District 33, what made it on to the ballot and what won the vote?

In September and October of 2012, District 33 held neighborhood assemblies that allowed community residents and stakeholders to propose projects to improve their neighborhoods. This process produced 339 project ideas, of which 179 were ultimately deemed 339 eligible for PB. Ideas around improvements for parks, schools and Projects libraries and transportation were the most common types of projects proposed proposed. Following the neighborhood assemblies, participants volunteered to be budget delegates and formed committees to develop specific projects from the ideas proposed at the neighborhood assemblies. During this process, which included months of research, consultation with government agencies and deliberation, the 339 ideas were 16 whittled down to 16 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph Projects listed below shows the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in on ballot District 33.

Projects on District 33 Ballot 5 Total Number: 16 Projects Total Cost: $4,393,000 selected by Average Cost: $274,563 voters

Transportation: 1

Health and Sanitation: 2

Housing: 6

Parks and Recreation: 3

Schools and Libraries: 4

77 Winning Projects

2,632 voters cast a ballot for their top five projects in District 33. Table 6 shows the projects that were selected.

Winning Project East River State Park Dog Run Table 6 $450,000 5 Winning Projects: District 33 729 out of 2,632 votes

The plan to turn a concrete lot in East River State Park into a state of the art Project # of Votes % of Voters Price dog run was proposed by Friends of District-wide tree planting 1,006 38% $100,000 East River State Park, and endorsed by a half-dozen politicians and community MS 8 Technology Funds 851 32% $200,000 groups. Local newspapers wrote favorable articles about the dog run, East River State Park Dog Run 729 28% $450,000 members of the community leafleted PS 31 Technology Request 723 27% $188,000 their neighbors. A website was even created to promote the project. PS 34 Playground Renovations 670 25% $120,000 State officials have decided to make an exception to their “No Dogs Allowed” Total $1,058,000 rule in East River State Park, as long as the dogs stay in their enclosure. Separate enclosures will host small and large breeds, each equipped with Additional Funded Projects artificial turf and water fountains.86 One of the proposal’s main proponents, Mark Sallinger, touted the benefits to In addition, the following proposed projects either did not win the the community at large at District 33’s PB vote or could not be funded through PB because of a budgeting PB Expo: “This gives dog owners some technicality. These projects will be funded by another pot of non-PB place to go; but it also is beneficial to people that don’t own dogs because all money and indicate the additional benefits that PB can bring to the the dogs have kind of destroyed a lot district beyond those projects that win the vote. of the grassy areas and it disturbs the public from having a peaceful place to sit…in the public areas.”87 Project Cost

Gowanus Community Center Upgrades $150,000

Upgrades to Wyckoff Community Center $425,000

Tree Guards as Part of Neighborhood Reclamation $35,000

78 Lessons Learned/ Summary from District 33

Council Member Stephen Levin’s district jumped right in to Year 2 of PBNYC, with 2,632 people taking part in the district’s first year of PB. This was the second highest level of participation of the eight districts. Along with the large number of participants, the district engaged a diverse group of residents even though the majority of the district’s residents identify as White. People in District 33 who identified as Asian, Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino/a all made up an equal or larger share of PB participants compared to their overall population in the district and share of 2009 local election voters. Effective outreach to public housing residents by the Council Member’s office and community groups were key factors in making the process representative of all groups within the district. While the process was racially and ethnically diverse, people with college or graduate degrees were overrepresented, as well as people whose primary language is English. In addition, while youth participated in the early phases of PB, their involvement declined as the process moved forward. Due to the large public housing population many proposed projects in District 33 were focused on public housing in addition to improvements to schools, libraries and parks. While no public housing projects won the vote, the Council Member allocated an additional $150,000 of his capital discretionary funds to make improvements to the Gowanus Houses Community Center.

People find places to sit and mark their ballot at a voting location in District 33.

79 District 39 Manhattan

Council Member Brad Lander Queens

Renovate 8 Bathrooms, PS 58, The Carroll School

Carroll Gardens/Windsor Terrace Library Computers PS 230: Help Kids Connect & Learn With Technology

Church Avenue Traffic & Pedestrian Safety Improvements

3rd Street Green Corridor: New Trees, Less Runoff

PS 179: Technology upgrade for underserved school

Brooklyn District 39

Council Member Brad Lander

Council Member Brad Lander’s district includes the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Columbia Waterfront, District 39 Overall Gowanus, Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Borough Park and Kensington. 66% of the district identifies as White, 14% as Hispanic or Latino/a, Population: 92 and 13% as Asian.88 The district also has a large Bangladeshi 154,341 community, concentrated in Kensington.89 A large percentage (38%) of the district speaks a language other than English as their primary language90 and nearly half (42%) of District 39’s residents have annual Number of PB household incomes over $75,000.91 Participation between the first and second years of PB was fairly Participants: similar in the 39th District. Consistent with the district’s demographics, 3,107 the majority of PB participants were white, college educated and middle-or-upper income. Many Bangladeshi immigrants from the Kensington neighborhood were mobilized for PB, while participation Neighborhoods: of Latino/as and African-Americans was low, despite targeted outreach to Latino/as. District 39 had 647 project proposals from the Cobble Hill neighborhood assemblies, the most of any district. These projects Carroll Gardens tended to be focused on improvements to schools and libraries, park improvements, and street cleanliness and sanitation. Columbia Waterfront “Through Participatory Budgeting, we have identified new leaders in our neighborhood and helped them develop community Gowanus organizing skills. And on top of that a lot of great projects have Park Slope been funded.” Windsor Terrace — Alex Moore, Communication and Events Director, Borough Park Office of Brad Lander, District 39 Kensington

81 Who Participated in District 39?

In District 39, PB Engaged 3,107 people, including: 457 neighborhood assembly participants, 50 Budget Delegates and 2,821 voters. Demographic information collected at key points during the process 3,107 points towards several trends in participation, including the following: people (2,752 in Year 1)

Race/Ethnicity

457 • Participants who identified as White made up the biggest share neighborhood of neighborhood assembly participants (81%) and PB voters assembly (86%) in District 39. participants (499 in Year 1) • 5% of neighborhood assembly participants identified as Asian and 5% as Hispanic or Latino/as, compared to 13% and 14% of the overall population of the district, respectively.

• The race/ethnicity of Year 2 PB voters was consistent with Year 1 50 PB voters. Budget Delegates (102 in Year 1)

Language and Country of Birth

• 16% of PB voters reported they were born outside of the U.S compared to 30% of the overall population in the district. 2,821 voters • Only 110 ballots were filled out in a language other than English (2,213 in Year 1) in Year 2 of PB compared to 210 in Year 1 of PB.

Gender

• Women were more likely to participate in all stages of the PB 16% of PB voters process compared to men. reported that they were born outside

of the U.S. Income (Compared to 30% of the • Similar to Year 1, participants with medium to high incomes overall district population) participated in PB at higher rates than those with lower incomes.

82 • A larger share of people with high to very high incomes voted in PB compared to the 2009 local elections.93

Age

• 16% of neighborhood assembly participants were under the age of 25; an increase from Year 1 where only 2% of neighborhood 16% of neighbor- assembly participants were under the age of 25. hood assembly • Young people (ages 15 to 24) were less likely to vote for PB participants were compared to the 2009 local elections.94 under the age • A higher percentage of middle aged people (ages 35 to 54) of 25 participated at a neighborhood assembly (41%) compared to the overall population of the district (28%). (Compared to only 2% in Year 1)

Residents in District 39 sign up at a voting location to get a ballot.

83 Women in the 39th district How did people hear about participatory

Usually when thinking about gender budgeting in District 39? and politics the assumption is that men are much more likely to be In District 39, most people heard about PB directly from the Council involved than women. While this is Member for both the neighborhood assemblies and the vote. true of traditional political processes, PB has challenged this patriarchical paradigm.95 In every district except for one, How People Learned About How People Learned more women attended neighborhood Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote assemblies and voted than men. District in District 39 in District 39 39 is part of this reversal of normal political trends; 59% of neighborhood City Council City Council 60% 31% assembly participants and 60% of PB Member Member voters were women. This is a significant increase from the 2009 local elections where only 53% of voters were women. Email 58% Email 21% Women did not just attend PB events in large numbers, but also Friend, family Friend, family 28% 22% were active in their participation. At or neighbor or neighbor neighborhood assemblies in District 39, 97% of women spoke during Flyer/poster 18% Flyer/poster 18% small group discussions, 80% made specific budget proposals and 33% volunteered to be a budget delegate. Community 12% Community group 6% Women were able to make their voice group heard throughout the PB process in District 39, and citywide, by being highly Word of 28% involved in all phases of the process; mouth neighborhood assemblies, budget delegate meetings and voting. These high rates of participation carried over from Year 1, where women also participated at significantly higher rates than men.

The winning projects are unveiled in District 39.

84 What projects were proposed in District 39, what made it on to the ballot and what won the vote?

In September and October of 2012, District 39 held neighborhood assemblies that allowed community residents and stakeholders to propose projects to improve their neighborhoods. This process produced 647 project ideas, of which 375 were ultimately deemed 647 eligible for PB. Ideas around improvements for parks, schools and Projects libraries and transportation were the most common types of projects proposed proposed. Following the neighborhood assemblies, participants volunteered to be budget delegates and formed committees to develop specific projects from the ideas proposed at the neighborhood assemblies. During this process, which included months of research, consultation with government agencies and deliberation, the 647 ideas were 24 whittled down to 24 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph Projects listed below shows the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in on ballot District 39.

Projects on District 39 Ballot: 6 Total Number: 24 Projects Total Cost: $3,695,000 selected by Average Cost: $153,958 voters

Youth: 1

Health and Sanitation: 3 Transportation: 5

Public Safety: 3

Schools and Libraries: 5 Community Facilities: 3

Parks and Recreation: 4

85 Winning Projects

Over 2,800 voters cast a ballot for their top five projects in District 39. Table 7 shows the projects that were selected.

Winning Project Carroll Gardens/Windsor Terrace Table 7 Library Computers 6 Winning Projects: District 39 $75,000 963 out of 2,821 votes

The Carroll Gardens and Windsor Project # of Votes % of Voters Price Terrace branches of the Brooklyn PS 230: Help Kids Connect & Learn 1195 42% $180,000 Public Library will be receiving a total With Technology of 29 new computers, thanks to the voters of District 39. “They will really be Renovate 8 Bathrooms, PS 58, The Carroll School 1100 39% $110,000 needed… the pre-school and the adult computers, which are very popular. Carroll Gardens/Windsor Terrace Library 963 34% $75,000 Adults use them for job searches Computers and career advancement… [T]he staff Church Avenue Traffic & Pedestrian Safety 784 28% $300,000 of Windsor Terrace also needs new Improvements computers, so this whole proposal is going to be for all of that,” said a PS 179: Technology upgrade for 729 26% $115,000 member of the Culture and Community underserved school Facilities Committee.96 This project is designed to enhance 3rd Street Green Corridor: New Trees, Less Runoff 667 24% $170,000 the community’s internet access and Total $950,000 computer literacy. Ten pre-school computers will come equipped with programs to help children learn things like the alphabet. Thirteen adult computers will help residents get their Additional Funded Projects GEDs, search for jobs, practice for ESL tests, and provide internet access for those without it at home. The Windsor In addition, the following proposed projects either did not win the Terrace branch will also receive six PB vote or could not be funded through PB because of a budgeting much-needed computers for their staff, technicality. These projects will be funded by another pot of non-PB aiding them to process more library money and indicate the additional benefits that PB can bring to the cards and request inter-library loans, measures which will enable more district beyond those projects that win the vote. people to use the library, and making it easier for those who already utilize it. Project Cost

Projector for Celebrate Brooklyn & BRIC Art Center $40,000

Safe Auditorium Upgrade for Performing Arts PS 131 $100,000

John Jay High School Media & Filmmaking Lab $100,000

86 Lessons Learned/ Summary from District 39

Building on the success of last year, Brad Lander’s Council District 39 engaged 356 more people in Year 2 than Year 1. The demographics of participants were similar between Year 1 and Year 2, with participants disproportionately identifying as White, college educated and middle to upper-income. The Council Member’s office did make an effort to engage the Hispanic or Latino/a and Bangladeshi immigrant communities by holding targeted neighborhood assemblies and providing translated materials and interpreters at both the neighborhood assemblies and the vote. Most outreach was done by the Council Member’s office with over half of neighborhood assembly participants and a third of voters hearing about PB from their Council Member. The ballot in District 39 represented a balance of projects around areas such as transportation, schools and libraries, parks, community facilities and public safety. Like Year 1, seven projects won via the voting process and the Council Member will fund additional projects that were on the ballot but that did not receive enough votes to make the district’s $1 million cutoff.

People learn about the PB process during the opening presentation at a neighborhood assembly.

87 District 44

Council Member David Greenfield

Brooklyn

Countdown clocks in Borough Park

Security cameras in Midwood

Security cameras in Borough Park Countdown clocks in Midwood

Countdown clocks in Bensonhurst District 44

Council Member David Greenfield

Council Member David Greenfield’s district includes the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Borough Park, Midwood and Bensonhurst. The District 44 Overall majority of residents in the district identify as White (71%) with 17% identifying as Asian and 10% as Hispanic or Latino/a.97 The district Population: 100 also has a large Orthodox Jewish community that primarily speaks 164,339 Yiddish at home; only 32% of residents in the district primarily speak English despite 58% being born in the U.S.98 56% of residents have formal education levels of a high school diploma or less and 44% Number of PB have incomes below $35,000.99 In District 44, participation varied slightly from the overall Participants: population of the district. Low-income and upper-income residents 1,719 were overrepresented in the process while middle-income residents were underrepresented. Specific outreach to seniors throughout the process was effective and people over the age of 65 were actively Neighborhoods: engaged from the neighborhood assemblies through the vote. PB voters in District 44 tended to be well-educated with 44% having Borough Park college or graduate degrees. During the neighborhood assemblies Midwood many projects were proposed around improvements to parks and improvements to schools and libraries. Bensonhurst

District 44 residents at a neighborhood assembly.

89 Who Participated in District 44?

In District 44, PB engaged 1,719 people, including: 97 neighborhood assembly participants, 15 budget delegates, and 1,610 voters. Demographic information collected at key points during the process 1,719 points towards several trends in participation, including the following*: people

Race/Ethnicity

• Participants who identified as White were the majority of 97 participants at neighborhood assemblies (76%) and the PB vote neighborhood (94%). assembly participants • 8% of neighborhood assembly participants identified as Asian compared to 17% of the overall population of the district.

15 Language and Country of Birth Budget Delegates • 23% of PB voters were born outside of the U.S. compared to 42% of the overall population of the district.

• 25% of PB voters reported that they primarily speak a language other than English at home compared to 68% of the overall population. 1,610 voters

Gender

• 70% of neighborhood assembly participants identified as female.

25% of PB voters • PB voters identified as 50% male and 50% female. reported that they primarily speak a language other Income than English at home • A higher percentage of people with incomes under $35,000 voted in PB (35%) compared to the 2009 local elections (26%).101 (Compared to 68% of the • Participants with medium to high incomes participated in PB overall district population) at higher rates than those with lower incomes.

90 35% of PB voters

Age in Year 2 reported household incomes • 18% of PB voters were young people (ages 15 to 24) compared to 16% of the overall population of the district. under $35,000 (Compared to 26% in 2009 local elections)

* In District 44, despite the large number of participants, the survey response rate was very low. Due to this data from the neighborhood assembly and voter surveys should be regarded as rough approximations due to the small sample size from which it is derived.

91 Seniors in the 44th district How did people hear about participatory

Council Member Greenfield and his staff budgeting in District 44? worked specifically on engaging seniors in PB by turning three local senior In District 44, most PB participants heard about PB through friends, centers into voting locations. On each family and news outlets. This might have been because the Council occasion Council Member Greenfield himself showed up to explain the Member goes on a weekly radio show that he used to promote PB. process and generate enthusiasm. Many Eastern European Jews, some of whom are Holocaust survivors, How People Learned About How People Learned congregate at the Borough Park YMCA Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote for daily meals. Though most were not in District 44 in District 44 aware that they’d be helping decide the city’s budget when they showed up on Friends, family Television/ April 4, they were more than willing to 37% 49% or neighbor Newspaper/Radio have their voices be heard. They voted mainly for street safety, including traffic City Council Friend, family lights with countdown clocks, security 28% 6% Member or neighbor cameras, and road improvements. According to one voter, “There is a City Council great need for improvements. I call it Email 24% 9% Member the Wild West End of Brooklyn.” Others were there on principle, responding, Community 12% Email 3% “I believe in participating in the group democratic process.” In the end, District 44’s seniors Community Flyer/poster 7% 12% care deeply about the welfare of their group neighborhoods, and back up their passion by continuing to be perhaps the most politically active segment of Flyer/poster 18% the population.

92 What projects were proposed in District 44, what made it on to the ballot and what won the vote?

In September and October of 2012, District 44 held neighborhood assemblies that allowed community residents and stakeholders to propose projects to improve their neighborhoods. This process produced 76 project ideas, of which 35 were ultimately deemed eligible 76 for PB. Ideas around improvements for parks, schools and libraries Projects and transportation were the most common types of projects proposed. proposed Following the neighborhood assemblies, participants volunteered to be budget delegates and formed committees to develop specific projects from the ideas proposed at the neighborhood assemblies. During this process, which included months of research, consultation with government agencies and deliberation, the 76 ideas were whittled down to 11 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph 11 below shows the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in Projects listed District 44. on ballot

Projects on District 44 Ballot

Total Number: 11 5 Total Cost: $2,600,000 Projects Average Cost: $236,364 selected by voters

Schools and Libraries: 2

Transportation: 6 Public Safety: 3

93 Winning Projects

Over 1,600 voters cast a ballot for their top five projects in District 44. Table 8 shows the projects that were selected.

Winning Project Countdown Clocks in Borough Park, Table 8 Midwood and Bensonhurst 5 Winning Projects: District 44 $600,000 total ($200,000 for each neighborhood) Borough Park: 1,056 out of 1,610 votes Midwood: 397 out of 1,610 votes Project # of Votes % of Voters Price Bensonhurst: 392 out of 1,610 votes Security cameras in Borough Park 1,109 69% $200,000

Three of the five winning projects Countdown clocks in Borough Park 1,056 66% $200,000 were to install countdown clocks in Borough Park, Midwood, and Security cameras in Midwood 520 32% $200,000 Bensonhurst. Residents of three District Countdown clocks in Midwood 397 25% $200,000 44 neighborhoods all decided to improve their street safety by voting to Countdown clocks in Bensonhurst 392 24% $200,000 install pedestrian countdown-clocks in their neighborhoods’ most dangerous Total $1,000,000 intersections. “We have a high population of seniors, as well as young children, in that area,” remarked local resident Elias-Pavia about the clocks set to go up on the corner of Bay Parkway and 75th Street in Bensonhurst.102 “The countdown clocks are needed. It helps to know how long you have to cross the street before the light changes.”103 In the past, countdown clocks have helped reduce deaths on Queens Blvd., known colloquially as “The Boulevard of Death.”104 Hopefully they will have a similar impact in District 44.

94 Lessons Learned/ Summary from District 44

Although PB got off to a slow start in its first year in Council Member David Greenfield’s district, over 1,500 residents ultimately voted on how to spend $1 million on needs within the district. While the sample size of surveys is quite small in District 44, data collected throughout the year show that PB participants that filled out surveys were representative of the district with a few differences. People of color and middle-incomes were underrepresented throughout the process and English speakers and college graduates were overrepresented. Residents of District 44 were most likely to hear about the neighborhood assemblies from family and friends or the Council Member, while most people heard about the vote through a media source, such as television, newspaper or radio. This change may be due to the weekly radio show Council Member Greenfield used to increase awareness about PB. At the neighborhood assemblies, residents proposed many projects around improvements for parks and improvements to schools and libraries. But when it came time for the vote, residents chose to use the $1 million to make transportation improvements and install security cameras at various places throughout the district.

95 District 45 Queens Council Member Jumaane D. Williams

Brooklyn

Creation of Wi-Fi enabled, computer- equipped college and career center in the library of the Tilden Education Campus

Installation of security cameras at a number of sites around the Flatbush Gardens apartment complex

Completion of field light installation at Tilden Educational Addition of curb extension to Linden Campus, to increase Boulevard between East 52nd Street community usage in and East 54th Street, a high traffic area the surrounding area for seniors and impaired neighbors District 45

Council Member Jumaane D. Williams

Council Member Jumaane D. William’s district in Brooklyn includes the neighborhoods of Flatbush, East Flatbush, Flatlands and parts of District 45 Overall Midwood and Canarsie. The residents of the district identify largely as Black or African American (76%) with 11% identifying as White and 8% Population: 108 as Hispanic or Latino/a.105 The large foreign-born population brings 140,433 a diversity of languages, with 23% of residents speaking languages other than English or Spanish as their primary language.106 45% of District 45 residents have a college education and 44% have incomes Number of PB between $25,000-$75,000.107 From Year 1 to Year 2 of PB, District 45 saw a decrease in Participants: overall participation. The demographics of participants also changed 1,035 with a slight decrease in participation among people that identify as Black or African American and an increase in participation among people who identify as Hispanic or Latino/a and White. This slight shift Neighborhoods: brought PB more in-line with the overall demographics of the district. Participation among low-income residents and youth also increased Flatbush from Year 1 to Year 2. District 45 was the only district that did not have East Flatbush school and library improvements as one the top categories of project proposals. But despite this, the youth budget delegate committee was Flatlands successful in getting education and other youth-focused projects on Parts of Midwood the ballot. and Canarsie

97 Who Participated in District 45?

In District 45, PB Engaged 1,035 people, including: 120 neighborhood assembly participants, 39 Budget Delegates and 940 voters.109 1,035 Demographic information collected at key points during the process points towards several trends in participation, including the following: people (1,553 in Year 1)

Race/Ethnicity

120 • Participants who identified as Black or African American made neighborhood up the biggest share of neighborhood assembly participants assembly (70%) and PB voters (89%) in District 45 and are 76% of the participants overall population of the district. (579 in Year 1) • Participation among Whites decreased as the PB process progressed.

39 Budget Delegates Language and Country of Birth (52 in Year 1) • 52% of PB voters reported that they were born outside of the U.S. compared to 47% of the overall population in the district.

• 8% of neighborhood assembly participants and 9% of PB voters reported that they primarily speak a language other than 940 English at home. voters (1,085 in Year 1)

Gender

• Women were more likely than men to participate in PB. African Americans made up 70% of neighborhood assembly Income

participants and • People with low to middle incomes participated in PB at higher 89% of PB voters rates than those with higher incomes.

(Compared to 76% of the • A higher percentage of people with incomes under $25,000 overall district population) participated in a neighborhood assembly (33%) compared to the overall population of the district (25%).

98 52% of PB voters

Age in Year 2 reported that they were • Young people (ages 15 to 24) were more likely to attend a neighborhood assembly (18%) than vote in PB (11%). born outside of the U.S. • A higher percentage of seniors (ages 65 and over) voted in PB (17%) compared to the overall population of the district (11%). (Compared to 47% of the overall district population)

99 Brooklyn College Students in the 45th How did people hear about participatory District budgeting in District 45? In District 45, the Council Member’s office worked closely with Brooklyn PB participants were most likely to hear about the neighborhood College professor Michael Menser, assemblies and the vote from their Council Member and through their who is the Chair of the Board of the Participatory Budgeting Project, to social networks (i.e. friends and family, word of mouth). engage Brooklyn College students and increase PB participation. Professor Menser used his Social Philosophy How People Learned About How People Learned class to introduce his students to PB. Neighborhood Assemblies About The PB Vote “This is not a consultation,” he told his in District 45 in District 45 students, “…a town hall meeting where someone comes from the city and says, City Council City Council ‘What do you want,’…but you have no 35% 28% Member Member power. Participatory budgeting means you actually have the power to decide Friend, family Friend, family which proposals fit.”110 33% 8% or neighbor or neighbor This partnership was extremely successful in getting students to Community Community 31% 19% participate, many of whom would group group otherwise not have heard about PB. Professor Menser was able to encourage his students to try the I got a phone call 28% Email 7% process and then discuss it with them during class, thus relating it to many facets of their lives. Also, neighborhood Email 25% Flyer/poster 12% assemblies and voting sites were held on campus making it easy for students Word of Flyer/poster 24% 26% to attend. mouth Students at Brooklyn College were so inspired by the PBNYC process that they pushed to have the student government implement its own participatory budgeting process in 2012, the first university to do so in North America. With $12,000 in funding, 5% of the Student Government budget was decided by town hall meetings, volunteer budget delegates, and direct democracy. “Today we show the CUNY Board of Trustees that the students of Brooklyn College will not give in,” said CLAS President Jonathan Douek. “Today, we tell them where we want our money to go and today at Brooklyn College, we create a better tomorrow.”111

100 What projects were proposed in District 45, what made it on to the ballot and what won the vote?

In September and October of 2012, District 45 held neighborhood assemblies that allowed community residents and stakeholders to propose projects to improve their neighborhoods. This process produced 78 project ideas, of which 49 were ultimately deemed eligible 78 for PB. Ideas around improvements for parks, schools and libraries Projects and transportation were the most common types of projects proposed. proposed Following the neighborhood assemblies, participants volunteered to be budget delegates and formed committees to develop specific projects from the ideas proposed at the neighborhood assemblies. During this process, which included months of research, consultation with government agencies and deliberation, the 78 ideas were whittled down to 10 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph 10 below shows the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in Projects listed District 45. on ballot

Projects on District 45 Ballot

Total Number: 10 Total Cost: $3,705,000 4 Projects Average Cost: $370,500 selected by voters

Parks and Recreation: 1

Transportation: 1

Public Safety: 4

Schools and Libraries: 4

101 Winning Projects

940 voters cast a ballot for their top five projects in District 45. Table 9 shows the projects that were selected.

Winning Project Tilden Educational Campus Wi-Fi Table 9 and Career Center 4 Winning Projects: District 45 $350,000 659 out of 950 votes

In order to bring the Tilden Educational Project # of Votes % of Voters Price Campus’ library into the 21st century, Installation of security cameras at a number 697 73% $400,000 the Education Committee proposed of sites around the Flatbush Gardens apartment to create a Wi-Fi enabled, computer complex equipped, College and Career Center. This will benefit the community by Creation of Wi-Fi enabled, computer-equipped 659 69% $350,000 increasing computer literacy among college and career center in the library of the students, and creating college-ready Tilden Education Campus students in District 45. According to Jelanie Deshong of the Education Addition of curb extension to Linden Boulevard 561 59% $360,000 Committee, “71% of kids who graduate between East 52nd Street and East 54th Street, high-school [aren’t] college ready, and a high traffic area for seniors and impaired I think a big part of that is because neighbors they don’t have adequate technology in Completion of field light installation at 548 58% $420,000 their schools… A lot of kids don’t have Tilden Educational Campus, to increase computers at home, so this should be community usage in the surrounding area their home away from home, and this should be their space for them to really Total $1,480,000 further their career, wherever it may be, in politics… in sciences, computer engineering, graphic design, wherever they really want to focus at, this is the place they can come and… say you know what, I can make it to college out of East Flatbush.”112

102 Lessons Learned/ Summary from District 45

Year 2 of PB looked very similar to Year 1 in Council Member Jumaane Williams’ District 45. Similarities included, the majority of participants identified as Black or African American, over half were born outside of the United States, over 60% were women and most were lower- or middle-income. One significant difference was that in Year 1 most people learned about PB from family or friends as opposed to the Council Member office or community group. But in Year 2, most participants heard about both the neighborhood assemblies and the vote from the Council Member office. District 45 increased participation among youth and non-English speakers by forming a youth budget delegate committee and providing translation in Haitian Creole at PB events. The ballot in District 45 featured projects related to public safety, schools and libraries, park improvements and transportation improvements. Although only 3 projects took up the allotted $1 million, Council Member Williams decided to give almost an additional half million dollars to fund the second phase of field lights at the Tilden Educational Campus.

103 PB ballots stacked up prior to the start of the vote. Conclusion

Key Concepts for Successful Participatory Budgets in NYC and Beyond

While the data indicate that PB succeeded in mobilizing large portions of NYC, especially communities that are not traditionally included in the political process, it is helpful to build on past successes and identify areas for improvement. In order to strengthen the PB process in NYC and beyond, we recommend the following:

Planning

1 Expand to new pots of money, including: expense funds, the full City Council budget, the overall City budget and the budgets of city agencies such as New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), NYC Department of Education (DOE), and Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD).

2 Make Steering Committee meetings public so that the community has more opportunity to design and have input in the process. This will build more support and ground the process in the local community.

3 Create a standardized schedule across all of the districts for when neighborhood assemblies, budget delegate meetings and the vote take place.

4 Cooperate and share information between districts, especially between Council Member’s offices, and between districts and the citywide process, such as documents and plans for outreach, translation capabilities and meeting schedules.

5 Include more education throughout the process to give participants a better understanding of the history of PB, how the city budget works and how PB reorganizes spending priorities to make the budget more inclusive and representative of New Yorkers’ needs and interests.

105 Outreach

1 Increase publicity by using resources such as local media, editorial pages, and radio, TV, subway and bus ads. Other channels that should be used to get the word out include social media, community boards, schools and community groups.

2 Reach out to populations that usually are not included in the political process and other marginalized populations (e.g. low- income, youth, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, non-English speakers). This outreach should include partnering with and resourcing community groups that already work with these populations, door-knocking, social media and flyering.

3 Ensure that outreach materials are translated and provide interpretation at meetings and events into the variety of languages represented in the districts.

4 Create a local outreach committee for each district that will work during the budget delegate phase to help the Council Members’ offices with the Get Out the Vote campaigns to increase participation. There could be a sign-up sheet at neighborhood assemblies similar to the one for budget delegates.

Neighborhood Assemblies

1 Each district should hold a minimum of four neighborhood assemblies targeted at traditionally underrepresented communities (e.g. youth, Spanish speakers). Districts that held targeted neighborhood assemblies were able to engage more community members from the targeted groups.

2 Offer a varied schedule of when neighborhood assemblies are held that allows all members of the community to attend.

3 Reformat the opening presentation to be more engaging, including information about projects from past years and clearer instructions about what types of projects are eligible and the information that should be included when a project is proposed.

4 Ensure more time for small group discussion to collect project proposals and develop broad thoughts into specific ideas, which will help the budget delegates when further developing projects for the ballot.

5 Provide opportunities to submit project ideas outside of neighborhood assemblies. E-mail, civic group meetings, community events, mail-in forms, parks and other public events

106 and spaces should be used in addition to neighborhood assemblies to collect project proposals.

Budget Delegate Meetings

1 Require training for all budget delegate committee facilitators and have facilitators sign a MOU outlining their responsibilities.

2 Provide a stipend for budget delegate committees to buy food, provide childcare and make metrocards available.

3 Create a standardized procedure for assessing project proposals around need of community, populations affected and feasibility.

4 Get feedback from the public throughout the project development process to ensure that affected populations have input and are able to learn about the different projects that are being proposed for their communities.

5 Develop guidelines and best practices for working with city agencies to ensure that the city agencies do not propose their own project ideas or take control of the process.

6 Facilitate better communication between budget delegate committees so that all neighborhoods are being considered and that there are not multiple projects for a single location on the ballot.

7 Shorten the budget delegate phase by holding meetings more frequently and assigning clearer tasks for in-between meetings. This would help to increase the number of budget delegates who participate through the whole process.

The Vote

1 Require a standardized system of voter and ballot tracking across the different districts.

2 Have training and t-shirts for volunteers to help voters identify volunteers more easily and so the volunteers follow the standardized procedures and are able to assist with issues that may arise.

3 Rules for voting should be posted, especially rules around campaigning for projects, to ensure that no campaigning for projects occurs at the voting locations.

107 4 Hold at least two mobile voting sites that engage traditionally disenfranchised populations.

5 Extend voting hours and days at the Council Member offices to allow everyone a chance to vote, especially people with nontraditional schedules.

6 Put proposals that received votes from over 25% of voters on the ballot for next year.

7 Invalidate ballots with less than 5 votes.

Implementation & Monitoring

1 Provide more information about the status of funded projects.

2 Provide more information about projects that were implemented outside of the PB vote.

3 Involve District Committees more actively in monitoring of project implementation.

Funding

1 Designate City and City Council funds for implementation of PB, to create more capacity to implement the recommendations above.

108 109

Appendix

111 Research Limitations

There are several things to note about the secondary data used throughout the report, particularly the Voter Activation Network (VAN) and Catalist data used to estimate voter demographics in local NYC elections. The 2009 local voter data represents people that actually showed up and signed in at a voting location on Election Day in November 2009 in New York City’s 8th,19th, 23rd, 32nd,33rd, 39th, 44th and 45th city council districts. The city-wide averages used in this report are based on a weighted average of those eight districts. Data is not available for which election contests, if any, the person actually voted for after signing in. 2009 included races for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president and city council. There were no elections for state or federal offices. Gender and age data is self-reported on voter registration sheets. Ethnicity and race data is based on models that take into account many factors including the person’s census block, name and various consumer data. Income and years of education are represented by the median within a person’s 2000 census block. This method tends to undercount high-income voters and low-income voters and over-count middle-income voters. This effect is mitigated slightly in New York City since census blocks are so small (usually they correspond to a city block). Despite the data’s limitations this is the only comparative data available for local elections in such a specific geographic area. Additionally, PB was only implemented in part of District 32. However, the 2009 voter data for District 32 is for the entire district (this is the smallest geographic area available). This makes comparisons between the datasets difficult. However, both datasets were included in this report to compare PB voters with voters in typical local elections.

112 Citywide Demographics Census Neighborhood Difference Budget PB Diff. PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Neighborhood Delegates Voters Voters 2009 Local between N=924 Assemblies N=277 N=7300 Years Elections PB & 2009 Years 1 & 2 1 & 2 Voters

Gender Female 51% 66% +2% 60% 62% +0% 55% +7% NA: N=833 BD: N=272 Male 49% 34% -2% 39% 38% +0% 40% -6% Voters: N=7182 Other N/A 0% -1% 1% 0% +0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 15% 7% +4% 8% 8% +6% 7% +1% NA: N=808 BD: N=257 Black 17% 30% -8% 27% 12% -8% 17% -5% Voters: N=6704 Latino/a 18% 18% +1% 12% 14% +0% 14% +0%

White 48% 46% +5% 49% 64% -2% 46% +18%

Other 3% 5% +0% 6% 4% +2% 1% +3%

Highest Level Some High School 17% 5% +0% 6% 4% -2% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=462 BD: N=207 H.S. Diploma 25% 14% +2% 12% 12% -5% N/A N/A Voters: N=5679 or GED Associate/ 6% 4% -2% 3% 1% -6% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 15% 15% -1% 16% 12% -5% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 22% 26% -1% 27% 34% +11% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 15% 36% +2% 36% 37% +6% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 9% 13% +3% 10% 6% +0% 1% +5% NA: N=692 BD: N=245 $10,000-$14,999 6% 10% +4% 6% 5% +0% 5% +0% Voters: N=6381 $15,000-$24,999 10% 8% +0% 7% 5% -1% 8% -3%

$25,000-$34,999 9% 9% +0% 8% 7% -2% 15% -8%

$35,000-$49,999 12% 11% -2% 13% 9% -2% 25% -16%

$50,000-$74,999 16% 15% -3% 11% 12% -3% 39% -27%

$75,000-$99,999 12% 12% +1% 16% 13% -2% 6% +7%

$100,000-$149,000 14% 13% -3% 17% 19% +2% 1% +18%

$150,000 or more 12% 9% -1% 14% 25% +9% 0% +25%

Age 14 years or under 20% 3% -2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=586 BD: N=219 15 to 19 years 6% 12% +6% 1% 3% +1% N/A N/A Voters: N=6096 20 to 24 years 7% 5% +2% 2% 2% -1% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 17% 12% +1% 12% 14% +2% 11% +3%

35 to 44 years 14% 16% -1% 20% 27% +5% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 13% 18% -2% 18% 21% +0% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 11% 15% -4% 22% 16% -3% N/A N/A

65+ years 12% 20% +0% 26% 19% -3% 30% -11%

Language English 50% 94% +3% 86% +6% N/A N/A NA: N=841 BD: N=268 Spanish 16% 8% +4% 6% -1% N/A N/A Voters: N=6928 Other 35% 3% -3% 4% +0% N/A N/A

113 8th District Demographics Census Neighborhood Difference Budget PB Diff. PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Neighborhood Delegates Voters Voters 2009 Local between N=231 Assemblies N=62 N=1066 Years Elections PB & 2009 Years 1 & 2 1 & 2 Voters

Gender Female 53% 71% +2% 67% 68% +2% 60% +8% NA: N=201 BD: N=60 Male 47% 29% -2% 32% 32% -2% 40% -8% Voters: N=1048 Other N/A 1% +0% 2% 0% +0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 6% 2% -1% 5% 3% +1% 2% +1% NA: N=199 BD: N=59 Black 23% 50% +9% 42% 31% -3% 31% +0% Voters: N=937 Latino/a 50% 39% -6% 34% 54% +4% 39% +15%

White 19% 12% -2% 17% 12% -5% 22% -10%

Other 2% 7% +2% 7% 5% +3% 0% +5%

Highest Level Some High School 16% 8% -2% 8% 18% +2% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=97 BD: N=44 H.S. Diploma 21% 30% +10% 25% 27% +3% N/A N/A Voters: N=700 or GED Associate/ 5% 6% -2% 2% 4% -4% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 13% 20% +2% 27% 20% -1% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 17% 21% -2% 20% 21% +6% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 15% 16% -5% 18% 12% -4% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 18% 28% +5% 19% 21% -1% 4% +17% NA: N=177 BD: N=53 $10,000-$14,999 9% 18% +4% 17% 20% +5% 24% -4% Voters: N=912 $15,000-$24,999 13% 11% -2% 9% 13% +1% 14% -1%

$25,000-$34,999 9% 10% -3% 19% 14% +2% 25% -11%

$35,000-$49,999 12% 11% -2% 11% 11% -4% 11% +0%

$50,000-$74,999 13% 9% -3% 6% 9% -1% 20% -9%

$75,000-$99,999 8% 6% -1% 8% 3% -3% 1% +2%

$100,000-$149,000 8% 5% +2% 6% 6% +1% 1% +5%

$150,000 or more 9% 3% +0% 6% 3% +0% 0% +3%

Age 14 years or under 20% 7% -7% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=149 BD: N=49 15 to 19 years 7% 11% -1% 2% 7% +3% N/A N/A Voters: N=857 20 to 24 years 8% 10% +8% 6% 5% -1% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 19% 9% -3% 8% 17% +3% 11% +6%

35 to 44 years 14% 11% +4% 22% 21% +5% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 12% 14% -4% 20% 16% -5% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 10% 13% -2% 20% 15% -4% N/A N/A

65+ years 11% 25% +5% 20% 19% -2% 31% -12%

Language English 47% 87% +8% 75% 62% -22% N/A N/A NA: N=841 BD: N=59 Spanish 42% 19% +7% 9% 30% +17% N/A N/A Voters: N=6928 Other 11% 2% +2% 17% 8% +5% N/A N/A

114 19th District Demographics Census Neighborhood Budget PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Delegates Voters 2009 Local between N=59 N=29 N=682 Elections PB & 2009 Voters

Gender Female 52% 75% 57% 63% 54% +9% NA: N=56 BD: N=28 Male 48% 25% 36% 37% 46% -9% Voters: N=670 Other N/A 0% 7% 0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 28% 31% 8% 13% 16% -3% NA: N=52 BD: N=26 Black 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% -1% Voters: N=608 Latino/a 15% 10% 8% 5% 9% -4%

White 53% 64% 69% 80% 65% +15%

Other 2% 0% 15% 2% 1% +2%

Highest Level Some High School 13% 0% 3% 2% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=44 BD: N=18 H.S. Diploma 26% 16% 3% 17% N/A N/A Voters: N=541 or GED Associate/ 6% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 16% 11% 24% 16% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 24% 34% 31% 35% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 15% 36% 38% 30% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 4% 2% 4% 1% 0% +1% NA: N=44 BD: N=25 $10,000-$14,999 3% 2% 0% 3% 0% +3% Voters: N=563 $15,000-$24,999 8% 5% 4% 5% 0% +5%

$25,000-$34,999 8% 11% 0% 4% 1% +3%

$35,000-$49,999 11% 18% 8% 11% 24% -13%

$50,000-$74,999 16% 14% 20% 15% 65% -50%

$75,000-$99,999 15% 11% 20% 17% 9% +8%

$100,000-$149,000 19% 25% 12% 23% 1% +22%

$150,000 or more 16% 11% 32% 23% 0% +23%

Age 14 years or under 17% 2% N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=47 BD: N=18 15 to 19 years 6% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A Voters: N=559 20 to 24 years 6% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 13% 13% 6% 5% 6% -1%

35 to 44 years 14% 28% 22% 17% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 15% 15% 17% 18% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 13% 15% 6% 19% N/A N/A

65+ years 17% 23% 50% 88% 39% +0%

Language English 46% 93% 97% 86% N/A N/A NA: N=54 BD: N=29 Spanish 13% 0% 3% 2% N/A N/A Voters: N=661 Other 42% 9% 0% 5% N/A N/A

115 23rd District Demographics Census Neighborhood Budget PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Delegates Voters 2009 Local between N=108 N=52 N=614 Elections PB & 2009 Voters

Gender Female 49% 50% 48% 64% 54% +10% NA: N=95 BD: N=52 Male 51% 51% 52% 36% 46% -10% Voters: N=854 Other N/A 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 37% 15% 21% 22% 15% +7% NA: N=89 BD: N=48 Black 12% 10% 15% 8% 12% -4% Voters: N=799 Latino/a 14% 8% 2% 6% 11% -5%

White 31% 61% 58% 61% 47% +14%

Other 6% 8% 6% 4% 1% +3%

Highest Level Some High School 11% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=57 BD: N=38 H.S. Diploma 26% 12% 10% 13% N/A N/A Voters: N=666 or GED Associate/ 7% 0% 4% 1% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 16% 16% 18% 18% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 25% 28% 29% 32% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 15% 42% 39% 34% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 4% 5% 4% 3% 1% +2% NA: N=74 BD: N=48 $10,000-$14,999 3% 4% 2% 3% 0% +3% Voters: N=719 $15,000-$24,999 8% 8% 8% 6% 0% +6%

$25,000-$34,999 9% 4% 2% 6% 4% +2%

$35,000-$49,999 10% 10% 10% 13% 18% -5%

$50,000-$74,999 18% 20% 19% 19% 68% -49%

$75,000-$99,999 15% 14% 19% 16% 7% +9%

$100,000-$149,000 20% 22% 25% 19% 2% +17%

$150,000 or more 13% 14% 10% 15% 0% +15%

Age 14 years or under 16% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=61 BD: N=39 15 to 19 years 6% 5% 0% 5% N/A N/A Voters: N=727 20 to 24 years 6% 0% 0% 2% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 14% 3% 5% 5% 7% -2%

35 to 44 years 14% 10% 3% 13% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 16% 21% 23% 18% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 13% 26% 26% 22% N/A N/A

65+ years 15% 34% 44% 36% 37% -1%

Language English 48% 97% 96% 89% N/A N/A NA: N=94 BD: N=48 Spanish 12% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A Voters: N=797 Other 41% 7% 4% 11% N/A N/A

116 32nd District Demographics Census Neighborhood Difference Budget PB Diff. PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Neighborhood Delegates Voters Voters 2009 Local between N=33 Assemblies N=4 N=200 Years Elections PB & 2009 Years 1 & 2 1 & 2 Voters

Gender Female 52% 73% +13% 75% 62% +0% 54% +8% NA: N=33 BD: N=4 Male 48% 27% -13% 25% 38% +1% 46% -7% Voters: N=195 Other N/A 0% +0% 0% 0% +0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 3% 0% +0% 0% 0% +0% 6% -6% NA: N=31 Voters: N=180 Black 14% 10% +5% 0% 13% +10% 6% +7% Latino/a 14% 13% +8% 0% 12% +8% 18% -6%

White 68% 74% -15% 100% 68% -21% 61% +7%

Other 2% 0% -1% 0% 7% +3% 1% +6%

Highest Level Some High School 10% 6% +5% 0% 6% +4% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=17 BD: N=4 H.S. Diploma 30% 18% -1% 0% 36% +17% N/A N/A Voters: N=162 or GED Associate/ 5% 0% -10% 0% 1% -8% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 20% 18% -2% 0% 22% -1% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 20% 35% +9% 100% 28% +6% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 13% 24% -1% 0% 8% -15% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 8% 0% +0% 0% 4% +2% 0% +4% NA: N=26 BD: N=4 $10,000-$14,999 5% 12% +12% 0% 3% +0% 0% +3% Voters: N=181 $15,000-$24,999 8% 4% -9% 0% 7% +3% 0% +7%

$25,000-$34,999 10% 4% +2% 50% 31% +23% 10% +21%

$35,000-$49,999 13% 8% -3% 25% 21% +11% 42% -21%

$50,000-$74,999 17% 23% +3% 0% 11% -7% 40% -39%

$75,000-$99,999 15% 31% +17% 25% 7% -12% 6% +1%

$100,000-$149,000 16% 8% -15% 0% 14% -6% 1% +13%

$150,000 or more 10% 12% -5% 0% 2% -14% 0% +2%

Age 14 years or under 18% 0% -1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=19 BD: N=4 15 to 19 years 7% 11% +11% 0% 2% +2% N/A N/A Voters: N=171 20 to 24 years 5% 0% +0% 0% 2% +0% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 10% 0% -5% 0% 4% -5% 8% -4%

35 to 44 years 15% 26% +9% 50% 15% -5% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 16% 37% +17% 0% 38% +17% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 13% 21% -9% 0% 27% +8% N/A N/A

65+ years 17% 5% -22% 50% 13% -17% 32% -19%

Language English 83% 100% +2% 75% 88% -6% N/A N/A NA: N=33 BD: N=4 Spanish 8% 3% +3% 0% 4% -1% N/A N/A Voters: N=189 Other 9% 0% -2% 25% 2% -1% N/A N/A

117 33rd District Demographics Census Neighborhood Budget PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Delegates Voters 2009 Local between N=197 N=56 N=1945 Elections PB & 2009 Voters

Gender Female 50% 71% 71% 62% 52% +10% NA: N=175 BD: N=50 Male 50% 29% 29% 38% 48% -10% Voters: N=1908 Other N/A 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 5% 4% 4% 6% 3% +3% NA: N=172 BD: N=51 Black 6% 37% 31% 12% 11% +1% Voters: N=1783 Latino/a 14% 20% 10% 12% 14% -2%

White 74% 41% 53% 69% 52% +17%

Other 2% 2% 4% 3% 0% +3%

Highest Level Some High School 13% 6% 8% 4% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=95 BD: N=41 H.S. Diploma 16% 13% 15% 11% N/A N/A Voters: N=1471 or GED Associate/ 5% 4% 2% 1% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 11% 14% 9% 10% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 29% 24% 26% 39% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 25% 39% 40% 36% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 9% 16% 17% 6% 1% +5% NA: N=147 BD: N=46 $10,000-$14,999 6% 10% 2% 5% 12% -7% Voters: N=1676 $15,000-$24,999 8% 10% 4% 4% 11% -7%

$25,000-$34,999 7% 16% 11% 6% 9% -3%

$35,000-$49,999 10% 9% 13% 8% 17% -9%

$50,000-$74,999 14% 10% 9% 12% 36% -24%

$75,000-$99,999 11% 11% 17% 11% 11% +0%

$100,000-$149,000 14% 14% 9% 17% 3% +14%

$150,000 or more 21% 5% 17% 32% 1% +31%

Age 14 years or under 21% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=126 BD: N=43 15 to 19 years 5% 23% 0% 1% N/A N/A Voters: N=1551 20 to 24 years 7% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 23% 17% 7% 20% 20% 0%

35 to 44 years 15% 15% 16% 33% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 11% 13% 12% 19% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 9% 15% 33% 13% N/A N/A

65+ years 8% 16% 33% 14% 20% -6%

Language English 53% 94% 84% 87% N/A N/A NA: N=178 BD: N=55 Spanish 14% 10% 9% 4% N/A N/A Voters: N=1825 Other 33% 3% 8% 4% N/A N/A

118 39th District Demographics Census Neighborhood Difference Budget PB Diff. PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Neighborhood Delegates Voters Voters 2009 Local between N=161 Assemblies N=51 N=2281 Years Elections PB & 2009 Years 1 & 2 1 & 2 Voters

Gender Female 51% 59% -6% 46% 60% +0% 53% +7% NA: N=152 BD: N=50 Male 49% 41% +6% 54% 40% +0% 47% -7% Voters: N=2255 Other N/A 0% +0% 0% 0% +0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 13% 5% -2% 6% 6% +1% 4% +2% NA: N=150 BD: N=49 Black 4% 5% +1% 8% 2% -1% 8% -6% Voters: N=2165 Latino/a 14% 5% -1% 8% 4% -2% 11% -7%

White 66% 81% +0% 78% 86% -1% 55% +31%

Other 3% 6% +0% 4% 3% -2% 0% +3%

Highest Level Some High School 8% 1% -1% 0% 1% +0% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=88 BD: N=45 H.S. Diploma 22% 1% -4% 2% 3% -1% N/A N/A Voters: N=1978 or GED Associate/ 5% 2% +0% 2% 1% +0% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 13% 5% -1% 10% 6% +0% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 25% 25% -8% 28% 37% +7% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 19% 66% +13% 59% 53% -5% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 8% 2% +0% 0% 2% +1% 0% +2% NA: N=121 BD: N=47 $10,000-$14,999 6% 1% -1% 6% 1% +0% 0% +1% Voters: N=2112 $15,000-$24,999 10% 3% -1% 4% 2% +0% 13% -11%

$25,000-$34,999 8% 6% +1% 2% 3% -1% 18% -15%

$35,000-$49,999 12% 11% +1% 13% 6% +0% 23% -17%

$50,000-$74,999 15% 17% -4% 9% 10% -4% 37% -27%

$75,000-$99,999 12% 18% +4% 17% 17% +1% 8% +0%

$100,000-$149,000 15% 21% -5% 32% 25% -3% 0% +25%

$150,000 or more 15% 22% +4% 17% 36% +6% 0% +36%

Age 14 years or under 22% 2% +2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=107 BD: N=46 15 to 19 years 6% 10% +9% 0% 1% +1% N/A N/A Voters: N=2047 20 to 24 years 6% 4% +3% 2% 1% +0% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 19% 18% +4% 24% 14% -1% 17% -3%

35 to 44 years 15% 19% -6% 35% 35% +4% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 13% 22% +0% 20% 24% +1% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 9% 14% -7% 15% 14% -4% N/A N/A

65+ years 10% 12% -4% 4% 11% -1% 19% -8%

Language English 49% 99% +3% 96% 94% +1% N/A N/A NA: N=153 BD: N=50 Spanish 13% 2% +2% 0% 1% -3% N/A N/A Voters: N=2216 Other 38% 9% -2% 4% 3% -2% N/A N/A

119 44th District Demographics Census Neighborhood Budget PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Delegates Voters 2009 Local between N=44 N=1 N=37 Elections PB & 2009 Voters

Gender Female 50% 70% 100% 50% 52% -2% NA: N=40 BD: N=1 Male 50% 30% 0% 50% 48% +2% Voters: N=36 Other N/A 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 17% 8% N/A 0% 7% -7% NA: N=38 BD: N=0 Black 1% 3% N/A 0% 1% -1% Voters: N=31 Latino/a 10% 3% N/A 3% 6% -3%

White 71% 76% N/A 94% 43% +51%

Other 1% 8% N/A 7% 1% +6%

Highest Level Some High School 24% 5% 0% 13% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=19 BD: N=1 H.S. Diploma 32% 5% 0% 35% N/A N/A Voters: N=23 or GED Associate/ 6% 16% 0% 0% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 13% 16% 0% 9% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 16% 37% 100% 22% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 10% 21% 0% 22% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 10% 10% 0% 8% 0% +8% NA: N=31 BD: N=1 $10,000-$14,999 8% 0% 0% 4% 1% +3% Voters: N=26 $15,000-$24,999 14% 10% 0% 23% 25% -2%

$25,000-$34,999 12% 13% 0% 0% 39% -39%

$35,000-$49,999 13% 19% 0% 8% 28% -20%

$50,000-$74,999 18% 13% 0% 15% 5% +10%

$75,000-$99,999 10% 7% 0% 8% 0% +8%

$100,000-$149,000 10% 16% 100% 23% 1% +22%

$150,000 or more 6% 13% 0% 12% 0% +12%

Age 14 years or under 25% 0% N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=23 BD: N=1 15 to 19 years 8% 4% 0% 7% N/A N/A Voters: N=28 20 to 24 years 8% 9% 0% 11% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 14% 4% 0% 29% 15% +14%

35 to 44 years 11% 30% 100% 11% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 11% 17% 0% 11% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 10% 13% 0% 14% N/A N/A

65+ years 13% 22% 0% 18% 29% -11%

Language English 32% 98% 100% 79% N/A N/A NA: N=41 BD: N=1 Spanish 9% 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A Voters: N=31 Other 59% 17% 0% 21% N/A N/A

120 45th District Demographics Census Neighborhood Difference Budget PB Diff. PB Voters in Difference Data Assemblies Neighborhood Delegates Voters Voters 2009 Local between N=91 Assemblies N=22 N=222 Years Elections PB & 2009 Years 1 & 2 1 & 2 Voters

Gender Female 50% 64% +3% 68% 63% -1% 60% +3% NA: N=81 BD: N=22 Male 50% 36% -3% 32% 37% +1% 40% -3% Voters: N=218 Other N/A 0% +0% 0% 0% +0% N/A N/A

Race/Ethnicity Asian 3% 1% +0% 0% 1% +0% 1% +0% NA: N=77 BD: N=20 Black 76% 69% -14% 90% 89% +2% 79% +10% Voters: N=201 Latino/a 8% 13% +9% 0% 4% -2% 4% +0%

White 11% 17% +10% 10% 4% -3% 11% -7%

Other 2% 9% +3% 0% 6% 0% 1% +5%

Highest Level Some High School 10% 12% +5% 13% 11% +2% N/A N/A of Education or less NA: N=43 BD: N=16 H.S. Diploma 32% 14% +3% 19% 14% -7% N/A N/A Voters: N=138 or GED Associate/ 9% 7% +0% 13% 4% -7% N/A N/A Vocational Degree

Some College 20% 23% +0% 6% 21% +2% N/A N/A

Bachelor’s Degree 16% 28% +3% 25% 33% +13% N/A N/A

Graduate Degree 8% 16% -12% 25% 18% -1% N/A N/A

Income Less than $10,000 9% 11% +0% 10% 9% +1% 0% +9% NA: N=72 BD: N=21 $10,000-$14,999 5% 15% +11% 5% 7% +2% 2% +5% Voters: N=192 $15,000-$24,999 11% 7% +2% 14% 12% +4% 4% +8%

$25,000-$34,999 11% 4% -8% 5% 12% -2% 19% -7%

$35,000-$49,999 14% 15% -1% 24% 22% +4% 46% -24%

$50,000-$74,999 19% 26% +5% 10% 21% +1% 28% -7%

$75,000-$99,999 12% 11% -1% 14% 7% -7% 1% +6%

$100,000-$149,000 13% 6% -8% 14% 8% +2% 0% +8%

$150,000 or more 7% 4% -2% 5% 3% -4% 0% +3%

Age 14 years or under 21% 0% -2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NA: N=54 BD: N=19 15 to 19 years 7% 11% +4% 11% 6% +2% N/A N/A Voters: N=156 20 to 24 years 6% 7% +2% 0% 5% +1% N/A N/A

25 to 34 years 16% 15% +4% 26% 21% +7% 10% +11%

35 to 44 years 13% 13% -4% 11% 18% +4% N/A N/A

45 to 54 years 15% 24% +3% 16% 17% -4% N/A N/A

55 to 64 years 11% 11% -6% 26% 15% -6% N/A N/A

65+ years 11% 19% -2% 11% 17% -6% 29% -12%

Language English 70% 99% +5% 91% 91% -2% N/A N/A NA: N=82 BD: N=22 Spanish 7% 2% +2% 0% 2% -4% N/A N/A Voters: N=215 Other 23% 7% -5% 10% 6% -1% N/A N/A

121

Endnotes

1 . “About the City Council: Budget Process and Calendar.” The New York City Council. http://council.nyc.gov/html/about/budget.shtml 2. “City Council Changes as Adopted: Schedules A and B to the Fiscal Year 2014 Expense and Contract Budget Resolutions.” The New York City Council, http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/ downloads/pdf/adopt13_expreso.pdf 3. “Fiscal Year 2014 Changes to the Executive Capital Budget Adopted by the City Council.” The New York City Council, http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/downloads/pdf/ adopt13_capreso.pdf 4. Soria, Chester. “The Guide to City Pork 2013.” Gotham Gazette, July 2, 2013. http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/government/4298-the-guide-to-city-pork-2013 5. “Supporting Detail for Fiscal Year 2014: Changes to the Executive Capital Budget Adopted by the City Council Pursuant to Section 254 of the City Charter.” The New York City Council. http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/downloads/pdf/adopt13_capresowork.pdf 6. “American Community Survey 2005-2009-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 7. Ibid. 8. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 9. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 10. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 11. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 12. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 13. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 14. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 15. “American Community Survey 2005-2009-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 16. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 17. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 18. “American Community Survey 2005-2009-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 19. Ibid. 20. Beyer, Gregory. “Borough Park, Brooklyn.” The New York Times, October 8, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/realestate/10living.html?pagewanted=all 21. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 22. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 23. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 24. “American Community Survey 2005-2009-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 25. Ibid. 123 26. Wilkins, Jeff. “Keeping the Dream Alive: Immigrant Biz Owners Find Success in Niche Markets.” New York Daily News. January 26, 2010. http://www.nydailynews.com/new- york/bronx/keeping-dream-alive-immigrant-biz-owners-find-success-niche-markets- article-1.462915 27, Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 28. W. Perez et al. “Civic Engagement Patterns of Undocumented Mexican Students, JHHE 9 (2010): 3 29. J. Rogers, “Civic Lessons: Public Schools and the Civic Development of Undocumented Students and Parents,” Paper prepared for: “The Education of All of Our Children: The 25th Anniversary of Plyer v. Doe” at A Symposium at the Warren Institute, University of California, Berkeley. 30. Marked sometimes miss, rarely vote or never vote on the survey. 31. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 31. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 33. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 34. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 35. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 36. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 37. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 38. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 39. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 40. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 41. Roberts, Sam. “Fewer Illegal Immigrants in New York, Study Finds.” The New York Times, February 15, 2013. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/immigration/ 42. W. Perez et al. “Civic Engagement Patterns of Undocumented Mexican Students, JHHE 9 (2010): 3 43. G.K. Ward & M. Marable, “Toward a New Civic Leadership: The Africana Criminal Justice Project. SJ 20 (2003): 2 44. K.J. Fox, “Second Chances: A Comparison of Civic Engagement in Offender Reentry Programs. CJR 35 (2010) 45. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 46. “American Community Survey 2006-2010-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 47. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 48. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 49. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 50. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 51. Formerly Incarcerated interview #4 52. Andrew King, phone interview by Patrick Convey, August 2, 2013, New York, transcript, Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center, New York, New York. 53. “Solar Powered Greenhouse,” by Caron Atlas (3/22/12). Video: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mTITEwPUdzE 54. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 55. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 56. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 57. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 58. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 59. Student interview #7 60. Student interview #14 [i] Fitzgerald, Jim. “Malcolm Smith Among Six NY Politicians to Plead Not Guilty on Corruption, Bribery Charges.” Huffington Post. April 23, 2013. [ii] Jorgensen, Jillian. “Speaker Quinn blasts Queens Councilman Halloran’s plan to spend discretionary money.” Staten Island Advance. April 9, 2013. [iii] Letter from District 19 Budget Delegates to Christine Quinn and Leroy Comrie, April 11, 2013. [iv] Kozikowska, Natalia. “Future of Programs Murky.” Queens Tribune. April 12, 2013. [v] Chan, Melissa. “Halloran district to get funding for all participatory budgeting items.” [vi] Kozikowska, Natalia. “Future of Programs Murky.” Queens Tribune. April 12, 2013. 61. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml

124 62. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 63. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 64. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 65. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 66. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 67. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 68. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 69. “American Community Survey 2007-20011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 70. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 71. Queens County Farm Museum, “Learn about the farm.” Website: http://www.queensfarm.org/ about.html 72. Queens County Farm Museum, “Buy farm products.” Website: http://www.queensfarm.org/ products.html 73. Queens County Farm Museum, “Participate in our programs: children’s programs.” http://www.queensfarm.org/programs-children.html 74. “Roof repair, Queens County Farm Museum,” by Caron Atlas (3/25/13). Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHcgSAgsoPQ 75. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 76. “American Community Survey 2005-2009-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 77. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 78. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 79. Gibbs, Linda and Caswell Holloway. “Hurricane Sandy After Action: Report and Recommendations to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.” May 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/ recovery/downloads/pdf/sandy_aar_5.2.13.pdf 80. Gibbs, Linda and Caswell Holloway. “Hurricane Sandy After Action: Report and Recommendations to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.” May 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/ recovery/downloads/pdf/sandy_aar_5.2.13.pdf 81. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 82. “American Community Survey 2007-20011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 83. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 84. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 85. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election 86. Furfaro, D., (4/10/13). “Participatory budget goes to the dogs,” in The Brooklyn Paper. Website: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/36/15/dtg_eastriverstateparkdogrun_ 2013_04_12_bk.html 87. “East River State Park Dog Run,” by Caron Atlas (3/27/13). Video: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=9VBuGBp8IKQ 88. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 89. Mooney, Jake. “Name From London, People From Everywhere.” The New York Times, May 25, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/realestate/25livi.html? pagewanted=all 90. “American Community Survey 2006-2010-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 91. “American Community Survey 2005-2009-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 92. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 93. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 94. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 95. Macedo, S., Y. M. Alex-Assensoh, J. M. Berry, M. Brintnall, D. E. Campbell, L. R. Fraga, A. Fung, W. A. Galston, C. F. Karpowitz and M. Levi (2005). 96. “Carroll Gardens/Windsor Terrace Library Computers,” by Caron Atlas (3/25/13). Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWAxT7ygncg

125 97. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 98. “American Community Survey 2007-20011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 99. “American Community Survey 2007-20011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 100. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 101. Voter Activation Network, The New York State Engagement Table, 2009 City Council Election. 102. Katinas, P. (4/16/13). “How to spend city money? Residents vote for countdown clocks,” in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Website: http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/how-spend-city- money-residents-vote-countdown-clocks-2013-04-16-174000 103. Ibid. 104. Perlman, M., (9/5/12). “The boulevard of death needs new life,” in The Queens Ledger. Website: http://www.queensledger.com/view/full_story/20036545/article-The-Boulevard-of- Death-Needs-New-Life?instance=most_viewed 105. “American Community Survey 2005-2009-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 106. “American Community Survey 2006-2010-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 107. “American Community Survey 2005-2009-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml 108. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder.http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/ pages/index.xhtml 109. Estimate does not include second-round Neighborhood Assembly; includes some duplicates (people who attended Neighborhood Assembly and were also a budget delegate and voted) and includes some online participation but not a full count of all those who participated online. 110. Byam, K., (3/11/12). “BC makes history with its 2ND student government town hall meeting,” in The Brooklyn College Kingsman. Website: http://thekingsmanpaper.com/2012/03/bc- makes-history-with-its-2nd-student-government-town-hall-meeting/ 111. Ibid. 112. “B45_Education_Tech_Upgrade,” by Caron Atlas (3/29/13). Video: http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=JQHiyDVqWbY

126 2012-13 PBNYC Steering Committee

Resource Organizations and Professors Community Voices Heard The Participatory Budgeting Project Arts & Democracy Project Center for Urban Pedagogy Community Development Project of the Urban Justice Center Demos Fifth Avenue Committee Flatbush Development Corporation Getting Out & Staying Out New York Civic New York Immigration Coalition New Yorkers for Parks Organizing Brooklyn Communities People’s Production House Pratt Center for Community Development Pratt Institute Programs for Sustainable Planning & Development Project for Public Spaces Right to the City Alliance Mimi Abramovitz, CUNY, Hunter College Andreas Hernandez, Marymount Manhattan College Celina Su, CUNY, Brooklyn College

District Representatives Mel Wymore, District 8 David L Giordano, Children’s Aid Society, District 8 Henry Euler, District 19 Rhea O’Gorman, District 19 Mary Boyd-Foy, District 23 Eric Contreras, District 23 John Cori, District 32 Beverly Corbin, Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE), District 33 Mamnun Haq, District 39 Joni Kletter, District 39 Joan Bakiriddin, District 45 Hazel Martinez, District 45

City Council Members Council Member David G. Greenfield, District 44 Council Member Dan J. Halloran, District 19 Council Member Brad Lander, District 39 Council Member Stephen Levin, District 33 Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito, District 8 Council Member Eric Ulrich, District 32 Council Member Mark S. Weprin, District 23 Council Member Jumaane D. Williams, District 45 About the Authors

The Community Development Project (CDP) at the Urban Justice Center strengthens the impact of grassroots organizations in New York City’s low-income and other excluded communities. We partner with community organizations to win legal cases, publish community- driven reports, assist with the formation of new organizations and cooperatives, and provide technical and transactional assistance. CDP’s Research and Policy Initiative partners with and provides strategic support to grassroots community organizations to build the power of their organizing and advocacy work.

For more information about CDP please visit: www.cdp-ny.org www.researchfororganizing.org

About the Designers

MTWTF is a graphic design studio specializing in publications, exhibitions, environmental graphics, and interactive work with clients in other disciplines such as art, architecture, and urban planning.