Participatory Budgeting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
feature Participatory budgeting Introduction Participatory budgeting is a process and prac- Participatory budgeting involves engaging citizens tice of engaging citizens in the allocation of public money. It started in Brazil in the 1980s, in a community-based approach to the allocation of and has since become a global movement. public money. In this article, Rosie Ilett and Richard Described as ‘a set of procedures for the democratization of demand-making’,1 participa- Brunner describe a recent participatory budgeting tory budgeting aims to localise decision mak- exercise in Glasgow, in which residents in an East ing, recognising the exclusion that many feel from mainstream political and administrative End neighbourhood voted on how to spend systems. As Oxfam says:2 £205,000 of council funds to reduce child poverty. [Participatory budgeting] gives local people more than just a voice; it gives them real Developing and promoting participatory power to decide where at least some of their budgeting in Glasgow’s East End tax money is spent. In a world that is becom- In 2018, Glasgow City Council pledged £1 million ing increasingly apathetic about its demo- between four council wards and a ‘community cratic processes, it brings concrete evidence of interest’ (disabled people) to further test par- that local democracy can – and does – work. ticipatory budgeting after a range of previous initiatives.6 The chosen wards were some of the Here, we describe a recent exercise in Glasgow. city’s most deprived, and a priority was identi- We look at how decisions were made and fied for each based on local need. In Calton,7 awareness raised, and its outcomes through a where 49 per cent of children live in households child poverty lens. experiencing poverty, child poverty was the focus.8 Each ward was allocated £205,000 to Participatory budgeting in Scotland fund projects for a year, with £125,000 to be The Scottish government has a target that 1 per spent on capital and £80,000 on revenue. cent of all local authority budgets will be deter- mined using participatory budgeting by 2021, In summer 2018, CPAG and community organi- and funds the organisation PB Scotland to pro- sation Urban Fox were contracted to identify mote and support this. In 2012, the Glasgow local people interested in joining a citizens’ Centre for Population Health noted that Scotland panel to support the process.9 Social media had only eight recognised participatory budget- platforms were set up and a general leaflet dis- ing projects, and suggested that:3 tributed, inviting people to get involved. Interested residents were invited to community The current political and policy landscape meetings to find out more about the process appears to be crying out for a pragmatic tool and the panel. Information about child poverty which purports to achieve these goals yet it was provided and there were discussions about appears that much is still to be done to pro- how participatory budgeting funding could ben- mote awareness and understanding of PB, efit local children and families. Over one hun- and to raise confidence in devolved decision dred people expressed initial interest – of those, making about budget allocations. 15 self-selected to eventually form the panel in autumn 2018.10 (The only criteria for joining the Today, there are hundreds of such projects panel was being a local resident; the percent- across the country and much political interest.4 age of members with direct experience of The new Participatory Budgeting Charter for poverty is not known, although is expected to Scotland, jointly published by PB Scotland and be a significant number.) the Scottish government, provides the practical context for the Scottish government’s 2021 tar- Panel members were volunteers, but received get.5 There is interesting learning to be had from their transport and childcare costs. The panel the delivery and outcomes of this resurgence in met every fortnight for nearly a year, and the Scotland from a child poverty perspective. project members contributed at least 500 hours Poverty 164 13 feature Participatory budgeting of unpaid time as a group. Training about par- A publicity leaflet (part of which is shown in ticipatory budgeting was provided, as was infor- Figure 1) was distributed in hard copy and mation about the Child Poverty Act Scotland online in English, Chinese and Polish once the 2017 and the new duty on local authorities and panel had developed its targets and criteria. It NHS boards to address the three key drivers of guided people to an application form and fur- child poverty: income from employment; income ther guidance that set out the panel’s views that from benefits; and the cost of living. smaller, local organisations were especially encouraged and that applications should indi- Calton shapes the process cate capital and operating costs of a maximum The panel members used their own experience of £62,500 and £10,000 respectively. Values to generate ideas that could make a difference that had emerged through panel meetings were to child poverty locally. CPAG supported the also included, beginning with ‘We wish to allevi- panel to reword its ideas and align them to the ate child poverty through action and support’, child poverty drivers – resulting in a workable and the leaflet made it clear that proposals were list to attract funding applications that could welcomed that addressed gaps and priorities have an impact on child poverty in the ward: that panel members felt important. • children’s activities; A film, written and produced by the panel, • community access to green space; explaining the process was also circulated via social media, and meetings took place for peo- • creating employment; ple to discuss their ideas with panel members, • financial inclusion and money advice; which helped applicants to meet the relatively short time allowed for submission. • flexible childcare; • improved access to transport; Outcomes Twenty-two proposals were received and the • kinship care support; panel evaluated them against its criteria to • living wage; select those to be put to wider public vote, namely: a focus on child poverty and specific • mentoring and peer support for new mothers; population groups; alignment with panel values • promoting equality and diversity; and goals; potential to make a difference; clear and properly costed proposals; and potential • quality work; for sustainability beyond the year’s funding. The • reducing food poverty; panel also had a preference for organisations that already offered services and/or were based • support for children with autism and special in the ward, for smaller organisations and on needs. new ideas. Figure 1: Leaflet to encourage applications for proposals to address child Organisations submitting proposals included poverty in Calton youth projects, family centres, theatre groups, an adventure playground, a kinship care group, a local high school, a Citizen’s Advice office and the city’s trades council. A number of applicants were new organisations that had formed to request funding for their idea. After much delib- eration, and some applicants being asked to provide supplementary information, the panel agreed that all applications should go to a pub- lic vote as all had merit. A process of online voting and an open public voting event was set up by the panel in liaison with Glasgow City Council and widely publicised. The panel had decided at the start that all those resident in the ward over the age of eight could vote. Each person had up to five votes (using local postcode recognition to prevent anyone from outside the ward voting). Over a thousand people voted (5 per cent of those eligible). Figure 2 shows the outcomes – the top 10 pro- 14 Poverty 164 feature Figure 2: Public voting outcomes Figure 3: Relating funded proposals to child poverty drivers Rank Project Funded proposal Increasing income Increasing income Reducing household through employment? through social outgoings? 1 Baltic Street Adventure Playground security? 2 Urban Fox Programme Mini Bus Baltic Street Adventure Teaching skills to n/a Not possible to know. 3 Peek: Street Peek On Transit Playground (land children and families? purchase to secure 4 New Fossils Kinship Support Group playground’s future) 5 Bridgeton Community Learning Campus Urban Fox Mini Bus Potentially, if paid n/a Not possible to know. 6 East End Community Radio (buy bus to take drivers needed? children and young 7 Friends of People's Palace and Winter people on trips in Gardens Scotland) 8 Calton Community Association Peek: Street Peek On Yes – part-time staff, n/a Not possible to know. 9 Church House Bridgeton CHANGE Transit (buy bus for and aim to train young mobile training kitchen people and establish 10 Church House Bridgeton Churchy Motion and business) social enterprise business. 11 Dalmarnock Youth Project New Fossils Kinship Yes – coach driver for n/a Not possible to know. 11 Thenue Communities Green Volunteers Support Group (fund duration of trip. 13 Baju Baju holiday for families) 14 Glasgow Trades Council Bridgeton Community Yes – sessional n/a Not possible to know. Learning Campus workers. 15 Bridgeton PEEK/CAB Outreach (support local families 16 St Mungo’s Academy Mental Health with cooking activities) Ambassadors East End Community If radio station Potentially, via Potentially, via 17 Parkhead Youth Project Radio (establish new develops beyond disseminating disseminating local radio station) volunteering? information? information? 18 Parkhead Artist in Residence Friends of People's n/a n/a Yes – providing free 19 Techkidz Investors Palace and Winter access to activities that 20 YoMo Calton Workshops Gardens (purchase would otherwise cost. tickets so local families 21 St Mungo’s Academy Dining In can attend events) 22 St Mungo’s Academy Barefoot in Business Calton Community Yes – sessional and n/a Not possible to know. Association Kids part-time staff.