A Peoples’ Budget - cdp.urbanjustice.org · In 2012–2013, New Yorkers participated in Year 2 of...

P B N Y

P B N CY

P B N CY

P B N CY

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

A People’s Budget:Year 2

A Research and Evaluation Report on Participatory Budgeting in New York City

Research Advisory Board

Andreas HernandezMarymount Manhattan College

Ayse YonderPratt Institute

Celina SuCity University of New York

Michelle RondaMarymount Manhattan College

Josh LernerParticipatory Budgeting Project

Rachel SwanerNew York University,Wagner School of Public Service

Ron HaydukQueens College

Santa SorianoCommunity Service Society

Report Authors

Alexa KasdanDirector of Research and Policy Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center

Lindsay CattellResearch and Policy Associate (former)Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center

Pat ConveyResearch and Policy AssociateCommunity Development Project at the Urban Justice Center

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of many people in developing this report. We’d like to thank the thousands of community residents who volunteered their time in this year’s participatory budgeting process. This report would not have been possible without their contribution to the research.

Additionally, we would like to thank the participating Council Members; Melissa Mark-Viverito, Brad Lander, Jumaane D. Williams, Eric Ulrich, Daniel Halloran, David Greenfield, Stephen Levin and Mark Weprin; their staff, particularly Alex Moore, Rachel Goodman, Michael Freedman-Schnapp, Joe Taranto, Andrew King, Ari Gershman, Rudy Guliani, Lisa Bloodgood, Ashley Thompson, Jake Adler, Stefen Ringel, Monique Waterman and Erica Goldstein.

Many thanks to members of the Research Advisory Board (see full list to the left) 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

P B N CY

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

In 2012–2013, New Yorkers participated in Year 2 of Participatory Budgeting in New York City. Through participatory budgeting (PB), community members—instead of elected officials alone—decide how public funds should be spent, from start to finish. They exchange ideas, collaborate to develop project proposals, and then vote on which proposals should get funded. Once the funds are allocated, community members monitor project development to ensure accountability.

Last year’s Participatory Budgeting process (2011–12) was a historic first in New York City. Almost 8,000 New Yorkers participated, 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 Democratic—voted on how to spend almost $10 million of public money. Just like Year 1, PB engaged many New Yorkers left out of traditional political processes and mainstream community activism: youth under 18, people of color, low-income earners, women, immigrants, and ex-offenders. These participants built leadership skills, interacted with their elected officials, and expanded their social and political networks.

Over 13,000 people voted on how to spend almost $10M of public money.

Introduction

Participation in Year 2 of Participatory Budgeting was nearly double that of Year 1.

5

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

How the NYC Budget Works

To understand why Participatory Budgeting is unique, it is helpful to consider how PB compares to the traditional budgeting process in NYC. As indicated in the figure to the right, each February, the 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 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 Council then do some more negotiating, and the City Council holds more hearings. In Late April, the Mayor releases his executive 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 and activists must protest to restore these cuts. Finally, in late June, 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 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 to bring in through taxes and fees).

February Mayor releases the Preliminary Budget

for the following fiscal year

City Council holds public hearings

Late March City Council issues a response to

the preliminary budget

Mayor and City Council negotiate and create a balanced budget

Late April Mayor releases the Executive Budget

City Council holds public hearings

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

NYC Annual Budget Timeline1

Background

7

How Participatory Budgeting Works

Annual PB Cycle

Neighborhood AssembliesSeptember–November

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

1,500 people participated in 41 assemblies.

P B N CY

Delegate MeetingsNovember–March

Delegates meet in committees to transform the community’s initial project ideas into full proposals, with support from Council Member staff and other experts.

Project ExposMarch

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

VotingApril

Delegates present the final project proposals and residents vote on which projects to fund.

13,000 people voted citywide.

Evaluation, Implementation & MonitoringApril & onwards

Delegates and other participants evaluate the process, then continue to meet and oversee the implementation of projects.

Delegate OrientationsNovember

Delegates selected at the assemblies learn about the budget process, project development, and key spending areas, then form committees.

8

New York City FY 2014 Budgetvs. Budget for PBNYC

$547 Million Capital

Discretionary Funds5

$15.5 Billion Total NYC

Capital Budget3

$9.8 Million Total amount

allocated to PB

$71.3 Billion Total NYC

Expense Budget2

$46 Million Expense

Discretionary Funds4

PB is a small fraction of the overall budget:

0.014% of the Total NYC Expense Budget

0.063% of the NYC Capital Budget

1.8% of Discretionary CapitalFunds Allocated By City Council

Eligible Participatory Budgeting Projects:For the first two years of PB, Council Member discretionary funds were used to pay for only 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 $35,0002. Have a “useful life” of at least five years 3. Involve the construction, reconstruction, acquisition or installation of a physical public improvement

9

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

Over 8,200 surveys, 30 observations,and 63 in-depth interviews

Research Methodology

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 the process, and how it affected relationships between city officials, 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

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

Roadmap for report

The following report has ten sections.

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.

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).

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

City-wide Findings

District 33 Findings

District 8 Findings







Recommendations

11

Council Member District Neighborhoods Total PBParticipants

Amount Allocated

Key Demographics Unique Characteristics

Melissa Mark-Viverito* (Democrat)

8thManBnx

Manhattan ValleyEl Barrio/East HarlemMott Haven

2,063 $1,903,000to 6 winningprojects

50% of the district’s population identifies as Hispanic/Latino/a, 23% as Black/African American, and 19% as White6

40% of residents are lower income (less than $25,000)7

The district encompasses Central Park and Randall’s Island

Neighborhoods span from the Upper West Side to the East Harlem/El Barrio to the South Bronx

High concentration of public housing

Dan Halloran (Republican)

19th Qns

College PointAuburndale- Flushing BaysideWhitestoneBay TerraceDouglastonLittle Neck

1,191 $995,000 to 7 winning projects

53% of the district’s population identifies as White, 28% as Asian and 15% as Hispanic or Latino/a8

50% of the district has a household income over $75,0009

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

The district has no subway stations

District borders Nassau County

Mark Weprin(Democrat)

23rd Qns

Hollis HillsQueens VillageLittle NeckDouglastonBaysideBelleroseFloral ParkGlen OaksNew Hyde ParkHollisHollis Park GdnsHolliswoodFresh MeadowsOakland Gardens


37% of the district’s population identifies as Asian and 31% as White11

58% of the district has a household income over $75,00012

52% of residents primarily speak a language other than English13

The district has no subway stations

District is largely comprised of residential neighborhoods in eastern Queens

Has the second highest concentration of Asians in NYC

Eric Ulrich*(Republican)

32nd Qns

Belle HarborBreezy PointBroad ChannelRockaway ParkRockaway Beach

1,010 $1,442,500 to 7 winning projects

68% of the district identifies as White, 14% Latino/a, 14% African American14

40% of the district is middle income ($25,000- 75,000)15

Most of the district is located on a peninsula known for its beaches and parks

Only a portion of the district participated in PB

District was greatly impacted by Hurricane Sandy

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

12

Council Member District Neighborhoods Total PBParticipants

Amount Allocated

Key Demographics Unique Characteristics

Stephen Levin(Democrat)

33rdBkln

Brooklyn HeightsDUMBOGreenpointParts of Williamsburg,Park Slope andBoerum Hill


74% of the district’s population identifies as White16

65% of residents have a college education17

The district spans the waterfront from Greenpoint down to Boerum Hill and includes downtown Brooklyn

There is a large amount of public housing is this district

Large Orthodox Jewish population

Brad Lander*(Democrat)

39thBkln

Cobble HillCarroll GardensColumbia Waterfront GowanusPark SlopeWindsor TerraceBorough ParkKensington


Large Bangladeshi population in Kensington

66% of the district’s population identifies as White, 14% Hispanic and 13% Asian18


The district is intersected by the Gowanus Canal and contains several parks and cemeteries. These geographical characteristics create distinct neighborhoods including higher-income Park Slope, Kensington with its large Bangladeshi population and finally Borough Park, a Jewish enclave.20

David Greenfield(Democrat)

44thBkln

Borough ParkMidwoodBensonhurst


71% of the district’s population identifies as White21

68% primarily speak a language other than English22

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

The Borough Park neighborhood is home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities in the city

Jumaane D. Williams*(Democrat)

45th Bkln

FlatbushEast FlatbushFlatlandsParts of Midwood and Canarsie


76% of the district’s population identifies as Black/African-American24


Has the largest foreign-born population in Brooklyn, made up of immigrants from Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago26

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

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

13

Year 2 of PB engaged 13,889 people:

1,546Neighborhood Assembly attendees

274Budget Delegates

13,035Voters

From September 2012 to April 2013, eight Council Members: 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), David Greenfield (D-44) and Jumaane D. Williams (D-45), serving eight distinct constituencies, took part in the second year of participatory budgeting in NYC. Based on an aggregate analysis of over 8,200 surveys, 63 interviews, 30 observations and multiple secondary data sources collected across the eight districts, researchers developed a set of citywide findings.

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 than Year 1, many from diverse backgrounds and who would not otherwise participate in politics or have contact with government. The data show that these New Yorkers did not just show up to meetings, but also actively participated by sharing their perspectives, proposing projects for the community, and developing closer connections with other residents, community organizations and their Council Members.

PB Cycle Neighborhood Assembly participants

Budget Delegates

Voters Total PB 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,

City-wide Findings

14

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

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.

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:

PB mobilized long-term residents, many of whom had NOT previously worked for community change.

• 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 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.

“All kinds of people, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, everything was there. And that made me feel good… It was nice seeing so many people giving ideas, and giving their opinions about the neighborhood and it’s good because they live here and they should have a voice.”

— Budget Delegate Interviewee #61, District 8

• 14% of PB voters identified as Latino/a; 12% as Black; 8% as 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.

Percentage of PB voters who had never worked with others in their community

to solve a problem

50%

PB voters identified as:

14% Hispanic or Latino/a12% Black8% Asian4% Other

16

Women comprised at least 60% of the participants in each stage of the process

• 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.

• 90% of participants who identified as Black or African American, 89% of Hispanics or Latinos and 88% of Asians spoke during small group discussions at neighborhood assemblies.

• 92% of Spanish speaking participants spoke during the small group discussion at neighborhood assemblies and 82% made specific budget proposals.

• Participants that identified as Black or African American were the most likely to volunteer to be budget delegates.

• 55% of Spanish speaking participants volunteered to be budget delegates, compared to 46% of English speaking participants; an increase from Year 1 where 42% of Spanish speaking 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%).

92% of Spanish speakers spoke at neighborhood assemblies

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 compared to 19% in Year 1 and 35% of the overall population in the eight districts.

• 14% of Year 2 PB voters reported that they primarily speak a language other than English compared to 50% of the overall population in the eight districts.

Residents attending a neighborhood assembly in District 8.

24% of PB Voters in Year 2 were born outside of the USA compared to 19% in Year 1

18

Opportunities and Challenges of InvolvingSchools 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.”


“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.”


“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.”


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.

PB mobilized many people who do not traditionally participate 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.

• 46% of neighborhood assembly participants and 34% of PB voters are unlikely voters30 in regular elections.

• 50% of neighborhood assembly participants think that government needs a lot of changes or that it needs to be completely changed.

• 62% of neighborhood assembly participants agreed with the statement that the public has little control over what politicians do in office.

• 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.

People of color and low-income people participated in PB at higher rates than traditional electoral politics.

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

Attitudes about politics among PB participants

PB voters that disagree with the way government

business is conducted in NYC

PB voters who are unlikely to vote in regular elections

Neighborhod assembly partici-pants that think government need drastic changes

PB voters who never worked with their

community to solve a problem before PB

50%52%

50%34%

22

Dan Halloran, District 19


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.


Eric Ulrich, District 32

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


David Greenfield, District 44


Jumaane Williams, District 45

• 89% of PB voters identified as Black or African American 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

39% 54% 4% 21%

Latino/as Voters with income less than $10,000

District 8

79% 89% 6% 28%

African Americans

District 45

Voters with income less than $25,000

Voters in 2009 City Council Elections

PB Voters

Demographics of PB Voters compared toVoters in 2009 City Council Elections

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

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

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

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

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.

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

City Council Member

Word of mouth

37% 26%

Flyer/poster Email22% 13%

Community group

13%

EmailCity Council

Member33% 18%

Friend, family or neighbor

Flyer/poster26% 19%

Community group


32% 19%

How People Learned About Neighborhood Assemblies

How People Learned About The PB Vote

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.”


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


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

Press Coverage Mentioning Council Member

Press Coverage Mentioning Council Member + Participatory Budgeting

Melissa Mark-Viverito

District 8

Dan HalloranDistrict 19

Mark WeprinDistrict 23

Eric UlrichDistrict 32

Stephen LevinDistrict 33

Brad LanderDistrict 39

David GreenfieldDistrict 44

Jumaane D. WilliamsDistrict 45

84

240

44

39

56

35

158

37

132

64

164

82

141

36

152

31

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.”


“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.”


“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.”


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

33

What changes did PB participants want for their communities?

In previous years, the eight Council Members each focused large chunks of their capital discretionary funds on school improvements and park improvements, with the individual Council Members using smaller amounts to address other needs within their districts. Projects that were proposed at neighborhood assemblies by community 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 received as much funding from the Council Members. These were the same areas of concern for PB participants in Year 1. In addition, some participants wanted projects that were ultimately ineligible for PB. In reviewing the proposed projects for all eight of the council districts, the following trends emerged [see more detailed breakdown in the district sections]:

• The average number of project proposals per district was 234, down from 489 in the first year.

• School improvements and park improvements were in the top five projects for seven of the eight districts.

• Street lights and security cameras were in the top five projects for five of the districts.

• 49% of project proposals were ineligible in Year 2 compared to 17% in Year 1, as they were too expensive or too cheap, outside of district boundaries, not capital projects, or covered by other funding streams.

• The most common types of ineligible projects were related to street cleanliness and sanitation and programs for community centers.

What projects were ineligible?

Total ineligible projects proposed city-wide: 800 (49%)

Top ineligible categories:Public Health and Sanitation (101)Community Centers/Programs (100)Public Access Institutions (95)Parks, Playgrounds, Public Space Improvements (80)Transportation Improvements (77)

What projects made it on the ballot?

Total projects that were voted on city-wide: 122

Average cost of projects city-wide: $277,717

Most expensive project: $675,000 (E-tech support for schools in District 45)

Least expensive project: $30,000 (Park Department beach vehicle in District 32)

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

What projects were proposed?

Total projects proposed city-wide: 1,641

Top categories:Parks, Playgrounds, Public Space Improvements (260)Public Access Institutions (237)Public Health and Sanitation (163Transportation Improvements (156)Security (150)

34

Winning Projects City-wide

Lowest cost project: $35,000

(D19 Police cameras and D23 Roof Repair – Queens County Farm Museum

Highest cost project:

$500,000(D8 Installation of security cameras)

Average cost of a project: $213,206

Number of Projects:

46

Total overall funds allocated to all winning

projects: $9,807,500

Winning Projects by Type

Table 1

Additional Funded Projects

Project District Cost

Fort Totten Park Sidewalk Improvements 19th $100,000

Bird Watching Platform at Osprey Landing and Beautification of Parson’s Beach

19th $100,000

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

Installation of Fitness Equipment 32nd $75,000

Parks Department Beach Vehicle 32nd $30,000

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

Projector for Celebrate Brooklyn & BRIC Art Center 39th $40,000

Safe Auditorium Upgrade for Performing Arts PS 131 39th $100,000

John Jay High School Media & Filmmaking Lab 39th $100,000

Total $1,830,000

Schools & Libraries: 12

Parks & Recreation: 10

Public Safety: 8

Community Facilities: 7

Health &Sanitation: 4

Transpor-tation: 3

Housing: 1

Youth: 1

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 DetailsDistrict Details

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Bronx

District 33Stephen Levin

District 39Brad Lander

District 19Dan Halloran

District 23Mark Weprin

District 32Eric Ulrich

District 45Jumaane D. Williams

District 44David Greenfield

District 8Melissa Mark-Viverito

39

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Bronx

Laptops for District 8 Schools

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

Technology Centers at YouthBuild and Carver Senior Center

SMART’s Mobile Cooking Classroom

Solar-powered Greenhouse at Millbrook Houses

Basketball Court Renovations at Thomas Jeffer-son Park

District 8Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito

Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito’s district encompasses three distinct neighborhoods: Manhattan Valley on the Upper West Side, El 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 in Council District 8 identify as Hispanic or Latino/a, with the largest 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 with 42% of residents citing Spanish as their primary language and 11% indicating languages other than English and Spanish.46

Similar to Year 1, District 8 saw a high level of participation by 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 housing residents, people of color, low-income people, seniors, youth and the formerly incarcerated. These outreach efforts were displayed in the high levels of participation by many of these groups, including: low-income people, people of color, seniors and non-English speakers. District 8 saw many proposals for projects related to parks and public spaces, public housing and community center improvements and programs.

“PB allows us to give decision making power to disenfranchised 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

District 8Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito

District 8 Overall Population:162,73447

Number of PB Participants:2,063

Neighborhoods:Manhattan ValleyEl BarrioEast HarlemMott HavenCentral ParkRandall’s Island

41

349 neighborhood

assembly participants(680 in Year 1)

1,770 voters

(1,048 in Year 1)

60 Budget

Delegates(61 in Year 1)

2,063 people(1,632 in Year 1)

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 points towards several trends in participation, including the following:

Race/Ethnicity

• A higher percentage of Black or African Americans participated in all stages of PB (Neighborhood Assemblies: 50%; Budget Delegates: 42%; Voters: 31%) compared to the overall population of the district (23%).

• 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

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

Language and Country of Birth

• 38% of Year 2 PB voters reported that they were born outside of the U.S. compared to 28% of Year 1 PB voters and 24% of the 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.

• 10% of neighborhood assembly surveys and 24% of voter surveys were completed in Spanish.

Gender

• Women were more likely than men to participate in all phases of PB; Neighborhood assemblies (71%), Budget delegates (67%) and Voting (68%).

Latino/as in District 8 made up 54% of PB voters in Year 2

(Compared to 50% in Year 1 and 39% in 2009 local elections)

42

• A larger share of women voted in PB (68%) compared to the 2009 local elections (60%).49

Income

• 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 in Year 2 of PB (68%) compared to Year 1 of PB (61%).

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

Age

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

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

38% of PB voters in Year 2 reported that they were born outside of the U.S.

PB voters in Year 2

Voters in the 2009 local elections

Voters reporting household incomes under $15,000

41%

27%

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

43

How did people hear about participatory budgeting in District 8?

Almost mirroring Year 1, people in District 8 were most likely to hear about the neighborhood assemblies through community organizations and were most likely to hear about the vote through word of mouth. Throughout the process, community groups played a significant role in getting the word out about participatory budgeting.

Formerly Incarcerated in the 8th district

Formerly incarcerated people and those still on parole are often disenfranchised politically, economically, and educationally. This combined with social ostracization impede the formerly incarcerated from fully taking part in community life. To more fully engage this population in District 8, the Council Member’s office and District Committee worked with Getting Out, Staying Out (GOSO), an organization that works directly with the formerly incarcerated. Through this partnership, four formerly incarcerated individuals became absorbed in the process and volunteered to be budget delegates on the education committee. Part of the motivation behind volunteering was a desire to give back: “In my high school we didn’t have computers…to keep me focused and I ended up dropping out of school…The biggest part is just giving back.”51 This experience was then used to develop a project for laptops for eight schools throughout District 8. After many meetings and hours of work with the other budget delegates on the education committee, they were able to put this project on the ballot. On voting day, this project received 857 votes, 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 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

Communitygroup

Community group

42% 17%

Email Email18% 4%

Word of mouth

31%

City Council Member

City Council Member

24% 11%



28% 15%

Flyer/poster Flyer/poster30% 13%


in District 8


in District 8

PB volunteer does outreach for the vote in District 8.

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 eligible for PB. Ideas around street lights and security cameras, community centers/programs and park improvements were the most 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 whittled down to 21 projects that were put on the ballot. The graph below shows the categories of projects that ended up on the ballot in District 8.

Housing: 6

Parks and Recreation: 3

Youth: 3

Health and Sanitation: 2

Transportation: 1


Schools and Libraries: 5

Projects on District 8 Ballot

Total Number: 21Total Cost: $6,331,000 Average Cost: $301,476

21 Projects listed

on ballot

6 Projects

selected by voters

287 Projects proposed

45

Winning ProjectSolar Powered Greenhouse in Millbrook Houses$300,000533 out of 1,770 votes

The most local “farm to table” dining imaginable will be enjoyed by the residents of Millbrook Houses, once their PB-funded solar powered greenhouse is up and running. After making it to the ballot but not winning the vote in Year 1 of PB, the solar powered greenhouse was on the ballot in Year 2 and received 533 votes to win funding. Local youth will gain experience growing fresh fruits and vegetables, managing a farm, and running a business. They will learn about nutrition and receive the benefits of local produce in their diet. The solar 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

Winning Projects

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

Project # of Votes % of Voters Price

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

964 54% $500,000

Laptops for District 8 Schools 857 48% $450,000

Technology Centers at YouthBuild and Carver Senior Center

706 40% $100,000

SMART’s Mobile Cooking Classroom 534 30% $180,000

Solar-powered Greenhouse at Millbrook Houses 533 30% $300,000

Basketball Court Renovations at Thomas Jefferson Park

501 28% $300,000

Total $1,903,000

Table 2

6 Winning Projects: District 8

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

MacNeil Park Rehabilitation

Police Cameras

Kayak and Canoe Launches

SMART Boards at PS 32/129/130/159/184/193 Bell Academy

Special Needs Playground Equipment

Queens

Bronx

Structural Restoration ofPoppenhusen Institute

Art Room Renovation at PS 98

District 19Council Member Dan Halloran

Council Member Dan Halloran’s district includes the Queens neighborhoods of College Point, Auburndale-Flushing, Bayside, Whitestone, Bay Terrace, Douglaston and Little Neck. Just over half of the residents of the district identify as White, 28% Asian and 15% as Hispanic or Latino/a.54 The district has a large immigrant population, 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 residents have a household income over $75,000.55

In District 19’s first year of PB, participation was mostly consistent with the demographics of the district. Participation 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 were many project proposals around transportation issues, such as street repairs and traffic signals. Besides transportation projects, improvements to schools, libraries and parks were other areas that received considerable attention through the PB process. Although the councilmember was arrested the week before the PB vote, the process continued with strong community support.

“I’d say that some of the community got a better understanding of what capital and expense funding is. Many people think the city has the ability to just hand out money to whoever they want.”

— Erica Goldstein, Budget Director and Constituent Liason, Office of Dan Halloran, District 19

District 19Council Member Dan Halloran



Neighborhoods:College PointAuburndale- FlushingBaysideWhitestoneBay TerraceDouglastonLittle Neck

49

90 neighborhood

assembly participants

1,170 voters

17 Budget

Delegates

1,191 people


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 points towards several trends in participation, including the following:

Race/Ethnicity

• The majority of participants in all phases of PB in District 19 identified as White.

• A higher percentage of Asians were neighborhood assembly participants (31%) compared to the overall population of the district (28%).


• 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.

Gender

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

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

• Men were more likely to participate as the PB process moved forward.

Asians made up31% of neighbor-hood assembly participants

(Compared to 28% of the overall population of the district)

50

Income

• People with incomes under $35,000 participated less as the PB process moved forward.

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

Age

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

• Young people (ages 15 to 24) were underrepresented throughout the PB process compared with the overall population of the district.

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

PB voters in Year 2


Women’s share of the vote

65%

54%

51


In District 19, people were most likely to hear about PB through a community group. People also commonly found out about the process by seeing flyers or posters, from friends and family and by e-mail.

Youth in the 19th district

For Year 2 of Participatory Budgeting, the voting age was lowered from 18 to 16. As a result, across the eight districts, more youth under the age of 18 went to neighborhood assemblies, served as budget delegates, and voted than in Year 1. Most of the youth who became involved with PB did so in affiliation with a community organization or educational initiative. For example, in District 19 and 23, the community group MinKwon Center worked with youth to form a budget delegate committee where they developed project proposals. One student said of PB: “it’s empowering…You can have a say in the community, as to how it can be shaped and what can be done for it.”59

In District 19, many of the youth are second-generation immigrants, and are starting to discuss problems relating to their schools and local government. Almost half of the youth in District 19 participating in PB reported already being involved in their community. Another student said, “I think that PB is a very good opportunity to get involved because you have the chance to show up and speak for your community and contribute to help it.”60

Communitygroup

Community group

39% 26%

City Council Member

City CouncilMember

20% 9%

Word of mouth

18%




24% 20%

Email Email27% 15%


in District 19


in District 19

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

52


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 for PB.


Schools and Libraries: 6



Public Safety: 2

Transportation: 2



18 Projects listed

on ballot

7 Projects

selected by voters


53

Winning ProjectSMART Boards in 7 Public Schools$245,000347 out of 1,170 votes

Thanks to the Education Committee in District 19, seven public schools in District 19 will be receiving the benefits of SMART Boards in their classrooms. SMART Boards are touch-screen blackboards connected to hard-drives, enabling teachers to save notes from past lessons, access the internet in the classroom, highlight and clip information, and engage students of different learning types in a variety of ways. Best of all, instead of pitting different schools against one another for funding, District 19’s Education Committee ensured that children 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 rapidly changing technology, it may prove more economical to upgrade each school’s digital capabilities often, rather than provide a single school with thirty computers that will soon be obsolete.

Winning Projects



Structural Restoration of Poppenhusen Institute 614 52% $250,000

MacNeil Park Rehabilitation 383 33% $100,000

Police Cameras 360 31% $35,000

Kayak and Canoe Launches 354 30% $150,000

SMART Boards at PS 32/129/130/159/184/193Bell Academy

347 30% $245,000

Special Needs Playground Equipment 313 27% $150,000

Art Room Renovation at PS 98 220 19% $65,000

Total $995,000

Table 3



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

Fort Totten Park Sidewalk Improvements $100,000

Bird Watching Platform at Osprey Landing and Beautification of Parson’s Beach

$100,000

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

Community Fight for PB Allocation After the Arrest of Council Member Halloran

On April 2nd 2013, just days before the Participatory Budgeting vote was to be held, Council member Daniel Halloran (R-19) was arrested along with State Senator Malcolm Smith and four others. He was accused of trying to rig the Republican ballot line of NYC’s mayoral election for Malcolm Smith and agreeing to steer $80,000 in discretionary funds to a company in exchange for bribes. He later plead not guilty to these charges.[i] Even after the arrest, more than 1,170 residents of District 19 cast their votes for Participatory Budgeting projects, despite remarks by City Council speaker Christine Quinn, who said, “Council member Halloran will have no input in how funds are distributed in his district, period, end 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 in last week’s participatory budgeting process.”[iii] The group noted that “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]


Joining PB for Year 2, the data collected from participants in District 19 show that participation was fairly consistent with the overall demographics of the district. People who identified as White and had college or graduate degrees were slightly overrepresented compared to the overall population of the district, but the large Asian immigrant community also made up a significant portion of participants. Community groups were a key outreach resource for District 19 in its first year of participating in PB. Participants were more likely to have heard about PB through a community group than any other method. Flyers and posters throughout the district also proved effective in getting the word out about PB meetings and the vote. At PB meetings, many projects were proposed around school improvements, park improvements and transportation infrastructure. Although only seven of the 18 projects on the ballot officially won, all of the Council Member’s discretionary funds were allocated towards projects from PB. This led to five additional projects receiving funding.

Young residents of District 19 learn about the projects that will be on the ballot in their district.

55

Queens County Farm Museum roof repair

Glen Oaks Volunteer Ambulance Corps emergency equipment

Martin Van Buren High School Technology Upgrade

Cunningham Park music stage

Portable Security Cameras

Cunningham Park enhancement of picnic area

Queens

District 23Council Member Mark Weprin

District 23Council Member Mark Weprin



Neighborhoods:Hollis HillsQueens VillageLittle NeckDouglastonBaysideBelleroseFloral ParkGlen OaksNew Hyde ParkHollisHollis Park GardensHolliswoodFresh Meadows Oakland Gardens

Council Member Mark Weprin’s district includes 14 Queens neighborhoods including Hollis Hills, Queens Village, Bellerose, Fresh Meadows and Oakland Gardens. The district has the second largest Asian population of all NYC Council districts, 37% of residents identify as Asian. Additionally, 31% of the district is White, 14% Hispanic or 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

Participation in PB in District 23 was weighted towards well-educated, White residents, especially as the process moved forward; 61% of PB voters identified as White and 66% reported having a 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 the neighborhood assemblies many projects were proposed around park and public space improvements, community programs and school improvements.

“PB really allows us to engage a broad spectrum of the community in ways we never had before. Typically, people contact the office when they need help, and we have a robust constituent services operation that helps many people every day. But by definition, that’s just a limited number of people. So PB allows us to reach out to a broader group, to people who care about civic engagement; to people who want a say in the City budget. I think that is the biggest benefit, for local residents to be active in the civic process and engage with others in the community.”

— Ari Gershman, District Office Manager, Office of Mark Weprin, District 23

57

221 neighborhood


1,116 voters

54 Budget

Delegates

1,273 people


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 points towards several trends in participation, including the following:

Race/Ethnicity

• The majority of participants in all phases of PB in District 23 identified as White: 61% of neighborhood assembly participants, 58% of budget delegates, and 61% of PB voters.

• 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%).

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



• 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.

Gender


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

Those who identified as Asian made up 22% of PB voters

(Compared to 15% in 2009 local elections)

58

Income

• The income levels of neighborhood assembly participants and PB voters were consistent with the overall population of the district.

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

Education

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

Age

• 7% of PB voters were young people (ages 15 to 24) compared to 12% of the overall population of the district.

• 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%).

Women made up a larger share of PB voters (64%) than 2009 local election voters (54%).

PB voters in Year 2


Voters reporting household incomes under $35,000

18%

5%

59


District 23 participants mostly heard about the neighborhood assemblies from the Council Member or through an email. For the vote, flyers and posters and community groups seemed to be the most effective for turning out voters.

Asian Community in the 23rd district

District 23 is home to the second highest proportion of Asian-Americans in New York City; 37% of the overall district population identifies as Asian, which amounts to over 50,000 residents.67 Although over a third of the district identifies as Asian, this community has traditionally been neglected during the political process. Indeed, only 15% of voters in the 2009 local elections were Asian.68

To ensure that the Asian community in District 23 was more fully represented in the PB process, Council Member Mark Weprin’s office took many steps to reach out to this community. Flyers were printed in Chinese and Korean to reach out to residents who are less comfortable speaking English. In addition to translated materials, Korean and Chinese interpreters were available at neighborhood assemblies to allow immigrants to participate. These were important steps because over 50% of the district primarily speaks a language other than English.69 Additionally, community 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 population, was used as a location for a neighborhood assembly and a 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

Email Email50% 11%

Friend, familyor neighbor

13%


Community group

Communitygroup

33% 19%

City Council Member

City CouncilMember

43% 20%


in District 8


in District 8

Residents of District 23 attend a neighborhood assembly.

60


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 eligible for PB. Ideas around park improvements, community center/programs and school and library improvements were the most common types of projects proposed.




13 Projects listed

on ballot

6 Projects

selected by voters


Transportation: 1

Public Safety: 1

Schools andLibraries: 7

CommunityFacilities: 2

Parks andRecreation: 2

61

Winning ProjectQueens County Farm Museum Roof Repairs$35,000535 out of 1,116 votes

Located in Glen Oaks, Queens, sandwiched between the Grand Central, Cross Island, and Little Neck Parkways, this 47-acre farm founded in 1697 is New York City’s oldest and largest remaining farm.71 Queens County Farm, a property of the New York City Department of Parks, produces vegetables, eggs, honey, wine, and wool products.72 Local schools take field-trips to Queens County Farm, where students are educated about life in the colonial era, as well as contemporary crop-growing, animal-raising, and food and 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 gatherings, and farming should continue unabated for years to come.

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.


Glen Oaks Volunteer Ambulance Corpsemergency equipment

594 53% $40,000

Queens County Farm Museum roof repair 535 48% $35,000

Martin Van Buren High School Technology Upgrade

445 40% $129,000

Portable Security Cameras 441 40% $100,000

Cunningham Park enhancement of picnic area 424 38% $375,000

Cunningham Park music stage 422 38% $375,000

Total $979,000

Table 4


Participants at a project expo.

62


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

Brooklyn

Queens

Dayton Towers Upgrades

Technology Upgrades at PS 317 and PS 114 and Gym Safety Upgrades at Scholars Academy

YMCA Upgrades

Traffic Island Landscaping

Broad Channel Library Upgrades

Rockaway Freeway Dog Park Upgrades

Mobi Mats – ADA Ramps for Beach Access

District 32Council 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 32 was unique from the other districts in that only a portion of the district participated in PB. The five participating neighborhoods were Belle Harbor, Breezy Point, Broad Channel, Rockaway Park and 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 have a college education (45%) and 40% of the district has an annual household income between $25,000 and $75,000.76

This section of southern Queens stretches across a long, narrow 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 community institutions were destroyed, including the Council Member’s office, and residents were displaced, all of which severely impacted the PB process. To adjust for the impact of Hurricane Sandy, some neighborhood assemblies were cancelled and the budget delegate phase was drastically altered to accommodate the capacity of the district as they worked to rebuild their communities. Despite this setback and the severe hardship endured by residents of this district, the community was able to regroup, propose and develop projects 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

District 32Council Member Eric Ulrich



Neighborhoods:Belle HarborBreezy PointBroad ChannelRockaway ParkRockaway Beach

65

60 neighborhood


976 voters

(1,639 in Year 1)

1,010 people

(1,632 in Year 1—Hurricane Sandy impacted Year 2 participation)


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

Race/Ethnicity

• The majority of participants in all phases of PB in District 32 identified as White.

• 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 assemblies at levels consistent with the overall population of the district.


• 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 compared to 83% of the overall population of the district.

Gender

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

• Turnout among women was high for all phases of PB as compared to turnout in the 2009 local elections.78

13% of PB voters identified as Black or African American and 11% as Hispanic or Latino/a

(Compared to 3% and 4%, respectively, in Year 1)

66

Income

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

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

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.

63% of PB voters had incomes between $25,000 and $75,000

(Compared to 40% of the overall population)

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

67


Most PB participants heard about PB through their social networks (family and friends or word of mouth), though significant door-knocking from community groups also helped to turn out voters.

How Hurricane Sandy Impacted the PB Process in the 32nd district

When Hurricane Sandy hit New York City on October 29, 2012, Year 2 of PB was already in the middle of the neighborhood assembly phase. While seven of the eight districts only faced minor disruptions due to the storm, the situation was much different in District 32. A large portion of District 32 is on a peninsula that faces out towards the ocean. This area, the Rockaways, was hit extremely hard by the storm. Houses were damaged, boardwalks destroyed, streets flooded, residents displaced and 1.5 million cubic yards of sand from the beaches was washed away.79 Local buildings that supported the PB process, including the Council Member’s office, were unusable for months following the storm. Given the extent of the devastation in the Rockaways, the last neighborhood assembly was canceled and the PB process temporarily put on hold. But PB in District 32 could not be stopped. When the process picked up again, the Council Member’s office worked closely with a dedicated group of residents to develop projects for the 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 Member set up an absentee voting 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.

EmailSomeone came

to my door45% 41%

News storyCity Council

Member22% 1%

Word of mouth

21%

City Council Member

Communitygroup

28% 2%

Communitygroup


28% 10%


Email31% 3%


in District 32


in District 32

PB participants in District 32 attend a meeting to learn about the process.

68


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 for PB. Ideas around improvements for parks, schools and libraries and transportation were the most common types of projects proposed.



Total Number: 9Total Cost: $1,547,500

Average Cost: $171,944

9 Projects listed

on ballot

7 Projects

selected by voters





69

Winning ProjectMobi-Mat Ramps$180,000418 out of 976 votes

Due to its position on a peninsula, District 32 has many beaches that draw people from around the City. But Hurricane Sandy destroyed many of these beaches, tearing up the boardwalk and displacing 1.5 million cubic yards of sand.80 This extensive damage motivated residents to rebuild their community, including the beaches. Even after being told that FEMA would handle the rebuilding of the waterfront, the district committee coordinated with FEMA and came up with projects that would not only restore their loved beaches, but make them better than ever. One such project will ensure that 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.

Winning Projects

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


Technology Upgrades at PS 317 and PS 114 andGym Safety Upgrades at Scholars Academy

665 68% $324,500

Dayton Towers Upgrades 621 64% $38,000

YMCA Upgrades 581 60% $300,000

Traffic Island Landscaping 531 54% $50,000

Broad Channel Library Upgrades 438 45% $250,000

Mobi Mats – ADA Ramps for Beach Access 418 43% $180,000

Rockaway Freeway Dog Park Upgrades 220 37% $300,000

Total $1,442,500

Table 5




Project Cost

Installation of Fitness Equipment $75,000

Parks Department Beach Vehicle $30,000

70


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

MS 8 Technology Funds

East River StatePark Dog Run

PS 31 Technology Request

PS 34 Playground Renovations

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

District-wide tree planting

District 33Council Member Stephen Levin

Council Member Stephen Levin’s district in Brooklyn includes the neighborhoods of Brooklyn Heights, Greenpoint and parts of Williamsburg, Park Slope and Boerum Hill. Almost three-fourths of the district identifies as White, 14% as Hispanic or Latino/a and 6% as Black or African American.81 65% of the district has a college 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

Despite most residents of District 33 being White, wealthy and well-educated, participation in PB among low-income people and people of color was fairly robust due to outreach by the Council 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 or Latino/a and 36% have household incomes below $25,000. The combination and interaction of these different populations led to a diverse set of project proposals at the neighborhood assemblies. There were many project proposals for school and park improvements, but also proposals for specific improvements to NYCHA developments in the district.

“We are in a democracy and we are supposed to be engaging 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

District 33Council Member Stephen Levin



Neighborhoods:Brooklyn HeightsGreenpointWilliamsburgPark SlopeBoerum Hill

73

173 neighborhood


2,632 voters

40 Budget

Delegates

2,632 people


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 points towards several trends in participation, including the following:

Race/Ethnicity

• A higher percentage of African Americans participated at the neighborhood assemblies (37%) compared to the overall population of the district (6%).

• 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.



Gender

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


Income

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

African Americans made up 37% of neighborhood assembly participants

(Compared to 6% of the overall district population)

74

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

• People with very high incomes voted at higher rates for PB than they did in the 2009 local elections.85

Age

• Young people (ages 15 to 24) were more likely to participate at a neighborhood assembly (25%) than vote in PB (2%).

• A higher percentage of middle aged people (ages 35 to 54) voted in PB (52%) compared to the overall population of the district (26%).

25% of PB voters reported that they were born outside of the U.S.


52% of PB voters in Year 2 reported household incomes under $35,000


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

75


During the Neighborhood Assembly phase, most participants heard about PB from the Council Member or from a community group, whereas for the vote, most people heard about PB through word of mouth and from friends and family.

Public Housing Residents in the 33rd district

District 33 has seven public housing developments in the district and the Council Member’s office has a longstanding relationship with the residents of the nearby Gowanus Houses. This relationship was strengthened by community organizations such as Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE), who helped keep the Council Member’s staff and the participatory budgeting volunteers in close contact with the residents of public housing. Most importantly, the residents of public housing themselves were one of the most active groups during the process. District 33 was one of only two districts with a Public Housing Committee during the Budget Delegate phase. These delegates ended up with six projects on the final ballot, making them the second most prolific committee in the city in that regard. Though none of these project received enough votes to win funding at the time of the vote, Council Member Levin used additional discretionary capital funds to allocate $425,000 for upgrades to the Wyckoff Community Center and $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.

Communitygroup

Community group

38% 13%


Word of mouth

31%

Email Email24% 11%



25% 21%

City CouncilMember

City CouncilMember

38% 10%


in District 33


in District 33

Residents examine project posters in District 33.

76






16 Projects listed

on ballot

5 Projects

selected by voters


Housing: 6



Transportation: 1


77

Winning ProjectEast River State Park Dog Run$450,000729 out of 2,632 votes The plan to turn a concrete lot in East River State Park into a state of the art dog run was proposed by Friends of East River State Park, and endorsed by a half-dozen politicians and community groups. Local newspapers wrote favorable articles about the dog run, members of the community leafleted their neighbors. A website was even created to promote the project. State officials have decided to make an exception to their “No Dogs Allowed” 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 artificial turf and water fountains.86 One of the proposal’s main proponents, Mark Sallinger, touted the benefits to the community at large at District 33’s PB Expo: “This gives dog owners some place to go; but it also is beneficial to people that don’t own dogs because all the dogs have kind of destroyed a lot of the grassy areas and it disturbs the public from having a peaceful place to sit…in the public areas.”87

Winning Projects



District-wide tree planting 1,006 38% $100,000

MS 8 Technology Funds 851 32% $200,000

East River State Park Dog Run 729 28% $450,000

PS 31 Technology Request 723 27% $188,000

PS 34 Playground Renovations 670 25% $120,000

Total $1,058,000

Table 6




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


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

Manhattan

Brooklyn

Queens

Renovate 8 Bathrooms, PS 58, The Carroll School

PS 230: Help Kids Connect & Learn With Technology

Carroll Gardens/Windsor Terrace Library Computers

Church Avenue Traffic & Pedestrian Safety Improvements

3rd Street Green Corridor: New Trees, Less Runoff

PS 179: Technology upgrade for underserved school

District 39Council Member Brad Lander

Council Member Brad Lander’s district includes the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Columbia Waterfront, Gowanus, Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Borough Park and Kensington. 66% of the district identifies as White, 14% as Hispanic or Latino/a, and 13% as Asian.88 The district also has a large Bangladeshi 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 household incomes over $75,000.91

Participation between the first and second years of PB was fairly similar in the 39th District. Consistent with the district’s demographics, 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 of Latino/as and African-Americans was low, despite targeted outreach to Latino/as. District 39 had 647 project proposals from the neighborhood assemblies, the most of any district. These projects tended to be focused on improvements to schools and libraries, park improvements, and street cleanliness and sanitation.

“Through Participatory Budgeting, we have identified new leaders in our neighborhood and helped them develop community organizing skills. And on top of that a lot of great projects have been funded.”

— Alex Moore, Communication and Events Director, Office of Brad Lander, District 39

District 39Council Member Brad Lander



Neighborhoods:Cobble HillCarroll GardensColumbia WaterfrontGowanusPark SlopeWindsor TerraceBorough ParkKensington

81

457 neighborhood


2,821 voters

(2,213 in Year 1)

50 Budget




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 points towards several trends in participation, including the following:

Race/Ethnicity

• Participants who identified as White made up the biggest share of neighborhood assembly participants (81%) and PB voters (86%) in District 39.

• 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 PB voters.


• 16% of PB voters reported they were born outside of the U.S compared to 30% of the overall population in the district.

• Only 110 ballots were filled out in a language other than English 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 process compared to men.

Income

• Similar to Year 1, participants with medium to high incomes participated in PB at higher rates than those with lower incomes.

16% of PB voters reported that they were born outside of the U.S.


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 assembly participants were under the age of 25.

• Young people (ages 15 to 24) were less likely to vote for PB compared to the 2009 local elections.94

• A higher percentage of middle aged people (ages 35 to 54) participated at a neighborhood assembly (41%) compared to the overall population of the district (28%).

16% of neighbor-hood assembly participants were under the age of 25

(Compared to only 2% in Year 1)

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

83


In District 39, most people heard about PB directly from the Council Member for both the neighborhood assemblies and the vote.

Women in the 39th district

Usually when thinking about gender and politics the assumption is that men are much more likely to be involved than women. While this is true of traditional political processes, PB has challenged this patriarchical paradigm.95

In every district except for one, more women attended neighborhood assemblies and voted than men. District 39 is part of this reversal of normal political trends; 59% of neighborhood assembly participants and 60% of PB voters were women. This is a significant increase from the 2009 local elections where only 53% of voters were women. Women did not just attend PB events in large numbers, but also were active in their participation. At neighborhood assemblies in District 39, 97% of women spoke during small group discussions, 80% made specific budget proposals and 33% volunteered to be a budget delegate. Women were able to make their voice heard throughout the PB process in District 39, and citywide, by being highly involved in all phases of the process; 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.

City CouncilMember

City CouncilMember

60% 31%

Communitygroup

Community group12% 6%

Word of mouth

28%




28% 22%

Email Email58% 21%


in District 39


in District 39

The winning projects are unveiled in District 39.

84




Projects on District 39 Ballot:


24 Projects listed

on ballot

6 Projects

selected by voters


Transportation: 5


CommunityFacilities: 3


PublicSafety: 3

Youth: 1


85

Winning ProjectCarroll Gardens/Windsor Terrace Library Computers$75,000963 out of 2,821 votes The Carroll Gardens and Windsor Terrace branches of the Brooklyn Public Library will be receiving a total of 29 new computers, thanks to the voters of District 39. “They will really be needed… the pre-school and the adult computers, which are very popular. Adults use them for job searches and career advancement… [T]he staff of Windsor Terrace also needs new computers, so this whole proposal is going to be for all of that,” said a member of the Culture and Community Facilities Committee.96

This project is designed to enhance the community’s internet access and 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 GEDs, search for jobs, practice for ESL tests, and provide internet access for those without it at home. The Windsor Terrace branch will also receive six much-needed computers for their staff, aiding them to process more library cards and request inter-library loans, measures which will enable more people to use the library, and making it easier for those who already utilize it.

Winning Projects



PS 230: Help Kids Connect & Learn With Technology

1195 42% $180,000

Renovate 8 Bathrooms, PS 58, The Carroll School 1100 39% $110,000

Carroll Gardens/Windsor Terrace Library Computers

963 34% $75,000

Church Avenue Traffic & Pedestrian Safety Improvements

784 28% $300,000

PS 179: Technology upgrade for underserved school

729 26% $115,000

3rd Street Green Corridor: New Trees, Less Runoff 667 24% $170,000

Total $950,000

Table 7




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


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

Countdown clocks in Borough Park

Security cameras in Borough Park

Security cameras in Midwood

Countdown clocks in Midwood

Countdown clocks in Bensonhurst

Brooklyn

District 44Council Member David Greenfield

Council Member David Greenfield’s district includes the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Borough Park, Midwood and Bensonhurst. The 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 also has a large Orthodox Jewish community that primarily speaks 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% have incomes below $35,000.99

In District 44, participation varied slightly from the overall population of the district. Low-income and upper-income residents 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 engaged from the neighborhood assemblies through the vote. PB voters in District 44 tended to be well-educated with 44% having college or graduate degrees. During the neighborhood assemblies many projects were proposed around improvements to parks and improvements to schools and libraries.

District 44Council Member David Greenfield



Neighborhoods:Borough ParkMidwoodBensonhurst

District 44 residents at a neighborhood assembly.

89

97 neighborhood


1,610 voters

15 Budget

Delegates

1,719 people


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 points towards several trends in participation, including the following*:

Race/Ethnicity

• Participants who identified as White were the majority of participants at neighborhood assemblies (76%) and the PB vote (94%).

• 8% of neighborhood assembly participants identified as Asian compared to 17% of the overall population of the district.


• 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.

Gender

• 70% of neighborhood assembly participants identified as female.

• PB voters identified as 50% male and 50% female.

Income

• A higher percentage of people with incomes under $35,000 voted in PB (35%) compared to the 2009 local elections (26%).101

• Participants with medium to high incomes participated in PB at higher rates than those with lower incomes.

25% of PB voters reported that they primarily speak a language other than English at home


90

Age

• 18% of PB voters were young people (ages 15 to 24) compared to 16% of the overall population of the district.

35% of PB voters in Year 2 reported household incomes 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


In District 44, most PB participants heard about PB through friends, family and news outlets. This might have been because the Council Member goes on a weekly radio show that he used to promote PB.

Seniors in the 44th district

Council Member Greenfield and his staff worked specifically on engaging seniors in PB by turning three local senior centers into voting locations. On each occasion Council Member Greenfield himself showed up to explain the process and generate enthusiasm. Many Eastern European Jews, some of whom are Holocaust survivors, congregate at the Borough Park YMCA for daily meals. Though most were not aware that they’d be helping decide the city’s budget when they showed up on April 4, they were more than willing to have their voices be heard. They voted mainly for street safety, including traffic lights with countdown clocks, security cameras, and road improvements. According to one voter, “There is a great need for improvements. I call it the Wild West End of Brooklyn.” Others were there on principle, responding, “I believe in participating in the democratic process.” In the end, District 44’s seniors care deeply about the welfare of their neighborhoods, and back up their passion by continuing to be perhaps the most politically active segment of the population.

Friends, familyor neighbor

Television/Newspaper/Radio

37% 49%

Flyer/posterCommunity

group7% 12%

Flyer/poster 18%

Communitygroup

Email12% 3%

EmailCity Council

Member24% 9%

City Council Member


28% 6%


in District 44


in District 44

92







11 Projects listed

on ballot

5 Projects

selected by voters


Transportation: 6


PublicSafety: 3

93

Winning ProjectCountdown Clocks in Borough Park, Midwood and Bensonhurst $600,000 total ($200,000 for each neighborhood)Borough Park: 1,056 out of 1,610 votesMidwood: 397 out of 1,610 votesBensonhurst: 392 out of 1,610 votes Three of the five winning projects were to install countdown clocks in Borough Park, Midwood, and Bensonhurst. Residents of three District 44 neighborhoods all decided to improve their street safety by voting to install pedestrian countdown-clocks in their neighborhoods’ most dangerous 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.

Winning Projects



Security cameras in Borough Park 1,109 69% $200,000

Countdown clocks in Borough Park 1,056 66% $200,000

Security cameras in Midwood 520 32% $200,000

Countdown clocks in Midwood 397 25% $200,000

Countdown clocks in Bensonhurst 392 24% $200,000

Total $1,000,000

Table 8


94


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

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

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

Brooklyn

Queens

Addition of curb extension to Linden Boulevard between East 52nd Street and East 54th Street, a high traffic area for seniors and impaired neighbors

Completion of field light installation at Tilden Educational Campus, to increase community usage in the surrounding area

District 45Council Member Jumaane D. Williams

Council Member Jumaane D. William’s district in Brooklyn includes the neighborhoods of Flatbush, East Flatbush, Flatlands and parts of Midwood and Canarsie. The residents of the district identify largely as Black or African American (76%) with 11% identifying as White and 8% as Hispanic or Latino/a.105 The large foreign-born population brings 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 between $25,000-$75,000.107

From Year 1 to Year 2 of PB, District 45 saw a decrease in overall participation. The demographics of participants also changed 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 brought PB more in-line with the overall demographics of the district. Participation among low-income residents and youth also increased from Year 1 to Year 2. District 45 was the only district that did not have school and library improvements as one the top categories of project proposals. But despite this, the youth budget delegate committee was successful in getting education and other youth-focused projects on the ballot.

District 45Council Member Jumaane D. Williams



Neighborhoods:FlatbushEast FlatbushFlatlandsParts of Midwood and Canarsie

97

120 neighborhood


940 voters

(1,085 in Year 1)

39 Budget




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

Race/Ethnicity

• Participants who identified as Black or African American made up the biggest share of neighborhood assembly participants (70%) and PB voters (89%) in District 45 and are 76% of the overall population of the district.

• Participation among Whites decreased as the PB process progressed.


• 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 English at home.

Gender

• Women were more likely than men to participate in PB.

Income

• People with low to middle incomes participated in PB at higher rates than those with higher incomes.

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

African Americans made up 70% of neighborhood assembly participants and 89% of PB voters


98

Age

• Young people (ages 15 to 24) were more likely to attend a neighborhood assembly (18%) than vote in PB (11%).

• A higher percentage of seniors (ages 65 and over) voted in PB (17%) compared to the overall population of the district (11%).

52% of PB voters in Year 2 reported that they were born outside of the U.S.


99


PB participants were most likely to hear about the neighborhood assemblies and the vote from their Council Member and through their social networks (i.e. friends and family, word of mouth).

Brooklyn College Students in the 45th District

In District 45, the Council Member’s office worked closely with Brooklyn College professor Michael Menser, who is the Chair of the Board of the Participatory Budgeting Project, to engage Brooklyn College students and increase PB participation. Professor Menser used his Social Philosophy class to introduce his students to PB. “This is not a consultation,” he told his students, “…a town hall meeting where someone comes from the city and says, ‘What do you want,’…but you have no power. Participatory budgeting means you actually have the power to decide which proposals fit.”110

This partnership was extremely successful in getting students to participate, many of whom would otherwise not have heard about PB. Professor Menser was able to encourage his students to try the process and then discuss it with them during class, thus relating it to many facets of their lives. Also, neighborhood assemblies and voting sites were held on campus making it easy for students to attend. 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

City CouncilMember

City CouncilMember

35% 28%

Email Flyer/poster25% 12%

Word of mouth

Flyer/poster 26%24%

I got a phone call Email28% 7%

Communitygroup

Communitygroup

31% 19%



33% 8%


in District 45


in District 45

100







10 Projects listed

on ballot

4 Projects

selected by voters


PublicSafety: 4


Transportation: 1


101

Winning ProjectTilden Educational Campus Wi-Fi and Career Center$350,000659 out of 950 votes

In order to bring the Tilden Educational Campus’ library into the 21st century, the Education Committee proposed to create a Wi-Fi enabled, computer equipped, College and Career Center. This will benefit the community by increasing computer literacy among students, and creating college-ready students in District 45. According to Jelanie Deshong of the Education Committee, “71% of kids who graduate high-school [aren’t] college ready, and I think a big part of that is because they don’t have adequate technology in their schools… A lot of kids don’t have computers at home, so this should be their home away from home, and this should be their space for them to really 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

Winning Projects

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


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

697 73% $400,000

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

659 69% $350,000

Addition of curb extension to Linden Boulevard between East 52nd Street and East 54th Street, a high traffic area for seniors and impaired neighbors

561 59% $360,000

Completion of field light installation at Tilden Educational Campus, to increase community usage in the surrounding area

548 58% $420,000

Total $1,480,000

Table 9


102


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.

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.

Conclusion

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

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 CensusData

Neighborhood AssembliesN=924

Difference Neighborhood Assemblies Years 1 & 2

Budget DelegatesN=277

PBVoters N=7300

Diff. PB Voters Years 1 & 2

Voters in 2009 Local Elections

Difference between PB & 2009 Voters

GenderNA: N=833BD: N=272Voters: N=7182

Female 51% 66% +2% 60% 62% +0% 55% +7%

Male 49% 34% -2% 39% 38% +0% 40% -6%

Other N/A 0% -1% 1% 0% +0% N/A N/A

Race/EthnicityNA: N=808BD: N=257Voters: N=6704

Asian 15% 7% +4% 8% 8% +6% 7% +1%

Black 17% 30% -8% 27% 12% -8% 17% -5%

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 of EducationNA: N=462BD: N=207Voters: N=5679

Some High School or less

17% 5% +0% 6% 4% -2% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

25% 14% +2% 12% 12% -5% N/A N/A

Associate/ Vocational Degree

6% 4% -2% 3% 1% -6% N/A N/A

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

IncomeNA: N=692BD: N=245Voters: N=6381

Less than $10,000 9% 13% +3% 10% 6% +0% 1% +5%

$10,000-$14,999 6% 10% +4% 6% 5% +0% 5% +0%

$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 NA: N=586BD: N=219Voters: N=6096

14 years or under 20% 3% -2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

15 to 19 years 6% 12% +6% 1% 3% +1% N/A N/A

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%

LanguageNA: N=841BD: N=268Voters: N=6928

English 50% 94% +3% 86% +6% N/A N/A

Spanish 16% 8% +4% 6% -1% N/A N/A

Other 35% 3% -3% 4% +0% N/A N/A

113

8th District Demographics CensusData




PBVoters N=1066





Female 53% 71% +2% 67% 68% +2% 60% +8%

Male 47% 29% -2% 32% 32% -2% 40% -8%

Other N/A 1% +0% 2% 0% +0% N/A N/A


Asian 6% 2% -1% 5% 3% +1% 2% +1%

Black 23% 50% +9% 42% 31% -3% 31% +0%

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%



16% 8% -2% 8% 18% +2% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

21% 30% +10% 25% 27% +3% N/A N/A


5% 6% -2% 2% 4% -4% N/A N/A

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


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


Less than $10,000 18% 28% +5% 19% 21% -1% 4% +17%

$10,000-$14,999 9% 18% +4% 17% 20% +5% 24% -4%

$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%



15 to 19 years 7% 11% -1% 2% 7% +3% N/A N/A

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%


English 47% 87% +8% 75% 62% -22% N/A N/A

Spanish 42% 19% +7% 9% 30% +17% N/A N/A

Other 11% 2% +2% 17% 8% +5% N/A N/A

114




PBVoters N=682




Female 52% 75% 57% 63% 54% +9%

Male 48% 25% 36% 37% 46% -9%

Other N/A 0% 7% 0% N/A N/A


Asian 28% 31% 8% 13% 16% -3%

Black 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% -1%

Latino/a 15% 10% 8% 5% 9% -4%

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

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



13% 0% 3% 2% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

26% 16% 3% 17% N/A N/A


6% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A

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


Less than $10,000 4% 2% 4% 1% 0% +1%

$10,000-$14,999 3% 2% 0% 3% 0% +3%

$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%


14 years or under 17% 2% N/A N/A N/A N/A

15 to 19 years 6% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A

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%


English 46% 93% 97% 86% N/A N/A

Spanish 13% 0% 3% 2% N/A N/A

Other 42% 9% 0% 5% N/A N/A

115

23rd District Demographics CensusData



PBVoters N=614




Female 49% 50% 48% 64% 54% +10%

Male 51% 51% 52% 36% 46% -10%



Asian 37% 15% 21% 22% 15% +7%

Black 12% 10% 15% 8% 12% -4%

Latino/a 14% 8% 2% 6% 11% -5%

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

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



11% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

26% 12% 10% 13% N/A N/A


7% 0% 4% 1% N/A N/A





Less than $10,000 4% 5% 4% 3% 1% +2%

$10,000-$14,999 3% 4% 2% 3% 0% +3%

$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%



15 to 19 years 6% 5% 0% 5% N/A N/A

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%


English 48% 97% 96% 89% N/A N/A

Spanish 12% 2% 0% 1% N/A N/A

Other 41% 7% 4% 11% N/A N/A

116

32nd District Demographics CensusData



Budget DelegatesN=4

PBVoters N=200





Female 52% 73% +13% 75% 62% +0% 54% +8%

Male 48% 27% -13% 25% 38% +1% 46% -7%

Other N/A 0% +0% 0% 0% +0% N/A N/A

Race/EthnicityNA: N=31Voters: N=180

Asian 3% 0% +0% 0% 0% +0% 6% -6%

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%



10% 6% +5% 0% 6% +4% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

30% 18% -1% 0% 36% +17% N/A N/A


5% 0% -10% 0% 1% -8% N/A N/A

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



Less than $10,000 8% 0% +0% 0% 4% +2% 0% +4%

$10,000-$14,999 5% 12% +12% 0% 3% +0% 0% +3%

$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%



15 to 19 years 7% 11% +11% 0% 2% +2% N/A N/A

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%


English 83% 100% +2% 75% 88% -6% N/A N/A

Spanish 8% 3% +3% 0% 4% -1% N/A N/A

Other 9% 0% -2% 25% 2% -1% N/A N/A

117

33rd District Demographics CensusData



PBVoters N=1945




Female 50% 71% 71% 62% 52% +10%

Male 50% 29% 29% 38% 48% -10%



Asian 5% 4% 4% 6% 3% +3%

Black 6% 37% 31% 12% 11% +1%

Latino/a 14% 20% 10% 12% 14% -2%

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

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



13% 6% 8% 4% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

16% 13% 15% 11% N/A N/A


5% 4% 2% 1% N/A N/A





Less than $10,000 9% 16% 17% 6% 1% +5%

$10,000-$14,999 6% 10% 2% 5% 12% -7%

$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%



15 to 19 years 5% 23% 0% 1% N/A N/A

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%


English 53% 94% 84% 87% N/A N/A

Spanish 14% 10% 9% 4% N/A N/A

Other 33% 3% 8% 4% N/A N/A

118





PBVoters N=2281





Female 51% 59% -6% 46% 60% +0% 53% +7%

Male 49% 41% +6% 54% 40% +0% 47% -7%

Other N/A 0% +0% 0% 0% +0% N/A N/A


Asian 13% 5% -2% 6% 6% +1% 4% +2%

Black 4% 5% +1% 8% 2% -1% 8% -6%

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%



8% 1% -1% 0% 1% +0% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

22% 1% -4% 2% 3% -1% N/A N/A


5% 2% +0% 2% 1% +0% N/A N/A

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


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


Less than $10,000 8% 2% +0% 0% 2% +1% 0% +2%

$10,000-$14,999 6% 1% -1% 6% 1% +0% 0% +1%

$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%


14 years or under 22% 2% +2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

15 to 19 years 6% 10% +9% 0% 1% +1% N/A N/A

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%


English 49% 99% +3% 96% 94% +1% N/A N/A

Spanish 13% 2% +2% 0% 1% -3% N/A N/A

Other 38% 9% -2% 4% 3% -2% N/A N/A

119



Budget DelegatesN=1

PBVoters N=37




Female 50% 70% 100% 50% 52% -2%

Male 50% 30% 0% 50% 48% +2%



Asian 17% 8% N/A 0% 7% -7%

Black 1% 3% N/A 0% 1% -1%

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%



24% 5% 0% 13% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

32% 5% 0% 35% N/A N/A


6% 16% 0% 0% N/A N/A





Less than $10,000 10% 10% 0% 8% 0% +8%

$10,000-$14,999 8% 0% 0% 4% 1% +3%

$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%



15 to 19 years 8% 4% 0% 7% N/A N/A

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%


English 32% 98% 100% 79% N/A N/A

Spanish 9% 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Other 59% 17% 0% 21% N/A N/A

120





PBVoters N=222





Female 50% 64% +3% 68% 63% -1% 60% +3%

Male 50% 36% -3% 32% 37% +1% 40% -3%

Other N/A 0% +0% 0% 0% +0% N/A N/A


Asian 3% 1% +0% 0% 1% +0% 1% +0%

Black 76% 69% -14% 90% 89% +2% 79% +10%

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%



10% 12% +5% 13% 11% +2% N/A N/A

H.S. Diploma or GED

32% 14% +3% 19% 14% -7% N/A N/A


9% 7% +0% 13% 4% -7% N/A N/A

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



Less than $10,000 9% 11% +0% 10% 9% +1% 0% +9%

$10,000-$14,999 5% 15% +11% 5% 7% +2% 2% +5%

$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%



15 to 19 years 7% 11% +4% 11% 6% +2% N/A N/A

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%


English 70% 99% +5% 91% 91% -2% N/A N/A

Spanish 7% 2% +2% 0% 2% -4% N/A N/A

Other 23% 7% -5% 10% 6% -1% N/A N/A

121

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.xhtml9. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml10. “American Community Survey 2007-2011-5 Year Estimates.” American Factfinder.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml11. “Decennial Census 2010.” American Factfinder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/







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.xhtml19. 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/




http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml25. Ibid.

Endnotes

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): 244. 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 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 #452. 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.xhtml57. 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 #760. 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


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.xhtml68. 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.xhtml70. 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.xhtml78. 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




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 Election86. 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


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




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





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





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 ProfessorsCommunity Voices HeardThe Participatory Budgeting ProjectArts & Democracy ProjectCenter for Urban PedagogyCommunity Development Project of the Urban Justice CenterDemosFifth Avenue CommitteeFlatbush Development CorporationGetting Out & Staying OutNew York CivicNew York Immigration CoalitionNew Yorkers for ParksOrganizing Brooklyn CommunitiesPeople’s Production HousePratt Center for Community DevelopmentPratt Institute Programs for Sustainable Planning & DevelopmentProject for Public SpacesRight to the City AllianceMimi Abramovitz, CUNY, Hunter CollegeAndreas Hernandez, Marymount Manhattan CollegeCelina Su, CUNY, Brooklyn College

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

City Council MembersCouncil Member David G. Greenfield, District 44Council Member Dan J. Halloran, District 19Council Member Brad Lander, District 39Council Member Stephen Levin, District 33Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito, District 8Council Member Eric Ulrich, District 32Council Member Mark S. Weprin, District 23Council 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.

A Peoples’ Budget - cdp.urbanjustice.org · In 2012–2013, New Yorkers participated in Year 2 of...

Documents

Transcript of A Peoples’ Budget - cdp.urbanjustice.org · In 2012–2013, New Yorkers participated in Year 2 of...