Preparation
01 · Define the scope
- How much of the budget is available for participatory allocation? Typical ranges: 5–20% of a discretionary budget for an initial cycle; some mature programs allocate 100% of capital investment budgets.
- What categories of spending are eligible? Infrastructure only? Programs? Staff? Setting eligibility rules in advance prevents proposals that are politically impossible to implement.
- What geographic area or organizational unit is covered? Neighborhood? School? Department?
02 · Establish the technical team
- Assign staff who can evaluate the technical and financial feasibility of proposals. Participants need to know whether their ideas can actually be implemented and how much they would cost.
- Define the timeline: diagnosis phase → proposal development → community assemblies → voting → implementation → reporting.
03 · Design the participation infrastructure
- Will assemblies be in-person, digital, or hybrid? Each has different inclusion profiles.
- How will participants who cannot attend assemblies participate (shift workers, people with disabilities, rural residents)? Consider mail ballots, digital platforms, delegated representatives.
- What languages will the process run in?
04 · Prepare communications
- Outreach must be proactive and multilingual. PB that only reaches people who already attend meetings will replicate existing power imbalances.
- Materials must explain clearly: what decisions participants are being asked to make, what the real constraints are, and what will happen with results.
Step-by-step instructions
1
Phase 1 — Diagnosis assemblies (community needs mapping)
- Open community assemblies where residents identify and prioritize the problems and needs in their area. This phase is exploratory: no proposals yet, just listening and mapping.
- Use facilitation methods that ensure equal voice: small group discussions (not open microphone), anonymous written input, visual mapping.
- Produce a public report summarizing the priorities identified across all assemblies. This report grounds the next phase.
2
Phase 2 — Proposal development
- Community members develop specific proposals that respond to the diagnosed priorities. Proposals must specify: what will be done, where, estimated cost, who will benefit, how it will be maintained.
- Technical team evaluates feasibility and cost of each proposal and provides feedback to proposers. Proposals may be refined through this dialogue.
- Final list of eligible, costed proposals is published for community review before voting.
3
Phase 3 — Deliberation assemblies
- Each proposal is presented to the community by its proposers. Q&A and discussion follow.
- Participants can group, merge, or modify proposals by consensus.
- Goal: ensure everyone understands what they will be voting on.
4
Phase 4 — Voting
- Participants vote for their preferred proposals. Common voting methods:
- Ranked choice: Voters rank proposals in order of preference. Results weighted to reflect full preference spectrum.
- Budget allocation: Each voter is given a symbolic budget (e.g., $100) and allocates it across proposals. Proposals with highest total symbolic investment are funded first until the real budget is exhausted.
- Simple plurality: Each voter selects a fixed number of proposals. Most-voted proposals are funded in descending order until budget runs out.
- Voting must be accessible: at assemblies, by mail, digitally, or through trusted intermediaries for communities with low digital access.
- Results are published publicly, including vote totals for each proposal.
5
Phase 5 — Implementation and accountability
- Winning proposals are implemented by the institution within the promised timeline.
- Progress is reported publicly and regularly. Community oversight committees or "PB monitors" track implementation.
- End-of-cycle evaluation: Were proposals implemented? On time? On budget? What will change next cycle?
Materials
Assembly spaces: accessible venues in each target neighborhood or unit
Facilitation materials: flip charts, markers, post-its, voting materials
Communication materials: multilingual flyers, posters, social media content
Technical staff for proposal review and cost estimation
Voting infrastructure (in-person ballots, digital platform, or both)
Public reporting mechanism (website, newsletter, community boards)
Digital tools
Platforms
For virtual sessions or collaborative documentation.
Practical recommendations
Start small and build. A first PB cycle with a modest budget is far better than a large-scale process that overwhelms the institution's capacity to implement. Trust is built through delivered promises.
The technical review phase is non-negotiable. Without feasibility assessment, communities invest emotional energy in proposals that cannot be implemented — a trust-destroying experience. Budget time and staff for thorough technical review.
Actively reach people who don't come to meetings. Traditional outreach reaches the already-organized. PB's value is in reaching the usually-excluded: young people, recent immigrants, shift workers, people with disabilities. Design outreach strategies specifically for these groups.
Close the feedback loop visibly. Publish implementation progress. When communities see that their vote produced a real sidewalk, park, or program, participation in the next cycle increases. When nothing happens, it decreases — often permanently.
Prevent elite capture. Without proactive inclusion design, PB can replicate existing power dynamics: the most organized groups dominate proposal development and voting. Use representational quotas, reserved budget pools for underserved areas, or youth/senior-specific tracks to counteract this.
For organizational (non-governmental) PB: the same principles apply — define a real budget pool, run genuine proposals, and implement results. PB in schools, universities, and NGOs has strong records of improving engagement and distributing resources more equitably.
Inspiration
Application examples by context:
- Municipal government: Porto Alegre (Brazil) — the original model, running since 1989, has redirected billions in municipal investment toward peripheral neighborhoods, producing measurable improvements in water, sanitation, and education access.
- School systems: New York City — the NYC Department of Education has run PB with students, allowing young people to allocate capital budgets for school improvements. Schools with PB report higher student engagement and ownership of physical spaces.
- Universities: Multiple universities in Latin America and Europe have implemented PB for student activity funds and campus improvement budgets. Students report feeling significantly more invested in the institution.
- Housing authorities: Several US and UK housing authorities have used PB to let tenants prioritize maintenance and improvement investments in their buildings and common areas.
- NGOs and foundations: Philanthropic organizations have used PB-style processes to let beneficiary communities directly allocate grant funding — a significant shift from donor-driven to community-driven philanthropy.
- Digital PB: All phases conducted online. Dramatically lowers participation barriers for some populations while raising them for others (digital divide). Works best as a complement to in-person assemblies, not a replacement.
- Youth PB: PB designed specifically for young people, often in schools. Uses age-appropriate facilitation and proposals. Strong evidence base for civic learning outcomes.
- Neighborhood Planning: Broader version that includes non-budget decisions — land use, zoning, community facilities. PB often serves as an entry point to neighborhood planning processes.
Consulted sources
- Wampler, B. (2007). Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. Penn State University Press.
- Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C. & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164–178.
- Shah, A. (Ed.) (2007). Participatory Budgeting. World Bank Publications.
- Participatory Budgeting Project. (2021). Participatory Budgeting in the United States and Canada: 2021 Impact Report. PBP.
- Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27–46.
