HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN-19-050 - Participatory Budgeting DebriefREPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:June 10, 2019
SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7353
PREPARED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 x 7353
WARD (S) INVOLVED:All
DATE OF REPORT:May 17, 2019
REPORT NO.:FIN-19-050
SUBJECT:Participatory Budgeting Debrief
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Thatstaffing and funding requirements for a permanent participatory budgeting
solution be brought back to Council through the 2020 budgeting process.
BACKGROUND:
Participatory budgeting (PB) is a novel “democratic process that gives ordinary people direct
control over a portion of a public budget.” Participatory budgeting differs from traditional public
consultations and community grant boards in that participants “both identify priority projects
and decide exactly which of these projects are funded” through a series of open assemblies.
The graphic below, produced by the Participatory Budgeting Project, provides a high-level
overview of a typical participatory budgeting process. Although it should be noted that there is
significant opportunity for customization within each step.
The City of Kitchener partneredwith the University of Waterloo (UW) to test the viability of PB
concepts within Kitchener. Specifically, Council provided direction to conduct PB pilots for the
redesign of Sandhills and Elmsdale parks. With assistance from UW, the consultation periods
have been completed for these two projects and staff are in a position to provide some findings
4 - 1
on the PB process and make recommendations about its future use in Kitchener. The UW
observations are a key part of this discussion, and their report is attached to the staffreport to
provide additional contextand more detailed information.Some portions of the staff report
include content from the UW report.
REPORT:
The Process
In its original form, a traditional PB process would set aside a definedamount of funding and
allow residents to allocate the funds for whatever purposes they deem most important. As noted
in an earlier report, PB has taken different forms as it has been implemented in North America,
with no specific “best practice” emergingas the municipal standard.
Given the lack of a standard PBpractice and this being Kitchener’s first foray into the PB space,
Council decided to take a measured approach and directed thePBengagement be limited to
twopark rehabilitation projects. Having a defined scope for the PB pilots is consistent with other
North American applications of PB, and it still allowedresidents to have confidence in the
process because of a transparent voting process.
Given Council’s directionto focus on the two parks projects,UW and staff developed a Made-
in-Kitchener approach for the PB pilots. The overall processwas similarfor each parkand
included three rounds of voting, which are listed and then described below.
Round 1 – Idea generation
Round 2 – Idea prioritization
Round 3 – Final Vote
Round 1 – Idea generation
Residentswere asked to share theirideas to improve to their neighbourhoodpark. Participants
were asked four open ended questions to prompt their input about what they like/don’t like about
the park and what should be added/removed from the park. City of Kitchener Landscape
Architects then reviewed the submissions to identify specific issues, screen responses for
feasibility, and group similar ideas.This process identified 23 different park elements for
ElmsdalePark and 25 for Sandhills Park (elements are listed in the attached UW report).
Round 2 – Idea prioritization
In Round 2,participants were asked to review the list of ideas that were generated in Round 1
andvote for which ideas they would prioritize.The Landscape Architects attached a cost
estimate to each idea and these were listed on the Round 2 ballots. This approach allowed
participants to consider trade-offs due to the budget constraints. The inclusion of costs hadthe
benefit of educating participants on the difficult decisions that staff and Council must make as
well as helping participants to spend the budget efficiently and effectively. Once the votes were
cast, the University of Waterloo team converted participantrankings into distinct park design
bundlesusing different vote-calculation algorithms.
4 - 2
Round 3 – Final Vote
Residentswere presented with a total of four different bundles, three that were created as a
direct result of their voting in Round 2, andone prepared by the Landscape Architects. To avoid
bias in the final voting, residents were not told which bundles were which. Residents cast their
votes for the bundle(s) they liked best and were then tallied to result in a winner. Copies of the
final ballots for the parks are shown below.
Round 3 – Final Vote Ballots for Elmsdale (left) and Sandhills (right) Parks
The Outcome
The major difference between a traditional park redesign engagement and the PB pilots was
that it moved the citizen engagement model from being a consultation where citizens provide
some input into the end product,to controlling the final outcome of the park. Residents had input
in all stages of the process, and were ultimately responsible for picking the specific elements to
be included in their neighbourhood parkas described in the previous section. In both parks, the
winning bundles were resident-generated bundles and not thestaff prepared bundle.The final
elements chosen by residents are shown in the table below.
4 - 3
Final Park Design Elements
Elmsdale Winning DesignSandhills Winning Design
(Green Bundle)(Red Bundle)
Chess tableChess table
Edible forestCommunity events space
Natural playground (logs,
Ping pong table
timbers, rocks)
Sand play areaPermanent garbage can
Sand volleyball courtSwing set
Site clean-up (dead trees,
Basketball court
overgrowth, weeds, etc.)
More shade treesBenches
Edible plantings / food
Little library
forest
Native perennial and
Benches & picnic tables
shrub plantings
Charcoal grill & picnic area
Original Elmsdale Park Items:Original Sandhills Park Items:
Triple-toss basketball hoopSmall playground
Picnic tableInformal basketball courts
BenchSoccer nets
Scrub ball diamondOpen lawn with mature trees
The Takeaways
As this was the City’s first attempt at a PB process, there were several points of learning, many
of which are covered in the UW report. Below are fiveof staff’s significant takeaways.
1.The PB process resulted in adifferent outcome.
For both Elmsdale and Sandhills Parks, the winning bundles were resident-generated
ideas, and both of the bundles were different. This suggests that what the City would
traditionally install in a neighbourhood park isdifferent than what local residents want to
see in the park, and that there is variation between neighbourhoods. Knowledgeable staff
(in this case Landscape Architects) are still required to achieve a viable park design, but
there appears to be a need to allow specific community input into park rehabilitations of
this magnitude.
4 - 4
2.The PB process required dedicated staffing resources.
In addition to the technical staff managing the specific capital projects (in this case
Landscape Architects), dedicated staffing resources were required to manage the PB
process. The City’s Community Engagement Consultant acted as project manager to
lead all aspects of engagement work. This included integrating corporate requirements
into the PB process, liaising between different departments, and managing the
partnership with UW. PB required a higher standard of care to administer given the
binding nature of votes, which meant adding in protocols to protect the integrity of the
process including secure voting mechanisms and verification of results, as well as
supplemental outreach to ensure that participation options were inclusive. As well, the
need for transparency with the community created additional complexity from a
communications perspective. The additional work required to support residents through
an unfamiliar and technical task aligns with key learnings fromLove My Hood – supporting
resident-led initiatives is resource-intensive.In addition to City staff resources, the City
also relied heavily on UW to help guide the overall PB process and design/analyze the
votes cast in rounds 2 and 3.
3.The PB process tooklonger.
The consultation and voting required by a PB process goes beyond the City’s traditional
engagement processes. PB has multiple iterations of publicinput,which take longer to
plan, schedule, advertise, organize and deliver. All of these steps mean it takes longer
to achieve an outcome, and requires resources knowledgeable in this type of
engagement. Even with a longer than normal consultation timeframe (in this case
February to June), the City received some feedback from participants that the process
seemed rushed. Given this feedbackfuture PB consultations should be spread out over
a longer timeframe, meaning it will take longer than normal to deliver those projects.
4.The final park costs were higher than budgeted.
The original budget for each of the park rehabilitations was $100,000 per park, but the
final budget for each park was $150,000.The original budget for each park did not fully
allow for the extended consultation, additional staff time, design contingency, and other
necessary park improvements beyond the PB scoped items. In addition,through the PB
process the City found that some participants were surprised at the cost of individual
components,especially components that required additional work to ensure they were
accessible.This underscores the need for technical expertise in a PB process, as the
public may have a different perception of what their desired solution may actually cost.
5.Coordination and cooperation between divisions was key.
The PB process drew on staff expertise and community relationships from a multiple
divisions. In addition to the technical expertise provided to parks projects by the
Landscape Architects (Parks & Cemeteries), and the overall process coordination
provided by the Community Engagement Consultant (Communications), one of the key
findings was the leveraging of community relationships by Neighbourhood Liaisons and
Community Centre Facilitators (Neighbourhood Programs & Services) to ensure strong
community participation in the PB process.
4 - 5
The Conclusion
The City’s first venture into the PB process definitely had some hiccups along the way, but
ultimately produced a final product that reflected the desires of the community in a way that a
traditional consultation would not have. Based on the results of these two pilot projects, staff
believe committing permanent resources (both financial and staffing) will further the City’s
commitment towards creating a “Caring Community” that enhances people’s sense of belonging,
and better engages citizens as articulated in the City’s Strategic Plan.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Priority:Open Government
Strategy: 1.3 – Create more opportunities for citizen dialogue on community issues and
introduce new ways for people to get involved in decisions that affect them.
Strategic Action: #OG10 Participatory Budgeting
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no specific financial implications stemming directly from this report, but there could be
ongoing financial commitments if Council wants to pursue a PB approach on a go forward basis.
As noted in the report, the coordination of a PB engagement is beyond the normal scope of City
consultation and is best suited for a dedicated resource instead of technical staff who are actually
managing the project.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
The report speaks to the City’s PB process and how it moved community engagement for these
park projects from consult to controlling the final outcome of the park redesign.
PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER:
Two previous report about Participatory Budgeting were provided to Committee. These reports
provided context about PB in general, and provided direction to move ahead with two specific
pilot projects.
FCS-17-028Participatory Budgeting
FCS-17-094Participatory Budgeting Follow Up
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services
4 - 6
Participatory Budgeting in the City of Kitchener
A summary report of the design and 2018 pilot.
Authors:
Dr. Sean Geobey
Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development
Sean Campbell
PhD student, University of Waterloo
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development
Contents
Participatory Budgeting in the City of Kitchener...................................................................... 1
Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 – Piloting Participatory Budgeting in the City of Kitchener............................................. 3
1.2 – Sandhills & Elmsdale Parks....................................................................................... 4
1.3 - Background on City-University Partnership................................................................. 5
2. Designing a Made-in-Kitchener Participatory Budgeting Pilot............................................. 5
2.1 - Alignment with City of Kitchener’s Strategic Plan........................................................ 5
2.2 - Designing a Participatory Budget................................................................................ 7
3. Results..............................................................................................................................12
3.1 - Overview....................................................................................................................12
3.2 – Round 1: Idea Generation.........................................................................................13
3.3 – Round 2: Prioritize Ideas...........................................................................................15
3.4 – Round 3: Final Vote..................................................................................................17
3.5 – Participation..............................................................................................................20
5. Design Options for Future Iterations..................................................................................23
Works Cited...........................................................................................................................25
4 - 7
Executive Summary
From February to June 2018 the City of Kitchener engaged in an innovative participatory budgeting (PB)
pilot project to redesign the features in Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park. PB is a democratic process
that moves beyond community consultation towards empowering the public by giving ordinary people
direct control over a portion of a public budget. In each of these parks $100,000 was allocated by local
residents using a process incorporating PB elements and a team from the University of Waterloo
partnered with the City of Kitchener to design this process as part of the Smart Cities Initiative.
Residents over the age of 12 who lived in the Chandler Mowat (Elmsdale Park) and Cedar Hill (Sandhills
Park) neighbourhoods were invited to participate in the PB pilot process through local neighbourhood
meetings, local community centres, and online. Their participation came about in three rounds. In
Round 1: Idea Generation residents were asked to identify opportunities to improve their parks. Then in
Round 2: Prioritizing Ideas residents voted to prioritize from a list of about two dozen distinct ideas to
create three distinct design bundles for each park. Finally in Round 3: Final Vote residents voted again to
rank four different design bundles – three created from residents’ Round 2 priorities and one designed
by city staff – from which the top-ranked design bundle from each neighbourhood was selected as the
winner.
In each park the winning design bundles were ones that came from those built using their Round 2:
Prioritizing Ideas votes. Both of the winning design bundles differed substantively from the original park
items and overall featured a large number of smaller items. As a percentage of the neighbourhood
populations, for Sandhills Park the participation rates were 2.22% in Round 2 and 2.51% in Round 3, and
for Elmsdale Park the rates were 1.61% in Round 2 and 1.26% in Round 3. These participation rates are
comparable to those seen in other PB process both within Ontario and internationally. Moreover, these
rates are also higher than those found in the City of Kitchener’s standard parks engagement process.
The use of PB by the City of Kitchener marks an important shift in the city’s approach to resident
engagement. Through the partnership with the University of Waterloo this pilot offered a number of key
insights into the PB process including (1) a confirmation that the PB process generates different results
than a traditional engagement process, (2) strong support for design bundles produced using a voting
process, (3) and an increase in resident participation. In addition, if the city expands the use of PB in its
resident engagement processes the process design will have to be adapted for these different purposes
and the use of the two-round voting process used in these pilots is recommended while these PB
designs are being developed.
Finally, there may be other ways of integrating PB processes into decision-making in the City of
Kitchener including but not limited to: priority-setting by city councillors, sharing of resources for
4 - 8
expenses that affect multiple city departments, volunteer-led granting committees, resource-sharing
between existing neighbourhood association, and staff engagement in cross-departmental initiatives.
1.1 – Piloting Participatory Budgeting in the City of Kitchener
Participatory budgeting (PB) is a novel “democratic process that gives ordinary people direct control
1
over a portion of a public budget.”Participatory budgeting differs from traditional public consultations
and community grant boards in that participants “both identify priority projects and decide exactly
2
which of these projects are funded” through a series of open assemblies. Budget allocations are
3
typically limited to expenditures which can be implemented over the course of one budget cycle—such
4
as enhancements to sports facilities and community activities
—however, some jurisdictions permit
multi-year expenditures to deepen engagement. PB is a flexible process which has been used at the city-
56
level, neighbourhood-level, and to allocate budgets within public housing buildings.
The City of Kitchener implemented an innovative participatory budgeting pilot project for the redesign
of Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park (see 1.2 – Sandhills & Elmsdale Parks for background information).
The pilot was developed in 2017 and conducted from February to April of 2018. Residents of Kitchener
were invited to participate in the direct democratic allocation of a $100,000 budget assigned for the
refurbishment of each park.
In Kitchener, residents over the age of 12 who lived in the Chandler Mowat (Elmsdale Park) and Cedar
Hill (Sandhills Park) neighbourhoods were invited to complete three rounds of surveys—conducted
between February and June of 2018—through three delivery channels: neighbourhood meetings, local
community centres and online. Participants were asked to identify opportunities for improving their
park (Round 1: Idea Generation), vote to prioritize those ideas (Round 2: Prioritize Ideas), and vote for
one of four design bundles of top ranked preferences (Round 3: Final Vote). Figure 1 shows the steps of
the pilot as presented to the participants.
Figure 1. Participant Engagements
Here’s how it will work:
1.You tell us what you want in your park. People living in the neighbourhoods surrounding the
parks are invited to attend a meeting to generate ideas. A survey will be available online
following the first meeting and paper copies will also be available for those who can’t make
the meeting;
2.You rank your favourite ideas for the park. Our experts, including landscape architects and
community centre staff, can advise and help where needed, and provide costing for items
that emerge from the ranking;
3.You vote on the design you like best;
4.We fund the winning park design within the assigned budget.
4 - 9
This document summarizes the pilot and its outcomes, the design process and elements, and
preliminary results of a concurrent research study conducted by a University of Waterloo team led by
Dr. Sean Geobey.
1.2 – Sandhills & Elmsdale Parks
Figure 2. Map of Sandhills Park
Sandhills Park is a small
neighbourhood park located in the
Cedar Hill neighbourhood, and in a
block bordered by Courtland
Avenue East, Peter Street, St.
George Street and Cedar Street
South (see Figure 2 for map). Prior
to refurbishment, Sandhills Park
had a small playground, informal
basketball courts and soccer nets,
as well as an open lawn with
mature trees. Paved trails crossed
the hills and slopes in the site. The
Imagefrom Google Maps. (2018a). Retrieved November 5, 2018, from
https://goo.gl/maps/y4rk52jjihu
entrance to the park is by: a
laneway off Peter Street; a trail
descending from St. George Street, and a more direct entrance from Cedar Street.
Figure 3. Map of Elmsdale
Elmsdale Park is a medium-sized
park located in the Chandler Mowat
neighbourhood, near the
intersection of Chandler Drive and
Ottawa Street (see Figure 3 for
map). Prior to refurbishment, there
was a triple-toss basketball hoop,
picnic table and bench, and a scrub
ball diamond in the park. The
existing playground was 20 years
old.
As a result of the participatory
budgeting process conducted with
neighbourhood residents, both
Imagefrom Google Maps. (2018b). Retrieved November 5, 2018, from
https://goo.gl/maps/yHA3EA9oSTy
parks saw significant changes in the
winning proposals from what existed prior to the pilot.
4 - 10
1.3 - Background on City-University Partnership
The City of Kitchener entered into a sponsored research agreement with the University of Waterloo in
September 2016 for the purpose of collaborating on a participatory budgeting pilot project. The City of
Kitchener made a $20,000 contribution through the Smart Cities Initiative, matched by a $20,000
contribution from the University of Waterloo, to fund the research team’s involvement. Dr. Sean
Geobey, Assistant Professor of Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation in the University of
Waterloo’s School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), was selected to lead the
University of Waterloo team in accomplishing the following goals:
1.Assess current academic and applied research on participatory budgeting processes
2.Develop options for an implementation plan
3.Assist in managing and developing a formative evaluation of the process with City staff
The agreement additionally described the scholarly research that would be conducted alongside the
broader project. It was noted that participatory budgeting is an emerging process for citizen
engagement in Canada, and that key questions include:
1.Do participatory budgets improve collective decision-making outcomes?
2.How should participant preferences be used to generate design bundles that are right for their
community?
Preliminary conclusions on these questions are included throughout this document and detailed results
will be shared with both the City of Kitchener and the research community (e.g. via academic articles).
This research has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through a University of Waterloo
Research Ethics Committee (ORE#22501).
2. Designing a Made-in-Kitchener Participatory Budgeting Pilot
This section discusses why the City of Kitchener decided to implement a participatory budgeting pilot,
how the pilot was designed, and how these design choices shaped the outcome.
2.1 -Alignment with City of Kitchener’s Strategic Plan
The City of Kitchener’s Strategic Plan identifies “Open Government” as a strategic priority, with
participatory budgeting listed as a strategic action for advancing an open government agenda. An
Environics Research survey was commissioned by the City of Kitchener in 2018 to understand the views
7
of residents on “municipal issues and the City’s strategic priorities.”The survey found a high level of
support for both participatory governance in general, and participatory budgeting specifically:
Participatory Governance: When asked if increased citizen participation in decision-making
should be prioritized, 57% of respondents selected “Top Priority”, 34% selected “Secondary
8
Priority”, and 7% selected “Not a Priority.”
Participatory Budgeting: Respondents were asked to select from a list of actions that the City
has taken over the preceding four years to improve the information and involvement of citizens.
4 - 11
Involvement of citizens in budget decisions was reported to have provided the greatest benefit
9
(37%).
th10
At a special meeting of City of Kitchener Council held on February 27, 2017, councillors were asked to
reflect on the following benefits ascribed to participatory budgeting by its advocates, with the purpose
of providing guidance to staff and the University of Waterloo research team on the outcomes that
should be prioritized:
Improved accountability and trust: Open government decision-making and build relationships
11
between councillors and residents.The improved accountability and trust may smooth
relations during periods of austerity by involving those impacted by budgetary cuts in the
12
difficult decision-making process.
Increased effectiveness and engagement: Establish a new channel of communication with
otherwise under-represented groups, and “improve the level and quality of information
13
available” to municipal staff through direct engagement.
Increased community engagement:Encourage active participation in the community. Some
evidence from England suggests that participants of the budgeting process were more likely to
14
join local civil society organizations. Transferring power to communities and grassroots
15
movements can inspire a sense of collective agency and political will.
Education of government processes: PB can act as a “citizenship school” which “empowers
citizens to better understand their rights and duties as citizens as well as the responsibilities of
16
government.” To engage underrepresented groups, however, governments must support their
citizenry through specific training (ex. interpreting financials) and supports (ex. translation,
17
childcare, transportation).
Promotion of cooperation and social justice: PB promotes social cohesiveness and
understanding by bringing together groups from different backgrounds and experiences (ex.
seniors and youth, indigenous and immigrant). PB can resulted in disadvantaged communities
18
receiving a greater share of the budget.
No limit was placed on the number of benefits that a Councillor could prioritize. All five benefits were of
interest to Council, with ‘improved accountability and trust’, and ‘increased effectiveness and
engagement’ receiving the most interest.
Figure 4. PB Benefits Prioritized by Council
PB BenefitsPrioritization by Councillors
Improved accountability and trust 6
Increased effectiveness and engagement6
Increased community engagement4
Education of government processes4
Promotion of cooperation 4
N/a. Does not support this initiative 1
4 - 12
For the purposes of the City of Kitchener’s pilot, the response of Council led to a pilot design that sought
a balanced approach to achieving these objectives within the scope of the selected test sites. For
example, a pilot that prioritized only ‘education of government processes’ may have occurred over a
longer period of time with regular in-person meetings, greater discussion and engagement with experts,
and more in-depth explanatory materials. Such an approach would likely have decreased community
engagement because of the high time cost.
2.2 -Designing a Participatory Budget
Figure 5, produced by the Participatory Budgeting Project, provides a high-level overview of a typical
participatory budgeting process. Within each step there is significant opportunity for customization. This
section considers the decisions that were made in the design of the City of Kitchener participatory
budgeting pilot.
Figure 5. Graphical Overview of How Participatory Budgeting Works
Image from The Participatory Budgeting Project. (n.d.). What is Participatory Budgeting. Retrieved from
https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/download/pbp-general-info-sheet/#
2.2.1 - Who Participates?
PB is designed to empower a target community, however, this community can be defined either
geographically (ex. neighbourhood), by sector via shared demographics (ex. youth, arts), or cultural
background (ex. Indigenous). The selection of PB target determines not only the impact but also design
elements of the program. For example, if a geographic approach is taken a municipality can leverage
neighbourhood associations or direct marketing to access participants, whereas if a sector approach is
19
taken then NGOs with a shared focus area would be appropriate partners. It has been noted that the
inclusion of associations and NGOs can result in the exclusion of individual citizens who lack the
20
technical capacity and organization to effectively advocate for a given position.
When deciding between a geographic- and sector-focus, a municipality should consider both the
intended outcomes and the needs of the targeted group. If a high degree of lived-experience or
specialist knowledge is required to inform a vote on proposals, then a sector approach is likely
4 - 13
preferable. If, on the other hand, a key goal is to increase cooperation and a sense of community, then
21
perhaps a neighbourhood approach is preferable.
After receiving direction from Council, City of Kitchener staff considered (1) where there was a budget
available to be allocated, (2) issue areas that would be accessible and interesting to residents, (3) and
where there existed a meaningful amount of choice between potential outcomes. Following several
conversations across departments, the idea of using participatory budgeting to allocate park
refurbishment budgets. The staff report to Council described the advantages of this approach as follows:
“Parks are a valued City asset with a long lifespan and something the local community cares
strongly about, which should encourage input by neighbourhood residents.
“Findings from the PB pilots could potentially be replicated year after year (within the context of
planning parks), meaning there is a higher probability the PB pilot would have a long-standing
impact on City processes rather than just being a one-time exercise.
“A review of consultation around parks rehabilitation projects was already identified through
the Neighbourhood Strategy and had been planned for 2017 through the Parks, Playgrounds
and Trails Community Engagement Review. Findings from the PB pilots will help inform this
22
review.”
The specific parks for inclusion in the PB pilot, Sandhills Park and Elmsdale Park, were chose because:
1.They had already been identified for refurbishment which limited the additional workload for
the Parks Department
2.No new funding was required as funds were already allocated through the Neighbourhood Park
Rehabilitation and the Central Area Park Rehabilitation capital accounts
3.The locations represented a downtown and suburban park which allowed for comparison of
results across geographies
As cities become more diverse in Canada, “there is a higher need to accommodate cultural and language
23
differences.” At the very least participants should be representative of the broader community,
however, greater effort and resources may be applied to intentionally attract more involvement from
disadvantaged groups. This engagement should begin early on, with staff sharing decision-making with
24
desired participants for the design of the process itself.The City of Kitchener contributed significant
staff time to the creation of attractive marketing materials, to conduct outreach at community centres,
and to include non-text based materials and visual aids for those with literacy challenges or with English
as a second language.
Future iterations of participatory budgeting in Kitchener can select different communities to participate.
For example, the geographic area could be a neighbourhood, a ward, or the full city. Alternatively, a
participatory budgeting process could allocate resources for youth or seniors, artists or festivals.
4 - 14
2.2.2 – Pilot Budget and Community Support
An initial budget of $100,000 was allocated by the City of Kitchener for the refurbishment of each park,
for a total project budget of $200,000. This amount had been budgeted in advance by the City of
Kitchener’s Parks Department as part of their standard park refurbishment process. While established
participatory budgeting processes are often much larger, for a pilot participatory budgeting process this
amount allowed the University of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener teams the opportunity to test
different designs for this approach.
Beyond municipal budget resources, it has been suggested by PB advocates that interest in participatory
budgeting can leverage investments from senior tiers of government, foundations, community
organizations, and the business community. The Participatory Budgeting Project estimates that "for
every $5 million that is directly allocated through PB, another $1 million is raised through matching
25
funds, in-kind, contributions, and other sources."
Future iterations of participatory budgeting may wish to seek external funds from foundations or other
private donors to further the impact of municipal resources. However, care should be taken to ensure
that doing so does not exacerbate inequalities in the city by, for example, creating disparities in
equipment or service deliveries between wealthier neighbourhoods in which extra fundraising may be
easier and poorer neighbourhoods in which additional fundraising could be more difficult.
2.2.3 - Process Design
In some jurisdictions, the government will design the process and idea requirements for participatory
budgeting, waiting to engage citizens until the item identification stage. For example, the City of Toronto
26
pilot allowed participants to propose capital projects on City-property with a cost of under $250,000.
In contrast, New York and Chicago created steering committees comprised of both civil society
organizations and individual citizens to "map out the PB cycle, decide its rules, and agree on roles and
27
responsibilities.”For the City of Kitchener, a short timeline necessitated a City-led process. This
approach had the benefit of allowing for careful consideration of how the pilot would integrate with
existing park refurbishment processes.
Globally, some participatory budgeting processes are designed with a social justice focus, where the goal
is to provide a venue for marginalized populations to control the distribution of resources. In such a
process the design of the participation may be of equal or greater importance because marginalization
occurs as a result of the inability to exercise power, and a history of negative interactions has created a
culture of distrust. As an example, a reconciliation fund to distribute grants to Indigenous communities
may seek to work with Indigenous communities to develop the structure of the granting program. In
contrast, the City of Kitchener pilot focused on the population at large of the respective
neighbourhoods. While the process was designed by the City, residents could remain confident in the
pilot because of a transparent voting process.
4 - 15
2.2.4 - Integrating with Existing Planning Systems
The participatory budgeting process resulted in several important changes to traditional park
consultations. As seen in Figure 6, PB moves from consultation to control. Participants have multiple
opportunities to vote on the outcome:
Round 1 – Idea Generation: In both the traditional and participatory budgeting processes the
residents are asked to identify opportunities for improving the park.
Round 2 – Prioritize Ideas: The pilot added a unique voting stage where residents were asked to
rank the identified opportunities by preference. The top ranked ideas were incorporated into
the final design bundles.
Round 3 – Final Vote: The defining difference of participatory budgeting is that the participants
vote on the final option and the option with the most votes is implemented by the City. The
two-step voting process of ranked ballot and voting on design bundles allows multiple
opportunities for resident engagement and reduces the likelihood that an outlier will be
approved without support from a majority of residents.
Figure 6.General Comparison of Public Consultation Process with Participatory Budgeting Option
Stage Traditional Park Consultation Participatory Budget Pilot Park
Consultation
1 Landscape architect assigned UW-researcher and staff working group
formed
2 Staff consult with neighbourhood to Round 1: Idea Generation
generate ideas for park improvements
3 Staff develop conceptual plans Staff vet ideas for reasonability and
feasibility (e.g. does an idea fit within the
budget constraints
4 Staff consult neighbourhood on Viable ideas are presented in a ballot form
conceptual plans and neighbours vote for their preferred
park elements
5 Round 2: Prioritize Ideas
6 Round 3: Final Vote
7 Staff develop final design planStaff develop final design plan
8 Staff communicate final design & next Staff communicate final design & next
steps to neighbourhood steps to neighbourhood
9 Staff-led execution Staff-led execution
It is recommended that future iterations of PB in Kitchener experiment with greater public participation
at each stage of this engagement process. Further, it is recommended that in each new domain in which
a PB processes is implemented, that the first iteration be treated as a pilot process. It is likely that each
domain will face a different balance of constraints in terms of how staff and participants can be included
in the process.
4 - 16
2.2.5 - Measuring Success
Limited discussion was found on the measurement of participatory budgeting’s success as a tool for
achieving the policy outcomes identified earlier in this document. An exception was a 2011 national
study of PB programs by the U.K.'s Department for Communities and Local Government which identified
a series of qualitative and quantitative measures to track, including:
Participation Rate: The percentage of eligible residents that participated. The Ontario examples
listed earlier achieved rates of between 2-5%. Jurisdictions may additionally consider the
demographics of this participation and whether it represents target or disenfranchised groups,
and the number of civil society organizations involved in the process.
Civic Engagement: The 2011 study compared factors before and after the implementation of PB,
including the percentage of residents who reported a sense of community belonging, and the
28
rate of civil society participation.
Administrative Cost to the City: Promotional materials, facilities usage, and staff time which
would not otherwise be required.
The City of Kitchener collected data on participation rates and the University of Waterloo research team
collected data on civic engagement. Administrative costs to the City of Kitchener were not tracked as it
was acknowledged that as a pilot initiative the costs would be higher as processes are being developed.
The results are discussed later in this report.
4 - 17
3. Results
3.1 - Overview
Below is an overview of the four step process involved in the two
participatory budgeting pilots at Elmsdale Park and Sandhills Park.
Round 1 – Idea Generation (February 2018)
Participants were asked to generate ideas for what to include in a
park. City of Kitchener landscape architects analyzed the responses to
convert feedback into an idea. For example, “park is dark and
dangerous” may have been recorded as “add additional lighting.” This
step was required to allow for comparison of ideas, and did require
professional judgement on the part of the architects. Submissions that
were outside of the scope (ex. run festivals in the park) or prohibitively
expensive given the idea budget (ex. install a pool) were removed.
Round 2 – Prioritize Ideas (April – May 2018)
Elmsdale used a Range Ballot in which preference for an item was
indicated by scoring each idea from 10 to 0, where 10 points was the
most desired and 0 points was the least desired. All 24 ideas could be
scored, but scoring all ideas was not required and unranked projects
were treated as having a score of 0.
Sandhills used a Ranked Ballot in which ideas that people wanted in
the park were ranked by preference from 1 to n, where 1 was the most
desired and n was the least desired. All 25 ideas could be ranked, but
ranking all ideas was not required.
The University of Waterloo team converted participant rankings into
distinct design bundles using different vote-calculation algorithms.
Round 3 - Final Vote (May 2018)
Residents were provided with distinct design bundles to consider and vote for. The landscape architects
were asked to again exercise professional judgement in creating one of the final design bundles to fit
within both the $100,000 spending cap and site-specific constraints, alongside three design bundles at
each site constructed using priorities set by participant votes. That being noted even with the
participant-voted design bundles, feasibility would have to be screened by staff. For example, a park
may have been able to have either a volleyball court or a soccer field, but not the space to have both.
Round 4 – City funds winning design (Fall 2018)
4 - 18
The City of Kitchener was expected to start construction of the two park designs.
3.2 – Round 1: Idea Generation
In Round 1, participants were asked to “share your ideas to improve to the park.” To structure the
responses received, participants were provided with the following four questions, and asked to provide
a written response (responses were received in bullet point form, and both partial and complete
sentences) of up to 250 words for each:
1.What features would you like the City to remove from the park, and why?
2.What features would you like the City to add to the park, and why?
3.What existing features would you like the City to keep, and why?
4.What existing features would you like the City to change, and why?
The collected responses were analyzed by two City of Kitchener Landscape architects who completed
the following steps:
Idea Identification: Convert each response into a distinct idea for improvement. For example,
“make the park brighter so its safe at night” may have been recorded as “add lighting”.
Screening for Feasibility: Ideas were screened out if they outside of the jurisdiction of the
municipal government or were otherwise not legal, and if they were deemed not feasible
because the cost would the available budget.
Grouping of Similar Ideas: In order to allow for future rounds of voting, similar ideas were
grouped together.
The professional judgement of the Landscape architects was required to perform this analysis as well as
the costing of each idea. Future versions of participatory could also include direct citizen participation or
oversight over this element of the process.
Figure 7 contains the ideas that were identified by participants and vetted by the Landscape architects.
There are both similarities and differences between the lists. Residents in both parks proposed
basketball courts, a micro dog park, ping pong tables, grills, seating, edible forests, chess tables, natural
playgrounds, and a winter ice rink. Elmsdale residents were unique in proposing a baseball diamond,
large traditional playground, and volleyball court. Sandhills residents were unique in proposing an
amphitheatre, entrance improvements, outdoor exercise stations, and public art.
Figure 7. Identified Improvements by Park
Elmsdale ParkSandhills Park
Baseball Diamond Amphitheatre
Basketball CourtBasketball Court
Benches & Picnic Tables BBQ/ Grill w Picnic Area
Charcoal Grill & Picnic Area Benches
Chess Table Big Downhill Slide
Climbing Structure Bocce Ball
Community Garden Cedar & Peter St. Entrance Improvements
Edible Forest Chess Table
4 - 19
Large Traditional Playground w Swings Climbing Structure
Lawn ImprovementsCommunity Event Space
Little LibraryEdible Plantings / Food Forest
Micro Dog Park Exercise Stations
More Shade TreesMicro Dog Park
Multi Court Mini Soccer Field
Natural PlaygroundNative Perennial & Shrub Plantings
Ping Pong Table Natural Playground
Sand Play Area Permanent Garbage Cans
Sand Volleyball Court Ping Pong Table
Shade StructurePublic Art
Small Traditional Playground w Swings Site Clean-up
Soccer Field Small Traditional Playground
Trail Around ParkSt. George St Entrance Improvements
Winter Ice Rink Swing Set
Trail Improvements
Winter Ice Rink
3.2.1 – Additional Takeaways from Round 1
Lessons from the Round 1 experience are generally applicable to PB projects, and provide specific
insights for future parks consultations.
In the context of park refurbishment, items presented only included those which would be added or
refurbished for the updated parks. They did not include the cost of removing items, nor did they include
operational expenses. The design of the PB pilot process here was focused on how participants would
select items to be allocated for the future, but how the costing of the removal of existing items was
unclear. The PB pilot process here built on the park as a “blank slate” and in practice this is not always
going to be the case.
In a general sense, this phase in the process relied extensively on city staff to analyze information
provided by participants and their own expertise to both (a) identify feasible ideas for inclusion in future
rounds and (b) estimate the expense that would be associated with each item. Although time
constraints did not permit a greater degree of public participation in this phase of the process for the PB
pilot, designing this phase with greater public engagement in mind can increase accountability and trust
in government and provide opportunities for greater education of government processes. As a
consequence of having limited time during the pilot it was difficult for the public to understand what
was in scope for this particular process.
4 - 20
3.3 – Round 2: Prioritize Ideas
In Round 2, participants were asked to review the list of ideas that were generated in Round 1 and
express which ideas they would prioritize. Each park used a slightly different approach (the reason for
this difference will be explain later in this section):
Elmsdale Park: Participants scored each idea between 0 and 10, where 10 was the highest and 0
was the lowest. In this approach voters could score as many or as few ideas as they wanted, and
unscored ideas were treated as having a score of 0.
stndrdth
Sandhills Park: Participants ranked items in declining order of preference (ex. 1
, 2, 3, 4….).
st
In this approach, each item had a unique preference (i.e. two items couldn’t both be the 1
priority) and participants could rank as few or as many ideas as they liked. This being noted,
when voters did indicate ties calculations were made to ensure these votes were counted rather
than rendered invalid by splitting the tied votes into two “half-votes” of equal weight to
rdrd
represent the tie. This would turn a tied vote of (3 = Swing and 3 = Slide) to two half-votes of
rdththrd
(3
= Swing and 4 = Slide) and (4= Swing and 3 = Slide).
The Landscape architects attached a cost estimate to each idea and these were listed on the Round 2
ballots. This approach allowed participants to consider trade-offs that are required due to the budget
constraint. The inclusion of costs has the benefit of educating participants on the difficult decisions that
staff and Council must make as well as helping participants to spend the budget efficiently and
effectively. That being noted, participants were not asked to specifically limit their preferences to work
within the $100,000 budget constraint for each park.
The key design question from this pilot is this: how should participant preferences be used to generate
design bundles that are right for their community? For this pilot, a made-in-Kitchener two-step process
was developed to answer this question. For Round 2, four different ways were used to convert the votes
of people into distinct design bundles. Round 3 asked participants to vote again to select which design
bundle out of these for they preferred. These design bundles were different enough in each park that
the participants had a real choice to make when deciding between them.
The following approaches were used to calculate the design bundle:
Design bundle 1 (support ranking): Sort the items in order from highest to lowest of the total
support they received (scores, high rankings), with the idea at the top of the list having received
the highest support and the idea at the bottom having received the lowest support. Starting
from the top and working down, the idea with the most support is funded as long as there is
money available for it from the budget. If the next idea on the list costs more than the budget
available it is excluded then the next item on the list is considered. This continues until the
budget is spent or there are no remaining items on the list.
Design bundle 2 (support/cost ranking): Similar to Design bundle 1 the total support for each
idea from participants is calculated. The support for each idea is then divided by the cost of the
idea and ordered from highest support/cost to lowest. Starting from the top and working down,
the idea with the most support/cost is funded as long as there is money available for it from the
4 - 21
budget. If the next idea on the list costs more than the budget available it is excluded then the
next item on the list is considered. This continues until the budget is spent.
Design bundle 3 (participant mini-budget): Each participant is given an equal share of the total
budget. A participant’s share of the budget is allocated to each individual idea they support,
weighted by their (0-10) score in Elmsdale and or provided to the highest-ranked item in
Sandhills. If a idea has more money allocated to it than the project costs, it is funded. Leftover
money from overfunded projects (for example – participants allocate $20,000 to a project that
only costs $10,000) are returned to participants and reallocated to the remaining unfunded
projects they support. This continues until the budget is spent.
Design bundle 4: The Landscape Architects constructed a design bundle much as they would for
a traditional park refurbishment.
It is important to remember that although each design bundle was different, the prioritizations that the
participants provided did not change, and that these prioritizations were the only inputs. In other words,
the participants were always in charge. All that changed was the calculations used to interpret these
prioritizations.
In Round 3, participants were presented with different options that were created as a direct result of
their voting in Round 2. Round 3 ensured that the testing of alternative voting systems did not diminish
participant control or distort the outcome. Participants could still vote for the status quo design bundle
designed by the Landscape Architects (Design bundle 4) or any of the three developed through their
prioritizations (Design bundle 1, Design bundle 2 and Design bundle 3).
3.3.1 – Additional Takeaways from Round 2
The creation of design bundles using votes provided city staff with a clear sense of the priorities of
participants. Vote tallies can be publicly posted, as they are following municipal elections, allowing
participants and the broader community to validate decisions. Moreover, these preferences can play a
role outside the immediate PB engagement.
First, the votes can inform implementation. While city staff make their best estimates of the feasibility
of different ideas and how much their implementation will cost, during implementation the reality will
likely vary. If these variations are minor then the variations are unlikely to impact the final design
bundles. However, if these variations are major – for example previously unknown site characteristics
render an idea infeasible or final cost estimates are substantially higher than anticipated – the votes cast
for a design bundle can be recalculated using revised cost estimates or after having eliminated infeasible
items. Staff can use these recalculations to estimate what participants would have selected under these
different constraints. While this approach will not fully capture how participants would have voted given
these different options, repeating the full PB engagement process to amend the budget is not feasible,
and instead the revised budget may be sufficient to guide implementation.
4 - 22
Second, votes cast for ideas that remain unfunded can still inform broader decision-making. Notably, if
an idea is found to be popular amongst groups of participants engaged in different PB sites but does not
find sufficient support in any one particular site, then it may make sense to identify ways that the idea
or a similar one could still be implemented. For example, a large amenity could be shared by people in
multiple neighbourhoods, such as a splash pad, that is too costly to receive sufficient support from
neighbours in any one particular location. By monitoring support for ideas that are not implemented
locally, staff can identify opportunities for supporting amenities that may serve a larger catchment area.
3.4 – Round 3: Final Vote
Figure 8. Elmsdale Final Vote Form
In the third and final round, participants were
presented with four distinct design bundles of
items, as seen in Figures 8 and 9. The underlying
voting system that was used to create the design
bundle was not communicated, and neither was
the design bundle which was created by the
Landscape architects. This was done for three
main reasons: (1) to simplify the process by
avoiding a complex discussion on voting systems
that may create a barrier to participation, (2) to
avoid influencing the outcome if a participant
favoured one approach over another, and (3)
because it was expected to have little or no
impact on the choice in front of the participant.
4 - 23
The final design bundle was selected using a ranking of the four design bundles and an Alternative Vote
calculating system. In this system, first preference votes were counted and if a majority of participants
selected a design bundle it won. If a majority of participants did not support a single design bundle, the
design bundle with the lowest number of first
preference votes was dropped and the next
Figure 9. Sandhills Final Vote Form
highest design bundle for each of those voters
was counted instead. This continued until a
design bundle received at least half the vote.
Figure 10 displays the winning design bundles.
The winning design bundles both include a chess
table and edible forest, but otherwise do not
share any of the same features. This strongly
suggests that the PB process was effective at
reflecting the local priorities of participants.
Figure10. Winning Designs
Elmsdale Winning DesignSandhills Winning Design
(Green Design bundle – Participant Mini-(Red Design bundle – Support Ranking)
Budget)
Chess table Chess table
Edible forestCommunity events space
Natural playground (logs,
Ping pong table
timbers, rocks)
Sand play area Permanent garbage can
Sand volleyball court Swing set
Site clean-up (dead trees,
Basketball court
overgrowth, weeds, etc.)
More shade trees Benches
Little library Edible plantings / food forest
4 - 24
Native perennial and shrub
Benches & picnic tables
plantings
Charcoal grill & picnic area
Original Elmsdale Park Items: Original Sandhills Park Items:
Triple-toss basketball hoop Small playground
Picnic table Informal basketball courts
Bench Soccer nets
Scrub ball diamondOpen lawn with mature trees
3.4.1 – Key Lessons from Round 3
Since the two sites used different ballots, there is not sufficient data from this pilot to conclude that one
particular system delivers better results than any other. As a result, it is premature to suggest that a
single PB voting system should be used for all applications in Kitchener. While more experimentation is
recommended, initial findings do suggest strong support for the use of voting in budget allocations as in
both Elmsdale Park and Sandhills Park the design bundles developed using participant votes performed
better in Round 3 voting than the design bundles designed by staff.
There were features of the Range Ballot Participant Mini-Budget approach that ultimately won the final
round vote in Elmsdale Park that are appealing. First, the scoring of each item from 0 – 10 is a relatively
user-friendly design. Second, the calculation method provides an equal weight to each voter in decision-
making more effectively than the Support Ranking or Support/Cost Ranking approaches. Third, the votes
provide enough information that recalculations intended to account for operational realities, as
discussed in 2.3.1, are both straightforward and expected to have a limited impact on the entire design
bundle. Finally, the range ballot calculation methods used in the pilot all reduced the likelihood of highly
unpopular ideas with strong niche support being included in the final design bundle. By contrast, from
the Ranked Ballot methods used at Sandhills Park only the Support Ranking method achieved this result.
The two-round voting process provides a strong basis for ongoing experimentation in PB design and it is
highly recommended that it remain part of City of Kitchener PB processes for the near future. What a
two-round process allows is for two or more parallel decision-making processes to occur simultaneously
because the final round of voting lets participants choose between the different design bundles each
process creates. This allows for continued experimentation in voting processes, but also
experimentation with other methods such as having local residents negotiate to structure one or more
design bundles, use a randomly-selected resident panel to create a design bundle, allow a
neighbourhood association to design their own process, or test different staff-led engagement
approaches. The results from this PB pilot are ambiguous as to the possibility of “engagement fatigue”
dissuading public participation between voting rounds. That being noted, for participants this final
round may provide an opportunity to have more focused conversations about the items that are most
likely to be included in a budget.
4 - 25
In addition to allowing different processes to run in parallel, a two-round voting process also allows for
an additional check on the process that a single-round would not. During Round 2: Prioritize Ideas
participants were indicating support for individual ideas in isolation from each other. However, Round 3:
Final Vote allowed participants to consider whole design bundles of ideas which allowed them to
consider how these individual ideas within each design bundle will interact with each other once
implemented.
3.5 – Participation
The City of Kitchener regularly engages residents for park refurbishment projects. These engagements
typically include an initial survey to gather preferences and needs, an open house where residents can
ask questions, provide feedback directly to staff, and complete a short survey which asks participants for
their input on features they would like to see in the updated park. City staff report that for
neighbourhood parks—such as Elmsdale and Sandhills Parks—a participation rate of approximately of
20 – 25 individuals is expected for an open house (equivalent to Round 1: Idea Generation in this PB
pilot) and 100 individuals are expected for a survey submission (equivalent to Round 2: Prioritize Ideas
and Round 3: Final Vote in this PB pilot). That being noted, during a standard engagement process the
initial survey outreach would occur before and during an open house whereas in this PB pilot the
ordering was reversed.
Figure 11 shows the change in participation over the three rounds for each park. The participatory
budgeting pilot saw an increase in participation for the voting rounds (Round 2 and Round 3) relative to
the idea generation round. As a percentage of the neighbourhood populations, for Sandhills Park the
participation rates were 2.22% in Round 2 and 2.51% in Round 3, and for Elmsdale Park the rates were
1.61% in Round 2 and 1.26% in Round 3. The decline in turnout for Elmsdale Park between Round 2 and
Round 3 is quite similar to the increase in Sandhills Park’s turnout between Round 2 and Round 3, which
given that only two pilots were run makes it difficult to know if engagement fatigue was an issue.
The participation rates for the PB pilot are comparable to the City of Hamilton’s participatory budgeting
5
project which achieved a participation rate of 2.67%, and substantially higher than the City of Toronto’s
6
pilot which achieved rates of 0.5-0.7% across the three participating neighbourhoods. Future iterations
of participatory budgeting will be required to determine if the increased participation will continue or if
it stems from the novelty of the process. However, it is important to note that the round with the lowest
level or participation, Round 1: Idea Generation, is also the round in which engagement process was
closest to a traditional engagement processes.
4 - 26
Figure 11. Number of Participantsby Park
Number of Participants per Voting Round by Park
120
100
80
60
Axis Title
40
20
0
Round 1Round 2Round 3
Elmsdale
509675
Sandhills
4092104
1
Participants were asked in Rounds 1 and 3 to voluntarily disclose the gender with which they identify,
or select ‘Other’. In Round 3 voting, 76% of Elmsdale participants and 59% of Sandhills participants self-
identified as a woman (see Figure 12). Statistics Canada data for the neighbourhoods report near gender
2
balance, with women comprising 51% of Elmsdale and 49% of Sandhills populations.The City of
Kitchener’s online engagement tool was used, and open house times were varied, to reduce barriers for
participation based on work schedules.
1
An effort was made to minimize the time cost to participants by minimizing the number of questions asked. As a
result, gender and other demographic statistics were not collected in Round 2.
2
The researchers selected Statistics Canada Census Tracts that most closely match the park catchment areas used
by the City of Kitchener for pilot promotions, however, the boundaries do not directly align. The following 2016
Census Tract geographic codes were used: Elmsdale (5410002.02), Sandhills (5410011.00).
4 - 27
Figure 12. Participation by Identified Gender by Park
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ElmsdaleSandhilsElmsdaleSandhilsElmsdaleSandhills
Round 1Round 3Census
Men
26%35%23%49%49%51%
Women
70%60%76%51%51%49%
Other
4%5%0000%
Data from Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-400-X2016005.
Participants were also asked in Round 1 and Round 3 to identify the highest level of education attained.
For Elmsdale Park during Round 1, 49% of participants had completed a post-secondary education
(certificate, diploma or degree) while during Round 3 the lower rate of 39% of participants had
completed post-secondary educations. For Sandhills Park Round 1, 81% of participants had completed a
post-secondary education while in Round 2 a similar 80% of participants had completed a post-
secondary education.
Figure 13. Participation by Highest Level of Education Attained by Park
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
Axis Title
10%
5%
0%
Round 1Round 3Round 1Round 3
ElmsdaleSandhillsCensus (CMA)
High School
41%33%8%15%29%
Trade Certificate
5%3%8%3%6%
College Diploma
21%20%28%16%24%
Undergraduate Degree
13%13%15%26%15%
Professional or Graduate Degree
10%3%30%35%7%
Other
10%28%13%6%19%
Census data from Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001
4 - 28
City of Kitchener staff determined that residents 12 years of age and older would be eligible to
participate in the process. In Round 3 of Elmsdale voting, 22% of respondents were in the age range of
12 – 17, substantially higher than the 2016 Census population of 7%. In Sandhills, 3% of respondents
were in the 12-17 age range, 1% lower than the 2016 Census population of 4%. Both parks had the
highest turnout from individuals between the ages of 30 – 54. The second highest turnout in Sandhills
was from individuals 55 years of age or older, and in Elmsdale from residents 18-29 (see Figure 14).
Figure 14. Population by Age by Park
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Round 1Round 2Round 3CensusRound 1Round 2Round 3Census
ElmsdaleSandhills
12 - 17
32%22%22%7%8%3%3%4%
18 -29
8%22%22%18%14%15%14%23%
30 - 54
44%41%41%32%54%63%61%38%
55+
14%16%16%27%24%23%22%26%
Census data from Statistics Canada, 2016 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-400-X2016005.
5. Design Options for Future Iterations
This participatory budgeting pilot process was an important step for the City of Kitchener to experiment
with a new form of resident engagement. Despite the long history of participatory budgeting projects
around the world, there remains many unanswered questions, and the methodical approach taken by
the City of Kitchener in partnership with the University of Waterloo has offered new insights, including:
Confirmation that the process generates results that are different from the traditional planning
process
Strong support among participants for design bundlesof amenities selected using a vote
Participation rates increase when residents are empowered to make decisions through a
transparent process
Two rounds of voting allow for greater variation in design which can, in turn, support a variety of
applications of participatory budgets
This final piece about using two-round voting processes is particularly important if the City of Kitchener
intends on expanding PB for use in other resident engagements. Much of the design for these pilots was
driven by the nature of city park planning. However, other engagement processes will necessarily have
different features. For example, the visual representation of physical items on the ballot might not work
4 - 29
the same way if PB was used for ideas proposed for a neighbourhood strategy engagement. If PB is
brought to other types of engagements a period of trial-and-error is likely as staff and residents develop
PB processes that make sense in each context, and the two-round voting process during which a first
round of engagement is used to create design bundles and a second round of voting selects between
design bundles is a transparent way to structure this development process.
In addition to its application in direct resident participation in decision-making, PB processes can also be
used in other contexts. The challenge of enabling collaboration between people to share financial
resources is a common one in a municipal government. Other opportunities for using PB processes
outside public engagement could include (but are not limited to):
Priority-setting by elected city councillors
Sharing of resources for expenses that affect multiple city departments
Volunteer-led granting committees
Resource-sharing between existing neighbourhood associations
Staff engagement in innovative cross-department initiatives
Further experimentation by the City of Kitchener can refine the process to increase engagement and
reduce staffing costs, track new data and interview participants on their perceptions of the process, test
the processes in new engagement areas and pilot new design features that engage participants in new
ways, and scale the number of participants. Future iterations can also add additional dimensions, such
as competing social or environmental priorities that must also be maximized along with the budget
allocation.
4 - 30
Works Cited
1.Participatory Budgeting Project. (2016, August). Participatory Budgeting: Next Generation
Democracy. Retrieved from http://community-wealth.org/content/participatory-budgeting-
next-generation-democracy-0
2.Pinnington, E., Lerner, J., & Schugurensky, D. (2009). Participatory budgeting in North America:
the case of Guelph, Canada. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management,
21(3), 454.
3.Cabannes, Y. (2004). 72 Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting. UN-
HABITAT. Retrieved from http://unhabitat.org/books/72-frequently-asked-questions-about-
participatory-budgeting/
4.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for Communities
and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
5.Kearney, N. (2015). Participatory Breakthroughs and Reversals: A case study of participatory
budgeting in Hamilton, Canada (Masters thesis).
6.Toronto Community Housing. (2011). 2011 Annual Report: The Road to Excellence. Retrieved
from https://www.torontohousing.ca/about/Documents/TCH_AR2011%20-
%20updated%20Aug%2031Final.pdf
7.Environics Research. (2018). Compass K Community Engagement Research (p. 6). Retrieved from
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/sxvexpbkpzh0ge4ryjeidzo0/1/CAO-18-014%20-
%20Community%20Priorities%20for%20the%20Next%20Term%20of%20Council.pdf
8.Ibid, 23
9.Ibid, 25
10.City of Kitchener. (2017). Special Council Minutes. Retrieved from City of Kitchener website:
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/sxvexpbkpzh0ge4ryjeidzo0/4/Council%20-%202017-02-
27%20S.pdf
11.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for Communities
and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
12.Shah, A. (2007). Participatory budgeting. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/ParticipatoryBudgeting.pdf
13.Pinnington, E., Lerner, J., & Schugurensky, D. (2009). Participatory budgeting in North America:
the case of Guelph, Canada. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management,
21(3), 454.
14.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for
Communities and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
4 - 31
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
15.Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2014). Beyond the Line: The Particiaptory Budgeting as an
instrument. Retrieved from http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/127562
16.Shah, A. (2007). Participatory budgeting. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/ParticipatoryBudgeting.pdf
17.Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. (2004). Searching for a Role for Citizens in the. Public Budgeting &
Finance, 32-49. Retrieved from
http://www.chs.ubc.ca/participatory/docs/Ebdon_Franklin(A).pdf
18.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for
Communities and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
19.Pinnington, E., Lerner, J., & Schugurensky, D. (2009). Participatory budgeting in North America:
the case of Guelph, Canada. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management,
21(3), 454.
20.Ganuza, E., Nez, H. and Morales, E. (2014), The Struggle for a Voice: Tensions between
Associations and Citizens in Participatory Budgeting. Int J Urban Reg Res, 38: 2274–2291.
doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12059
21.SQW, Cambridge Economic Associates & Geoff Fordham Associates. (2011). Communities in the
driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. London: Department for
Communities and Local Government, Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/199322
31.pdf
22.City of Kitchener. (2017). Special Council Minutes. Retrieved from City of Kitchener website:
https://lf.kitchener.ca/WebLinkExt/PDF/sxvexpbkpzh0ge4ryjeidzo0/4/Council%20-%202017-02-
27%20S.pdf
23.Limani, M. (2014). Citizen Engagement in Budget Planning in Ontario Municipalities. MPA
Research Report for The University of Western Ontario. {15}
24.Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. (2004). Searching for a Role for Citizens in the. Public Budgeting &
Finance, 32-49. Retrieved from
http://www.chs.ubc.ca/participatory/docs/Ebdon_Franklin(A).pdf
25.Participatory Budgeting Project. (2016). Our Impact. Retrieved from
https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/impacts/
26.City of Toronto. (n.d.). What is Participatory Budgeting? Retrieved from 1.
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=aa3476539b955510VgnVCM10000
071d60f89RCRD
27.Lerner, J., & Secondo, D. (2012). By the people, for the people: Participatory budgeting from the
bottom up in North America. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2)
4 - 32