User:Akolokotro/sandbox

Article Evaluation


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything in the article is relevant, however, why certain examples of participatory budgeting are used over others is not clear.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I am not sure if this is a reflection of bias, but the article seems to be largely focused on how participatory budgeting addresses issues of clientelism. There are a number of other reasons for PB's rise as well as for favoring its implementation. Yet, clientelism seems to be centered in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Claims are backed up with citations. Some of the citations, however, lack adjacent functional links.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the references are newspaper or journalistic sources. There are a few academic articles cited, but this does not make even a significant minority of the citations. There are a number of academic works in the bibliography section, though.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Many of the examples of PB listed are out of date. This most notably includes the Paris process. The most detailed example besides Porto Alegre is New York City. There appears to be a bias towards covering U.S. PB processes in greater detail.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I agree with the comment and peer-review that the definition of participatory budgeting is a good one. I also a agree the examples section could be better. There have only been a few moments of activity on the talk page: 2008 and 2016. The page was last edited on December 11, 2017 though. Discussion of how precisely to represent PB is not the main focus. Most is on the details of examples and certain facets of PB. In a sense, to me, PB could be represented as something less sterile, and more variable reflecting different tendencies and goals.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is part of three different WikiProjects: WikiProject Brazil; WikiProject Urban studies and planning; and WikiProject Economics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not yet discussed PB in class.

Participatory budgeting is an inclusive process.

Categories: Municipal processes; school processes; college processes.

United States & Canada
Municipal Processes

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Cambridge's first PB occurred in 2014-2015, with $528,000 allocated towards the implementation of six winning projects. Winning projects included one hundred healthy trees, twenty laptops for a community center, bilingual books for children learning english, a public bathroom in Central Square, bike report stations, and free public wifi in six outdoor locations.

Housing Complex Processes

Toronto

In Toronto Community Housing, PB is part of a broader "tenant participation system." PB has been a part of Toronto Community Housing since 2001. This inspired the launch of a three-year pilot of PB at the ward-level in Toronto, beginning in 2015. In the months of May and June 2018 the city will begin debating what to do with PB at the municipal-level, following annual evaluations of the pilot. Thirty-seven projects have been voted for through the entirety of the three-year pilot process, comprising a total of $1.8 million in residents directly allocating funds towards projects.

New York City

Citing the case of Toronto, Community Voices Heard (CVH) has called for PB within the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). As part of a platform for democratizing and improving access to public housing, CVH has advocated for developing a kind of participatory system tied together by PB. CVH also advocates for a gradual increase of money being allocated through PB as residents become increasingly familiarized with the process.

Los Angeles

As part of a broader platform for pushing greater investment and public housing, in early 2014 the LA Human Right to Housing collective began advocating for the use of PB in the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA). This was in response to a budget corruption scandal in November 2012 in HACLA. According to the Collective, nearly one-hundred residents mobilized to demand PB at a HACLA Agency Plan hearing in August 2014. In response, HACLA launched a "values driven participatory budgeting process" developed and coordinated by a consultant. This was a six-week process, consisting of "resident consultation" that fed into decisions ultimately made by administration and management. Participatory elements of the process were "a resident survey" and "resident review of site specific budgets." The Collective regarded both the design and distribution of the survey to be unsatisfactory. Coupled with a lack of technical support, any kind of resident-focused collective deliberation or evidence of resident influence on the outcome of the process, the Collective deemed the process "participatory in name only."

To counter this, the Collective sought to scale up their campaign for a "true participatory budgeting" process by initiating a Model PB process. The process included a combination of one-on-one and door-to-door outreach with deliberation through meetings and assemblies of residents. The Model PB process resulted in tenants and the Collective deepening their critique of HACLA's PB "in name only" as well as putting forward a number of recommendations to create a "true PB" process.

Youth, School, and College Processes

BRAZIL

Porto Alegre

In Porto Alegre PB at the school-level was part of a broader democratization of the education system throughout the city. The Citizen School of Porto Alegre

UNITED STATES

Greater Boston Area

Since 2014 a youth PB process has operated in the city of Boston. Today the process allows persons aged between 12 and 25 years old to decide how to allocate one million dollars.

In 2013-2014 MIT's International Development Group within the school's Department of Urban Studies and Planning conducted an $8,000 PB process. Voting was not over allocating money to specific project proposals, but rather to determining exact allotments to four broad distinct budget categories: field trips, social events, project funding, and cultural event series. To determine precise allotments, "each participant allocated a percentage value of the $8,000 to each category. The average for each category was taken and a preliminary set of results was disclosed." The MIT intra-departmental process provides an example of how PB can be utilized to not only determine the allocation of funds within a specific budget category, but also to determine how funds are distributed across budget categories.

Chicago

In Spring 2015 Sullivan High School conducted a $25,000 participatory budgeting process. Seventy percent of the student body voted in the process, with the money allocated towards building a new recreation room.

New York

Within PBNYC youth participation has been semi-formalized in various forms. This includes the youth-led formation of the District 39 PB Youth Committee. District 3 also possesses a PB Youth Committee December 2015, which works in collaboration with an organization called Friends of the High Line. In his State of the City address, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that PB would be launched in every public high school. Each participating school will receive $2,000 for students to allocate through PB. PB has also been launched at various colleges in the City University of New York. These have included Queens College, Brooklyn College , City Tech , Hunter College , and the CUNY Graduate Center.

Phoenix

Ten high schools allocated $55,000 of district-wide funds in Phoenix through PB.

San Antonio

In 2013 a $25,000 PB process was launched at Palo Alto Community College. Initially this was only open to faculty and staff. In fall 2015 the process was opened to students as well. The 2018 process expanded the pot of funds from $25,000 to $50,000.

URUGUAY