The issue of representation

Firstly, it should be noted that the PB Unit doesn't have all the answers on this issue and it does come with risks which need to be carefully considered and managed.  We don't have all the answers because so far each project and each locality has been different and we've realised that the solution to these issues and risks needs to be relevant and sensitive to the project and it's location. 

So, don't be daunted, be empowered!  This is your project and it is up to you (and your steering group/planning group) to decide the most appropriate way to address the risks and issues in your area for your project.  The PB Unit is here to support you, to give you our advice and experience from other projects, but we aren't here to spoon feed you the answers and there isn't a manual which if you follow it from A-Z will produce the perfect project (although we did try hard with toolkit!  But that's for guidance rather than prescription). 

This is what we've come up with from looking at other projects:

The issue of fair representation

True representation of all groups, particularly those traditionally marginalised or excluded is an aspiration for all community engagement and empowerment mechanisms. 

If you were going to undertake an engagement process which did not consider the issue of representation (even working within one aspect of the community or minortiy group) then we would suggest that the process would be fundamentally flawed.

Participatory budgeting is about the community deciding how it wants to spend part of a public budget.  How can a decision taken by a section only representing some of the community be considered what the community wants?  So for good participatory budgeting, good representation is needed. 

Within the Comprehensive Area Assessment there are clear expectations and guidelines around ensuring that engagement includes the 'hard to reach' groups, and Local Strategic Partnerships that do not sufficiently demonstrate how they've addressed this issue will be scored down accordingly.  So the issue of fair representation is hard to ignore, even if you wanted to.

However, we do say that fair representation is an aspiration rather than essential because we recognise how difficult this may be in reality.  And the main aim of participatory budgeting is to get more people participating around services and budgets which affect their local community, rather than a focus on getting people from every possible group involved.  However, by virtue of involving more people, we would hope that more people from different groups were represented.  

But hoping isn't usually sufficient on it's own.  Those projects which have been able to demonstrate good representation across different groups and neighbourhoods are those which have invested in long term community development, particularly with those 'hard to reach' groups.  Participatory budgeting doesn't need to start from scratch.  Use the mechanisms and groups already developed for community development and capacity building.  Use the hard work done in them to improve your participatory budgeting process.  If those mechanisms aren't already in place or aren't working as well as they should or haven't been in place long enough, then it might be worth considering whether or not now is the best time for a PB process, or whether it's better to wait until the community development is mature enough.  We're not saying you should, but it's something you may want to consider.

If you feel that the community development work with key traditionally marginalised groups isn't sufficient then you may want to consider some sort of capping system to restrict the amount of money that can be spent in each area or the number of projects a single organisation or partnership can submit to the process.  Or you may want to stipulate minimum amount of money for each priority or area so that regardless of representation, certain groups of people or localities or priorities are not unfairly disadvantaged.  This isn't without it's own risks in terms of poeple feeling less empowered because of restrictions and all these options will need careful consideration and discussion by the steering group to ensure that the best solution is found for your area and project.

However, whilst these are options, they need to be considered in light of the cost of implementing them both in terms of funds, resources and time.  You do not want to devise a process that is so bureaucratic and ticks every representation box but is prohibitively expensive.  Or that the amount spent on planning the process is disproportionate to the amount being allocated by PB.  PB processes aren't cheap in the first few years of running but they do decrease over time.  Nevertheless, costs should still be proportionate.  You don't want to be spending 10 times as much on ensuring the process compared to the amount being allocated by PB - that might not be considered best value for money or best use of resources!

Groups 'taking over' an event

Many organisers are concerned with a strong group within the community either coercing people into voting for their choices/projects or ensuring that all their supporters turn up at an event and 'rigging' the vote, thus disempowering the other members of the community who want to be involved.

From our experience, this is often a concern but rarely a reality.  But again, this is down to community development.  The hard work on the ground needs to be in place first before PB processes are put in place.  Generally, what has been found, is that people will turn up with a particular priority or project that they want to vote for because it affects them personally.   Then through the process of deliberation with other members of the community (who they may never have met before) they may change their mind and predominantly we find people voting for those projects they believe will have most impact on the community as a whole, even if it doesn't impact on them personally or impacts on them negatively.  We are continually excited by the level of maturity and community spirit that individuals have at PB events.  This can't always be guaranteed but overwhelmingly it seems to happen.

The preference of the PB Unit would be to hold events or meetings or processes entirely open to the group of people you wish to get involved (so whether that's residents of a particular neighbourhood or area or young people or people engaged on a particular health topic, etc) and to see what the community chooses to do.  We believe that everyone who wants to be and is eligible should be involved.  Providing the vote is concealed (so there isn't pressure from groups to vote in a particular way) then you may be suprised at the outcomes.  We've seen older people vote overwelmingly for projects for young people and people from 'asian' communities vote for projects predominantly in white communities because they recognise the value to the community as a whole.  We believe in the sentiment expressed by Ghandi when he was fighting for Indian independence from England: to have the right to govern ourselves badly.  Perhaps in seeing that every vote counts and that by participating the outcome will be different than if they don't, more people will get involved.  That is true empowerment - to realise that your actions matter and have consequences.

However, if you and the steering group remain concerned and have experience of groups hijacking other community engagement processes, then you need to consider whether or not you want to restrict the number of people participating from particular groups or those affiliated with them.  This can be particularly tricky to manage though if the event is open to residents of a particular area because they may not declare their affiliation to a group and just state they are a resident.  However, this is something you will need to resolve locally, as we've yet to see a PB process restricted in this way.  We are here to support you though if you want to find a way to resolve this in your area.