Participatory Budgeting in New York City (PBNYC, since 2011)

Background

New York City's 51 council members each control discretionary capital funds for projects in their districts — school upgrades, park improvements, street safety, library renovations. In 2011 four council members — Brad Lander, Melissa Mark-Viverito, Eric Ulrich and Jumaane D. Williams — decided to hand part of that money to residents through participatory budgeting, inspired by Porto Alegre and supported by community organisers and the Participatory Budgeting Project. Notably, the founders spanned party lines: Ulrich was a Republican.

The programme grew with council politics. Mark-Viverito, one of the founders, was elected Council Speaker on 8 January 2014. Participation by districts has varied with each council and speaker, because joining remains each member's choice.

How it is governed

• Voluntary opt-in. Council members decide individually whether their district participates and how much discretionary capital money to commit.
• Eligibility. Residents of participating districts aged 11 or older can vote, regardless of citizenship or immigration status — a far wider franchise than in city elections.
• Project rules. Because the money is capital funding, projects must be physical improvements to public property, cost at least $50,000 and have a lifespan of at least five years.
• Cycle. From October to November, neighbourhood assemblies collect ideas and recruit volunteer "budget delegates". From December to February delegates turn ideas into proposals with City agencies, which assess feasibility and cost. In March and April there is a get-out-the-vote campaign and a nine-day district-wide vote, in person at more than 100 sites and online, with ballots in English and 11 other languages. In May and June winning projects are entered into the City's fiscal-year budget.
• Administration. The Council's central staff coordinate the process with district offices; City agencies implement projects.

Economy and public goods

In the cycle for fiscal year 2027 — the Council's 15th cycle — 22 council districts allocated almost $25 million in capital funding to about 80 projects such as school technology and bathrooms, park upgrades, street-safety measures and library improvements. Nearly 130,000 New Yorkers voted (the Speaker's statement gave "over 128,000"), the most since the programme began.

Separately, the City's Civic Engagement Commission, established when voters approved proposals of the 2018 Charter Revision Commission in November 2018, runs "The People's Money", a city-wide participatory budgeting process open to all New Yorkers including young people and immigrants; its fifth cycle (2026–2028) opened for ideas in October 2026.

Conflict and disputes

• Capital-only constraint. Residents can choose only physical projects; programmes and services, often what poorer neighbourhoods say they need most, are excluded unless run through the separate city-wide process.
• Small share of the budget. Tens of millions of dollars are a tiny fraction of a city budget of more than $100 billion a year; critics see a symbolic exercise, supporters a gateway to civic participation.
• Implementation delays. Capital projects pass through City agencies and can take years to complete, which frustrates participants and blurs accountability for delivery.
• Uneven coverage. Because participation depends on each council member, residents in non-participating districts have no access to the district process, and coverage has expanded and contracted with council turnover.
• Who participates. Organisers and researchers have documented outreach to young people, immigrants and low-income residents, but turnout remains a small share of eligible residents.

Outcomes

Over 15 cycles PBNYC has become one of the largest and longest-running participatory budgeting programmes in the United States, and a template for others. It has extended voting in a public decision to non-citizens and teenagers, and has funded hundreds of local projects. Hollie Russon Gilman's study of participatory budgeting in New York and other US cities argues that its main value lies less in the projects it funds than in "civic rewards" such as greater civic knowledge and new relationships between residents and officials, and stresses that the process is resource-intensive.

Lessons for institution design

1. Discretionary pots are an easy entry point. Handing over funds already controlled by individual representatives requires no legislation, but leaves the process dependent on their goodwill.
2. Inclusive franchises are feasible. Voting from age 11 regardless of citizenship has operated for years without obvious administrative problems.
3. Match the money to the needs. Capital-only rules shape what residents can ask for; a services budget changes the politics of participation.
4. Track delivery. A public tracker of project completion is as important as the vote itself for sustaining trust.

Further reading

• New York City Council, Participatory Budgeting (PBNYC)
• New York City Council, FY2027 participatory budgeting results (22 May 2026)
• NYC Civic Engagement Commission, The People's Money
• Hollie Russon Gilman (2016), Democracy Reinvented: Participatory Budgeting and Civic Innovation in America, Brookings Institution Press
• NYC Civic Engagement Commission, About