Social Equality and Youth Empowerment: An in-Depth Examination of a Youth-Led Participatory Budgeting Process

Background and Purpose: Participatory budgeting (PB) is an innovative democratic process where community members determine how to spend governmental funds. Originating in Brazil in 1989, PB has spread to over 1,500 cities worldwide.  The PB process includes collecting ideas from community members, developing capital projects, voting on capital projects, and implementing them. PB targets citizens who are underrepresented in the democratic process and conceptualizes empowerment as the process of providing a voice and vote to marginalized populations. PB has predominantly been used with adult populations however select U.S. cities have begun recognizing the importance of engaging youth. Informed by theories of civic engagement, social inequality and youth empowerment, the present study examined the research question: Does a youth-led participatory budgeting process provide opportunities to address social inequality and promote youth empowerment?

Methods: Youth Lead the Change: Participatory Budgeting Boston is the first youth-led participatory budgeting process in the U.S. The Mayor of Boston set aside $1 million dollars of the capital budget for young people, aged 12-25 years, to engage in a PB process. An in-depth case study was conducted on Boston’s PB process using ethnographic methods. Data collection included interviews with 30 youth and adult stakeholders, focus groups with 31 youth involved in the PB process, and observations of 8 PB planning meetings. Data were analyzed by a team of 3 researchers and 1 auditor using consensual qualitative research (CQR) methods including coding of domains, coding of core dimensions, and cross analysis. Findings from the analysis were triangulated with the civic engagement, social inequality, and youth empowerment literatures. 

Results: Several strategies were used to address social inequality throughout the PB process including targeted education and outreach to vulnerable youth (e.g., immigrant, LBGTQ and court involved), developing capital projects that address the needs and priorities of marganalized youth, and engaging diverse youth contituencies in voting. Youth overwhelmingly felt empowered by participating in the PB process. They learned first-hand about governmental decision making, developed civic engagement skills, partnered with adult stakeholders, and developed capital projects targeted at improving the city for youth. Youth also reported increased motivation to engage in civic action and “make a difference” in their communities. 

Conclusions and Implications:  PB has not traditionally focused on engaging youth in governmental decision-making however Boston’s PB process demonstrated strong potential for encouraging youth civic engagement. Boston was deliberate in their efforts to engage marginalized youth in all stages of the PB process. Youth reported feeling empowered by “having a voice in how the city spends $1 million” and expressed a desire to engage in civic action and “make a difference” for other youth in the city. Future research should use additional methods of data collection and analysis to examine whether participation in PB processes has a long-term impact on reducing social inequality and empowering citizens to participate in governmenal decision making.