Budget and Audit Committee
December 5, 2023

City of Sacramento
Budget and Audit Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-00409 12/5/2023 Discussion Item 4.

Findings and Recommendations of the Measure U Community Advisory Committee Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program Evaluation Report File ID: 2023-00409
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Receive and file.

Contact: Ash Roughani, Special Projects Manager, (916) 808-7751, [email protected], Office of the City Manager Presenter: Members of the Measure U Community Advisory Committee Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Measure U Committee Cover Memorandum
3-Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program Evaluation Report Additional Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: On June 15, 2021, City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Approved Budget. The Approved Budget allocated up to $1 million in Measure U funds for residents to propose ideas and vote on proposals that may be funded through a Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program (PB Pilot). Separately, $250,000 was made available for administrative activities to support the PB Pilot process.

At the conclusion of the Idea Collection phase on May 31, 2022, the City received a total of 550 ideas. Beginning in June, proposal delegates evaluated and ranked the ideas submitted, and developed the highest scoring ideas into 21 total project concepts for placement on the North (8 projects) and South Area (13 projects) ballots. Residents of the North or South focus areas were able to vote for their preferred project concepts from October 12 through November 11, 2022. The vote results and list of winning project concepts were announced by the City on December 15, 2022 and comprise the following:

File ID: 2023-00409 12/5/2023 Discussion Item 4.

North Area Winning Projects
· Neighborhood Cleanup Grants ($60,000): Funding for community groups to fund cleanup events around the Old North Sacramento/Gardenland/Del Paso Heights areas. · Work and Mentoring Programs For Northeast Sacramento Youth ($100,000): Funding for organizations to implement youth development programs, including vocational skills training and mentorship.
· A Second Chance Career Opportunity for the Youth ($200,000): Funding for a three-month summer job/internship that provides work experience in a trade or computer skills for youth 17 to 22 years of age.
· Garden and Farmers Market ($140,000): Funding to support a mobile farmers market program that offers affordable food, cooking classes and community education to community members.

South Area Winning Projects
· Teaching Tech ($100,000): Funding for in-school and afterschool digital skills training that teaches students how to code, design and educate.
· Additional Literacy Support for Elementary Students ($100,000): Funding for literacy programs that assist students in multiple grades who are behind in reading ability. · South Sacramento Entrepreneurial and Career Academy ($125,000): Funding for youth and adult entrepreneurship training in South Sacramento. · Transportation Van for Underserved and Unhoused Youth in Oak Park ($75,000):

Funding to purchase a van and provide free and reliable transportation services for underserved students to access learning opportunities.
· Beautify Sacramento ($75,000): Funding for trash receptacles and pick-ups along streets of Sacramento in the vicinity of Meadowview/Mack Road.
· Sacramento Area Homeless Services Event 2023 ($25,000): Funding for a one-time event for people experiencing homelessness to receive services and enjoy food, music and community in a safe place.

City staff facilitated a competitive solicitation process to identify organizations that may be funded to implement the winning projects. As decided by the Measure U Community Advisory Committee (Measure U Committee), a selection panel consisting of an equal number of proposal delegates and Measure U Committee members evaluated applications for funding chose the implementing organizations in April 2023. A complete list of the 17 resulting project implementation grantees is available on the City’s website at<https://cityofsacramento.org/pb> .

The attached PB Pilot Program Evaluation Report was prepared by the City’s consultant, Third Plateau. The independent report covers the phases of the process from development of the Playbook through the conclusion of voting, and includes: 1) an evaluation of the PB Pilot’s intended outcomes and the degree to which they were achieved; 2) cross-cutting challenges identified during the PB

File ID: 2023-00409 12/5/2023 Discussion Item 4.

Pilot process; and 3) recommendations for future implementation consideration.

Short-term Outcomes
Third Plateau found that, generally, the process successfully achieved the following short-term outcomes:

1. Participants gained knowledge about the budgeting process;

2. Council members learned about residents’ priorities and concerns; and,

3. Winning projects are likely to benefit historically underinvested communities beginning in the second half of 2023.

Cross-cutting Challenges
Third Plateau identified four cross-cutting challenges that negatively impacting the process:
· Lack of role clarity. It was frequently unclear who should be responsible for making decisions and completing specific work components.
· Unclear facilitation and communication. Measure U Committee members and proposal delegates were often confused about the purpose of Playbook and Proposal Development sessions led by the City’s implementation consultant, as well as what role they were expected to play and how decisions would be made.
· Lack of guidance about existing funding sources and projects. Proposal delegates frequently expressed frustration about the lack of clarity regarding existing funding sources and City projects already funded while attempting to rank ideas and develop proposals. · Unrealistic timelines. Participants shared that the initial pilot timeline was highly unrealistic, given the time needed to hire local outreach staff, conduct outreach, educate residents about the process, and develop proposals for the ballot - ultimately taking seven months longer than projected.

Recommendations
Based on its findings, Third Plateau offers the following recommendations for Measure U Committee and City Council consideration, should the City decide to implement PB in the future:
· Institutionalize the process. In other cities where PB is employed, the process is most often led by a heavily-involved steering committee made up of City staff and community members.

This group has full decision-making power and is responsible for the implementation of PB. In order to clarify roles and decision-making responsibilities, Third Plateau recommends that the City take ownership of future iterations of PB while applying the lessons learned from this pilot. · Create clearer rules and structures. The pilot highlighted multiple instances where the

File ID: 2023-00409 12/5/2023 Discussion Item 4.

Playbook lacked important clarity on rules and processes, leading to confusion and frustration among participants. Third Plateau recommends that the Playbook be revised to address these omissions, particularly by clarifying roles and responsibilities of all parties, setting a realistic timeline, and clarifying relevant City policies, such as conflicts of interest and whether ideas already addressed within the current City budget should be eligible for funding. · Scaffold the process. The PB process seeks to engage residents who have not historically engaged in or been well served by City processes. During the pilot, however, many of these same residents felt confused by the process and what was expected of them. In order to lead a truly inclusive process, Third Plateau recommends that facilitators understand the information needs of their audience and dedicate time and resources to ensure adequate context is provided, technology is accessible, and individual support is available for participants.

The full Evaluation Report is included as Attachment 3 to this staff report along with a cover memorandum from the Measure U Committee (Attachment 2).

Policy Considerations: City Council Resolution 2018-0393, adopted October 2, 2018, specifies that a primary power and duty of the Committee is to, “work with City staff on community engagement with respect to the Transactions and Use Tax.” On February 16, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-0044, which formally established the PB Pilot Program. Council subsequently approved Resolution 2022-0284 on August 23, 2022, that authorizes a funding allocation process for winning projects and requires the City Manager to implement and enforce the Proposal Delegate Conflict of Interest Policy.

Economic Impacts: None.

Environmental Considerations: None.

Sustainability: None.

Commission/Committee Action: The Measure U Committee received the program evaluation report at its March 20, 2023, meeting and voted to forward the report to Council for consideration.

Rationale for Recommendation: The Measure U Committee has historically presented its recommendations to the Budget and Audit Committee, including its recommendations that the City implement a participatory budgeting process. Staff believes that the Budget and Audit Committee is the most appropriate legislative body to consider the findings and recommendations of the program evaluation report.

Financial Considerations: Not applicable.

File ID: 2023-00409 12/5/2023 Discussion Item 4.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor Steinberg and Members of the City Council

FROM: Measure U Community Advisory Committee

DATE: March 20, 2023

SUBJECT: Findings and Recommendations of the Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program Evaluation Report

At the March 20, 2023 Measure U Community Advisory Committee (Measure U Committee) meeting, the Findings and Recommendations of the Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program Evaluation Report was presented by Third Plateau.

The Measure U Committee voted to accept the report after review and discussion, and forward the report to City Council for consideration. In so doing, the Committee also approved this cover memorandum to provide additional background and context.

• The Measure U committee recognized that the inaugural pilot year of implementation offered valuable lessons to inform and guide future years implementation and unanimously agreed that the City’s Participatory Budgeting Pilot project was a success, achieving the majority of goals established prior to launching the pilot project. The details of measurements to indicate achievement of major goal areas for the pilot year are detailed in the full report.

• The pilot project evaluation report includes the Participatory Budgeting process steps up to the implementation of the selected projects. The Measure U committee desires to further document the approach and implementation of the winning projects after they are implemented.

• The Committee unanimously supports and will advocate for continued and increased funding of Participatory Budgeting during this next fiscal year consistent with the recommendations included in the independent evaluation report.

City of Sacramento ParticipatoryBudgeting Evaluation ReportJanuary 2023 1 Executive Summary
OverviewBetweenSeptember2021andNovember2022,theCityof Sacramento(theCity)pilotedtheuseof ParticipatoryBudgeting(PB)to determinehowa portion($1M)offundsfromMeasureUwouldbespent.Thegoalsofthepilotweretoincreaseresidentinvolvementin the allocationof fundswithintheirneighborhoods,increaseCityunderstandingof residents’needsanddesires,andtoadvanceequity. Thepilothadfour phases– PlaybookDevelopment,OutreachandIdeaCollection,ProposalDevelopment,andVoting– andtheprocessinvolvedhundredsof cityresidents,community-basedorganizations,theMeasureUCommunityAdvisoryCommittee,Citystaff, CityCouncilmembers,andthe ParticipatoryBudgetingProject(PBP),thecontractedtechnicalassistanceandimplementationpartner. In November2022,853votersselectedtenprojectstoreceivefunding.Apaneloftwelvecommunitymemberswill selectorganizationsto implementthe projectsthroughan opencompetitivesolicitation process in early 2023.

InAugust2021,theMeasureUCommunityAdvisoryCommitteeselectedThirdPlateautoevaluatethepilot.Thepurposeofthisevaluationistodescribetheresultsofeachphase,analyzetheextenttowhichthedesiredoutcomesoftheprocesswereachieved,and provide recommendations for future iterations of PB in Sacramento.

Key TakeawaysFromthebeginning,participantsacknowledgedthat,asapilot,theprocesswouldyieldvitallessonstoinformfutureiterations.Thiswascertainlytrue,andwhilethechallengesthatarosethroughoutsignificantlyimpactedthepilot,theyalsoilluminatedseveralclearsteps to improve the process in the future.

Outcomes: Interviewspriortothestartofthepilotsurfacedthreemainoutcomesthatthe MeasureU Committeehopedtheprocesswouldachieve.Thefirstwasthatresidentswhohavenothistoricallyengagedwithgovernmentprocesseswouldbe engaged,particularlythroughincreasedknowledgeof theCitybudgetingprocessthroughtheirparticipationin thepilot.Surveysandinterviewsindicatedthatthisoutcomewasachievedforthe34residentswhowereheavilyinvolvedasProposalDelegates,but evidencewasonlysuggestiveof thisoutcomefor residentswhoengagedlessintensivelywiththeprocessbysubmittingideasorvoting.Thesecondoutcomewasthatmembersof CityCouncilwouldlearnabouttheneedsandinterestsofresidentsthroughtheprocess.ThePBprocessproducedsignificantdataonresidents’needsandinterestsintheformofsubmittedideas,projectproposals,andthefinalvoteto selectprojects.Submittedideasmostcommonlyfocusedonparks, 2 homelessness,youthprogramming,androadmaintenance.CityCouncilmembers,alongwithotherCitystaff andelectedrepresentatives,reviewedandreflectedonthesedata,indicatingthatthisoutcomewasachieved.Thefinaldesiredoutcomeof theprocesswastheadvancementofequity. Withtheexplicitaimofcenteringtheneedsofhistoricallyunderinvestedcommunities,itwasdecidedthatonlyprojectsthatservedtwohigh-needsgeographicfocusareaswithintheCitywouldbeeligibleforfunding,andonlyresidentswithaconnectiontothoseneighborhoodswereeligibletoparticipateasdelegatesand vote. Ultimately, processparticipantsroughlydemographicallyapproximatedthepopulationofthefocusareas,andselectedprojectsfocusedonyouthdevelopmentandjobtraining,communitybeautification,literacy, andfoodaccess.Consequently, residentsofthetwoneighborhoodsdirectlymadedecisionsabouthowonemilliondollarsin fundingwouldbeallocatedto benefittheircommunities– aconcrete advancement of equity as a result of the process.

Cross-cuttingChallenges: Throughoutthe15-monthpilot,fourchallengessurfacedrepeatedly across phases, negatively impacting the process:● Lackofroleclarity. It wasfrequentlyunclearwhoshouldberesponsibleformakingdecisionsandcompletingspecificworkcomponents.InterviewsidentifiedmultipleinstanceswhenPBP, theMeasureUAdHocCommittee,andCitystafffeltanotherpartywasbetterpositionedtoorshouldhavebeenresponsibleformakingdecisionsorcarryingtheworkforward.Thisconfusionwasoccasionallydiscussed but ineffectively addressed, leading to confusion throughout;● Unclearfacilitationandcommunication.MeasureU Ad HocCommitteemembersandproposaldelegateswereoftenconfusedaboutthepurposeofPlaybookandProposalDevelopmentsessionsledbyPBP, aswellaswhatroletheywereexpectedto playandhowdecisionswouldbe made.ThispoorfacilitationandcommunicationcreatedtensionbetweentheAdHocCommitteeandPBP, andledtoa negativeexperienceformanyproposaldelegates,andafeeling that the City and PBP had not been honest with them about the process;● Lackof guidanceaboutexistingfundingsourcesandprojects.Anothercross-cuttingchallengewasthelackofguidanceaboutexistingfundingsourcesandCityprojects,particularlytheextenttowhichthePBprocessshouldseektoavoidfundingprojectsthatfellwithinexistingCitybudgetsortosupportprojectsalreadyunderway. Proposaldelegatesfrequentlyexpressedfrustrationaboutthislack of clarity while attempting to rank ideas and develop proposals; and● Unrealistictimelines.Finally, thevastmajorityofparticipantssharedthattheinitialpilottimelinewashighlyunrealistic,giventhetimeneededto hirelocaloutreachstaff, conductoutreach,educateresidentsabouttheprocess,anddevelopproposalsfortheballot.Theprocessfellbehinditsinitialtimelinefrom 3 the outset,andlaggedfurtherandfurtheroverthecourseof theprocess,ultimately taking seven months longer than projected.

Recommendations: Shouldthe Citydecideto implementPB in the future,werecommend the following overall action steps:● Institutionalizetheprocess.InothercitieswherePBisemployed,theprocessismostoftenledbyaheavily-involvedsteeringcommitteemadeupofCitystaffandcommunitymembers.Thisgrouphasfulldecision-makingpowerandisresponsiblefor the implementationof PB. In orderto clarifyrolesanddecision-makingresponsibilities,werecommendthattheCitytakeownershipoffuture iterations of PB while applying the lessons learned from this pilot;● Createclearerrulesandstructures.ThepilothighlightedmultipleinstanceswherethePlaybooklackedimportantclarityonrulesandprocesses,leadingtoconfusionandfrustrationamongparticipants.We recommendthePlaybookberevisedto addresstheseomissions,particularlyby clarifyingrolesandresponsibilitiesof allparties,settinga realistictimeline,andclarifyingrelevantCitypolicies,suchasconflictsofinterestandwhetherideasalreadyaddressedwithin the current City budget should be eligible for funding; and● Scaffoldtheprocess.ThePBprocessseekstoengageresidentswhohavenothistoricallyengagedinorbeenwellservedbyCityprocesses.Duringthepilot,however, manyofthesesameresidentsfeltconfusedbytheprocessandwhatwasexpectedofthem.Inordertoleadatrulyinclusiveprocess,itiscriticalthatfacilitatorsunderstandtheinformationneedsoftheiraudienceanddedicatetimeandresourcestoensureadequatecontextisprovided,technologyisaccessible,and individual support is available for participants.

Forotherrecommendationsbrokendownbyphase,seetheRecommendationssectionof the full report. 4 Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 2Overview 2Key Takeaways 2 Introduction 7Context 7Process 9
Methodology 10
Findings 11Phase-by-Phase 11Phase 1: Playbook Development (October 2021 - February 7, 2022) 11Goals 11Results 12Challenges 14Phase 2: Outreach and Idea Collection (February 7 - May 31, 2022) 14Goals 14Results 15Outreach 15Idea Collection 16Challenges 20Phase 3: Proposal Development (May 23 - September 12, 2022) 21Goals 21Results 21Delegate Selection 21Ballot Design 24Idea Scoring 24Proposal Development 27Changes in Delegates 29Challenges 32Phase 4: The Vote (October 12 - November 11, 2022) 33Goals 33Results 34Outreach and Engagement 34Project Results 35Voters 38Challenges 41Cross-cutting Challenges 42 Conclusions 44
5 Recommendations 46
Appendices 50Appendix A. Theory of Change 50Appendix B. Methodology 51Appendix C. Research Instruments 54Appendix D. Selected Projects 54Appendix E. Example Materials 58 6 Introduction
ContextParticipatoryBudgeting(PB)refersto a “democraticprocessin whichcommunitymembersdecidehowto spendpartof a publicbudget.”PBstartedinPortoAlegre,Brazil,in1989,asananti-povertymeasurethathelpedreducechildmortalitybynearly20%.Sincethen,PBhasspreadtoover7,000citiesaroundtheworld,andhasbeenusedto decidebudgetsof states,counties,cities,housingauthorities,schools,andother institutions. 1 In Sacramento,theimplementationof PBwasanoutgrowthof MeasureU,a ballotmeasurefirstapprovedbyvotersin2012asatemporaryhalf-centsalestax.In2018,votersmadethetaxpermanentandraiseditfromahalf-centtoafullcent.MeasureUproceedsareusedto“buildandbolsteraninclusiveeconomy, growjobsandprovidehousingthatis affordableto all.” 2 TheMeasureU CommunityAdvisoryCommittee(MeasureU Committee)has15 membersappointedby the MayorandCouncilmembers,aswellasthePersonnel&PublicEmployeesCommittee. 3 Since2019,theMeasureU Committeehasdiscussedtheideaof pilotinga participatorybudgetingprocess in Sacramento, using proceeds from Measure U.

WhileMeasureUfundsweretargetedforinclusiveeconomicdevelopment,membersoftheMeasureUCommitteedidnotbelieveresidentsmostadverselyaffectedbyracialand economicdisparitiesweregivenpriorityin the allocationof thosedollars.Committeememberswereinformedof lowresidentparticipationfromlowerincomeneighborhoodsintheannualCitySurveyandthedesiretoincreaseengagement.ThedocumentedlowerrateofresponseandengagementcoupledwiththeCity’sincreasedcommitmentto equityandinclusionmadePBanattractivestrategyto increasetheinvolvementofresidentsnormallynotengagedinlocalgovernment.Forthesereasons,theMeasureU CommitteeresearchedPB,educatedCouncilmembersandothersaboutPBandadvocatedfora portionofMeasureUfundingtosupportthisPBpilotprocess. 3 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/City-Manager/Major-Projects/MeasureU 2 The measure was originally passed in 2012 as half cent tax, then increased to full cent in 2018. 1 “What is PB?” Participatory Budgeting Project, Accessed: December 15, 2022,https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/what-is-pb/ 7 In2020,theMeasureUCommitteesoughttorectifythisdisparitybyrecommendingthattheCityCouncilsetasideaportionofMeasureUfunds($15million)toimplementPB. 4 Theeffortaimedtoempowerresidents,buildtrustbetweencitizensandCityleadership,andbuildbudgetsthatreflectandalignwiththecommunity’svalues. 5 Overthecourseofthefollowingyearandahalf,CityCouncileventuallyallocated$1millioninMeasureUfundstowarda PBpilotprogramintheFiscalYear(FY)2021/22ApprovedBudget.Additionalfundingwasrequestedandapprovedforsecuringanimplementationpartneranda separateevaluationpartner. Theroleof theimplementationpartnerwasto“collaboratewiththeMeasureUCommunityAdvisoryCommittee,communitymembers,localgroups,andCity’sOfficeofInnovationandEconomicDevelopment,”to“co-designtheprocess,”and“offersupportto implementtheprocessacrosseachphase.”Theevaluatorrolewasto“evaluateCity’sParticipatoryBudgetingPilotProgram…[helpingthe]Citylearnwhatdidanddidnotwork,andhowthePBPilotmightbeimprovedinfutureiterations.” 6 TheParticipatoryBudgetingProject(PBP)wasselectedtobetheimplementation partner, and Third Plateau was selected as the evaluator.

TheMeasureU Committeeformeda ParticipatoryBudgetingAdHocCommittee(AdHocCommittee)to overseetheimplementationof PB.TheAdHocCommitteewasmade up of the following Measure U members:
7 ● Cathy Creswell;● Dana Kivel;● Debra Oto-Kent;● Gina Lujan;● Kim Williams;● Noel Mora;● Tracy Thomas.

Overall,thepilotprocesssoughttoachievethreemainoutcomecategories,shownherewith their corresponding short-term outcomes. 7 Gina Lujan’s time on the Measure U Committee ended midway throughthePBPilot. Noel MoraandTracy Thomas joined the committee after the development of theplaybook, andTracy Thomas left thecommittee after a few meetings. 6 Participatory Budgeting Project Contract with the City of Sacramento, ThirdPlateauContract withtheCity of Sacramento 5 https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=59&clip_id=4660&meta_id=589763 4 https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4707&meta_id=597529 8 Figure 1. City of Sacramento Participatory Budgeting Short-term Outcomes Outcome category Short-term outcome
Resident engagement withgovernment
Participants gain knowledge about the budgetingprocess
Government knowledge of residents
Council members learn about residents’ priorities andconcerns Advancement of equity Projects benefit historically underinvested communitiesFor the full theory of change for the pilot process, including activities and long-term outcomes, seeAppendix A.

ProcessThe PB process took place over four phases:
8 1. Playbook Development2. Outreach and Idea Collection3. Proposal Development4. The Vote Below is a short description of each phase.

1. Playbook Development (October 2021- February 7, 2022)DuringPlaybookDevelopment,PBPworkedwiththeMeasureUAdHocCommitteetodeterminetherulesforhowtheprocesswouldrun.ThePlaybookwasdevelopedbytheAdHocCommitteeandrepresentativesfromvariousCitydepartments,andratifiedbytheentireMeasureU Committee.Theserulesincludedthegeographicfocusareas,participation eligibility, and project eligibility.

2. Outreach and Idea Collection (February 7- May 31, 2022)Outreachinvolvedtheselectionofsixcommunity-basedorganizations(mini-grantees)to eachreceive$5,000to reachoutto communitymembersin theirnetworksandencouragethemtoparticipateintheprocess. 9 Mini-granteesusedsocialmedia,email,one-to-oneoutreach,andpubliceventsto encouragecommunitymemberstosubmit 9 A budget was includedintheimplementationpartner budget toengageandpay local CBOs withtrustand history working with residents in the two primary areas for the pilot process to extend outreach,education, reach; collect ideas and encourage voting. 8 Theplaybook for theprocess does not includeOutreachas aphase. Wechoosetodosointhisreportgiventhedifferenceinactivities duringthat periodoftimeanditsrelevancetotheprocess.Theplaybookincludes Project Implementation and Monitoringas aseparatephaseafter theVote. Wehaveexcludedthat phase from this report as it is outside the scope of our evaluation. 9 ideas,participateasdelegates,andvote.Citystaff,Councilmembers,andMeasureUCommitteemembersalsosupportedoutreach.StartingonApril11, 2022,PBPandmini-granteesdistributedphysicalandonlineformstocommunitymemberstosubmitideasforthePBprocess.Anyonein Sacramentowaseligibleto submitanideaforconsideration.Communitymembersfromthefocusareaswerealsoinvitedtoapplytobea ProposalDelegate, someonewhoagreedtoworkwithotherdelegatestoconvertideas into ballot proposals.

3. Proposal Development (May 23 - September 12, 2022)DuringProposalDevelopment,PBPguidedProposalDelegatesthroughtheprocessoforganizingand consolidatingideas,decidingwhichto turnintoproposals,anddevelopingtheseintotheproposalslistedonthefinalballot.Delegatesalsomadekeydecisionsaboutballotdesign(e.g.,totalprojectsize,numberof projectsthatwouldappear on the ballot).

4. The Vote (October 12 - November 11, 2022)TheVotewasanopportunityforresidentsofthefocusareastovoteonthedevelopedprojectproposalsinordertoselectwinnersforfunding.Mini-grantees,Citystaff, CityCouncilmembers,andMeasureU Committeemembersencouragedcommunitymember participation, and voting was conducted both in-person and digitally.

MethodologyFigure2 describesthemethodsThirdPlateauemployedtoevaluatethepilotprocess,broken down by phase. 10 Figure 2. Evaluation Methodology
Phase Method(s)

1. Playbook Development Observation

2. Outreach
ObservationMedia monitoring

3. Idea Collection
ObservationIdea submission survey (n = 508, 100% of submissions) 10 4. Proposal Development
ObservationPre- and post- surveys for proposal delegates (n = 46 (pre),21 (post))Proposal delegate focus group (n = 13 )

5. The Vote
ObservationVoter survey (n = 267, 31% of voters)
Process-wide
City Council interviews (n = 1)
11 Ad Hoc Committee focus group (n = 1)City Staff Interview (n=1)PBP interview (n = 2)For a full description of the methodology, see Appendix B. Methodology, and for links to researchinstruments, see Appendix C. Research Instruments.

FindingsThefollowingsectioncontainsfindingslaidoutforeachphaseoftheprocess.Foreachphase,wehavechosentodescribethespecificchallengesthatimpactedthatphase.We havealsoidentifiedanddescribedfourcross-cuttingchallengesthatsignificantlyimpacted the entire pilot on page 35.

Phase-by-Phase
Phase 1: Playbook Development (October 2021 - February 7, 2022) GoalsThegoalof thePlaybookDevelopmentphasewasto createa livingdocument(thePlaybook) which comprehensively outlined the rules and processes for the pilot. 11 ThirdPlateaureachedouttobothCouncilmemberLoloeeandCouncilmemberVangwiththerequesttocomplete an interview. Councilmember Loloee agreed to an interview. 10 There are different sample sizes for different questions on the survey, and some people submittedmultiple ideas. There were 550 ideas submitted. 11 ResultsPBPfacilitatedthe Playbookdevelopmentphase,seekingto guidethe Ad HocCommittee through the process of making decisions about Playbook elements.

In the end, the following parties contributed to Playbook Development:● Measure U Ad Hoc Committee members;● Measure U Committee members;● PBP;● City Council members’ staff;● Sacramento’s Mayor and his staff;● The City’s Special Projects Manager; and● A representative from the Neighborhood Development Action Team. 12 Inourassessment,theAdHocCommittee,withapprovalfromthebroaderMeasureUCommittee,madesix decisionsthathadsignificantimpacton howthe processunfolded:

1. Geographic focusWhilethegoalfortheprocesswastoincreaseequity, therewasnodirectionaboutwhatdoingsoentailed.InadiscussionfacilitatedbyPBP, theAdHocCommitteedeterminedthatanacceptablewayto targetPBfundsforthispurposewouldbeto focusongeographicareasin theCitywithhighconcentrationsof marginalizedorvulnerablepopulations.PBPcompileda listusingcensus,HealthyPlacesIndex,andCommunityVulnerabilityIndexdatatoidentifythemostin-needneighborhoods,whichPBPandtheAdHocCommitteethenprioritized. 13 AdHocandMeasureUCommitteememberstheneditedthelisttoaddneighborhoodstheyunderstoodtobehighneeds,evenifthedatafromtheindicesdidnotfullyalign,andto removeneighborhoodsthatwerelargelycommercial rather than residential.

Giventhelocationsoftheneighborhoods,theAdHocCommitteedecidedtosplitthefundingevenlybetweentwoareas,eachencompassingvariousneighborhoodshighupon the list. 14 14
For an interactive map of the focus areas, see:https://saccity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/lookup/index.html?appid=6f4e09417d214c009a910fdf2a724edb 13 Theseindices takeintoaccount thefollowingfactors:healthinsurancecoverage,education,grossrentpercentage of income, poverty, unemployment, disability status, and percent non-white population. 12 The team is a collaboration between City departments and partner agencies, led by the Office ofInnovation and Economic Development and the Planning Division, and committed to ensuringSacramento’s neighborhoods and commercial districts reflect a sustainable, resilient and inclusiveeconomy. 12 2. Lengthened outreach timelineTheoriginaltimelinefortheprocessspecifiedthatoutreachwouldlastfromNovemberto December2021.AdHocCommitteemembersdecidedtolengthenthisprocessinorderto addressdelaysin PlaybookDevelopmentandprovideenoughtimeforcommunityengagementandoutreachtoensurecommunitymembersinthefocusareaswereawareofthepilot.Thiswasoneofthefirstofnumerousdelaysintheprocess,whicheventuallyresultedinnothavingfinalprojectvotesbythebeginningoftheCity’sFY2022-23 budgeting process.

3. Participant eligibilityTheAdHocCommitteecompromisedaboutparticipanteligibility, ultimatelydecidingtoallowanySacramentoresidentto submitideas,butonlythosewholived,worked,attendedschool,oractedastheguardianofsomeonewhoattendedschoolinthefocusareasto vote.Therationaleforthiswastoseekinspirationfromaswidea groupofpeopleaspossible,butto limitdecision-makingto thosewhowouldbeimpactedbythosedecisions.Notably, the Ad HocCommitteedecidednot to includeformalresidence verification in either the idea collection nor voting phases. 15 4. Project eligibilityPerPBP’s guidance,theAdHocCommitteedecidedtopermitbothprogrammaticandcapitalprojectexpenditures,leavingmaximumflexibilityforideasubmissions.Thisleddelegatesto haveto comparevastlydifferenttypesof projects(e.g.,infrastructureconstruction vs. youth programming).

5. Simple voting systemWhileothervotingapproachesweresuggested,theAdHocCommitteeultimatelydecidedit wasbestto choosethesimplestapproachto voting– approvalvoting.Specifically, voterswereaskedtoselecta certainnumberofprojects(determinedbyproposaldelegatesfor eachareabasedonthenumberof projectsor “proposals”appearingontheballotforthatarea).Theprojectsreceivingthemostvoteswererecommendedforfundinginorderofvotesreceiveduntilthetotalfunds($500,000foreach area, respectively) were used up.

6. Delegation of many decisions to proposal delegatesTheAdHocCommitteedecidedtoleavenumerousotherdecisionsabouttheprocessto proposaldelegates,figuringthatdelegateswereclosestto theircommunitiesandshouldhavetherighttomakechoicesabouthowtheprocesswasrun.Decisionsmadeby proposal delegates included:
15 As aconsequence, this report does not evaluatetheextent towhichonly residents participatedintheprocess. 13 ● Feasibility criteria for projects;● The total number of proposals on the ballot;● Maximum and minimum project size;● Budgetlimitson organizationsapplyingfor fundingto implementwinningproposals; and● What to do in the case of ties/insufficient funds.

ChallengesTheprimarychallengeduringthisphase,onewhichwouldberepeatedthroughouttheprocess,wasthelackofclarityregardingrolesbetweenPBP, theAdHocCommittee,andtheCity. PBPwasaccustomedtoprocessesinwhichanactiveCity-ledcommitteemakesmostdecisionsandlargelyrunstheprocess,withadvisorysupportfromPBP.TheAdHocCommitteeandtheCity, meanwhile,envisioneda muchmoreactiverolefromPBP, whereinPBPwouldbenotonlyfacilitatingbutalsoprojectmanagingandprovidingstrongrecommendationstotheAdHocCommitteeforkeyprocessdecisions.ThedebateanduncertaintysurroundingrolescreatedconfusionandcausedPlaybookdevelopmentto takelongerthanoriginallyanticipated.InreflectingontheprocessofPlaybookdevelopmentafterward,aCityemployeenotedthatitwouldhavebeenhelpfultostarttheprocesswitha defaultPlaybookthatlistedcommonpoliciesthatPBPhasseenproveeffectiveinothercities.TheyfeltthiswouldhavemadetheprocessmoreefficientandhelpedidentifypotentialchallengesthattheAdHocCommitteedidnothave enough context to anticipate.

Phase 2: Outreach and Idea Collection (February 7 - May 31, 2022) GoalsThe Measure U Ad Hoc Committee outlined three goals for the Outreach step:● Educate residents on the PB process;● Identify community-based organization (CBO) partners for outreach; and● Solicit applications for mini-grantees.

NeitherAdHocCommitteemembersnorPBPsettargetsfortotalideascollected.Havingnotargetwasenvisagedasawaytosetabaselineforfutureyears,howeverAdHocCommitteememberslaterdescribedit asa flaw, asa specifictargetmayhaveencouraged greater outreach from mini-grantees.

However, Ad HocCommitteemembersdid intendfor IdeaCollectionto target“hard-to-reach”partsofthefocusareas.Theseweretacitlyunderstoodandmentioned(e.g., Meadowview), but never codified into an explicit map. 14 Results
OutreachBecauseof themultiplemodesof outreach(digital,physical)takingplaceacrossmultipleactors,it is impossibleto knowhowmanypeoplewerereachedthroughoutreach. 16 Instead, we offer the following summaryof outreach activities.

Therewerefourprimaryactorsdrivingoutreach:TheCity, CityCouncil,AdHocCommittee Members, and mini-grantees.

TheCityadvertisedtheprocessthroughitsregularchannels,includingupdateemails,theCityMinutenewsletter, 17 socialmedia,
18 its website,
19 a blogpost,
20 a mayoralannouncement,
21 anda pressconferenceonMarch10,2022.TheCityalsosent64emailsthatmentionedPBthroughouttheprocess,largelyduringProposalDevelopmentandtheVote.TheCity’s PBwebsitegarnered2,725uniquepageviewsacrossthewholeprocess,769ofwhichhappenedduringOutreach,812ofwhichhappenedduringIdea Collection, and 799 of which happened during the Vote.

Councilmemberswhosedistrictsincludedthe focusareas(Vang,Loloee)alsocommittedtodoingoutreachontheirown.CouncilmemberLoloeehostedacommunityconversationonthetopiconApril21,2022,andCouncilmemberVangtweetedaboutthe process during Idea Collection.

AdHocCommitteemembersandtheirorganizationsalsoattendedvariouscommunityevents,suchasCOVID-19outreachlocations,offeringeducationandsometimesgiftcards as incentives to encourage participation. 22 22
For instance, Ad Hoc Committee Members tabled at a Health is Wealth event inApril. Roughly 500peopleattendedtheevent.AdHocCommitteeMemberscollectedideasandhelpedresidentsunderstandthe PB process. 21 Mayors’ Office of Civic Engagement, “Sacramento launches Participatory Budget pilot with $1 million inMeasure U funds,” March 10, 2022,https://engagesac.org/blog-civic-engagement/2022/3/8/f8em453459rcgj9hy6t739vqslvk15 20 City of Sacramento, “$1 Million Participatory Budgeting Pilot Program Launches in April. Here’s Howthe Process Works.” March 3, 2022,https://sacramentocityexpress.com/2022/03/03/1-million-participatory-budgeting-pilot-program-launches-in-april-heres-how-the-process-works/ 19 The City created a webpage devoted to the PB process:https://www.cityofsacramento.org/City-Manager/Major-Projects/MeasureU/Participatory-Budgeting 18 Six tweets referenced the City website for PB during the process. No tweet received more than 10retweets or likes. 17 After May, 2022, the City Minute no longer referenced the PB process. 16 As an example of this diversity, Child Action sent emails to 15,000-person email lists, while othermini-grantees tabled at local events, where they would reach tens of residents. 15 TheAdHocCommitteeselectedmini-granteesduringtheOutreachPhase.PBPhostedaninformationsessionformini-granteeapplicants,andinvited56CBOs.ApplicantswerescoredbyPBPandselectedbytheAdHocCommitteebasedonapplicants’connectiontothefocusareas,howalignedtheirproposedapproachtooutreachwaswiththeprocess,thelevelofresourcesorganizationsalreadyhadtoconductoutreach,andtheproposednumberofpeopletheywouldreach.Sixgranteeswereselected(twofromtheNorthArea,twofromtheSouthArea,andtwocity-wide),eachofwhichweregiven $5,000 for their roles during both the Outreach and Voting phases.

In anorientationsession,mini-granteesweretrainedonthegeneralPBprocess,thetimelineinSacramento,andwhattheirroleswereduringtheprocess,withafocusonOutreachandIdeaCollection.Mini-granteeswereaskedtocommittoeachengagingatleast500people. 23 Mini-granteeoutreachstrategiesincludedhostingeducationalevents, 24 emailnewsletters,
25 socialmedia,
26 andone-to-oneoutreachto communitymembers.
27 Inreflectingontheoutreachprocess,mini-granteesnotedthatresidentswerethrilledtohearaboutthePBprocess,andlearningabouttheprocessofferedresidentsanopportunityto learnabouttheCity’s budgetingprocessmoregenerally. It generatedexcitementandinterestin thebudgetingprocessoverall.Additionally, theoutreachprovideda forumforresidentstoexpresstheirfrustrationsabouttheCity’s budgetingprocess, and gave local organizations a voice they did not previously have.

Idea Collection508peoplesubmittedideasduringIdeaCollection.Bydemographics,theseindividualsroughlyapproximatedthepopulationofthefocusareas,withsomeexceptions.Youthwereunderrepresented,aswerepeoplewhoidentifiedasHispanicorLatino.AsianAmericanswere overrepresented.See the figuresbelow for demographicrepresentationof the participantsin IdeaCollection,as comparedto thegeneralpopulation in the area. 28 28
ThirdPlateaucalculatedgeneral populationstatisticsbysummingU.S.CensusdatafromtheAmericanCommunity Survey inthefollowingCensus Tracts: 27, 28, 31.02, 32.02, 32.03,32.04,36,37,41,42.01,42.02, 42.03, 43.01, 43.02, 44.01, 45.01, 48.01, 49.06, 49.07, 49.08, 49.09, 49.10, 55.02,62.02,63,64,65.01, 66, 67.05, 67.06, 68.01, 68.02, 68.03, 69.02, 70.01, 70.07, and 96.01. Margins of error for thecalculations range from 1-2%. 27 AsianResources Inc. sat downwithresidents andwalkedthemthroughtheprocess, helpingthemfillout Idea Collection forms and translating their ideas into English. 26 MIni-grantees conducted limited social media outreach, opting instead largely to rely on in-personevents and email. 25 For instance, ChildActionsent anemail about theprocess to15,000residents, andanother targetedemail to 3,300 parents. 24 For example, the Roberts Family Development Center ran events with groups from 10-25 peopledescribing the purpose of the process and generating ideas. 23 Engagement was defined as having someone either submit an idea, sign up to be a delegate, or vote. 16 Figure3.DemographicRepresentationofIdeaSubmitters,ComparedtoGeneralPopulation of Focus Areas Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation Figure 4. Perceptions of Sacramento Government Among Idea Submitters,Compared to General Community Members Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation and Sacramento National Community SurveyReport 17 IdeaCollectionparticipantshadhigherfaithin Sacramento’s governmentthantheaverage person in Sacramento.

Mostparticipantslived,worked,orattendedschoolinatleasttheNorthorSouthareas,though 20% had no connection.

Figure 5. Connection to Focus Areas Among Idea Submitters Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation Intotal,theprocessgenerated550ideas,spanningawiderangeofissuesfromparksandrecreationtohealthcare,publicsafety, andarts.Ideasmostcommonlyfocusedonparks and housing/homelessness, but only by a slim margin. 18 Figure 6. Popularity of Issue Area Among Ideas Submitted Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation Withrespecttodemographictrends,participantsofallbackgroundswereinterestedinparkamenitiesandhousingandhouselessnessissues,whileAsian,Black,andrespondents identifying as having two or more races had other specific issue priorities. 29 Figure 7. Popularity of Topics Among Idea Submitters by Race Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation 29 Very fewrespondents identifiedas AmericanIndianor AlaskaNative(5)orNativeHawaiianandOtherPacific Islander (3), and so were excluded from this analysis 19 Latinoparticipantsweremoreinterestedinolderadultservices,andinparkamenitiesthan non-Latino participants.

Figure8. Popularityof TopicsAmongIdeaSubmittersof Hispanic,Latino,orSpanish Origin Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation There were no observable trends by location or age.

ChallengesThere were five core challenges during the Outreach process:● DelayedhiringofPBPProjectManager. PBPplannedtohirea localprojectmanagerwithcommunityengagementexperienceto overseecommunicationwithmini-granteesandorganizeoutreach.Hiringforthispositionwasdelayedforseveral months, limiting PBP’s local capacity to lead the outreach process;● Latemini-granteepreparation.Mini-granteeshadtheirfirstmeetingonebusinessdayafterbeingtoldtheywereselectedtoparticipate,and,with42daysfromselectiontoIdeaCollection,theyhadverylittletimetoexecute.Moreover,mini-granteeswereinsufficientlypreparedbyPBPtoeducateresidentsaboutthePB process before Idea Collection began;● Lowpublicawareness.Residentsneededcontext(e.g.,whatMeasureUwasandwhyPBwashappening)beforetheycouldlearnaboutthePBprocessitself,whichtookadditionaltimeandresources.EvensomeCityCouncilstaff didnotknow what PB was;● Lowcapacityamonglocalorganizations.Localorganizationshadlimitedcapacity, and this hampered them from reaching more residents;● Moreresourcesneededtoreachparticulardemographics.Engagingseniorswaschallengingsinceequitablydoingsorequiredorganizationalstaff workingwith them in-person, rather than relying on technology.

Overall, the following groups were under-engaged during the Outreach process:● Lower-income residents;● Southeast areas such as Meadowview and Valley High; and● Youth. 20 Themainchallengesin IdeaCollectionwerea spillovereffectfromthechallengesduring Outreach. In particular:● Bothparticipantsandmini-granteeslackedkeyguidance.Participantsneededmoreinstructionaboutthekindsoftopicslikelytoreceivefunding(e.g.,programmingovercapitalimprovements,giventhesmallbudgetforthepilotprocess),aswellaswhatconstitutesathoroughsubmission(i.e.,moredetailedideaswereeasierfor delegatesto developinto proposals).Moreover,participantsneededsupportin understandingwhatkindsof projectswerefeasiblegivena $500,000budget.Mini-granteesneededguidancein howtofacilitate idea collection sessions and what information to give to participants;● Lackofoutreach.Variousstakeholdersclaimedtherewasinsufficientoutreachin particular neighborhoods (e.g., Meadowview). 30 Additionally, someparticipantsrequiredsupportinfillingoutideacollectionforms,whichrequired staff time from mini-grantees.

Phase 3: Proposal Development (May 23 - September 12, 2022) GoalsProposal delegates had three main charges for this phase:● Determinekeyfeaturesof theballot(minimumandmaximumproposalsize,numberof proposalsto bevotedon)sothatthoseparametersinformedtheproposal development process;● Review all submitted ideas and rank them;● Select final ideas and develop these into proposals.

Results
Delegate Selection
PeoplewhosubmittedideasduringtheIdeaSubmissionphasewereinvitedtocompleteanapplicationtoserveasproposaldelegates.Duetothelownumberofapplicants,all42eligibleapplicantswereofferedthechanceto participatein theprocess,with34ultimatelypersistingbeyondorientationandinitialmeetings.PerthePlaybook,theywere required to “live, work, or play” in the two focus areas.

PBPfacilitatorsandAdHocCommitteemembersfeltthatthedelegatesweremorerepresentativeof localcommunity-basedorganizations(CBOs)thancommunity 30 Thesestakeholders didnot definewhat wouldbe“sufficient,” andother neighborhoodsmayalsohavereceived “insufficient” outreach, but lacked advocates to make this known to the evaluators. 21 membersthemselves.
31 Inreflectingonthis,anAdHocCommitteemembershared“thedelegatesweren’tconsistentwiththepersonaswewantedintheprocess.” 32 Thisledfacilitatorsto worrythat CBOleadersparticipatedto securefundingfor theirorganizations,ratherthanservethecommunity. ThisissuecametoaheadlaterintheProposal Development phase when the question of conflict of interest arose.

Figure9.DemographicRepresentationofProposalDelegates,ComparedtoPopulationofFocus Areas Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation and SacramentoNational Community SurveyReport Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation and SacramentoNational Community SurveyReport 32 Ad Hoc Committee Focus Group, November 28, 2022.
31 Interview with PBP Facilitators, December 1, 2022.
22 Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation and SacramentoNational Community SurveyReport Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation and SacramentoNational Community SurveyReport Amongthe28delegateswhoreportedtheirprofession,eightwereretiredandtwowerehighschoolstudents.Otherprofessionsrepresentedincludedexecutivedirectors(2),educators(2),a communityyouthprogrammanager, developmentexecutive,nanny,pastor, neighborhoodnavigator, engineer, andbusinessowner. Ofthedelegates,26%reported speaking another language than English.

Delegatesweremotivatedtoparticipateintheprocessmostcommonlyoutofadesireto improvetheirneighborhoods.Manyfeltthattheircommunitywasoverlooked,andthatothercommunitiestypicallyreceivedfundingandserviceswhiletheirsdidnot.Others participated by request or because of other social ties. 33 Delegatesstayedonlymoderatelyengagedthroughouttheprocess.Whileattendanceatdelegateorientationstartedat42,only34persistedpastorientation,andthatnumberdroppedto22bythelastmeeting.Delegatesblamedsomeofthisattritionontheslowstartof theprocessandits focuson ballotdesignandgroupnormsformultiplemeetings before discussing ideas. 33 Proposal Delegate Focus Group, September 12, 2022.
23 Ballot Design
ThefirststageoftheProposalDevelopmentprocesswasballotdesign.AstheAdHocCommitteedidnotfeeltheycouldrepresentthecommunity, theydecidedtodelegatevariousdecisionsaboutballotdesign(e.g.,minimumandmaximumprojectsize)toproposaldelegates.DelegatesfromtheNorthandSouthfocusareaslargelymadeballotdecisionsseparately, resultingindifferentlydesignedballots,asshowninFigure10.

Theballotdesignprocesslastedseveralweeks,andproposaldelegatesreflectedthattheyfeltthispartoftheprocessshouldhaveoccurredlater, afterproposaldelegateshadreviewedtheideasandunderstoodmoreaboutprojectcosts.Proposaldelegatesnotedthatwithoutthiscontext,theyfeltill-equippedto makedecisionsaboutballotdesign,anddidnotunderstandtheimpactthatthesedecisions,particularlyminimumandmaximumprojectcost,wouldhaveonthetypesofideasthatcouldbeconsideredfortheballot.Theyalsonotedthattheseextendeddiscussionsearlyintheprocesscontributedtothedrop-off inproposaldelegateparticipation:“Ifeelthattoomuchtimewaswastednotworkingontheproposalsbutgoingovertheproceduresagainandagain.” 34 ACityemployeewithsignificantinsightintotheprocessofferedthereflectionthattheprocesswouldhaverunmoresmoothlyif PBPhadprovidedtemplatesorguidelines, such as a default ballot, and allowed participants to edit them as they saw fit.

Figure 10. Ballot Design Decisions
Decision North Ballot South Ballot
Minimum and Maximum Project Cost
Min: $10,000Max: $250,000
Min: NoneMax: $100,000
Total number of project proposals allowed 10 15
Total number of project selections per voter 4 10
Idea Scoring
Thenextstageoftheprocesswasideascoringandselection.TheCitydidaninitialfeasibilityreviewonthe555submittedideastoinformdelegatesaboutwhichcouldberealisticallyimplemented.Subsequently, delegatesindividuallyscoredideasbasedontheir assessments of:
● The need for the project in the community;
34 Anonymous proposal delegate.
24 ● The impact the project would have on the community; and● The impact the project would have on equity in the community. 35 Thesecriteriaservedasatoolfordelegatestoexplainwhichideastheyprioritizedandwhy. Proposaldelegateslaterreflectedthatthescoringofideasfelthighlysubjective,andthatratingsacrossproposaldelegateswereinconsistent.Ideasubmissionswithgreaterdetailtendedtoreceivehigherscores,andbrieferormorevagueideaswerescoredlower, potentiallyprivilegingsubmitterswhoweremoreskilledat writing.Delegateswhoweremorefamiliarwithanidea’sissueareaorneighborhoodtendedtosupplementthe submittedideawiththeirownexperiencesandinferences,andtherefore score the idea higher.

Delegatesthendiscussedtheirscoresinsmallgroupsandalignedonwhattheysawasthemostimportantissuesineachfocusarea,drawinginmanycasesontheirpersonalandprofessionalexperienceto addadditionalcontextsuchasexistingCityservicestargetingareasofneedandorganizationalcapacitytotakeonparticularprojects.Afterrankingideasin smallgroups,proposaldelegateswereinstructedtocombinesimilarideas where possible and select the top ideas to be developed into proposals.

Mostproposaldelegatesseemedextremelycommittedtotheprocess.Theywrestledwith difficult considerations, including:
● Ensuringthatnotonlygoodideasgotontheballot,butalsoideasthatwerereflectiveof thegeneraltrendsin theideaspool,asthatreflectedcommunityneeds; 36 ● Howtomakesurethattheprojectsthatgotfundedwereabletofacilitategettingmoney to the community quickly; 37 and● WhetherideasthattheCitymightfundthroughothermeans(e.g.,ParksandRecreation) should be turned into proposals or not. 38 Proposaldelegatesvoicedtheconcernthattheylackedimportantcontexttoscoreideasanddevelopproposals,particularlyregardingtheapproximatecosttoimplementideas,andwhichideaswouldbefundedthroughotherCityprocessesordepartments(andtherefore should be deprioritized for this process). 38 “Certain ideas are more appropriate for City funds (e.g., Parks and Recreation), not Measure U.” -Proposal Delegate 37 “Isn’t it our point to get this MeasureUmoney out intothecommunity as quickly as possible?Giventhat, we should vote down proposals that aren’t RFP-ready.” - Proposal Delegate 36 “We have 45 ideas intheSoutheast dealingwithhousingandhomelessness, soit’s important wedosomething about that.” - Proposal Delegate 35 For specific definitions of these terms and to see an example scoring worksheet, see SacramentoDRAFT/PRACTICE Idea Ranking Spreadsheet. 25 “Iftheideaisalreadybeingdone,itdoesn’tnecessarilyneedtobeturnedintoaproposal.Weshouldfindawaytogetmoneytotheorganizationsalreadydoingthis.” - Proposal Delegate AlthoughCitystaff attemptedtoprovideballparkprojectcosts,theCitywaschallengedbythevariabilityinhowanysingleprojectmightbeimplementedandhowthatvariabilitycouldhavea majorimpacton theestimatedcost.Forexample,theCitycitedaminimumcostof$300,000todevelopatypicalsizedcommunitygardeninanexistingCitypark.However, withouta specificCityparkidentified,theprojectmayrequireanadditionallandacquisitioncostthatcouldeasilypushthecostestimatewellbeyondthetotalfocusareabudgetamountof $500,000.Ultimately, theCityfeltit wasneitherfeasiblenorappropriatetoattempttoprovideaccuratecostestimatesforhundredsofideas whose specific implementation details were far from fleshed out.

In reflectingon thetypesof ideasthatweresubmittedthroughtheprocess,CityCouncilmemberLoloeenotedthatseveralof thetopideacategories(ParksandRecreation,ServicesforUnhousedIndividuals)havesignificantexistingCitybudgets,andtheparticipatorybudgetingprocesscouldhavebetterprioritizedothertopics. 39 Proposaldelegatesbelievedthiscontextshouldhavebeenprovidedearlierin theprocessbyeitherPBPorbyinvolvingrepresentativesfromCitydepartmentssooner.However, ideasubmitterspresumablyidentifiedneedsor opportunitiesthattheyperceivearenot alreadybeingaddressed,so budgetallocationstowardgeneralspendingcategoriesalonemaybeinsufficienttodeprioritizesuchideasiftheamountbudgetedor themannerin whichfundedprogramsarebeingimplementedarenoteffectivelyaddressingthecommunity’s perceivedneeds.Anotherchallengewasthatmanysubmittedideaslackedcontextordetail,makingithardtounderstandtheintentor idea’s potential impact.

Delegatesexpressedan earnestdesireto use the proposalprocessto fundunderfundedorganizationsthatotherwisewouldnothaveaccessto thekindsofresourcestheCitycouldprovide.Delegatesworriedthatestablishednonprofitswithstrongrelationshipsto theCitybutwhowerelessrepresentativeof thefocusareasmightsecurethegrants,insteadof smallorganizationswithstronglocalroots.Inresponse,theydecidedto setcapsonthesizeof organizationseligibleto receivefunding from certain proposals.

Onedelegateraisedtheconcernthatsmallerorganizationsmaynotbereadyorabletosuccessfullyapplyfor or absorbthelevelof grantfundingavailablethroughthisprocess.In response,thedelegateagreedto offer a Grants101courseforlocal 39 Interview with Councilmember Loloee, December 1, 2022. 26 nonprofitsto learnaboutmunicipalgrantwritingandreporting,inordertobuildtheircapacity to apply for and receive City grants. 40 “Notonlyareorganizationsoftenunawareofhowtofindthemoney,buttheyarealsonotreadytoreceiveit.[Preparingthemtodosois]partoftherecipetohelpus be successful as Black and Brown newer organizations.” - Proposal Delegate Proposal Development
ThelaststagewasProposalDevelopment,in whichdelegatesweretaskedwithdevelopingideasintoproposals.Delegateswerenevertaughthowto doso,andconsequentlystruggledwiththe complexityof turningvaguely-wordedideasintoconcrete,votableproposalswithbudgetsandscopes.Moreover, theproposaltemplatedidnotfocusonthekeyelementsoftheproposal(i.e.thedetailsofitsimplementation),andinsteadaskedquestionssuchas“Whatideasinspiredtheproject”and“Whyistheprojectneeded,”whichassistwithballotlanguagebutnotwithconcretefeasibilityassessment.DelegateslatersaidtheywishedPBPhadprovidedthemwithexamplesofproposalsfromothercitiestounderstandthetypeofinformationtheyshouldinclude.Giventhatmanysubmittedideashadsimilarities,delegateswereencouragedbyPBPtocombinesimilarideas.Delegatesmadechoicesaboutwhichelementsofthemultipleideastoprioritize,andinsomecasesmadesubstantialchangestotheideasastheyhad been originally submitted.

Atthisstage,Citystaff wereinvitedtomeetingstosupporttheprocessbyansweringquestionsorprovidingfeedback.Inseveralinstances,however, PBPallocatedsomeofthemeetingtimeoriginallydedicatedto Citystaff supporttowardsinternaldelegateissues.Thismeantthatdelegateshadlesstimetointeractwithandaskquestionsofstaff. Withinthemeetings,staff providedguidancesuchasaframeworkforestimatingproposalcosts,backgroundonlawsandregulations,andinformationaboutwhethertherewereexistingCityeffortsservingthesameobjectivesthatproposalstargeted. 41 Citystaff alsohostedofficehoursthatdelegatescouldattendto askadditionalquestions and receive support.

Despitethis,delegatesexpectedCitystaff tobesignificantlymoreinvolvedinanddomoreoftheworkofproposaldevelopmentthanstaff hadbeenledtoexpect,leadingtobreakdownsin communicationandfrustrationon behalfof bothparties.Proposaldelegates,surprisedanddisappointedthatCitystaff werenotmoreinvolvedin the 41 Staff answeredquestions varyingfrom“what’s thefirststepifwe’retryingtogetagymbuilt,”to“Ihavea proposal trying to give youth a second chance at a career opportunity, by workingwiththeCity, andeventually moving into full time jobs. Who should I talk to? What exists nowandhowcanI shapetheproposal?” 40 It is unknown whether this Grants 101 course occurred. 27 developmentof proposals(inpart,dueto Citystaff lackingexpertiseinareasthatitdoesnottypicallyfundorimplementprojects),felttheywereexpectedtoputinmorework than had been advertised:
“Theheavyliftingthatwaseventuallyaskedofmanyoftheproposaldelegateswasnotdisclosedwhentheyvolunteered…Thiswasfranklybeyondthecapacityof manydelegatesandrequireda greatdealmoretimeandinvolvementthanwas outlined in the beginning.” - Proposal Delegate Delegatessharedthatgreaterandearlierinvolvementby Citystaff wouldhaveincreasedtheirfeelingoftrustwiththeCity, oneofthekeyoutcomesoftheprocess.Delegatesalsoworriedthatbecauseof limitedCityinvolvement,ideasthatwerenotdevelopedintoproposals,orwhichdidnotreceivefundingafterthevote,wouldnotbeadvancedbyCitystaff,andmostoftheneedsexpressedbythecommunitythroughtheprocess would not be addressed.

Perhapsthemostcontentiousmomentduringtheentireprocesscenteredonconflictsofinterest.DuringthePlaybookDevelopmentphase,neithertheAdHocCommitteenorCitystaff anticipatedthatdelegateswouldendeavortonamespecificorganizationsasfundingrecipientsinthefinalballotproposals.TheAdHocCommitteeandstaff insteadassumedthatprojectswouldeitherbeimplementeddirectlybyCitydepartmentsorthattheCitywouldsolicitfundingapplicationsfromprospectiveimplementingorganizationsthroughasubsequentsolicitationprocessoncethewinningprojectswereidentified,astheyunderstoodhadbeendoneinothercities.BecausetheCitydidnotanticipatethatdelegateswouldinsistonnamingspecificorganizationsasfundingrecipients,itdidnotimplement any safeguards to prevent real or apparent conflicts of interest.

Proposaldelegateswereunawareof or unclearon thefactthatif theyoriginallysubmittedor workedonanideaproposalandsubsequentlyappliedforfundingtoimplementthatproposal,it mightconstitutea conflictof interest.To preventsuchconflictsfromoccurring,the Citysuggestedthatproposalsomitnamingspecificorganizationsasfundingrecipientsinthefinalballotdescriptions(i.e.OrganizationXwillreceive$50,000todevelopayouthprogram).Instead,theCityproposedemployingan open,competitivesolicitationprocessthatwouldallowmultipleorganizationstoapply for funding. Delegates were frustrated by this suggestion for two reasons:1. Somepreviouslybelievedtheirorganizationswouldbecontendersforfundingtoimplementproposalsandlaterlearnedtheywereineligiblebecauseof theirparticipation as delegates; and2. TheyfearedthesolicitationprocesswouldprivilegeestablishedorganizationsthathistoricallyhavegoodrelationshipswiththeCitybuthavenotservedthemarginalized communities for whom the funding was originally intended. 28 “I don'ttrustmyideaswithpeoplewhohavehistoricallydonethemwrong.”-Proposal Delegate Ultimately, theCityCouncilapprovedaProposalDelegateConflictofInterestPolicytoprotecttheintegrityof theprocesswhilecreatinga pathwayfordelegate-affiliatedorganizationstobeeligibleforfunding. 42 Inaddition,carefulfacilitationfromPBPandMeasureUCommitteemembershelpedalleviatesomeofthetension,preventingthedisputefromderailingtheprocess.TheMeasureUCommitteelaterrecommendedthatthe finalballotlanguageomitnaminganyimplementingorganizationsas fundingrecipientsandthatthe Cityutilizea subsequentsolicitationprocessto identifyimplementingorganizationsforeachwinningproject.Inresponse,delegatessetcapsonthebudgetsizeforapplicantorganizationstobeconsideredeligibletoimplementvariousprojects.Additionally, delegates,theCity,andtheMeasureUCommitteeagreedto createanindependentreviewpanelto evaluatefundingapplicationsandselectawardees.Thepanelis composedof equalnumbersof proposaldelegatesandMeasureUCommitteemembers,andwillmakefinaldecisionsaboutgrantawardstoimplementing organizations for winning projects in the first half of2023.

Changes in Delegates
Proposaldelegatesdevelopedintoamorecohesivegroupthroughthesharedtasksofproposalscoringanddevelopment.Overthecourseoffourmonths,delegatesspenthourstogetheranddeepenedtheirrelationshipswitheachother.Manyofthedelegatesdemonstratedsignificantcommitmenttotheprocess,despitethefactthattheprocesswasmorelaboriousandlongerthantheyhadexpected.Multipledelegatesofferedtobeinvolvedandprovideinputandrecommendationsin thefutureif theCitydecidestorepeat the PB process.

Additionally, delegatesbecamemoreconfidentandawareoftheirroleandpowerasadvocates.DelegatesexpressedthefeelingthattheirinputandopinionsweretakenmoreseriouslybyPBPandtheCityafterdelegatesspokeupabouttheconflictofinterest issue. “Ourroleasdelegateswasalsotobeadvocates...I wanttoempowerallofus…to beadvocates,andspeakup.I encourageeveryonetousepubliccommenttimeatCityCouncilmeetingsandMeasureUmeetings…Itwouldbewonderfulto see someof our delegatespresentat that meeting…abouttheseconversations we’re having.” - Proposal Delegate 42 https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=5354&meta_id=695236 29 Delegateswereaskeda seriesof surveyquestionsto assesshowparticipationimpactedtheirknowledgeofCityprocessesandperceptionoftheCity. First,delegateswereaskedtoratetheirperceivedknowledgeofCitybudgetingprocessesattheendoftheprocessascomparedto thebeginning.Figure11 depictstheirresponsesanddemonstratesthat,on average,delegatesgainedsomelevelof familiaritywithbudgeting processes.

Figure11. Self-reportedFamiliaritywithCityBudgetingProcessesAmongProposal Delegates, Pre- and Post-Proposal Development Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation Delegateswerealsoaskedtoself-evaluatehowparticipationinProposalDevelopmentaffectedtheirperceptionoftheCity. Surveyresponsesweremixed,withequalnumbersofdelegatesreportingtheexperienceledthemtoviewtheCitymorefavorablyaslessfavorably. 30 Figure12.Impactof ProposalDevelopmentonDelegates’Perceptionof CityGovernment Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation Whenaskedwhetherthey believedthe processadvancedequity, delegatespredominantlyansweredthatitwastoosoontotell,andthattheywouldneedtoseetheimplementationof winningproposalsto decide.A fewotherdelegatesanswerednegatively, notingthatthechallengesof theprocessandthesignificantchangestoideasthatdelegatesmadewhiledevelopingtheproposalsmeantthecommunity’svoicewas not accurately represented. 43 43
Proposal delegate focus group, September 12, 2022.
31 ChallengesIn additionto thecross-cuttingchallengesdescribedat theendof thissectionthatimpacted the entire pilot, the following challenges arose during Proposal Development. ● Poor organizationand communication.While delegatesdevelopedrelationshipswithandexpressedappreciationforindividualrepresentativesofPBP, theygenerallydescribedtheprocessasdisorganized.Delegatesreportedchallengesreceivingtheirstipends,repeatedlyreceivedlast-minutemeetinginvitesandrequeststo completeworkbeforethenextmeeting,andoftenfeltunclear on next steps in the process;● Poorlyplannedtimeline.In additionto the cross-cuttingchallengeof anunrealistictimelinethroughoutthepilot,delegatesunanimouslyagreedthattoomanyearlymeetingswereusedto set normsandoffer context,andthatdelegateswerethenprovidedtoo littletimefor the rankingof ideasanddevelopmentofproposals.Thisdynamicwasfurthercompoundedbyadditionaltime lost to making numerous process and ballot design decisions;● Uninformeddecisionmaking.Delegatesstruggledwithballotdesign.TheywereunclearwhytheAdHocCommitteehaddelegatedkeydesigndecisionstodelegates,andPBPfacilitatorsdidnotmakefullycleartheimpactsof thesedecisions,norpreciselywhythechoicesneededtobemadepriortoreviewingthe ideas.Whilefacilitatorstolddelegatestheycouldpossiblyadjustthesedecisionslater, itwasunclearwhenandhowtheseadjustmentswouldbemade,andnoneultimatelywere.Moreover, despiterequeststo changetheorder,delegateswerestillaskedto makedecisionsaboutminimumandmaximumproposalsizewithoutanyinformationabouttheideasthemselvesandwhattheymight cost;● Bias.Asdelegateshadtorankideasbasedonthetextoftheideasthemselves,delegatesendedupprioritizingideaswithgreaterdetail,asthesecouldbemoreeasilyinterpretedandscored.Additionally, certaindelegateshadthemselvescontributedtoordirectlysubmittedideas.Thismeantthatthosedelegatescouldadvocateforandsharedetailsaboutthoseideasin groupmeetings,leadingthoseideasto receivehigherscoresas well.Thesedynamicsprivilegedsubmitterswithstrongerwritingskillsandpeoplewithmoreinsiderknowledgeabout City functions;○ Onedynamicofbiasthatservedbothpositivelyandnegativelyrelatedtoexpertise.Certaindelegates,oftenlocalnonprofitleaders,hadissueareaexpertisetheycouldleanon to interpretandcontextualizesubmittedideas.Thiswasveryhelpfulto otherdelegates,whocouldthenmake 32 muchmoreinformeddecisionsaboutthe viabilityof thoseideas. 44 However, thisonlyworkedfor ideasforwhichtherewereissueareaexpertsamongproposaldelegates.Relatedly, delegatesweremoreopento supportingprojectideasfor whichtheyalreadyknewof localorganizationsthatcouldimplementthem.Thiswaslimitedbydelegates’awareness of potential local partners.● Ideasortingandparsing.Delegatesoftenstruggledwithwhattodowithsimilarideasandwhetherit waspossibletocombinethem.Theyultimatelydecidedtocombine various similar ideas into single proposals; and● Negativegroupdynamics.Someindividualdelegateswererudetoothersortookuptoomuchspacein meetings,whichcreatednegativegroupdynamicsandpoorcollaboration.Delegatesalsodroppedoutthroughtheprocess,with42initiallyaccepted,34persistingbeyondorientation,and22remaininginregularattendanceattheend. 45 Smallgroupworkbecamechallengingwhendelegatesdroppedoutoftheprocessorasinglegroupmembercompletedmoreworkthanothers.Furthermore,evenwhenactingingoodfaith,somedelegategroupsweresimplyunabletoreachconsensusinmakingfinalballotlanguagedecisions.Forexample,adelegateinonegroupproposedthataspecificballotproposalincludea portionof fundingto theirneighborhood.However, thatdelegatewasoutnumberedby delegatesfromotherneighborhoodswhowereunwillingtoaccommodateanydilutionor increaseto theprojectbudgetbysplittingthefunding to more than one location.

Phase 4: The Vote (October 12 - November 11, 2022)
GoalsTheAdHocCommitteeseta goalof engaging10%morepeoplein theVotethanparticipated in Idea Collection, for a total of 605 voters.

Mini-grantees targeted the following populations, aiming to reach 6,100 people total:● Immigrant refugee communities;● Non-registered voters;● Seniors;● Undocumented community members;● Unhoused community members; and● Youth. 45 This tally of Proposal Delegate involvement is based on PBP’s recordkeeping. 44 For instance,adelegatewhorantheirownorganizationwasabletohelphersmall groupthinkcarefullythrough the feasibility of ideas relating to new social services programming in the community givenexisting services. 33 Votingwasopentocommunitymemberswholivedinoneofthefocusareasandwere14yearsoldorabove.Residentsvotedonthespecificareaballot(NorthorSouthArea)that corresponded with their neighborhood. 46 Results
Outreach and Engagement
Mini-grantees’reachedoutto potentialvotersthrougha mixof digitalandin-personmethods.Digitally, mini-granteessentoutemailblasts,texts,newsletters,andsocialmediapoststotheirnetworksandcommunitiesthatreferencedtheVote. 47 Additionally,mini-granteesengagedvariouspartnerstopromotetheVoteonsocialmediaaswell.Inperson,mini-granteessentmailersto theircommunities,flyered,andconductedavarietyof get-out-the-vote(GOTV)events,includingpromotionsat churches,highschools,footballgames,vaccinationclinics,ESLclasses,employmentassistanceworkshops,andfooddistributionsites.Somemini-granteesalsoengagedin directcanvassing in the focus areas.

IntheNorthArea,mini-granteesengagedinasignificantefforttoengageyouththroughschoolsandsportingevents.RobertsFamilyDevelopmentCenterscollected95%oftheNorthAreayouthballots.In theSouthArea,mini-granteesreliedmoreon digitalengagement, and received fewer paper ballots.

Overalltherewere18votingsites,12intheNorthAreaandsixintheSouthArea. 48 Formoredetails,seethissampleGOTVeventscalendarforexampleeventsandthismapof votinglocations. 49 DigitalballotswereonlyavailableinEnglish.Paperballotsweretranslated by partners into Spanish, Hmong, Chinese, and Vietnamese. 50 50
Information on ballot translation offered was provided by PBP. 49 This calendardoesnotcontainall votingevents,norincludesinformationrelatedtotheextensionofthevoting timeline through November 11th, 2022. 48 Information on the number of voting sites shared by PBP. 47 AswithIdeaCollection,itwaschallengingtrackoutreach,giventherelianceonmanydifferentchannelsand actors, and the variety precludes us fromnaming an overall estimate of people reached throughoutreach. For instance, whilemini-grantees engagedtheir communities directly throughtabling, theCitysent a blog post with a reach of approximately 100,000 people. 46 However,therewasnoresidencyverificationontheballot,asAdHocCommitteeMembersworriedthatdoing so would deter potential voters. 34 Figure 13. Map of PB Pilot Voting Locations
Participantscouldalsovoteonlinethrougha platformdevelopedforvotingbytheStanfordCrowdsourcedDemocracyTeam, whichhasdevelopedsimilarplatformsforother PB processes.

Project Results
Tenprojectswereselectedforfunding,fourintheNorthAreaandsixintheSouthArea.Theprojectsaddressedissuessuchasyouthdevelopmentandjobtraining,communitybeautification, literacy, and food access.

Belowis a listof theselectedprojects.Forfulldescriptionsof eachproject,seeAppendix D. Selected Projects. 35 Figure 14. Winning Projects
Project Name
Total Votes(% of totalvoters)
FundingAllocated
North Area
Neighborhood Cleanup Grants 291 (63%) $60,000
Work and Mentoring Programs For Northeast Sacramento Youth 283 (61%) $100,000 A Second Chance Career Opportunity for the Youth 259 (56%) $200,000 Garden and Farmers Market 233 (50%) $140,000
51 South Area
Teaching Tech 307 (79%) $100,000
Additional Literacy Support for Elementary Students 230 (59%) $100,000 South Sacramento Entrepreneurial and Career Academy 221 (57%) $125,000 Transportation Van for Underserved and Unhoused Youth in Oak Park 217 (55%) $75,000 Beautify Sacramento 189 (48%) $75,000
Sacramento Area Homeless Services Event 2023 185 (47%) $25,000 52 Source: Participatory Budgeting Project
Withtheexceptionof projectsfocusingonstreetscapes,proposedprojectslargelyalignedwiththemostcommoncategoriesforideassubmittedduringIdeaCollection,indicatingproposaldelegateswereattentivetocommunitydesiresincraftingproposals. 52 NotefromPBP: Proposal delegates weregiventheoptiontodooneofthefollowing:1.Splitthis$25kupacrossall ofthewinningprojectstofurtherpadeachoneby$5k;2.Allocatethe$25ktowardscapacitybuilding for organizations applyingfor implementation; 3. Dedicate$25Ktowards thenext votegetter toseedsomeportionofthatwork.The3rdoptionwassupportedbythemajorityofdelegatesandiswhythispartial allocation is reflected here.It may benoteworthy that somedelegates didnot want todoany of theseoptions andvotedinsteadtoallocatetheremainder offundstowardsotherprojectstheyhadworkedonorpersonallypreferred.Theserequests were seen as misaligned with PB and the commitment made to a democratic process andtransparency through the process and were not pursued further. 51 NotefromPBP: Theoriginal fundingrequestwasfor$150,000butproposal delegatesdecidedthatifaproject couldnot befully fundedbut thedifferential was under $50,000,theywouldproceedwithfundingthe project with the remainder. 36 However, delegatesalsochoseto advanceproposalsabouttopicsthatwerelessfrequently suggested by residents, such as mobility and transit and job training.

Votersdidnotalignparticularlycloselywithsubmittersnorwithproposedprojects.Incontrastwithbothdelegatesandideasubmitters,votersrejectedallthreeproposalsrelatingto parks,amenities,andrecreation,the mostcommoncategoryamongsubmitters.Theyalsoapprovedsomeof theproposalsabouttopicsthatwerelesspopularamongsubmitters,suchasmobilityandtransit.Theexceptiontothisisthatvotersapprovedsixprojectsfocusingon youthprogrammingandtwoprojectsonhousingandunhousedpeople.SeeFigure15fora comparisonofideascategories,proposed projects, and funded projects.

Figure15.Prevalenceof IdeaCategoriesAcrossIdeaSubmission,ProposedProjects, and Funded Projects Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation 37 VotersTheprocessrecorded853votes,462in theNorthAreaand391intheSouthArea,exceeding the threshold targeted by the Ad Hoc Committee (605). 53 AsinIdeaCollection,votersroughlyapproximatedthepopulationofthefocusareasbydemographics,withsomeexceptions. 54 Youthwereunderrepresented,aswerepeoplewhoidentifiedasHispanicorLatino.AsianAmericanswereoverrepresented,aswerelow-incomepeople.SeeFigure16belowfordemographicrepresentationofvoters,ascompared to both the general population in the area and idea submitters. 54 We change from“votes” to “voters” here since weassumethat eachsurvey corresponds toasinglevoter. Withrespect toballots, digital ballotswereprotectedfromduplicationbyuseofanautomaticonlineID system. In person, volunteers listed ballots alphabetically to avoid duplication. 53 Some of these were paper ballots. North Area: 190Digital, 272Paper =462total | SouthArea: 386Digital, 5 Paper = 391 total 38 Figure16.DemographicComparisonofIdeaSubmittersandVoterstoFocusAreaPopulation Source: Third Plateau After-Voting Survey
39 VotershadhigherfaithinSacramento’sgovernmentthanbothideasubmittersandtheaveragepersonin Sacramento.It is impossibleto knowtheextentto whichtheirdispositionindicatesthe processmadevotersfeelmoreconfidentthanaverageresidents, or if more confident people are more likely to participate.

Figure17.PerceptionsofSacramentoGovernmentAmongIdeaSubmittersandVoters, Compared to General Community Members Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation and SacramentoNational Community SurveyReport 40 Votersseemedlesscivicallyengagedthanideasubmitters.Whilemostvoters(64%)wereatleastsomewhatfamiliarwithMeasureU,manyfewerhadvoted,volunteered,orattended local meetings than idea submitters. See Figure 18.

Figure18.PercentageofParticipantsWhoEngagedwiththeCityinVariousWaysin the Past Year Source: Third Plateau Participatory Budgeting Evaluation Lastly, a pluralityof bothideasubmitters(18%)andvoters(37%)heardabouttheparticipatorybudgetingprocessbecauseof AsianResources,Inc, one of themini-grantees. 55 ChallengesThe Vote facedrelativelyfew challenges.Total votersexceededexpectations,mini-grantees supported on outreach, and the counting proceeded smoothly.

ThebiggestchallengeduringtheVotewasthatit coincidedwiththe2022midtermelections.Theoverlapbetweenthetwovotingprocessesandthefactthateachusedseparatevotingmechanismsleftsomeresidentsconfusedasto whichelectionwasbeing referred to during outreach or at voting stations. 55 This may also be reflective of Asian Resources, Inc.’s work to get voters to fill out after-voting surveys. 41 Additionally, aswithIdeaCollection,variousgroupswereunderrepresentedamongvoters, including people who identified as Hispanic or LatinX and youth. 56 Cross-cutting ChallengesFourchallengessurfacedacrossmultiplephasesof theprocessandsignificantlyimpacted participants’ experiences and the pilot’s outcomes. ● Lackof roleclarity. In othercitieswherePBPsupportsPBprocesses,theorganizationnormallyservesinasupportrole,providingadviceandguidancetohelpanactive,City-drivensteeringcommitteeindesigningandimplementingthePBprocess. 57 Othercities’staff aretypicallymuchmoreinvolvedinsupportingtheprocessaswell,offeringmultiplededicatedstaffandmanyhoursofstaff timeto proposaldevelopmentin particular. In Sacramento,however, theAdHocCommitteeandCitycontractedwithPBPtoserveasleadfacilitator, responsibleforensuringdecisionsweremadeaboutprocessimplementation. 58 ThiscontrastbetweenPBP’s typicalroleandits contractedonein SacramentocreatedatensionbetweenPBPandtheAdHocCommittee,especiallyduringPlaybookDevelopment,aseachdesiredtheothertotakea moreactiveroleindecisionmaking.Asa result,decisionsaboutPlaybookrulesandtheoutreachprocesstookmuchlongerthananticipated,delayingtheprocess.Additionally, PBPrunningtheProposalDevelopmentphasecreatedamiddlemanbetweentheCityanddelegates,whichmayhaveimpededtrust-buildingbetweendelegatesandtheCity. Proposaldelegates,meanwhile,expectedCitystaff tobemoreheavilyinvolvedin proposaldevelopmentdespitesomedelegatesnot takingfulladvantageofthetimestaffmadethemselvesavailable.WhilePBPtolddelegatesto expecthelpfromCitystaff, whichtheythenreceived,therewerenoexpectationssetfordelegatesabouttheextentofthathelp–particularlywhentheCitylackedstaff withexperienceorsubjectmatterexpertiseinsomeareas,leavingsomedelegatesdisappointedbywhattheyfeltwasinadequatesupportfromCitystaff, andfeelingtheCityletthemdown.Inreflectingontheprocess,theAdHocCommitteenotedthattheyhadexpectedtheCitytoplaya morerobustroleinoverseeingthePBprocessandensuringclarityandaccountabilityregardingtherolesof thevariousplayers.Withouta singlepartyspeakingupthroughouttheprocessto ensureroleclarity, thisissueplaguedthepilotfromstart to finish; 58 The contract specified, somewhat vaguely, that PBP “codesign,” “collaborate,” and “inform”decision-making. 57 Interview with the Participatory Budgeting Project, November 30, 2022. 56 Wesay“possibly”heresinceRobertsFamilyDevelopmentCenterengagedyouthdirectlyandcollectedpaper ballots, without associatedsurvey responses, makingitimpossibletoestimatetheirparticipationinthe process. 42 ● Unclearfacilitationandcommunication.Therewerenumerousinstancesofunclearfacilitationduringthe process,most evidentduringProposalDevelopment.PBPfacilitatorsdidnotclearlyexplainattheoutsettherationalebehind,norpotentialimpactof,keydecisionsdelegateswereaskedtomake,suchastheminimumandmaximumprojectcostornumberofproposalsallowedontheballot.Lackingthisunderstanding,delegatesmadeuninformeddecisionstheywereforcedtoeitherlivewithorchangelaterwhentheconsequencesofthosechoicesbecameevident.Mostseriously, delegateswerenotadequatelyinformedaboutthepotentialforconflictsofinterest– thattheirparticipationindevelopingproposalsmightprecludetheirorganizationsfromseekingfundingfortheimplementationofthoseproposals.Severalnonprofitleadersparticipatedasdelegateswiththegoalofsecuringfunding,onlytolearnweeksintotheprocessthattheirorganizationswereineligibleforfundingduetotheirparticipation.TheCityandAdHocCommitteebelievethatasexpertsinparticipatorybudgeting,PBPshouldhaveforeseenandproactivelyelevatedpotentialconflictofinterestconcernsearlyin the processin orderto mitigatethem.Conversely, PBPcontendstheCityshouldhavehandledthisissueitselfgivenitsmuchdeeperfamiliaritywithCitypolicies.In eithercase,unclearandineffectivefacilitationthroughouttheproposaldevelopmentphasehinderedthedevelopmentoftrustbetween proposal delegates and the City, a key outcome of the process;○ A complicatingfactorthroughoutproposaldevelopmentwasthatit wasconductedentirelyvirtually. This maderelationship-buildingamongdelegates,PBP, and Citystaff morechallengingandhinderedthedevelopmentof trustnecessaryto conducta meaningfuldeliberativeprocess.● No guidanceaboutexistingfundingsourcesandprojects.A questionregularlyemergedforparticipants,delegates,andtheAdHocCommitteeabouthowtohandleproposalsforprojectsthatmightotherwisereceivefundingfromexistingCityfundingstreamsoutsidethePBprocess(e.g.,streetlightinstallation)or couldleverageworkalreadyunderwaybytheCity. Thelackof roleclaritybetweenPBPandtheAdHocCommitteemeantthatnoactortooktheinitiativeto designa processto resolvetheseconcernsby excluding,including,orprioritizingideaswithexistingfundingamongotherproposals,leadingtoconfusionaboutthepurposeoftheprocess.Moreover, itwasdifficultforanyoneto answerdelegatequestionsaboutexistingfundingstreamsasthereis nocentral,searchablecompendiumofCityfundingallocationsyear-by-year. Lackingcentralizedinformationlimitedboththeabilitytomakeinformeddecisionsaboutproposals,as well as the abilityto deeplyevaluatefundedproposals’implementation in comparison to existing services; 43 ● Unrealistictimelines.Fromthestart,theprocessfellbehinditsinitialprojectedtimeline.Thefirstphase,PlaybookDevelopment,tooktwomonthslongerthanexpected,andIdeaCollection,whichwasoriginallyslatedtoendinFebruary,extendedthroughtheendof May. PBPplannedto hiresomeonefromtheSacramentocommunityto supportwithoutreachandfacilitation,butstruggledwithrecruitmentfortherole.Thetwostaff memberswerehiredseveralmonthslaterthananticipated,shortlybeforeProposalDevelopment.TheProposalDevelopmentphase,whichwasscopedtolastfortwomonths,experiencedthemostsignificanttimelineextension,andstretchedfromMayuntilSeptember,placingasignificantburdenonproposaldelegates,whohadnotplannedforsuchan extensive time commitment.

ConclusionsOverall,thepilotprocessmadeheadwayagainstitstargetedshort-termoutcomes,andwasa sourceof muchlearningfor participantsat all levels.Moreover, whilethechallengesfacingthepilotdiminisheditsoverallimpact,theprocessgeneratedideasforhowtoimproveneighborhoodsandengagedwellover1,000residentsintheprocessofidea collection, voting and serving as proposal delegates.

Outcome category Short-term outcome
Third Plateau EvidenceAssessment
Resident engagement withgovernment
Participants gain knowledgeabout the budgeting process
Achieved among delegates,possible among general public
Government knowledge ofresidents
Council members learn aboutresidents’ priorities andconcerns Suggestive
Advancement of equity
Projects benefit historicallyunderinvested communities
Highly suggestive
Participants gain knowledge about the budgeting processAchieved among delegates, possible among general public ProposaldelegatesdemonstratedclearandgrowingperceivedunderstandingofCitybudgetprocesses. 59 Despitethefactthatmanycamein alreadyfamiliarwithCityprocesses,manylearnedmoreaboutCityallocationsandRFPprocesses,aswellasregulations surrounding the budget process. 59 Thisunderstandingisonly“perceived”asPBprocessesdiffersignificantlyfromstandardCitybudgetingprocesses. 44 Wedidnottrackwhetherparticipantsbothsubmittedideasandvotedinordertoassesswhethertheirfamiliaritywiththebudgetprocesschangedasa resultofparticipating.However, facilitators,mini-grantees,andAdHocCommitteemembershadtoinformthepublicin ordertosupporttheminsubmittingmeaningfulideas,whichgeneratedbothinterestandexcitementintheprocess.ThatsuggeststhattheprocessmayhaveraisedbasicpublicknowledgeaboutCitybudgetingprocessesamonga populationusuallyless engaged in municipal affairs.

Council members learn about residents’ priorities and concernsSuggestive Thisprocessisstillunderway, soitisdifficulttodrawmeaningfulconclusionsaboutthisoutcome.VariousCouncilmembersparticipatedintheprocessbyraisingawarenessandencouragingresidentstovoteorsubmitideas.Thesememberscertainlybecameawareof thetopcategoriesof ideasthatmembersof thepublicsubmitted.Thepublicationandimplementationprocessforthewinningprojectswillfurtheraffecttheextent to which Council members become clear about residents’ priorities.

Projects benefit historically underinvested communitiesHighly suggestive Asawhole,selectedprojectslargelyreflectthewillofthefocusareacommunities,eachofwhichwaschosenduetoitshistoricalunderinvestment.Assuch,itishighlylikelythatselectedprojectswillbenefithistoricallyunderinvestedcommunities,andtothatend,thisoutcomewaslargelyachievedthroughthepilotprocess.Moreover, participantslargelydemographicallyreflectedtheircommunities,avoidinga typicalequityconcernwhere democratic processes overly privilege particular groups.

However, aswasnotedbymanydelegatesduringtheproposaldevelopmentprocess,theultimateoutcomefor communitieswillbe determinedthroughthefundingandimplementation process for the projects.

Long-Term OutcomesNotenoughtimehaspassedtoevaluatelong-termoutcomesandpreliminaryevidenceisinconclusiveastowhetherthepilotbuilttrustbetweencommunitymembersandtheCity. Anecdotalevidencesuggestscommunitymemberswereofteninterestedin theprocessandvaluedtheopportunitytosubmitideas,suggestingtheprocessmayhavepotential to cultivate trust in the future.

ProposaldelegatesengagedmoredeeplywiththeCity. Whiledelegateswereinitiallyexcitedto participate,frustrationsaboutcommunicationaccumulatedthroughoutthe 45 process,leadingsomedelegatesto feeldisillusionedaboutthework,describingtheexperienceas“businessasusual.”It’s worthnotingthatsomedelegatesconveyedmixedmessagesregardingtheirdesireforCityinvolvementintheprocess:Ontheonehand,manydesiredforCitystaff tobemoreinvolvedinhelpingtodevelopproposals;on the otherhand,manyexpresseddistrustof a solicitationprocessto selectimplementingorganizations.Thatsaid,variousdelegatesbuilt their leadershipcapacitiesthroughtheprocess,andareexcitedandinterestedinfurtherparticipatinginCity budget processes.

RecommendationsThepilotprocessofferedan opportunityto exploreparticipatorybudgetingas amechanismforbuildingtrustbetweengovernmentandresidents,deepeningresidentengagement,andadvancingequity. Thispilotyearservedto testsomeof thekeymechanismsforimplementingtheprocess,suchastimelineandoutreachapproach,aswellas beginto developthe infrastructurefor futureiterations,suchas publicawarenessof the process,templatesfor outreachand voting,and processdocumentation.ShouldtheCitydecidetopilottheprocessagain,takingintoaccounttheneedforsignificantimprovements,webelievethePBprocesscouldmakeprogresstowards the outcomes identified in the Theory of Change (Appendix A).

Therearemyriadopportunitiesto improvetheprocessif it movesforwardin futureyears. Below are Third Plateau’s recommendations for the process.

Overall● Institutionalizetheprocess.Thelackof roleclarityandpoorfacilitation,createda vacuumof ownershipand decision-makingthat hobbledtheimplementationoftheprocessfromthestart.Infutureyears,Sacramentoshouldimitateothercitiesthatemployparticipatorybudgetingbytakingownershipoftheprocessin orderto fullyimplementit. In particular, werecommendtheCityconvenea steeringcommitteetoruntheprocess,andcomposethatcommitteeasa mixtureof Citystaff withpublicengagementexperienceandcommunitymembers.Whilethissteeringcommitteemightconsistof membersfromtheMeasureUCommittee,itshouldbeestablishedasaseparatecommitteesolelyfocusedon the developmentandimplementationof the PB process.Thecommitteeshouldhavefulldecision-makingpowerovertheprocess(e.g.,thePlaybook)andbeexpectedto drivemuchof theoutreachandoversight,notmerelyserveinanadvisorycapacity. Citystaff membersonthecommitteecansupporttheprocessbyansweringquestions,coordinatingotherstaff toinformproposaldevelopment,andleveragingtheCity’s communityengagementandcommunicationmechanismstorecruitandengageparticipants.Inaddition,the 46 steeringcommitteeshouldengagea panelof outsideexperts(e.g.,nonprofitpractitioners,academicresearchers)whocanbe consultedto helpinformdevelopment of proposals in which the City lacks in-house expertise; 60 ● Createclearerrulesandstructure.Asapilot,muchofthisyear’sprocesswasbothcreatedandtestedin real-time,generatingsignificantconfusionanduncertainty. Withthebenefitof experience,theprocesscanbemoreclearlydesignedtoamelioratesomeofthebiggestareasofconfusion.Inparticular, werecommend:○ Explicitlyclarifyingtheroles,responsibilities,anddecision-makingpowerof all those involved in the process;○ Settinga realistictimeline,includingsufficienttimefor high-qualityoutreachandeducationof the publicon PB,andtrainingfor localorganizations and proposal delegates; and○ Sharingparticipanteligibilityrulesandrestrictions(e.g.,conflictsofinterest) with idea submitters and proposal delegates as early as possible.● Scaffoldtheprocessforparticipants.ThePBprocessintentionallyseekstoengagea diversegroupof stakeholders,manyof whomhavenothistoricallyengagedinorbeenwellservedbycivicprocessesandcitycommunications.Thisyear, however, thepeopleleadersmostwantedtoengageintheprocessweretheonesmostlostduringitsimplementation.TheywereunfamiliarwithtopicsrangingfromCitybudgetingandfundingstreamsto howto usetechnologicaltoolssuchasGoogleDocs.Inthefuture,implementersshouldfurthercustomizetheprocessmoreto makeit accessibleto participants(e.g.,ideasubmitters,proposaldelegates)bycreatingmoreeducationalresourcesforeachofthesegroups, providing training, and facilitating inclusively.

Thefollowinglistincludesmoredetailedphase-by-phaserecommendations.Theserecommendationsweregeneratedby ThirdPlateau,mini-grantees,PBP, proposaldelegates and Ad Hoc Committee members.

Playbook Development● ClarifyeligibilitycriteriaforideasubmittersandproposaldelegatesduringPlaybook Development;● Incorporatecommunitystakeholdervoiceintonextyear’sPlaybook, eitherby conductingan outreachprocessto communitymembers,or byincludingcommunitymembersintheSteeringCommittee.Thisyear’sproposaldelegatesarealsoa valuablesourceof informationabouthowthePlaybookmightbeimproved; 60 City staff's greater knowledge of City processes may create a power imbalance between staff andresidents, who do not feel as empoweredtosuggest rules for theprocess. Thecommitteeandprocessshould be designed with that in mind (e.g., potentially by having more resident than staff representation). 47 ● Makekey playbookdecisions(e.g.,ballotdesign)duringPlaybookDevelopment, rather than deferring to proposal delegates.

Outreach and Idea Collection● Add questionsto the Idea SubmissionForm, includingaboutwhatneighborhoodpeopleareconnectedto,inordertoassesswheremoreoutreachis neededto ensurerepresentation,andsubmittercontactinformation,incasedelegateswantto followupwithsubmittersto learnmoreabouttheiroriginalintentions;● CreateuniformmessagingandoutreachmaterialsaboutPBtouseacrossthecommunity, soresidentsrecognizePBregardlessofwhichorganizationspromotethe process;● ProvidemoreguidanceandexamplesduringIdeaCollectionaboutidealsubmissioncontent. Guidanceshouldincludethe levelof detail(e.g.,geographiclocation,audienceserved)andtypesof ideasmostsuitedto bedeveloped into proposals;● Publicize that non-citizens are eligible to vote in the process;● Regularly update the community about the status of the process;● Regularlyconvenemini-granteesto sharematerialsandbestpractices,inorder to facilitate collaboration and avoid siloing;● Setcleargoalsfor mini-granteeoutreachandreach.ThiswillmotivategreateroutreachandallowtheCitytointerveneif theprocessisnotontrack.Giventhe challengesof the pilotprocess,it maytakemultipleyearstoappropriately calibrate these goals.

Proposal Development● Expandthe recruitmentandvettingprocessfor proposaldelegates,explicitlyseekingoutsidersandthoselessfamiliarwithCityprocesses,andconfirming their level of commitment to the process before approving them;● Increasetheproposaldelegatestipend,giventhesignificanttimecommitmentrequiredofproposaldelegatesandthedesiretomakeparticipationaccessibletohistorically underrepresented and low-income community members;● RequireCitystaffreviewideasduringidearevisionandselection, toflagwhichcouldbeimplementedbyexistingorganizationsinthearea,whichmightbefundedbyexistingCitybudgets,andwhichwouldnotbefunded,exceptthrough this process;● Trainproposaldelegatesin theirroleat thebeginningof theprocess,explainingtheirresponsibilitiesanddecisionstheyareexpectedtomake.Thistrainingshouldincludesectionsabouthowto translateideasintoeffectiveproposals without incorporating bias; 48 ● PreserveandsharewithCitystaffideasthatwerenotdevelopedintoproposals, inordertoconveyasmuchcommunityvoicetoCitystaffaspossible.PossibilitiesforthisincludecreatinganannuallyupdateddatabaseforideasfromPB,andcreatinga processthroughwhichtheseideasaresystematicallyreviewed and shared with the appropriate departments.

The Vote● Developmetricsfor measuringadvancementof equityfor historicallyunderinvestedcommunities, inordertorigorouslyevaluatetheequityimpactsoftheprocessovertime.Inparticular, itwouldbehelpfultobeabletoassessthetotalamountoffundinggoingtoparticularneighborhoodsorcommunitiesbeforeandafterPB,thoughthiswoulddependontheCityhavingalistoftotalfundingby neighborhood;● Scheduletheelectionatleasttwomonthsbeforeorafterotherelections, toavoid confusing voters about varying processes between elections. 49 Appendices
Appendix A. Theory of Change
50 Appendix B. MethodologyFigure19describesthemethodsThirdPlateauemployedtoevaluatethepilotprocess,broken down by phase.

Figure 19. Third Plateau Evaluation Methodology.Phase Method(s)

1. Playbook Development Observation

2. Outreach
ObservationMedia monitoring

3. Idea Collection
ObservationIdea submission survey (n = 508, 100% of submissions) 61 4. Proposal Development
ObservationPre- and post- surveys for proposal delegates (n = 46 (pre),21 (post))Proposal delegate focus group (n = 13)

5. The Vote
ObservationVoter survey (n = 267, 31% of voters)
Process-wide
City Council interviews (n = 1)
62 Ad Hoc Committee focus group (n = 1)City Staff Interview (n=1)PBP interview (n = 2) We overview each of these below:

ObservationThirdPlateaukeptdetailedobservationsthroughoutthe processabouttrends,challenges,andinteractionsbetweenactors.WedirectlyobservedAdHocCommitteemeetings,variousMeasureU Committeemeetings,twoIdeaCollectionevents,andeveryProposalDevelopmentsession.Thesenotesandourreflectionsonthemseededmany of the recommendations in this report.

Media MonitoringThirdPlateaureviewedCitywebpageanalyticsduringtheprocess,aswellasTwitter,Instagram,andFacebookactivityfrommini-grantees.Wereportontotalreachandtotalactivity when possible. 62 ThirdPlateaureachedouttobothCouncilmemberLoloeeandCouncilmemberVangwiththerequesttocomplete an interview. Councilmember Loloee agreed to an interview. 61 There are different sample sizes for different questions on the survey, and some people submittedmultiple ideas. There were 550 ideas submitted. 51 Idea Submission SurveyWithinputfromtheMeasureUAdHocCommittee,ThirdPlateaucreateda seriesofsurvey questions to include in the Idea Submission Form. The questions measured:● Demographics, aligned largely to the American Community Survey;● Attitudestowardsthe City, alignedwithtwo questionsfromthe NationalCommunitySurvey, whichSacramentoimplementsonanannualbasis,inorderto compareideasubmitters’opinionsof localgovernmentwiththebroaderattitude in Sacramento;● FamiliaritywithMeasureU andgeneralcivicengagement,alignedwiththeNationalCommunitySurvey, to compareideasubmitters’involvementin Cityactivitieswiththelocalcommunity, inordertoassesstheextenttowhichlocalinsiders were participating in the process;● How participants heard about the process; and● How participants were connected to either of the focus areas.

ThequestionswereincludedasoptionalintheIdeaSubmissionform,soallparticipantswhosubmittedideashadthe chanceto respond,creatingan opt-insampleofrespondents.

For the full survey, see Appendix C.,Research Instruments.

Pre- and Post- Surveys for Proposal DelegatesTo assesswhodecidedto participateas proposaldelegates,whatchangestheyexperiencedaspartofparticipating,andwhatfeedbacktheyhadforprogramdesign,Third Plateau created a pre- and post-survey for delegates.

ThesurveysaskeddemographicquestionsalignedwiththeIdeaSubmissionandVotingforms,aswellasmotivationforparticipatingasadelegate,opinionsabouttheCity(asalignedwiththeIdeaSubmissionform),feedbackontheprocess,learningabouttheCity’s budget process, and net promoter score.

Thepre-surveywasdistributedto all delegatesas partof theirorientation,withfollow-upssentbyemailoverthefollowingweek,whilethepost-surveywassenttodelegatesjustbeforetheirfinalmeeting,withfollow-upssentoverthefollowingweek.Both surveys were opt-in and had no incentive for participation.

For the full surveys, see Appendix C.,Research Instruments. 52 Proposal Delegate Focus GroupTo qualitativelyunderstanddelegateexperienceata deeperlevelthansurveyscouldcapture,ThirdPlateaufacilitatedanopt-infocusgroupwithdelegatesduringoneoftheir final weekly meetings.

Thefocusgroupwasa semi-structuredprocessfacilitatedbyThirdPlateaustaff inbreakoutroomswithsmallnumbersof delegates.Delegateswereaskeda seriesofquestionsabouttheirexperiencein theprocess,successesandfailurepoints,andrecommendations for changes to the process should it be run again.

For the full protocol, see Appendix C.,Research Instruments.

Voter SurveyThirdPlateauusedthesamequestionsfromtheIdeaSubmissionformaspartofanoptionalVotersurveythatvoterscouldcompleteaspartof theironlineandpapersubmissions.UnliketheIdeaSubmissionform,thesurveywasnotbuiltintotheformitself,rathervoterscouldaccessit usinga separatelinktheyclickedfrominsidetheballot.ThisseparationprotectedvoterprivacyandpreventedThirdPlateaufromknowing any particular voter’s preferences.

There was no incentive for participation.

For the full survey, see Appendix C.,Research Instruments.

City Council InterviewsAsoneoftheoutcomesfromthepilotprocessTheoryofChangewasgrowingCouncilmemberfamiliaritywiththeirconstituents’issues,ThirdPlateauintendedtointerviewCouncilmemberswhosedistrictsoverlappedwiththe focusareas.We selectedCouncilmembersLoloeeandVang,astheyhadthelargestoverlapwitheachoftheareas.ThirdPlateaureachedouttobothCouncilmemberLoloeeandCouncilmemberVangwiththerequesttocompleteaninterview. CouncilmemberLoloeeagreedtoaninterview, and we spoke with him on December 1, 2022.

We had a semi-structuredconversationwiththe Councilmember, coveringhisexpectations for the process, its perceived impact, and his advice for future years.

There was no incentive for participation.

Measure U Ad Hoc Committee Focus Group
53 Giventheirdeepinvolvementin theprocess,wefacilitateda semi-structuredfocusgroupwithmembersoftheMeasureUAdHocCommittee,exploringtheirexperienceaspartoftheprocess,perceptionsofsuccessesandfailurestherein,andsuggestionsfor future years.

There was no incentive for participation.

City Staff InterviewWeconductedasemi-structuredinterviewwiththeCity’sSpecialProjectsManager, ashewasextensivelyinvolvedin theprocessthroughoutitsimplementation.We askedabouthisexperienceaspartof theprocess,perceptionsof successesandfailurestherein, and suggestions for future years.

There was no incentive for participation.

Participatory Budgeting Project InterviewWeseparatelyconductedsemi-structuredinterviewswithnationalandSacramentoPBPstaff, to understandtheirperceptionsof the process.We askedabouthowtheimplementationof thepilotprocesscomparedwithothercities,whattheysawasthesuccessandfailurepoints,andhowtheywouldsuggestimprovingtheprocessinfutureyears.

There was no incentive for participation.

Appendix C. Research Instruments● Idea Collection Form● Proposal Delegate Pre-Survey● Proposal Delegate Post-Survey● Proposal Delegate Focus Group Protocol● After-Voting Survey Appendix D. Selected Projects
Project Name Project Description
Total Votes(% of totalvoters)
FundingAllocated
North Area
NeighborhoodCleanup Grants
This is a grant based program for communitygroups to fund cleanup events around the OldNorth Sacramento/Gardenland/Del Paso Heights 291 (63%) $60,000
54 areas. Organizations that recruit local youthvolunteers would be given preference. The totalavailable grant funds would be $60,000.

Work andMentoringPrograms ForNortheastSacramentoYouth
This project would provide organizations fundingto implement youth development programs.These programs would include vocational skillstraining and mentorship. This project would alsofund field trips and training to help build characterdevelopment. Projects could also includecommunity beautification projects performed byyouth. The total amount of funds that would beawarded is $100,000. There is no minimum grantaward amount. However, no one organizationcould be awarded more than $25,000. 283 (61%) $100,000
A SecondChance CareerOpportunity forthe Youth
This project is targeting youth from 17 to 22years. Not all youths are college bound, ready forthe military or prepared for a job, and this isespecially true to the youth that reside in NorthSacramento who may not have any direction.The North Sacramento Youth in the D2 areaneed other outlets to launch them into careers. A3 month summer job/internship that provideswork experience in a trade or computer skills canbe the spark that their mind needs to alter theirdirection. A maximum of 20 candidates will berequired to enroll into an application process.Screening will be done by the non-profit that willbe assigned (and possibly the sponsoring citydepartment). 259 (56%) $200,000
Garden andFarmers Market
This project would support mobile farmersmarkets to offer affordable food, cooking classesand community education to communitymembers, particularly youth in Del Paso Heights.Funds may also go towards the establishment ofa non-mobile garden space in Del Paso Heightsto support the cultivation and harvesting of locallygrown produce to also be sold at low cost at themobile markets. 233 (50%) $140,000
63 South Area
Teaching Tech
Tech is the future and students in SoutheastSacramento are at a disadvantage. This projectis for an organization that goes to different 307 (79%) $100,000
63 NotefromPBP: Theoriginal fundingrequestwasfor$150,000butproposal delegatesdecidedthatifaproject couldnot befully fundedbut thedifferential wasunder$50k,theywouldproceedwithfundingtheproject with the remainder. 55 schools and afterschool programs to teachstudents how to code, design, educate, andprogram using current tech. To be eligible, theimplementing organization must have an annualoperating budget under $100,000 and already beserving your community.

AdditionalLiteracySupport forElementaryStudents
Literacy rates in Southeast Sacramento are incrisis. This project would fund existing literacyprograms in Southeast Sacramento and assiststudents multiple grades behind in reading.Eligible programs must have school partnerships,and a track record of measurable resultsproviding services to underserved youth,unhoused youth, English Language learners. Tobe eligible, the implementing organization musthave an annual operating budget under$100,000 and already be serving yourcommunity. 230 (59%) $100,000
SouthSacramentoEntrepreneurialand CareerAcademy
This project would fund an organization toorganize youth and youth adult entrepreneurshiptraining in South Sacramento. These trainingswill focus on topics such as EntrepreneurialPrograms, Art/Culture Classes, Educational/LifeSkills Programs, Culinary, etc. Programs wouldalso address Healing Circles (Adult and Youth),recreation, and anti-violence. Eligibility forimplementing organizations is limited to thosewith an annual operating budget of less than$75,000 with a successfully proven history inimplementing the training topics. Additionally,funds will be used toward startup costs toestablish a culinary institute. 221 (57%) $125,000
TransportationVan forUnderservedand UnhousedYouth in OakPark Help underserved youth succeed. Schoolabsentee rate is at an all time high andeducational growth is at an all time low. Thesestudents need reliable transportation to accesslearning opportunities. This project would allow acommunity-based organization to purchase a vanand provide free transportation services to thesestudents. To be eligible, the implementingorganization must have an annual operatingbudget under $100,000 and already be servingyour community. 217 (55%) $75,000
BeautifySacramento
Beautify the streets of Sacramento bounded byMeadowview/Mack Rd. Providing trash cans andtrash pick ups. Project could hire the 189 (48%) $75,000
56 youth/volunteers to design trash cans that will beplaced within a blocks radius in such locations.This could create community awareness and getthe people involved. This will give our youthsomething to take pride in and help enforce lesslittering within the community. This could alsoinfluence youth job training and employment withother established organizations willing tocollaborate. A cleaner environment enhances theproperty value and visitors of businesses.Placement of new trash receptacles and regularlyscheduled pick-ups will require a third party tomanage the project which includes purchasingthe receptacles, obtaining all required permits,completing or contracting for the installationwork, and financing ongoing collection, service,and maintenance of trash receptacles.

SacramentoArea HomelessServices Event2023
The homeless services event will provide aspecific day for the unhoused to come out to asafe place and receive much needed services,food, music, and community. The qualifiedorganization will provide services that aretypically difficult for the homeless to obtain. Someof these services will provide key support that willaid in the many of the difficulties the homelessexperience. The idea of the event is to provide aday that will both help with their needs, whileshowing them the respect and love they deserve.This project will be available for nonprofits withan annual operating budget of $50,000 or less.To be eligible, the implementing organizationmust have an annual operating budget under$50,000. 185 (47%) $25,000
64 Source: Participatory Budgeting Project
Appendix E. Example MaterialsPleaseclickthefollowinglinkforsampleoutreachmaterialsthatthePBorganizersemployed to publicize the process. 64 NotefromPBP: Proposal delegates weregiventheoptiontodooneofthefollowing:1.Splitthis$25kupacrossall ofthewinningprojectstofurtherpadeachoneby$5k;2.Allocatethe$25ktowardscapacitybuilding for organizations applyingfor implementation; 3. Dedicate$25Ktowards thenext votegetter toseedsomeportionofthatwork.The3rdoptionwassupportedbythemajorityofdelegatesandiswhythispartial allocation is reflected here.It may benoteworthy that somedelegates didnot want todoany of theseoptions andvotedinsteadtoallocatetheremainder offundstowardsotherprojectstheyhadworkedonorpersonallypreferred.Theserequests were seen as misaligned with PB and the commitment made to a democratic process andtransparency through the process and were not pursued further. 57