Good practices for Social inclusion - Case studies and summary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Public consultation on budgetary plans, London Borough of Harrow, UK The Open Budget Process in Harrow 64 illustrates some of the positive benefits of carrying out public consultation on budgetary plans not only for local citizens but also for local authorities. This case study draws on material from an evaluation by A. Lent, (2006) entitled, ‗Harrow Open Budget – Final evaluation‟, The Power Inquiry, UK. The initiative promoted transparency, but does not include a redistribution of resources towards the poor. In terms of public participation this case shows efforts to move towards more direct engagement with local residents in the budget process, although falls short of the full suite of principles as enshrined in the Porto Alegre template. The case study also indicates some of the challenges for managing such a process in an inclusive way. The ‘Open Budget Process’ in Harrow – origins and process Background: In the London Borough of Harrow tensions arose following Council tax rises between local residents and the Council and so local councillors were keen to build greater trust by involving local people in budget deliberations. Employment of external facilitators: The ‘Power Inquiry’ consultancy was employed to manage and facilitate the participatory process. Consultation of key actors: (councillors, council officers, community groups) was carried out. Wider consultation process with residents Development of an ‘Assembly Discussion Guide’ Information campaign: Using the discussion guide, to invite residents in a way that would reflect the diverse make-up of the borough in terms of ethnicity, age, gender etc. Open Budget Assembly: 300 residents attended the Open Budget Assembly, at which there was discussion and voting on key priorities for the 06/07 budget. Councillors and officials attended as observers. Budget priorities were identified and an Open Budget Panel elected – the latter responsible for analysing the influence of the Assembly on the final budget of the Council and providing a feedback/communication mechanism Participants were randomly divided into tables of ten, with each table debating the budget in five sessions over six hours. A facilitator on each table employed a laptop computer to communicate common findings and interesting ideas to a team of analysts who collated the findings, which were then presented to the plenary. Voting on key priorities was also conducted in plenary using voting keypads – the results of which were instantly viewable on a large screen. Source: Lent, A. (2006) ‘Harrow Open Budget – Final evaluation’. The Power Inquiry, UK. Box 9 : The „Open Budget Process‟ in Harrow – origins and process So what were the outcomes of this initiative? See Box 10below for details of the key outcomes. 64 Lent, A. (2006) ‗Harrow Open Budget – Final evaluation‘. The Power Inquiry, UK. 97
Key outcomes of the Harrow ‘Open Budget Process’ Enhanced reputation of the Assembly: views on the Council improved locally and a more informed and calm public debate on Council budgeting was enabled 65 ; improved quality of decisions. Concerns that tax cuts would be proposed undermining public services were unfounded, with some sections of the budget actually proposed as significant growth areas and higher ranking of non-financial council spending criteria (e.g. effectiveness, environmental impact and social impact) than previously. Balanced representation: the Assembly did reflect the ‘complex demography’ of Harrow, with representation across different ethnic groups, age groups (the young and old were slightly over-represented which is unusual compared to the 20-44 age group) and both men and women attended, although 40 more men compared to the number of women. The Panel had slightly higher representation from the 20-44 age group to provide some balance, and the gender balance was relatively equal, although still with more male members than female. Source: Lent, A. (2006) ‘Harrow Open Budget – Final evaluation’. The Power Inquiry, UK. Box 10 : Key outcomes of the Harrow „Open Budget Process‟ There were also challenges in this particular process identified by Lent, (2006) and highlighted in Box 11 below. Challenges and lessons from the Harrow ‘Open Budget Process’ Difficulties experienced in the operation of the Panel: The Panel lacked focus, possibly due to its large size (34 members), but also insufficient time allowed for members to learn about budgeting; differing interpretations of the Panel’s role and insufficient time to accommodate them all (the organisers seeing it as a feedback mechanism on the final budget, and members focusing on actively promoting Assembly decisions); emphasis of efforts on the bigger Assembly, to the detriment of planning/back-up for the unexpectedly popular Panel process. Benefits from educating the public on local authority resource constraints: Limits to Council budget options explained at marketing stage; clarity in communications that Councillors retain legal control over budget decisions; efforts to try and avoid over-inflation of unrealistic expectations. Mixed effectiveness in influencing budget priorities: The Panel concluded that the final Harrow Council budget did largely reflect the priorities identified by the Assembly, although it also identified particular instances where its views had been ignored. Participants keen to set the agenda next time round: Greater freedom to set the policy options would be sought in the future. Insufficient time allowed for involvement of local people in developing the discussion guide or deliberate on alternative options within the Assembly process. Missed opportunity for direct dialogue between those in authority and local people: The Steering Group separated the Councillors from the Assembly in the deliberations to ensure 65 A supportive local media coverage was a key element and even the tax campaigning group, the Harrow Council Tax Campaign, provided endorsement. 98
Page 1:
018530 - SWITCH Sustainable Water M
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents From social ex
Page 6 and 7:
From social exclusion to inclusion!
Page 8 and 9:
were unable to form lobby groups wa
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Executive Summary The Participatory
Page 14 and 15:
Social Inclusion in Amrawy Amrawy a
Page 16 and 17:
(including representatives of the e
Page 18 and 19:
Table 1 : A number of local develop
Page 20 and 21:
local market, the shops in which we
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Executive Summary The Basic Urban S
Page 26 and 27:
The local context Kotte wanted to b
Page 28 and 29:
Photograph 2. Consultative meeting
Page 30 and 31:
Composition of the Working Group at
Page 32 and 33:
Eventually, the BUS project Working
Page 34 and 35:
5. Any community development projec
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Abstract This case study on citizen
Page 40 and 41:
location. The longest distance from
Page 42 and 43:
The SWITCH demonstration site The l
Page 44 and 45:
In 2004, Wilhelmsburg counted 48.32
Page 46 and 47:
This specific platform operates in
Page 48 and 49:
). Until 2002, up to seven working
Page 50 and 51:
Infrastructure development: develop
Page 52 and 53:
2. The participation should start a
Page 54 and 55:
These examples make clear that the
Page 56 and 57:
the SWITCH programme. Anyway it is
Page 58 and 59:
References Baumann & Ackermann (199
Page 60 and 61:
Making urban sanitation strategies
Page 62 and 63:
Indonesia - an overview Urban Sanit
Page 64 and 65:
year due to bad sanitation 25 . A W
Page 66 and 67:
Outline of the case study The next
Page 68 and 69: Fig 6 Grease trap and baffle reacto
Page 70 and 71: court. In the peri-urban areas of P
Page 72 and 73: hygiene and poor men‘s and women
Page 74 and 75: Regulation and legislation Further
Page 76 and 77: Eco-toilet Metal sheet door, tiled
Page 78 and 79: conditions, operational procedures
Page 80 and 81: - Make it possible to take up the c
Page 82 and 83: esearch and participatory pre-plann
Page 84 and 85: comprised of wards, neighbourhoods
Page 86 and 87: Annex 1 : Community Self-Assessment
Page 88 and 89: 14. RT/RW covers some uncovered cos
Page 90 and 91: Proposed activities The research an
Page 92 and 93: Annex 3: Community Self-Assessment
Page 94 and 95: Options None of the teachers were t
Page 96 and 97: pelaksana) Project activities and r
Page 98 and 99: & plan. Choice of implementer & mon
Page 100 and 101: support team 3. Mobilise women and
Page 102 and 103: specific user groups (any invalids,
Page 104 and 105: adolescent boys, girls; old women a
Page 106 and 107: Denpasar Technical Administration M
Page 108 and 109: Brazil and beyond: lessons from par
Page 110 and 111: Participatory budgeting in Brazil T
Page 112 and 113: Uruguay. Source: Adapted from: Wamp
Page 114 and 115: However, PB has had success in very
Page 116 and 117: Positive outcomes in the north of E
Page 120 and 121: independence but this underestimate
Page 122 and 123: Positive outcomes of the MTA proces
Page 124 and 125: people are ‗invited in‘, as cou
Page 126 and 127: Some practical guidance Analyse the
Page 128 and 129: Including marginalised groups in eq
Page 130 and 131: Introduction and Background Introdu
Page 132 and 133: In some cases, they did not have en
Page 134 and 135: The EMPOWERS Project Guiding Princi
Page 136 and 137: Participatory methods and tools Var
Page 138 and 139: planning cycle, actions plan that w
Page 140 and 141: such as political tensions, antagon
Page 142 and 143: of around US$ 2-5 per person per ye
Page 144 and 145: Important longer-term indicators of
Page 146 and 147: http://www.irc.nl/content/download/
Page 148: Annex 1 : Examples of Selected pilo
show all

Good practices for Social inclusion - Case studies and summary

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?