Storefront for Community Design

Participatory Budgeting
in Richmond,VA
NO.187262
2
3
4
 Problem Statement
CONTENTS
7

What is Participatory Budgeting?

9

Our Goal
10

Project Schedule
12

Problem Solving Process

13

Primary Research
14

Secondary Research
16

Personas
20

Empathy Questionnaire
24

Interviews
25

Product Landscape
27

SWOT Analysis
29

Ideating Prototypes
33

Understanding Success for PB in Richmond

39

Pitfalls
41

Meet the Team

45

Bibliography
48

5
6
PROBLEM
STATEMENT
CLIENT NA ME: STOR EFRONT FOR COM MUNITY DESIGN
ORIGINA L PROBLEM STATEMENT
We are designing a multimodal Participatory
Budgeting (PB) voting interface for the
widest possible base of end users in order
to promote equity and create an accessible
system that allows a transparent, secure,
and intuitive polling process. In addition
to end user considerations, the system
must be user friendly and accessible for
government and poll workers.
WOR KING PROBLEM STATEMENT
Richmonders do not trust where their tax
money is being allocated. The Richmond
city council has passed legislation to
empower Richmonders with the opportunity
to collaborate in the PB decision
making process.
HOW IT CH A NGED, W HY
As we conducted our research and reached out
to PB experts, we felt it was best to narrow
the scope of our project to recommendations
on voting software, voting hardware,
infrastructure, and methodology.
Given the present total budget for PB in
Richmond, it does not make fiscal sense to
create an entirely new solution where proven,
appropriate open source alternatives as well
as affordable commercial products exist.
HOW MIGHT W E
How might we create a Participatory Budgeting
voting interface for the widest possible
base of end users in order to promote equity
and create accessible systems that allows a
transparent, secure, and intuitive
polling process?
7
8
WHAT IS PARTICIPATORY
BUDGETING?
Members of communities all over the world
are not seeing civic investment where they
believe it should be happening. Historically
neglected communities are not being improved
and there is a troubling lack of discourse
with those in power.
Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a new
paradigm providing an avenue for community
members to engage in a democratic process
that gives residents direct access to their
tax dollars and allows them to guide where
that money will go.

PB HISTORY
Participatory Budgeting was developed in
the late 1980’s by the Brazilian Workers
Party as a response to twenty years of
military dictatorship that left citizens
impoverished. The City of Porto Alegre in
southern Brazil held the first cycle of a
Participatory Budgeting platform in 1989,
and the concept quickly spread throughout
South America and the rest of the globe. As of
2021 there are over 11,000 communities that
use PB processes to distribute funding. The
world has quickly adapted into the internet
age and many communities are using PB within
a larger construct of multi modal community
engagement platforms to allow for increased
discourse and transparency.
The City of Richmond, Virginia has set aside
a portion ($1,000,000 annually) of its
capital operating budget to create a PB pilot
program. Richmond has planned its initial
PB cycle to begin in the fall of 2023. In the
interim, the city, alongside the Storefront
for Community Design and the da Vinci
Center at VCU are hard at work researching
platform, education, and advocacy solutions
to ensure the best possible response to the
PB initiative.
AS OF 2018..
Only 18% of Richmonders are satisfied
with where their tax money is going.
53% of citizens are dissatisfied.
(ETC)

9
10
OUR GOAL
Design an accesibile voting system prototype
for the Richmond Participatory Budgeting (PB)
pilot project in partnership with the City
Council and Storefront for Community Design
to successfully empower the people living
in Richmond.Persons with disabilities,
youth and families, elderly persons, non-
native English speakers, racial minorities,
women, and persons with a history of criminal
charges or convictions.

The Nine Voting Districts within the city of Richmond

11
12
PROJECT
SCHEDULE
Sprint 3
• Problem Statement • Find community spaces where civic
• Understanding PB engagement happens (Churches, Schools,
• Preliminary research and case studies Daycare Centers)
• Understanding our scope • From interview responses data and research, began
• Project planning to ideate and conceptualize a voting prototype
• Demo meetings (Balancing Act, Citizen
• Success Metrics
Lab)
• Interviewed community leaders from District 6
Sprint 1
• Product Backlog
• Populate Contact List Sprint 4
• Retrospective
• Aggregate Empathy Interview Data
• Our Value Proposition
• Build a proposed wireframe
vprototype due12/14 (Figma, Adobe
cSpark)

2 12

Sprint 3

Sprint 2

13
PROBLEM SOLVING
PROCESSES

JOB TO BE DONE

Design an equitable and accessible voting prototype that

allows all the voices of Richmond to be heard.

Develop a multimodal voting tool for different communities

and their unique access to technology.

DESIGN THINKING PROCESS

Throughout the semester we utilized the design thinking process as we

approached the complex task of understanding and empathizing with the end
user and their voting experience.
Our team began by understanding the problem space in more detail.
As a team we generated HMW statements “how might we” statements to guide
our ideation process.
• HMW address community buy in?
• HMW engage and educate constituents?
• HMW create equity through voting design?
• HMW document the process for future PB officials’ use?
• HMW ensure all voices within 9 voting districts are represented fairly
and evenly?
• HMW effectively communicate the benefits of PB?

14
 PRIMARY RESEARCH

PR ELIMINA RY R ESEA RCH A ND

INTERVIEWS
We researched and conducted interviews with end
users within the city of Richmond to understand
their pain points and needs in more detail.
We were able to test our assumptions by
conducting in-depth demos and interviews with
existing software providers.

Interviewing Matt Slatts and

Daniel Wagner, deep diving into
the successes and pitfalls of
PB in Charlottesville, Virginia

PB Expert Interviews with

Balancing Act , CitizenLab,
city of Greensboro,
• Interview with Ben G from
CitizenLab
• Interview with Karen K from
City of Greensboro
• Interview with Chris Adams
of Balancing Act

15
PRIMARY RESEARCH

CONTINUED PRIM A RY

Our team coordinated a sit in with Shawn Balon during a PB Educational

Campaign at MOB studio, where we observed an ideation session. We
gained a better understanding of our client, Storefront, and
their goals.
It was an excellent way to collaborate with students from various
disiplines and ideate together on what a potential PB educational
campaign could look like. Advocacy is out of our scope, but it was an
important sector to dive into to help ground us with who we need to
reach out to in our communities, why, and how we could achieve this.

MOB studio

16
 SECONDARY RESEARCH
1 Traditional Polling -
Paper ballots placed in accessible locations will continue to
be an excellent option for the majority of voters. The Center
for Civic Design followed NYC PB voters and found that many
people found paper ballots a comfort as well as increasing the
social engagement of the process. Paper ballots are tangible
and allow for a degree of security that electronic voting
cannot provide. Although they are one of the lowest cost
options for voting, paper ballots remain inaccessible to many
who are disabled. (Ramchandani)

2 IDEO Case Study -

Design firm IDEO sought to recenter the process of voting in
LA County around voters, focusing around their emotions and
needs. The firm found that when polling places were centrally
located, voting engagement increased, as voting was less of
a chore. A comprehensive, iterative redesign of the voting
booth concluded with many innovative features. In addition to
changing booth height and accessibility features, IDEO went
so far as to study the effect that paper stock had on voter
response, reasoning that it allows constituents to feel less
like students and more like experts. Researchers came to the
insight that “stickers are the trophy of elections”. Social
media also played a role in the study; Those who engage in
political discourse on the internet may be informed that it is
a ladder up to voting in elections, especially when they take
place virtually. (Lydon)

3. Charlottesville PB Campaign -
Charlottesville Virginia’s city council
voted to fund a $100,000 participatory
budgeting initiative in 2018. Ultimately
the project was unsuccessful and allotted
funding for the project was distributed
into the community by alternate means. The
city officials in charge of the project
resigned and the initiative was tabled until
further notice. We talked at length with
Matt Slaats, an organizer involved in the
1. 2. project, about the process and dissolution
of PB in Charlottesville. His thoughts
aligned with Public Agenda’s conclusion
that the interest and commitment of elected
officials, alongside adequate funding is
paramount in the long term success of PB
initiatives. (Stout)

3.

17
SECONDARY RESEARCH

4. 5.

4. NYCPB -
Starting in 2011, 33 of New York City’s 51 Districts have used
some form of PB initiative, with $35 million dollars in funding
distributed in 2019. The City of New York has a live updated
website that includes a form for idea collection as well as
maps of current and completed project locations and details.
While districts within NYC do not have a cohesive voting system,
some use paper ballots alongside CONSUL open source software.
The city has linked the PB initiative to an online engagement
platform where constituents can discuss proposal ideas.

5. Stanford PB -
Founded in 2012, Stanford University’s Crowdsourced Democracy
Team has developed an open source, online PB platform. Since
then, over 100 local governments have utilized the platform to
run PB campaigns. Stanford PB is easily customizable, includes
language support, and can be accessed on mobile devices. While
not currently available, Stanford plans to include an online
discourse module with video chat that is in beta testing.

18
Universal design is considered the process of creating products that are
accessible to all people with a wide range of abilities, disabilities, and
other characteristics to the greatest extent possible, without the need for
adaptation or specialized design (Burgstahler). The idea being an individual
can be Asian, six feet tall, female, thirty two years old, an excellent reader,
primarily a visual learner, and deaf. All of these characteristics, including
his deafness, should be considered when developing a product or environment
that she and others might use.

“Gentrification is Colonization”
Richmond is built on a history of inequity rooted in systemic racism, racial
oppression, slavery, Jim Crow, red lining, mass incarceration and presently
gentrification. Gentrification has meant re-defining who has a right to belong in
Richmond, as our team dug deeper into these connections we began to understand
the mistrust the people of Richmond can have towards new initiatives.

“Developing Criteria for Evaluating a Multi-Channel Digitally Enabled

Participatory Budgeting Platform”
This article explores potential metrics by which a PB tool should be judged.
In addition to technical and non technical indicators, this paper addresses
implementation strategies in relation to PB successes and failures. Research
engagement of marginalized groups with different tech solutions security
concerns with multi channel systems.

19
AUDIENCE

W HO W E A R E DESIGNING FOR A ND W HY

Richmonders who are engaged in their

civic duty of voting, those who are
not, community leaders, non-profit
organizations, disenfranchised
community members,children ages
12-17, and non-English speakers.

We designed for all of Richmond and

specifically voices that have been
traditionally excluded from the
voting process. The city of Richmond
put out a call to action towards
creating a more equitable voting
process for the participatory
budgeting process.

PAIN POINTS GAINS

• L a n g u a g e b a r r i e r s a n d • More voices will be potentially

misunderstandings
• Unclear knowledge of civic
engagement
• U n d e r s t a n d i n g v o t i n g
eligibility
• M e m o r y o f s h o r t l i v e d ,
ineffective government
initiatives in communities
• Voting time restraints
• limited mobility/disabilities
heard on suggestions and ideas
for their communities through
a user friendly and accessible
voting system
• Trust and equity will increase
in marginalized groups
• C i t y o f f i c i a l s w i l l h a v e
analytics and receipts of end
user preferences

20
OUR
PERSONAS

21
 GOALS:
Build community in his new neighborhood by
helping people
Desires to be a vehicle of change for his
community
Get involved in the community outside of work

FRUSTRATIONS:
Not having any family or friends in the
immediate area
Navigating change
Heavy workload therefore limited hours to
THOM AS participate in civic engagement
AGE: 29 Unaware he can still engage in certain civic
activites like voting despite his record

GOALS:
Maintain a clean and safe neighborhood
Leaving things better for the future generations
Involved with local church and participates in
committee goals

FRUSTRATIONS:
Living through multiple short lived government
and poor non-profit initiatives to improve
neighborhoods
Broken street lights
Sidewalks and common public spaces
MISS ELAINE Limited mobility
AGE: 74

GOALS:
Lily is an aspiring first generation college
student who plans to focus her studies on
mental health disparities in her community.
Loves engaging with her community through
school related activities and volunteering
Active member of faith based activities

FRUSTRATIONS:
Lack of knowledge of the political system
and officials affiliated with her district
The current state of the parks and public
MS. YA NG spaces
AGE: 43

22
23
QUESTIONNAIRES &
EMPATHY INTERVIEWS
INSIGHTS & RESEARCH

We thoughtfully crafted empathy

interview questions to ask community
members in district 6 and other
qualifying members in Richmond

Who are you?

What is your relationship with the City of
Richmond?
What does community mean to you?
Have you ever voted?
Tell us about your voting experience
Are your needs being met by the city
Tell me about an experience where you were happy
with the city
Tell me about an experience where you were
frustrated
How many elections have you voted in
When do you vote?
Is there anything else you want to tell us?
Computer literate?
Gender
Race
Age
Language
Disability
We have created a survey that
Location
has been posted live on several
community social media boards and Criminal Record
has been promoted at a local radio Declined Interview
station
Other Comments

24
SURVEY INSIGHTS

“Lack of knowledge on the elections”

“Nothing”

“Work hours”

“Distance from my precinct”

“One time I ran out of gas and by the time I got there polls had
just closed”

“I have been on the move for the past 6 years, it’s also hard to
figure where/how I’m going to vote”

I would be interested but I am worried

that its technology that would be hard
to explain to people, so it could be
misconstrued as a way that one side
or the other cheated so I don't think
that it is viable until a larger portion
of the population has a better grasp
on technology or if it is explained well
enough that the vast majority of the
population understands it.

25
INTERVIEW INSIGHTS
2 of 15 interviews
Insight: Decoupling “voting” and PB

Who are you? Debra

What is your relationship with the City of
Moved from TN (17 Years)
Richmond?
What does community mean to you? Gathering together, doing fun things
Have you ever voted? Yes
Tell us about your voting experience I liked it, makes you feel like someone
Are your needs being met by the city Yes
Tell me about an experience where you were happy computer education program thru city, caseworker
with the city is responsive
Tell me about an experience where you were Covid response, drugs and shooting in northside
frustrated
How many elections have you voted in N/A
When do you vote? N/A
Is there anything else you want to tell us? wants to physically go vote
Computer literate? No
Gender F
Race African American
Age Senior
Language English

Who are you? Albert

What is your relationship with the City of
Since Child / Colombian
Richmond?
What does community mean to you? N/A
Have you ever voted? Not yet
Tell us about your voting experience None
Are your needs being met by the city Yes
Tell me about an experience where you were happy There’s lots of history here
with the city
Tell me about an experience where you were Would like to see the area more upscale with
frustrated better sidewalks
How many elections have you voted in 0
When do you vote? N/A
Is there anything else you want to tell us? N/A
Computer literate? Yes
Gender M
Race African American
Age Senior
Language English

26
INTERVIEW INSIGHTS
3 of 15 interviews
Insight:
After decades of residence, many never see change

Q: “How long have you been living in

Richmond?”

A: “I’ve lived in Richmond, Viriginia

for 65 years, I vote at every
election: national, state, and local.”

Q: “How has the definition of community

changed throughout the years.”

A: “Throughout the decades, our

communities needs have not been met.”

Q: “Do you vote?”

A: “no.”

Q: “If you don’t mind us asking, why

not?”

A: “I just see the commercials,
and these politicians...
these politians putting
each other down to win and
I don’t want to be a part
of that.”

Q: “Tell us about your voting experience”

A: “I liked it, makes you feel like
someone.”

27
 PRODUCT LANDSCAPE
As technology progresses, community engagement platforms have
proliferated. Current available options have a wide range of functionality,
price, and analytic features.

Our ideal platform includes continual content and security updates, a

module for user discourse, and extensive training with documentation
features.

This platform should allow for paper ballots and multiple modes of
interface. Accessibility for end users should be a main consideration
in the final decision.

EXISTING SOFTWARE MATURITY COST ADOPTEES

Stanford PB 2012 Open source Boston, NYC, Greensboro, Chicago
Citizen Lab 2015 <$40,000 yearly or Open source Lancaster, London
Pen and Paper 1989 Cost of Material Early Adopters
ZenCity founded 2015 $72,000 for Douglas County CO Philadelphia (not PB)
ConsulProject 2015 Open source 135 institutions
EngagementHQ 2007 N/A Kansas City
Polys 2017 N/A Volgograd
Empatia 2016 Open source SaaS Wuppertal, Lisbon, Ricany
Balancing Act 2014 $11,000 yearly Norfolk, Charlottesville,
Greensboro

28
ADOPTEE #’S MULTIMODALITY TECH SUPPORT
20+ Cities Yes No
200+ Cities Yes Yes
Unknown No No
Unknown Unknown Yes
90 million Yes Yes
10 million Not known Yes
1 Yes Yes
18000+ participants Yes No, extensive tech documentation
10+ large cities No Yes

29
 SWOT ANALYSIS
Strengths
• Free use
• Research backed, ground
up open source project.
• Established program
• Open Source - fully
customizable
Stanford • Data Security - RVA server
based
• Multiple Voting Methods
supported
• SMS Support
• Multilingual (lacking
arabic)
• Open source
• Widespread adoption
• Documentation for
physical polling
stations and processes
Consul • Can be linked to
existing census
systems
• Adaptive Design - can
be multimodal
• Verification system
• Data Security
• User friendly +
intuitive
• Timeframe
• Visual Budgeting
• Breakdown of spending
Balancing Act • Budget Engagement
• Taxpayer Receipts-
Breakdown allows
transparency + great
basis to build trust
• Cost
• UX/UI interface
• In depth Analytics
• Live Online
Conferencing
• Project timeline
Citizen Lab feature
• AI Moderation included
• Map services
• NLP Clustering - Idea
aggregation
• API Access
• Responsive Customer
Service
• Accelerated time frame
• Cost
30
Weaknesses
• No active content
moderation
• No options for discourse
• Richmond would have
to dedicate qualified
employees to run the
system.
• Timeframe (significantly
longer to launch)
• Initial costs much higher
• Training period
for infrastructure
competency/IT worker
retention essential
• Cost
• No onboard moderation
• Project updates
trackedshow a
downward trend in
participation.
• No dedicated customer
support.
• System is complex
• Richmond would have to
dedicate staff for IT
• Cost
• Information overload
• Community Engagement
(Could piggyback on
EngagementHQ)
• UX/UI for extreme
users (education
level, disabilities)
• Language support
• Paid Service (SaaS)
• Paid service (SaaS) **
software is open source
- data can be migrated to
free to use software
• Data Storage on 3rd Party
Server ** data can be
stored on local servers
• UX/UI for extreme users
• Language Support (Mandarin,
Arabic)
• Accessibility
• Potential nomenclature
issue with cyber security
group
 Opportunities
• Stanford PB is open source and
will eventually be able to
interface with Stanford’s Online
Deliberation Platform. This will
allow for a much more robust
online platform for citizen
engagement that has a basic form
of AI assistance.
• PB Stanford inspires trust
through non profit alignment
• The Consul system has the potential
to be a one stop shop for online
citizen engagement. Users can craft
proposals and engage in discussions.
They can also edit and comment on
legislation as it is being crafted.
As the bones of a potential long
term engagement platform, Consul is
an excellent choice as long as there
is proper time frame, funding, and
expertise.
• Balancing act can interface as
a widget with other engagement
platforms. The software can be
used to teach children how to
craft a personal budget as well
as help them understand how the
city’s tax money is used.
• Citizenlab data can be
aggregated and exported
very easily, and it looks
to be an option that is
capable of shifting gears
and developing custom
features quickly. This
platform can be used
extensively in arenas
outside the scope of PB
and will aid the city in
providing transparency to
constituents.
Threats
• University based software may not
create timely security fixes
• Other interfaces are Turnkey and
are more feature rich at their
core
• Potential users log off b/c of
interface issues due to IT
• Potential users log off b/c trust
issues w/UI
• Potential users disengage without
discourse opportunities
• City Government officials could be
reluctant to adopt a University
based system
• Potentially a primary target for
sponsored cyberattacks. Consul is
the most prominent PB platform with
widespread adoption in the EU (90
Million people). Competitors may
offer a less capable product that is
more intuitive, simpler, and faster
to use. City government officials in
the U.S. might be reluctant to trust
an overseas voting system.
• Other engagement platforms
and cloud services offer more
functionality and better UX/UI at
similar price points.
• As data is on a 3rd party server
and the platform is SaaS, a PB
cycle could be compromised by
outage or DDoS. Outage of service
will be a threat to trust. AI
Moderation may be viewed as
blanket censorship.
• Cost: Sales Representative Ben
Gordon gave a base system quote
with a ceiling of $40,000.
Optional live moderation,
continued training, and other
features are additional costs.
31
 COST ANALYSIS

Voting Site Hardware Cost

1. Arkon locking tablet mount (5 x $99.95 = $499.75)
2. Pollmaster II ADA Voting Booth - (5 x $289 = $1445.00)
3. Folding chair set - $105.00
4. Samsung Active Tablet 10” ($577.05 x 7 = $4039.35)
5. Extension Cord (1 x $53.95)
6. Power Strip (1 x $27.99)
7. ADA Power Cord Ramps (2 x $262.20 = 524.40)

Total: Voting Site Hardware Cost Estimate:$6695.44

*Does not include Signage Costs

*Does not include Vehicle or Transportation Costs

PB Cycle Estimate Labor Cost

• Poll worker hourly rate ($25)
• Poll worker base training (est $200)
• Base training for 36 poll workers = $7200
• 9 Districts x 4 Poll Workers x 10 hour workdays x 7 day
vote window = 2520 base hours
• 2520 labor hours @ $25 hourly = $63,000

Total: $70,200 Per PB Cycle Estimate Labor Cost for on

site workers

*Not including HR considerations or hiring campaign

At this time, we recommend that polling stations are

operated by volunteers. Teams of 2 will attend polling
stations to ensure proper oversight and safety of
equipment.
IT Personnel:
National Avg Hourly Pay $35 salary.com
9 districts conduct 7 day cycles (80 hours)
Training for CitizenLab and PB Procedures (36 hours)
Total: Est. Cost $100,800 for PB Cycle

32
1 5

2 6

3 7

33
34
 HUMAN
CENTERED
DESIGN
Human Centered Design - Throughout the process
the team went through several iterations between
the research and ideate steps. After each expert
interview, software demo, and end user interview there
was a chance to refine our final recommendations and
prototype.

PROTOTYPE
• Created wireframe prototype of ideal voting system
• Constructed PB paper ballot

TEST
• User centered interviews
• Empathy interviews around the current voting process

REFINE
• Refined voting prototype to only include the features that end
users desired and needed
• Worked through the lens of building a PB voting system for accessibility

REPEAT
• Coming back to the end user throughout the process was the most
important part of the process

35
IDEATION OF
PB SYSTEM
Traditional Ballots:
Participatory Budgeting Our user research indicates
City of Richmond
Special Election paper ballots are an essential
District 7 component within an equitable
Instructions
multimodal PB system in order
to cater to users with a wide
Vote for your top 3 spectrum of computer literacy.
If you do not find a project to vote on,
“Write-in” line and give us suggestions on projects for the city
If you want to change a vote or have made a mistake, reach our website at www.pbrva.com

Daycare

Commonwealth of Virginia
SAMPLE BALLOT
City of Colonial Heights
Housing insecurity General and Special Elections
Tuesday, November 3, 2020
Please drop off at your nearest mail box
Instructions
To vote for a candidate, fill in the oval next to the name.
To vote for a candidate who is not on the ballot, fill in the oval next to the
“Write-in” line and print that person’s name clearly on the line.
To vote on a question, fill in the oval next to Yes or No.
If you want to change a vote or have made a mistake, ask an election official
for another ballot. Do not make marks other than filling the oval.
Support local business President and Vice President Member
Vote for only one House of Representatives
4th District
DEMOCRATIC PARTY Vote for only one
Electors for
Joseph R. Biden, President A. Donald McEachin - D
Kamala D. Harris, Vice President Leon Benjamin Sr. - R
REPUBLICAN PARTY
Electors for Write-in
Donald J. Trump, President
Roadwork Michael R. Pence, Vice President
LIBERTARIAN PARTY Member
Electors for City Council
Jo Jorgensen, President Vote for not more than four
Jeremy F. "Spike" Cohen, Vice President Robert W. "Bobby" Wade
T. Gregory Kochuba
Write-in
Laura F. Poe
Dann P. Ferguson
Member Derward F. Rollison
Parks United States Senate
Vote for only one Michael A. Cherry
Mark R. Warner - D
Write-In Daniel M. Gade - R
Write-in

Write-in Write-in

Authorized by Electoral Board of the City of Colonial Heights

201 James Avenue • Colonial Heights, VA 23834 Write-in
The authority statement printed above must be removed and replaced
with the appropriate authority statement for the candidate, committee,
Sidewalks individual or group using this ballot for their own purposes. The authority
statement used for this ballot must comply with the requirements of Write-in
either federal or state law, as appropriate. For state requirements, see
§24.2-955 et seq. of the Code of Virginia. For federal requirements, call
the Federal Election Commission, 1-800-424-9530.
Turn Ballot Over
To Continue Voting
Ballot Style # 001 Typ:01 Seq:0001 Spl:01

RICH MOND,VA PB BA LLOT EXISTING VIRGINIA VOTING

PROTOTYPE BA LLOT

BUFFA LO,NEW YOR K PB BA LLOT NEW YOR K CITY PB BA LLOT

36
CONNECTING THE
COMMUNITY

Successful PB voting campaigns

met the people where they were
living. We recommend the creation
of a PB marketing campaign on public
transportation infrastructure
throughout the city.

This insight was gained directly from

interviewing city of Greensboro PB
officials.

Highlighted sections in blue could

have QR codes to vote/information
about the PB process.

The yellow section underneath the bus

terminal could have advertisements
about getting involved in the PB
process.

37
PROPOSED PROTOTYPE

Easy to use interface allows

users to cast their ballot,
view current and past project
proposals and engage in
discourse with community.

Mail me my ballot feature

allows paper ballots to be
mailed to home addresses.

38
 Accessibility features allow
users to adjust settings as
needed.

Pin drop feature allows users

to locate community voting
centers.

39
CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION IN RICHMOND

Our preferred platform is not a holistic solution

to create a viable long term campaign. Following
our recommendations specific to Richmond can
facilitate growth of trust and equity, but it is
ultimately up to city officials and grassroots
PB advocates to create sustained interest in
civic engagement from the ground up (Public
Agenda). Smart city technology and community
engagement platforms do not negate the need for
better public policy and increased infrastructure
funding (Clark).

40
 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Ideal PB Conditions
• Trust from community members
• 360 degree Engagement - continued involvement from all parties
• Adequate funding for PB infrastructure including: public
education, advocacy, and voting system
• Reaching the community from an internal standpoint
• 7 day voting period
• Depoliticized PB process

How do we get there?

Initially work through established groups
(faith based orgs, community groups, boys and girls clubs)
More Surveys!
How are users currently engaging in communities?

Ideal Voting Platform

• Language Support for Spanish, Arabic, and Mandarin
• Screen Reader Compatible
• Colorblind Accessible
• Multimodal system that accepts paper, phone, and computer input
• Portable Community Voting Booth that is secure, accessible, and private
• Written for average 6th grade literacy level
• Well designed UX/UI for user retention

Best Platform Recommendation: Citizen Lab

• Dedicated and responsive customer support
• Open source architecture
• Turnkey platform
• Extensive community engagement features in addition to PB
interface
• Easy access to analytics
• High quality UX/UI

41
PITFALLS

Finding a Solution First: The process of the

PB Voting project forced our team to challenge our own
assumptions throughout the semester. From the onset
of the first meeting in August, our team dove into the
ideation stage before truly understanding the end
user. The wise words of our mentor, Vida Williams,
rang true in an early meeting when she urged us “not to
boil the ocean in ideation” and instead take the time
to understand the needs of the end user.

Identifying The End User: Through the first

month of the project our team was very focused on
researching and understanding Richmond city government
and current voting processes. We also focused our
attention on researching current voting systems that
could be available for purchased. We learned that it
is important to take into consideration a feasible
option for the city government, it is more important to
design with the intention of the end user in mind. We
shifted our focus to designing specifically for voting
district 6. We then conducted interviews from the end
users who would traditionally not be designed for.

42
Defining Prototype: Our team’s initial definition of a functional
voting system prototype has changed throughout the process. We believed
that an end prototype needed to be programmed and coded by a software
engineer. We have realized throughout the process that a prototype
for our voting system can be created in adobe, balsamiq, etc. Our final
prototype will be a combination of recommendations for the city of
Richmond government,Storefront for Community Design, and a prototype
that is clickable in order to collect end user data.

Great Interview Questions Take Time: Our team took time

to construct in-depth interview questions that we created for our
end users. We learned the importance of conducting the interviews in
pairs, while one team member is leading the interview, the other team
member is focusing on observing non-verbal cues. We learned through
the process of conducting the interviews in-person the importance of
having questions that build off one another. We realized the importance
of always asking open ended, non-leading questions will lead to more
insightful answers. This entire process took more time than our team
initially anticipated.

Communicate early and often: Throughout the process our team

learned that whenever you are working with different stakeholders
it is important to consider the time it will take to get all of the
decision makers, experts, and end users in the same room at the same
time. Our team learned the importance of communicating early and
often with stakeholders. We learned that it is more important to take
the meeting even if the entire team wasn’t able to attend rather than
trying to find a time that would work for every member’s schedule. As we
began interviewing government officials it was important to ask about
both the success and failures of past PB initiatives. We learned the
importance of educating the public about the PB process.

43
44
 THANK YOU!
TH A NK YOU FROM TEA M PB & J
W E A R E EXCITED TO EMBA R K ON THIS JOUR NEY WITH THE
CITY OF RICH MOND, A ND HOPE TH AT OUR R ECOM MENDATIONS
FOSTER TRUST, EQUITY, A ND COM MUNITY.

SPECIA L TH A NK YOU TO

A LLISON S.
SH AW N B.
VIDA W.
GA R R ET W.
A LL OF THE A BOV E

45
TEAM PB&J
MEMBERS

DENISE GUTIER R EZ-A DRIA N LUK E STEV ENS

TYSON GLOV ER ZACHER A K ER NIZA N

46
 TEAM MENTOR
AND SPONSOR

VIDA WILLIA MS SH AW N BA LON

TEA M MENTOR TEA M SPONSOR

47
48
RESEARCH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“A new way to vote for the people of Los Angeles.” IDEO. (2015).

Agenda, Public. “Why Let the People Decide? Elected Officials on Participatory Budgeting.” (2016).

Burgstahler, Sheryl. “Universal Design: Process, Principles, and Applications.” DO-IT (2009).

Cabannes, Yves. “Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy.” Environment

and urbanization 16.1 (2004): 27-46.

City of Richmond. “Open Data Portal | City of Richmond, Virginia | Open Data Portal | City of Richmond,
Virginia.” Socrata, (2018).

Jennifer Clark. “Solving for the City.” Technology Review (1998), vol. 124, no. 3, Technology Review, Inc,
2021, pp. 8–11.

Lydon, K. Human-Centered Design for the Voting Experience. Stanford Social Innovation Review. (2016)

Meyer, Anne, and David H. Rose. “Universal design for individual differences.” Educational Leadership 58.3
(2000): 39-43.

Mitchell, Shekinah. “In Richmond, Virginia, Gentrification Is Colonization.” National Community Reinvestment
Coalition, (2019).

Stout, N. Charlottesville suspends participatory budgeting after resignations. Daily Progress, The. (2019).

49
50
51