🗺 Every page — the whole flow
The votes
Open questionsElections — when, where, howVoter turnoutPriorities boardWhat came of itGet involved
The budget
▶ Take the 2-minute tourThe money trailYour tax bill, explainedGrants — money we could go getWho gets paidWhat the auditors reportedThe receipt — arithmetic checkedThe documentsHow every number is sourcedQuestions people ask — answered from the dataThe plain-words tour
Public needs
Our waterJails & prisons — from holding to buildingWho’s watching — cameras, plate readers, the rulesWho to call — county and state officesFind help
Dead ends & open questions
The docketThe calendarHow complete is this county?
Research for a better county
Receipts by railsFood sovereigntyGrow-opsThe food flywheelThe two potsFeeding the countyThe growing frontierThe grower’s almanacThe $400K blueprintThe research shelfThe precedents
The wider network
All countiesKindred workWhere we sit in the field
How to trust this
Where we standWhat we will never doHow this is securedThe traffic logOur storyReport a problem
Evidence library
Lahti, Finland · 2020s

Lahti — voting at the library

What happened

City-wide participatory budgeting where residents proposed ideas and voted on allocations — and, critically, anyone could vote in person at the public libraries, not just online.

What the evidence shows

Library voting materially changed who participated — reaching residents online-only processes never touch. The pilot succeeded well enough that the participatory budget doubled the following year.

What it teaches Desha County

Hybrid isn't an accessibility gesture; it is what makes results representative enough to cite. Paper ballots at the library, the senior center, and the dry cleaner's counter are this platform's Lahti move.

The honest caveat

Municipal funding sustained it; the county version rides on cheaper rails by necessity.

Sources: People Powered: participatory budgeting and participation