Participatory governance in local care programmes. Lessons from Bogotá and Chicago

2020

À télécharger : 01_participatory-governance-in-local-care-programs_en.pdf (540 Kio)

The pandemic has served as a stark revelation of inequalities in care. Everywhere, women, marginalised groups and low-income households have seen their burdens grow heavier, whilst traditional systems have struggled to adapt. Against this backdrop, cities such as Bogotá and neighbourhoods such as Rogers Park in Chicago have explored a common approach: participatory governance, where decisions are no longer made for communities, but with them.

Experiences from Bogotá and Chicago

Bogotá: the art of structuring the invisible

In the Colombian capital, the Care System emerged from a stark reality: 90 per cent of carers are women, and their unpaid work accounts for 20 per cent of the national GDP. Faced with this reality, the city council opted for a radical approach: redistributing the responsibility for care between the state, society and individuals.

At the heart of the scheme are the ‘care blocks’ (manzanas del cuidado), public spaces redesigned to offer carers moments of respite, training or personal development, whilst simultaneously providing a place for the people in their care.

Between 2020 and 2022, 14 such blocks were established, and the aim is to have 45 in place by 2035. But beyond the infrastructure, it is a philosophy that has changed: care is no longer a private matter, but a collective priority.

What is striking about the Bogotá model is its systemic nature. The system is underpinned by extensive public consultation – 5,500 women contributed to the 2020–2030 public policy on gender – and an inter-sectoral commission comprising both representatives of carers and local government officials. Yet the challenges remain considerable. In a country where mistrust of institutions runs deep, convincing women that this system belongs to them takes time. And whilst cultural transformation workshops (where men are taught to share domestic tasks) represent a step forward, changing mindsets will take generations.

Chicago: urgency as a catalyst

At the other end of the spectrum, the Rogers Park Community Response Team (RPCRT) emerged in March 2020 as an immediate, grassroots response to the crisis. In this neighbourhood, one of the most diverse in Chicago (44 per cent White, 27 per cent Black, 19 per cent Latino), the pandemic has exacerbated inequalities: isolation, food insecurity and financial hardship.

Without waiting for the authorities, local residents, supported by local councillor Maria Hadden, set up a 100 per cent volunteer-run mutual aid network: distributing food, household goods and unconditional financial aid.

The RPCRT was able to build on existing structures: the Protect Rogers Park group, already active in opposing immigration raids, provided a pool of volunteers and an emergency contact number; Northside Community Resources, a local NGO, managed the finances. Within a few weeks, the initiative had distributed thousands of parcels, tailored to the neighbourhood’s cultural needs (halal food, Latin American products, etc.). But this agility came at a price: an informal structure that sometimes lacked clarity, and imperfect representation – the majority of organisers were white, in a neighbourhood where minorities make up the majority.

Nevertheless, the RPCRT proved that citizen mobilisation can be just as effective as public policy. In December 2020, it became the Rogers Park Free Store, a permanent community grocery shop that has raised over $70,000 and continues to serve the community.

What these two models teach us

Whilst Bogotá and Chicago may seem polar opposites – one plans over 15 years, the other acted within a matter of weeks – their successes rest on three common pillars.

Firstly, public trust is not a luxury, but a prerequisite for survival. In Bogotá, it was built through years of consultation; in Chicago, through constantly listening to people’s needs. Secondly, drawing on existing networks saves precious time: whether it be the Colombian capital’s gender policies or the activist groups in Rogers Park, these foundations have been crucial. Finally, combining expert knowledge with local insight yields solutions that are both rigorous and tailored. Bogotá’s care hubs are located where data shows the greatest need, but their content has been defined by the carers themselves.

However, there are limitations here too. In Bogotá, there is a risk that the system could disappear following a change in government; in Chicago, it is volunteer burnout that threatens its sustainability. And in both cases, one challenge remains: how can we ensure that participatory governance does not remain a pipe dream, but becomes the norm?

Recommendations for action

The main lesson from these experiences is simple: there is no one-size-fits-all model. A large city like Bogotá can rely on major infrastructure and a long-term vision, whilst a neighbourhood like Rogers Park would be well advised to prioritise flexibility and local roots. But in both cases, certain principles are essential:

• Involve communities right from the design stage of programmes, and not just as beneficiaries.

• Rethink the use of existing resources: a school can become a care centre, a Facebook group a distribution network.

• Accept that participation comes at a cost – in terms of time, energy and compromise – but that the absence of participation costs far more.

Ultimately, Bogotá and Chicago remind us of a truth that is all too often forgotten: care is everyone’s business.

Références

En savoir plus