By Deborah Mattinson

As Tony Blair champions the "People's Panel", local government is looking to its own method of increasing levels of consultation and accountability- the citizens' jury.

Launched in the UK only last year, citizens' juries offer an imaginative new way of involving the public in the decisions of public authorities and other public-interest organisations.

The idea, initially trialled in Germany and the USA, responds to real anxieties about the low level of communication and trust between public interest organisations and the public. Health authorities are unelected and only indirectly accountable to local people and even local authorities are elected with often less than 40% of the vote.

Local government seldom opens itself to public scrutiny, fearing ill-informed responses and, on the flipside, the public often fails to respond to invitations to attend meetings, expressing cynicism that it will not make any difference if they do. In general, there is little confidence on either side in the ability or willingness of the other to conduct a useful dialogue.

However, citizens' juries offer the opportunity to improve the openness of public interest organisations, building trust with the public and enhancing the quality of decision-making by introducing lay experience and views.

The concept involves between 12 and 16 ordinary members of the public, who are selected to represent a profile of the local community. They are asked to address important matters of policy or planning and usually sit for four days, with market research moderators, receiving evidence and cross-examining witnesses. On the final day, they draw their conclusions. These are then compiled in an independent report and submitted to the commissioning body, which is expected to respond swiftly and comprehensively to reflect the authority and integrity of the citizens' jury process.

The process is distinctive because it involves ordinary members of the public in their capability as citizens, not as service users, experts or members of any interest group. They are engaged in a serious civic task, becoming lay experts, as well as confident and competent decision-makers.

Within the past year, citizens' juries have demonstrated that ordinary people, without training or expertise, can grasp complex issues and reach sensible conclusions- often changing their minds in the course of four days. Jurors tend to approach their task as representatives of the community, not as self-centred individuals and all those involved, so far, have found the experience enlightening and enjoyable.

When developing a jury, the role of market research is crucial. Local government needs to employ a researcher or moderator, to recruit a representative jury, conduct preliminary research, construct the agenda, moderate, analyse the findings and draft the report.

There are several methods available when recruiting jurors and, after experimentation, the preferred technique is for the researcher to initially obtain a profile of the relevant area from the census - containing a breakdown of social class, age, gender, ethnic background and housing tenure. Letters can then be sent out to randomly selected residents, drawn from the electoral register within the area, asking them if they would be interested in taking part in the jury (all jurors are paid for their time). From the positive responses, sixteen people are then randomly selected, having been weighted to fit the profile of the area.

To enable the four day agenda to be as informed as possible, it is often necessary to undertake preliminary research to understand current opinion and issues, identify particular topics of interest and determine any areas of misunderstanding. This is done using specialist research techniques such as desk research, quantitative surveys, focus groups, depth interviews or opinion leader interviews.

Refining complex issues into clear questions is perhaps the most difficult part of the planning process. The issue should be broken down into options or perspectives and spread out over the four days.

Often, an introductory evening for jurors is a good idea, taking place a few days before the full jury and allowing them to ask questions about what is expected of them.

Focus groups can be a great help in developing the agenda. They can give you a feel for what level people are at on certain issues and what their initial responses to certain questions are likely to be. For example, it is useful to know what initial reactions to emotive topics, such as mental illness and palliative care, are likely to be.

As a rule, the agenda should provide enough structure for jurors to be able to complete their task, while not unduly constraining them and preventing real discussion and debate.

Researchers also need to select a balanced mix of appropriate witnesses, ideally no more than four a day. Jurors often respond better to witnesses who speak from their own personal experience and so researchers need to brief them on the importance of jargon-free presentations.

The role of the researcher or moderator during the actual jury sessions, is to build each jurors confidence, preventing domination by one or two more confident individuals. The moderator must also encourage jurors to think creatively and in an abstract sense, encouraging those with a contrary thought to express it, while maintaining the smooth running of proceedings, acting as both a timekeeper and referee. Importantly, the moderator must establish ground rules, including dealings with any media observers and the appointment of spokesmen.

At the end of the citizens' jury, jurors are asked to come up with a number of recommendations for the commissioning body. These are then written up in the report which summarises the process they went through, the evidence they considered, the conclusions reached and why. The report, ideally written within two weeks of the jury finishing, is submitted to the commissioning body for their consideration after which it becomes a public document. The proceedings of the citizens' jury are also taped and a transcript produced.

A citizens' jury is only as useful as its reputation and there exists a need to build the credibility of such as young concept Juries must be seen to be fair, incorruptible and effective and should all follow agreed procedures, meeting specified conditions relating to recruitment and moderation. Support will be sought later this year to develop an accreditation system for future juries.

Citizens' juries offer a way of conducting an informed dialogue with the public. They are intended to complement, not replace, other forms of public involvement, such as local elections, referendums, opinion polls, focus groups, panels and public meetings. Variants on the basic citizens' jury are already being explored, for instance, one day workshops and procedures involving a greater number of jurors for quantitative research purposes. But whatever the specifics, experience so far has shown that the attitudes of the jurors themselves have been one of the most exciting aspects of the fledgling process.

Disclaimer

Contact Webmaster

© Deborah Mattinson / Through the Loop Consulting Ltd 1998-2000