Scottish Office: Involving Civil Society in the Work of Parliaments

Involving Civil Society in the Work of Parliaments

2.3 Citizens' Juries

Overview

Citizens' juries were pioneered in the 1970s in the United States and Germany. The German model has been used in recent years in Spain, The Netherlands and Palestine. A number of citizens juries have also been run in the UK since the mid 1990s. A citizens' jury brings together a group of randomly chosen citizens to deliberate on a particular issue, whether it is the setting of a policy agenda or the choice of particular policy options. Over a number of days participants are exposed to information about an issue and hear a wide range of views from witnesses, who are selected on the basis of their expertise or on the grounds that they represent affected interests. With trained moderators ensuring fair proceedings, the jurors are given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and, on occasion, call for additional information and witnesses. Following a process of deliberation amongst themselves, the jurors produce a decision or provide recommendations in the form of a citizens' report. Typically, the sponsoring body (a government department, a local authority or other agency) is required to respond, either by acting on the report or explaining why it disagrees with it. Citizens' juries have been run on a wide range of ethical and social questions and on a wide range of policy areas including: local planning; energy; technology and communication; environment; and transport.

Description of procedure

Stage one: setting up the process

The commissioning body (or sponsor) identifies an issue on which it wants to seek informed public opinion and contracts an independent facilitating organisation.
The facilitating organisation will typically establish an advisory group which will provide advice on the question (charge) to be asked and the choice of expert witnesses. Experts are chosen who can provide different perspectives on the question.
A group of citizens are chosen using either random or stratified random sampling. In the US and the UK a single jury of between 12 and 16 citizens is chosen. In Germany a number of juries or planning cells each composed of 25 citizens are run concurrently and/or in series.
It is now common practice for a contract to be drawn up between the commissioning body; the independent facilitators; and the jurors. This requires that the commissioning body responds to the jury's recommendations within a given time period.

Stage two: running the jury

Juries often meet for preparatory evenings or weekends prior to the jury proper.
The jury usually sits for around four days. Jurors are paid expenses and a set amount to cover lost income.
Trained moderators ensure the fairness and smooth running of the process.
Juries hear evidence from the expert witnesses and have an opportunity to cross ex-amine them.
Jurors then discuss the issues raised amongst themselves. To avoid domination by any single juror, much of the discussion occurs in small groups.
Jurors are then allowed to recall the experts to seek further clarification on particular issues. They may also be able to call new witnesses if they feel information is lacking.
On the final day jurors draw together their conclusions and present a series of recommendations at the final plenary session.
A final report of the jury decisions is usually compiled by the independent facilitators. It is then distributed to the citizens for their approval.
The report is submitted to the commissioning body. Recommendations are not binding, but the commissioning body is expected to publicise the findings and respond to them within a set time period.

Case Studies

United States of America

Examples of topics:

1984 Impacts of agriculture on water quality in Minnesota

1989 At risk children in Greater New Haven

1992 Candidate ratings for the senate

1993 National healthcare reform

1995 Hog farming in Rice county

1995 Congestion pricing for Minnesota

In 1971, Ned Crosby founded the Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes in to promote citizens' juries and other innovative forms of democratic partici-pation.¹⁸ The Jefferson Center is an independent organisation paid for and run by Crosby himself. Crosby developed the idea of citizens' juries in response to what he identified as fundamental problems of democracy in the US - the manipulation of the public by political parties; the corruption of government decision-making processes by special interests; and the failure of voting to ensure any meaningful political influence on the part of citizens. Citizens juries have attracted media attention, but as yet appear to have had little direct influence on the political decision making process in the US.

The Jefferson Center tends to run single juries of 12 citizens. Stratified random sampling is used to select jurors.. From an initial random selection of citizens, the jury is chosen using demographic and, on occasion, attitudinal criteria in order to generate a sample of citizens that 'mirrors' the wider population. Demographic criteria often include geographic location, gender, age, race and education. The Jefferson Center has experimented with complete juror control of the process so that jurors were permitted to decide which witnesses to call. This proved to be problematic because jurors initially had insufficient knowledge about the issue under consideration. The initial selection of expert witnesses is now the responsibility of the Jefferson Center; although jurors are permitted to call further witnesses at a later stage in the process.

Germany

Examples of topics:

1980 Cologne town hall project

1985 Energy supply for Johchen Nord

1990 Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) in the private and professional environment

1991 Road siting for the centre of Revelsberg

1996 Development of residential site in Solingen-Aufderhohe

1996 Review of public transport system in Hanover

In Germany, citizens juries are known as 'planning cells' (Planungzellen). They have been pioneered since 1969 by Professor Peter Dienel at the Research Institute for Citizen Participation, University of Wuppertal.¹⁹ Dienel has argued that planning cells provide a way of 'organising public participation, compatible with the institutionalised forms of our political I administrative system'. He is particularly concerned that the political decision making process has become increasingly owned by a professional political class and that a social and substantive cleavage is growing between the privileged decision makers and the majority of the population. To date there have been around 23 planning cell projects. Unlike the experience in the US, government bodies (municipal, state and federal government) and private agencies have commissioned the Research Institute to organise planning cells, providing financial support and agreeing to take into account their recommendations and judgements in future decision making processes. This is formalised through a contract between the parties which requires the commissioning body to publicise its response to the jury's recommendations. This ensures a degree of political commitment and influence. Many of the more recent planning cell projects have received the support of the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology.

Whereas Crosby tends to promote single juries, Dienel often runs a number of planning cells, each containing 25 citizens, concurrently and/or in series. To date, the largest project involved 500 citizens from all over Germany discussing the future use of IS DN. The Research Institute chooses citizens entirely at random from the files of the residents' registration offices. Dienel argues that it is important that all citizens have an equal chance of being chosen. Citizens receive an expenses allowance as well as additional compensation for proven loss of earnings. The acceptance rate for invitations to participate varies from between 15-20% for tasks dealing with technological questions and 25-40% for planning issues at the local level. Any number of planning cells is possible and to increase the efficiency of the process, the same task is often allocated to several different planning cells located in different towns and regions. The Research Institute therefore plays an important role in drawing together the rough recommendations of the different planning cells into a formal citizens' report.

Citizen Report on lnformation Services Digital Network (ISDN)

The announcement of the introduction of ISDN in Germany led to the rapid emergence of a critical and public discussion of its social and economic effects. For proponents ISDN offers the gateway to the 'information society'; for critics it is an unacceptable technology whose capacity to store data can undermine citizens' basic rights. In response to the growing debate, the Deutsche Bundespost Telekom and the Federal Ministry for Posts and Telecommunications organised an extensive research project at the centre of which was the production of a citizens' report on the 'social compatibility of ISDN'.²⁰This was to become the largest planning cell or citizen jury project to date with some 500 citizens involved. Each planning cell was given the opportunity to test ISDN, to ask questions of critics and experts and to deliberate and assess its potential effects over four days.

In June 1989 the Deutsche Bundespost commissioned a citizens' report from the Research Institute for Citizen Participation at the University of Wuppertal under the leadership of Peter Dienel. Between December 1989 and September 1990 the research unit organised 22 planing cells in eight towns across Germany. Over the four days, the members of the planning cells were introduced to ISDN; focused on questions of data protection and protection of privacy; investigated examples and possibilities of the technology; and were asked to offer scenarios for the future of telecommunications. Overall, the majority of the participants had positive attitudes towards the technology, but had distinct reservations about the effects of technological progress on society. In particular, many of the citizens raised concerns about the implications for privacy and informational self-determination. The storage of connection data was seen by citizens as the greatest data protection problem. Deutsche Bundespost's original intention to store such data for up to 80 days after invoicing customers was seen as unacceptable in the citizens' report.

What is most interesting is that the recommendations and concerns of the citizens' report, and the wider critical debate of which it was a part, influenced the decree on data protection in telecommunications that came into force in Summer 1991. Telekom and the federal government have recognised that a constructive dialogue between citizens and agencies can help shape more sensitive regulation in highly technical policy areas.

United Kingdom

Examples of topics:

1996 Drugs and community safety, Lewisham

1996 Services for the dying for Walsall Health Authority

1996 The future of waste management in Hertfordshfre

1997 Improvement of the Swiss Cottage site, Camden

1997 Taste and decency on television

1997 Genetic testing and the insurance industry

1997 Graffiti and vandalism, South Lanarkshire

1997 Creating employment opportunities in Levenmouth

The Institute of Public Policy Research (1PPR), the King's Fund Policy Institute and the Local Government Management Board (LGMB) have advocated the use of citizens' juries in the UK, each independendly sponsoring a series of pilot projects.²¹ These have typically been conducted in conjunction with health authorities and local government, two institutions often criticised for falling to engage their local populations. However, other organisations, such as the Independent Television Commission (ITC) and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) have also sponsored juries on, respectively, taste and decency on television, and genetic testing and the insurance industry. The pilot juries have all consisted of between 12 and 16 citizens. They have generally been. used in one of two ways: either they have been asked to make a decision on a contentious 'live' issue where there are a clear set of options, for instance, the 1997 jury on the improvement of the Swiss Cottage site, Camden; or they have been asked to respond to fairly broad, open-ended policy questions, for instance, the 1996 jury on drugs and community safety in Lewisham. The New Labour administration has shown some interest in these pilot projects. The Ministers for Women, Joan Ruddock and Harriet Harman, initiated a series of women's juries to gain insight into the views of the 'silent majority' on issue of work and child care and, in one of its recent consultation documents on the modernisation of local government, the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions has offered the citizens' jury process as a potential mechanism for reinvigorating interest in local politics and overcoming cynicism towards, and distrust of, local authorities.

The UK pilots have all been single juries of between 12-16 citizens. Different procedures have been used to draw up the original pool of citizens from which the jury is chosen. These have varied from random selection to advertising for interested citizens. In order to achieve a broadiy representative sample from this pool of volunteers, socio-demographic selection criteria have been used. There is some concern that a small number of organisations which have been involved in the pilot process are now setting up their own juries without employing an independent facilitating organisation. The fairness of the process is then immediately called into question.

The 'Lewisham Listens' Citizens' Jury

The Lewisham Citizens' Jury took place in April 1996 as part of the LGMB's pilot project on the subject of 'Drugs and Community Safety - How Can we Reduce Harm to the Community and the Individual?'.²² A number of major local agencies - including Lewisham Borough Council, the Police, the local Health Authority and Goldsmith's College -had recognised that a cross-agency approach to the problems was needed. The jury was seen by the commissioning organisation - Lewisham Borough Council - as a mechanism for achieving an informed citizens' perspective on how new working arrangements and approaches might be developed and for involving local the community in local government. The jury was seen as part of the council's emerging Democracy Project, 'Lewisham Listens'. A steering group was organised which consisted of representatives from the major local agencies and from the consultants. It was their role to establish the broad agenda, refine questions, devise a list of potential witnesses and oversee the project.

16 jurors were selected by commercial consultants Opinion Leader Research (OLR) to represent the profile of the Borough by age, gender, social class, race and housing tenure and each juror costs were reimbursed at a fiat rate of �50 per day. All council employees, elected officeholders and those working on drugs issues were excluded from taking part. Two facilitators were employed - one from a market research company; the other an expert worker in the drugs field. A number of expert witnesses were sought to offer contrasting and diverging opinions. Prior to the process, two focus groups were conducted; one to 'pre-test' the jury concept and aspects of the programme; and the other to ascertain views on drugs from a group of young people (14-17 year olds).

The jury lasted four days with an evening pre-briefing a week in advance. The first three days were pre-planned with 10-15 minute presentations by witnesses and 15 minutes for questioning. The jury punctuated the witness sessions by splitting into two groups to prepare questions for the witnesses, to take time to review what had been learnt and to role play to further understand the issues. Summary sessions were held at the start and finish of each day. The main sessions were open to observers from the council and the press were present on the first and last day. Day Four was left free so that the Jury could call its own witnesses and have the opportunity to reach conclusions and recommendations. Recreational drug users and representatives from a treatment clinic offering services to crack and cocaine users accepted the invitation and provided evidence. The facilitators noticed that men tended to dominate the full group sessions and so group work was split into genders - otherwise there was a high degree of respect for individuals within the proceedings. The Home Secretary was invited to attend but declined.

In the final conclusions there was a large degree of unanimity across a wide range of the conclusions. Where there were differences most of the splits were along gender lines. Significant attitudinal changes occurred amongst the jurors over the four days. The jurors felt that they had a clear understanding of the issues and ownership of the jury process. Some jurors talked of the process as a 'life changing experience'. The final report was drawn together by OLR with input from lead officers of Lewisham Borough Council. The jury was reassembled to agree on the report.

The results of the jury called for a more comprehensive and community based approach to drugs education and to educating children from primary school age. There were clear recommendations for more flexibility in drug treatment options. The report and recommendations were sent to a joint meeting of the Policy and Resources and Community Affairs committees for consideration and from there to the full council. Key findings were sent to other relevant agencies. The Council committed itself to use the report as the basis of working with other relevant agencies and the production of action plans in the areas of drug education, treatment and drug related crime. In response to the jury, funding was provided for the first year of a new drug education programme and an arrest referral scheme was introduced. However there has been a clear reluctance on the part of the health authority to pilot new approaches to treatment. It is clear that the jury was able to push at the boundaries of innovative policy making and challenge the apparent intractable nature of the problems of drug use. It also offered an opportunity for both citizens and witnesses to be heard in a public arena. Locally and nationally, the jury received a high level of media coverage and publicity and achieved a significant political impact.

Summary of Issues

Representativeness: It is impossible to construct a jury that accurately mirrors the wider population. However, if the jury is to be small (12-16 citizens) it is particularly important to employ selection criteria such as age, gender, race, education, etc. to ensure that no section of the community is completely excluded. Even with a larger project using several juries, random sampling will not ensure that members of minorities within the population are given a voice. The pilots that have been held in the UK have been composed of between 12-16 citizens. This does not compare favourably with the German experience where planning cells have been composed of 25 citizens and a number of cells have been run consecutively or in series to increase the number of participants. Obviously this has cost implications.

Cost: A single citizens' jury costs �16-23,000. A planning cell consisting of 250 members costs approximately �100,000. The cost has to be weighed against the desire to achieve greater representativeness.

Legitimacy: To ensure that key actors support the process and all perspectives on issues are covered; it is important that they are involved in the steering group that helps shape the question, suggests witnesses and oversees the process. Key differences between conflicting parties may also be clarified in this initial process. To ensure that the process is not biased (probably the most damaging criticism of the citizens' juries), it is important that they are run by an independent organisation. Moderators need to be independent. A number of councils have decided to run juries on their own (to save money) - however their independence is questioned and thus the legitimacy of the process is undermined.

Political Impact: The key mechanism for seeking to ensure that the jury's conclusions have an effect on policy making is the use of a contract between the commissioning body, the facilitating organisation and the jury.

Topic Choice: Reports on trials of citizens juries show that when the topic is of real concern to those taking part, there is a much higher level of interest in taking part. Initial surveys may be done to find out what issues are highest on the agenda of ordinary citizens. A high level of commitment and enthusiasm on the part of the jury members clearly affects the possibility of arriving at achievable policy recommendations and of implementing those recommendations afterwards.

Empowerment: Citizens who have taken part in citizens' juries, particularly on issues which directly concern them have said that the process gives them a sense of empowerment. The jury gives citizens a chance to form realistic solutions to problems which individuals cannot tackle alone but which can be taken on board through collaborative efforts. Many of those who take part become more active citizens afterwards because they have a sense that they can achieve something.

Publicity: In order that the jury process has a wider effect on the general public and other agencies, it is important that the jury tackles a 'live' issue. Press and media interests are then more likely to follow.