Scottish Office: Involving Civil Society in the Work of Parliaments

Involving Civil Society in the Work of Parliaments

2.5 Citizens' Panels

There are two kinds of citizens' panels, standing panels and research panels.²⁴ Research panels use a large sample of a local population as a sounding board to tracks changes in opinion over time. This section focuses on standing citizen's panels which are made up of a stable sample of citizens statistically representative of an area's population. The composition of the panel is weighted for gender, age, ethnic background and occupation. The panel meets regularly to assess local services and develop views about future needs and goals. Standing panels can be used to test specific policy options or proposals or to scrutinise policy implementation. The membership of the panel is periodically changed.

Procedure

Research panels consist of anything from 500-3,000 participants.
Members are recruited either through the post or by telephone as a sample of a population.
Panels have a standing membership a proportion of whom will be replaced regularly and who will be consulted at intervals.
Participants are asked regularly about different issues over a period of time.

Case Studies

United Kingdom

Speak Out! Bradford, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council 1995

In Bradford, various agencies including the District Council set up a research panel to survey the local population on a variety of issues related to service provision.

Lewisham Citizens panel, London Borough of Lewisham 1997

The Lewisham panel was established to consult residents on local authority and health issues. As well as being used to survey the population and track opinion over time, panel members were invited to participate in workshops and discussion groups.

'Feedback', Southampton City Council 1996-1998

Southampton City Council hired a market research company to set up its citizens' panel. Initially an advert was placed in the Council's local newspaper, which goes to all households, asking for interested citizens. From the responses a panel of 15,000 local citizens was chosen which closely resembled the wider population in terms of age, gender, race, education, area of residence, occupation, language spoken, type of household tenure, disability and car-ownership. Once a year a questionnaire is sent out which covers all areas of the quality life in Southampton and, in particular, the service delivery areas of the Council. In 1996 the number of questionnaires returned was 1,257; in 1997 it was up to 1,552. The results of the questionnaires are presented to the full Council and are filtered through the Directorates into the policy making process. It is generally felt that the responses have influenced the direction of policy in many service areas. Membership of the panel is a three year commitment after this year's survey a new panel will be set up.

Summary of Issues

Representativeness: A panel is large enough to be representative of a whole local population and offers a wider public view on specific issues.

Legitimacy: Panel members are often given information on a topic and offer a more in-formed public view.

Cost: Once the panel has been set up it is cheaper than a series of large one-off opinion surveys.

Political Impact: Panels are often set up by public authorities to gauge citizen opinion on what should be on the policy agenda or on how well the authority is implementing policy. They therefore have the potential to inform the policy process and to direct policy implementation although the extent to which they are able to do either of these things clearly depends of the receptiveness of the authority to the citizens' response.

Flexibility: Panels offer a flexible method of citizen participation. The same panel can be surveyed using questionnaire techniques, or used to seek a more informed view on some issues. Members of the panel can also be brought together in focus groups and workshops.

2.6 Local Case Study: Fife Council's Citizenship Commission

In March 1996, a separate committee was established within Fife Council with the express purpose of improving the quality of democratic accountability of local authorities. The twelve person committee isolated itself from the day to day running of public service provision and sought out ideas to improve local involvement.

Among its aims were:

Improving the flow of information
Piloting new ways of involving the public in
Campaigns to improve voter turnout
Initiatives to involve under-represented groups

Many schemes have been tried but it was found that a delicate balance needs to be struck to avoid 'over-consultation' i.e. losing the focus of consultation or consulting where it was not really needed. Furthermore, political debate tends to be at its most vocal among community groups and activists whereas the council wished to access more general opinion.

Fife's Citizen's Jury:

In March 1997 the council held a citizens' jury on the subject of 'Creating Employment Opportunities in Levenmouth'.

Fourteen members of the public were chosen to represent a broad cross section of society in Levenmouth. These jurors sat for four days (after an introductory evening) and were asked to produce a list of recommendations for use by the council. The jurors heard evidence from a range of witnesses and experts on unemployment, job creation and economic regeneration as well as local people. They could ask them further questions and then discuss their views in groups under the guidance of the moderators. The independent

moderators (in this case from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and Opinion Leaders Research (OLR)) were necessary to maintain the focus of discussion.

Encouraging the debate:

This was achieved using the following methods:
A questionnaire before and after the evidence was given to measure how opinion had changed.
Background information and reports were provided by the council.
Once the witnesses had given their evidence, they were asked questions and the jurors could discuss their opinions openly with them.
The witnesses were chosen by the organisers but the jurors were able to choose their own for the final day.
Full jury sessions were moderated although dialogue was also encouraged outside this supervision in smaller groups.
By the final day the jurors had to come up with a list of objectives for the council which included a vote to formulate a top ten.

Advantages found:

Improved value of civic participation due to a better informed discussion and the in-creased time for deliberation.
Involvement from the wider public rather than politically motivated groups with their own agenda.
Long term benefits of increased awareness in the work of the council.
Objectivity ensured by the independent moderators
Greater representation of groups that often go unheard (e.g. the young or disadvantaged).
When questioned afterwards 13 of the 14 jurors who took part said they would do another.

Limitations found

A Citizen's Jury is an expensive method of participation and is only really appropriate if its conclusions are going to be used. The cost of the exercise was Ł13,000 which included consultancy fees. 50% of this was met by European funding (the ERDF Community Capacity Building Project).