Case study: deliberative micro-forums Description

Deliberative micro-forums are one of the more recent innovative developments in citizen participation and involvement. It is difficult to single out one model as best practice, so this case study will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of three basic ‘types’ of micro-forums outlined above:

• citizens’ juries – which will also include the consensus conference and NICE council model;

• deliberative opinion polling (DOP);

All three types share similar characteristics:

• they involve a diverse range of citizens in order that deliberations reflect on a variety of different perspectives and viewpoints;

• deliberations occur in small groups – even in the large-scale events;

• events are run by independent organisations and deliberations are facilitated to ensure fairness;

• they have been used to tackle a wide range of different issues, including scientific controversies, planning, health, economic and environmental issues.

Where the micro-forums differ is in terms of numbers of participants and outcomes:

• DOPs and America Speaks involve large numbers and result in opinion polls/ votes.

• Citizens’ juries, consensus conferences and the NICE citizen council involve smaller numbers and produce a collective report.

The NICE citizen council is the only on-going or standing forum – all the others are one-off events.

Assessment

Selection mechanism

In the small-scale deliberative micro-forums (e.g. citizens’ juries) it is necessary to use stratified random selection to ensure a diversity of participants. In contrast, DOPs use random sampling – the size of the forums means that a diverse group will be present. Citizens appear to be keen to accept invitations to participate – the fact that they have been formally ‘invited’ is a motivating factor.

Both consensus conferences and America Speaks use advertisements to attract citizens – thus there is a higher level of self-selection. Whereas the panel for consensus conferences is selected by stratified random selection from the pool of applicants, the open door approach of America Speaks means that organisers have to engage in outreach to ensure a reasonable level of participation from hard-to- reach groups. The sheer number of participants does mean that even where there are discrepancies in the proportions of participants from certain background, voting can be broken down to reflect different demographic characteristics.

It is important that the participants in micro-forums should not be considered as representatives in any strong sense – they are not representing people like themselves. The fundamental idea is to draw together a diverse group of citizens with a variety of experiences to deliberate freely.

Form of involvement

All three models provide strong evidence to suggest:

• Citizens from diverse backgrounds are generally willing and able to participate in deliberations on often complex and controversial areas of public

policy – evidence from consensus conferences, in particular, indicates that citizens are capable of dealing with highly technical and scientific problems.

• A ‘safe’ environment provides conducive conditions for deliberation – even in the larger-scale events (e.g. America Speaks and DOPs), citizens are broken into small groups which are carefully facilitated to ensure fairness.

• Deliberation provides an opportunity for citizens to reflect on new information and their own and others’ perspectives and often leads to changes in opinions and viewpoints.

However, there are potentially important differences in the form of involvement offered in each innovation.

• Consensus conferences – out of all the innovations, more effort is expended in informing citizens about relevant issues before the conference itself. Citizens are also able to be part of the agenda setting process – in the pre- conference meetings they are able to generate questions and raise issues they wish to focus on in the conference. The 3-4 day conference means that citizens are able to discuss issues in depth and the collective report entails working together to find acceptable recommendations.

• Citizens’ juries – like consensus conferences, juries last 3-4 days, although there is generally less opportunity to set the agenda.

• Deliberative opinion polling – the significant differences in this model is the number of participants (up to 500), the shorter period of deliberation (2-3 days) and the outcome which is a (post-deliberation) opinion poll rather than a collective report.

• America Speaks – by far the most impressive in terms of scale (involving up to 5,000 people). It is a one-day event which places limits on the type of question and the level of detail of deliberations.

• NICE Citizens Council – the council provides evidence that the deliberative micro-forum need not be a one-off event, but can provide recommendations on an on-going basis.

Role in decision-making

None of these deliberative micro-forums discussed above are decision-taking institutions, rather they provide recommendations in the form of a report or end in votes / opinion polls. Where the forums are run to provide recommendations for public authorities, there is normally a contract which requires the authority to respond to the recommendations – either accepting them or explaining why they will not be implemented.

The power of deliberative micro-forums rests on the fact that a diversity of citizens have spent much time discussing and reflecting on the relevant issues – more time than most other citizens, bureaucrats and political leaders.

There is at least one example of a deliberative micro-forum that has been given significant power within the decision-making process – the 160-strong Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in British Columbia. This is discussed in later sections of this report (5.2.12. and 6.4.)

Scale and transferability

Deliberative micro-forums have been run at most levels of governance and on a range of different public policy issues. There are at least four significant factors in running forums effectively.

• A variety of stakeholders are drawn into the process, helping to develop the questions and background information and providing evidence where necessary.

• They are facilitated by an independent organisation to avoid charges of manipulation by the sponsoring body. In some cases (often to save money) public authorities have facilitated their own citizens’ juries thus compromising their independence.

• Citizens are given a meaningful question to deliberate on.

• There is a contract requiring the sponsoring authority to respond to the recommendations or findings.

Resource implications

Deliberative micro-forums require substantial investment in terms of time and money. Selection processes (to ensure diversity of participants) and independent facilitation are expensive, but necessary. Additionally, in most deliberative micro- forums citizens are paid a small honorarium and their expenses are covered. Rough costs are £16,000-£30,000 for citizens juries; £100,000 for consensus conferences. Although only one day long, America Speaks can cost over £200,000 because of the sheer numbers of citizens and facilitators and the ICT expertise and hardware. DOPs cost a similar amount.

The UK government is less than enthusiastic about the use of deliberative micro- forums – the Cabinet Office repeats the line that deliberative techniques are generally too expensive.124 However, in response the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration has reaffirmed its commitment to deliberative techniques, arguing that the government’s attitude ‘fails to take proper account of the cost – sometimes a very high cost – which can be attached to rushed government decisions based on contested scientific judgments’.125

If micro-forums were to be used regularly within the political process, they could be organised by a government-funded, but independent agency that ensures standards of fairness and independence in the running of deliberative exercises. Efficiency gains could be made – for example rather than having to generate a pool of willing citizens for each micro-forum from which participants are sampled (an expensive

operation), the independent body could hold details of citizens who are willing to participate in such forums.

Concluding remarks

Deliberative micro-forums provide strong evidence that citizens are willing and able to participate in debates and draw up recommendations on public policy issues if the conditions are carefully structured.

The variety of forums also highlights how innovations have to balance competing demands. For example, citizens’ juries, consensus conferences and the NICE Citizens Council fail to engage large numbers of citizens, but provide an environment in which participants are able to deliberate on an issue in some depth – the selected citizens are given time and freedom to explore issues and to come to collective recommendations and suggestions. This is a depth of engagement that is rarely found in most other innovations.

America Speaks and DOPs are designed to increase the numbers of citizens who can engage in deliberation. A question remains as to whether the depth of engagement experienced in America Speaks and DOPs is equivalent to that experienced in citizens’ juries and other small-scale deliberative forums. The outputs also differ because of the numbers – post-deliberative votes and opinions rather than collective, agreed recommendations.

What these differences highlight however is the adaptability of deliberative micro- forums. If enhancing deliberation between citizens is the significant factor, then the various models offer different approaches to realising this goal.

4.4. Case study: Deliberation Day