Objective: In a citizen jury randomly selected individuals create a “citizens’ assessment“ on an issue. The participants make their recommendations from the point of view of the commonwealth; on the jury, they do not represent any special interests. Experts provide assistance with specialized aspects. For the duration of the planning process, the participants are released and compensated for their daily obligations. “This more recent tool is fairly similar to consensus conferences but features a couple of important differences. Questioning takes place as in a courtroom, open to the public at large. The questioning and deliberation time is much shorter, and the conclusions do not have to yield a broad consensus. Beforehand, government widely announces the initiative including the selection procedure for jury members, for instance via advertising. The procedure is open to all non-experts” (OCDE, 2001).
According to Involve.ork.uk - the UK's public participation charity:
"Citizens’ Juries are a tool for engaging citizens on a range of issues. Such as examining cuts in public service funding, balancing work and family life, or healthcare provision. They are relatively inexpensive compared to larger deliberative exercises, such as Citizens' Summits and Planning Cells. Their small size allows for effective deliberation, but they are sufficiently diverse and citizens are exposed to a wide range of perspectives. A Citizens’ Jury is generally composed of around 12-24 randomly selected citizens (through stratified random sampling) representative of the demographics of the area, who come together to deliberate on a given issue. According to the Jefferson Center, which designed the method, a citizens' jury should take place over 4-7 days. However, most juries are held over 2 days. The description below is based on the time frame recommended by the Jefferson Center.
The first day the jury meets is dedicated to understanding the process that they are about to embark upon. Jurors receive a brief overview of the issue and get comfortable with each other. The next 3 or 4 days are dedicated to hearing from the 'expert witnesses. These should include ‘neutral’ experts, stakeholders, and advocates representing all sides so that the jury can receive a balanced and complete picture of the issue. There is time allotted for the jurors to ask questions of the witnesses and also time for them to deliberate. After all the hearings have been completed the rest of the time is set aside for the jurors to have final deliberations on the issue and answer the crucial charge question(s). The final decision is reached by either consensus or voting.
Normally the deliberation phase is not open to the public to ensure jurors feel comfortable in expressing their opinions without outside pressure. All phases are facilitated by a trained facilitator(s) who ensures a level playing field. On the final day, a public forum is held where the jurors present their findings and recommendations and explain how they reached their decision. About two to three weeks later a final report is issued and made available to the public.
12 to 24 citizens are selected through stratified random sampling, according to a number of criteria, including gender, age, socio-economic background, and ethnicity. Given the small sample, using too many criteria can prove methodologically problematic. Participants can be divided into four main groups depending on their role.
1 The randomly selected jurors
2 The Experts/ Witnesses
3 The facilitator(s)
4 The Citizens Friends
| Participation level | Target groups | Number of participants | Duration/Timeline | Implementation | Frequency | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collaboration | Citizens | Up to 30 | Up to a week | Live event | More than one event | Medium |
