Find information about

Section 4 Techniques and Tools

4.17 Citizens’ and other juries

Citizens’ Juries are often confused with Customer Panels although they differ from panels in important ways.

Juries are a small group of non-specialists who meet over a period of time to examine an issue of public significance. The jury will deliberate on evidence presented to them over a number of days. Whilst they are similar in size to focus groups, their purpose is different; their role is to make suggestions or recommendations and potentially also to monitor the implementation process.

When juries should be used

Juries are best used for complex or contentious issues where there is a clearly defined question on which the jury can make clear and actionable recommendations.

What’s the difference between forums and juries?

Forums are similar to juries in that they are a group of people that meets periodically, to deliberate on issues and provide feedback on specific services, plans or proposals. Like juries they may be small, but should still reflect the profile of the wider population of interest. They may be a more appropriate vehicle for establishing an on-going dialogue with regular service users. Juries usually hear a range of evidence from invited ‘witnesses’ who have some knowledge or expertise of the issues under scrutiny.

Forums may be run in a similar way to juries, using a facilitator and seeking to reflect a range of views rather than establish consensus. The choice of whether to use a forum or a jury may depend on the political salience of the issue, the scope for allowing the wider community to define the focus of the issue and hence the likely interest and commitment to the process from amongst the community.

Who should be on the Jury?

Juries work on the basis of participatory representativeness rather than statistical representativeness. The jury should reflect the profile of the wider group that it is drawn from, perhaps in terms of the demographic, socio-economic and minority ethnic profile of the wider population.

This may involve establishing quotas for jury membership based on the known profile of the wider population. Then the selection procedure may use some of the same sampling techniques as for other methods, perhaps drawing from a Panel, previous survey, contact with community groups or from a sampling frame such as the Electoral Register. The limitations of each of these approaches should be considered. The precise sampling method for jury members will depend on the issue; it may be important to have a more purposive sample, such as older people, young people or users of particular services. It is particularly important to avoid inviting the same people and it may be useful to insist that all members are ‘first-time’ jurors, to ensure a range of views are heard and enhance the credibility of the process. To encourage recruitment from as broad a range of backgrounds as possible, it may be important to offer some forms of incentives such as honorarium payments and payments for childcare, travel and subsistence.

A useful approach is to establish an Oversight Panel to advise on the recruitment of the jury and the selection of witnesses. The panel is composed of a diverse range of people, drawn from a wide range of organisations and backgrounds, recruited to ensure a fair and competent jury process.

How does a jury work?

Juries are time consuming and resource intensive. It will be important to allow the members to have sufficient time for a full deliberation of the issue under investigation and to interrogate witnesses themselves.

Juries may require the assistance of a facilitator or advisor to ensure they are able to complete their business to the agreed timetable. Appropriate accessible facilities should be provided to ensure there are no barriers to participation.

How participatory should the jury process be?

The degree of participation in the Citizens’ Jury process can be quite varied. A jury could be run as a more fully participatory and empowering process than many conventional approaches to research and consultation.

The scope of the inquiry should be made clear to the jury but it should not be too narrowly defined or prescriptive. Jurors hear from a variety of witnesses and should be able to discuss as broad or narrow a range of issues as they see fit. Whilst juries are expected to develop a set of conclusions or ‘visions’ for the future, this need not be unanimous. Consensus is less important than allowing the full diversity of opinions on a topic to emerge.

Rather than simply expecting the Citizens’ Jury to deliver a verdict as a legal jury would, Citizens’ Juries can be designed so that members are involved in both the delivery of their recommendations and in the on-going work to ensure that their conclusions are implemented. Juries can be run as more grassroots, ‘do-it-yourself’ processes designed by communities themselves.

However the conclusions of the jury are reported, they should include any different perspectives that may have emerged. This should be reported in a clear and appropriate way without compromising the anonymity of participants, unless they give their consent.

The implications of the research for service delivery should be identified and acted on. Jury members, wider service users and other key audiences should be informed of the actions taken as a result of the process. Any further research needs should also be identified.

Citizens’ Juries: checklist

√ Consider whether the topic lends itself well to the deliberative approach of a Citizens Jury, but don’t be prescriptive about the precise scope of the jury process.

√ Consider convening an Oversight Panel to oversee the jury process.

√ Ensure the participatory representativeness of the jury and make appropriate provisions to facilitate the full participation of jury members.

√ Don’t rush the process; ensure there is sufficient time and resources to ensure full deliberation of the issues.

√ Recruit a facilitator or advisor to assist the jury, ensure the fullest participation amongst the jury members and keep the process to the timetable.

√ Don’t push for consensus to be reached and make sure the full diversity of perspectives is able to be aired.

√ Ensure the conclusions are reported in a clear and appropriate way to all key audiences, including the jury itself, without compromising the anonymity of participants.

√ Identify the implications of the jury process for service delivery and develop a plan of action to implement the recommendations.

√ Consider whether the jury should continue to meet to oversee the implementation process.

√ Identify any further issues or research needs.

Alternative and related approaches

• Participatory techniques

• Group interviews and focus groups

_________________________________

(1) Teach yourself Citizens Juries (2003), PEALS, University of Newcastle

Previous page Next page