This chapter lists useful resources that can complement the guidance provided by these guidelines.
OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes
Report
OECD Public Governance Reviews
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
4. Useful resources
Abstract
Databases of various examples of citizen participation
The OECD database of representative deliberative processes includes close to 600 examples from across the world.
OECD’s Observatory for Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) Case Study Library collects good practices of innovations in government including participatory practices.
Participedia is a collaborative repository of citizen participation case studies.
LATINNO database gathers more than 3744 cases of democratic innovations in Latin America.
People Powered Hub is useful to navigate participatory budgets examples and other citizen participation processes.
Gov Lab CrowdLaw Catalog is a repository of more than 100 cases from around the world using different methods such as co-creation, or open innovation.
CitizenLab publishes case studies of digital participatory processes at the local level.
Handbooks & further readings on citizen and stakeholder participation
How To Design And Plan Public Engagement Processes: A Handbook (What Works Scotland)
Guide to Public Participation (Environmental Protection Agency)
Open Policy Making Toolkit (UK Government)
Good Practice Guide for Community Engagement (New Zealand Government)
Enabling Active Citizenship: Public Participation in Government into the Future (New Zealand Government)
The Open Policy Making Playbook (Govlab)
Community Engagement: a Practitioner's Guide (Citizenlab)
Knowledge Base (Involve Uk)
Stakeholder Participation Guide (Initiative for Climate Action Transparency)
OECD publications
OECD Handbook on Open Government for Peruvian Civil Servants (2020)
Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy (2021)
Evaluation Guidelines for representative deliberative processes (2021)
Good practice principles
Blogs and podcasts
Resources on how to identify a public problem
OECD’s Observatory for Public Sector Innovation on “Select a problem-solving approach”
New York University, GovLab's Public Problem Solving Canvas
OECD’s Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave section on Scope of the remit
Resources on identifying participants and recruitment processes
Nesta’s Collective Intelligence Design Playbook includes a series of helpful tools to facilitate such a mapping exercise.
MASS LBP’s How to run a civic lottery provides guidance and practical support on random selection.
New Zealand Government’s Guide to Inclusive Community Engagement guides government agencies and policy advisors on how to increase inclusion in participatory practices.
Involve’s Who to Involve? highlights important questions for the participant selection stage.
Resources on using digital tools for participation
People Powered Guide to Digital Participation Platforms is a practical guide on how to design a digital participatory process and select the right tool.
Involve’s Where do I start with digital engagement? Is a guide to help practitioners build a digital process, and digital tools database.
CitizenLab’s e-Participation canvas is short e-book providing a framework for internal use for the development of a digital citizens’ participation platform.
IBM Center for The Business of Government Using Online Tools to Engage - and be Engaged by - the Public is a practical report mapping and detailing how to best use online tools to engage with the public.
NESTA’s Digital Democracy: The Tools Transforming Political Engagement shares lessons from different experiences of digital democracy put forth by different European governments.
NESTA’s What is next for democratic innovations looks at barriers to embed digital participatory processes into institutions.
ERDF‘s Digital Democracy: A Guide on Local Practices of Digital Participation gives advice for implementation of digital tools for governance, specifically at the local and regional level.
NewDemocracy and Democratic Society’s Designing an Online Public Deliberation explains how to build tools for online deliberation that do not simply mirror offline deliberation, but that are better adapted for the digital space.
MySociety’s Digital Tools for Citizens’ Assemblies explores how digital tools can be used to enhance in-person CAs.
New Zealand’s How to engage with people online is a step-by-step guide to engaging with people online — from creating an engagement strategy to closing the engagement.
The Council of Europe BePART platform provides learnings for participatory formats and tools
Resources on communication
The OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward examines the public communication structures, mandates and practices of centres of governments and ministries of health from 46 countries.
The OECD and OGP’s Communicating Open Government – A How-To Guide is a resource for individuals tasked with explaining, encouraging, and building support for open government.
RSA’s Reporting on and telling the story of a Citizens’ Assembly helps commissioning bodies, including local authorities, to communicate, report the events, and tell the story of a citizens' assembly.
PB Outreach Toolkit is a guide to plan and execute effective outreach campaigns for participatory budgeting processes.
Resources on inclusion and accessibility
Simon Fraser University’s Beyond Inclusion: Equity in Public Engagement proposes eight principles to support the meaningful and equitable inclusion of diverse voices in public engagement processes across sectors.
Resources on evaluation
OECD’s Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making examines the key issues for consideration when evaluating information, consultation and public participation.
OECD’s Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes
InterAct’s Evaluating participatory, deliberative and co-operative ways of working provides examples from experience in the field, and further development of criteria and indicators for good practice.
Institute on Governance’s Evaluating Citizen Engagement in Policy Making suggests a framework to evaluate participatory processes.
Resources and guidance on open meetings / Townhall meetings
Open meetings and town hall meetings are participatory tools that can be traced all the way back to 17th-century New England meetings or colonial traditions in Latin America (cabildos). Now these processes are used worldwide, most often at local or legislative level, to foster information about public action, encourage citizen participation and to build a relationship based on accountability and trust.
Contrary to a public consultation, an open meeting or town hall meeting does not seek to gather inputs on a particular issue. These processes are rather a means for public authorities to start a discussion with the public, whether to understand their needs, present upcoming decisions or share advances of implemented actions. They also help maintain a direct channel for communication and be accountable to the public on certain actions or mandates. As open meetings and town hall meetings are not designed to be representative, they can be organized fairly easily in four steps.
A more detailed description can be consulted in Chapter 2.
Table 4.1. Steps of an open meeting/town hall meeting
|
Step |
Description |
|---|---|
|
Step 1: Define the topic(s) to discuss |
Because public authorities are not in principle bound by any of what may come out of those discussions, the topic and framing of the meeting can be rather loose. The objective is to find a purpose precise enough to enable discussion, present evidence and provide information, in order for the public to be able to participate in the debate. Sometimes, public authorities allow the public to propose topics to the agenda or present initiatives and projects. |
|
Step 2: Communicate |
Public authorities should announce the date, time, and location of the meeting with sufficient time to allow citizens and stakeholders to participate. The publicity for these meetings is generally done both in-person and via digital means, in order to reach a broader audience. Although the very nature of open meetings and town hall meetings involve non-representative attendants, efforts should be made to make them as inclusive as possible. |
|
Step 3: Hold the meeting |
These meetings can be organized in any physical space available, often in places linked to public authorities (town halls, public amphitheaters, schools, libraries, squares, etc.). More recently, and especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, these meetings have been organized in virtual spaces, a trend that may continue. Regarding the agenda of the meeting, public authorities usually start with and opening remark presenting the agenda and topics to be discussed, followed by a discussion with participants. Ensure sufficient time for participants to ask questions and for public authorities to answer. When opening the floor to participants, it is important to moderate the discussion and encourage an equal and (as much as possible) representative distribution of the floor. |
|
Step 4: Keep records |
A written record should be published to allow for more transparency, accountability and to engage with a broader public. |
|
Step 5: Follow up |
It is highly recommended that public authorities follow up with participants (and the wider public) about the outcomes of the meeting, especially if decisions were taken. Public authorities can communicate about the topics discussed, the main questions raised, and the answers provided (as a FAQ). |
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Involve’s Guide to 21st Century Town Meeting provides practical information to support public authorities in organizing public meetings using digital and in-person mechanisms.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Guide to Public Participation provides guidance to organise successful public participation, with specific elements on open meetings.
CIVICUS published factsheets on Public Forums and Town Hall Meetings, providing guidance and important information for public authorities interested in organizing public and open meetings.
Resources and guidance on public consultations
A consultation is a two-way relationship in which citizens provide feedback to a public institution (such as comments, perceptions, information, advice, experiences, and ideas). Usually, governments define the issues for consultation, set the questions, and manage the process, while citizens and/or stakeholders are invited to contribute their views and opinions.
A more detailed description can be consulted in Chapter 2.
Table 4.2. Steps of a public consultation
|
Step |
Description |
|---|---|
|
Step 1: Define purpose and scope |
Before the consultation is launched, public authorities should define:
|
|
Step 2: Select a consultation method |
Public consultations are not a one-fits-all type of method. Depending on the answers of Step 1, public authorities should select an appropriate method:
See Table 2.4 for more details about each method. |
|
Step 3: Deciding if digital or in-person |
Depending on the scope, expected outcomes, and the method chosen, public authorities can decide if the public consultation will be held online, in-person or in a hybrid setting. |
|
Step 4: Communicate about consultation |
Once the design is set, public authorities should communicate widely about the process, ensuring their expected participants are reached. Digital channels such as social media can be effective to attract all types of citizens, especially digitally native and young publics; specialised media can be helpful to target specific stakeholders, billboards or traditional media can be useful when reaching to all types of citizens or residents of a certain area. Organizers should be clear about the expected outcome of the consultation and their level of commitment to include inputs in the final decision. |
|
Step 5: Consult |
For effective and meaningful participation, organizers should ensure that all participants have:
|
|
Step 6: Close the feedback loop |
Once the consultation is closed, organizers should communicate to participants and the wider public about the results of the process. This means sharing if and how the public authority will use the inputs received. This is important to maintain interest for future consultations. |
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
More on focus groups
The European Commission’s Guidelines on Stakeholder Consultation provides definitions of key terms, motivations for consultation and a method for doing so.
The OECD’s Background Document on Public Consultation provides definitions, methods and examples from OECD countries, along with good practices.
CitizenLab published two short e-books on public consultations, with special emphasis on digital engagement: The FAQs of Digital Consultation and 6 Methods for Online Consultation.
Consultation Principles utilized by the UK Government (2013).
BRE UK’s Code of Practice on Consultation includes seven criteria to guide policy makers on when and how to conduct stakeholder consultation.
The Irish Governments’ Consultation Principles & Guidance provides principles and also advice on practical issues that may arise throughout a consultation procedure.
Resources and guidance on open innovation
There are several types of open innovation methods available for public authorities.
Crowdsourcing usually involves a digital platform where participants can publish ideas or contributions to answer the organizing authority’s request or question. In-person alternatives can be put in place, such as workshops or boxes to gather ideas.
Hackathons are usually in-person events organized throughout a weekend, in a shared space where all participants can work and share ideas. Hackathons are sprint-oriented events, so the goal is to allow for a collaborative work environment with technical facilities and usually involve a setting the scene moment and a pitch session where participants present their ideas and solutions. Participants work in teams to solve one or several problems and mentors with strong expertise on the policy problem or the type of solution expected can be assign to each team. In some occasions, public authorities might consider rewarding the winner(s) with a prize or the recognition that comes with the implementation of their idea as a policy solution. For a hackathon to be productive, public authorities should put data and information about the problem to solve at disposal of participants.
Public challenges are usually based on a digital platform where public authorities publish a public problem to solve and call for citizens or stakeholders to propose a solution. In some cases, public authorities can organise in-person sessions to answer questions or provide coaching and support to improve the participants solutions.
Table 4.3. Steps for Open Innovation
|
Key step |
Description |
|---|---|
|
Step 1: Pick a challenge |
Decide on and frame the problem(s) to solve by participants. |
|
Step 2: Choose the method |
Decide on the conditions to participate (online, in-person) and the profiles of participants you will need to attract. |
|
Step 3: Invite participants |
Communicate clearly about the problem, the conditions to participate and the expected goal of the process (depending on the method – inviting people to share ideas online or to form a team and come to an in-person event). |
|
Step 4: Prepare |
Decide on criteria to select the winners of the public challenge and communicate the criteria widely before the selection process starts. If a hackathon is organised, nominate a jury that will judge the final solutions designed by participants. The jury can be a mix of public authorities as well as independent jury members from civil society or academia. Gather (and share with participants) sufficient data and information regarding the problem you are aiming to solve. |
|
Step 5: Implement |
Allow for enough time for participants to work on a proposal. Provide necessary support, such as mentorship, expert advice. For in-in person hackathons, organise a final presentation session for participants to pitch their solutions to the jury and the broader public. Select, acknowledge, and award the best ideas. |
|
Step 6: Close the feedback loop |
Communicate about the implementation status of the solutions. |
|
Step 7: Sustainability |
Consider mechanisms to make the solutions identified sustainable in the medium to long term (replicability, incubation, etc.) |
Source: Author’s own elaboration
Mozilla Foundation’s A Framework of Open Practices describes and provides guidance on how to use open and collaborative innovation methods based on the experience of Mozilla and other innovative organisations.
The United Kingdom’s Open Policy Making Toolkit includes information about Open Policy Making as well as the tools and techniques policy makers can use to create more open and user led policy.
The Power of Hackathons: a roadmap for sustainable open innovation by Zachary Bastien provides an overview of hackathons and offers practical guidance as well as good practices from successful experiences.
The United States’ 21st-Century Public Servants: Using Prizes and Challenges to Spur Innovation presents results and experiences from the Obama Administration approach of using public challenges to solve complex public problems and other innovative methodologies. Better
GovLab’s Open Policy Making Playbook offers case studies and guidance for policy-makers to include collaborative and innovative approaches to policy making.
Resources and guidance on citizen science
Citizen science is an involvement of citizens in scientific research. By doing so researchers, citizens, and sometimes policy makers come together to tackle scientific and policy problems. Through citizen science, citizens can participate in many stages of the scientific process, from the design of the research question, to data collection and volunteer mapping, data interpretation and analysis, and to publication and dissemination of results (eu-citizen.science, 2022[1]). Citizen science allows researchers to tap into scientific curiosity and resources of citizens to achieve scientific results, all the while creating opportunities for citizens to learn about a specific issue or research question and discover scientific processes.
Table 4.4. Steps for Citizen Science
|
Step |
Description |
|---|---|
|
Step 1: Define the purpose |
The process starts by determining the purpose of involving citizens in a public research or a scientific project. What is the role that citizens and/or stakeholders will play? For example:
|
|
Step 2: Establish a roadmap |
The next step is to establish a clear plan, which outlines the steps and how citizens will be engaged. A good practice is to keep the citizens’ participation journey in mind. For example, if citizens are collecting and analysing data, they should be kept informed how the data is used, and the final research results. If citizens have a more active role of determining the research questions or co-creating the research design, they should be kept up to date about the following steps that the project takes. |
|
Step 3: Recruit participants |
Participants in citizen science are usually volunteers recruited via an open call. Depending on the type of projects, a recruitment strategy might target specific groups, such as schools or students, people with particular interests or living in specific locations, or the general public at large. To recruit a sufficient number of motivated participants, a communication plan is essential. |
|
Step 4: Implement |
Depending on the nature of the citizen science initiative, implement workshops with citizens to engage them in setting research questions, provide citizens with necessary training or tools to collect data etc. |
|
Step 5: Publish results and communicate |
Providing clear and accessible information about the process and the research will help ensure citizens’ engagement and learning. Besides being transparent with participants, public authorities should communicate the results of the research with the wider public to increase uptake of the findings, and recognise the participation of the community. |
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
SCivil Guides and manuals includes a guide to getting started with citizen science, explaining all the most basic details and also a manual on communication around a citizen science project.
GEWISS Citizen science for all presents a guide for citizen science, both its practical and theoretical aspects in fields ranging from education to arts and humanities.
Digital Tools is a compilation of useful resources, including software, academic literature, links to conferences, among many other practical tools.
Resources and guidance on civic monitoring
Public institutions can largely benefit from creating feedback channels for citizens to provide inputs, comments and complaints to improve the decisions, actions, and services. When involving citizens and stakeholders in the oversight and evaluation of decisions and actions, public authorities can create virtuous circles and healthier relationships that can contribute to the overall trust in government.
Civic monitoring can be implemented using a diverse set of methods, such as:
Public opinion surveys
Citizen Report Cards
Social Audits
Citizen complaints mechanisms
Community-based monitoring and evaluation
Public expenditure tracking
Online tools
Representative deliberative processes
The steps to implement can change significantly depending on the chosen tool. The table below suggest some general steps to implement a civic monitoring process:
Table 4.5. Steps for implementing a civic monitoring process
|
Step |
Description |
|---|---|
|
Step 1: Take civic monitoring into consideration while designing a policy or service |
Even though civic monitoring generally takes place at the evaluation stage of the policy-cycle, its use should be taken into account at the policy formulation stage in order to allocate all of the necessary resources for its implementation. |
|
Step 2: Define the scope of your expectations |
Define the type of feedback you would like to receive from citizens. This will vary according to your own context and whether you are implementing a policy or providing a service. For instance:
This will also help determine the most appropriate method to implement. |
|
Step 3: Choose a methodology |
Decide which method you would like to implement, according to your context and what would be most appropriate given the policy or service. Refer to Table 2.5 Typology of civic monitoring mechanisms for more details on each of them. |
|
Step 4: Communicate about it |
Ensure that citizens and stakeholders have clear knowledge where they can express their feedback. For instance, you could use social media to promote a digital tool, or organise town hall meetings to announce the launching of a Citizen Report Card initiative. |
|
Step 5: Implement the chosen method |
Depending on the specific method, this could range from setting up a dedicated website to receive complaints, publishing budgetary information for public scrutiny, or organising a representative deliberative process. Whatever the method, make sure to leave enough time for feedback and to be ready to incorporate it into public action. |
|
Step 6: Integrate feedback into policy or service delivery |
Lastly, make sure to take received feedback into account at an appropriate time, whether when updating policy or tweaking service delivery. Communicate about any changes in order to close the feedback loop. |
Source: Author’s own elaboration
NYU’s Crowd Law Guide includes a section on how to involve citizens and stakeholders in the evaluation of policies and legislations, including through social auditing and online tools.
CIVICUS published a series of fact-sheets providing guidance and important information for public authorities interested in implementing participatory processes in the evaluation of policies and services:
Fact-sheet on Public Expenditure Tracking
International Budget Project’s Citizen’s Guide to Monitoring Government Expenditures is a useful resource to support civic monitoring of the budget cycle.
Resources and guidance on participatory budgeting
There is not a one-fits-all solution for participatory budgets, as each public institution can accommodate the process to fit its desired purpose, timeline or legal requirements. However, there are certain stages that all participatory budgets should include:
Table 4.6. Steps for implementing a participatory budget
|
Step |
Description |
|---|---|
|
Step 1: Define details and scope of process |
Before the process is open for participation, public authorities should establish the scope of the process, the expected outcomes, the stages of the process as well as the conditions for the projects to be eligible. To be able to communicate about the process, public authorities should have decided the following elements:
|
|
Step 2: First stage of decision making: proposals |
In this initial stage, public authorities invite citizens and stakeholders to make proposals (projects, ideas, topics, etc.) that will then be voted and implemented. Before launching the call for proposals, organizers should make the rules of the game clear:
It is also important to decide on the methodology and format to submit the proposals:
|
|
Step 3: Evaluation of proposals and feasibility |
In some participatory budgets, public authorities decide to include an intermediate stage between the submission and the vote, to review the proposals and decide on their feasibility. This analysis has to be transparent, meaning that the public authority should communicate about the conditions for proposals to be accepted. Once the submissions are reviewed, the authority can publish the proposals that are accepted and put to vote. This evaluation can be done by different types of stakeholders; namely:
|
|
Step 4: Second stage of decision making: vote |
In this stage, the proposals that have been accepted by the public authorities are submitted to a vote in order to select the ones that will be implemented. Once again, the rules of who can participate should be clear as well as the mechanisms available for the public to vote.
Once the vote stage is finalized, public authorities should communicate widely about the results. |
|
Step 5: Implementation and evaluation |
In some cases, citizens and stakeholders are also involved in the execution of the selected projects or proposals, and in the monitoring and evaluation phases. It is highly recommended that participatory budgets become a continuous practice, meaning a process that repeats itself in a continuous basis (yearly, bi-annually, etc.) for citizens to be able to follow up the implementation of the projects and create a culture of participation. |
Source: Author’s own elaboration
UN HABITAT’s 72 Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting provides guidance on how to define a participatory budget, how to implement it, how to decide on the allocation of budget and the participatory aspects.
East, North and South Ayrshire Councils Participatory Budgeting Toolkit was developed in Scotland for community groups and organizations who are planning to organise a participatory budget.
Another city is possible with participatory budgeting by Yves Cabannes discusses the background and challenges of PB processes. It highlights 13 cases of PB around the world, in various contexts and institutions. It also includes recommendations to address challenges with participation.
Great Cities Institute’s Participatory Budgeting in Schools: A Toolkit for Youth Democratic Action is a toolkit, developed based on participatory budgeting experiences in Chicago schools, aims to make PB easier to implement with teachers and youth in schools across a wide variety of models and contexts.
EMPACI Participatory Budgeting (PB) Blueprint Guidebook presents best practices based on case studies.
People Powered How Cities can use Participatory Budgeting to address Climate Change provides short information sheet giving useful recommendations.
Citizen Lab’s An introduction to participatory budgeting
lesbudgetsparticipatifs is a website with information about participatory budgeting in France that offers expertise and guidance for PB implementers/practitioners.
Participatory Budgeting Project is a website with useful resources to design, implement and evaluate PBs.
Text Messaging for Participatory Budgeting explains how participatory budgeting practitioners can use mass text messaging to effectively engage underrepresented communities.
PB training is a series of video tutorials by Democratic Society to help practitioners navigate different aspects of a participatory budgeting.
Resources and guidance on representative deliberative processes
Representative deliberative processes, such as Citizens' Assemblies, Juries, and Panels, are some of the most innovative citizen participation methods that public authorities from all levels of government increasingly initiate to tackle complex policy problems ranging from climate change to infrastructure investment decisions. The design of these processes varies depending on several factors: the policy issue to be tackled, the level of governance, the number of randomly selected citizens etc. Below is a simplified pathway to designing such a process. Please see the resources below for detailed guidance on every step.
Table 4.7. Steps of a representative deliberative process
|
Step |
Description |
|---|---|
|
Step 1: Commitment and buy-in |
Securing buy-in from politicians/policy makers/decision makers. This is a crucial step of the process, which helps to ensure that a citizens’ jury or panel is meaningful and will have impact on decision making. It is important to factor in enough time to establish this. |
|
Step 2: Identify the issue to solve and frame the question |
Before starting the design of the process, it is important to identify the issue or problem that citizens will be asked to solve. Once the issue has been identified, it is important to frame it as a question – using simple and clear language. |
|
Step 3: Design the process |
The complexity of the question citizens will be asked to address will affect how many randomly selected citizens will be required, how much time they will need, which experts and stakeholders should provide information, and what online tools could be helpful. It is essential that experts with experience of designing representative deliberative processes are involved in making these design choices. |
|
Step 4: Recruit participants |
Once it is clear how many citizens will be selected, how long they will meet for etc., public authorities should recruit participants through civic lottery (please see Civic lottery section of these Guidelines). |
|
Step 5: Prepare for the process |
Once citizens are recruited, public authorities should prepare a balanced package of information that citizens will use to base their deliberations on, invite the stakeholders that will present to citizens their diverse points of view on the issue, and brief the facilitators. Identifying broad and diverse information from experts and stakeholders is needed for citizens’ to be able to deliberate and reach public judgement. Successful deliberation requires skilled facilitation. |
|
Step 6: Launch the process |
A representative deliberative process can vary in terms of time, but they should all follow the following steps: 1. A team/community building phase, when the members of the process meet one another and establish the values that will guide their deliberation. During some cases they also receive training on understanding biases and critical thinking. This phase creates the conditions for their deliberation to be possible in the latter stages. 2. A learning phase, where citizens become familiar with the policy question and consider a range of perspectives presented by experts, stakeholders, and affected groups, a diverse mix of whom present to the participants in person or in writing and answer their questions. It is also common for citizens to be able to request additional information, experts, or stakeholders if they feel they are missing information or need additional clarifications. For bigger processes, it is common to conduct other participation methods, such as public consultations or crowdsourcing ideas, before a representative deliberative process starts, to gather inputs from the broader public. 3. Citizen deliberation, when evidence is discussed, options and trade-offs are assessed, and recommendations are collectively developed. The process is carefully designed to maximise opportunities for every participant to exercise public judgement and requires impartial trained facilitators. 4. Reaching a “rough consensus” – finding (as much as possible) a proposal or range of options that a large proportion of participants can strongly agree on. When voting is used, it is either an intermediate step on the way to rough consensus, or a “fall back” mechanism when consensus cannot be reached. 5. Final recommendations are made publicly available |
|
Step 7: Public response and follow up |
Once the deliberative process is finished and the recommendations have been published and widely communicated, the convening authority should provide a public response to the recommendations. For those recommendations that might not be implemented, public authority should provide clear justifications. For any recommendations that are accepted by the public authority, information about their implementation should be provided regularly to allow citizens to monitor the level of advancement. |
|
Step 8: Evaluate the process |
By making a process subject to evaluation, the authorities commissioning it demonstrate a commitment to transparency and quality, earning them greater legitimacy. Evaluation also creates opportunities for learning by providing evidence and lessons for public authorities and practitioners about what went well and what did not. Evaluation should be set up from the beginning of the process, and a final evaluation report should be published after it is over. Please see OECD Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes for further guidance. |
Source: Author’s own elaboration
The OECD Trello board with a range of further resources for representative deliberative processes.
OECD’s Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave
OECD’s Toolbox and useful resources on Deliberative Democracy.
OECD’s Eight Ways to Institutionalise Deliberative Democracy
OECD’s Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes
Handbook on Democracy beyond Elections by UN Democracy Fund & newDemocracy Foundation
MASS LBP’s Guide on How to run a civic lottery
Citizens’ Assemblies: Guide to Democracy That Works by Marcin Gerwin.
People Powered How to Start a Climate Assembly provides short information sheets with key facts.
RSA’s How to run a Citizen’s Assembly is a handbook covering the planning, organizing and delivery stages of a CA.
Dublin City University’s Enhancing Citizen Engagement on the Climate Crisis: The Role of Deliberation is a short and useful guide for policymakers wishing to utilise deliberation to further engage citizens.
Involve’s How do I set up a Citizens’ Assembly? is a step by step guide for practitioners.