What are the qualities of good participatory and deliberative processes?

Standards for participatory and deliberative processes

1. Clear purpose
 

• The process makes a difference and the decision has not already been made.

• The process takes place at the right point in the policy making or decision making cycle.

• The process has a clear question — or set of questions — to address, with a range of possible solutions.

• The scope for making a difference to the decision is explicitly declared at the start and things that are out of scope or cannot be changed are clearly outlined.

• Where there is a clear and obvious decision maker they are sincere in their willingness to be open-minded and make a public commitment to consider and respond in detail to the decision or recommendation

• Processes should be coordinated to ensure policy coherence, avoid duplication and reduce the risk of engagement fatigue. 

2. Sufficient time and resource

• There is sufficient time in the project set up to build important relationships with interested parties and decision makers.

• The time and resources available should be proportionate to the question or purpose.

• There is no single design for a participatory or deliberative process, but each process is designed to meet its specific aims and objectives.

• There must be adequate time for participants to learn, discuss and come to a conclusion needed for the specific aims, objectives and method.

• There is sufficient resource (people and budget) to deliver an inclusive and rigorous process.

• Participants need to be allowed to digest and contemplate the information they receive, so processes often require multiple meetings with time between for reflection. 

3. Reflective or diverse group of participants

• The participants involved go beyond self selecting groups and are usually broadly reflective of the wider population.

• An element of random stratified sampling is often included in the recruitment methodology, based on demographics, geographical and/or attitudinal data.

• Depending on the topic, there may be a need for a mixed method approach where people from marginalised or minoritised groups are specifically asked for their input, noting that in a reflective sample minority groups are still the minority. 

4. Inclusive

• Participants are paid for all reasonable expenses and their time, at minimum at real living wage per hour of their time.

• The accessibility requirements of participants are met, such as childcare costs, personal assistant costs for disabled people, and interpretation services.

• Information and materials are provided in a range of different formats.

• Inputs are accessible, avoid jargon and do not assume prior knowledge or require reading beyond the hours of the engagement (unless otherwise agreed).

• The process fulfils a duty of care to support participants so that they will not be harmed by the process.

5. Independent

• The agenda setting, design and inputs of a process ensures balance and impartiality.

• The process is designed and facilitated by impartial and trained process designers and facilitators (internal or external).

• Participants are surveyed to collect their views on their experience and the quality of the process, including the impartiality of facilitation, the balance of evidence and the opportunities to participate. 

• An external evaluation process can offer independent scrutiny, legitimacy and accountability.

6. Transparent and accountable

• The recruitment approach, speaker lists, agendas, learning materials and advisory group membership (if applicable) are openly published.

• The process’s conclusions are published in full.

• It is clear to everybody involved how the results from the process are intended to be used and how decision makers will use their contributions.

• Decision makers publicly respond to the recommendations.

• It is made clear, after the process, how the public input has had an impact.

7. Balanced inputs

• Participants hear balanced, accurate and comprehensive information and evidence, proportionate to the question or purpose.

• If using multiple speakers, there should be a diversity of speakers with a range of views.

• Speakers do not lead or direct the participants.

• Participants determine their own questions for the speaker(s) and have sufficient time to question them.

• The learning phase supports the subsequent dialogue and deliberation, enabling participants to arrive at informed and considered judgements.

8. Structured dialogue

• Participants are supported through a facilitated process to consider and weigh up different perspectives and discuss with other participants.

• The process is well structured, with a clear progression through learning and deliberation, to come to shared conclusions.

• The process allows time for plenary feedback, so that participants have the opportunity to hear views from all other participants. 

9. Collective conclusions

• Participants consider key trade-offs and reach collective conclusions and/or recommendations.

• The report outlines the rationale behind the conclusions and/or recommendations and where there is disagreement.

10. Closing the feedback loop

• Participants and the wider public are given a summary of conclusions and/or recommendations as they have been presented to the decision makers.

• The body responsible for enacting the decisions provides updates on how they have listened to and taken into account participants’ views, with clear evidence of how decisions or policy developments have been influenced by it.

• If conclusions or recommendations cannot be acted upon, the reasoning is clearly set out.

• The participants may meet after the process to ‘mark the homework’ of the decision makers implementing the conclusions and/or recommendations.