4. Useful resources

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).

Step 1: Define purpose and scope

Before the consultation is launched, public authorities should define:

• The purpose of the consultation: for example, to gather ideas, understand public opinion about a topic, test draft solutions, collect feedback, etc.

• The type of desired inputs: ideas, comments, expert advice, etc.

• Expected participants: citizens (small vs. large groups), experts (i.e. scientists), targeted populations (i.e. seniors, LGBTI, etc.)

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:

• Comment periods

• Focus groups

• Surveys

• Public Opinion Polls

• Workshops/seminars/conferences/round-table discussions

• Stakeholder interviews

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:

• Sufficient time

• Required information

• Clear instructions

• Support in case of need (human or technical)

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.

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.)

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:

• Gather data or evidence to fill an existing gap

• Determine or define research questions

• Co-create the research design

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.

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:

• Specific, targeted complaints when a service malfunctions;

• Constant monitoring for enhanced accountability;

• Detailed recommendations about how to improve a public policy or service.

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.

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:

• Budget allocated for the process

• Public that will be able to participate

• Criteria for eligibility of proposals

• Stages of the process

• Timings for the different stages

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:

• Who can present proposals? It can be open to all citizens and stakeholders, to only a certain category of citizens (target groups) or stakeholders (NGOs, associations, etc.), or it can be the government that makes the proposals.

• Which proposals are accepted? This is important for participants to know in advance the specificities to take into account when submitting a proposal. Public authorities can define prior to the process certain conditions such as budget constraints, feasibility, locality of proposal, duration of implementation, etc.

It is also important to decide on the methodology and format to submit the proposals:

• In-person: Some processes require citizens and stakeholders to co-create the proposals through in-person mechanisms such as workshops, hackathons, town hall meetings, makerspaces, etc.

• Online: The vast majority of participatory budgets put in place a digital platform where the public can submit their proposals.

• Hybrid: To maximise inclusion and fairness, some processes put in place a hybrid system where citizens and stakeholders can submit their proposals both though a digital platform or an in-person mechanism.

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:

• A group of experts

• A randomly selected group of citizens

• Public authorities

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.

• Who can vote? Public authorities should decide and communicate the individuals that are eligible to participate in the vote. It can go from all residents of a geographical area, to targeted groups.

• How can the public vote? Public authorities can implement different methodologies: digital platforms, physical booths, SMS voting, mail ballots, or hybrid systems. The ultimate goal should be to ensure that all the eligible participants have the capacity 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.

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.