The Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision Making

Level 5 Technique:
Citizens' Panels

What Is It?

A citizens' panel is a form of consensus process in which non-experts are brought together to reach a common opinion on a public policy issue. According to an evaluation of one U.S. citizens' panel, "its general aims are to improve decision making about science and technology by expanding access and perspectives beyond the normal elite, to increase public understanding of science and technology through informed public debate, and to enhance democracy by fostering civic engagement."

The approach is based on a European model for consensus conferences, and is considered particularly promising as a means of gathering valid and constructive citizen input on technically complex issues. Between 1987 and mid-1999, about 30 citizens' panels had been convened in a dozen countries (18 of them hosted by the Danish Board of Technology). The sessions have addressed such issues as bioengineering and genetically modified foods, food irradiation, air pollution, telework, consumption and the environment, education technology, the future of the automobile, the future of fishing, national electricity policy, telecommunications, and mandatory laptop computers in universities.

How It Works

A citizens' panel generally brings together a dozen to two dozen non-experts to arrive at a common position on a controversial issue. The required output may be an absolute consensus, in which all dissenting voices must be satisfied, or a more general consensus, where disagreements are noted and built into the panel report.

Key elements of a citizens' panel include the lay panelists, a steering committee selected by the sponsor that establishes the process for the event, a group of expert advisors and professional support staff. The selection of panelists reflects a variety of trade-offs between the value of a random sample and the importance of built-in diversity:

• In Calgary in March 1999, a 15-member panel on food biotechnology was selected from more than 350 volunteers from across Western Canada. Individuals associated with biotechnology organizations, biotech industries and advocacy groups were excluded from the panel.
• For an April 1997 panel on telecommunications and democracy at Tufts University, a group based on a random sample of 1,000 Boston residents was eventually supplemented to ensure an appropriate balance based on race, age, educational attainment and computer use.
• In Denmark in 1999, a 14-member panel on genetically engineered food was balanced according to gender, age, rural/urban residency and occupation.

At the beginning of the process, panelists receive background readings reflecting a diversity of viewpoints on the subject at hand, and take part in two preparatory workshops with an independent facilitator. The advance sessions combine social, intellectual and procedural content, enabling panelists to get to know one another, become familiar with the topic, and help determine the content of the actual panel meeting. The Danish panel prepared for its assignment by developing a list of 10 major questions on genetically engineered food and asked each of the invited experts to focus on one or two of the topics.

The citizens' panel itself begins in public session, with expert presentations, discussion between experts and panel members, and informal interaction between panelists and audience members. Panelists hold private deliberations after the presentations and discussions are complete, and conclude the process by issuing a consensus statement.

The process often includes an opportunity for expert witnesses to comment on the consensus statement, to eliminate ambiguities and possible misunderstandings. In at least one instance, experts were able to advise panelists on ways of expressing their concerns more strongly. Sponsors of the Calgary panel on biotechnology also maintained an interactive website to track the progress of the exercise.

When Is It Most Useful?

Citizens' panels bring together groups of non-experts who can serve as a proxy for the public at large, developing viewpoints that reflect the conclusions their friends, neighbours, relatives and colleagues would have reached if they had the opportunity to study an issue in similar depth and detail. Some researchers have also highlighted the potential impact of citizens' panels on the attitudes, training and day-to-day work of expert practitioners - whether or not the process brings any change to public policy - and in building public awareness of technical issues.

Citizens' panels also demonstrate the ability of nonexperts to arrive at fairly rapid, well-informed judgements on complex issues. In contrast to expert committees that rely heavily on technical knowledge, citizens' panels are seen as an opportunity to build a wider range of perspectives, concerns and values into the decision-making process. According to the evaluation of the Danish process, panelists "understood that the disagreements among experts were ideological as well as technical," and succeeded in "locating the technology within a real social milieu."

Logistics and Limits

Standard logistical concerns for a citizens' panel include effective communication among the panelists, and between the panel and its various audiences, space rental for meetings (choosing an appropriate space for the event), travel and accommodation for out-of-town panelists, the professional facilitator or presenters, on-site refreshments for panelists, presenters and participants, timely printing of advance materials and the final report, and effective media relations and followup. A key challenge for any citizens' panel is to find a common language and build mutual trust and confidence among lay panelists and expert witnesses representing a wide range of viewpoints.

Cost Implications

The budget for a citizens' panel should allow for reproduction and distribution of materials, participation of a trained facilitator, space rental and refreshments for three (or more) sessions, and travel and accommodation for out-of-town panelists, if applicable. Per diems may be standard for expert participants, and may be required to enable a representative cross section of panelists to take part. However, citizens' panels are seen as a cost-effective alternative to deliberative opinion polls - one deliberative poll in 1996 brought together more than 600 Americans and generated a more scientifically rigorous result, but at a cost of several million US dollars.

Expectation for Feedback or Follow-up

Citizens' panels conclude by releasing a consensus statement to the public. Other follow-up mechanisms, beginning with wide distribution of a written report in print and electronic form, may be built into the process.

Timelines

Although specific panels may adopt a different timeline, the literature suggests a process consisting of two preparatory weekends and one deliberative session running two to three days.

Potential Pitfalls

An evaluation of the Danish panel suggested that the process had failed to adequately address cross-cutting concerns, and could not remedy a perceived lack of assertiveness on the part of public interest advocates. Lay participants in the Calgary panel raised an equal and opposite concern, stating that their recommendations had been distorted by commercial media.

The planning group for a citizens' panel can play an important role in building a balanced process, by helping to ensure that a wide range of interests are fully represented. However, the overall process can backfire if panelists come to believe that the promise of an independent, participatory process has no chance of being fulfilled. In March 1998, a citizens' panel reviewing local governance models for the Region of Ottawa-Carleton disbanded, citing "immensely destructive interference in the Panel's process by numerous municipalities."