Deliberative methods design and implementation plan

For planning citizens' juries or consensus conferences. Neutral information and fair participant selection are central to success. Independent third-party design review is strongly recommended.

When to use this worksheet and what completion involves Fictional completed example

EvalCompass Worksheet

Deliberative methods design and implementation plan

Method: Deliberative Methods

For planning citizens' juries or consensus conferences. Neutral information and fair participant selection are central to success. Independent third-party design review is strongly recommended.

Basic information

Deliberative process outline

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Program or policy issue: Improve local transport (fictional)
Format: citizens' jury / consensus conference / other: Citizens' jury deliberation
Evaluation question: central question for the panel: How can limited resources support people with mobility difficulties?
Implementing institution: Fictional municipality and independent operations team
Planned period: October–December 2026, learning and deliberation over several days

Reason for this entry: Express the purpose as a neutral question.

Program or policy issue

Format: citizens' jury / consensus conference / other

Evaluation question: central question for the panel

Implementing institution

Planned period

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Deliberative process outline

Express the purpose as a neutral question.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Follow each field’s heading to record the program name, focus, period, and other details. Leave undecided matters clearly marked as unresolved.

Read the full fictional example

Participant selection plan

Describe random or stratified sampling and how representativeness and diversity will be secured.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Selection criteria: age / gender / area / socioeconomic background, etc.	Target proportions or counts	Actual selection results
Age groups, residential areas and gender	Illustrative design of about 20 people informed by population composition	Not selected, recruitment has not started
People unable to use cars	Check selection includes different mobility conditions.	Not selected

Reason for this entry: Verify actual representativeness after selection.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Selection criteria: age / gender / area / socioeconomic background, etc.	Target proportions or counts	Actual selection results

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Describe random or stratified sampling and how representativeness and diversity will be secured.

Verify actual representativeness after selection.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Information plan: witnesses and materials

Check balanced witness selection and information bias. Are opposing and diverse positions included?

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Witness name, affiliation or role	Position or perspective represented	Information overview
Transport staff	Institutions and budget	Use and costs by route, and use restrictions
Community mobility support organization	Experiences of people with mobility difficulties	Unmet needs by time and location
Transport operator	Operational conditions	Staffing and safe operation requirements

Reason for this entry: Prepare materials allowing comparison of perspectives and evidence.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Witness name, affiliation or role	Position or perspective represented	Information overview

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Check balanced witness selection and information bias. Are opposing and diverse positions included?

Prepare materials allowing comparison of perspectives and evidence.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Deliberative session design

Record the design of citizen panel deliberation sessions.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Separate learning, questions, small-group comparisons and whole-panel recommendation drafting. Allow time to request more information and consider matters between meetings.

Reason for this entry: Avoid pressure for rushed conclusions.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Record the design of citizen panel deliberation sessions.

Avoid pressure for rushed conclusions.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.

Read the full fictional example

Recommendations and response follow-up

Specify recommendation recipients, publication methods and arrangements requiring policy-makers to respond.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Under this plan's deadline, the municipality responds on adoption and reasons within 2 months of recommendations and publishes progress on adopted items every six months.

Reason for this entry: A proposal to agree recommendation handling before the event.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Specify recommendation recipients, publication methods and arrangements requiring policy-makers to respond.

A proposal to agree recommendation handling before the event.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.

Read the full fictional example

Independence and ethics check

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

☑ Checked: Documented random or stratified participant selection
☑ Checked: Selected witnesses and information balancing perspectives and interests
☐ Not checked: Third-party review of design independence completed
☑ Checked: Appropriately designed compensation, travel and time support
☐ Not checked: Secured arrangements for policy-maker responses
☑ Checked: Established a policy recording minority views in recommendations

Reason for this entry: Third-party review and formal agreement on municipal response responsibility remain incomplete. Finalize them before the event.

Documented random or stratified participant selection
Selected witnesses and information balancing perspectives and interests
Third-party review of design independence completed
Appropriately designed compensation, travel and time support
Secured arrangements for policy-maker responses
Established a policy recording minority views in recommendations

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Third-party review and formal agreement on municipal response responsibility remain incomplete. Finalize them before the event.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Read each item and check those you have confirmed. Do not use the fictional example’s checkbox states as findings about your own program.

Read the full fictional example

Before writing, check when to use the worksheet and what completion involves

Deliberative methods design and implementation plan is a worksheet for applying Deliberative Methods in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Illustrative estimate, adjusted to scale and staffing: 2–5 days in an intensive format to several weeks in a distributed format” as a reference, adjusting for scale and resources. Fill in what you know provisionally and leave unresolved matters as questions to check next.

When this worksheet is useful

When including democratically legitimate citizen judgments as evidence in policy or large-program evaluations
When systematically gathering representative citizen perspectives beyond experts and stakeholders
When reflecting citizen priorities in value-laden issues, such as economic growth versus environmental protection

Participants and preparation

Invited citizens, experts and affected people presenting diverse views, independent facilitators and an operations team. Set numbers and composition according to scope and format.

Bring the materials used for decisions, existing data, and differing stakeholder views to help complete the worksheet.

Suggested order

1. Basic informationDeliberative process outline
2. Participant selection planDescribe random or stratified sampling and how representativeness and diversity will be secured.
3. Information plan: witnesses and materialsCheck balanced witness selection and information bias. Are opposing and diverse positions included?
4. Deliberative session designRecord the design of citizen panel deliberation sessions.
5. Recommendations and response follow-upSpecify recommendation recipients, publication methods and arrangements requiring policy-makers to respond.
6. Independence and ethics check

Signs the worksheet is ready for review

Citizens' jury or consensus conference recommendations
Deliberation process record
Majority and minority views

Cautions for review

Biased information, such as inviting witnesses favorable to one view, fundamentally undermines neutrality. An independent design auditor is useful.
Policy-makers using a citizens' jury to legitimize a predetermined conclusion damages participant and public trust in the long term.
No response or follow-up wastes citizens' efforts and discourages future participation.

Read a completed fictional example (your entries will not change)

Fictional example; not actual results

A fictional illustrative plan in which a municipality obtains citizen panel recommendations on improving transport.

Basic information

Program or policy issue: Improve local transport (fictional)
Format: citizens' jury / consensus conference / other: Citizens' jury deliberation
Evaluation question: central question for the panel: How can limited resources support people with mobility difficulties?
Implementing institution: Fictional municipality and independent operations team
Planned period: October–December 2026, learning and deliberation over several days

Reason for this entry: Express the purpose as a neutral question.

Participant selection plan

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Selection criteria: age / gender / area / socioeconomic background, etc.	Target proportions or counts	Actual selection results
Age groups, residential areas and gender	Illustrative design of about 20 people informed by population composition	Not selected, recruitment has not started
People unable to use cars	Check selection includes different mobility conditions.	Not selected

Reason for this entry: Verify actual representativeness after selection.

Information plan: witnesses and materials

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Witness name, affiliation or role	Position or perspective represented	Information overview
Transport staff	Institutions and budget	Use and costs by route, and use restrictions
Community mobility support organization	Experiences of people with mobility difficulties	Unmet needs by time and location
Transport operator	Operational conditions	Staffing and safe operation requirements

Reason for this entry: Prepare materials allowing comparison of perspectives and evidence.

Deliberative session design

Separate learning, questions, small-group comparisons and whole-panel recommendation drafting. Allow time to request more information and consider matters between meetings.

Reason for this entry: Avoid pressure for rushed conclusions.

Recommendations and response follow-up

Under this plan's deadline, the municipality responds on adoption and reasons within 2 months of recommendations and publishes progress on adopted items every six months.

Reason for this entry: A proposal to agree recommendation handling before the event.

Independence and ethics check

☑ Checked: Documented random or stratified participant selection
☑ Checked: Selected witnesses and information balancing perspectives and interests
☐ Not checked: Third-party review of design independence completed
☑ Checked: Appropriately designed compensation, travel and time support
☐ Not checked: Secured arrangements for policy-maker responses
☑ Checked: Established a policy recording minority views in recommendations

Reason for this entry: Third-party review and formal agreement on municipal response responsibility remain incomplete. Finalize them before the event.

Common errors in judgment

Recruiting only volunteers and calling them representative of all citizens

How to revise: Show selection methods, composition and representativeness limits.

Reason: The panel may be biased toward those able to apply.

Receiving recommendations without responding

How to revise: Define responses on adoption, reasons and implementation progress beforehand.

Reason: Clarify the connection to policy decisions.

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: 2026-09-13Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checking Cite this page Report a correction

References and checked sections

Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes
OECD · 2021
Section consulted
Annex B: OECD Good practice principles for deliberative processes for public decision making
How it relates to the text
Combine information provision, inclusive and representative participation, independent operation and public responses to recommendations.
Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Deliberative methods design and implementation plan”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/worksheets/deliberative-methods/

Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history

2026-09-13 — Updated explanations to correspond with sources, and added method-specific fictional worksheet examples, judgment examples and revision history.