Face-to-Face, Online, or Both?
General Type of Method
Deliberative and dialogic process
Typical Purpose
Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
Spectrum of Public Participation
newDemocracy Foundation: What is a Citizen's Jury?
Citizens Jury 2018 with the National Data Guardian’s Office
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
Number of Participants
Small groups
Medium size groups
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Ask & Answer Questions
Decision Methods
General Agreement/Consensus
If Voting
Preferential Voting
Scope of Implementation
Level of Polarization This Method Can Handle
Level of Complexity This Method Can Handle
High Complexity


Citizens' Jury

October 25, 2021 Nina Sartor
June 11, 2020 Jaskiran Gakhal, Participedia Team
November 27, 2019 Jaskiran Gakhal, Participedia Team
November 15, 2019 Jez Hall
June 5, 2019 Annie Pottorff
June 3, 2019 Scott Fletcher Bowlsby
May 30, 2019 Scott Fletcher Bowlsby
August 17, 2018 Scott Fletcher Bowlsby
June 25, 2018 Lucy J Parry, Participedia Team
February 25, 2018 Madifish
May 21, 2010 Madifish

A Citizens’ Jury is a small group of randomly selected citizens, representative of the demographics in the area, that come together to reach a collective decision or recommendation on a policy issue through informed deliberation.

Problems and Purpose

A Citizens’ Jury is a form of deliberative mini-public where a small group of citizens are randomly selected to deliberate on a given policy issue and provide recommendations to the organizing entity. The jury are usually given a specific question to answer or a clearly defined scope, and provide a report at the end of the process detailing their recommendations.[1]

The purpose of a Citizens’ Jury is to bring deliberation and public participation into public policy decisions. A CJ is a small enough group to help ensure genuine and effective deliberation can take place, and utilises a random or stratified sample of the community to try and ensure that the group is sufficiently diverse and representative of the broader affected public.[2] Proponents of the CJ model suggest that decisions made by a representative group of citizens are more likely to be accepted and viewed as legitimate by the broader public, because the jury making the recommendation are everyday citizens as well. [3]

Citizens’ Juries are usually used in an advisory capacity, tasked with producing a collective recommendation or verdict.[4] In many cases, decision makers may give some prior commitment as to how they might respond to recommendations from a jury. For example, in South Australia the state government usually commits to presenting all jury recommendations directly to parliament.[5] In some cases, the decision-making authority will agree in advance to accepting and implementing the jury’s recommendations.[6]

Citizens’ Juries can be used to address a wide range of problems and policy issues. CJs are deliberative processes, which emphasise the importance of deliberation and making collective decisions. Inherent to these processes is the provision of a range of perspectives and information, so that jurors can be fully informed and base their deliberations on solid reasoning. Therefore, CJs are particularly suitable for addressing complex issues such as health policy where deeper understanding is required.[7] They can also be useful for addressing controversial issues or where evidence is contested because the jury will hear from a full range of perspectives rather than receive a one-sided view of the debate.[8] CJs may also be used when the public is distanced from a decision-making process or there is a (perceived or actual) lack of transparency and democracy associated with an issue, with the hope that bringing citizens into the process may also enhance trust or legitimacy.[9]

Citizens’ Juries are often deployed alongside other consultative processes, or as one component of a broader participatory processes. In Australia, it has been used as part of participatory budgeting processes, where the jury decides how a city or local council’s budget should be spent. Two Citizens’ Juries were held in South Australia alongside a statewide public engagement and consultation program on nuclear fuel storage. The first jury had an agenda-setting remit, helping to decide the key issues for the broader engagement and the second jury to deliberate upon. In the U.S., CJs are used to evaluate ballot initiatives as part of the Citizens’ Initiative Review.

Origins and Development

The Citizens’ Jury model came into use in the 1970s. It was introduced in the United States by Ned Crosby of the Jefferson Center, and in Germany by Peter Dienel of the Research Institute for Citizen Participation at the University of Wuppertal.[10,11] Its founder, Ned Crosby, developed the model and it was first used in 1974 on the issue of healthcare.[12] Around 1/3 of the 30+ Citizens' Juries held by the Jefferson Center have been held outside its home state of Minnesota. Issues have included education, low-income housing, welfare reforms, climate change and physician-assisted suicide, as well as locally-relevant issues such as traffic congestion and agricultural practices.[13]

The CJ model was used to evaluate Presidential candidates in the 1976 U.S. election for the first time.[14] The Jefferson Center pursued this theme into the 1990s, experimenting with use of the Citizens' Jury method for evaluating candidates in upcoming elections including examining the major candidates in the gubernatorial race in Minnesota in 1990 and a U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania in 1992.[15] This application of the method did not involve an evaluation of the candidates per se, but asked jurors to evaluate their stances on various issues. In doing so, this application received a positive response in the media, with the juries stimulating public debate.[16] However, in 1993 the Internal Revenue Service ruled that this activity was inappropriate for a nonprofit organization, and threatened to remove the Center’s tax-deductible status.[17] As a result, the Jefferson Center agreed to stop using the Citizens' Jury method in this manner.[18]

In recent years, with early help from the Jefferson Center, the Citizens Jury method has been successfully used by a pair of independent organizations - Healthy Democracy Oregon and the Healthy Democracy Fund - to evaluate statewide ballot initiatives; this adaptation of the method is called a Citizens' Initiative Review. In this process, a CJ is used to evaluate proposed ballot measures.[19] The judgement of the jury provides a reasoned viewpoint on the measure that is useful for informing the broader public and for informing public officials of citizens’ views.

Beyond the Jefferson Center and the U.S., the Citizens’ Jury method has been adapted for use in Australia, the U.K., and Germany on issues such as health policy, transport and infrastructure, planning issues and local governance.

Participant Selection and Recruitment

Participant numbers in a Citizens’ Jury usually range from 12-25 people.[20] The small size is important for the quality of deliberation as it creates an environment “where stable expectations and relations of trust can be fostered between participants, so essential for mutual understanding.”[21] However, a number of more recent cases have involved much larger numbers of participants. The first citizens’ jury in South Australia was held in 2013 and involved 43 jurors while a second engagement in 2016 had 54. Also in 2016, a 100-member CJ was convened in Victoria, Australia.[22] As of the year 2000, the largest citizens’ jury on record was held in Germany and included 500 citizens from all over the country.[23] Whilst the larger number of participants can help enhance perceived legitimacy of the process, it carries with it additional logistical and deliberative challenges.[24]

Central to the model is the use of a randomly selected group of citizens who are representative of the wider community in question. The aim of this is manifold. Firstly, like other deliberative mini-publics, Citizens Juries aim to recreate a microcosm of the public, literally a ‘mini-populus’ as originally described by Robert Dahl.[25] Secondly, a random sample of everyday people is preferable to the ‘usual suspects’ that governments usually hear from. These include individuals with a strong political agenda or material stake in the process -- such as industry or interest groups -- who tend to have greater resources and access to policy influencers, generally allowing their voices to be heard above those of the everyday citizen. As the non-profit newDemocracy Foundation puts it, “[g]overnments inevitably hear from the noisiest voices who insist on being heard.”[26] Random selection aims to provide a counter to that by selecting a group of randomly selected citizens. The jury should also be ideally representative of the broader community to ensure diversity and enhance the legitimacy of the jury. Participants should act in their capacity as citizens, rather than as representatives of others/interest groups or as experts.[27] The use of random selection and its accompanying claims are not without criticism; this is discussed in the final section of this entry.

Jury participants are recruited through various mechanisms. In Australia, organisers typically use a database from Australia Post to generate a sample of potential participants who are invited by post.[28] Out of those who respond positively, the final sample is stratified.[29] Communication with participants is then carried out by telephone with organisers on a regular basis prior to the event, to answer any questions and try to ensure attendance on the day. Census data is used to match the necessary demographics of the area.[30] Other recruitment methods might involve random dialing and using a market research company.[31] Participants are often offered some kind of compensation or stipend for their time. This can provide an additional incentive for participants who might not usually participate, or whose circumstances could prevent them being able to take part. The use of incentives can be “crucial for successful recruitment and inclusive participation.”[32]

Aside from the lay participants, Citizens’ Juries will involve a range of experts and stakeholders recruited to present information and evidence to the jury for their consideration.[33] For the most part, witnesses are selected and recruited by the organisers, although in recent years some juries enable jurors to identify perspectives and witnesses they want to hear from during the process.[34] Having a range of experts presenting different viewpoints and aspects of an issue is crucial to the success of the jury, because jurors rely on the information provided - skewed information can prejudice the outcome.[35]

How it Works: Process, Interaction, and Decision-Making

Although the original Jefferson Center Citizens’ Jury model has been altered and adapted as it applied in different settings and on different issues,[36] there remain some central elements, described below. The original model proscribes the process as typically lasting 5 days,[37] but many Juries have been convened that are much shorter than this, sometimes less than one day.[38] This can have a negative impact on the quality of deliberation and recommendations, given the time often needed to process information, deliberate and produce recommendations.[39] Juries usually take place on the weekend or over a series of weekends, sometimes spanning months depending on the process. [40]

Prior to the first meeting: question, remit and planning

The process usually begins with a decision-maker deciding to convene a Citizens’ Jury in the first place.[41] It is rare for Citizens’ Juries to be instigated by civil society. Some processes are initiated as part of academic research projects or by nonstate actors, such as the Citizens’ Juries on wind farm development in Scotland or more recently, the People’s Policy in South Australia, an adaptation of the CJ method where the public decide on an issue and develop meaningful public policy. For the most part however, a topic is decided on in advance by the government or authority. The precise question and scope delivered to the jury can vary widely, but it must be clearly and carefully worded so that it is easily understandable and neutrally presented.[42] Prior to the jury meeting, the authority will usually give some sort of prior commitment regarding their response to the jury recommendations. As Citizens’ Juries are for the most used in an advisory capacity only, this prior commitment is essential so that jurors know what kind of impact their recommendations will have and that their effort is worthwhile.[43]

Following the development of an issue and question for the jury, the authority who convene the jury should have little to no involvement in the actual organisation of the process.[44] This is essential to ensure that the process is independent from the decision-making authority. Therefore, a professional practitioner organisation is sought to organise and deliver the jury. In Australia, a variety of organisations - such as newDemocracy Foundation and DemocracyCo - offer this service which often includes participant recruitment, selection of witnesses, logistical arrangements and facilitation. There are also independent consultants working as professional facilitators who may be recruited by the organisation to ensure further independence.[45] Professional facilitators are essential to the success of Citizens’ Juries, helping to ensure quality deliberation where all participants’ contributions are included, supporting participants, and maintaining the structure of the process.[46]

Information Phase

The first day the jury meets is dedicated to understanding what is to come, receive a brief overview of the issue, and get comfortable with each other so they feel at ease and relaxed throughout the process.[47]

The first main phase of the Jury meeting is comprised of information provision.[48] Prior to meeting, jurors will usually have been provided with an information pack with background material on the topic. During the first meeting/s, jurors will hear from expert witnesses on the topic at hand and develop a deeper understanding of the various complexities.[49] Information provision can happen in a variety of ways. One of the most common practices is for jurors to hear presentations by experts and be able to question them, or formulate questions together in small groups.[50] Other formats include expert panels, speed dialogue and strategic questioning.[51] The aim of the information phase is to provide jurors with as full a range of information, evidence and perspectives as possible.

Witnesses may include ‘neutral’ experts who provide background information on the topic, or present technical information.[52] These witnesses can also be helpful when the topic is highly contested or evidence is conflictual.[53] Other witnesses may be stakeholders or those presenting a particular viewpoint on the issue, who should provide reasoning for that viewpoint. During the information phase, jurors should be supported by facilitators to critique and question the evidence presented.[54] Usually, participants are on the receiving end of a large amount of information, often complex or technical, in a short amount of time. This can be confusing, especially if conflicting evidence is presented.[55] To help participants with this, some juries will include activities towards the start of the process focused on critical thinking skills and working together as a group.[56]

Deliberation Phase

Deliberation is at the heart of the Citizens’ Jury model. During the deliberation phase, jurors will discuss in-depth the evidence they have heard and work towards developing a set of recommendations or making a collective decision, depending on their remit. Deliberation may take place in small groups (especially if the jury is larger) or all together, or both. [57] Practitioners and facilitators make use of a wide range of tools and techniques that can enhance deliberation and support jurors throughout deliberation. These include activities such as idea boxes, focused conversation, station rounds and six thinking hats.

During the deliberation phase, it may also be necessary to narrow the number of recommendations or issues under consideration.[58] This may be done through a process of consensus, or by incorporating different voting methods such as dotmocracy.

Decisions and Recommendations

Final decisions are made collectively, again either through consensus or through some form of voting after the deliberations.[59] The majority needed for a recommendation to pass may vary; many processes require a supermajority (generally, 70%+), such as with the Geelong citizens’ jury in Australia.[60] Some juries also including dissenting voices and minority reports in the final presentation to decision-makers.[61] For example, the CJ of 350 in South Australia presented their final report on nuclear fuel storage with a majority report (with ⅔ of the group opposed to the fuel storage facility completely) and a minority report representing the views of the remaining ⅓ who wanted the discussion on fuel storage to continue further.

A Jury will usually produce a final report detailing their recommendations. The report may be drafted by participants collaboratively on the final day of the jury, or written by a smaller group who volunteer to write it. The final draft is then presented to decision makers, often by jurors themselves, for consideration.

Public Interaction

Some Citizens’ Juries allow members of the public or observers to sit in on all or parts of the process. Observers might include academics, interested citizens or interested groups and stakeholders. Observers taking part in this capacity are usually advised that they are not to interrupt or disturb the jurors’ deliberations or attempt to prejudice the process in any way.

As Citizens’ Juries are often one component of a broader engagement process, public interaction can occur in a number of ways. In South Australia, CJs are usually used alongside other forms of consultation including surveys, social media and dedicated online forums such as YourSay. This can enable the jury to engage with the views of the wider community, as was the case in the CJ on sharing the roads safely.

The next 3 or 4 days is dedicated to hearings that include the expert witnesses. There is time allotted for the jurors to ask question of the witnesses and also time for them to deliberate. After all the hearings have been completed the rest of the time is set aside for the jurors to have final deliberations about the issue as well as answer the crucial charge question or questions.

On the final day there is a public forum held where the jurors present their findings and recommendation. There is also an initial report that is issued that is written by the jurors themselves in a language that they created. About two to three weeks later there is a final report issued that is available to the public.

The final stage to this process includes an evaluation that is filled out by the jurors. The jurors are asked to evaluate the process itself, the staff, and if they believed the process was biased or not. There is a portion for the jurors to add a personal statement, which is another way they can express their opinions. This evaluation is added into the final report that is made available to the public.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Citizens’ juries are not usually given a legal mandate to make binding government or policy decisions although their recommendations can be taken up by governing officials and used to inform legislation. Despite being in use for nearly 30 years, the citizen jury process as run by the Jefferson Center had gained little traction among officials by 2002. The organization “saw it was fighting an uphill battle and cut back on the attempt to conduct Citizens Juries unless they were likely to have more impact on the political system.”[62] However, the method became more influential in 2008 when it was adapted for using during Oregon’s new Citizen Initiative Review process. Since then, other citizens’ juries both in the United States and elsewhere, have seen their recommendations taken up by policy makers.[63]

Beyond policy influence, citizens’ juries have a variety of other outcomes and effects on participants, government officials, and members of the public. According to the GovLab at NYU the following outcomes have been observed when using the citizens’ jury model of mini-public deliberation:[64]

  • Increased accountability by involving the public in advising on or reviewing decisions and actions;
  • Creation of an “audience effect”, openness, and transparency, which improves accountability and also provides an opportunity for outside insights and input;
  • Including community members in a participatory process where members of the public are traditionally left out of or distanced from the decision-making process;[65]
  • Improves representation by engaging a “cross-section of the community;"[66]
  • Is useful in “moderat[ing] divergence” on issues and increasing transparency of process;[67]
  • Provide “jurors” (i.e. community members) an opportunity to build and deepen learnings on specific ICANN issues, and to do so collaboratively;[68]
  • Monitor or gauge community and public sentiment regarding ICANN’s work and its execution of commitments in the public interest;[69]
  • Broker conflict or provide “a transparent and non-aligned viewpoint.”[70]

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Participant Analysis

Analysis based on juror experience is often collected through satisfaction surveys or some other feedback mechanism at the end of the process. These evaluations are generally available to the public in the final report or in a separate, evaluative publication.

In their research on citizens’ juries in Scotland, Roberts and Escobar found that participation in a citizens’ jury was correlated to increased support for the mini-public process.[71] While they did not study the effects or opinions of non-participants, their research suggests that support for mini-publics increases parallel to their use by governments or other decision-making bodies. According to the authors, “after experiencing the process, 93% of participants thought that citizens are able to make decisions on complex issues. Participants highlighted three necessary conditions for their trust in the process: diversity of views, quality of evidence and effective facilitation.”[72]

Academic Analysis

Citizens’ Juries have also been evaluated by academic scholars. In a review of the design and evaluation of public consultation processes, researchers at McMaster University’s Centre for Health Economics and Analysis identify the following strengths, weaknesses with the citizens’ jury model and recommendations for its use:


  • creates informed, active, engaged citizenry
  • promotes “common good” as a societal objective
  • promotes self-transformation and development
  • provides opportunities to introduce new perspectives and challenge existing ones
  • more careful examination of the issue
  • promotes consensus building
  • promotes communication between government and governed
  • brings legitimacy and democratic control to non-elected public bodies


  • no formal powers; lack of binding decision accountability to act upon decision/recommendation
  • exclusive - only a few individuals participate
  •  resource intensive time commitment for participants and organizers
  • potential problems lie in initial stages of preparation (i.e. jury selection, agenda setting, witness selection) - these have to do with representation (who participates?); responsiveness (what is the jury asked to do); and information transfer (how is the jury informed?)


  • sponsoring organization should be clear about what issues it wants to address, how much it can spend on process, and whether it can follow through on the advice
  • should be designed for the public and not for special interest groups
  • better with value questions than technical questions
  • better for focused questions about concrete issues, than on large scale issues and should be part of a wider public involvement strategy
  • the development of the agenda should be overseen by an advisory board made up of key stakeholders.[73]

See Also

Citizens’ Assembly

Citizens’ Initiative Review


[1] National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (2008) Citizen Jury. Available at:

[2] Bussu, S. (2016) Citizens’ Jury. Participation compass. Available at:

[3] newDemocracy Foundation (2016) What is a Citizens’ Jury? Available at:

[4] Oliver Escobar and Stephen Elstub, “Forms of Mini-Publics: An Introduction to Deliberative Innovations in Democratic Practice - NewDemocracy Foundation,” NewDemocracy Foundation, May 8, 2017,

[5] “Creating a Safe and Vibrant Adelaide Nightlife,” YourSAy, October 24, 2013,

[6] United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Public Participation Guide: Citizen Juries. Available at:

[7] Gregory, J., Hartz-Karp, J. and Watson, R. Using deliberative techniques to engage the community in policy development. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy. 5(16). DOI: 10.1186/1743-8462-5-16

[8] Bussu, S. (2016).

[9] United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017).

[10] Escobar and Elstub, “Forms of Mini-Publics.”

[11] Graham Smith and Corinne Wales, “Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 48, no. 1 (March 2000): 56, doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00250.

[12] Pottorff, A. (July 1, 2013). “The Jefferson Center’s Journey. Jefferson Center. Available at

[13] “Bias Evaluation.” Jefferson Center. Available at

[14] Ned Crosby and John C. Hottinger, “The Citizen Jury Process,” The Council of State Governments Knowledge Center, July 1, 2011, 322,

[15] Crosby and Hottinger, “The Citizens Jury Process,” 322.

[16] Crosby and Hottinger, “The Citizens Jury Process,” 322.

[17] Crosby and Hottinger, “The Citizens Jury Process,” 322.

[18] Crosby and Hottinger, “The Citizens Jury Process,” 322.

[19] Crosby and Hottinger, “The Citizens Jury Process,” 323.

[20] Escobar and Elstub, “Forms of Mini-Publics.”

[21] Smith and Wales, “Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy,” 59.

[22] Geelong CJ

[23] Smith and Wales, “Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy,” 56.

[24] Carson, L. (2017) Enhancing Citizen Jurors Critical Thinking Capacity. newDemocracy Foundation. Available at:

[25] Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 340.

[26] newDemocracy Foundation (2016).

[27] Ourvoice, Our Voice Citizens’ Jury on Shared Decision Making (Published Online: Scottish Health Council, 2019),

[28] “Citizens’ Jury on Compulsory Third Party (CTP) Insurance Frequently Asked Questions,” (2017) ACT Government, 9,

[29] “Citizens’ Jury on Compulsory Third Party (CTP) Insurance Frequently Asked Questions,” (2017) ACT Government, 9.

[30] newDemocracy Foundation (2016).

[31] Ourvoice, Our Voice Citizens’ Jury on Shared Decision Making (Published Online: Scottish Health Council, 2019),

[32] Jennifer Roberts and Oliver Escobar, Involving communities in deliberation: A study of 3 citizens’ juries on onshore wind farms in Scotland (Published online: ClimateXChange, 2015),

[33] “Citizens’ Jury on Compulsory Third Party (CTP) Insurance Frequently Asked Questions,” (2017) ACT Government, 8.

[34] Roberts, J. and Lightbody, R. (2017). Experts and Evidence in Public Decision Making. ClimateXchange. Available at:

Escobar and Elstub, “Forms of Mini-Publics.”

[35] Roberts, J. and Lightbody, R. (2017).

[36] Ourvoice, Our Voice Citizens’ Jury on Shared Decision Making.

[37] Ned Crosby and John C. Hottinger, “The Citizen Jury Process,” The Council of State Governments Knowledge Center, July 1, 2011, 321,

[38] Ourvoice, Our Voice Citizens’ Jury on Shared Decision Making

[39] Ourvoice, Our Voice Citizens’ Jury on Shared Decision Making

[40] Ned Crosby and John C. Hottinger, “The Citizen Jury Process,” The Council of State Governments Knowledge Center, July 1, 2011, 324,

[41] “Citizens’ Jury,” Available at

[42] newDemocracy Foundation (2016).

[43] newDemocracy Foundation (2016).

[44] Bussu, S. (2016).

[45] Lyn Carson, (2003) “Consult your community A handbook A guide to using citizens’ juries,” Planning NSW, 5,

[46] Ourvoice, Our Voice Citizens’ Jury on Shared Decision Making

[47] Damien French and Michael Laver, “Participation bias and framing effects in citizens’ juries,” American Political Science Association, 2005, 10,

[48] Damien French and Michael Laver, “Participation bias and framing effects in citizens’ juries,” 10.

[49] “Citizens’ Jury,” Available at

[50] Ourvoice, Our Voice Citizens’ Jury on Shared Decision Making

[51] Damien French and Michael Laver, “Participation bias and framing effects in citizens’ juries,” American Political Science Association, 2005, 11,

[52] “Citizens’ Jury,” Available at

[53] Roberts, J. and Lightbody, R. (2017).

[54] “Citizens’ Jury,” Available at

[55] Roberts, J. and Lightbody, R. (2017).

[56] Carson, L. (2017). Learnings from South Australia’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Jury. newDemocracy Foundation. Available at:

[57] Damien French and Michael Laver, “Participation bias and framing effects in citizens’ juries,” 12.

[58] Peter Bryant and Jez Hall (2017) “Citizens Jury Literature Review,” Shared Future, 9. Available at

[59] Damien French and Michael Laver, “Participation bias and framing effects in citizens’ juries,” 5.

[60] The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (March 2017) “Victorian Government Response to the Geelong Citizens’ Jury,” 18. Available at

[61] Lyn Carson, (2003) “Consult your community A handbook A guide to using citizens’ juries,” Planning NSW, 5,

[62] Crosby and Hottinger, “The Citizes Jury Process,” 321.

[63] Annie Pottorff, “Giving Citizens a Voice (Politics in Minnesota) - Jefferson Center,” Jefferson Center, July 11, 2012,

[64] GovLab. “Proposal 13 for ICANN: Provide an Adjudication Function by Establishing ‘Citizen’ Juries,” The GovLab @ NYU, February 28, 2014.

[65] Department of Environment and primary Industries, “Citizen Juries,” Victoria State Government, Archived at

[66] Department of Environment and primary Industries, “Citizen Juries.”

[67] Department of Environment and primary Industries, “Citizen Juries.”

[68] Department of Environment and primary Industries, “Citizen Juries.”

[69] Department of Environment and primary Industries, “Citizen Juries.”

[70] Department of Environment and primary Industries, “Citizen Juries.”

[71] Jennifer Roberts and Oliver Escobar, Involving communities in deliberation.

[72] Oliver Escobar and Stephen Elstub, Forms of Mini-publics (Published online: newDemocracy Foundation Research & Development Notes, 2017), 7,

[73] Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E and Gauvin F-P, “Deliberations about Deliberation: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes,” McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01-04, June 2001, 1.

External Links

Involve UK, “Citizens’ Jury”:

EPA “Public Participation Guide: Citizen Juries”:

Shared Future CIC, “Citizens Jury Literature Review”:

Oliver Escobar and Stephen Elstub, “Forms of Mini-publics”: