There are a wide variety of ways that local authorities can work with their communities to address the different issues, challenges and opportunities that have arisen out of Covid.

This chapter outlines a range of example processes to provide some inspiration for what it could look like. As outlined in chapter 3, it is important that these are not treated as off-the-shelf solutions – any process needs to be tailored to the local context – but we hope they provide some helpful ideas.

The illustrative processes presented in this chapter have been developed by members of Deliberative Democracy Practitioners’ Network during and following an online workshop held in August 2020. They cover the following challenges / questions:

  1. How can we support those suffering from isolation and/or poor mental health as a result of Covid-19?

  2. How can we direct funding towards and between mutual aid groups in an open and participatory way?

  3. What should be the priorities for the Covid-19 recovery?

  4. What is the future for mobility, transport and active travel in our community?

  5. How can we support digitally excluded members of the community to continue to go about their day-to-day lives?

Example 1: How can we support those suffering from isolation and/or poor mental health as a result of Covid-19?

Purpose

The purpose of this process would be to involve people experiencing isolation and/or poor mental health, and the wider community, in identifying and developing the support they need.

People

Who would be invited?

  

✓ Open invitation

✓ People with lived experience

⟎ Specific communities

⟎ Representative sample

This process would seek to involve people with lived experience (or experience through family and friends) to help to develop effective responses

Process

The process would have three stages, in order to understand people’s experience of social isolation and mental ill health, develop ideas for how it can be addressed, and facilitate collaborative responses: 

Phase 1: Experience collection

The process would start by collecting the experiences of residents of social isolation and mental ill health during Covid-19. It would seek to understand what the impact has been in different communities and how people have responded. A range of methods could be used to do this. A quick online survey to collect people’s experience could be set up and promoted via council communication channels and local groups and organisations who have links to different communities. Individual interviews or focus groups of people with lived experience could be brought together via video-conferencing – or socially distanced in groups of less than six in an outside location – to discuss their experience.

Phase 2: Ideas generation

The second stage would be an open call for ideas to help to address the issues that have been identified. An online crowdsourcing tool could be used to collect these ideas and allow others to engage with them. Again, the council would need to reach out via its communication channels and partners to encourage ideas to be submitted. Ideas may also have been generated through Phase 1.

Phase 3: Collaborative planning

The final step could be to bring together stakeholders from relevant public, voluntary and community, and business organisations, along with residents with lived experience, to develop collaborative solutions. This could take place through a series of facilitated video-conferencing meetings, with plenary and breakout discussions. Residents with lived experience would be supported before, during and after the meetings to take part.

A challenge fund could also be established, where local groups and businesses are invited to put forward proposals for helping to address the issue. This could be linked with a participatory budgeting approach, where people with lived experience of social isolation and mental ill health are involved in deciding which get funded.

Example 2: Participatory Grant-Making: How can we direct funding towards and between mutual aid groups in an open and participatory way?

Purpose

This process would have a number of purposes:

  • Distributing resources towards those providing mutual aid services;

  • Avoiding unhealthy competition between groups for resources;

  • Building grassroots responses based on lived experience;

  • Reducing social isolation and building social capital;

  • Communicating about and involving citizens in budget-setting;

  • Involving residents in wider conversations on resource allocation

People

Who would be invited?

  

⟎  Open invitation

⟎  People with lived experience

✓ Specific communities

⟎ Representative sample

This process would seek to foster new or stronger mutual aid projects by engaging people with lived experience (or experience through family and friends) with ideas, energy and/or resources. At different points in the process the participants might be already connected to informal or structured community based groups or individual local residents. The process can be run face-to-face, online or through a blended approach.

Process

Phase one: Ideas Generation/capacity building

Once a budget is identified and a steering group has been formed a community stakeholder meeting within the area is held to co-design the process. This enables community oversight and wider outreach to those who would not normally apply for funds. This stakeholder meeting co-designs the key elements of the process. A call for ideas is then launched, using a simple paper or online application process. Rules vary by context and community. Capacity building workshops may be held to help people develop strong proposals.

Phase two: Shortlisting/refinement

After initial proposals have been gathered a process of sense-checking and refinement takes place. A public workshop where ideas are discussed may be held. The idea is not to rule out proposals but to refine them to ensure they meet any criteria agreed within phase one, are achievable, and do not duplicate or conflict with other proposals.  A final list of projects that could be funded is agreed.

Phase three: Public voting

Through a well-publicised and open process, all the agreed projects are considered and prioritised by any local resident who wishes to take part. Criteria of who can vote (by age, residency, lived experience etc) agreed in earlier phases, and a voting method (generally multiple ranked voting) is used to select which projects are funded. This happens in order of the most popular first, until the available funding is fully allocated. Funds are then transferred to those making the proposal, or where they are an informal group, to a sponsoring body.

Phase four: Celebrating/evaluating

An evaluation process to monitor spending and report outcomes should have been agreed within phase one and two. This should be proportionate to the scale of funding and ideally overseen by those involved in co-designing the process. A public celebration or feedback event is typically held some time after the public voting to share what has been achieved and potentially launch a new round of grant-making. A clear communication strategy throughout the process alongside ‘word of mouth’ of participants raises the profile of community based catalysts and activists.

Phase five: Amplifying/scaling

Once trust in the process is developed, through repeated rounds of participatory grant-making the scale of the budget and the breadth of participation can be increased. In many cases the participatory budgeting (PB) grant-making process can also be used to engage residents in wider conversations on the shape of public services. This process is sometimes called mainstreaming. To foster transparency over budget allocations and local accountability over the shape of public services those activated by the grant making process can be invited to propose or prioritise the investments or responses provided by agencies working within their community.

Further information

Example 3: What should be the priorities for the Covid recovery?

Purpose

The purpose of this process would be to involve the local community in defining the priorities for how the area recovers from Covid-19. It will provide the local authority with the community’s hopes and fears for the future and recommendations on how to build back better.

People

Who would be invited?

  

✓ Open invitation

⟎ People with lived experience

⟎ Specific communities

✓ Representative sample

This process would combine an open call for local residents to submit their hopes and priorities for the future, with a representative group to hear evidence, balance different points of view and make recommendations

Process

The process would have two stages – starting with an open call for views and ending with a deliberative panel:

Phase 1: Open call for views

The process would start by collecting views from the local community on their hopes and priorities for the future. This would provide an opportunity for anyone in the local community to offer their experience and perspective. It would provide a source of information that could inform the council’s immediate decision-making, as well as a basis of evidence and opinion for the deliberative panel to consider. 

There are a variety of online tools that could be used to collect this input from the local community, some of which may already be in use by the council. One option would be to use an argument visualisation tool called pol.is, which enables people to give their view and respond to others in a way that builds a map of opinion on the issue. This can help to identify areas of consensus and disagreement in a much more nuanced way than other online tools. Alternatively, other ideas generation and/or discussion tools could be used to collect input and allow some discussion.

The participatory process would need to be coupled with a communications campaign, led by the council, to encourage people to respond. We would suggest reaching out through local community and business groups, as well as using social media, newsletters and other networks at the councils disposal to reach out.

Phase 2: Deliberative panel

The deliberative panel would hear evidence – including the views of the wider community – and make recommendations to the council. It would consist of 20 to 30 residents selected by lottery to be reflective of the local community.

The deliberative panel – in common with other deliberative processes – would go through a three step process of:

  • learning – participants learn from each other and external informants and advocates. In addition, written and visual materials may be shared with participants during the process; 

  • deliberation – participants carefully consider what they have learnt, considering the perspectives of others and begin to consider the hard choices and trade-offs that must be made; and 

  • decision-making – participants develop recommendations and/or make decisions.

It would use a combination of online video-conferencing, discussion forums, co-drafting and voting tools to complete its work.

Further information

See the examples in the previous chapter from the West Midlands and Bristol.

Example 4: What is the future for mobility, transport and active travel in our community?

Purpose

Covid-19 has meant that how people get around an area has changed. There are different needs and expectations from transport.  There is a tension between active travel and growing use of the car as people move away from buses during Covid.  

The process will explore a vision for a town / city and how that might be realised in order to help the local authority implement mobility improvements. 

It will engage with the range of residents and ensure that the voices that are often not heard are included in the dialogue. 

People

Who would be invited?

  

✓ Open invitation

✓ People with lived experience

✓ Specific communities

✓ Representative sample

Through different phases the process will engage with different groups to learn from experiences, hear from representative views and work with stakeholders to work through tensions. 

Process

Phase 1: Gathering experiences 

There would be local promotion of an invitation from the local authority encouraging residents to share their views and experiences of moving around their area, as well as their aspirations for the future. 

These will be logged on an online portal coupled with paper-based options and building on communication channels people have been using in lockdown (e.g mutual aid whatsapp groups, community facebook sites etc) 

  • Questions might focus on experiences, but also on hopes for a new town, fears / concerns that need to be addressed (a collective analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) 

This could also take the form of a “community review” where the community are actively asked for their opinions to take to the deliberative process. 

A diverse stakeholder oversight group will be established, acknowledging that there will be many players in the solutions that need to be engaged from the outset. As the process develops this group may also be the group that monitors progress or commissions separate sub-groups to work through tricky issues. 

Phase 2: Deliberative mini public

A deliberative mini public (see, e.g., the Toronto planning panel) will be recruited to review the issues and trade-offs facing the town/city and develop a vision.  There could be a range of options for this phase: 

  • Citizens’ jury / assembly 

  • A standing / rotating panel of residents

Phase 3: Collaborative working groups

Whilst there will be recommendations from Phase 2 it is likely that it also reveals  issues that require further in-depth participation and dialogue with specific communities or stakeholders. This phase will set up collaborative working groups to resolve particular issues, such as how to meet the needs of local traders for deliveries in pedestrianised areas or plan for last-mile delivery that works for local traders.

Further information

Relevant experience/examples: Toronto Planning Review Panel 

Example 5: How can we support digitally excluded members of the community to continue to go about their day-to-day lives?

Purpose

Services are going digital by default to protect health, but this excludes people. This process would gain understanding of the barriers and how to best include those who are excluded.

People

Who would be invited?

  

⟎  Open invitation

⟎  People with lived experience

✓ Specific communities

✓ Representative sample

Part of the process is about identifying who is impacted - need representative sample, people might not identify themselves as digitally excluded.

Demographically representative sample selected first, snowballing to gain greater knowledge through community networks to target specific communities 

Process

This process would adopt a double diamond approach to innovation: 

Step 1

Tell us about your day-to-day lives, how it has been impacted by lockdown and things reopening? – could do this ahead of time, what did you used to do, what do you do now?

Step 2

What has been the impact on day-to-day activities going online, who have you seen that has been excluded by ‘digital by default’, what can you / others no longer do?

Step 3

What are the barriers and how do we get to the root causes? Why are people excluded? - bring in specific community groups identified in step 2

Step 4

What are the potential solutions to overcoming the barriers, solution routes rather than direct solutions - who is best placed to inform those solutions