THE LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

Problems

The Lewisham citizens' jury was the most expensive at £23,000. The consultants brought in to select the jurors and run the jury cost over 50 per cent of budget. Lewisham were very keen that their pilot would be a determined success and invested accordingly. An additional facilitator was brought in because there was a need to have some real knowledge about drug issues available during the jury, focus groups were used, a full report and videoing of proceedings were commissioned. This obviously increases costs quickly but Lewisham Council felt it was costs worth bearing to do an in-depth, comprehensive and well-planned pilot citizens' jury, so in that sense the cost was not necessarily seen as a problem. Indeed quite the opposite, the cost was seen as value for money in terms of quality of information received. But the point remains that authorities should not underestimate the cost, especially when the use of consultants is widespread.

This cost also increases indirectly when account is taken of the time taken by all pilot authority officers in research, planning, and administration. Again, the officers in Lewisham underestimated the amount of up-front time needed to plan and organise a jury. There was a general feeling that they should have started earlier and held more meetings to co-ordinate developments.

There were minor problems with the time allowed, particularly for deliberation but focus group testing in Lewisham did alert them to that issue prior to actual jury. There were also some questions over the wide breadth of the issue and opportunity for jurors to express dissenting opinion, although dissent was noted in the appendix of the consultants' report to council which contains the voting records of jurors. Related to the breadth of the issue is the problem of translating results into action as many of the recommendations need to be worked out with partner agencies over which the London Borough of Lewisham has no control, e.g., Health policy and drug treatments.

Focus groups proved to be of limited value, in terms of additional evidence to the jury, but they did serve the function of reassuring the authority that they were addressing the right issues and in a way people could absorb, which was important given the nature of the issue.

There was a strong media interest in the Lewisham jury and that was off-putting for some jurors, although it helped others to appreciate the validity of the, process.

Thus the main problems arising out of the London Borough of Lewisham's pilot Citizen Jury were

having experts on the issue to assist the moderating
being able to translate the recommendations into action by working with relevant partners
up front time and support needed for the jury
cost: although this was not a problem for Lewisham Council, original estimates were exceeded

Benefits

The jurors felt strongly that it was an interesting and educative experience (considering the issue), and that the work would be useful for the council. Lewisham had built in a lot of flexibility in their jury schedule and it proved very useful in making the jury more effective by accommodating the recall of witnesses and rescheduling. Small group work, especially breaking into different gender groups, seemed to work well and allowed everyone to participate fully

Jury selection in Lewisham proved quite successful. Drawing from the large pool which was developed meant they could put together a large jury which was very representative of the community.

The issue, while it may have raised some eyebrows at first, also meant that Lewisham had to not only work corporately within the authority but also with other agencies. It had the added benefit of increasing the authority's profile in relation to other agencies.

It is felt by the authority that the Lewisham experience shows that Citizen Juries can work and be useful.

Thus the main benefits arising from Lewisham Citizens' Jury were

- an interesting and educative experience for the jurors

- a flexible and jury driven process

- jury representativeness

- increased community profile and working partnerships for the authority

- positive impact on the council through an innovative and alternative way to engage its citizens in a meaningful way

- positive outcomes in clear set of recommendations