Framework of Standards

We present a framework of standards for deliberative decision making.

Each standard is set out across three tiers, representing increasing depth of practice: Core, Desirable and Stretch.

  • Core is the floor: the non-negotiable minimum for a process to legitimately call itself deliberative engagement. If Core isn’t met, the work may still be valuable, but it shouldn’t be described as deliberative engagement as this framework defines it.
  • Desirable builds from there where resources and context allow.
  • Stretch articulates what deeper power-sharing and sustaining deliberative practice looks like in context.

The same standards can also be useful for community-led or self-governed deliberation, though not every criterion applies - several Desirable and Stretch criteria assume resource or infrastructure that community-led processes won’t always have.

Practitioners can use it to articulate design intentions; commissioners to set specifications and create accountability; evaluators to assess what happened against what was planned and for the public to assess integrity in deliberative engagement. We are developing an interactive tool that guides users through the standards, to be developed for engagement, accessibility and design once comments have been integrated on the whole framework.

The 11 standards

1. Genuine Purpose

So participants and the public can trust what the process is for.

2. Accountability

So participants know their contribution will lead to real change.

3. Buy-in

To ensure recommendations are acted on and embedded into decision making.

4. Recruitment

So the process includes the right people to deliberate on the question — whether that means reflecting the diversity of the wider population, or bringing together people with direct experience of the issue.

5. Inclusion & Accessibility

So participation is genuinely accessible to as many people as possible, with attention given to addressing not replicating power imbalances.

6. Balanced Information

So conclusions are informed by evidence and multiple perspectives, not by whoever controls the information.

7. Impartial Facilitation

So all voices are heard, not just the loudest or most powerful.

8. Time for Learning and Deliberation

So participants have space to learn, reflect and change their minds - leading to better collective decisions.

9. Considered Judgement

So the output reflects genuine deliberation and collective conclusions that impact decision making.

10. Transparency

So the process can be trusted and scrutinised by participants and the wider public.

11. Integrity, Impact & Evaluation

So quality can be assessed, learning captured, and trust in deliberative engagement built over time.