Citizen's Jury:Briefing

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
28 March 2001
CITIZEN'S JURY: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr N Nhleko

Documents handed out
Public Service Commission Presentation on Citizen's Jury System (included in the minutes)

Summary
The Public Service Commission discussed the utility as well as the efficacy of the citizens' jury system as a system of improving service delivery to the communities.

Minutes
Professor. Stan Sangweni (Chairperson of the Public Service Commission) remarked that the system was based on the British and American concept and, might not be immediately transferable to the South African situation. He pointed out that the Public Service Commission (PSC) still needed to apply its mind regarding the application of the concept and that this was an exploratory discussion on how the system would work

Situational Analysis
Dr Richard Levin stated that the PSC was concerned with the involvement of citizens in the improvement of service delivery improvement. Empowering public participation is minimal - there has to be an encouragement of public participation in this process, an element which, according to the PSC, is lacking.

Service delivery improvement has been driven by management within the public service. Other drivers are the markets and politics itself, which drives service delivery decisions

One of the problems was that service delivery had been uneven. Performance within departments varied in that some were performing better than others.
Departments have initiated service delivery improvement.. Therefore they are rising to the challenge.

PSC Related Projects
There are other related projects that the PSC is currently working on. Some of these projects include the
-The Monitoring and Evaluation System which will provide key information around service delivery.
-Customer Satisfaction Surveys giving a particular perspective on the issues with which the PSC is engaged.
- The Public Service Excellence Program which is a project formulated in conjunction with DPSA.
-Good Practice Guides documenting all areas of service delivery.
-The Program Evaluation which consists of a number of key programs including housing and land reform.

Public Engagement Techniques
These are the techniques designed to engage the public in participation in decision making. Some of the techniques that have been developed both locally and internationally include
· Local Experience
-Awareness campaigns
-Focus groups
-Public hearings/Commissions of Inquiry
-Public opinion polls
-Customer surveys
-Feedback panels
-Suggestion boxes
-Radio/TV phone-ins and talk shows
· International Experience
-Citizen's Juries

What is a Citizens Jury?
This is a comprehensive tool that allows decision-makers to hear considered citizen input. It is mainly because the jurors are allowed to sit for three to five days to deliberate on an issue at hand, after which they can make recommendations on particular issues.

The jury empowers citizens by allowing them to engage a variety of expert witnesses on an issue, which affects them. Witnesses may be key witnesses that may be people who are in favour or against a policy that is about to be developed. The recommendations made by the jurors would have to be published.

What the Citizens Juries Aim to Achieve
-Improved service delivery
-Improved citizens participation in decision making on service delivery processes
-It aims to consider values and preferences of citizens influence policy plans, strategies and actual service delivery
-It aims to improve governance and democratic accountability - by this is meant the involvement of citizens in decision making, thus in improving community governance.

Structure of Citizen Juries in the UK and the USA
United Kingdom
-In 1998 the UK Cabinet commissioned a private market research company to manage the whole process of citizens jury.
-The jury consists of 12 to 16 members that are randomly selected. It is emphasised that the jury should be representative. Members are selected from the voter's roll. The members of the group should neither be experts nor be members of any interest group lest there be a danger that decisions or recommendations made thereby may be influenced.
-The Company invites witnesses to provide key information to the jury on key aspects of the issue.
-The jury deliberates on the issue for 3-5 days before suggesting any recommendations, which must be published. If a department or any commissioning body decides not to use the recommendations it has to give public reasons for non-adoption of the recommendations.

United States
-The structure is similar to the one existing in the UK.
-Process is managed by a non-profit organisation known as the "Jefferson". It has a registered trademark to protect the integrity of the process
-The jury consists of 16-18 members randomly selected from the voter's roll. Emphasis is also made on representivity on the issue of age, race, region and gender.
-Expert witnesses also invited to provide information to the jury on key issues
-The Jury deliberates on the issue for 3-5 days before formulating any recommendations.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Citizens' Juries
Strengths
-This is a way to involve citizens in service delivery evaluation and possibly improvement as well
-Citizens engage with experts and make recommendations on the issues that affect them.
Weaknesses
-There is a danger that if the process is handed over to private companies they become adjudicators - it sort of takes away the process from the people and the government. This is not particularly attractive.
-Minimisation of the role of oversight bodies.
- Participation by citizens is minimal - a handful of citizens engage with a handful of experts. There should ideally be a process that involves a greater participation by the citizens.

Elements Influencing the Choice of Public Engagement Technique
The choice of public engagement technique to be applied depends on whether the process seeks to
· Inform e.g. awareness campaigns
· Consult - such as. customer surveys, feedback panel
· Involve - such as. public hearing, polling workshops
· Delegate or empower - such as citizens' juries.

Participatory Forums for Improved Service Delivery in South Africa
Structure

-Participatory Forums should be facilitated by a joint panel of Portfolio Committee Members on Public Service and Administration together with Public Service Commissioners. These would be the facilitators of these forums.
-The Office of the Commission will take up the secretariat role, capturing and processing that information
-Relevant department will be invited to become part of this process
-The public will be invited to discuss specific issues pertaining to service delivery
-Follow up site visits may be undertaken by the Portfolio Committee and the PSC.
Process
-Invite the general public through mass media announcements, public notices, direct mailing etc.
-Invite interests groups
-These processes will be run parallel in different provinces - i.e. parallel sittings will be held in each province
-Issues for discussion will be considered on a sectorial basis
-Recommendations emerging from these forums will be discussed with the Departments and publicised.

Key Considerations
-To buy in from identified stakeholders particulary the executive
-A process must be developed to take the process forward
-Avoid domination of discussion by one interest group
-Ensuring that the voices of the disadvantaged are heard
-To avoid discussions that are only critical and not suggesting any solutions
-To avoid raising any community expectations, that services will be delivered immediately.

Expected Risks
Among some of the risks are
-There may be unintended results such as achieving more criticism rather than solutions
-This could also threaten the building up of partnerships with departments
-Another problem is that forums may not be representative of community structure in terms of race, age, gender, poor versus affluent, regional area, etc
-It could be that PSC wants to get involvement of a broad cross section of the community, but because of the venue decided upon is inaccessible.
-Emerging public views are ignored by decision-makers.
-Community expectations are unrealistically raised
-Portfolio Committee members are not able to devote sufficient time to the process.

Way Forward
-A working group of the Portfolio Committee on Public Service, PSC and DPSA should be formed to take the process forward
-Plan study tour to the UK to learn about good practice
-Develop a clear project plan with outputs, activities and time frames
-Refine methodology
-Pilot forums in a sample of provinces and,
-Implementation of the program.

Discussion
Mr L Ndabandaba (IFP) said that he was worried because most of the citizens in disadvantaged areas were unemployed and would take advantage of this opportunity for the remuneration. He asked what could be done to avoid this.

Dr Richard Levin replied the unemployed would always seek remuneration and this
one of the risk factors behind the programme. He also said that the real object of the exercise would be emphasised and, it would also be stressed that this is not an opportunity for remuneration alone.

Mr M Waters (DP) asked for a further explanation on a perceived danger that private companies might become adjudicators if the process was handed over to them. He also asked for a reason behind the presenter's opinion that the Public Service Commission and the Portfolio Committee should be involved in the process. He requested a citation of one example either from the UK or the USA where the involvement of a private company had not worked out as well as it should have.

Dr Levin replied that the risk of private companies dominating the scheme was a real one. He said the objective of the project was to maximise citizens' participation and involvement in service delivery. The adjudication role should consequently be granted to oversight bodies. If the adjudication function is given to private companies who are simply givrn a job to deliver private services there was a danger that there would not be dedicated involvement which was going to be required to make a difference.

Ms C September (ANC) felt that the project must be based against the historical political context of the country. She asked if PSC considered countries other than the United Kingdom and the United States where similar projects were being undertaken, as there was a need to have a list of developing countries where similar projects are being implemented. She mentioned a similar project had been undertaken in Tanzania.

Mr S De Beer (UDM) commended the Citizens' Jury System as a great idea that could certainly work. He commented that there is a newly developed local government system in the country. All the rural areas have also been included into the local government and, a lot of these would be developing ward committees. He asked if there would be duplication in terms of reporting concerning the delivery of services. He said that he was confused regarding how this was going to work with the proposals suggested by the PSC.

Mr J Ernstzen (Deputy Chair PSC) acknowledged that the UK and American models probably reflected the most advanced approach in the implementation of the projects of the same kind and that projects in developing countries in Africa should be examined.

Mr Waters (DP) asked if the reason for the use of the American and English models.He said that we could not transpose a system from those societies into this country. He supported Ms September's remarks about considering other systems, for example in Tanzania and Rwanda.

Mr B Mthembu (ANC) hailed the PSC's concept as innovative as its central area of focus is service delivery. He commented that both the American and British models are more based on suggesting solutions than looking at what the causes of the problem might be. He recommended that there should be a move away from this approach and that the committee would be advised not to consider these models..

The Chairperson said that his understanding on the UK/USA issue was that there information could be gleaned from the systems of both these countries. At the same time, however, he agreed with Ms September's view that the committee should not confine itself to the English and American models. There should be an exploration of models from other countries especially those from the developing countries in terms of involving its citizenry in engaging with government around service delivery.

Prof. Sangweni acknowledged these remarks and the suggestions that the Chairperson had proposed and did not hesitate to state that the object of PSC's presentation was not to attempt to impose any ideas on the committee in any way. The US/UK models could be modified to meet the needs that are specific to this country.

Mr L Kgwele seconded what Professor Sangweni had proposed and suggested the constitution of a working group to consider this matter further.

Mr Waters asked for some enlightenment on the composition of the working group.

The Chair responded that the group would consist of most party members including the opposition. He hinted that other minority parties might have to be excluded due to their non-participation in the portfolio committee.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: