Panels share many core features, but can come in many shapes and sizes – depending on the complexity of the topic at hand and resources available. They can either supplement current public engagement practices, replace existing bodies, or create new democratic infrastructure. We start from the standard templates below, then custom-design each Panel using the options on the following page.
ONE-TIME NEED
| Lower Complexity | Higher Complexity |
| CLASSIC PANEL | IN-DEPTH PANEL |
| Best for a more expansive, technical, or contentious policy issue (e.g., a new hiring policy or the siting of a new library) | Best for a more expansive, technical, or contentious policy issue (e.g., a downtown plan or Metro-area visioning process) |
| 20–30 Panelists | 30-200+ Panelists |
| 4–6 full days | 5-14 full days |
| 10+ information sources | 15+ information sources |
| 5–10 page report (including criteria & recommendations) | 10–20 page report (including criteria, rationales & recommendations) |
| $30,000 – $100,000 | $70,000 – $250,000+ |
| 1+ feedback loop | 2+ feedback loops |
| Case Study: Milwaukie Jury on Council Pay 20 Panelists • 28 hrs Over a four-day weekend in 2019, residents of this 20,000-person Oregon city advised decision makers on a tough issue: how much to compensate City Councillors. The Council later passed the Panel’s recommendations into law. | Case Study: Eugene Review Panel on Housing 29 Panelists • 35 hrs From Nov. 2020 to April 2021, the Panel advised the City on significant housing code changes. The Panel heard from 20 stakeholders and experts, developed a set of core principles, then subsequently reviewed the City’s draft code proposals. |
ON-GOING NEEDS
| Lower Complexity | Higher Complexity |
| STANDING PANEL | GOVERNANCE PANEL |
| Best for periodic feedback on a narrow set of policy topics (e.g., a public health advisory committee) | Best for serving multiple departments or a core governance function (e.g., civic engagement oversight commission) |
| 20–30 Panelists (overlapping terms) | 20–40 Panelists (overlapping terms) |
| 8–12+ full days/yr | 10–20+ full days/yr |
| 15+ information sources/yr | 20+ information sources/yr |
| Brief, periodic reports | Brief, periodic reports |
| $60,000 – $150,000/yr | $100,000 – $300,000+/yr |
| 2+ feedback loops | 3+ feedback loops |
| Case Study: Toronto Planning Review Panel 28-32 Panelists • 64+ hrs/yr Formed in 2015, this Panel periodically consults on major city planning initiatives such as transportation plans, neighborhood visioning, and new community amenities. Each Panelist serves a 2-year term. | Case Study: Madrid Observatorio 49 Panelists • 64+ hrs/yr In 2019, the Spanish capital created a permanent Panel as an ongoing fixture of public participation. Panelists reviewed popular proposals raised by fellow residents on an online platform, then refined and prioritized proposals to send to a local referendum. |
Process Design Options
ONE-TIME
ON-GOING
- Delivers one clear set of recommendations on one discrete policy topic
- Maximizes new perspectives on any given topic
- Demonstrates benefits of new process methodology
- Delivers periodic decisions on recurring policy topics
- Allows Panelists’ expertise to evolve
- Increases Panelist ownership and institutional memory with rotating, overlapping terms
SHORTER
LONGER
- May boost participation rates among individuals with less available time
- Provides efficient advice on less complex policy topics
- Accommodates more information, deliberation, and feedback cycles
- Permits time for more Panel self-governance and staffing
- Allows Panels to fulfill multiple policy functions
SMALLER
LARGER
- Strengthens Panel’s group rapport and trust, potentially improving deliberative quality in the full Panel
- Increases diversity of thought, lived experience, and identity within all demographic targets
- Expands the quantity of new ideas and potential for productive cross pollination
MORE VISIONING
MORE POLICY REVIEW
- Emphasizes the exploration and definition of values
- Produces broad feedback that may be transferable across policy areas
- Prioritizes the consideration of concrete tradeoffs between policy options
- Allows for greater engagement with technical information
LESS INFORMATION
MORE INFORMATION
- Increases time spent on deliberation and crafting recommendations
- Allows for more emphasis on Panelists’ existing knowledge and opinions
- Expands diversity of views presented to the Panel
- Increases opportunities for different kinds of informational inputs (e.g., surveys, listening sessions, workshops, walking tours, charettes)
- Develops civic capacity for future participation on the topic at hand
EQUALITY-DRIVEN
EQUITY-DRIVEN
- Delivers clear, simple representation
- Upholds traditional democratic norms of fairness
- Recognizes inequalities present outside the process, including differential experiences of Panelists and impacts of the project
FEWER FEEDBACK LOOPS
MORE FEEDBACK LOOPS
- Produces recommendations more efficiently
- Limits potential for outside influence, bias, or cooptation of recommendations Increases autonomy of Panel to pursue entirely its own course of action
- Increases reciprocal trust and buy-in between Panelists and decision makers
- Improves quality and responsiveness of products through iterative collaboration with technical staff, and/or other advisory bodies
