Citizens’ Jury

Why it belongs in our work

People who live with gaps in health, education and social care should help shape practical responses. Our proposed jury would bring community judgement into the CIC’s priorities and project design.

A question to develop together

One possible starting question is: “What should Social Innovation CIC prioritise to help people get support earlier in our communities?” The final question, geographic area and decisions within scope would be agreed and published before recruitment.

Independent and balanced

We plan to establish independent oversight, declare conflicts of interest and use neutral facilitators. The question and evidence should leave room for different views and meaningful choices.

A wider range of voices

We propose broad community outreach followed by a democratic lottery from interested applicants, balanced against agreed community characteristics. This aims for a broadly representative group, including people less often heard; it cannot guarantee that every perspective is represented.

Time to understand and discuss

Members would hear accessible evidence, question people with lived experience and relevant expertise, consider options and trade-offs, and develop their own recommendations. Different and minority views would be recorded.

A visible response

Before recruitment, we would agree how recommendations can influence CIC decisions, who responds and when. We would publish what is accepted, adapted or declined, explain why and report progress.

Tanja Ceri Hanson

Tanja is the founder of Social Innovation CIC and a social entrepreneur developing practical solutions across education, health, social care and communities. Based in Tameside, she brings lived experience as a mother, previous Health and Social Care study, and hands-on experience developing digital projects, funding applications and pilot proposals.

Her work on NeuroPathway, Safe Space, Small Steps and Shine Online focuses on earlier support, clearer evidence, empowerment and digital inclusion. For the Citizens’ Jury, she brings a commitment to listening to people who experience barriers and turning their insight into practical priorities.

Contribution: Lived-experience insight, accessible project design, evidence organisation and partnership development.

1. Plan and oversee

Agree an open question, the decisions people can influence, resources and reporting arrangements. A diverse stewarding committee would check fairness, evidence and conflicts before recruitment.

2. Recruit fairly

Invite interest through community groups, libraries, local outreach and online channels. Select from the volunteer pool by a democratic lottery balanced against published community characteristics; keep a record of the method and its limitations.

3. Explore the evidence

Send an accessible information brief with dated sources. Hear different perspectives from residents, researchers, frontline workers and decision-makers. Give members time to question witnesses and request missing evidence.

4. Deliberate together

Use impartial facilitation, small groups, breaks and agreed ways of working. Members weigh reasons and trade-offs, listen respectfully and may change their minds. Nobody is expected to speak for an entire community.

5. Agree recommendations

Agree the decision method before voting. Members would check the final wording, supporting evidence and reasons. Record disagreement and minority views alongside the recommendations rather than imply unanimous support.

6. Publish and follow through

Publish a member-approved report and explained CIC response. Seek responses from relevant public bodies without promising their agreement. Track named actions and review whether the process and resulting changes helped.

Define the community first

Before invitations, agree the geographic area, eligibility and relevant population data. Publish selection categories and the lottery method. Consider age, area, backgrounds and relevant viewpoints, while collecting only information needed for fair recruitment.

An interest enquiry is not the selection process. If the pool lacks important voices, extend targeted outreach and disclose remaining gaps. A self-selected group of supporters would not be described as representative of the wider public.

Online, with practical support

Our proposed delivery is online. Plan a technology check, digital support, accessible materials, captions, communication adjustments and regular breaks. Explore phone or supported access for people who cannot use video meetings; confirm actual provision before recruitment.

Confirm payment for time, caring support and equipment or connectivity assistance in the budget. People not selected could choose a separate support role, without influencing private deliberations or voting.

Separate oversight from advocacy

The current project advisory board supports development; it is not evidence that independent stewardship is already established. The proposed stewarding committee would include different viewpoints and review the question, evidence and process.

Following the guide, a stewarding committee member would not also act as a witness. Tanja’s founder role and any other project interests would be declared. If a project adviser presents evidence, that person would have a separate contributor role rather than independent stewardship of that jury.

Options remain open

The jury would be free to recommend changes, alternatives or no further investment in a proposed CIC initiative. Evidence about NeuroPathway, Safe Space or other CIC work would be clearly identified as coming from an interested organisation and considered alongside independent and critical perspectives.

Briefings would distinguish published research, local information, lived experience and untested proposals. Evidence contributors would not vote or join private recommendation drafting. Human reviewers and members would check any assisted summaries against source material.

Data protection

We would document an appropriate UK GDPR Article 6 lawful basis for each processing purpose. Where recruitment involves special-category information, such as ethnicity or health, we also need a separate Article 9 condition and any applicable Data Protection Act 2018 safeguards. Explicit consent is one possible condition, not the only one.

We would collect only necessary data, restrict access, set retention periods and give participants a specific privacy notice. We would assess DPIA requirements before recruitment and complete a DPIA where processing is likely to be high risk. Special-category data does not automatically make every activity subject to a mandatory DPIA.

Recording and publication

We would explain any planned recording, photography, livestreaming or identifiable publication in advance, including purpose, audience and retention. Our proposed approach is separate, optional permission for publicity, with participation possible without appearing in public media.

Private deliberations would not be livestreamed. Public reports would protect identities and private information. Participants would be told what can be withdrawn and the limits once material has been published.

Equality and accessibility

We would assess applicable Equality Act 2010 duties, avoid unlawful discrimination and plan reasonable adjustments for disabled participants. Access arrangements could include step-free venues, BSL interpretation, accessible formats, breaks, assistive technology and communication support, according to need.

Language support, caring costs and offline participation would also be considered to reduce barriers. Not every example is automatically required in every case; support must respond to the people and activity involved.

Payment, expenses and benefits

Payment rates are not yet agreed. We would confirm payments for time and expense reimbursement before recruitment and check the appropriate tax, employment-status and reporting treatment for the actual arrangement. The label “honorarium” or “stipend” does not determine that treatment.

Payments, including vouchers, may affect tax or benefits depending on individual circumstances. We would provide clear written information and signpost independent benefits advice before members accept payment. We cannot promise that payment has no effect on entitlement.

This HMRC guidance concerns research and related participation; applicability to our jury must be checked.