Between June and October 2025, FIDE - North America developed this Theory of Change after targeted consultations with citizens’ assembly practitioners and at dedicated conference sessions in Washington, D.C. and Brussels, Belgium. In all, FIDE convened dozens of organizations and gathered more than 200 comments from more than 80 colleagues and peers. Click here to read more about the theory of change, our process, and its intended audience.
A Theory of Change is an analytical visual tool and a process: the visual tool moves the reader from a problem statement, addressed by an intervention (in this case a Citizens’ Assembly), which results in short-term outcomes, and that over time and iteration builds to a long-term impact. To account for design choices that may affect the legitimacy and effectiveness of processes, we included risks and mitigation measures to accompany each outcome. As a process, a TOC is an opportunity to discuss and align the field on shared goals, definitions of success and impact. A living document, a TOC is consistently revisited and updated to reflect new data and assumptions.
Between June and October 2025, FIDE - North America developed this Theory of Change after targeted consultations with citizens’ assembly practitioners and at dedicated conference sessions in Washington, D.C. and Brussels, Belgium. In all, FIDE convened dozens of organizations and gathered more than 200 comments from more than 80 colleagues and peers. Click here to read more about the theory of change, our process, and its intended audience.
A Theory of Change is an analytical visual tool and a process: the visual tool moves the reader from a problem statement, addressed by an intervention (in this case a Citizens’ Assembly), which results in short-term outcomes, and that over time and iteration builds to a long-term impact. To account for design choices that may affect the legitimacy and effectiveness of processes, we included risks and mitigation measures to accompany each outcome. As a process, a TOC is an opportunity to discuss and align the field on shared goals, definitions of success and impact. A living document, a TOC is consistently revisited and updated to reflect new data and assumptions.
Scroll to view the Theory of Change
or download a pdf version.
Contact Cole Speidel or north.america@fidemocracy.org
to endorse the theory of change.
Problem Statement
Government is not accountable beyond the ballot box with little meaningful public engagement in between elections.
Government decision-making processes do not reflect the diversity of voices and/or citizens' preferences and instead elevates or excludes certain groups or individuals.
Government does not solve or make progress on contentious public problems.
Citizens’ Assemblies Components
Government championed,
with accountability
Clear mandate
and remit
Representative
through sortition
Adequate time
Learning phase
Facilitated
deliberation
Free response and actionable report to
government
Short-term Outcomes
OVERVIEW
Scroll down to learn about the risks and mitigation measures.
INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT
& VOICE
SOCIETAL OUTCOMES
REPRESENTATION
& INCLUSION
INFORMATION INTEGRITY
SOCIAL COHESION & BELONGING
INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES
LEGITIMACY
& MUTUAL TRUST
POLICY
ALIGNMENT
& IMPACT
RESPONSIVE AND RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC
INFRASTRUCTURE
INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT
& VOICE
Risk
Topic is not recognized as a significant public problem.
Government commissioning process is weak: the mandate (assembly's decision-making role) is vague and/or the remit (question before the assembly) is not clear.
Lack of a clear government champion.
Assembly members feel they cannot affect the agenda or rules of the CA (such as through committees).
Information is biased and unbalanced
Assembly members feel they are being "pushed" to a conclusion.
Assembly members feel they or their opinions are not heard; Minority opinion feels marginalized.
Assembly members are not prepared or actively involved in presenting their final report to government representatives.
Government response is hard to track, there is no clear budget or plan for incorporating recommendations.
Individuals gain skills, knowledge, & confidence to shape policy; they feel their voice is consequential, their input is meaningful and participation matters.
Mitigations
Involve public in the selection of the topic.
Invest in "Civic Concierge" (assembly member liaison) service including assembly member onboarding, orientation and on-going communications in between sessions.
Create moments of reflection and storytelling to build confidence and civic identity.
Ensure connection between Assembly members and electeds and public managers (e.g. meetings).
Incorporate learning for assembly on government and policy reform.
Include (present and former) assembly members in committees for governance, oversight and curation of evidence.
Media training and inclusion of assembly members in press conferences.
Organize working groups for post assembly follow-through.
Set up networks for assembly members for continued engagement.
SOCIETAL OUTCOMES
REPRESENTATION
& INCLUSION
Risk
Assembly composition does not reflect community (either unbalanced selection or assembly member drop-offs).
Demographic representation without meaningful inclusion or voice - “inclusion illusion” or tokenism.
Structural barriers to participation (e.g., language, caregiving, disability).
People don’t see 'someone like me' included in the process.
The remit is only a problem for part of the community (e.g. a 'luxury question').
Some groups remain suspicious and do not participate.
Diversity of voices. Inclusive and representative policymaking, resulting from consensus across a diversity of lived experiences and equitable access to democratic participation.
Mitigations
Provide stipends, childcare, translation/interpretation, accessibility support, and trauma-informed facilitation.
Use sortition with context-specific stratification and intentionally select criteria (demographics, geography, experience, income, e.g.).
Partner with trusted community organizations for recruitment and legitimacy.
Communicate not just who participated but why they were included, and what the Assembly learned from them.
Provide adequate time and space (in a final report) for dissenting views - including a spectrum of opinions in learning phase - and include a minority report.
Use recruitment strategies that meet the needs of each context.
Engage with the broader public during the assembly (e.g. provide opportunities for information sessions and public input).
SOCIETAL OUTCOMES
INFORMATION INTEGRITY
Risk
Information distribution within and about the process is poorly executed, received, or manipulated.
Media distortion or disinformation about the process or its findings.
Evidence and testimonies perceived as biased or overly technical.
Information about the topic is unavailable or has not been applied or translated for specific context.
Assembly members do not have enough time to process information.
Assembly members struggle to navigate conflicting viewpoints.
Public misinterpretation of process goals or outcomes.
Perception of government or implementer bias.
Access to sources of trustworthy and balanced information for the assembly. Transparent and accurate communication about the process.
Mitigations
Engage with media early through briefings and reporting access and provide journalists with materials explaining the assembly process.
Establish transparent, nonpartisan/independent processes including Curation of Evidence Committee that include assembly members in the selection of materials and speakers.
Present evidence in multiple formats.
Plan public communications and build narrative infrastructure (e.g., storytelling, visual branding) to present the assembly transparently (its purpose, composition, task, and expected outcomes) and counter distortion.
Publish public summaries of the deliberative process and assembly members journeys, such as on a dedicated website with livestreams and updates.
Be clear and transparent about budgets (sources of funding and costs).
Develop relationships and communicate through a variety of channels to reach a broad group of stakeholders (political party, civic organizations, business, community e.g.).
SOCIETAL OUTCOMES
SOCIAL COHESION & BELONGING
Risk
Participation is dominated by those with the loudest voices.
Poor management of internal polarization or conflict in the assembly.
Disconnect between the assembly members and the broader public reduces positive spillover effects.
Insufficient focus on team building exercises, shared values and hospitality.
Politicians are not involved, and the assembly is unclear about follow through or buy-in.
Deeper understanding and empathy across differences in society, foster a greater sense of community and common civic identity.
Mitigations
Design for relationship-building: shared meals, storytelling, site visits, nonverbal exchanges.
Create a common vision and/or rulebook for the process, such as through a 'Values Workshop' to identify common principles for working together as an assembly.
Provide strong deliberative and Citizens’ Assembly facilitation training.
Use deliberative facilitation methods that center empathy, listening, and emotional safety.
Integrate storytelling, social media, art, or local culture to extend connections and explain the process beyond the room.
Systematically involve check-ins for government representatives to observe and receive updates on the assembly.
Create paths for assembly members to continue engagement and community building after the assembly.
INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES
LEGITIMACY
& MUTUAL TRUST
Risk
Government fails to respond meaningfully or refuses to respond to the assembly within a reasonable time.
Opaque and unclear government decision-making process.
Assembly perceived as participation-washing (performative or tokenistic engagement).
Assembly members and public perceive the outcome as predetermined, government will tip the scales.
Public and/or government is not persuaded that the assembly is legitimate and/or an effective problem-solving body.
Confidence in the integrity of the process and credible government response increases trust between institutions and citizens, including the general public.
Mitigations
Secure public commitment for the process and policy reform early.
Align the assembly process with policy cycles or legislative procedures (annual budget, e.g.) for robust follow-through; include relevant policy planners.
Align or embed the citizens' assembly with complementary efforts to strengthen inclusion and responsive and accountable government.
Set up transparent and inclusive governance structures with Chair, Advisory/Oversight and other Committees.
Establish clear expectations for accountability (response and feedback to the assembly), and follow-up opportunities for officials to engage constructively with Assembly recommendations.
Set up Policy Impact Working Groups - with citizens - to track government response and policy impact (e.g. social audit, citizen-led monitoring).
Build public awareness and confidence in the process and outcome through storytelling and communications.
INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES
POLICY ALIGNMENT,
& IMPACT
Risk
Poor design and/or time constraints hinder assembly's problem-solving and/or impact: e.g. Poor synthesis of findings, lack of technical input, shallow deliberation.
Proposals are disconnected from the realities of policy-making (they are not actionable or aligned with legal/political feasibility).
Elections or change in government risk process continuity and/or follow-through.
Processes are easily ignored, e.g. a lack of media attention or visibility reduces urgency of government response.
Solve a problem that is relevant to people's lives. Responsive policy proposals that reflect informed public judgment and rough consensus on community priorities.
Mitigations
Choose topics with clear institutional ownership and reform potential (such as by including relevant government presence in setting the agenda and drafting the mandate).
Familiarize government administration with the process and expectations for follow-through (e.g. regular updates).
Allocate sufficient time for learning, deliberation, and drafting of proposals.
Integrate transparent and non-biased information presented in accessible language.
Skilled CA facilitators and Lead/Chair guide clear synthesis processes to reach informed consensus with detail relevant to policy.
Vet proposals with relevant policy implementers for feasibility.
Encourage recommendations that are actionable, well-justified and policy ready.
Co-design policy trackers and citizen monitoring mechanisms (e.g. create a platform for policy follow-up).
Incorporate Independent Evaluation, after action-reviews, impact assessments and learning from the CA process to improve future processes.
INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES
RESPONSIVE
& RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC
INFRASTRUCTURE
Risk
Engagement is a one-off, not genuine, checklist-like, and/or not co-owned.
Lack of follow-on opportunities undermines long-term agency.
Neglect of community-building aspects that strengthen civic muscle.
The process becomes too technocratic or elite-dominated - “technocratic drift.”
Assembly becomes one more process bottleneck, slowing down or hindering productive resolution of the problem.
The assembly's mandate is unclear from the start.
The assembly process is insulated from the community and/or real decision-making power.
Institutional pathways and meaningful reform for co-governance and shift in locus of power away from traditional institutions and interest groups to people.
Mitigations
Build broad buy-in and interest in Assembly recommendations among government stakeholders.
Incorporate strong feedback mechanisms that require government response to recommendation and rationale within reasonable timeframes.
Invest in 'institutionalization' - foster an enabling environment for assemblies and build capacity of government to commission and implement citizens' assemblies, and engage with and respond to citizen-led deliberative processes.
Invest in assembly member onboarding, reflection, and storytelling to build confidence and civic identity.
Pair Citizen Assemblies with civic learning programs or public engagement parallel to or following the assembly (e.g., participatory budgeting, follow-on panels, collaborations with schools).
Create paths for assembly members to stay active after making their recommendations (e.g. alumni network, policy co-implementation roles for assembly members).
Create on-going opportunities for public managers to exchange lessons and experiences on CA and deliberative democracy.
Evaluate and publicize civic impacts to bolster legitimacy and uptake.
Long-term Impact
Repeated and/or institutionalized citizens' assemblies
1. embed co-governance norms, structures and incentives that are inclusive, responsive, and accountable;
2. expand pathways for representation, civic empowerment, collective problem solving; and,
3. strengthen democratic skills, social cohesion and mutual trust between citizens and government.
Problem Statement
Government is not accountable beyond the ballot box with little meaningful public engagement in between elections.
Government decision-making processes do not reflect the diversity of voices and/or citizens' preferences and instead elevates or excludes certain groups or individuals.
Government does not solve or make progress on contentious public problems.
Citizens’ Assemblies Components
Government championed, with accountability
Clear mandate and remit
Representative through sortition
Adequate time
Learning phase
Facilitated deliberation
Free response and actionable report to government
Short-term Outcomes
INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT
& VOICE
SOCIETAL OUTCOMES
REPRESENTATION
& INCLUSION
INFORMATION INTEGRITY
SOCIAL COHESION & BELONGING
INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES
LEGITIMACY
& MUTUAL TRUST
POLICY ALIGNMENT,
IMPACT & COMPETENCE
RESPONSIVE
& RESILIENT DEMOCRATIC
INFRASTRUCTURE
Long-term Impact
Over time, repeated and institutionalized citizens’ assemblies: embed co-governance structures that are inclusive, responsive, and accountable, expand pathways for civic empowerment and collective problem solving, and strengthen democratic skills, social cohesion and mutual trust
Open on a desktop to view all the details.
Contact Cole Speidel or north.america@fidemocracy.org if you want to endorse the theory of change.