In 2025, FIDE – North America convened 18 organizations from the US and Canada – a mix of implementers, advocates and funders – to co-develop a Theory of Change (TOC). We validated the draft theory of change through an open comment period and public presentations at the National Conference on Citizenship in Washington, DC and Democracy R&D in Brussels, Belgium, and received more than 150 comments.
In 2025, FIDE – North America convened 18 organizations from the US and Canada – a mix of implementers, advocates and funders – to co-develop a Theory of Change (TOC). We validated the draft theory of change through an open comment period and public presentations at the National Conference on Citizenship in Washington, DC and Democracy R&D in Brussels, Belgium, and received more than 150 comments.
Problem Statement
Governance structures are election-focused and government decision-making does not reflect the diversity of voices and citizens’ preferences
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 & COMPETENCE
RESPONSIVE DEMOCRATIC
INFRASTRUCTURE
INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES
INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT
& VOICE
Risk
Topic is not a recognizable or significant public problem
Mandate is not clear, government response hard to track
Participants feel they cannot affect the agenda or rules of the CA (such as through committees)
Information is biased and
unbalanced, or participants feel they are being “pushed” to a conclusion
Assembly members feel they
or their opinions are not heard; minority opinion feels
marginalized
Participants are not prepared or actively involved in presenting their final report to government representatives
Individuals gain skills, knowledge, & confidence to shape policy; they feel their input is consequential
and participation
matters
Mitigations
Involve public in the selection of the topic
Invest in Concierge Services including participant onboarding, orientation and on-going commu-nications in between sessions
Create moments of reflection and storytelling to build confidence and civic identity
Include a specific learning session on government and policy reform
Include participants in committees for governance, oversight and cu- ration of evidence
Media training and inclusion of
participants in press conferences
Organize working groups for post assembly follow-through
Set up networks for partici- pants of past assemblies for continued engagement
SOCIETAL OUTCOMES
REPRESENTATION
& INCLUSION
Risk
Assembly composition does not reflect community (either unbalanced initial selection or participant drop-offs)
Demographic representation without meaningful inclusion or voice - “inclusion illusion” or tokenism
Structural barriers to participation (e.g., language, caregiving, disability)
Broader public doesn’t see themselves reflected in the process
Imbalance of identities represented fails to build legitimacy
Diversity of voices. Inclusive and representative policymaking, resulting from consensus across a diversity of lived experiences and equitable access to democratic participation
Mitigations
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
Provide stipends, childcare, translation/interpretation, accessibility support, and trauma-informed facilitation
Communicate not just who participated but why they were included, and what the Assembly learned from them
Provide adequate time for dissenting views - including spectrum of opinions in learning phase - and publish a minority report past assemblies for continued engagement
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
Expert input perceived as biased or overly technical
Participants struggle to navigate conflicting or overwhelming information
Public misinterpretation of process goals or outcomes
Access to sources of trustworthy and balanced information along with learning
Mitigations
Establish transparent, bipartisan/independent processes that include participants in the curation of evidence and selection of experts and speakers
Present evidence in multiple formats
Engage journalists early through briefings and reporting access
Build narrative infrastructure (e.g., storytelling, visual branding) to counter distortion
Publish public summaries of the deliberative process and participant journeys, such as on a dedicated website with livestreams and updates
Be clear and transparent about budgets (sources of funding and costs)
SOCIETAL OUTCOMES
SOCIAL COHESION & BELONGING
Risk
Factors contributing to division and lack of community building:
Participation is dominated by those with the loudest voices
Poor management of internal polarization or conflict
Disconnect between the assembly process and participants and the broader public reduces positive spillover effects
Insufficient focus on team building exercises and hospitality
Deeper understanding and empathy across differences, foster a greater sense of social cohesion and civic identity.
Mitigations
Design for relationship-building, not just debate: shared meals, storytelling, nonverbal exchanges
Include a Values Workshop to foster a common purpose and build trust
Use deliberative facilitation methods that center empathy, listening, and emotional safety
Integrate social media, art, or local culture to extend connections beyond the room
INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES
LEGITIMACY
& MUTUAL TRUST
Risk
Government fails to respond meaningfully or at all
Opaque decision-making
Assembly as participation-washing (performative or tokenistic engagement)
Participants and public assume the outcome is predetermined, government will tip the scales
Confidence in the integrity of the process and credible government response increases trust between citizens and institutions.
Mitigations
Secure public commitment to the process early
Assess policy cycles or legislative procedures for robust follow-through, include relevant policy planners
Set up transparent and inclusive governance structures with Chair and Oversight Committees
Establish clear expectations for response and feedback, and follow-up opportunities for officials to engage constructively with Assembly recommendations
Include participants in committees for governance, oversight and curation of evidence
Set up working groups - with citizens - to track
INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES
POLICY ALIGNMENT,
IMPACT & COMPETENCE
Risk
Poor design and/or time constraints can result in:
Insufficient, shallow deliberation
Lack of technical input and critical information
Poor synthesis of findings
Proposals that are not actionable or aligned with legal/political feasibility
Lack of policy impact
Responsive policy proposals that reflect informed public judgment and rough consensus on community priorities towards improved government competence
Mitigations
Choose topics with clear institutional ownership and reform potential
Allocate sufficient time for learning, deliberation, and drafting of proposals
Integrate transparent and non-biased information presented in accessible language
Skilled CA facilitators and clear synthesis processes to reach informed consensus with detail relevant to policy
Vet proposals with relevant policy implementers for feasibility, and write recommendations to be actionable, well-justified and policy ready
Co-design citizen monitoring mechanisms
INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES
RESPONSIVE DEMOCRATIC
INFRASTRUCTURE
Risk
Engagement is a one-off, not genuine, checklist-like, 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
Institutional pathways and meaningful reform for co-governance and shift in locus of power
Mitigations
Build broad buy-in and interest in Assembly recommendations among government stakeholders
Invest in participant 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)
Create paths for Assembly participants to stay active after making their recommendations (alumni network, policy co-implementation roles for participants, etc.)
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
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
Contact Cole Speidel or north.america@fidemocracy.org if you want to endorse the theory of change.
Citizens’ Assemblies Components
Problem Statement
Government championed,
with accountability
Clear mandate
and remit
Representative
through sortition
Adequate time
Learning phase
Facilitated
deliberation
Free response and actionable report to government
Governance structures are election-focused and government decision-making does not reflect the diversity of voices and citizens’ preferences
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 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.