Overcoming hurdles to participation

Democracy is in a crisis of confidence. Many people feel excluded from political decisions and feel that their interests are not adequately represented – and to some extent they are right. We therefore need to further develop and supplement our democratic processes. The upcoming parliamentary elections are a good time to think about how to reach these people again.

Citizen participation is one approach to reducing the perceived and real distance between citizens and politics. Many studies (e.g. Bürgerrat Ernährung im Wandel or Evaluation Bürgerrat Forum Corona Sachsen) indicate that participation in such events strengthens trust in political institutions and elected officials. In addition, participation processes promote understanding of political decisions, open up new perspectives and create a stronger sense of community by actively involving citizens in shaping their environment. The positive effects of participation are particularly strong for groups that are far removed from participation. This is shown, for example, by the evaluation report by Hallo Bundestag.

Most participation processes are based on a lottery procedure. This means that randomly selected citizens receive an invitation by post to take part in a moderated event. The random procedure for selecting participants can be carried out via the residents’ register, the marketing service provider Postdirekt, or via randomly generated telephone numbers. You can read more about how to involve hard-to-reach target groups and achieve broad participation here.

The majority of those invited do not respond to such invitation letters or cancel without giving reasons. And if they do give reasons for canceling, these are often not systematically recorded. In most cases, not even 10% of people who have received an invitation respond at all. A silent majority of over 90% remain a mystery: Have they forgotten the invitation? Are they unable to attend? Or is there a deeper skepticism towards “politics” behind the radio silence?

A better understanding of the reasons for rejection is valuable in order to make participation processes even more diverse and inclusive. It can show how participation projects can be improved in order to reach more people – especially people who are not among the “usual suspects” who take part in such processes.

More than 800 rejections evaluated

Practice shows that people from certain groups in particular take part in participation processes: Academics, politically interested people or people who are already involved. At the same time, a large part of the population remains difficult to reach. We systematically examined more than 800 refusals in two participation processes to get to the bottom of the question: Why are many people not interested in getting involved in participation processes? The two processes we looked at were the Ariadne research project and the Hallo Bundestag project.

In both projects we used the outreach lottery procedure was used in both projects. This procedure goes beyond the invitation by post: people who have not responded to the invitation letter or a reminder letter are visited at home. In personal conversations at the front door, we try to find out why the letters have not been answered. We can also clarify any concerns, dispel any reservations and clarify any unanswered questions. In both projects, we were able to persuade people to take part after all through direct contact.

In addition to the door-to-door interviews, we also included telephone feedback and e-mail rejections in the study. We collected a total of more than 800 rejections and systematically evaluated the reasons. The result: behind the rejections are often specific needs that we can meet.

Would you like to record reasons for rejection in your participation format? We have created a template for a questionnaire that you can download here (as a PDF).

Why citizens cancel

The reasons for rejection and requirements can be divided into three categories:

1. Needs that can be specifically addressed:
   Around 3 to 7 % of rejections are avoidable. The needs behind these refusals include concerns about feeling comfortable, a lack of education or knowledge to engage in dialog and language barriers or insufficient German language skills. The distance to the event is also frequently cited as a barrier to participation.
2. Needs that can only be partially met:
   There are solutions for around 70% of cancellations, but restrictions often remain. People cancel because they have too little time, lack interest in the topics or have health restrictions.
3. Reasons for canceling that will always remain:
   Around 30% of those invited will probably never attend. This is due to insurmountable reasons such as work, private commitments (e.g. weddings), personal stress or short-term illness after a commitment has already been made. These are therefore factors that cannot be changed even by adjusting the process. Precarious circumstances, other concerns or the inability to attend on Saturdays also play a role.

You can find the detailed evaluation of the reasons for rejection here (PDF for download).

Eight questions for more effective participation processes

We see: Up to 70% of the reasons for rejection can be at least partially overcome by targeted measures. Participation can never reach everyone. But with additional effort and tailored offers, we have the chance to get more people involved in the process. This could be a second letter, a visit at home or the provision of support services such as translations. It is important to plan the necessary expenses for such measures into the project budget from the outset. This allows us to reach more people and enable more inclusive, barrier-free participation. This leads to stronger and broader participation, which strengthens trust in political processes and institutions in the long term.

As a result of our evaluation, we have developed eight questions for more effective and inclusive participation processes. They should be taken into account in the design and implementation of these processes and should also be incorporated into research and policy:

1. How can we better integrate people who work at weekends?
   As many events take place at weekends, one solution could be to officially recognize participation in citizens’ councils as an honorary position. Belgium can serve as a model for other countries: Here, employees can be given time off to take part in participation formats.
2. How can we increase the willingness of people who do care work to participate?
   Parents will find it easier to attend if childcare is available at the venue. Alternatively, private childcare can be supported or financially compensated. The situation is similar if participants have relatives in need of care.
3. What role can pre- and post-surveys or accompanying online or hybrid participation play?
   Participation from home, in front of your own computer? Digital and hybrid formats can enable people to participate who would otherwise be deterred by a long journey or family commitments, for example.
4. How can we increase interest in participation?
   Is it due to the choice of topics or do decisions need to be more binding so that people are interested in participating? Or are the formats simply still too unknown to arouse interest? Which topics and questions are (formulated) particularly close to citizens and their lives and are therefore particularly suitable for citizen participation?
5. What role can deputies and accompanying persons from the family environment play?
   People with mental or physical disabilities often need special help to take part in participation processes. This enables them to contribute their perspectives.
6. What measures help to overcome language barriers or knowledge gaps so that everyone feels safe and welcome?
   This includes, for example, professional interpreters and mobile translation devices. It is also possible to involve support from the participants’ private environment or to conduct targeted focus groups.
7. How can we overcome fears of working with strangers or on political issues?
   Preparatory deliberation training sessions have proven to be a good way of playfully practicing the working methods of the participation format with the participants. Participation also works without words: for example, through painting or other creative techniques.
8. How can we respond to other needs – many of them of a health nature?
   This point will become increasingly important in an ageing society.