Beneficiaries’ juries: Giving citizens a voice in unemployment policy programs

Robin Bénévent provides insight into beneficiaries’ juries — a citizen deliberation process implemented by the French Ministry of Labour, where citizens experiencing joblessness were given a mandate to review and prioritise projects to be funded that aim to help people find work

Where did the idea for beneficiaries’ juries come from?

In 2018, to adapt to labour market changes and to combat unemployment, the French Ministry of Labour implemented a €15 billion national plan. The plan was to invest in employment policies aiming to finance skill development programs for jobseekers and young people lacking qualifications.

The Ministry of Labour financed projects to integrate people who are long-term unemployed into the labour market. It needed their judgement in deciding which projects would be financed.

Is this when Res publica got involved?

Yes. The ministry decided to experiment by implementing beneficiaries’ juries. These would work similarly to a citizens’ jury (although without a representative sample of society at the heart of it), but composed solely of people who would potentially benefit from proposed projects, i.e. individuals in need of support to enter the labour market.

From 2018 to 2020, the ministry launched five waves of calls for projects. A beneficiaries’ jury reviewed each call. The final selection committee took their feedback into account when deciding which projects to fund. Res publica — a practitioner specialised in public participation — designed, organised, and facilitated the beneficiaries’ juries.

How were the members of the beneficiaries’ juries selected?

The context proved especially complex for recruiting jury members. Potential participants were not only isolated from the labour market, but also often difficult to reach and not keen to join regular participatory processes.

To increase participation, we worked with organisations that provide services for unemployed individuals. These organisations recruited participants through their contact networks by providing details about the participatory processes that addressed some of the barriers to participation, such as the fact that participation would be remunerated.

To ensure inclusivity and to capture the input of underrepresented groups, the recruitment process took into account the criteria of gender, age (with special focus on recruiting young people), education level, French language level, length of unemployment, and job sector.

How did the beneficiaries’ juries work?

Each jury lasted 1–2 days, depending on the number of members and projects at hand. Participants went through an initial stage of getting to know each other, discussing their experiences, and sharing their reasons for participating. This period allowed individuals to see that the other jury members shared similar struggles and increased their confidence for the rest of the exercise.

To evaluate the projects, we divided the participants into small groups to hear four to five project proposals from the project holders themselves. After the presentations, jury members had the opportunity to ask the presenters questions. These sessions ended with a group discussion. At the end of the day, all groups reconvened to share their conclusions and come to a final decision on each project.

Beneficiaries’ juries provided their assessments of proposed projects one month before the final government selection committee convened. During the first few juries, jury members relied on their own experiences and opinions about the projects in order to evaluate them. During the subsequent ones, the juries began applying the same criteria as the selection committee.

Although the input of the beneficiaries’ juries was non-binding, the selection committee quickly realised that the grade given to projects by the beneficiaries was very predictive of the future success of the project. By the end of the project, the final selection committee followed the recommendations of the beneficiary committee in the majority of cases.

How did the members feel about the ministry listening to their opinions?

The jury meetings ended with a debrief session where members would share their overall experience of being part of the process. Numerous jury members noted that they had acquired new skills, such as analysing complex projects, developing a point of view, listening to others, and working in a group. The Ministry of Labour provided “open badges” (attestations) to certify these skills to potential employers.

How would you evaluate the success of beneficiaries’ juries? What was the ministry’s reaction after they experienced working closer to beneficiaries themselves?

The juries provided a chance for citizens generally distanced from political processes to work together on social programs with the government. Especially in the context of social policies designed for marginalised individuals, it proved to be extremely valuable to actively seek the collective judgement of those who do not necessarily feel most comfortable or qualified to weigh in on public matters, even when these directly affect their lives.

The Labour Ministry also deemed this a success. Recognising the value of such input, they organised a fifth beneficiaries’ jury in 2021 for another call for projects, this time related to the inclusion of young people through digital tools. Beneficiaries’ opinions were not only advisory in this case: they accounted for ten percent of the final grade of each project.

The French Labour Ministry’s experience with beneficiaries’ juries demonstrates that involving citizens — and specifically beneficiaries of targeted policies — in decision making is not only desirable and democratic, but also conducive to higher quality social policies. I hope that this successful experience will prompt the use of similar methodologies to other areas of public policy in France.