Program and Process Evaluation

We do all we can to minimize biases in the citizens jury process. That’s why we have jurors and third-party researchers evaluate our events, with an eye toward fairness and neutrality.

Summary of Bias Ratings of Citizens Jury Projects Conducted by the Jefferson Center

The following are the ratings given to projects in response to the question, “One of our aims is to have the staff and volunteers of the Jefferson Center conduct the project in an unbiased way. How satisfied are you with their performance in this regard?” (Slight variations in the question were used in some projects.) A few of our early projects did not use the ratings: the first two projects, done in the 1970s; two conducted in Rochester, Minn., in the early 1990s; and a demonstration project on organ transplants in 1986.

To the best of our knowledge, no other organization in the world has kept as long and careful a record regarding staff neutrality in the citizen participation projects it conducted.

1 Project not run by Jefferson Center
2 One juror did not vote.
3 One juror did not vote because taken ill
4 Two jurors absent at end, due to medical emergency
5 One juror did not vote because of withdrawing from the project.
6 Two jurors did not vote, for reasons not recorded by the college students in charge of the project.

For a few of our recent projects, we have the average participant ranking from a 5 point scale. The question remained the same: “One of our aims is to have the staff and volunteers of the Jefferson Center conduct the project in an unbiased way. How satisfied are you with their performance in this regard?” 5=very satisfied, 4=satisfied, 3=neutral, 2=dissatisfied, 1=very dissatisfied.

At the Twin Cities Election Forum, 92 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statements “I felt comfortable at the event” and “the meeting today was fair and unbiased. No particular view was favored.”