Deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) are a tool for promoting more inclusive and responsive public policy by engaging citizens in informed and meaningful dialogue and decision-making. In the context of wicked problems, such as the climate crisis, DMPs could facilitate community acceptance, action readiness, and general satisfaction. This study aims to evaluate the key factors for implementing a successful DMP, using data from a new survey-generated dataset (N = 97) distributed amongst the people who have participated in a mini-public (panellists, participants) and organisers’ inputs as collected in the Participedia database (N = 900): What are the differences between what organisers and panellists find important in deliberative mini-publics? How do different choices of project structure and methods lead to different types of impact?

The study employs pathway and factor analysis to develop an input-process-output model that visualises the crucial pathways and structures of a DMP project. The analysis was done through structural equation modelling, exploratory factor analysis, and by using correlations.

A striking difference between panellists' and organisers' perspectives was found to be their take on stakeholder involvement: where organisers heavily favour stakeholder presence, our panellists did not. Furthermore, the process of deliberation strongly influences the outcome. Conflict transformation is rarely achieved simultaneously with other outcomes. The findings underscore the significance of taking into account not only structural circumstances but also a diverse array of deliberative strategies and factors. Moreover, the research reveals that success in deliberative processes may manifest in various forms. If DMPs are to be used as an advocacy tool, they need a well-defined topic and involve certain interest groups. However, if the goal is for DMPs to be part of the democratic decision-making process or for participants themselves to be the focus, other priorities need to be set, such as deliberation techniques. Overall, the study’s results have important implications for policy-makers and researchers interested in promoting effective citizen engagement in public policy-making.