Upload
peter-cruickshank
View
850
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The presentation given to the Commission in March 2011 showing the (successful) outcome of the evaluation process
Citation preview
eParticipation through Petitioning in Europe
Evaluation Report
Peter CruickshankEdinburgh Napier University
EuroPetition Project Review
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
Evaluation requirements
• That the EuroPetition platform does address use of ePetitions in the Legislative decision making processes and eParticipation needs of local government in various contexts at local, regional, national and European level
• That the assumptions in the initial viability plan are reasonable to sustain the service in the various contexts.
• That the service can be delivered in multiple contexts and languages across Europe on an interoperable operational basis.
• That alternative solutions and services are accommodated
• The legislative participation impact of EuroPetition, including its political impact and affect on policy-making processes, its impact on cross-border cooperation between citizens, and its relationship to wider aspects of e-governance
• User Engagement Report, documenting user engagement for identified user groups
2
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu4
Evaluation work
Element Source of data Status
Baseline data Online survey tool hosted by PI
Covered in interim review + report
Application installation & training Questionnaires to Pilot Sites
Covered in interim review + report
Viewership and website behaviour statistics, including use of Web2.0 tools
PI Database analysis
Online Expectation & Perception Questionnaires•Petitioners•Citizens
Online survey tool hosted by PI
Data gathered
Focus groups with citizens and petitioners
Pilot sites Sweden, Spain, (Netherlands), England
Market survey and pricing questionnaire
Pilot sites, MAC Review of viability report
Data from participating officers and members
Pilot sites, MAC/PI Review of viability report
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu5
Other outputs
• Refined model of e-petitioning process
• Papers on self-efficacy and the role of the lurker
• Supported process of publishing to OSOR.eu as EUPL-licensed open source application
• Data standard for e-petitions
• Engaged with dialog on ECI and clarifying process
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu6
Formative Summative
Live running
Install &Operate
Design & DevelopService
UserRequirements& Service Spec
Establish Baseline & Develop Evaluation Plan
Ongoing Evaluation & monitoring of pilots
Dialogue to build data gathering into system
Validate system meets eval objectives
Data gathering, respondin
g to issues
Baseline survey (authority-held data)Baseline survey (of citizens)Lit reviewScenario-testing workshops
Evaluation process
Final Evaluation
Final data collection
‘exit’ surveysDebate statisticsSystem dataPartner monitoring data
InterviewsDatabase analysis
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu7
How the petitioning process can support engagement
Initiation & Acceptance • Agree
wording of petition
• Refer on/ up-ward if relevant
Input & Dialogue
• Collect signatures
• Manage linked resources
Submis-sion
• Dialogue with Petitioner
• Preparation of reports
Opportunity to sign a petition
Signing a petition is one of the smallest possible steps in active e-participation
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu11
Theoretical background: Self EfficacyExperience of the process matters
Self Efficac
y
Outcome expectations(Performanc
e)
Outcome expectations
(Personal)
Affect
Anxiety
Usage
Adapted from Compeau & Higgins 1999
Positive and negative reinforcement from
previous experiences
Acceptance questionsInitial responses
Installation & Customisation• Generally smooth
– Close cooperation with developer
• Issues– Localisation process– Documentation– Security, verification of
signatures
Training• Training sessions
useful– Well adapted in Spain– Timing
• Needs– Familiarity with
‘petition’ as a process (eg Spain)
• Cultural issue– Good customer service
skills– Will be continuing
learning process
14
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu17
Data analysis
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu18
Baseline surveyMobile computing to access internet
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu19
Total petitions and time to accept
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu20
Daily signature counts by cluster
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu21
Cumulative signature counts
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu22
Signatures on Europetitions
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu23
Uptake of EuroPetitions by country
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu24
Focus groupfindings
Theme: Privacy & Identity
• Use of identification infrastructure – Eg provided by banks (risks?) or official national
infrastructures• Worry over retention of signatures
– And who would monitor them?• Need to have more clarity over what is done
with the data and why it is gathered– Does as much info have to be gathered to sign a
petition?• Fake signatures not felt to be an issue
– ECI does need identification process
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu25
Findings: Clarity of process
• Generally clear for both petitioners and signatories– Though some confusion with the details
• Some usability and accessibility issues
• Group affiliations should be transparent
• Expectations of speed need to be managed– Linked to need to communicate updates
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu26
Role of clusters and Trans EU campaigns
• Interest is mostly with local issues, less with EU– Missing central government step is obvious gap
• Need for flexible clustering model
• Need long term promotion of petitioning
• Need to support links between petitioners in different clusters
• Length of Euro-process means more effort on maintaining communication
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu27
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu28
Recommendations: European Parliament
• Online petitions system required by the EP’s rules– Meets the EP’s specification for an online petitioning system
• A mechanism for formally communicating this fact to the Petitions Committee should be found.
• Next step: commitment from the EP as an institution– From the Secretariat as well as MEPs to ensure that
petitioners are supported in • wording the petition correctly• identifying more appropriate targets for their action
– The clear benefit for the Committee will be the reduced number of irrelevant or out of scope petitions they reject
– currently over half
– Need to support local partners in this work
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu30
Findings & challenges
Service
• Cross-border nature of Europetitions demonstrated
• Petitions can generally be closed after 100 days
• Integration with third party system is possible
• Engagement by local authorities and the need for ownership by local decision maker
Project
• Publicity and communicating the relationship between local and Euro-petitions
• Demonstration of influence on decision making
• Gathering research data from third party systems
• Importance for the citizens of a clean and clear conclusion to the project
Stakeholders
• The benefits for clear support by councils
• The need for transparency and clarity of process
• Privacy and the collection and use of signature data
• Impact of limited budgets
• ePetitions do provide the first easy step to proactive eParticipation
• EuroPetition demonstrated a best practice e-Service for local, national & European petitions – Could provide a validated online platform & service for ECI procedures.– Very active local ePetitioning…
• EuroPetition helped connect European citizens with the European Parliament & Commission– Raised awareness of EU Citizens’ ability/right to petition– Improved the quality & relevance of petitions to the
European Parliament through collaboration & moderation– Input to the ECI online implementation procedures.
• Promoted the concept of epetitions & europetitions to widen citizen participation & address democratic deficit across the EU
Conclusion
31Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu32
Future work…
• Technical challenges– Verification – location/cross-border signing & checking– Security / tamper proofing … eg PKI – Data standards / Data sharing / APIs
• Trans-EU, trans-regional networking– New partners– Linking to other existing petitioning systems– Transferable petitions / linking petitions across regions
• Underlying concepts: citizenship & identity
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu33
European Citizens Initiative
What does done and learned
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu34
ECI: What we did
• Direct discussions with the responsible Commission officials
• Groups such as the ECI Board and the ECI campaign
• General education and discussion through blogging and presentation at practitioner groups such as PEP-NET etc– to create a common understanding of the implication
for system requirements of the Regulation as it was drafted.
• Our work included the visualisation of the ECI process (highlighting areas of complexity) and the security implications of the draft Regulation…
Journey of an ECI signature
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
35
National Identity Database(s)
Se
cu
reS
tora
ge
Certified, tamper-proof
records
Signature records
Va
lida
tion
By N
atio
na
l Au
tho
rities
10
0%
or sa
mp
le b
ase
d
Certification Authority
eg Verisign, EuroPKI
Ve
rifi
ca
tio
n
First line verification
Handwritten Signature
Confirmation email
Other methods
Identity
Spam checksCAPTCHA etc
Record signature
ECI Process
36Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
Organiser e-ECI system provider
Think of subject for ECI
Find online ECI system
Submit ECI and name service
provider
Basic Approval of wording of ECI
OKOK
Set up ECI (multilingual) Configure online
system
Collect paper signatures
Obtain certification
Collate signatures by country etc
National Competent Authorities
Give certification
Collate e-signatures by country etc Validate signatures
according to national practice
Target reached (in time)?Target reached (in time)?
Collate certificates & submit to Commission
Verify submission conditions met
YESYES
Into legislative / policy process
Advanced e-signatures
Collect e-signatures
Certificate Ref
Log Rejection reason
Record on system
ECI number, admin access
Translations
Approx 100,000 signaturesApprox 100,000 signatures
Target not reached
Confirm wording acceptable
Formal & informalagree’t processes
Destroy recordswithin one
month
To Commission
?
European Commission
What is a system?How is it
approved? By whom?
ECI Process
37Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
Organiser e-ECI system provider
Think of subject for ECI
Find online ECI system
Submit ECI and name service
provider
Basic Approval of wording of ECI
OKOK
Set up ECI (multilingual) Configure online
system
Collect paper signatures
Obtain certification
Collate signatures by country etc
National Competent Authorities
Give certification
Collate e-signatures by country etc Validate signatures
according to national practice
Target reached (in time)?Target reached (in time)?
Collate certificates & submit to Commission
Verify submission conditions met
YESYES
Into legislative / policy process
Advanced e-signatures
Collect e-signatures
Certificate Ref
Log Rejection reason
Record on system
ECI number, admin access
Translations
Approx 100,000 signaturesApprox 100,000 signatures
Target not reached
Confirm wording acceptable
Formal & informalagree’t processes
Destroy recordswithin one
month
To Commission
?
European Commission
Will the EC allow unofficial translations?
How to audit signatures?
What can be used from e-petitioning systems?
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu38
Feedback on draft Regulation
• Copies of certificates: need for electronic form on – Need to check by secured page hosted by the Commission– Otherwise it would be simple for a fake ECI campaign to merely post a webpage on its site
claiming that it’s an official campaign.• Open source software
– Maintenance of code once issued– Use of the EUPL (www.osor.eu/eupl) and OSOR.eu
• Certification of online systems– Online service providers may be separate from campaigning organisation
• Required technical features– Permissible to use a system that has already been certified?– Compliance with Data Protection Directive and its successors
• “Proof that citizen has only signed once”– Virtually impossible to prove without national identity numbers– A (statistical/sample based) process would give adequate assurance
• Statements of support– Use of structured (XML) form for reuse, rather than thousands of PDFs
• Establishment of standard– Link to work carried out in England last year to define data standards for recording petition– Allow for regular updates and stakeholder involvement in their definition
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu39
Thank You
eParticipation through Petitioning in Europe