eParticipation in Legislation Implementation

24th November 2009

Future eDemocracy Confrerence

RIBA, London

CitizenScape

CitizenScape Interim Review, 30/01/09 www.CitizenScape.org2

CitizenScape Partners - 2 providers, 4 users

Partner   Role Cty

1National Microelectronics

Applications CentreMAC

Project Manager, Coordinator, user requirements, sustainability... IE

2 Public-I Group Ltd PI Technology Platform service Provider/Evaluator. GB

3 Bristol City Council BCC ePetitioner/Viewfinder System & User Org/Field Trials GB

4 Comune di Genova CDG User Org/Field Trials IT

5 Donegal County Council DCC User Org/Field Trials – Remote Rural Area IE

6 RDA Zilina RDAUser Org/Field Trials - New Member State – less

favoured region. SK

The challenge

• How do we connect with the conversations – the participation which are already going on out on the web?

• How do we help councils create content which works in these new social spaces?

• How do we do this is a way which supports the formal decision making process so we can ensure that conversations bring results?

• How do we do this in an affordable and repeatable way?

So what is CitizenScape?

• A measurable and repeatable methodology

• A way of using the tools and techniques of web 2.0 to actively create virtual civic spaces where citizen can and will participate in democracy

• An attempt to move citizens from a passive uninformed state to one where they have taken some active part in democracy

• Some clever technology

The benefits

• Flexibility: Bring the tools you want when you want into the process

• Co-Creation: Bring in citizen content and give them ownership of the site

• Digitally native: CitizenScape is way forward which should balance the needs for Local Authorities to manage a process alongside the pressing need from online citizens to communicate in a way which works for them

• Creates a virtual town hall which will outlast the next online fad

What were we trying to find out?

Technical

• Did the technology work?

– Are we happy with usability and accessibility?– Was the scope correct – was key functionality

missing?

Community Ambassadors

• How practical is it to work with citizens in this way?

– Is it sustainable?– What resources / skills are needed?– Did we avoid the usual suspects problem?

Democratic

• Can the design of an online space and the subsequent management of that design have a measurable positive effect on the formal democratic participation of the participants?

• Are individuals who participate in social websites more likely to participate in online democracy – are they more likely 'eparticipants' than citizens who are currently participating in democracy in other ways?

• Is the co-creation of that space a decisive factor in the design in terms of bring about a positive democratic effect?

Things we have learned

Overall

• The social web is inherently self-managed and so attempting ‘choose’ the topic to engage with is very difficult

• The topic we chose was an ‘expert’ one and as such not easily related to more informal debate

• Might have worked better to develop this through NGO relationships rather than directly

14CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org

Technology

• Technology really was in perpetual beta throughout – we have been working on it throughout the project and really only got the benefits in the final stages

• It is very important for the Admin to be able to control the site and react quickly to new topics

• The users responded well to the approach

• We should have prioritised the travelling widget as it reduces the need to drive people to the site

15CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org

Community Ambassadors

• The community ambassadors are a good idea in principle but we need to find people who already have a social presence online

• Where you trying to work with a specific topics then you need subject based evangelists

• The role requires considerable motivation – we need to ensure that we are incentivising people to participate

16CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org

Democratic impacts

• Excellent info gathered for the Bristol Noise consultation and for a number of projects in Genoa: evidence of additional engagement

• We can show increased engagement at other sites as well through volume of traffic etc

• We have involved a different group of people and we have

17CitizenScape PEC7, London www.CitizenScape.org

Things we have learned

….but didn’t do….

Social web audits

• Carry out an initial and ongoing social web audit which maps the space

• Capture the current activity which is going on in your area around social, political and community issues

• Look at geodata and local place names

• Consider folksonomy and taxonomical descriptions of issues

Engage with members

• Its difficult but essential!

• Increases credibility

• Strengthens the democratic promise of the process

• Builds capacity within the elected body

• You have to address the tension between direct and representative democracy

More work is needed

• We are continuing the evaluation and piloting of this work with the UK based Virtual Town Hall Pilot:

– www.public-i.info– Curiouscatherine.wordpress.com

• We are planning some wider European trials later in 2010

Virtual Town Hall Pilot

• Working with 5 Local Authorities to try and build permanent civic spaces for a 12 month Pilot:– Chorley– Essex County Council– Kirklees– North Lincolnshire– Redbridge

• Involving citizens at every level – including to manage and moderate content

• Looking specifically at how to involve elected representatives in this process

• Our objective is measurable increases in democratic activity

Thank you!!!

Any questions?

Catherine.Howe@public-i.info