Panos & chris overview of e petitioning in english local authorities

Where are we?An overview of ePetitioning tools in

English local authorities

SALAR Study Visit – 16/03/2011

Panos Panagiotopoulos &

Christopher Moody

SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011 Slide 2

Coming up …

• Motivation

• Study methodology and results

• Further reflections and observations

SALAR Study Visit – 16 /03/2011

Motivation

• EPetitioning the most popular form of online participation in the UK, according to the Oxford

Internet Survey. • Institutional “confusion” and political uncertainty. • No systematic evaluation of the ePetitioning duty

impact for LAs.• The first opportunity to assess a nation-wide

eParticipation policy at such scale.

Slide 3


What we did - methodology

1. Designed a framework of 20 features that describe the implementation of LA ePetitioning websites.

2. Validated the framework with the help of four experts (including Fraser) + pilot run with 33 LAs.

3. Added 6 additional variables representing other common eParticipation activities on LA websites.

4. Applied this framework on the 353 English LAs websites using a web content analysis methodology.

(6 coders were involved)

5. Statistically analysed 348 usable results including background institutional factors such as size,

population, and political orientation (on going).

Slide 4


What we found - overview

• Indication of minimum levels of compliance, promotion and innovation, yet 279 out of 353 ePetitioning websites span all over England now.

• Little actual use of ePetitions – some systems really well hidden under council websites.

• Adopters and non-adopters do not perform systematically better in other eParticipation activities, although the more effort on ePetitions the better they score in other eParticipation activities.

Slide 5


If implemented, how well hidden?

Slide 6


Providers market share

• In-house or no information: 19.1% (53)

• Moderngov: 29.5% (82)

• MySociety: 12.9% (36)

• Public-i: 12.6% (35)

• Web-Lab: 7.6% (21)

• Limehouse: 2.2% (6)

• Other (e.g. Firmstep): 16.2% (45)

Slide 7


Support characteristics

• Forum or space to discuss petitions: 2.5% (7)

• Agree/Disagree feature: 2.5% (7)

• System in use before December 2010: 10.1% (28)

• Links to useful information (e.g. Council material): 10.1% (28)

• Notification services for new petitions (e.g. RSS feed, mailing lists): 33.7% (94)

• Contact details within ePetitions: 40.1% (112)

• Evidence of encouraged feedback: 4.7% (13)

Slide 8


How many petitions?

• No petitions open at all: 69.2% (193)

• 1-5 open petitions: 27.3% (76)

• More than 5 - up to 15 open petitions: 3.7% (10)

• Not a single petition completed yet: 84.2% (235)

• Calculating average numbers of signatures not useful at this stage.

Slide 9


(e)Petitioning process

• Evidence of paper petitions archived online: 19.8% (55)

• Accepting ePetitions from other online sources: 3.2% (9)

• Different threshold for online and paper petitions: 4.3% (12)

• Explicit privacy statement: 30.1% (84)

• Instructions and assistance measured on a 0-3 scale:

Scored 0 or 1: 62.6% (174)

Scored 2 or 3: 37.4% (104)

• Thresholds for ordinary petitions:o No threshold: 64.4% (179)

o 1-50 signatures: 28.8% (80)

o More than 50 up to 500: 6.8% (19)

Slide 10


Other eParticipation activities

• Webcasting council meetings: 16.6% (57)

• Official use of social media: 67.4% (232)

• Online forums or other community engagement websites: 9.3% (32)

• Online participation in council consultations: 42.7% (147)

• Online budget feedback: 16.6% (57)

• Online surveys: 51.6% (178)

Slide 11


Observations and limitations

• Is there actually a quality response process? What do thresholds really imply?

• No information on whether the initiative was promoted or not locally.

• No information over traditional paper process.

• What do citizens actually expect or are willing to support?

• Although framework mostly objective, data collection mistakes might have occurred.

Slide 12


Summary and further discussion

• 279 LA petitioning websites, but have yet to become embedded in local institutions.

• Emerging question: so, what is the impact of ePetitioning?

• What should we do? Also with government and Parliament petitions and ePetitions.

• Enacting eParticipation: bureaucratically controlled or engagement from the grassroots? EPetitioning popular because combines both, but as an advocacy form of participation requires a fair and politically neutral process.

Slide 13

CISR PhD workshop - 15/02/2011 Slide 14

Thank you very much…

[email protected]

[email protected]

We gratefully acknowledge Fraser Henderson for funding this study and further offering his ideas.

Many thanks also to Dr T. Elliman, as well as our coders: Harry Bath-Barranco, Arthur Faulkner, Hubert

Andrzejczyk and George Xydopoulos.

Panos & chris overview of e petitioning in english local authorities

Technology