Euro petition review evaluation

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


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


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


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


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


Data analysis


Baseline surveyMobile computing to access internet


Total petitions and time to accept


Daily signature counts by cluster


Cumulative signature counts


Signatures on Europetitions


Uptake of EuroPetitions by country


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


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


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



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


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


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


European Citizens Initiative

What does done and learned


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


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


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?


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

http://www.osor.eu/eupl


Thank You

eParticipation through Petitioning in Europe

Euro petition review evaluation

News & Politics

Transcript of Euro petition review evaluation