• Like
Euro petition review evaluation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Euro petition review evaluation


The presentation given to the Commission in March 2011 showing the (successful) outcome of the evaluation process

The presentation given to the Commission in March 2011 showing the (successful) outcome of the evaluation process

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. EuroPetition Project Review Evaluation Report Peter Cruickshank Edinburgh Napier UniversityeParticipation through Petitioning in Europe
  • 2. 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 F 2inal Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
  • 3. Evaluation work Element Source of data Status Baseline data Online survey tool Covered in interim review + report hosted by PI Application installation & training Questionnaires to Covered in interim review + report Pilot Sites Viewership and website behaviour PI Database analysis statistics, including use of Web2.0 tools Online Expectation & Perception Online survey tool Data gathered Questionnaires hosted by PI •Petitioners •Citizens 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 Pilot sites, MAC/PI Review of viability report members Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 4
  • 4. 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.eu 5
  • 5. Evaluation process User Design & Install & Requirements Develop Live running Operate & Service Spec Service Dialogue to build Validate system Data Final data data gathering into meets eval gathering, collection system objectives responding to issues Establish Baseline & Ongoing Evaluation & Final Develop Evaluation Plan monitoring of pilots Evaluation Baseline survey (authority-held data) Interviews ‘exit’ surveys Baseline survey (of citizens) Database analysis Debate statistics Lit review System data Scenario-testing workshops Partner monitoring data Formative Summative Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 6
  • 6. How the petitioning process cansupport engagement Initiation & Input & Submis- Decision, Acceptance Dialogue sion Feedback • Agree wording • Collect • Dialogue with & •Outcome Feedback to/ of petition signatures Petitioner from Petitioner • Refer on/ up- • Manage linked • Preparation of • Dissemination of ward if relevant resources reports outcome Opportunity to sign a petition Signing a petition is one of the smallest possible steps in active e-participation Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 7
  • 7. Theoretical background: Self EfficacyExperience of the process matters Positive and negative reinforcement from previous experiences Self Efficacy Anxiety Outcome expectations (Performance) Affect Usage Outcome expectations (Personal) Adapted from Compeau & Higgins 1999 Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 11
  • 8. Acceptance questionsInitial responsesInstallation &Customisation Training• Generally smooth • Training sessions useful – Close cooperation with – Well adapted in Spain developer – Timing • Needs – Familiarity with ‘petition’ as• Issues a process (eg Spain) – Localisation process • Cultural issue – Documentation – Good customer service – Security, verification of skills signatures – Will be continuing learning process 14
  • 9. Data analysis Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 17
  • 10. Baseline surveyMobile computing to access internet Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 18
  • 11. Total petitions and time to accept Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 19
  • 12. Daily signature counts by cluster Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 20
  • 13. Cumulative signature counts Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 21
  • 14. Signatures on Europetitions Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 22
  • 15. Uptake of EuroPetitions by country Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 23
  • 16. Focus group findingsFinal Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 24
  • 17. 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.eu 25
  • 18. 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.eu 26
  • 19. Role of clusters and Trans EUcampaigns • 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.eu 27
  • 20. Recommendations: EuropeanParliament • 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.eu 28
  • 21. Findings & challenges Service Project Stakeholders • Cross-border • Importance for the • Engagement by nature of citizens of a clean local authorities Europetitions and clear and the need for demonstrated conclusion to the ownership by local • Petitions can project decision maker generally be closed • Publicity and • Impact of limited after 100 days communicating the budgets • Integration with relationship • The need for third party system between local and transparency and is possible Euro-petitions clarity of process • Demonstration of • Gathering research • Privacy and the influence on data from third collection and use decision making party systems of signature data Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 30
  • 22. Conclusion • 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 Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 31
  • 23. 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.eu 32
  • 24. European Citizens Initiative What does done and learnedFinal Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 33
  • 25. 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… Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 34
  • 26. Journey of an ECI signature Spam checks    CAPTCHA etc Signature 100% or sample based records By National Authorities Record Identity signature Validation  Certified, First line verification tamper-proof records Verification Storage Handwritten Confirmation Secure Other Signature email methods Certification Authority National Identity eg Verisign, Database(s) EuroPKI Final Project Review 35
  • 27. National Organiser e-ECI system Competent EuropeanECI Process provider Authorities Commission Think of subject for ECI What is a Give Find online ECI system? certification Obtain certification Log Rejection reason system How is it Record on system Formal & informal approved?processes agree’t By Certificate Ref Submit ECI and Basic Approval of wording name service provider whom? of ECI ECI number, admin access OK Set up ECI Configure online Translations (multilingual) system To Commission Collect paper Collect e-signatures ? Advanced e- signatures signatures Approx 100,000 signatures Confirm wording acceptable Target not reached Target reached (in time)? Collate signatures by Collate e-signatures country etc by country etc Validate signatures according to national practice Verify submission Collate certificates conditions met & submit to Commission YES Destroy records Into legislative / policy within one process monthFinal Project Review 36www.EuroPetition.eu
  • 28. National Organiser e-ECI system Competent EuropeanECI Process provider Authorities Commission Think of subject for ECI Give certification Log Rejection reason Find online ECI Obtain certification system Record on system Certificate Ref Formal & informal Submit ECI and agree’t processes Basic Approval of wording name service of ECI provider Will thenumber, admin access ECI EC allow OK Set up ECI unofficial translations? (multilingual) Configure online Translations system To Collect paper What can be Collect e-signatures Commission ? used from e- Advanced e- signatures signatures Approx 100,000 signatures petitioning Confirm wording systems? Target not reached acceptable Target reached (in time)? Collate signatures by Collate e-signatures country etc by country etc Validate signatures according to national practice Verify submission Collate certificates & submit to How to audit conditions met Commission signatures? YES Destroy records Into legislative / policy within one process monthFinal Project Review 37www.EuroPetition.eu
  • 29. 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.eu 38
  • 30. Thank You Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 39
  • 31. eParticipation through Petitioning in Europe