• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this document? Why not share!

Doing IT Ourselves: citizen produced websites and their relationship to public services

on

  • 1,956 views

My dissertation submitted as part of an MSc in Public Administration from the Institute of Local Government at the University of Birmingham. ...

My dissertation submitted as part of an MSc in Public Administration from the Institute of Local Government at the University of Birmingham.

It explores the citizen-state relationship and questions whether it is changing in response to the emergence of citizen produced websites. As the internet has matured, core characteristics of collaboration, transparency and flexibility have emerged. It is the contention of this dissertation that these changes have implications for the relationship between the public sector and private citizens. It considers the concepts of democracy, the provision of public goods and services and the cultures of the internet. The research is based on four case studies of citizen produced websites namely FixMyStreet.com, BCCDIY.com, OpenlyLocal.com and ArmchairAuditor.co.uk. Complementing these sites is consultation conducted with the residents of Hull that identified their attitudes towards the digital sphere. The dissertation finds that these websites are not being produced everywhere but argues that there is national resonance to what has happened already and concludes that they evidence a change in the relationship between citizen and state. It is the contention of this work that these websites are the embodiment of the coalition's ideal for Big Society that sees active citizens accepting the responsibility for local issues. The success, or otherwise, of this approach will depend on whether the public sector is willing to accept the mantle of leadership and do what is necessary by publishing data by default, engaging with concerned citizens and embracing the innovative approaches of the internet.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,956
Views on SlideShare
1,956
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Doing IT Ourselves: citizen produced websites and their relationship to public services Doing IT Ourselves: citizen produced websites and their relationship to public services Document Transcript

    • Doing I.T. Ourselves: Citizen-produced websites and their relationship to public services Benjamin Welby M.Sc. Public Administration 2010 Institute of Local Government Studies, School of Government and Society University of Birmingham Date of Submission: 1st September 2010 Wordcount: 15,309
    • Abstract This dissertation explores the citizen-state relationship and questions whether it is changing in response to the emergence of citizen produced websites. As the internet has matured, core characteristics of collaboration, transparency and flexibility have emerged. It is the contention of this dissertation that these changes have implications for the relationship between the public sector and private citizens. It considers the concepts of democracy, the provision of public goods and services and the cultures of the internet. The research is based on four case studies of citizen produced websites namely FixMyStreet.com, BCCDIY.com, OpenlyLocal.com and ArmchairAuditor.co.uk. Complementing these sites is consultation conducted with the residents of Hull that identified their attitudes towards the digital sphere. The dissertation finds that these websites are not being produced everywhere but argues that there is national resonance to what has happened already and concludes that they evidence a change in the relationship between citizen and state. It is the contention of this work that these websites are the embodiment of the coalition's ideal for Big Society that sees active citizens accepting the responsibility for local issues. The success, or otherwise, of this approach will depend on whether the public sector is willing to accept the mantle of leadership and do what is necessary by publishing data by default, engaging with concerned citizens and embracing the innovative approaches of the internet. Page | ii
    • Acknowledgements My thanks go to the people behind FixMyStreet.com, BCCDIY.com, OpenlyLocal.com and Armchair Auditor as well as all those who completed the survey into web attitudes. Special thanks also go to Hull City Council for providing me with access to the data and giving me the opportunity to study this MSc in Public Administration. I am grateful to the various people from different public sector organisations that I spent pockets of time with at Priorsfield for sharing their experiences and providing stimulating debate. I would also like to thank the academic staff at the Institute of Local Government Studies and my supervisor Dr John Raine. Over the two years of working with Hull City Council I have been exposed to different parts of the organisation and seen how the competing complexities of national and local government tie together. This dissertation is the product of those experiences within the Schools’ Finance, Streetscene Performance, Web Steering and Private Housing teams. The author would like to thank all those concerned individuals who are going out of their way to challenge the public sector and encourage those of us who are paid out of public funds to achieve greater things at work. Twitter has connected me with a geographically disparate community of public servants and private citizens who aren’t content to maintain the status quo. They are an inspiration and their authorities are lucky to have them either behind the scenes, or challenging from the open. My biggest thanks goes to Christine, my wife, it is not exaggerating to say that without her this dissertation would never have been finished! Page | iii
    • Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. ii Preface/Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. iii Contents ............................................................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... v List of Illustrations ............................................................................................................................................. vi 1. Introduction & Literature Review................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. The nature of democracy .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2. Providing public services ................................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Cultures of the internet ..................................................................................................................... 7 1.4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 9 2. Method & Methodology............................................................................................................................. 10 2.1. Rationale and Approach .................................................................................................................. 10 2.2. Strengths & Weaknesses ................................................................................................................. 14 2.3. Ethical Issues.................................................................................................................................... 15 2.4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 15 3. Findings and Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 16 3.1. FixMyStreet.com.............................................................................................................................. 16 3.2. BCCDIY.com ..................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3. OpenlyLocal.com ............................................................................................................................. 24 3.4. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk .................................................................................................................... 28 3.5. Hull's Web Survey ............................................................................................................................ 32 3.6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 40 4. Conclusion & Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 41 4.1. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 41 4.2. Recommendations, or 'what does this mean for service delivery?' ............................................... 45 4.3. Further Research ............................................................................................................................. 46 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................... 48 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................... 54 Appendix 1: Web Survey ............................................................................................................................ 54 Appendix 2: Telephone Survey .................................................................................................................. 54 Appendix 3: Face to Face Survey ............................................................................................................... 54 Appendix 4: Survey Data ............................................................................................................................ 54 Page | iv
    • List of Tables Figure 1: Definitions of Democracy (adapted from Hendriks 2010, p. 22) ....................................................... 3 Figure 2: Models of democracy (Hendriks, 2010, pp. 2-28) .............................................................................. 4 Figure 3: The rise of governing by netowrk (Goldsmith, 2000, p . 20) ............................................................. 6 Figure 4: Total survey responses ..................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Average Age ...................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 6: Why didn’t you use hullcc.gov.uk? ................................................................................................... 33 Figure 7: What is your preferred means of contacting the council? ............................................................... 34 Figure 8: What kind of internet user are you? ................................................................................................ 34 Figure 9: What was the main purpose of your visit?....................................................................................... 35 Figure 10: What service area were you interested in? ................................................................................... 36 Figure 12: Summary of hullcc.gov.uk being rated from very dissatisfied to very satisfied ............................. 36 Figure 11: How did you find the process of obtaining that information? ....................................................... 36 Figure 13: Which of these areas would you like to see the council develop or improve? .............................. 37 Figure 14: Usage of social media tools ............................................................................................................ 38
    • List of Illustrations Illustration 1: FixMyStreet.com ....................................................................................................................... 16 Illustration 2: BCCDIY.com ............................................................................................................................... 20 Illustration 3: OpenlyLocal.com ....................................................................................................................... 24 Illustration 4 ArmchairAuditor.com................................................................................................................. 28 Page | vi
    • 1. Introduction & Literature Review In recent years there have been numerous websites designed to deliver or augment public services. These sites have occasionally been prompted by dissatisfaction with existing services and sometimes they have come from a desire to improve access to democracy but in the majority of cases they have been developed to support the public sector, not to attack it. These sites question whether online service should be entirely the responsibility of 'the state' and attempts to draw out the lessons for local authorities in how they approach, and embrace, those concerned citizens with the requisite skills to do it themselves. Having worked in a number of areas directly affected by these websites the issue of how local authorities respond to what they cannot control has inspired this work. Over the last 18 months it has become clear that the potential exists for local authorities to save significant money by using the internet effectively. What these sites suggest is that the burden of developing those channels does not need to be met internally. However, whether such expertise is available across the country is questionable. In order to test the hypothesis that 'citizen produced websites are increasingly important to public service provision and are consequently reshaping the relationship between citizen and state' this dissertation considers four case studies and the attitudes of residents in Hull. The dissertation begins with a literature review that considers the theoretical and conceptual context for this debate. It distils discussions about the nature of democracy, considers the nature of public service delivery and then addresses the role of the internet and the cultures it promotes. Following an explanation of the methodological approach and a discussion of the quality, and limitations, of the research the findings are presented. The case studies of FixMyStreet.com, BCCDIY.com, OpenlyLocal.com and ArmchairAuditor.co.uk are complemented by quantitative and qualitative research completed in Hull providing the basis for subsequent analysis. Conclusions on this research, the recommendations for local authorities and the options for further study bring the dissertation to its completion. This is a dissertation that does not seek to consider the impact of the internet and technology on democracy. It does not seek to examine whether the 2010 election was the first internet election as it was claimed in the build up. It does not look to test the emerging model of Big Society and critique its potential for delivering services and protecting the vulnerable. This dissertation considers the current position of Page | 1
    • citizen-led websites in the British landscape by focusing on four particular examples of this trend. It asks what those websites mean for the attitudes of local authorities towards the public as providers, not just customers and it tests the implications of those ideas with primary research completed with residents of Hull. At its heart is the question – what does the fact that ordinary people are making unsolicited websites that deliver services mean for the relationship between citizen and state? This dissertation is concerned with the relationship between the public and their services and the implication of citizen-produced, web-based activity. These ideas flow out of a wider discussion on the nature of democracy, the provision of public goods and services and the culture of the internet. As a result, this literature review provides a theoretical and conceptual background to the case studies examined in this work. 1.1. The nature of democracy Britain is a democratic monarchy. Her Majesty Elizabeth I is our head of state but the nation is governed by members elected as representatives for their constituents using a first past the post system. At a local level a similar system exists for the election of councillors. This means we have limited power and influence over daily decision making; our engagement with democracy is indirect. However, such a system would not meet with approval from some of those who have attempted to define democracy. Figure 1 demonstrates that what democracy actually means is open to debate. Lane & Ersson (2003, p. 3) A political regime where the will of the people ex ante becomes the law of the country (legal order) ex post Beetham (1994, p. 28) A political concept, concerning the collectively binding decisions about the rules and policies of a group, association or society (...) embracing the related principles of popular control and political equality Hadenius (1992, p. 2) A political system in which ‘public policy is to be governed by the freely expressed will of the people whereby all individuals are to be treated as equals’ Popper (1945, p. 69) A type of government in which ‘the social institutions provide means by which the rulers may be dismissed by the ruled’ Dahl (2000, p. 37-38) A constitution in conformity with one elementary principle, ‘that all the members are Page | 2
    • to be treated as if they were equally qualified to participate in the process of making decisions about the policies the association will pursue’ Schumpeter (1943, p. 269) That institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote Goodin (2003, p. 1) A matter of making social outcomes systematically responsive to the settled preferences of all involved parties Finer (1999, p. 1568) A state where political decisions are taken by and with the consent, or the active participation even, of the majority of the People Lincoln (1863) Government of the people, by the people, for the people Churchill (1947) No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise…democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time Figure 1: Definitions of Democracy (adapted from Hendriks 2010, p. 22) In the 2010 general election the outcome was not decisive despite a 4% increase in the turnout to 65.1% (BBC, 2010b). The Liberal Democrats took 23% of the vote but only 57 seats whilst Labour, who polled 29%, had 258 leaving the Conservatives with 307 seats on the strength of 36.1% of the vote (Ibid). The first coalition government since World War Two, between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, entered government on the strength of 59% of votes cast; however, those 17.5 million votes only represent an electoral mandate from 39% of the country1. This result came against the backdrop of campaigns against a ‘broken voting system’ and renewed calls for Proportional Representation (38 Degrees, 2010; Take Back Parliament, 2010; Vote For A Change, 2010). Such questions are not new. In 1774, fifty-eight years before the 1832 Reform Act, Edmund Burke formulated two models of representative democracy: delegate and trustee. The delegate model of democracy is closer to an understanding of direct democracy. In this model those who are elected make decisions on behalf of the public, as their delegate rather than for them as someone with more knowledge. They do not have the autonomy to act out their own ideas, theirs is a power delegated from the public who 1 The total Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote was 17,563,328 of a total vote of 29,691,380. This represented a 65.1% turnout. The total electorate eligible to vote in the 2010 general election was 45,608,879. This percentage is obtained by dividing the total Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote by the total electorate and multiplying by 100. Page | 3
    • are not themselves in a position to govern. In the trustee model the responsibility of governance is placed in the hands of an elected ‘trustee’ and requires them to use their personal judgement to act in the best interests of the community even if that means ignoring the wishes of their electors. After winning the election Burke declared that ‘your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion’ (Burke, 1906). He was not returned when the people of Bristol next visited the ballot box and this indirect, trustee, model remains central to British politics. Kemp (1943) and Lucas (1976) have argued that representative government was the most viable option available with participation in the democratic process being about wider discussion and debate, not the narrow focus on Westminster. Haskell (2001) has developed those ideas and argued that representative democracy safeguards the nuances of the public interest and ensures due process rather than simple majority rule. However, recent academic thought and literature stands in support of direct and deliberative forms of democracy with a number of academics, including Mark Warren (1999a; 1999b; 2002), Iris Young (2000) and Michael Saward (2000) proposing that limiting direct participation dilutes democracy. Figure 2: Models of democracy (Hendriks, 2010, pp. 2-28) Hendriks (2010) proposes a summary of four different forms of government (represented in Figure 1), indicating that Britain is a Pendulum democracy. We have a form of government based on majority rule Page | 4
    • but it is an indirect and representative model where the responsibility for providing public goods and services has been handed to our elected representatives. This conflicts with recent consultation carried out by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG, 2009) which states that 'it is fundamental to local governance that citizens have the right to influence the decisions that affect their lives and their communities'. Our involvement with the democratic process of decision making may be restricted but recent studies have suggested that rather than striving for political influence in the main debating hall people are instead ‘working around the state’ (Laycock, 2004, p. 266). Perhaps this offers an opportunity for the 'large and untapped pool of people who would like more say in what happens in their area' to exert their right without requiring political revolution (DCLG, 2009). 1.2. Providing public services In such a situation where councillors and MPs are not directly delivering services how do they ensure they get what they voted for in Parliament and that we got what we voted for at the ballot box? How does central government relate to the local and how do we, as citizens, relate to them both? In analysing these relationships the principal-agent model offers a tool for understanding the dynamics of trust and accountability. According to Lane (2000, p. 132) the theory applies to ‘human interaction that…*involves+…an agreement between at least two persons according to which one (the agent) is instructed to take action on behalf of another (the principal)’ and places the relationship within government by arguing that ‘government is the principal and the bureau chiefs…the agents’. Although elected members govern through bureau chiefs they do so because of the power delegated to them at the ballot box by the electorate. Consequently local government activity becomes an agent of twin principals: not only centrally elected representatives but Mr and Mrs Griffiths of Starkey Crescent as well. Williams and Giardina (1993, p. 161) suggest that this means ‘the decision-making process can be described as a network of principal-agent relations: electorate/elected public officials, elected public officials/bureaucracy’. This produces ‘an exchange agreement where both governors and the governed exchange part of their power but one in which both parties need the other…*ensuring government carries its function+…on condition that powers are not exceeded and that the agent is accountable’ (Hughes, 1998, p. 230). Page | 5
    • Over time different approaches have been taken to ensure that the agent produces what the principal wants: fair and equitable treatment of all. The idea of Traditional Public Administration (TPA), based on the Weberian principles of the bureau, has given way to New Public Management (NPM). And whilst Olsen (2006), Schofield (2001) and Du Gay (2000) reject the complete dismissal of the ideals underpinning TPA, NPM is seen to completely discredit what has gone before (Hughes 2003). The subsequent impact of Modernising Government (Cabinet Office, 1999) was to cement existing ideas of outsourcing and partnership working that had been a feature of John Major's government and develop them further into ideas of network governance (Bovaird, 2009 (February lectures), Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004). Figure 3 demonstrates a comparison of these models with the rigid, hierarchical model of TPA giving way to greater public-private collaboration and, as capabilities to manage networks increased, to deliver the ideal of 'joined-up government' through more effective partnership working and, ultimately, ideas of co- production (Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003; Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004; Bovaird, 2007). Figure 3: The rise of governing by netowrk (Goldsmith, 2000, p . 20) The debate over network governance and co-production has looked at how formal public sector agencies would work together to solve wicked issues (Agranoff, 2007). However, this has sometimes bypassed the public as a potential network, strengthening the divide between public sector and private citizen. Page | 6
    • 1.3. Cultures of the internet This dissertation presents case studies of situations where the 'principal' has found themselves wanting greater participation in the delivery of goods and services. This has not been in a formal, electoral way but as an extension of an online culture where people pool skills, experience and resources in a completely natural and relational way. 70% of UK households have access to the internet, two thirds of the country are engaged in 'social computing' and 44.2% of the population have active user accounts on Facebook (Office for National Statistics, 2009; Li & Bernoff, 2008; eMarketer, 2010). Where the internet goes next is providing significant food for thought. For some, the internet has been blown out of all proportion; it is simply a tool that lets us do what we did slightly better and has no greater significance. Others argue that the real impact of the internet is yet to be felt and it will take some time before it is second nature for the majority of people (Edgerton, 2008). Keen (2008) and Carr (2008) suggest that it is having a significant but negative influence on the way we discern truth. They contend that expertise has been displaced by a wall of amateur noise. The fourth school celebrates the rise of the amateur and is entirely positive about the internet. In bringing more diversity and choice as consumers or providing new and interesting models of community and collaboration the future of the internet is bright and entirely positive (Anderson, 2007; Shirky, 2008; Benkler, 2006). Finally there are those who think that the open, collaborative web has been a good thing but it is a passing phase. Eventually, Zittrain (2009) argues, we will need the corporations the internet has rejected to step in and retake control. If the open, collaborative web is only a passing phase it is certainly having a significant impact on contemporary life. The internet has changed the way we access and acquire knowledge. News footage travels around the globe in seconds changing the focus of both politics and society. We can pay our bills and make our complaints virtually and in real time across a myriad of different websites. But arguably the most significant impact has been on the blurring of the line between public and private in how we live our lives. Every day millions of people share the banal, and the poignant; the exciting and the mundane; the real and the exaggerated through a host of digital networks and communication channels. However, not everybody is producing or interacting with content but many more are consuming it. Howe (2008) credits Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo with identifying the 1:10:89 principle of online activity which suggests that in every Page | 7
    • hundred people one will create something, ten interact with that new creation and the remaining 89 merely consume it (Howe, 2008). Leadbeater (2009) refers to our world as ‘web-infected’ by combined product of peasant, academic, hippie and geek resulting in what he calls 'we-think'. Such a trend, Lessig (2008) argues, represents a conflict between two cultures. He suggests that the historic, and prevalent ‘read-only’ culture in which people consume what they were given is being overtaken by a ‘read-write’ idea where people are not simply consumers but producers with value in their shared creativity (Ibid, p. 28-29). This is a challenge to the business world, and commercial copyright in particular with the suggestion being that the rise of the amateur alongside technological transformation has enabled faster, cheaper, smarter and easier means of working (Lowe, 2008). Li and Bernoff identify this as the groundswell, ‘a social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations’ (2008, p. 9). When seen in the light of our earlier discussions about democratic participation and the provision of public goods and services these internet cultures of collaboration and openness question the classic understanding of citizenship and the relationship between principal and agent. Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody (2008) discusses in depth the opportunities that exist for people to pick up and run with new ideas and forms of participation. He suggests that ‘the scope of work that can be done by noninstitutional groups is a profound challenge to the status quo’ (Ibid, p.48). In its use of open source software and greater interactivity with the American people the Obama administration has begun to develop this idea of 'Gov2.0' (Lathrop & Ruma, 2010; Obama, 2009). In Britain, the first 100 days of the coalition built on the outgoing government's commitment to publishing open government data in support of transparency and to stimulate innovation (Cameron 2010; Brown 2009). Furthermore, our new government have used crowd sourcing in support of the Big Society vision that the public should be able to contribute money saving ideas and reshape legislation (Her Majesty's Treasury, 2010; Telegraph, 2010a; Telegraph, 2010b; Her Majesty's Government, 2010). Rather than NPM approaches to government, or institutionalised control over what is heard and consumed, the open source, collaborative and crowd sourced cultures of the internet offer something Page | 8
    • different. It is argued that this leads to the co-production of services outside the state's leadership and control requiring a new paradigm in approaching public services; a communicative approach under the moniker 'We-Gov'. (McCormick, 2010; Campbell, Goldsmith & Tumin, 2010; Boland & Coleman, 2008). 1.4. Conclusion This literature review has considered the existing structures of governance and the way in which the delivery and management of public services has altered as a result of changing ideologies before addressing the ‘web-infected’ culture in which we live and noting the potential for this to affect current models of service delivery. The historic idea that political democracy means an arms-length principal-agent relationship rooted in the ideal of public service having responsible for service delivery is coming under scrutiny. Some modern Britons want something more. Where once they may have felt powerless to do anything about the prevailing political norms the twenty-first century citizen is able to use the internet to alter the shape of public service delivery. Following the 1:10:89 principle we must recognise that not everyone will be motivated, or skilled enough, to design and publish their own website but, if somebody else did, it would be readily available to other interested parties. The nature of this discussion is not one of politics but it is heavily informed by them. The electoral pressure over our political structures has resulted in plans to hold a referendum in 2011 (Gay & Woodhouse, 2010). At the same time, the rhetoric of Big Society has given fresh impetus to the idea of co- production whilst the commitment to publishing open data confirms its significance to the coalition government. The distinctions between citizen and state are being reconfigured and irrespective of the referendum, there are increasing opportunities for concerned citizens to make a point and influence or deliver services themselves providing a model of democratic participation that is more than what happens at the ballot box. Through the use of case studies and research from the people of Hull we will explore these developments and attempt to answer the following research questions: How have citizens produced websites that provide public services? What do these sites mean in the context of the debate about democracy? Are citizen produced websites important to the future of public service delivery? Page | 9
    • 2. Method & Methodology 2.1. Rationale and Approach My working environment has brought me into contact with citizen produced websites and exposed me to the internal debate over what they mean for the future of public service delivery. This dissertation draws on personal experiences from my time in Hull. Consequently it is important to identify that I am not an entirely dispassionate observer. As a 'digital native' I have great belief in the potential contained within the internet for more meaningful engagement and significantly reduced costs. Therefore, my role as 'research instrument' is configured by my ontological, epistemological and axiological ideologies (Piantanida & Garman, 2009; Patton, 2002). Without them I would not have been motivated to consider this topic. The goal of research is twofold. On one hand it exists to uncover previously unknown ideas, beliefs and facts whilst on the other its use lies in testing existing hypotheses. In order to explore the research questions identified in the Introduction a multi-method approach to research has been taken: qualitative case studies are used alongside a cross-sectional quantitative survey. In this way data from multiple methods can be used, providing a way of attacking 'a research problem with an arsenal of methods that have non overlapping weakness in addition to their complementary strength' (Brewer & Hunter, 2005, p.4). In order to conduct this research it was important to design a stategy that would 'obtain answers to research questions' (Burnham, Gilland, Lutz, Grant & Layton-Henry, 2004, p. 30). The first stage of designing such a strategy was a literature review that provided a theoretical and conceptual foundation for understanding the issues of participation and democracy, public service delivery and the emergent culture of the internet. Coupled to this was unstructured exposure to the local government digital community. Twitter provided a mechanism for building a network of officers working in communications and engagement as well as those involved in the design and production of the four websites in question. This has allowed insight into long running but sporadic discussions. This was supported by attendance at unconferences such as LocalGovCamp Yorkshire & Humber or LocalGovCamp Lincoln which afforded opportunities for face to Page | 10
    • face and round table discussion2. Throughout the research period the use of social bookmarking and a private blog have enabled these contributions to the debate to be recorded alongside my developing thoughts and ideas on an ad hoc basis (Borg, 2001; Janesick, 1999). 2.1.1. Case Study The four websites that have been chosen represent a period of three years in the history of online civic engagement by those outside government and their selection was informed by the findings of the earlier research phase. Initially the examples of FixMyStreet.com and BCCDIY.com were identified as suitable examples for consideration. However, as the research continued it seemed logical to include the experience and contribution of OpenlyLocal.com and, most recently, ArmchairAuditor.co.uk in order to create a broad-based sample that allows for contrast and comparison between cases. All qualitative research depends on whether the ‘findings are grounded in empirical material’ (Flick, 2009, p. 15). The case studies have been researched empirically using observation of the sites as they have developed. This has provided an understanding of the circumstances around their creation and their interaction with existing state led activity. Having first been alerted to the impact of FixMyStreet.com on service delivery in April 2009 I was aware of the debate and, 'on the spot' as different ideas were formulated and sites were launched providing real-time overview to developments in the field. The websites are different examples of citizen-led activity in areas that in theory were the responsibility of the state to provide. They have been done unbidden, at no cost to the public purse. In examining these case studies it is hoped to shed some light on all the research questions established earlier. In order to do so the following questions were asked of each site to provide a background for analysis: What is the site and what is its purpose? Who set it up and why did they do that? How does the site work in practice? 2 An unconference is a participant led gathering on a theme or purpose. It differs from the classic conference model in that they are run for free, the agenda and schedule is set in the morning by the attendees and use round table discussion rather than lecture style sessions. Page | 11
    • 2.1.2. Survey As part of the process to improve the council's web presence Hull City Council measured the online attitudes and browsing habits of Hull's residents. This allowed me to consider these issues on wider scale than a restricted sample might have achieved. The survey provided access to a large urban environment with a history of deprivation that regularly ranks highly in the wrong league tables. However, it is also home to a technologically advanced telecommunications infrastructure and a highly active digital community which has spawned the successful digital conference Hull Digital Live. Against this backdrop Hullcc.gov.uk was recently awarded only 2 stars (out of a possible 4) in the annual review of council websites, a reduction in its rating in previous years (SOCITM, 2010). This quantitative research adopted a cross-sectional approach by providing a snap shot of the city's attitudes. Although the council had conducted previous consultation it was not effective as a tool of comparison as the research which was carried out was limited in scope and could not constitute a longitudinal study as there was no attempt to track individuals over time. Furthermore, because the council was particularly interested in the attitudes of those who did not access the internet such as the elderly, or those from a poorer social background it meant the survey was conducted over the telephone and face to face as well as through hullcc.gov.uk meaning three variants of the survey were used, a further departure from the previous research. The questionnaire asked a selection of up to 31 questions that were dependent on the answers respondents gave and whether they were accessing it via hullcc.gov.uk, over the telephone or face to face. Paper versions of these surveys are available as Appendices 1 to 3. Although I set the questions the final surveys were designed in light of pilot work with a selection of staff within the Customer Service, Communication & Marketing, Museum Education, Streetscene, ICT and Policy & Strategy service areas. The questionnaire used a combination of closed and open questions as well as Likert scales, multiple choice and single option questions. The raw quantitative data is included at Appendix 4. The free text responses provided useful information to the council but the quantity of information they contained has meant choosing to focus only on the quantitative data.. Page | 12
    • The web survey was added to hullcc.gov.uk and in this way was made available to all visitors of hullcc.gov.uk irrespective of where they lived and, because we could not predict who would visit the website we made the decision to give 50% of visitors in a particular time period the opportunity to complete it by appearing in an in-page pop-up that asked visitors if they wanted to complete the survey. If they said yes it would take them to the survey after completing their visit if no then the survey would never present itself to that visitor again. Kingston Communications handled the telephone survey as part of the council's call centre contract. Callers to the city's 300300 helpline were asked if they would be happy to complete a survey and, if so, they received a phone call later that day to follow their enquiry up. The sampling within this part of the survey was therefore self-selecting. In the first place it was restricted only to those who contacted the council via the telephone and, of those, only members of the public who expressed a desire to be included. To complete the offline survey the council commissioned Force 7 on the basis that they would target make use of the city's Customer Service Centres to ensure that the views of those without access to the internet provided balance to the responses gathered elsewhere. 1000 800 510 600 938 400 200 399 0 Offline Online Face to Face Web Telephone Figure 4: Total survey responses The surveys ran concurrently with Kingston Communications and Force 7 instructed to poll a minimum of 500 respondents to provide an offline sample size of 1,000. The web survey targeted 1,000 responses to provide a total sample of 2,000. After running for 4 weeks there had been a total of 1,847 responses. As can be seen from Figure 4, 938 responded via the website and a combined total of 909 from the offline surveys. Although Force 7 failed to reach their target there was a good balance between those Page | 13
    • who accessed the survey online, and those who accessed it though offline channels allowing Hull City Council to bring the consultation period to a close. 2.2. Strengths & Weaknesses No research can ever lay claim to perfection. And whilst it is good to acknowledge the strengths of the research contained in this dissertation it is important to reflect critically on the processes used and the activity recorded. In terms of the consultation in Hull there are inevitably certain limitations in the data. By choosing to use only the quantitative data and discount the qualitative responses I have purposefully limited the data being considered in this research. The concerns and issues contained within them had operational resonance and the dissertation is not negatively impacted by their exclusion. Neuman, (2006, p. 222) suggests that the researcher can never know ‘whether the cases selected represent the population’ and with the data collection outsourced to Force 7 and Kingston Communications this adds a further variable into both the sampling process and the execution of the survey. However, by targeting those who have visited the website, contacted the council via the telephone or accessed services offline it is hoped that this purposive sampling has targeted knowledgeable individuals by identifying those relevant to the research topic rather than necessarily being representative of the population (Flick, 2009). Arguably the size of the sample was a strength of this research as it offset these limitations in the data and provided a wide ranging picture of use across the city, both genders, all ages and different access channels. The empirical research into the website case studies found its strength in the public way in which those sites were birthed and the access to the discussions which took place via social networks, forums and blogs. Moreover, because these phenomena took place outside of Hull and away from my working environment it was possible to be a detached observer rather than an involved public servant. Nor was I involved as a private citizen as I live outside Hull meaning that my expectations of a council could remain separate from my working environment. This allowed me to appreciate the nuances of the situation from within an organisation and lend balance to my personal perspective. Page | 14
    • However, this meant that I was not party to the discussions behind the scenes in those locations where citizen produced websites had local significance such as Birmingham. Moreover, despite my hoping to have structured discussions it proved impossible to do so with either stakeholders from those authorities or the individuals who had contributed to the design and delivery of their websites. 2.3. Ethical Issues The research contained within this dissertation does not touch on sensitive ethical issues. However, in approaching the consultation Hull City Council were legally obliged to comply with data protection legislation. Consequently, all personal data relating to those who conducted the survey was separated from their responses. Contact details have been securely stored and used only to follow up those who expressed a desire for further involvement in the council's web design project. 2.4. Conclusion This research is not perfect. It would have benefited from greater access to the narrative, ideas and opinions as understood by individuals involved with the citizen produced websites contained within this dissertation whichever side of the public sector/private citizen axis they represent. Nevertheless, it is believed that the overview provided by four separate studies is more important than the personal motivations or the characters involved. As a result this research treats the sites and what they represent as important rather than the developers behind them, save to recognise that they are produced by independent, concerned amateurs rather than public sector employees. Furthermore, those websites which demonstrate the themes and allow the issue to be explored do not stand alone. By using quantitative research produced through consultation with residents of Hull we can test the emerging ideas in one of the largest urban environments in the country. This will provide an opportunity for us to weigh the impact of the case studies and draw conclusions about the value of citizen produced websites, the implications they have for the relationship between citizen and state and identify opportunities for future research and discussion. Page | 15
    • 3. Findings and Analysis As explored in the Methodology this dissertation is based on a case study of four separate websites combined with some quantitative research conducted in Hull. This chapter will present the findings of that research and analyse each part of the research individually. Each website will be considered using three separate questions as well as a concluding analysis. Although the raw data from Hull is included at Appendix 5, this study will consider a selection of relevant questions only. 3.1. FixMyStreet.com Illustration 1: FixMyStreet.com 3.1.1. What is the site and what is its purpose? FixMyStreet.com, launched in early February 2007, helps people to report, view and discuss local problems to their local council by simply locating them on a map irrespective of where they are in the country. Those problems range from potholes in the road to graffiti to broken street lights and once the location has been selected a resident can add details of the problem and an optional photograph. These reports are posted publicly and with the ability for people to leave their own updates. This is linked to a mechanism to provide alerts when problems are reported within a given radius or an entire area. As a result residents can browse all the problems in their area and contribute updates to them and avoid duplicating the same reports. It also means that the responding council is able to post further information to the individual who reported the issue but also to any other interested residents. However, if the council does not respond or the problem is not dealt with then these problems will continue to be marked as 'unfixed' or status unknown. 3.1.2. Who set it up and why did they do that? Page | 16
    • FixMyStreet.com was developed by the charity MySociety.org. Their primary mission is 'to build Internet projects which give people simple, tangible benefits in the civic and community aspects of their lives' (FixMyStreet.com). Examples of their other work include TheyWorkForYou.com a site to track the activity of your local MP and WhatDoTheyKnow.com a public portal for making and publishing Freedom of Information Requests. The site came about through frustration with the existing provision available through council websites. Often the reporting mechanisms were hidden away and difficult to use. Furthermore, in order to report a problem you'd need to know the council which was responsible for that location. Instead, supported by the Young Foundation and funded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs Innovations Fund, this project has produced a single website that can be used by anybody, anywhere in Great Britain so long as they can find the problem on a map. 3.1.3. How does the site work in practice? In the first six months the site received 3,000 reports and as of August 29th 2010 a total of 119,000 reports had been logged. However, only 35% are marked as fixed which suggests that councils are not responding to the issues being raised (BBC, 2009a). However, of the 77,000 with an unknown status, 68,000 are categorised as 'old problems' that may have been resolved a long time ago without anyone providing an update. This is one of the biggest challenges to FixMyStreet.com as the status of a problem relies on either the person who submitted the complaint, or the council, to go back and provide an update. On receipt of a problem an email is sent to the relevant council but this does not necessarily integrate with the systems used by the councils. Whilst the council may respond to the report it does not necessarily mean they will update FixMyStreet.com. King and Brown (2007) provided a critique of how councils responded to FixMyStreet shortly after its launch. They found that local government officers were concerned at the duplication of what was available on their own websites and that they felt it was difficult to manage expectations regarding when a problem might be resolved. Although FixMyStreet.com offers a council the facility to provide an update to residents using the comments function a number of councils have noted that this creates an additional Page | 17
    • administrative burden that could be avoided if a resident used their website in the first place (McGuire, 2010). However, some councils have chosen to explore how they might adopt FixMyStreet.com. In Barnet, for example, they are running a version that uses the council's template. It can be accessed from the homepage or directly at http://barnet.fixmystreet.com and provides a dashboard of recent problems reported, and fixed. During August the council have fixed 56 problems that were reported through the site. Furthermore, because it covers the country and uses open source technology others have developed functionality to plug into FixMyStreet.com. A good example is Stuart Harrison, webmaster at Lichfield District Council, who has built both a mechanism for reporting problems via Twitter (called Fix My Tweet) and a mobile version of the FixMyStreet.com website. Those tools are not just restricted to his local residents but, should they wish, have enabled every council to deploy a mobile problem reporting platform. Other volunteers have produced apps that work with the Iphone and on Android smartphones. Very few, if any, councils offer such mobile access to problem reporting through their own websites. 3.1.4. Analysis FixMyStreet.com represents the first example of citizen produced websites considered in this dissertation. Although it was built using government funds it is now operated independently by MySociety.org. Arguably it provides a better service to the public than the efforts of local authorities despite being produced by a civil society organisation. Whilst 50% of problems logged on the site have an unknown status the example of Barnet suggests that those councils who embrace it can provide a transparent and up to date snapshot of problems that have been reported. FixMyStreet.com was designed for local people to easily report problems. It was also built for local authorities. Not to draw attention to their failings but to simplify the act of reporting problems so that people might avoid duplication, subscribe to local updates and do it online rather than through costlier offline access channels. It demonstrates the economies of scale in providing a single national tools for something common to all councils as well as economies of scope in that any additional functionality can be accessed by all irrespective of where it was initially developed. Page | 18
    • The success in the approach FixMyStreet.com provides is seen in the fact that it has been adopted by some councils to act as their mechanism of choice for reporting all problems. It is not a niche pressure site that can be ignored by councils meaning that those who have developed their own solutions are considering how it might provide true integration across their operating procedures. This site questions the ability of councils to provide appropriate online services and some have responded negatively by continuing to invest in their own solutions. This means that the public sector has continued to invest resources in solutions that do not provide the joined up, transparent and feature rich approach offered by FixMyStreet.com. Page | 19
    • 3.2. BCCDIY.com Illustration 2: BCCDIY.com 3.2.1. What is the site and what is its purpose? BCCDIY.com was launched in September 2009 and describes itself as 'an unofficial website, aimed at providing a useful service to people in Birmingham based on the contents of the Birmingham City Council website, combined with other tools and services' (BCCDIY.com). It uses the content found on the official website but has provided additional functionality such as the addition of local imagery, events and news. The purpose of BCCDIY.com was to provide a site that was 'easier to navigate, better customisable depending on the area you live in and more accessible to users with disabilities' (Birmingham Post, 2009a). The site was built using open source software and its name highlights the adoption of a 'do it yourself' attitude towards the information it contains. This means that instead of containing 'locked down' information it embodies the knowledge of city residents who are able to change things that might be wrong, add additional information or provide useful functionality such as integration with FixMyStreet.com (Ibid). 3.2.2. Who set it up and why did they do that? In the summer of 2007 Birmingham City Council announced that they were going to be replacing their old website. Two years later there was no new website which prompted local resident Josh Hart to find out what was happening using HelpMeInvestigate.com (HelpMeInvestigate.com, 2009; joshuahart.co.uk, 2009). A freedom of information request was submitted to the council and their response on 31 st July 2009 stated that the project had begun in March 2005 with an estimated 7 month duration at a proposed cost of Page | 20
    • £580,000. However, the council's response concluded that the estimated date of delivery was now August 2009 and the estimated cost of the site would now be £2.803m (WhatDoTheyKnow.com, 2009). This prompted the Tax Payers Alliance to ask ‘why the costs involved have been allowed to escalate so massively’ (Birmingham Post, 2009b). On September 7th 2009 the new site was launched to widespread disgust particularly via Twitter (Birmingham Post, 2009a). This prompted Glyn Evans, director of business transformation to defend the site as being designed for a majority of residents, ‘not the Twitterati' (BiminghamPost, 2009a). This only served to agitate Birmingham's 'strong and vocal social/digital media scene' but rather than continue to engage in fruitless criticism of the council Stef Lewandowski decided that the most appropriate response was to see whether the people of Birmingham could follow their words with action and build their own site (steflewandowski.com, 2009). Within 24 hours he had put something together which provided a solid foundation for further development that was 'not perfect, but...simple' (Birmingham Post, 2009c). A week later a hack day was hosted at which sixty or seventy people attended (Eventbrite.com, DIYCouncil.com). Further functionality was added, and novel ways of gathering the information the council wouldn't provide were used (When’s It Bin Day?, 2009). After a couple of weeks there was an accessible site that 'didn't do everything, but what it did do it did quite well' (DIYCouncil.com). Clearly the driving force behind the project was Stef Lewandowski but it would not have been possible without the effort put in by the volunteers who attended the hack day and subsequently contributed to improving and developing the website. 3.2.3. How does the site work in practice? Since the initial burst of enthusiasm the collaborative, 'do it yourself' approach has not produced the additional functionality, or the updated content that was believed to be possible. The last recorded update to the site was on October 16th 2009, four weeks after the site was launched and no money has been pledged to support the running costs of the site (BCCDIY.com; Pledgie.com). Furthermore, the collaborative environment for sharing ideas and making suggestions has seen only 3 updates since February Page | 21
    • 2010, the most recent of which was June 6th 2010 (BCCDIY.pbworks.com). This is despite simple user tasks no longer working when you browse around BCCDIY.com. The new Birmingham City Council website has bedded in and although the city's digital community remain disappointed at the result of spending almost £3m, volunteers who produced BCCDIY.com have not provided a serious challenge to the council website. Indeed, the fact that the community based, collaborative approach was unsustainable supports the investment the council made in the redesign of their new website. Nevertheless the council commissioned a review into the episode. The 64 page review is fairly damning about the tools the council bought and the design of the site as well as making no mention of how the council involved its expert citizens about what they want from their website (Service Birmingham, 2010). BCCDIY resulted from that exclusion. 3.2.4. Analysis In Birmingham the council spent a lot of money and took a long time to deliver a new website. In a couple of weeks the local development community produced something that worked and was, in their opinion, more useable than the official site. However, since its launch little further effort has been made and, whilst it can be held up as an example of citizen activity, it is clear that this example of community led citizen production was unsustainable and did not provide a serious alternative to the council's offering unlike the organisation led citizen production of FixMyStreet.com. One analysis of BCCDIY.com would be to dismiss it as being a twenty first century example of writing an angry letter and to suggest that it was purely done to make a point. The fact that the site was not updated is therefore predictable: once that point was made, there was no reason to continue developing the site. The counter argument to this is found in the words of Stef Lewandowski who saw the production of the site as more positive than writing angry tweets because it was 'about what we as citizens of a city expect from our local government through the web' (steflewandowski.com, 2009). Although BCCDIY.com may be dormant he has shifted his focus to every council site in the country and is attempting to build a Page | 22
    • national community of developers who can experiment and explore different approaches and tools for supporting and improving council websites at DIYcouncil.com. The BCCDIY.com case study stands as a lesson to councils that the public has the ability to use the internet to good effect whether in producing something, connecting with interested individuals or publicising an embarrassing story. Birmingham's new website remains an overly expensive investment but whilst cutting spending is important councils need to engage with their expert citizens and ask them to help design services (Telegraph, 2010c). Perhaps Bristol City Council have taken the experience of Birmingham as their motivation for investigating ways they might work with the local development community rather than in isolation from them (Eventbrite.com). Page | 23
    • 3.3. OpenlyLocal.com Illustration 3: OpenlyLocal.com 3.3.1. What is the site and what is its purpose? Launched in September 2009 with information from 12 councils, OpenlyLocal.com now contains a directory of 159 councils comprising 9,964 councillors who sit on 5,852 committees and 48,334 committee meetings. It provides access to 321 hyperlocal sites, an open data scoreboard containing over 270,956 pieces of data and a breakdown of council spending using 148,983 financial transactions. It has a dual purpose. Firstly, from the perspective of the casual viewer it provides easy to use access to local democracy offering information about local councillors, subscriptions to updates relating to them or their committees as well as keyword alerts for particular areas of local concern. Secondly, it champions the cause of local open government data (countculture.wordpress.com, 2009). OpenlyLocal.com is at the forefront of the open data agenda. It scrapes content from local authority websites before turning that rough information into structured data and combining it with other relevant datasets. The finished article is then made available for reuse in a variety of formats as open and linked data. 3.3.2. Who set it up and why did they do that? Chris Taggart is an open government and transparency activist who set up OpenlyLocal.com in September 2009. Having previously worked on Parliamentary data he was keen to explore the possibilities at a local level where the understanding of democracy is often opaque and access to records limited (countculture.wordpress.com.2009). He found that accessing a comparable level of information was 'fraught with difficulties as there is no single source of data' and OpenlyLocal.com is his attempt at solving that problem (Ibid). However, his motivation is more than simply aggregating information. He believes that championing the cause of local data can generate awareness of local issues, encourage community involvement, bring Page | 24
    • shared knowledge, increase efficiency, promote transparency and renew the relationship between local authorities and the public (Taggart, 2009). Furthermore, he fears that the decline of local media has the potential to increase the disconnect between the public at their elected representatives at a time where the tightening of budgets and the potential cutting of services necessitates openness and the involvement of the community (Ibid). 3.3.3. How does the site work in practice? OpenlyLocal.com initially contained basic information relating to councillors, committees, committee membership, and minutes for those committee meetings. In the 12 months since it launched it has become a local hub of statistics, data and news relating to any given neighbourhood. It has remained committed to its original aims of providing a platform of open governmental data that supports and enhances local community action. The site now contains a directory of all the hyperlocal websites in the country and provides tools to those citizen journalists that enable them to display OpenlyLocal.com data on their websites. However, whilst it contains an impressive amount of information the site is still limited in its content by the way in which local authorities are publishing their information. There are 434 local authorities in the United Kingdom but OpenlyLocal.com has only been able to collate the information relating to 159 whilst the site's data scoreboard is only able to list 23 councils as having provided their data under a truly open license allowing it to be reused as widely as possible. Whilst open government data has increased in importance in the last twelve months the efforts of OpenlyLocal.com has so far only connected with those individuals who understand the ideologies and are aware of the emergent trends. Unfortunately a number of councils continue to see transparent government, freedom of information requests and open data as a burden rather than a very natural part of local governance. 3.3.4. Analysis “the raw data should be made available as soon as possible... As a lower priority, nice user interfaces should be made to it - if interested communities outside government have not already done it” Tim Berners-Lee – Putting Government Data Online (2009) Page | 25
    • Tim Berners-Lee requested that government publish its raw data, and that it do so as quickly as possible. Whilst the national launch of data.gov.uk, a central repository of government datasets, is worthy of celebration the progress at local level has been much slower. OpenlyLocal.com has attempted to further the debate and has at least provided a nice user interface for the data it has obtained. Prior to this site there was no easy way of comparing structured data from one part of the country with another. However, the difficulties he has had in obtaining democratic information (only 37% of councils are represented after 12 months) suggests local authorities are performing poorly in helping members of the public to engage with their elected representatives. OpenlyLocal.com is more than simply a portal for local democracy. By aggregating information from a number of sources contextual information about expenditure, crime, health and demography is added to the details of a councillor. Because the data is completely open it means that the information and tools available to developers, and novices, is easy to access and publish elsewhere. This is particularly beneficial to hyperlocal citizen journalists who can ensure their readers are better informed and have greater awareness of the issues facing their local areas. Chris Taggart is eager to work with local authorities to improve the way in which they are publishing and treating raw data. This accounts for the Open Election Project which encouraged all councils to publish their 2010 local election results in a way that was 'machine-readable' and allow remote indexing and interrogation. The support for local authorities has continued following the coalition government's commitment to publishing spending data with OpenlyLocal.com being a source of best practice as well as a watchdog to ensure councils are not simply paying lip service to their obligations or being exploited by private sector suppliers (OpenlyLocal.com, 2010; countculture.wordpress.com, 2010). OpenlyLocal.com was launched at the same time as BCCDIY was being produced in frustration at Birmingham City Council's failure to involve concerned, expert citizens in ways that could have ensured the service available to the public met expectations. Where that citizen produced site was attempting to reinvent an entire council web presence, Chris Taggart's website is a mechanism for aggregating multiple sources of information to provide a meaningful overview of data relating to a particular locality. Both sites are attempting to repackage existing council information in ways that are more meaningful and accessible Page | 26
    • to local residents. The fact that this activity was taking place independently of one another in separate parts of the country is proof that there is definitely an interested community outside government of concerned citizens willing to invest time and effort into producing useful resources for others. OpenlyLocal.com is the work of a single activist who believes that there should be greater transparency to government and easier access to public data but he is approaching the topic with patience and in a way that provides insights for all those involved with the process whether ordinary resident, hyperlocal activist, private company or local council. Page | 27
    • 3.4. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk Illustration 4 ArmchairAuditor.com 3.4.1. What is the site and what is its purpose? ArmchairAuditor.co.uk takes raw financial data published by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) and provides a user friendly interface for people to investigate what their council has been spending with external suppliers. Currently it covers 115 different services, 1,938 suppliers and 10,439 individual payments. This means that a visitor can access a high-level view of amounts spent by each service area and the totals paid to particular suppliers as well as being able to drill down into the detail of an individual payment. In each occasion there are comment threads allowing for contextual information to be added, questions asked and opinions shared. Built with open source tools using open data published by RBWM, ArmchairAuditor.co.uk has been made available to anyone who wishes to take the source code, add their local data and produce versions for any other councils. 3.4.2. Who set it up and why did they do that? The man responsible for this citizen produced website is Adrian Short. It is not his first citizen produced, government focused activity as previously he was responsible for the Mash The State campaign which encouraged councils to make better use of a technology called RSS to provide remote access to real- time updates and combine it with the use of QR codes (square barcodes) to add virtual context to physical objects (MashTheState.org.uk; mashthestate.wordpress.com). Mash The State represented a challenge to local authorities to improve their own websites and understand the simplicity of existing web technologies but ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is a completely independent service produced at the government's behest. Writing at the height of the expenses scandal Page | 28
    • and year before the election David Cameron wrote about his vision of a new politics central to which was the public scrutiny of data: 'we will extend this principle of transparency to every nook and cranny of politics and public life, because it's one of the quickest and easiest ways to transfer power to the powerless and prevent waste, exploitation and abuse'. (Guardian, 2009) Following the election the coalition government has moved quickly to put this into action stipulating that all councils must publish external spending over £500 and inviting us all to be part of 'an army of armchair auditors' (Pickles, 2010). ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is motivated by a desire to help people look at the data which has been released so that they can make their own minds up about what is going on because 'when people are informed they have more power...[and are]...more involved in democracy [by having] a close idea of what's going on on a daily basis' (adrianshort.co.uk, 2010). 3.4.3. How does the site work in practice? ArmchairAuditor.co.uk has a specific focus on providing an overview of data in RBWM but does not claim to provide an analysis or to draw conclusions about patterns of spending within the authority. It is currently the only example of this raw data being used by private citizens to build such a tool. However, by providing a signpost to raw data across the country, and making the source code for the site available according to open source principles the building blocks are in place for it to be deployed elsewhere. Supporting innovation in the presentation of data and providing opportunities to the private are two of the motivations behind the release of open government data. For the residents of RBWM this has meant they have two tools to help them understand what local spending consists of. The publishing of their raw data has facilitated the creation of ArmchairAuditor.co.uk but they also present the information using a commercial product called Spotlight on Spend. The two sites can be compared and contrasted in terms of the features they provide and the interface they offer but whichever site you prefer the positive reception of ArmchairAuditor.co.uk has brought it to the attention of local, and national media (adrianshort.co.uk, 2010). Page | 29
    • 3.4.4. Analysis Raw data is overwhelming and 10,000 row spreadsheets are generally only of niche interest. Likewise there is significant disillusionment with our existing model of politics and the behaviour of those in power. However, they do not act as a barrier to individual passions about government spending – whether it's too much in the wrong places, or not enough elsewhere. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is motivated by a desire to put useful information into the hands of the public, free from interpretation and without spin. Sometimes that means entirely innocent items of expenditure suddenly become highly embarrassing when reduced to a spreadsheet (as in the case of Woking Borough Council and their £18,254 spend on lingerie which was actually a refund of rates (Get Surrey, 2010)). However, openly commentable, transparent environment allows for that context to be provided, and offers a challenge to local authorities to increase the contextual information on what they spend. Adrian Short suggests that in twelve months more will be known by the public about public spending than those within government did last year. By giving people tools to 'surf through the froth of data, make sense of it and get into informed conversations with their neighbours and the people spending the money you're creating a genuine power shift from the government to the governed' (adrianshort.co.uk, 2010 – Radio 4 interview article). It is hard to argue with the analysis that this represents a significant change in the dynamic between the principal and the agent. RBWM published their data and a member of the public chose to build a collaborative tool to present that data and facilitate local residents in evaluating, auditing and challenging the council on its external expenditure. Although ArmchairAuditor.co.uk complements the commercial product purchased by the council it is questionable whether Spotlight on Spend provides additional functionality that made the investment worthwhile. Because of this it is possible that as more councils publish raw data they will adopt the Armchair Auditor platform as their free, open source, mechanism for contextualising their raw data. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is not a political website, it does not include any democratic information, it does not provide any way of transacting with the council and is not built using tools or information that constitute fundamental parts of a council website, nor is it making a point about existing council websites and the quality of their provision. This is an example of a citizen produced website that has been Page | 30
    • encouraged, and facilitated, by local authorities and in that respect provides a logical progression through these four case studies. FixMyStreet.com is a site built by a non governmental organisation to deliver particular services. BCCDIY.com saw disillusioned Birmingham residents produce something new and competing. At the same time OpenlyLocal.com was scraping together a national resource of democratic data from inaccessible locations and providing both challenge and encouragement to local authority approaches to transparency. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk stands on the shoulders of these three sites. It is facilitated by changing attitudes towards open government data and the recognition that concerned citizens are building tools that stimulate local democratic engagement and foster informed participation in local debates. Page | 31
    • 3.5. Hull's Web Survey This dissertation considers the impact of citizen produced websites on the relationship between the citizen and state. Having considered four case studies this consultation provides an insight into the digital outlook in Hull, a city without any citizen produced websites. 3.5.1. Demographics and internet habits There were 1,847 responses to the survey. 510 over the telephone, 938 through the website and 399 via face to face questionnaires. This provides a balanced sample between online users and their offline counterparts. The average age of respondents was 40 for women and 41 for men. Amongst face to face respondents the average age was lower and telephone users provided the eldest group as can seen in Figure 5 (Web Q.20, Telephone Q.26, Face to Face Q.26). 60 49 50 45 43 38 36 40 32 30 Female Male 20 10 0 300300 Web Face to Face Figure 5: Average Age In general, the same questions were asked of all participants but the survey was designed to gather context specific data too. Consequently, for those accessing the survey offline amongst offline participants the question was asked why they had not used the internet. Figure 6 shows that almost 1 in 2 respondents stated it was because they did not use the internet, a quarter favoured human interaction while a third group felt the internet would be unsuitable for meeting their needs (Telephone Q.5, Face to Face Q.6). Page | 32
    • Telephone Face to Face Total Don't use the internet 39% 45% 42% Prefer human interaction 27% 20% 24% Didn't think I could access it online 15% 10% 13% 8 minor reasons 19% 25% 21% Figure 6: Why didn’t you use hullcc.gov.uk? Those who did not use the internet accounted for 378 of the 1,847 people polled. Although 22% of them had no interest in ever changing that and only 23 were interested in training it does suggest that a sizeable majority of the 'digitally excluded' would go online given the right circumstances (Telephone Q.6, Face to Face Q.9). Those who used the internet were asked to identify all the ways got online. 85% of respondents used broadband and usually connected in their homes but the survey supported suggestions that being connected on the move is increasingly important with 26% of respondents using mobile broadband, a mobile dongle or public wifi. Furthermore, amongst face to face respondents 28% of internet users did so through their mobile phones (Web Q.1 and Q.2, Telephone Q.11, Face to Face Q.11 and 12). Figure 7 shows the result of a question identifying the preferences of respondents when contacting the council. Despite the level of internet access, digital forms of communication such as using the internet or sending an email accounted for less than a quarter of responses. Unsurprisingly the vast majority of those completing the survey through the call centre identified the telephone as their preferred method alongside 42% of those polled face to face making this the most popular method. Unexpectedly only 7% of responses indicated that they preferred personal, face to face interaction when contacting the council (Web Q.12, Telephone, Q.4, Face to Face, Q.4). Page | 33
    • Telephone Web Face to Face Total Telephone 93% 15% 42% 43% Depends 0% 42% 9% 23% Email 1% 22% 8% 13% Internet 2% 13% 18% 11% In person 3% 4% 18% 7% By post 1% 2% 4% 2% Other 0% 1% 2% 1% Figure 7: What is your preferred means of contacting the council? In order to establish the level of skill possessed by those taking the survey we asked individuals to identify their level of comfort with using the internet on a scale from tentative and reluctant user through casual and regular usage to the category of 'I-couldn't-live-without-it'. Figure 8 demonstrates the outcome of this question with three quarters of respondents identifying themselves as either being unable to live without the internet (29%) or regular users (48%). Whilst only 4% of people described themselves as tentative or reluctant users the survey had already filtered those respondents who were not internet users. That figure accounts for some 20% of the original 1,847 respondents and, had the question been asked prior to their removal, it may well have increased the significance of this category (Web Q.4, Telephone Q.10, Face to Face, Q.13). 100% 75% 48% 50% 29% 25% 19% 4% 0% Regular user I couldn't live Casual user Tentative and without it reluctant user Figure 8: What kind of internet user are you? Page | 34
    • 3.5.2. Council interaction To establish the main reasons people contact the council we asked participants to select the purpose of their last interaction with Hull City Council. 44% of people had contacted the council looking for information, including 61% of web users. As Figure 9 shows, the focus was on reporting or requesting something over the phone whilst face to face respondents were most likely to pay for something or log some feedback. These figures indicate that whilst Hull residents go online to find information they prefer to use other channels to transact with the council (Web Q.7, Telephone Q.1, Face to Face Q.1). 100% 75% 61% 50% 300300 Web 30% 27% 28%28% 26% 24% Face to Face 25% 14% 15% 11% 11% 8% 5% 6% 2% 2% 2% 0% Figure 9: What was the main purpose of your visit? As a follow up we offered a selection of 23 different areas of the council and asked them to choose which one they wanted to contact. Figure 10 shows the top 5 which between them account for 58% of enquiries. Whilst housing, rubbish and council tax related concerns were the dominant issues on the telephone those visiting the website were considerably more likely to be looking for information about leisure facilities whilst a similar amount of face to face and web visitors wanted to know about housing and jobs (Web Q.8, Telephone Q.2, Face to Face Q.2). Page | 35
    • Telephone Web Face to Face Total Housing 25% 12% 13% 16% Rubbish 32% 4% 9% 13% Jobs 4% 12% 12% 10% Leisure Facilities 0% 17% 3% 10% Council Tax 19% 4% 8% 9% Figure 10: What service area were you interested in? 3.5.3. Website Satisfaction In order to assess the 100% experience of using the website we asked participants whether they had 75% achieved success in visiting the website. 50% Those visitors who said they had were 300300 web asked to rate their experiencing using a FacetoFace 25% Likert scale from 'very difficult' to 'very easy'. As Figure 11 shows, an 0% Very Difficult Neither Easy Very easy difficult overwhelming majority of people found Figure 11: How did you find the process of obtaining that it easy or very easy. Those who couldn't information? achieve what they had wanted were asked about what they did instead. The findings suggested that 1 in 20 of all visitors to hullcc.gov.uk leaves the site disappointed and takes no further action, 1 in 20 of all visitors contact the council call centre whilst 1 in 50 of those who can't achieve anything will write a letter to the council (Web Q.9, Telephone Q.14-16, Face to Face Q.16-18). With visitors to the website this question was developed using another Likert scale to rate 11 specific areas of the website. The breakdown is provided at Figure 12 but in total, 59% of all responses were satisfied or very satisfied whilst 17% were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied 7% 10% 24% 41% 18% Figure 12: Summary of hullcc.gov.uk being rated from very dissatisfied to very satisfied Page | 36
    • However, the nuances behind those percentages suggest 'satisfied' is not synonymous with 'without room for improvement'. Whilst 64% of people were satisfied, or very satisfied, with the 'look and feel' of the site, 23% of people were at the other end of the spectrum in their rating of the site's navigation. Furthermore, although 63% responded positively in terms of 'finding what I want', 22% had a negative opinion of the site's search functionality (Web Q.13). The survey also asked for participants to identify areas of the site to improve. Of 1,508 responses, 32% said that the site was fine as it was. Figure 13 provides a breakdown of all responses and the proportions attributed by each access channel to the different areas. Of those who completed the survey online seven areas were criticised by more than 1 in 4 respondents (Web Q.14, Telephone Q.13, Face to Face Q.21). Other 6% 9% 8% Do not visit 6% 28% Contribute your own content to the site 7% 11% Use of social media 8% 10% 8% Blogs 8% 11% 6% Greater use of audio or video 9% 11% 10% Customer accounts 15% 23% Geographical information 16% 24% 8% Subscription to relevant information 18% 27% 5% More transactional services 19% 28% 6% Content 21% 29% 16% Look and feel 22% 30% 16% Structure 23% 30% 24% Search 27% 37% 19% It's fine as it is 32% 42% 28% 35% Total Telephone Web Face to Face Figure 13: Which of these areas would you like to see the council develop or improve? Page | 37
    • Moreover, there was only limited enthusiasm for the council to explore the use of 'web 2.0' tools and services such as greater use of audio or video, councillor and officer blogs or the ability for visitors to contribute their own content to the site (whether as a comment or an image). In terms of social media usage a breakdown of the popularity of different sites can be seen in Figure 14 Facebook was the most widely used site with 55% of web users having an account but less than 1 in 4 of them wanted to council to have a presence in that environment. In general the interest in these services was low with only 3 of 16 different 'web 2.0' services or functionality used by more than 1 in 5 of those consulted (Web Q. 16). A note of caution is provided about the fluidity in the use of online tools by the decision of the local newspaper to close the fourth most popular service, ThisIsYourMail, shortly after this research was completed. Users of a service Proportion of those using a service who wanted the council to do so too Facebook 55% 23% Youtube 36% 24% Discussion Forums 22% 60% ThisIsYourMail 18% 39% Blogs 15% 51% Twitter 15% 36% MySpace 14% 33% Wiki 13% 39% Subscriptions 11% 67% Flickr 10% 41% Comments 8% 66% Linked-In 7% 46% Aggregation 7% 55% Bebo 7% 54% Friendfeed 4% 71% Yammer 4% 65% Figure 14: Usage of social media tools Page | 38
    • 3.5.4. Analysis The survey demonstrates that there is significant awareness and usage of the internet. 55% of all respondents have Facebook accounts, 85% of those accessing the internet do so from their homes, 81% of those completing the survey use the internet with only 4% of those suggesting that usage is reluctant and tentative. Furthermore, 55% of all respondents have Facebook accounts and 36% of them use Youtube. This does not mean that the entire population of the city is actively using the internet. The survey demonstrated that 20% of respondents do not use the internet and of those, 22% had no interest in getting online. In addition, only 23 were interested in receiving training. Even amongst those who used the internet regularly it appears that there are not high expectations of the council website. Despite a 2 star review from SOCITM (2010) a majority of visitors declared themselves to be satisfied, or very satisfied, with the council's web presence. Furthermore, when asked how the site could be improved, 32% said it was fine as it was. Users were clearly more interested in the site working well rather than adding ‘bells and whistles’ Nevertheless, the reaction of 25% of responses demonstrates that a desire for the council to achieve its digital potential exists in the city. Whilst some residents believed that the use of emergent web tools would detract from the delivery of services they represent an opportunity to add the functionality which 1 in 4 people felt was missing. For some of those participants they wanted to be able to contribute their own content and have access to a more relational and responsive means of communicating with the council suggesting that there is an appetite for greater transparency and openness from Hull City council. In other parts of the country local digital experts have taken it upon themselves to add those tools when the council has failed to deliver it but in Hull this has not happened. This suggests that the internet is not widely understood as offering an opportunity for democratic participation with only 24% of those surveyed identifying the internet as their preferred access channel. Perhaps if the council took five years to deliver a new website and spent almost £3m this would motivate local residents as it did in Birmingham. Certainly this consultation has provided the council with the opportunity to ensure that citizen produced activity does not take place for the wrong reasons. With over 300 people leaving their contact details and wanting to be involved in developing the website this provides the platform for co-production. Page | 39
    • 3.6. Conclusion The research presented in this chapter has considered four separate case studies alongside the prevailing digital attitudes of the people of Hull. In examining those case studies it has seen that citizens outside of government, whether acting within non-governmental organisations, as part of frustrated communities, or entirely alone have had various motivations. FixMyStreet.com wanted to have better online services, BCCDIY.com grew out of dissatisfaction at the actions of a local authority, OpenlyLocal.com promotes transparency in support of democracy whilst ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is an open sourced and collaborative approach to the sharing and interrogation of open government data. Those citizen produced websites have not always met with favourable responses from 'the state' but in the 18 month period covered by this research significant changes have taken place. Not only has the coalition government used crowd sourcing websites to gather ideas on how to save money or which laws to repeal but all councils have been mandated to start publishing government data. In Hull, the council has yet to do so and this could explain the absence of citizen produced activity. In some parts of the country these collaborative, transparent and open source ideas have had an impact in the way local people engage and interact with their public services. Does the fact that it has so far bypassed Hull an indication that citizen produced websites are of only minimal importance to the future of public service delivery? In the following chapter this question will be addressed as conclusions are presented, recommendations made and further research opportunities identified. Page | 40
    • 4. Conclusion & Recommendations At the start of this dissertation three research questions were proposed in order to test the hypothesis that 'citizen produced websites are increasingly important to public service provision and are consequently reshaping the relationship between citizen and state'. This concluding chapter will present the conclusions formed on the basis of exploring those questions before providing some recommendations and highlighting opportunities for future research. 4.1. Conclusion 4.1.1. Doing It Ourselves This dissertation has looked at recent developments in Britain that have taken place as a result of different individuals deciding that rather than leave the delivery of public services to the state, they 'do it ourselves'. FixMyStreet.com is a site, initially funded by central government, which to all intents and purposes delivers a seamless public service. BCCDIY.com comes from the opposite end of the spectrum where a community of disillusioned locals developed something to make a point and to demonstrate that the nature of participation could no longer be considered as simple as attendance at a ward forum. OpenlyLocal.com was born at almost the same time with the aim of promoting local democracy and providing access to elected members and their work. Over time it has become one of the leading resources for local residents and a champion of transparency and openness in local government. The final site, ArmchairAuditor.co.uk sees the relationship between citizen and state coming full circle. Although Adrian Short is an independent activist who has built a website he has done so with data designed to be reused at the behest of central government. Such websites are not commonplace but the open source approaches underpinning them all mean that the potential exists for numerous localised duplicates to appear as and when data is published or concerned citizens hope to make a difference in their communities. However, the evidence from Hull shows that citizen production is not happening everywhere making it premature to celebrate the existence of a national network of concerned citizens building websites motivated by higher ideals. Such a network is improbable, and unnecessary. Of the sites considered in this research two of them, FixMyStreet.com and OpenlyLocal.com are sites built to cover the entire nation. By pooling the functionality and information related to specific issues these sites are useful to Page | 41
    • anybody in the country. Moreover, BCCDIY.com has spawned a similar approach for council websites. Stef Lewandowski is currently working on DIYCouncil.com which takes the principles underpinning BCCDIY.com and applies them to all council websites across the country meaning that citizen produced websites do not need to be produced by a local resident to have local resonance. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk presents a different model. Adrian Short's website is not a national window onto local government spending but he has published the technical information that makes it work on an open source basis. This means that the machinery can be picked up and put down anywhere, by anyone subject to the release of local data. Until Hull City Council begins to publish open data it would be unfair to conclude that the absence of citizen produced websites in Hull is down to a lack of active citizenship amongst the city's population. 4.1.2. Brave New World The 2010 general election raised questions about the nature of representative government with large numbers of people wanting to effect change to the first past the post system so that their votes might exert greater control. Following their coming to power the coalition have committed to reconsidering the nature of democracy in Britain. Whilst they have formally confirmed that there will be a referendum they have also advocated the use of crowd sourcing to encourage wider participation in the democratic process. Furthermore, the publication of raw data has demonstrated that the government wants to give raw data to the public so that they can do things with it. This is not a coalition innovation but they have moved swiftly to build on Labour’s foundations. Whilst this may be motivated by political ideology and issues of transparency it would be naïve to ignore the fact that the economic condition of the country has provided the perfect conditions for government to look for members of the public to do things for themselves. Prior to the election we heard the idea that large government institutions would be replaced by a ‘Big Society’ empowering local communities and individuals (BBC, 2010a). Coupled to rhetoric concerning an impending ‘Age of Austerity’ the new government has made a clear statement about identifying ways of doing more for less. Through FixMyStreet.com, BCCDIY.com and OpenlyLocal.com, sites which precede the election, people were already getting involved with service delivery but they have had to find ways of accessing information that was not Page | 42
    • readily available. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of ‘Big Society’ contribution anticipated when government published that data. The individuals involved with these sites are sharing what they’ve done and welcoming the contributions of others to identify ways to save the public purse some money. Sometimes these people have an axe to grind, sometimes they’re public servants but, in the case studies we have considered, they have all been concerned citizens. However, for residents of Hull these sites have had a minimal impact. Are citizen produced websites a niche movement whose significance is overstated? Indeed, further questions must be asked about civil society groups without an electoral mandate, about the exclusion of those who are not digitally enabled and about the potential for those who shout loudest to exert a disproportionate influence. What is clear is that these questions will not go away. The very idea of ‘citizenship’ is coming under scrutiny in today’s increasingly globalised culture where societal and communal boundaries are blurred. A local authority understands citizenship to be narrowly defined according to geographical space and their area of activity. However, the public may expect to find public transport timetables or NHS information through a local authority's website alongside signposting toward events in neighbouring boroughs or counties. The examples of FixMyStreet.com and OpenlyLocal.com (and DIYCouncil.com) demonstrate this non-parochial attitude and indicate that much of what a council does is the same as any other when it comes to putting it online. This means that developers in one part of the country are building things that can be used by anybody anywhere. Furthermore, by opening the code to other volunteers it means a useful addition can be made for one location that can be applied elsewhere as in Lichfield’s mobile interface. ArmchairAuditor.co.uk is focused on one location but provides a platform that can be applied anywhere, by anyone. Their activity has taken place for free, in support of good governance and motivated by the altruistic attempt to benefit both citizen and state. As such it is the very definition of ‘active citizenship’. However, such activity is a challenge to local authorities who have hitherto enjoyed complete control over their message, their content and their exposure to risk. In general local authorities have not been effective at providing transparent insights into their inner workings, nor have they provided opportunities for the Page | 43
    • public to engage with the council by presenting stories in interactive ways such as blogs, videos or podcasts. Furthermore, the example of Tameside Council restricting Twitter accreditation to traditional news outlets suggests that they do not regard those responsible for hyperlocal blogs as valid contributors to discussions of the political sphere (Guardian, 2010). Our representative democracy is not made redundant through this technological advance but it does provide the opportunity to facilitate other modes of participation. For example, the 'crowd-sourcing' of ideas, feedback and criticisms during the drafting of policies can heighten participation in the policy design process and, through highlighting this via a council's digital presence (whether on its website or elsewhere), involve a wider audience. Rather than simply being the purview of legislators or officers these ideas can provide open and collaborative policy design. BCCDIY.com demonstrates that should a council fail to meet expectations there are competent individuals willing to lead their peers and produce viable alternatives. Whilst this is less likely to happen with hospitals or rubbish collection the Free Schools proposal of the coalition government which allows motivated groups of people to challenge existing educational structures by forging their own public services is an example of direct democracy couched within a representative model of trusteeship (Conservatives, 2010). 4.1.3. The principle of ‘WITH’ The communication revolution has made it possible for citizens to take control of their public services where they are absent or in need of improvement. The relationship between citizen and state has been altered by a technological revolution that has enabled people to self-organise, share experience and maintain geographically dispersed networks of practice and expertise. The capacity for people to put together a website and present multiple sources of data in easy to access and simple to understand ways has taken the ownership and control of knowledge away from the historic seats of power. Instead, normal citizens have become the curators of government with sites such as the ones discussed in this dissertation springing up to cover a myriad of purposes. Such behaviour is a threat to the autonomy of local authorities and the continued acceptance of our current framework of governance. Whilst public service provision will continue with, or without, these Page | 44
    • citizen produced websites, they are turning notions of democracy and participation on its head. The contributions of these ‘active citizens’ demonstrates that widening democratic participation is not only about deliberative forms of governance or consensus but can be achieved by providing people with the tools to report problems, share ideas, contribute to hyperlocal media, access a statistical dashboard or comment on the external supplier their council uses. Whether those within the public sector embrace it or not, these websites indicate that the relationship between citizen and state can no longer be understood through the lens of the adversarial model of principal versus agent. Leadbeater (2008) suggests that the collaborative and transparent culture being created by the web can be reduced to 'the principle of WITH'. When it comes to Britain’s governance the public are up for the same, how willing are we to embrace it too? 4.2. Recommendations, or 'what does this mean for service delivery?' This dissertation has concluded that citizen produced websites may not yet be fundamental to public service provision but that they do suggest a significant reshaping of the relationship between citizen and state. The following recommendations for local authorities are made in light of these findings. Embrace open source. Not only would this save on the licensing costs of expensive software but it would invite the adoption of an ideology that is based on inviting other people to contribute to a shared outcome and to solve problems by working alongside people beyond geographical boundaries. Explore collaboration and harness the wisdom of crowds. It is a cliché to suggest that many hands make light work but we have seen that when it comes to digital delivery of services it has some merit. BCCDIY.com was developed from scratch in a fortnight by a group of volunteers coming together to think about what they wanted from a council website. Furthermore, by sharing the things that are generally very similar from place to place it means that the contributions of one can be applied to many quickly and easily improving services and saving money. Stop reinventing the wheel. Some of the case studies discussed in this dissertation would not have been possible without content already provided by the council. However, FixMyStreet.com, OpenlyLocal.com and ArmchairAuditor.co.uk provide tools that can be added into existing council services with ease. Rather than investing significant time and resources in a bespoke solution or a commercial Page | 45
    • product, work with these developers to co-produce one site that works even better. There is nothing to lose by standing on the shoulders of others. Go, Go open data. The government produces significant amounts of data. Nationally this has been recognised in the provision of over 3,500 datasets at data.gov.uk. The initial expectation of government for councils to publish all external spending over £500 represents the first step in a process that shows no signs of abating. So far only 23 councils have begun to publish open data and eight of those have done so with licensing arrangements that are not truly in keeping with the spirit of the open data agenda. Most of what happens within a council could be made available to the public through a Freedom of Information Request, why not save them the trouble? Think Big Society. There is a danger that if councils follow these recommendations, embrace open source software, open their data and invite people to collaborate that nobody will respond. Not every resident is going to make something and not all local people are going to visibly interact with it. In fact, the 1:10:89 principle of co-production suggests that you might never know about the majority of people choosing to spectate and finding the benefits in the creativity of another. However, not all members of the public attend public meetings; limited numbers respond to public consultation and turnout at elections is low. Citizen produced websites might not be produced by large numbers of people. However, if 1% of your community want to make something, and 10% of them want to discuss what that something means and recommend how it might be improved then local authorities have to be ready to respond. As the ‘Age of Austerity’ bites, the success or otherwise of the Big Society project will depend on how successful local authorities are at cultivating relationships with their concerned citizens whether they have already been active such as those involved with the case studies, or have yet to wake up such as those in Hull. 4.3. Further Research 12 months ago three of the four case studies considered in this dissertation did not exist. The rate of change in technology is staggering and this is matched by the speed with which data activists are transforming the way members of the public understand information. The last year has also seen significant change at the heart of national government and locally the impact of spending cuts looms large. Understandably, therefore, local government has not been at the forefront of emerging innovation. This Page | 46
    • dissertation sits within the debate between democracy on one side, the impact of technology on another and the role of private citizens on the third. This dynamic would benefit from further research in three areas. Firstly, the impact of open data on local authorities. By January Hull City Council and the other 410 councils that have yet to publish spending data will have taken their first steps into sharing open data. Using the 23 early adopters as a starting point this represents an opportunity for longitudinal research to test the consequences of open data and explore what happens to the relationship between councils and their public when these innovative ideas become part of mainstream local governance. Secondly, Stef Lewandowski’s follow up project to BCCDIY.com, DIYCouncil.com is still in an embryonic stage and is very much his solo project. The quality of information it displays and the functionality it offers reflect that it was produced in 30 hours of spare time effort. If the project takes off and more people offer to participate then this would provide another case study detailing the development and impact of citizen produced websites. Indeed, on his website he says ‘it would be great…if we can get something academically significant or publishable from this project’ (DIYCouncil.com). Finally, a significant area of discussion and research is the emerging nature of the coalition government’s Big Society. This dissertation was written as that idea began to take shape and it would be interesting to look more closely at the role played by technology in conjunction with ordinary members of the public to safeguard the vulnerable and identify the priorities as the public sector deals with the impact of sizeable spending cuts. This dissertation argues that the ideas and attitudes exhibited by the concerned citizens towards delivering public goods and services represent a successful approach that should be adopted and encouraged by local authorities. The emergence of Big Society offers an opportunity to consider whether that is an accurate assessment. Page | 47
    • Bibliography 38 Degrees. (2010). 38 Degrees | Mend Our Voting System. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from 38 Degrees: http://labs.38degrees.org.uk/wall/reform Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Anderson, C. (2007). The Long Tail: How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand. London: Random House. BBC News. (2010b). BBC | Election 2010 | Results. Retrieved June 5, 2010, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ BBC News. (2010a, July 19). BBC News - David Cameron launches Tories' 'big society' plan. Retrieved July 19, 2010, from BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10680062 BBC News. (2009, November 26). BBC News - Government e-petitions give power to the people. Retrieved July 12, 2010, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8380736.stm BCCDIY. (2009). bccdiy / Front Page. Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from BCCDIY: http://bccdiy.pbworks.com/ BCCDIY. (2009, October 16th). BCCDIY Recent Edits - BCCDIY. Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from BCCDIY: http://bccdiy.com/page_versions.rss Beetham, D. (Ed.). (1994). Defining and Measuring Democracy. London: SAGE Publications. Benkler, Y. (2006). Wealth of Networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Birmingham Post. (2009c, September 23). Birmingham Post - Latest news - Volunteers build 'improved' version of Birmingham City C. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Birminghampost.net: www.birminghampost.net/news/newsaggregator/2009/09/23/volunteers-build-improved-version-of- birmingham-city-council-s-website-65233-24757557/ Birmingham Post. (2009b, August 4). Birmingham Post - News - Politics News - Cost of new Birmingham City Council website spirals to. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from Birminghampost.net: http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2009/08/04/cost-of-new-birmingham-city-council- website-spirals-to-2-8m-65233-24307674/ Birmingham Post. (2009a, September 8). Birmingham Post - News - West Midlands News - Birmingham City Council website goes live at last. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from BirminghamPost.net: http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2009/09/08/birmingham-city-council- website-goes-live-at-last-65233-24633547/ Boland, L., & Coleman, E. (2008). New Development: What Lies Beyond Service Delivery? Leadership Behaviours for Place Shaping in Local Government. Public Money & Management , 28 (5), 313-318. Borg, S. (2001). The research journal: a tool for promoting and understanding researcher development. Language Teaching Research , 5 (2), 156-177. Page | 48
    • Brown, G. (2010, March 22). Speech on Building Britain's Digital Future | Number10.gov.uk. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from Number10.gov.uk: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and- transcripts/2010/03/speech-on-building-britains-digital-future-22897 Burke, E. (1906). Speech to the electors of Bristol. In The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burnham, D. P., Gilland, K., Lutz, W. G., & Layton-Henry, Z. (2008). Research Methods in Politics. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Cameron, D. (2010, May 31). Letter to Government departments on opening up data | Number10.gov.uk. Retrieved May 31, 2010, from Number10.gov.uk: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and- articles/2010/05/letter-to-government-departments-on-opening-up-data-51204 Campbell, D., Tumin, Z., & Goldsmith, S. (2010, March). From the Now Wave, to the Next Wave: public service deliver in a networked world . Harvard Kennedy School ASH Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Carr, N. (2008). The Big Switch: Rewiring the World from Edison to Google. London: W. W. Norton & Co. countculture. (2008, September 27th). Open local data and all that - countculture. Retrieved July 15th, 2010, from countculture: http://countculture.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/how-often-do-mps-turn-up-for- work/ countculture. (2009, July 10th). Opening up local government data – a local TheyWorkForYou - countculture. Retrieved August 1st, 2010, from countculture: http://countculture.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/they-work-for-you-local/ Dahl, R. A. (2000). On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Daily Telegraph. (2010, June 29th). Our ideas can end Whitehall's culture of waste - Telegraph. Retrieved July 14th, 2010, from Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7860216/Our-ideas-can-end-Whitehalls- culture-of-waste.html Daily Telegraph. (2010, August 16th). To cut costs, councils should embrace open data and 'community coders' - Telegraph. Retrieved August 16th, 2010, from Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/conradquiltyharper/100050692/to-cut-costs-councils-should-embrace- open-data-and-community-coders/ Daily Telegraph. (2010, July 9th). Your Freedom: Nick Clegg calls on public to help repeal bad laws - Telegraph. Retrieved July 14th, 2010, from Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7865227/Your-Freedom-Nick-Clegg-calls-on-public- to-help-repeal-bad-laws.html Department of Communities and Local Government. (2009). Strengthening Local Democracy Consultation. Edgerton, D. (2008). The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900. London: Profile Books. Page | 49
    • eMarketer. (2010, August 25). Facebook usage still rising in Europe, but UK growth slows. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from eMarketer: http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007888 Eventbrite. (2010). A Roundtable Discussion about Bristol City Council's Future Web Platform - Eventbrite. Retrieved August 1st, 2010, from Eventbrite: http://bccweb.eventbrite.com/ Eventbrite.com. (2009, September). BCC DIY Hack Day - BCCDIY - Birminghamuk - Eventbrite. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Eventbrite: http://bccdiy.eventbrite.com/ Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications. Garman, D. N., & Piantanida, M. (2009). The Qualitative Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty. London: SAGE Publications. Gay, O., & Woodhouse, J. (2010, July 28). Referendum on electoral reform. Retrieved July 28, 2010, from House of Commons Library: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc- 05142.pdf H M Treasury. (2010). How can we re-think government to deliver more for less? - HM Spending Challenge. Retrieved July 13, 2010, from HM Spending Challenge: http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ Hadenius, A. (1992). Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hart, J. (2009, July 3rd). Help Me Investigate Birmingham.gov - Josh Hart. Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from Josh Hart: http://joshuahart.co.uk/2009/07/03/help-me-investigate-birminghamgov/ Haskell, J. (2001). Direct democracy or representative government? Dispelling the Populist Myth. Oxford: Westview. Help Me Investigate. (2009, July 2nd). When can we expect a new birmingham.gov website? on Help Me Investigate. Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from Help Me Investigate: http://helpmeinvestigate.com/investigations/49-when-can-we-expect-a-new-birmingham-gov-website Hendriks, F. (2010). Vital Democracy: A Theory of Democracy in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. HM Government. (2010, July 9th). Your Freedom - HMG. Retrieved July 14th, 2010, from HMG: http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing: how the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. London: Random House Publishing. Hughes, O. (1998). Public Management & Administration: An Introduction. Basingstoke: MacMillan Press. Hunter, D. A., & Brewer, D. J. (2005). Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles. London: SAGE Publishing. Janesick, V. J. (1999). A Journal About Journal Writing as a Qualitative Research Technique: History, Issues and Reflections. Qualitative Inquiry , 5 (4), 505-524. Keen, A. (2008). The Cult of the Amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd. Page | 50
    • Kemp, S. A. (1943). Democracy and the individual. London: Oxford University Press. King, S. F., & Brown, P. (2007). Fix My Street Or Else: Using the internet to voice local public service concerns. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 232, pp. 72-80. Macao: ACM. Lane, J., & Ersson, O. S. (2003). Democracy: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge. Lane, J.-E. (2000). New Public Management. London: Routledge. Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (Eds.). (2000). Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice. O'Reilly Media. Laycock, D. (2004). Representation and democratic theory. Vancouver: UBC Press. Leadbeater, C. (2009). We-Think. London: Profile Books. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix. London: Penguin. Lewandowski, S. (2009, September 22nd). Why build a new site for Birmingham City Council? - Stef Lewandowski. Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from Stef Lewandowski: http://steflewandowski.com/2009/09/why-build-a-new-site-for-birmingham-city-council/ Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Lucas, J. (1976). Democracy and Participation. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. McCormick, P. (2010). Tinkering with Justice 2.0: opportunities for citizen shaped innovation. Gov 2.0 Expo. Washington DC. Mysociety.org. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions - FixMyStreet. Retrieved 07 12, 2010, from FixMyStreet: http://fixmystreet.com/faq Mysociety.org. (n.d.). TheyWorkForYou.com. Retrieved 07 12, 2010, from TheyWorkForYou.com: http://theyworkforyou.com Mysociety.org. (n.d.). WhatDoTheyKnow.com. Retrieved 07 12, 2010, from WhatDoTheyKnow.com: http://whatdotheyknow.com Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Pearson Publications. Obama, B. (2009, January 21). Transparency and Open Government | The White House. Retrieved April 4, 2010, from The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open- government Office for National Statistics. (2010, August 27). National Statistics Online | Internet Access. Retrieved August 27, 2010, from National Statistics Online: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=8 Openly Local. (n.d.). UK Councils Open Data Scoreboard - Openly Local. Retrieved August 1st, 2010, from Openly Local: http://openlylocal.com/councils/open Papacharissi, Z. A. (2010). A Private Sphere: democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Page | 51
    • Pledgie. (2009, September 29th). Donate to BCCDIY - Pledgie. Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from Pledgie: http://pledgie.com/campaigns/6257 Popper, K. R. (1945). The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Qualman, E. (2009). Socialnomics: how social media transforms the way we live and do business. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Quinn, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. London: SAGE Publications. Rousseau, J. J. (1762). The Social Contract or principles of political right. Saward, M. (2000). Democratic Innovation: deliberation, representation and association. London: Routledge. Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Allen & Unwin. Service Birmingham. (2010). Web CMS Review Post Implementation. Birmingham: Service Birmingham. Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: how change happens when people come together. London: Penguin. Short, A. (2010, August 13th). Armchair Auditor interview with Eddie Mair on BBC Radio 4 PM - Adrian Short. Retrieved August 13th, 2010, from Adrian Short: http://adrianshort.co.uk/2010/08/13/armchair- auditor-interview-with-eddie-mair-on-bbc-radio-4-pm/ Sifry, M. L. "You Can Be The Eyes and Ears": Barack Obama and the wisdom of crowds. In D. Lathrop, & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice (pp. 115-122). O' Reilly Media. Society of Information Technology Managers, (SOCITM). (2010). Better Connected. Taggart, C. (2009, September 17). Opening up Local Government Information - A presentation to the Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI). Take Back Parliament. (2010). Take Back Parliament. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from Take Back Parliament: http://www.takebackparliament.com The Guardian. (2009, May 25th). A new politics: Electoral reform | David cameron | Comment is Free - The Guardian. Retrieved May 25th, 2009, from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/25/david-cameron-a-new-politics1 The Guardian. (2010, March 8). Bloggers excluded from council's Twitter accreditation | Media | guardian.co.uk. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/mar/07/tameside-council-twitter-accreditation Vote For A Change. (2010). Support a Hung Parliament | Vote For A Change. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from Vote For A Change: http://www.voteforachange.co.uk w3. (2009, June 30th). Putting Government Data online - Design Issues. Retrieved July 20th, 2010, from w3: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/GovData.html Page | 52
    • Warren, M. (2002). Deliberative Democracy. In G. Carter, & A. Stokes, Democratic Theory Today (pp. 173- 202). Cambridge: Polity Press. Warren, M. (1999a). Deliberative Democracy and Authority. American Political Science Review , 90, 46-60. Warren, M. (1999b). Democratic Theory and Trust. In M. Warren, Democracy and Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. What Do They Know? (2009, July 31st). The Information Commisioner - What Do They Know. Retrieved July 13th, 2010, from What Do They Know: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/14060/response/37012/attach/html/3/Response%20Ltr.FOI31 22.doc.html When's It Bin Day? (2009, September 25). Retrieved September 25, 2009, from When's It Bin Day: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDVyZ0tRSzFsU0RHSW1uSVJpUGladHc6MA.. Whynes, D. (1993). Can Performance Monitoring Solve the Public Services' Principal-Agent Problem? Scottish Journal of Political Economy , 40 (4), pp434-446. Williams, A., & Giardina, E. (1993). Efficienciy in the Public Sector: The Theory and Practice of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zittrain, J. (2009). The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It. London: Penguin. Page | 53
    • Appendices Appendix 1: Web Survey Appendix 2: Telephone Survey Appendix 3: Face to Face Survey Appendix 4: Survey Data Page | 54
    • APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY Hull City Council website consultation We would like your views on our website and the information and services you access through it. We also want to understand more about the people who use it. This survey will take around 10 minutes to complete and includes the opportunity to become involved in further consultations about our website. 1. Where do you normally access the internet? Please tick all that apply  At home  At work/school  On a public computer  Via mobile  Elsewhere please state 2. Which methods do you use to connect to the internet? Please tick all that apply  I use a broadband connection  I use a mobile phone/smartphone  I use a dial-up connection  I use a public Wi-Fi connection  I use a mobile network dongle  Other please state 3. How did you hear about www.hullcc.gov.uk?  I knew the site previously  Family/friends told me about it  I used a search engine  A council officer suggested I use it  I saw the address on a form/in a leaflet  Through my local library  I saw the address on other council  I work for the council advertising  I followed a link from another  Unsure/Can't remember government website  I followed a link from elsewhere  Other  I guessed at the address Please state 4. What kind of internet user are you?  Tentative and reluctant user (very basic skills, very rare usage)  Casual user (basic skills, use as and when it's necessary)  Regular user (range of skills, and comfortable using the internet on a regular basis)  I couldn't live without it 5. How often would you say you contacted Hull City Council either for information or to request a service?  Every day  Every few months  At least once a week  Only in emergencies/very rarely  Every month Page | 55
    • APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY 6. In the last year, how often have you visited www.hullcc.gov.uk?  Every day  Very rarely  At least once a week  Never  Every few months 7. What was your main purpose in visiting hullcc.gov.uk, was it to...  pay something  make a complaint/provide feedback  book something  find information  report something  just browse  request something  Other (please state)  apply for something 8. What service were you interested in?  Adult and further education  Leisure facilities (such as gym membership, libraries)  Benefits  Parking  Community safety  Planning  Councillors and democracy  Public transport  Council tax (but not council tax benefit)  Roads and streetlights  Electoral register  Rubbish and recycling (such as missed bin collection)  Environmental health (such as food  Schools information standards, health inspection)  Events and what's on (such as theatres  Social care and health and halls)  Licensing  Trading standards  Housing (but not housing benefit)  Youth activities  Jobs  Other (please state) 9a. On your last visit to www.hullcc.gov.uk did it provide what you were looking for?  Yes  Can't remember  No 9b. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is very difficult and 5 very easy, how easy was it to do what you wanted?  1 Very difficult  2 Difficult  3 Neither easy nor difficult  4 Easy  5 Very easy 9c. Given that the website did not provide a solution, how did you resolve your problem? Did you  ring 300300  write an email to the council  make no further effort  write to the council through the post  contact a councillor directly  I can't remember  visit a Customer Service Centre (CSC)  do something else  visit a library Please state 10. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means very unlikely and 5 very likely, how likely would you be to use www.hullcc.gov.uk for the same purpose in future?  1 Very  2 Unlikely  3 Neither  4 Likely  5 Very likely unlikely unlikely nor likely Page | 56
    • APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY 11. Using the same scale, how likely would you be to use www.hullcc.gov.uk instead of 300300 for a different purpose in future?  1 Very  2 Unlikely  3 Neither  4 Likely  5 Very likely unlikely unlikely nor likely 12. What is your preferred way of contacting the council?  By post  Over the telephone  By email  Via the internet  Depends why I need to contact you  Other (please state)  In person 13. Please rate the following areas on a scale of very dissatisfied to very satisfied Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Dissatisfied satisfied First impression of our website      Look and feel      Getting around the      site/navigation Search      Finding what I want      Mapping      Booking things      Reporting      Applying      Paying      Final impressions      Please specify 14. Which of the following areas would you like to see the council develop or improve? Please tick as many as apply  Structure of website (for example the names by which we refer to services and service areas)  Better content (for example the way in which pages are written, or the information they contain)  Design (for example the layout of the pages and the colour scheme)  Search facility (for example the results it returns)  More transactional services (for example reporting missed bin collections, applying for licences, paying and booking)  Customer accounts to enable you to log and track service requests, store payment details, receive information on your areas of interest etc.  Information on your chosen areas of interest sent to you (for example by email or text without visiting the site)  Ways to access information through social media and networks (Twitter, Facebook and similar services)  Blogs (from council officers, elected members and other contributors)  Geographical information ('Find my nearest' function)  Greater use of audio or video  Contribute your own content to the site (pictures, comments, news, events)  It's fine as it is  Other Please state Page | 57
    • APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY 15. What specific additional services would you like to access through www.hullcc.gov.uk? Please tell us. 16. Which of these do you use and which would you like to see Hull City Council make more use of in future? Please tick all that apply Currently Would like to use see HCC use Aggregator sites   Bebo   Blogs   Discussion Forums   Facebook   Friendfeed   Linked-In   Myspace   Subscription services   This Is Your Mail   Twitter   User Generated Content   Wikis   Yammer   Youtube   Anything else please specify   17 Is there anything else you would like to suggest or comment on? Page | 58
    • APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY About You To help us process and understand the answers we have received from these questionnaires, we would like to ask you a few more questions about who you are. This is because the council is committed to ensuring that all its services are delivered fairly. These remaining questions will help us understand more about the people who have completed the questionnaire and identify and explore the differences in view between groups of people. You do not have to fill them in but if you do, the information you provide will be kept confidential and will be stored securely. 18 Which of the following are relevant to you? This question will help identify the profile of visitors to our website. Please tick all that apply  I live in the area  I'm looking for information for myself  I work in Hull  I'm looking for information in relation to work  I work for Hull City Council  I'm looking for information on behalf of a friend or family member  I'm planning to visit Hull  Prefer not to say  I'm planning on moving to Hull  Other  I'm a local councillor in Hull Please state 19. What is your postcode? This will help us to understand if people who live in your area have different views to people who live in other areas of the city 20. What is your gender identity?  Male  Female 21. What is your date of birth? (mm/yyyy) 22. Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or impairment which has lasted, or is expected to last at least 12 months? (Please include conditions such as dyslexia or epilepsy). Please select one option.  Yes limited a lot  Yes limited a little  No 23. Does this health problem, or impairment, impact upon your use and enjoyment of the internet? 24. Could you give us some more detail? (For example, do you use a mouse? Do you use assistive technologies such as a screen reader or magnifier? Do you need to change the website (text size, colour scheme) so that you can use it properly?) Page | 59
    • APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY 25. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background?  White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern  Asian or Asian British Indian Irish/British  White Irish  Asian or Asian British Pakistani  White Gypsy or Irish Traveller  Any other Asian background (please state)  Any other white background (please  Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and state) Asian  Black or black British African  Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and black African  Black or black British Caribbean  Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and black Caribbean  Any other black or black British  Any other mixed/multiple ethnic group background (please state) background (please state)  Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi  Arab  Asian or Asian British Chinese  Any other ethnic background (please state) Please state 26. Would you like to be involved in any further consultation about our website? If so, could we take some contact details for use in the future? We don't mind what you give us whether telephone, email, postal address or all of them. And it's important to remember that we will not use this information for any other purpose. Name Address 1 Address 2 Town Postcode Contact number E-mail address Page | 60
    • APPENDIX 2: TELEPHONE SURVEY Hull City Council website consultation We would like your views on our website and the information and services you access through it. We also want to understand more about the people who use it. This survey will take around 10 minutes to complete and includes the opportunity to become involved in further consultations about our website. 1. Earlier today you contacted 300300 and agreed to be surveyed. Is now a convenient time? What was your main purpose in calling 300300 earlier? Was it to...  pay something  make a complaint/provide feedback  book something  find information  report something  just browse  request something  Other (please state)  apply for something 2. What service were you interested in? (Let the resident explain the reason for their call and then choose the relevant option on the basis of what they say. If you do not think it easily fits into one of these options choose 'Other' and enter the resident's response)  Adult and further education  Leisure facilities (such as gym membership, libraries)  Benefits  Parking  Community safety  Planning  Councillors and democracy  Public transport  Council tax (but not council tax benefit)  Roads and streetlights  Electoral register  Rubbish and recycling (such as missed bin collection)  Environmental health (such as food  Schools information standards, health inspection)  Events and what's on (such as theatres  Social care and health and halls)  Licensing  Trading standards  Housing (but not housing benefit)  Youth activities  Jobs  Other (please state) 3. How often would you say you contacted Hull City Council either for information or to request a service?  Every day  Every few months  At least once a week  Only in emergencies/very rarely  Every month 4. What is your preferred way of contacting the council?  By post  Over the telephone  By email  Via the internet  Depends why I need to contact you  Other (please state)  In person Page | 61
    • APPENDIX 2: TELEPHONE SURVEY 5. If you didn't visit www.hullcc.gov.uk to access this information or service was this because you...  don't use the internet  tried the website but found it difficult to use  didn't think that the information/service  were not at a computer and saw could be accessed online something that needed dealing with immediately so rang 300300  prefer the human touch  previously had been frustrated by the website  tried the website first and the  Other (please state) information/service is not available  tried the website first and could not find the information/service 6. What are the barriers to your usage?  I don't feel comfortable using the internet  I have never used the internet and don't want to in the future  The cost of internet access  Other (please state) 7. Would you be interested in hearing about any training the council is running or alternative ways to access the internet?  Yes  No In that case, please could I take your contact details? We will not use this information for any other purpose. Name Address 1 Address 2 Town Postcode Contact number 9. Could we ask you a few more questions about your internet usage habits? This is to help us improve the service we offer through our website  Yes  No 10. What kind of internet user are you?  Tentative and reluctant user (very basic skills, very rare usage)  Casual user (basic skills, use as and when it's necessary)  Regular user (range of skills, and comfortable using the internet on a regular basis)  I couldn't live without it 11. Which methods do you use to connect to the internet? Please tick all that apply  I use a broadband connection  I use a mobile phone/smartphone  I use a dial-up connection  I use a public Wi-Fi connection  I use a mobile network dongle  Other please state 12. In the last year, how often have you visited www.hullcc.gov.uk?  Every day  Very rarely  At least once a week  Never  Every few months Why have you never visited hullcc.gov.uk before? Page | 62
    • APPENDIX 2: TELEPHONE SURVEY 13. How did you hear about www.hullcc.gov.uk?  I knew the site previously  Family/friends told me about it  I used a search engine  A council officer suggested I use it  I saw the address on a form/in a leaflet  Through my local library  I saw the address on other council  I work for the council advertising  I followed a link from another  Unsure/Can't remember government website  I followed a link from elsewhere  Other  I guessed at the address Please state 14. On your last visit to www.hullcc.gov.uk did it provide what you were looking for?  Yes  Can't remember  No 15. On a scale of 1-5 where 1 is very difficult and 5 very easy, how easy was it to do what you wanted?  1 Very difficult  2 Difficult  3 Neither easy nor difficult  4 Easy  5 Very easy 16. Given that the website did not provide a solution, how did you resolve your problem? Did you  ring 300300  write an email to the council  make no further effort  write to the council through the post  contact a councillor directly  I can't remember  visit a Customer Service Centre (CSC)  do something else  visit a library Please state 17. Thinking about the reason you contacted 300300 today. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means very unlikely and 5 very likely, how likely would you be to use www.hullcc.gov.uk for the same purpose in future?  1 Very  2 Unlikely  3 Neither  4 Likely  5 Very likely unlikely unlikely nor likely 18. Using the same scale, how likely would you be to use www.hullcc.gov.uk instead of 300300 for a different purpose in future?  1 Very  2 Unlikely  3 Neither  4 Likely  5 Very likely unlikely unlikely nor likely Page | 63
    • APPENDIX 2: TELEPHONE SURVEY 19. How can we improve www.hullcc.gov.uk? Please say yes or no to each suggestion.  Structure of website (for example the names by which we refer to services and service areas)  Better content (for example the way in which pages are written, or the information they contain)  Look and feel (for example the layout of the pages and the colour scheme)  Search facility (for example the results it returns)  More transactional services (for example reporting missed bin collections, applying for licences, paying and booking)  Customer accounts to enable you to log and track service requests, store payment details, receive information on your areas of interest etc.  Information on your chosen areas of interest sent to you (for example by email or text without visiting the site)  Ways to access information through social media and networks (Twitter, Facebook and similar services)  Blogs (from council officers, elected members and other contributors)  Geographical information ('Find my nearest' function)  Greater use of audio or video  Contribute your own content to the site (pictures, comments, news, events)  It's fine as it is  Other Please state 20. Is there anything we can do to encourage you to use www.hullcc.gov.uk again? 21. What specific additional services would you like to access through www.hullcc.gov.uk? Please tell us. 22. Is there anything else you would like to suggest or comment on? Page | 64
    • APPENDIX 2: TELEPHONE SURVEY About You To help us process and understand the answers we have received from these questionnaires, we would like to ask you a few more questions about who you are. This is because the council is committed to ensuring that all its services are delivered fairly. These remaining questions will help us understand more about the people who have completed the questionnaire and identify and explore the differences in view between groups of people. You do not have to fill them in but if you do, the information you provide will be kept confidential and will be stored securely. 23. Could we ask you a few more questions along those lines?  Yes  No 24. Which of the following are relevant to you? This question will help identify the profile of visitors to our website. Please tick all that apply  I live in the area  I'm looking for information for myself  I work in Hull  I'm looking for information in relation to work  I work for Hull City Council  I'm looking for information on behalf of a friend or family member  I'm planning to visit Hull  Prefer not to say  I'm planning on moving to Hull  Other  I'm a local councillor in Hull Please state 25. What is your postcode? This will help us to understand if people who live in your area have different views to people who live in other areas of the city 26. What is your gender identity?  Male  Female Is there anything further about your gender identity you would like to tell us? 27. What is your date of birth? (mm/yyyy) 28. Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or impairment which has lasted, or is expected to last at least 12 months? (Please include conditions such as dyslexia or epilepsy). Please select one option.  Yes limited a lot  Yes limited a little  No 29. Does this health problem, or impairment, impact upon your use and enjoyment of the internet?  Yes  No Page | 65
    • APPENDIX 2: TELEPHONE SURVEY 30. Could you give us some more detail? (For example, do you use a mouse? Do you use assistive technologies such as a screen reader or magnifier? Do you need to change the website (text size, colour scheme) so that you can use it properly?) 31. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background?  White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern  Asian or Asian British Indian Irish/British  White Irish  Asian or Asian British Pakistani  White Gypsy or Irish Traveller  Any other Asian background (please state)  Any other white background (please  Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and state) Asian  Black or black British African  Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and black African  Black or black British Caribbean  Mixed/multiple ethnic group white and black Caribbean  Any other black or black British  Any other mixed/multiple ethnic group background (please state) background (please state)  Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi  Arab  Asian or Asian British Chinese  Any other ethnic background (please state) Please state 32. Would you like to be involved in any further consultation about our website? If so, could we take some contact details for use in the future? We don't mind what you give us whether telephone, email, postal address or all of them. And it's important to remember that we will not use this information for any other purpose. Name Address 1 Address 2 Town Postcode Contact number E-mail address Page | 66
    • APPENDIX 3: FACE TO FACE SURVEY Hull City Council website consultation We would like your views on our website and the information and services you access through it. We also want to understand more about the people who use it. This survey will take around 10 minutes to complete and includes the opportunity to become involved in further consultations about our website. Q1 What was your main purpose in visiting the CSC today? Or: Thinking about the last time you visited a CSC, rang 300300, or visited the council website what was the main purpose of your visit? Please select one option. Pay something ............................................................................................................................  Book something ..........................................................................................................................  Report something .......................................................................................................................  Request something ....................................................................................................................  Apply for something ...................................................................................................................  Make a complaint/provide feedback ........................................................................................  Find something ...........................................................................................................................  Just browsing ..............................................................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q2 What service area were you seeking assistance with? Please select one option Adult and further education .......................................................................................................  Benefits ........................................................................................................................................  Community safety .......................................................................................................................  Councillors and democracy.......................................................................................................  Council tax (but not council tax benefit) ..................................................................................  Electoral register .........................................................................................................................  Environmental health (e.g., food standards, health inspection) ..........................................  Events and what's on (e.g., theatres and halls) .....................................................................  Licencing ......................................................................................................................................  Housing (but not housing benefit) ............................................................................................  Jobs ..............................................................................................................................................  Leisure facilities (e.g., gym membership, libraries) ...............................................................  Parking .........................................................................................................................................  Planning .......................................................................................................................................  Public transport ...........................................................................................................................  Roads and streetlights ...............................................................................................................  Rubbish and recycling (e.g., missed bin collection) ..............................................................  Schools information ....................................................................................................................  Social care and health ...............................................................................................................  Trading standards .......................................................................................................................  Youth activities ............................................................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Page | 67
    • APPENDIX 3: FACE TO FACE SURVEY Q3 How often do you contact Hull City Council either for information or to request a service? Please select one option. Every day .....................................................................................................................................  At least once a week ..................................................................................................................  Every month ................................................................................................................................  Every few months .......................................................................................................................  Only in emergencies/very rarely ...............................................................................................  Q4 What is your preferred way of contacting the council? Please select one option. By post .........................................................................................................................................  By email .......................................................................................................................................  Depends why I need to contact you ........................................................................................  In person ......................................................................................................................................  Over the telephone .....................................................................................................................  Via the internet ............................................................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q5 Do you use the internet? Yes (go to Question 9) ...............................................................................................................  No (go to Question 6).................................................................................................................  Q6 What are the barriers to your usage? I don't feel comfortable using the internet ...............................................................................  The cost of internet access .......................................................................................................  I have never used the internet and don't want to in the future ............................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q7 Would you be interested in hearing about any training the council is running or alternative ways to access the internet? Yes ................................................................................................................................................  No (go to Q23) ............................................................................................................................  Q8 Please could I take your contact details so that the council can let you know of any training or access initiatives they are running? We will not use this information for any other purpose. Name Address 1 Address 2 Town Postcode Contact number Go to Q23 Page | 68
    • APPENDIX 3: FACE TO FACE SURVEY Q9 Why didn't you visit the council website (www.hullcc.gov.uk) to access this information/service? Please tick all that apply. I didn't think that the information/service could be accessed online ...................................  I prefer the human touch ...........................................................................................................  I tried the website first and the information/service is not available ...................................  I tried the website first and could not find the information/service ......................................  I tried the website but found it difficult to use .........................................................................  I was not at a computer and saw something that needed dealing with immediately so  rang 300300 ................................................................................................................................ I was not at a computer and was near a Customer Service Centre ...................................  Previous bad experience of the website .................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q10 Would you be happy to answer some questions about your internet usage habits so that we can improve the service offered through our website (www.hullcc.gov.uk)? Yes ................................................................................................................................................  No (go to Q23) ............................................................................................................................  Q11 Where do you usually access the internet? Please tick all that apply. At home ........................................................................................................................................  At work .........................................................................................................................................  Through a public computer .......................................................................................................  Via mobile internet ......................................................................................................................  Elsewhere ....................................................................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q12 Which methods do you use to connect to the internet? Please tick all that apply. I use a broadband connection ..................................................................................................  I use a dial-up connection .........................................................................................................  I use a mobile network dongle ..................................................................................................  I use a mobile phone/smartphone............................................................................................  I use a public Wi-Fi connection ................................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q13 What kind of internet user are you? Please select one option Tentative and reluctant user (very basic skills, very rare usage) ........................................  Casual user (basic skills, use as and when it's necessary) .................................................  Regular user (range of skills, and comfortable using the internet on a regular basis) ....  I couldn't live without it ...............................................................................................................  Q14 In the last year, how often have you visited our website (www.hullcc.gov.uk)? Every day .....................................................................................................................................  At least once a week ..................................................................................................................  Every few months .......................................................................................................................  Very rarely....................................................................................................................................  Never (please explain) (go to Q19)..........................................................................................  Page | 69
    • APPENDIX 3: FACE TO FACE SURVEY Q15 How did you hear about our website (www.hullcc.gov.uk)? I knew the site previously ..........................................................................................................  I used a search engine ..............................................................................................................  I saw the address on a form/in a leaflet ..................................................................................  I saw the address on other council advertising ......................................................................  I followed a link from another government website ...............................................................  I followed a link from elsewhere ...............................................................................................  I guessed at the address ...........................................................................................................  Family/friends told me about it..................................................................................................  A council officer suggested I use it ..........................................................................................  Through my local library ............................................................................................................  I work for the council ..................................................................................................................  Unsure/Can't remember ............................................................................................................  Other .............................................................................................................................................  Q16 On your last visit to our website, did it provide what you were looking for? Yes ................................................................................................................................................  No (go to Q18) ............................................................................................................................  Can't remember (go to Q19) .....................................................................................................  Q17 On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is very difficult and 5 very easy, how easy was it to do what you wanted? 1 2 3 4 5 n/a       Q18 Given that the website did not provide a solution, how did you resolve your problem? Did you ring 300300..................................................................................................................................  make no further effort.................................................................................................................  contact a councillor directly .......................................................................................................  visit a Customer Service Centre (CSC) ..................................................................................  visit a library.................................................................................................................................  write an email to the council .....................................................................................................  write to the council through the post ........................................................................................  I can't remember .........................................................................................................................  do something else (please specify) .........................................................................................  Q19 Now thinking about our earlier example of the last time you contacted the council. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is very unlikely and 5 is very likely, how likely are you to visit our website for the same purpose in the future? 1 2 3 4 5 n/a       Q20 And, on the same scale, how likely are you to visit our website for a different purpose in the future? 1 2 3 4 5 n/a       Page | 70
    • APPENDIX 3: FACE TO FACE SURVEY Q21 How can we improve our website (www.hullcc.gov.uk)? Please tick all that apply. Structure of website (for example the names by which we refer to services and  service areas) .............................................................................................................................. Better content (for example the way in which pages are written, or the information  they contain) ................................................................................................................................ Look and feel (for example the layout of the pages and the colour scheme) ...................  Search facility (for example the results it returns) .................................................................  More transactional services (for example reporting missed bin collections, applying for  licences, paying and booking) .................................................................................................. Customer accounts to enable you to log and track service requests, store payment  details, receive information on your areas of interest etc. .................................................... Information on your chosen areas of interest sent to you (for example by email or text  without visiting the site) ............................................................................................................. Ways to access information through social media and networks (Twitter, Facebook  and similar services) .................................................................................................................. Blogs (from council officers, elected members and other contributors) .............................  Geographical information ('Find my nearest' function) .........................................................  Greater use of audio or video ...................................................................................................  Contribute your own content to the site (pictures, comments, news, events) ...................  It's fine as it is ..............................................................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q22 Is there anything else you would like to suggest, or comment on? Page | 71
    • APPENDIX 3: FACE TO FACE SURVEY About you To understand the answers we receive from this questionnaire, we would like to ask a few more questions. These questions will aid us in exploring the views expressed by different groups of people and will help to ensure we deliver all our services fairly. You do not have to fill them in but if you do, the information you provide will be kept confidential and will be stored securely. Q23 Would you be happy to answer a few more questions? Yes ................................................................................................................................................  No (go to end of the survey) .....................................................................................................  Q24 Which of the following are relevant to you? Please tick all that apply. I live in the area...........................................................................................................................  I work in Hull ................................................................................................................................  I work for Hull City Council ........................................................................................................  I'm planning to visit Hull .............................................................................................................  I'm planning on moving to Hull .................................................................................................  I'm a local councillor in Hull .......................................................................................................  I'm looking for information for myself .......................................................................................  I'm looking for information in relation to work .........................................................................  I'm looking for information on behalf of a friend or family member .....................................  Prefer not to say .........................................................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q25 What is your postcode? This will help us to understand if people who live in your area have different views to people who live in other areas of the city. Please write in the space provided below. Q26 Are you? Please select one option. Male ..............................................................................................................................................  Female .........................................................................................................................................  Other .............................................................................................................................................  Please provide any further information about your gender if you wish Q27 What is your date of birth? Please write in the space below (mm/yyyy) Q28 Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or impairment which has lasted, or is expected to last at least 12 months? (Please include conditions such as mental health issues or problems related to ageing). Please select one option. Yes limited a lot ...........................................................................................................................  Yes limited a little ........................................................................................................................  No (go to Question 30) ..............................................................................................................  Page | 72
    • APPENDIX 3: FACE TO FACE SURVEY Q29 Which of the following impairment groups do you identify with? Please tick all that apply. Mobility impairment ....................................................................................................................  Mobility impairment (wheelchair user) .....................................................................................  Personal assistance user ..........................................................................................................  Learning difficulty (inc. Dyslexia)..............................................................................................  Blind or partially sighted ............................................................................................................  Deaf or hard of hearing ..............................................................................................................  Mental health ...............................................................................................................................  Living with HIV/AIDS ..................................................................................................................  Living with cancer .......................................................................................................................  Living with MS .............................................................................................................................  Hidden impairment (e.g., epilepsy) ..........................................................................................  Autistic Spectrum Disorder .......................................................................................................  Motor Skills Impaired .................................................................................................................  Prefer not to say .........................................................................................................................  None of these ..............................................................................................................................  Other (please state) ...................................................................................................................  Q30 Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? Please select one option White English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British..............................................................  White Irish ....................................................................................................................................  White Gypsy or Irish Traveller...................................................................................................  Any other white background (please state in the box below) ..............................................  Black or black British African ....................................................................................................  Black or black British Caribbean ..............................................................................................  Any other black or black British background (please state in the box below) ...................  Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi ..........................................................................................  Asian or Asian British Chinese .................................................................................................  Asian or Asian British Indian .....................................................................................................  Asian or Asian British Pakistani ................................................................................................  Any other Asian background (please state in the box below)..............................................  Mixed/Multiple ethnic group white and Asian .........................................................................  Mixed/Multiple ethnic group white and black African ............................................................  Mixed/Multiple ethnic group white and black Caribbean ......................................................  Any other mixed/multiple ethnic group backgroun (please state in the box below) .........  Arab ..............................................................................................................................................  Any other ethnic background (please state in the box below) .............................................  Q31 Would you be interested in taking part in any further consultation the council may hold around the use of its website? Yes (go to Question 32) .............................................................................................................  No (end survey) ..........................................................................................................................  Q32 Please can I take whichever contact details work best for you. We will not use this information for any other purpose Name Address 1 Address 2 Town Postcode Contact number Email address Page | 73
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA Where do you usually access the internet? Total Total Face Multiple Choice Question 300300 Total Web to Face Total Home 802 241 1043 Work/School 348 72 420 Public computer 97 57 154 Mobile 86 47 133 Elsewhere 12 3 15 1345 420 1765 Which methods do you use to connect to the internet? Total Total Face Multiple Choice Question 300300 Total Web to Face Total Broadband 235 806 231 1272 Mobile/Smart phone 5 94 76 175 Mobile dongle 49 108 12 169 Public Wi-Fi 10 95 26 131 Dial-up 10 33 15 58 Other/Unknown 0 28 1 29 74 358 130 562 How did you hear about hullcc.gov.uk? Total Total Face Single Choice Question 300300 Total Web to Face Total Previous user 14 399 36 449 Search engine 62 274 69 405 I work for the council 11 102 6 119 Link from elsewhere 2 59 14 75 From a form or leaflet 31 20 7 58 Friends or Family 16 5 27 48 On council adverts 12 11 11 34 Library 2 27 3 32 Other 7 13 5 25 Link from government website 1 16 6 23 Council officer 12 4 4 20 Unsure 8 7 5 20 Guessed address 6 1 3 10 184 938 196 1318 What kind of internet user are you? Total Total Face Single Choice Question 300300 Total Web to Face Total Regular user (range of skills, and comfortable using the internet on a regular basis) 130 494 97 721 I couldn't live without it 45 321 77 443 Casual user (basic skills, use as and when it's necessary) 102 102 77 281 Tentative and reluctant user (very basic skills, very rare usage) 17 21 21 59 294 938 272 1504 How often do you contact Hull City Council? Page | 74
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA Total Total Face Single Choice Question 300300 Total Web to Face Total Only in emergencies or very rarely 184 304 178 666 Every few months 159 262 124 545 Every month 106 162 48 316 At least once a week 55 146 16 217 Every day 6 53 5 64 510 927 371 1808 In the last year how often have you visited hullcc.gov.uk? Total Total Face Single Choice Question 300300 Total Web to Face Total Every few months 61 223 79 363 At least once a week 29 239 13 281 Very rarely 91 82 92 265 Every month 0 223 0 223 Never 110 0 79 189 First visit 0 96 0 96 Every day 3 55 6 64 291 918 263 1472 Why didn't 300300 callers use the website? Total Percentage 300300 Percentage Percentage of callers callers of 300300 of all that identify who didn't callers callers as web use the (110 (510 users (294 Single Choice Question website responses) responses) responses) 300300 meets their needs better 16 15% 3% 5% Had never visited hullcc.gov.uk, or knew about it 71 65% 14% 24% Others 23 21% 5% 8% 110 510 294 What was the main purpose of your visit Total Total Face Single Choice Question 300300 Total Web to Face Total find information 131 573 111 815 report something 154 17 35 206 request something 123 17 45 185 Other 60 65 32 157 pay something 27 52 57 136 just browsing n/a 97 31 128 apply for something 9 69 37 115 make a complaint/provide feedback 1 16 47 64 book something 5 32 17 54 510 938 399 1847 Page | 75
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA What service were you interested in? Total Total Total Face to Single Choice Question 300300 Web Face Total Trading standards 1 1 - 2 Licensing 3 1 4 8 Electoral register 2 12 2 16 History - 20 - 20 Parking 7 4 11 22 Planning 4 19 2 25 Youth activities - 16 9 25 Community safety 1 7 18 26 Social care and health 5 22 4 31 Adult and further education - 26 17 43 Environmental health (such as food standards, health inspection) 13 12 18 43 Public transport 6 12 27 45 Roads and streetlights 15 10 20 45 Councillors and democracy 3 36 10 49 Schools information 1 34 21 56 Benefits 14 28 17 59 Events and What's On 0 116 29 145 Council tax (but not council tax benefit) 95 35 33 163 Leisure facilities (such as gym membership, libraries) 2 159 10 171 Jobs 20 112 49 181 Other (please state) 27 104 59 190 Rubbish and recycling (such as missed bin collection) 164 42 37 243 Housing (but not housing benefit) 127 110 52 289 On your last visit to hullcc.gov.uk did it provide you with the information you were looking for? Total Total Total Face to Single Choice Question 300300 Web Face Total Yes 130 619 136 885 No 22 213 32 267 I wasn't looking for anything in particular 106 106 Can't remember 16 24 40 168 938 192 1298 How easy, or difficult did you find it to get hold that information? Total Total Total Face to Single Choice Question 300300 Web Face Total Very difficult 1 9 2 12 Difficult 2 32 9 43 Neither 10 151 21 182 Easy 59 255 57 371 Very easy 58 172 46 276 130 619 135 884 Page | 76
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA What did you do instead? Total Total Total Face to Single Choice Question 300300 Web Face Total Do something else 4 90 3 106 Ring 300300 13 28 23 64 Make no further effort 1 40 14 55 Write an email 1 18 3 22 Visit a library 0 19 1 20 Visit a CSC 1 8 4 13 Talk to a Councillor 0 4 5 9 I can't remember 2 0 3 5 Use the post 0 2 2 4 22 209 58 298 How likely are you to use www.hullcc.gov.uk for the same purpose in the future? Total Total Total Face to Single Choice Question 300300 Web Face Total Very unlikely 98 42 33 173 Unlikely 33 40 23 96 Neither 51 116 48 215 Likely 65 342 67 474 Very likely 47 398 54 499 How likely are you to use www.hullcc.gov.uk for a different purpose in the future? Total Total Total Face to Single Choice Question 300300 Web Face Total Very unlikely 109 42 34 185 Unlikely 34 57 26 117 Neither 48 173 59 280 Likely 62 417 65 544 Very likely 41 249 57 347 What is your preferred way of contacting the council? Total Total Total Face to Single Choice Question 300300 Web Face Total Telephone 475 144 168 787 Depends 2 393 34 429 Email 3 208 32 243 Internet 11 120 70 201 In person 16 39 72 127 By post 3 26 15 44 Other 0 8 6 14 Page | 77
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA Please rate the following areas on a scale of very satisfied to very dissatisfied (online question only) One answer per row Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied Subtotal N/A Grand Total First impression of our website 46 79 190 451 163 929 9 938 Look and Feel 43 99 194 444 144 924 14 938 Getting around the site/navigation 73 138 150 390 174 925 13 938 Search 84 116 185 358 156 899 39 938 Finding what I want 58 103 176 388 190 915 23 938 Mapping 52 82 240 306 116 796 142 938 Booking things 31 29 173 175 82 490 448 938 Reporting 32 34 172 153 62 453 485 938 Applying 35 29 168 165 68 465 473 938 Paying 29 22 162 137 81 431 507 938 Final Impression 55 96 154 385 225 915 23 938 538 827 1964 3352 1461 8142 2176 10318 Which of the following areas would you like to see the council develop or improve? (online question only) Of which Multiple Choice Question Number Structure Content Design Search Transactionality Account Subscription SocMed Blogs Map AV UGC It's Fine Other Structure 283 164 168 185 126 113 73 57 55 122 55 54 7 9 Content 273 164 165 185 124 104 86 61 66 121 64 61 12 10 Design 284 168 165 174 130 106 74 59 52 121 63 63 12 10 Search 343 185 185 174 141 115 92 62 56 142 60 61 11 14 Transactionality 262 126 124 130 141 145 88 55 63 133 53 51 12 8 Account 218 113 104 106 115 145 82 57 53 108 48 47 10 10 Subscription 253 73 86 74 92 88 82 50 47 78 42 45 8 10 SocMed 96 57 61 59 62 55 57 50 44 54 42 43 10 5 Blogs 104 55 66 52 56 63 53 47 44 56 44 42 15 4 Map 229 122 121 121 142 133 108 78 54 56 58 58 12 5 AV 106 55 64 63 60 53 48 42 42 44 58 47 12 5 User Generated Content (UGC) 106 54 61 63 61 51 47 45 43 42 58 47 10 7 It's Fine 265 7 12 12 11 12 10 8 10 15 12 12 10 1 Other 46 9 10 10 14 8 10 10 5 4 5 5 7 1 2868 Page | 78
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA How can we improve hullcc.gov.uk? (300300 and face to face question only) Total Responses Total Responses Multiple Choice Question (300300) (Face to Face) Total Structure of website (for example the names by which we refer to services and service areas) 10 55 65 Better content (for example the way in which pages are written, or the information they contain) 13 37 50 Look and feel (for example the layout of the pages and the colour scheme) 12 37 49 Search facility (for example the results it returns) 13 44 57 More transactional services (for example reporting missed bin collections, applying for licences, paying and booking) 13 14 27 Customer accounts to enable you to log and track service requests, store payment details, receive information on your areas of interest etc. 2 7 9 Information on your chosen areas of interest sent to you (for example by email or text without visiting the site) 3 12 15 Ways to access information through social media and networks (Twitter, Facebook and similar services) 0 18 18 Blogs (from council officers, elected members and other contributors) 0 13 13 Geographical information ('Find my nearest' function) 1 18 19 Greater use of audio or video 0 23 23 Contribute your own content to the site (pictures, comments, news, events) 1 6 7 It's fine as it is 144 81 225 Other 30 19 49 Have not visited, do not visit hullcc.gov.uk 96 33 129 No Response 0 167 167 338 232 570 Currently Use Total users who would like HCC to use a service Aggregator Sites 79 37 Bebo 69 33 Blogs 165 70 Discussion Forums 262 125 Facebook 614 118 Flickr 113 40 Friendfeed 40 27 Linked-In 77 32 MySpace 144 44 Subscription 125 66 ThisIsYourMail 188 65 Twitter 161 49 UGC 97 51 Wiki 148 48 Yammer 35 22 Youtube 397 83 Page | 79
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA Which of the following are relevant to you? Total Total Total Face to Multiple Choice Question 300300 Web Face Total Live in the Area 450 668 276 1394 Work in Hull 186 338 161 685 Work for HullCC 21 165 8 194 Planning to visit 1 30 13 44 Planning on moving 2 14 3 19 Local councillor 0 4 0 4 Information (for myself) 79 336 106 521 Information (for work) 8 153 11 172 Information (for friend) 8 82 28 118 Other 9 18 14 41 Postcodes represented Total Total Total Face to 300300 Web Face Total AB31 0 1 0 1 BB8 0 1 0 1 BD7 0 1 0 1 BD8 0 1 0 1 BL9 0 1 0 1 BN2 0 1 0 1 BT7 0 1 0 1 CR3 0 1 0 1 CV3 0 1 0 1 CV4 0 1 0 1 DE23 0 1 0 1 DH4 0 1 0 1 DH9 0 1 0 1 DL10 0 1 0 1 DL14 0 1 0 1 DN1 0 0 1 1 DN11 0 1 1 2 DN14 0 2 0 2 DN15 0 1 0 1 DN17 0 1 0 1 DN18 0 6 4 10 DN19 0 1 0 1 DN21 0 1 0 1 DN3 0 1 0 1 DN32 0 1 0 1 E17 0 1 0 1 EH55 0 1 0 1 EI1 0 1 0 1 EX17 0 1 0 1 FY8 0 1 0 1 G26 0 1 0 1 G40 0 1 0 1 G43 0 1 0 1 HP3 0 1 0 1 HU1 2 23 9 34 HU10 1 12 7 20 Page | 80
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA HU11 4 10 4 18 HU12 3 20 6 29 HU13 3 4 16 23 HU14 0 3 8 11 HU15 0 8 15 23 HU16 2 9 3 14 HU17 1 24 3 28 HU18 0 4 1 5 HU19 0 3 1 4 HU2 14 14 4 32 HU20 0 2 0 2 HU3 49 63 26 138 HU4 25 45 14 84 HU5 93 156 37 286 HU6 67 78 25 170 HU7 54 85 31 170 HU8 58 73 20 151 HU9 79 98 21 198 IS17 0 1 0 1 KY1 1 0 0 1 LA2 0 1 0 1 LE1 0 1 0 1 LE2 0 1 0 1 LN11 1 0 0 1 LN2 0 2 0 2 LS20 0 0 0 0 LU6 0 1 0 1 ME3 0 1 0 1 ME5 0 1 0 1 NG24 0 1 0 1 NG34 0 1 0 1 NN9 0 1 0 1 Non UK 0 9 0 9 OX2 0 1 0 1 PO12 0 1 0 1 S41 0 1 0 1 SA48 0 1 0 1 SE6 0 1 0 1 SK7 0 1 0 1 SS2 0 1 0 1 TN39 0 1 0 1 W6 0 1 0 1 WD24 1 0 0 1 WF2 0 1 0 1 WV3 0 1 0 1 YO12 0 1 0 1 YO15 0 2 1 3 YO16 0 3 0 3 YO23 0 1 0 1 YO25 0 4 0 4 YO30 0 1 0 1 YO42 0 1 0 1 YO43 0 3 0 3 YO7 0 1 0 1 YO8 0 1 0 1 Page | 81
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA Gender Total Total Total Face to 300300 Web Face Total Female 322 507 165 994 Male 147 394 169 710 469 901 334 1704 Average Age Face to 300300 Face Female 45 36 Male 49 32 Age and Gender Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Face Face to Face to Total 300300 300300 Total Web Web to Face Face Total Total 300300 Male Female Web Male Female Face Male Female Total Male Female Under 21 17 3 14 57 18 39 82 47 35 156 68 88 21-30 69 17 52 166 59 107 72 36 36 307 112 195 31-40 94 28 66 156 61 95 39 25 14 289 114 175 41-50 107 30 77 147 77 70 43 21 22 297 128 169 51-60 90 30 60 124 64 60 23 7 16 237 101 136 61-70 44 15 29 56 33 23 19 5 14 119 53 66 71-80 30 17 13 10 6 4 5 4 1 45 27 18 81-90 9 2 7 4 2 2 3 1 2 16 5 11 Over 90 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 461 143 318 720 320 400 286 146 140 1467 609 858 Page | 82
    • APPENDIX 4: SURVEY DATA QUESTIONS FOR 300300 and OFFLINE participants only: Why didn't you use the website? Total Total Face to 300300 Face Total 300300 easier/quicker 9 0 9 didn't think that the information/service could be accessed online 76 40 116 Dissatisfied with previous experience 7 8 15 don't use the internet 200 178 378 Didn't know about the site/don't visit hullcc.gov.uk 17 0 17 Other (please state) 27 52 79 prefer the human touch 138 81 219 tried the website but found it difficult to use 2 6 8 tried the website first and could not find the information/service 3 8 11 tried the website first and the information/service is not available 15 13 28 were not at a computer and saw something that needed dealing with immediately so rang 300300 16 14 30 was not at a computer and was near a CSC 0 8 8 510 399 909 What are the barriers to your usage? Total Total Face to 300300 Face Total I don't feel comfortable using the internet 75 20 95 I have never used the internet and don't want to in the future 56 28 84 Other (please state) 20 13 33 The cost of internet access 46 14 60 197 75 272 Page | 83