How different citizen groups use eGovernment services

1. How different citizen groups use eGovernment services Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy 16-17 October 2008MadridJeremy MillardCentre for Policy and Business Analysis Danish Technological Institute

2. Preview • What European governments are doing • policy, deployment, delivery • What (disadvantaged) people are doing • opinions, behaviour, characteristics • So what? • evidence, research, conclusions

3. Inclusive eGovernment policies% MS with policies in place (n=30) 2005-2007 More policies (the first step): MS are getting their act together ??

4. Inclusive eGovernment deployment2005: n=124 from 72 cases: 2007: n=178 from 90 cases • Deployment is moving on from necessary to sufficient conditions ?

5. Service use for social impact • Lithuania: unemployed • The unemployed can use SMS to access newly registered job vacancies in the 46 local labour exchange offices, as well as physically visiting the offices • Italy: Schoolhost • Hospitalised children are linked to school by video enabling them to continue their studies, not only with a remote teacher but also integrated into a remote classroom. • Finland: Infopankki • A 15 language web service targeting the 120,000 immigrants living in Finland, and the authorities providing public services, through information, questions, links, video services, etc., directly supporting social integration.

6. Source eUser 2006; base: all who had used (e)government services in last 12 months What people think of (e)goverment services • eGovernment rated as high as government services • But not (yet?) higher

7. Citizens contact with government • In person remains most common, but large country differences • Mean contact with government only 2.6 times per year

8. Source: eUSER 2006 Base: % government users Using government services:to ‘e’ or not to ‘e’ • Are there some things people can do better than technology ? • More ‘e’ tends to lead to more of everything else

9. Inclusive eGovernment delivery2005: n=124 from 72 cases: 2007: n=178 from 90 cases • Treat people as individuals and do not see the ‘e’ channel in isolation

10. Multi-channel for the disadvantaged • Portugal: ACESSO Programme • A large number of projects for citizens with special needs, such as the disabled, elderly people and those with long-term illness, using face-to-face, on-line digital documents, assistive technologies like braille in libraries and resource centres, spoken digital documents and books, on-line ICT tutorials, and support for autonomous living by senior citizens. • Greece: Citizen Service Centres • Advanced multi-channel system (portal, phone or face-to-face)for the delivery of public services to citizens and businesses, regardless of their digital literacy level, social orientation or locality.

11. Using eGovernment services:the role of social intermediaries • Social intermediaries (family & friends): 42% of eGov users do it, each supporting 2.6 other persons ! • PA intermediaries: 13% of inclusive eGovernment initiatives have civil servants as civil servants (ICT-empowered frontline staff, on the streets, in the community, with the company)

12. End-user does not use ICT • ICT-empowered front-line staff • Malta: eGovernment Agents (intermediaries – ICT-empowered frontine staff) serve people without ICT access or skills, so the latter do not need to be physically present at a government office, and enables staff to be redeployed to work out in the community. • ICT-empowered back-office staff • Belgium: automatic granting of benefit payments based on the social security status of a person (e.g. tax reduction, reduced telephone charges, free pass for public transport) without the person having to submit a certificate. The benefit-granting institution will instead consult the Crossroads Bank for Social Security to get information on social security status.

13. Who are (e)government users (in rank order of importance) • eGovernment user characteristics: • live in a country with high eGovernment & internet roll-out • internet access at home • well developed eSkills & eAttitudes • further or tertiary education • employed • managerial or professional occupations • aged 25-34 • Male • Med-high income • eGovernment non-user characteristics • live in a country with not very high eGovernment & internet roll-out • no Internet access at home • low eSkills & eAttitudes • basic education only • not working or retired • manual or unskilled occupations • aged 50 plus • Female • Med-low income • eGovernment social inter-mediary characteristics • live in a country with not very high eGovernment & internet roll-out • internet access at home • well developed eSkills & eAttitudes • secondary or lower basic education • not working or retired • (occupation not significant) • aged 18-24 and 35+ • (gender not significant) • Med-low income • eGovernment user behaviour compared to non-user behaviour: • use government services more often • use a wider range of government service types • use a wider range a different channels to access government services, not only ‘e’

14. Evidence and research needs • Have some evidence, but is patchy, inconsistent and not easily comparable: EC and OECD now trying to collect more but will be at a quite general and unsophisticated level • Ethnography of user behaviour& their service fulfilment (i.e. holistic approach to use of services), including through flexible channelling and use of intermediaries • Flexible channel and channel balancing, identify channel switch points, and reasons for switching between channels as suited to user preference, service and task • Role of intermediaries, champions, activists, support groups, in supporting (disadvantaged) users, developing a user & community voice, etc. • Civil servant as ‘citizen service activist’ (a type of formalised intermediary) especially for the ‘disadvantaged’, cf. business account manager in private sector • From ‘user-centric’ to ‘user-driven’: citizens as (co-)creators of eGovernment services, cf. Linux, games, media, Web 2.0, etc.

15. Overall conclusions • Do NOT treat ‘e’ as the only or even most important channel: it sometimes complements but never substitutes (?) • Using ‘e’, and especially eServices is often (perhaps mainly) a highly social activity: WE have only recently realised this – our kids have known for a bit longer ! • The ‘digital divide’ is not ‘solved’ (perhaps not solvable) there is a threat of huge social bifurcation coming • Providing extra channels (like ‘e’) is expensive: but what is the purpose of government / governance anyway (democracy is also “expensive”)? • Start bottom-up with individual peoples’ and communities’ wishes and needs -- but top-down (or a broad society, public value, view is also important, and may sometimes take precedence over bottom-up) • Need a ‘joined-up’ strategic approach: difficult but coming slowly (not least data security issues and trust)