« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In July 2006, the Scottish Executive's Efficient Government Delivery Group's e-Government and Take-up team, in conjunction with the Local Government and Public Service Reform Research Branch of the Finance and Central Services Department Analytical Services Division ( FCSD: ASD) commissioned ECOTEC Research and Consulting to evaluate the community e-Democracy pilot project 'Renewing Local Democracy'.
The overall aim of the evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of the project in terms of its:
- impact on community engagement,
- impact on the role and functioning of community councils; and
- potential for rollout more widely throughout Scotland.
Methodology
An evaluation framework was used to assess the pilot project and the following methods were employed:
- desk review of project information,
- technical review of website statistics and content analysis of a sample of messages;
- desk review of comparator e-democracy literature and examples;
- interviews with stakeholders and the local community; and
- cost-benefit analysis of the website 1.
Key findings
The 'Renewing Local Democracy' pilot project ran from January 2004 to January 2006. The Scottish Executive's maximum contribution to the project was £169,000 from the 21 st Century Government Unit's Flexible Fund. The Executive contracted with Stirling Council to deliver the project in partnership with the Association of Community Councils for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park area, Stirling Assembly, the Association of Scottish Community Councils and the International Teledemocracy Centre ( ITC) at Napier University. The purpose of the pilot project was to investigate the use of information and communication technologies ( ICT) to facilitate the renewal of participation in the democratic decision-making process at the community level. Its objectives were:
- develop an community e-democracy model
- develop e-democracy tools
Usage and uptake
Usage of the website was at a fairly low level through the pilot period, with a small number of regular users numbering in the tens. Given the small populations in the six communities (ranging from several hundred up to around a thousand) low levels of usage are to be expected. Usage generally grew over the period of the pilot, however the web statistics collected provided no meaningful information on the demographics of its users and, together with the decision not to include a registration process, this means we do not know who was using the site.. Some individuals were prolific users particularly around specific 'hot topics' (such as the Housing Stock Transfer issue) but there was little evidence that a wide cross-section of the public had been engaged.
The pilot project led to some very small increases in public participation in one or two of the six pilot areas (for example Bannockburn). Stakeholders believed that some users of the website were 'newcomers' (who had not participated in CC processes / attended meetings previously). One new CC member was recruited via the website - as they were able to interact online instead of having to attend regular meetings. One CC reported that attendance at its regular meetings had grown from 2-3 people to around 3-5 people each time, and attributed this to raised levels of interest due to the pilot website.
Design and development
The project suffered some difficulties in the design and scoping stage. The aims and objectives of the project were two-fold, and mutually reinforcing: as a tool to help CCs function effectively, together with the more ambitious aim of enhancing community engagement. No information on how resources were intended to be allocated between these was available to ECOTEC.
There was only a limited feasibility / needs assessment conducted at the start of the project. The planning stage took into account the needs of the local CCs, but did not, as might be expected of a project designed to "investigate the use of ICTs to facilitate the renewal of democracy at community level", establish what other e-democracy initiatives were taking place in Scotland or across the rest of the world to benchmark this project effectively.
Impacts on community councils
A key area where the pilot made a positive impact was on the role and functioning of CCs, which were in general able to respond to comments and issues raised and address them at CC meetings for example. The councillors involved in the pilot felt it helped to raise the profile of CCs, allowing local people to gain information and communicate with their CC representatives, and speeded up communications and improved the efficiency of certain CC functions - notably handling administration, preparation for meetings, organising petitions and making responses to planning applications and consultations. However only two CCs actively used the website for any reasonable period of time and, as might be expected, in some cases the pilot website increased workloads, particularly for secretaries, since they were mainly responsible for maintaining the website content, as well as maintaining existing channels of communication. The success of the tools particularly depended on the level of enthusiasm from the councillors involved.
Impacts on local communities
The pilot project demonstrated some very small-scale impacts in terms of attracting some new users to participate in community consultation. Those who did engage with the pilot were generally using the website to raise local issues, receive information and share opinions. In several cases there was evidence that local peoples' opinions had been listened to, and acted upon. Examples of where local people had influenced their local community were evident on the website: for example the resolution of the issue of bikers in the local wood and the change to a local bus route. Communities themselves had mixed views on the website. A small minority were regular users of the site and great advocates, whereas others were uninterested because they 'did not have the time' to participate or felt the site was not updated regularly enough.
Engaging with disadvantaged groups
There was only limited marketing activity to raise awareness of the website in local communities, and stakeholders needed to develop an approach to identify and engage with disadvantaged groups in their localities. Stakeholders recognised this was a weakness and that in future, more time would need to be spent on encouraging engagement with a cross-section of the community.
Technical issues
Technically, the website did not always represent best practice in the field. The Content Management System( CMS) did not allow CCs to manage the website themselves, and greater interaction between the six websites would be beneficial. In terms of look and feel, users would have liked the site to be more 'locally focussed' and 'individual'. It was not accessible as defined under the Disability Discrimination Act 2 which means many disabled users may have had difficulties accessing it.
Comparator websites - the wider context
The evaluation assessed other community-based e-democracy initiatives across the rest of Scotland and the UK. A typology of three types of e-democracy websites was established. This included informational sites which primarily give out information to citizens; sites that enhance democratic participation including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's local authority-led websites 3 that allow a feedback loop between citizens and representatives; and organically growing participatory sites which are developed bottom-up by citizens themselves. Two alternative models in Scotland were explored: 'Your Community Council' which runs a network of 37 CC sites and includes a discussion forum, and 'the Local Channel' which offers an interactive service to a network of 23,000 community websites. Both of these models were offering similar functionality to the pilot website and it was clear that there has been significant development in this sector since the pilot project began.
Cost-benefit assessment
The evaluation included a limited cost-benefit analysis of the pilot project and compared it with alternative models now available on the market. To the best of our knowledge no formal cost benefit goal was set at the start of the project. Absolute numbers of users were low, and the comparative levels of participation by traditional means are difficult to quantify. Ongoing marginal costs are impossible to quantify since community councillors time is provided on a voluntary basis, and marginal costs of website provision beyond the end of the funded project were unavailable. This makes meaningful cost-benefit analysis difficult. Therefore in cost-benefit terms the pilot was an ambitious and relatively high-cost attempt to stimulate citizen participation in community council activity, with mixed results to date. It is as yet unclear whether a critical mass of public participation can be sustained.
Conclusions
Our review of the evidence suggests that the toolkit may receive a positive response if opened out to a wider number of CCs - dissemination activities carried out during the pilot had already generated some interest. The recent consultation around the future of CCs (carried out by the Scottish Executive), suggests that this is a timely opportunity for reflecting on the valuable lessons learnt throughout the pilot project and sharing them with partners, in the hope of improving the working methods and profile of CCs.
However several barriers exist to rollout including varying levels of IT skills (particularly among older CC volunteers) and access to IT equipment and the internet (for councillors and the public), as well as the fact that many CCs already have their own website and may not wish to subscribe to an alternative model.
In addition, the existence of other cost-effective models of e-Democracy which could be suited to the type of engagement required by the community councils means that continuing the funding of the pilot project at the same levels as before may be an expensive and high-risk option.
Of the comparator sites assessed, the 'Local Channel' was the most interesting, as it presents a CC with a zero-cost financial investment model, requiring only the investment of time by those developing the websites. It also offers some, if not all, of the functionality required by the councillors, such as discussion forums and document sharing. The pilot project, by comparison, was a high-cost initiative that had ambitious aims to raise participation significantly, and to enhance local democracy. These emergent low-cost alternatives now seem attractive, since little direct finance would be needed from potential funders. The comparator websites have also demonstrated that a revenue generating model is also viable in the community sphere.
Recommendations
1. Consideration should be given to adopting a new or re-designed technical model before rollout is considered.
2. Should the decision be made to stay with the current model we would recommend some major improvements including changes to the blogging software and web statistics packages used. We would recommend a switch to a discussion forum type software to enhance the discussion areas of the website.
3. The look and feel of the site should be made more 'locally-focussed' and accessibility needs to be improved to bring the site into line with the Disability Discrimination Act.
4. A more systematic approach to authentication of users (perhaps through a registration area) would be recommended - this would validate responses received and prevent spamming.
5. Future projects need to develop a stronger approach to engaging with local communities in the pilot areas including disengaged groups and other local community groups and public representative organisations.
6. The exploration by any proponents of roll-out of opportunities for future funding should start at a fairly local scale, for example with neighbouring CCs or at sub-regional level, before attempting to expand to other regions or nationally. Allowing controlled advertising on the website to fund the project - as in other web models - should be considered as an option.
« Previous | Contents | Next »