1

How different citizen groups use eGovernment services

Council of Europe Forum for the Future of Democracy16-17 October 2008Madrid

Jeremy MillardCentre for Policy and Business AnalysisDanish 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

InclusiveeGovernment

policy

Public websiteaccessibility policy Multi-channel

policy

2005

20070%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

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

AccessTraining in eSkills

Service use forsocio-economic

impact

2005

20070%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

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

What people think of (e)goverment services

– eGovernment rated as high as government services– But not (yet?) higher

Mean eGovernment satisfaction score (1 to 5) -- EU 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

Information up-to-date andaccurate

Completefulf ilment

Information onspecif ic

situations

Takes accountof personal

circumstances

See emailmessage

reaches rightperson in

government

Mean score forgovernment

services

Source eUser 2006; base: all who had used (e)government services in last 12 months

7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

IT DK UK HU EU 10 mean

In person Post Phone, fax, SMS Internet, email

Citizens contact with government

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

8

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

Government users and media combinations used (EU 10 mean)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

eGovernment users(309%)

Non-eGovernment butInterner users (170%)

Non-eGovernment &non-Interner users

(148%)

Internet & email In person Post Telephone Fax SMS/text messaging

Source: eUSER 2006Base:% government users

9

Inclusive eGovernment delivery2005: n=124 from 72 cases: 2007: n=178 from 90 cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2007

Multi-channel targeted atindividual

Single (online) channel targetedat individual

Single (online) channel targetedat group

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

eGovernment users: on behalf of whom

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

DE 44%38%47%

FR 56%48%42%

IT 29%46%67%

DK 73%40%67%

UK 55%43%49%

IE 49%56%38%

PL 60%41%50%

HU42%26%63%

CZ 39%31%70%

SI 52%42%57%

EU 1053%42%51%

Ratio to total eGov use:for own use >>

for family etc use >>for employer use >>

% e

Go

vern

men

t u

sers

of

tota

l

go

vern

men

t u

sers

eGov total users eGov own use

eGov on behalf of family or friends (social intermediary) eGov on behalf of employer (as part of job)

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:

1. live in a country with high eGovernment & internet roll-out

2. internet access at home

3. well developed eSkills & eAttitudes

4. further or tertiary education

5. employed

6. managerial or professional occupations

7. aged 25-34

8. Male

9. Med-high income

eGovernment non-user characteristics

1. live in a country with not very high eGovernment & internet roll-out

2. no Internet access at home

3. low eSkills & eAttitudes

4. basic education only

5. not working or retired

6. manual or unskilled occupations

7. aged 50 plus

8. Female

9. Med-low income

eGovernment social inter-mediary characteristics

1. live in a country with not very high eGovernment & internet roll-out

2. internet access at home

3. well developed eSkills & eAttitudes

4. secondary or lower basic education

5. not working or retired

6. (occupation not significant)

7. aged 18-24 and 35+

8. (gender not significant)

9. 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)