from open government to living policy making

From Open Government to

Living Policy making Damien Lanfrey + Donatella Solda

Policy Advisors, Ministry of Education, University and Research, Italy

Part 1: Lesson planDESIGNING ENGAGEMENT FOR POLICY (AKA OPEN GOVERNMENT) 1.1 THE MANY CONCEPTUAL ROOTS OF ENGAGEMENT

GW. IDENTIFYING A TOOL FOR MANAGING ENGAGEMENT

1.2 SOME CHALLENGES OF ENGAGEMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE

1.3 CASE STUDIES FROM OPEN GOVERNMENT DESIGN: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

1.4 A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING

GW. GROUP-WORK CHALLENGE: APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK

Part 2: Lesson planLIVING POLICY MAKING

GW. PART 1 GROUP-WORK PITCH AND DISCUSSION

2.1 COMPLETING THE FRAMEWORK: THE POLICY CYCLE

2.2 INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN: STATE OF THE ART

2.3 FROM OPEN POLICY TO LIVING POLICY-MAKING

GW. APPLIED LIVING POLICY MAKING & FINAL DISCUSSION

Part 1: Designing Engagement

towards Policy

1

Is it possible to design impactful engagement towards policy ?

CHALLENGES / 1

CHALLENGES / 2

Is it possibile to model a theory on Engagement ?

SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY

there is no such thing as “participation for

participation’s sake”


enough with the “idealized citizen”


when it comes to government (policy & politics)

scale makes a difference

1.1

The (many) conceptual roots of

Engagement

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement


Politics Advocacy Governance mobilization

Design (Experience/Service/

Process/System)

Law-Making [Sunstein, Thaler]

Community Organizing [Alinsky]

Communication / Information Systems

[tech-makers themselves]

Education (pedagogy, skills,

learning patterns)

Citizenship

+

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementPolitical roots [Bennett, Coleman]: Participation as emerging forms of citizenship

Communication roots [Bimber, Shirky]: Every bit counts, communication = collective action

Organizational roots [Bennett, Earl & Kimport, Chadwick]: Collective action as organizational change

Philanthropic roots filantropiche [Fine, Kanter]: Reimagining our links to social causes

Conflictual and symbolic roots [Diani, Della Porta]: Social movement theories, alternative spaces in society, framing processes, mobilizing structures, political opportunities

Macro-theories [Benkler, Castells]: Collective action as power-shifting (communicative and economic) Techno-Legal roots [Bollier, Lessig]: Code as law, power of digital architectures/artifacts, remix

New media roots [Loader and Mercea, Manovich]: Social media, new modes of engagement, narratives, genres, new media theories

Design roots [various]: open design, p2p design, user-centred design, service design, design for policy

(Social) Innovation roots [Mulgan et al]: hybridity, iteration, social impact

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs “ladder” of activities


Source: Forrester


Credits: Beth Kanter

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Mode of Production

Crowds Communities

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Mode of Production

Crowds Communities

Credits: Haythornthwaite

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementCrowds and Communities

Credits: Pew Research Centre

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Citizenship practice

Credits: Nathaniel Heller

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Civic Tech Categories

As emerging “fields” of the civic tech sector, defined by the

proliferation of tools (Credits: Young Foundation)

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Civic Tech Categories

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Impact over the system

Melucci's (1996)framework categorizes all forms of collective action


Sifry's (2014) summary of debates on categorizing public engagement

By Impact over System Vs Mode of Production

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs “format work”

A Scuola di OpenCoesione, a 6-step lesson plan for engaging students through open data in civic

monitoring of cohesion funds expenditure

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”

Take the example of kiva.org, the online social lending platform. It is way more than the lending

practice, leveraging many “engagement paths”

http://kiva.org


The “tight community” path


The “community” path


Leveraging existing communities


Communities as distributed governance


The Education Path


The “instrumental” Path


The individual/utilitarian Path


The “Ambassador” Path


The “every bit counts” Path


The “Generative” Path

Case 1: Poverty2Prosperity

Created by Scott, KivaFriends member Allows other Kiva users to make loans automatically to safe funds Fosters non-generative, simplified engagement

Case 2: 101 Cookbooks Blog

Created by Heidi , author of the Cookbooks blog Posted on September 3rd, 2008 + instructions 763 lenders, 38,000$ in loans


kiva.org, the online social lending platform, is way more

than the lending practice. it leverages many “engagement paths”

http://kiva.org

So, engagement can be interpreted in many ways

“Ladder” of activities

Mode of production

Civic tech categories

Impact over the system

Leveraging “participation styles”“format work”

GROUP WORK

IDENTIFYING A TOOL (or combo of up to 2 tools) FOR MANAGING ENGAGEMENT

GROUP 1: the Council of Rome wants to gather opinions and ideas from citizens before drafting the next traffic plan

GROUP 2: the Ministry of Economic Development has just launched its policy brief on startups and wants to hear from stakeholders and the public before final revisions

(40 minutes)

GROUP WORK

Engagement in the Digital Age

1.2

E-Participation Dilemmas“VOICES FAILING TO BE HEARD” (Keen, 2007; Hindman, 2009)

“LARGELY UNCHANGED HABITS” (Bimber, 2003, 2009)

“PSEUDO PARTICIPATION” (Noveck, 2004)

“THICK COMPETITIVE ELITISM” (Davis, 2011)

“SLACKTIVISM” (Morozov, Gladwell)

“CYBERPOLARIZATION” (Sunstein, Dahlberg)

Online consultations, “no longer an exotic experience” (Shane, 2012) BUT: failure to deliver (various scholars, at various stages, 2005-2014) Two recurring problems:

“[...] few online forums for political expression are tied to in any ascertainable, accountable way to actual governmental policy making” (Shane, 2012). “most most exercises in online deliberation attract relatively small numbers of participants” (Shane, 2012)

A negative spiral

Weak link to policy

Low numbers

Low impact in policy

Low trust, apathy

Low attention from polity & policy

Lower trust, numbers “A recessive spiral”

E-participation Dilemmas

Case Study: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

in Italy (2012-2015)

1.3

The “Attempts” Phase

OGP - Action Plan

Numbers: very low, “usual suspects”

Impact: minimallow diffusion for the themea detailed report

Main Issues: lack of debate, closed networks, numbers not sufficient to legitimate the policy

Spending Review

Numbers: very high, but mostly useless

Impact: very low (“complaint box”)not demonstrable, low accountabilitynegative on tools

Main Issues: the tools used, too simplistic, and low accountability

Valore Legale Titolo di Studio (Legal value of degrees)

Numbers: high, but negative debate, and resultsImpact: “unfortunately” for the Gov, very high: Activism from various groupsPolicy was interrupted and Gov “lost”No accountability on the process

Main Issues: how the debate was managed, the relationship between tools and objectives

35.335 questionnaires in 30 days 550.000 messages in 28 days few dozens of comments

The “Tools” Phase

HIT2020: Horizon 2020 Italy - 2012

Numbers: good, but partisanship and lack of attention from non-research world

Impact: Over the policy drafingRich analysis (report)Higher participation than EU equivalentClarity of the process

Main issues: partisanship, lack of attention from non-research world

Italian position on Internet General Principles (IGF) - 2012

Numbers: decent, but, low engagement across networks besides info-tech world

Impact:co-drafting(partially) international credibilityissue awarenessgood value of physical workshops

Main Issues: tools, lack of literacy, timing, short policy window

Digital Agenda (AdiSocial) - 2012

Numbers: decent, but lack of communication

Impact: multipleInfluence over working groupsLeveraging diversityConsistency with auditionsFirst innovations with toolsA rich report on the process

Main Issues: lack of time, low inter-ministerial coordination, communication, accessibility

3000 users, 343 ideas, 1967 comments, 11.000 votes in 35 days

760 users, 159 ideas, 480 comments3500 votes in 44 days

4272 questionnaires + 3500 users, 133 ideas, 500 comments, 7500 votes in 35 days

The “Paths” Phase

Destination Italy

Numbers: decent, but negative agenda

Impact: very direct: policy was “adjusted” in various partsclear priorities from participantsstakeholder engagement (e.g. think tank)

Main Issues: political instability, lack of debate

PartecipaGov: Constitutional Reforms

Numbers: very high (largest in Europe)

Impact: debatable, ongoing, soft, DELAYEDKeeping constitutional reforms high in the agenda; educational, knowledge development; very detailed report; very clear findings from citizens

Main Issues: political instability, limited offline debate

Social Innovation Agenda co-design

Numbers: low, but significant stakeholder network

Impact: limited, but high intangible valueCo-drafting of the agenda; Institutional working groups launched and few projects launched; International attention; Cultural impact

Main Issues: political instability

85 stakeholders involved, 250 inputs in 5 areas, 1 month

131.676 Q1 + 71.385 Q2 = 214.000 contributions77000 textual comments, 595 ideas, 1763 comments

475.000 visits, 9:34 minutes per visit, 3 months278 comments , 369 questionnaires, 167 ideas, 23 position

papers, 30.000 participants, 2 months

Case Study:

PartecipaGovpublic consultation

on constitutional reforms

PartecipaGov: designing the participation process

200k people involved at the time: largest online consultation by a gov in europe

PartecipaGov (Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms) has been organized around a multi-phase process designed through a range of participation means, media campaigns and engagement occasions.

PartecipaGov: designing the participation process

PartecipaGov: participation paths

Enabling different “layers” of

engagement

Having the highest participation possible for a Government consultation

“Respecting” the subject: constitutional reforms.

Qualifying engagement progressively: from Q1 to Q2 to public debates

Putting pressure on institutions

Providing clear indications for constitutional reforms

Consulting ex-ante to avoid ex-post failure

(referendum)

PartecipaGov: QUESTIONNAIRE #1

PartecipaGov: QUESTIONNAIRE #2

PartecipaGov: Public debates

PartecipaGov: COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

Partecipa alla Consultazione Pubblica online indetta dal Governo per conoscere il parere dei cittadini sulle riforme della Costituzione. Potrai esprimere la tua opinione su temi chiaveper l’assetto e il funzionamento del nostro Paese. Partecipareè semplice: basta collegarsi al sito www.partecipa.gov.it e compilare due veloci questionari entro l’8 ottobre. Un’occasione unicaper costruire, tutti insieme, un Paese più moderno ed efficiente.

PartecipaGov: ENGAGEMENT (MEDIA CAMPAIGNS)

- Spike of users: + 50%, +100%, +200% depending on timing- Spike of mobile users: from 5% to 30-40%- Participation slows in 10 minutes (mobile especially)- Participation increases again (more desktop users + social)- Campaigns contribution steady

Tv spikes Vs Web spikes

TG2 (20) UnoMattina (7am) + start campaignsIlPost (11am) Re-launch + TG5 (13)Ad campaign

Web = fragmented, apart from social PA campaigns + institutional websites = lower but constant contributionMedia necessary, debate necessary

PartecipaGov: GENERAL ENGAGEMENT METRICS

PartecipaGov: ONLINE ENGAGEMENT METRICS

200k people involved largest online consultation by a gov in europe

PartecipaGov (Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms) has been organized around a multi-phase process designed through a range of participation means, media campaigns and engagement occasions.

Conversion Rates

Desktop: 29,3% (n=80.976)

Tablet: 25,22% (n=7.638)

Mobile: 16,3% (n=11.295)

PartecipaGov: PARTICIPANTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS

Q1 Q2

PartecipaGov: CONVERSION RATES

TermometroPolitico.it: 48% (n=203)

TiConsiglio.com: 43,4% (n=618)

Governo.it: 39% (n=3.271)

Direct: 31,3% (n=40.062)

ACI Banner: 31,3% (n=1.374)

IlPost: 30,5% (n=269)

INPS Banner: 30,1% (n=2.916)

Total: 27,5%

Facebook web: 25,5% (n=5.379)

Province websites: 24,1% (n=1.058)

All Campaigns: 23% (n=11.966)

Comuni websites: 22,5% (n=1.521)

Twitter: 19% (n=985)

All referrals: 19,9% (n=35.291)

Facebook mobile: 11% (n=3.186)

- Social media lower conversion rate (influenced by mobile)- Tablet higher conversion than mobile, but lower than desktop- .Gov websites (+Governo.it) effective with 39% conversion - Web-zines also effective, though lower absolute numbers

Case Study:

La Buona ScuolaPublic consultation on education reform

La Buona Scuola

La Buona Scuola: designing the participation process

La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal + engagement plan) involved the design of a 6-months policy process including expert groups, a public consultation, a national tour, a communication and media strategy.

La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal) consultation involved 3 main participation “paths”: A 7-section questionnaires, 16 co-design themes and a strategy for live debating.

La Buona Scuola: participation paths

La Buona Scuola consultation: every participation path underlies a thick organizational process, including administrative regional offices, stakeholders’ engagement and political liaising

La Buona Scuola: offline events as key strategy

1.8M people involved

DEBATESTOUR STAGES300 people per debate POSITION PAPERS

Rapporti degli Uffici Scolastici Regionali

207k1.3 M

20 115204040

200kdocumented online

1.5 Mreached

La Buona Scuola: consultation final numbers

A Learning Curve

• Innovation/expansion in tools

• A shift from tools to processes

• A wider variety of processes put in place

• More “organizational work”

• Stronger, more directed impact

• Much more variables involved in design

• Demonstrating that Government can handle participation

• A (mildly) positive public debate (or at least a debate)

A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING (AND ASSESSING) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

1.4

Why A Framework?• Too much focus on technologies (technocratic approach) and on designing “the perfect

software for the perfect citizen” • Too little focus on organizational and institutional aspects, need for more “inside the box”

approaches (Chadwick, 2011) • Need a better focus on information dynamics (i.e. attention scarcity) • Inability to locate e-participation within a wider social context, too much focus on “online

interactions” • A need to fill the e-democracy from below and above mismatch by better understanding the

many dimensions of civic engagement • Need for multi-dimensional, context-aware and staged approaches • Multi-disciplinarity (Dawes, 2009) • Raising the bar (practice), enriching the debate (intellectual) • Designing for impact (thus, innovation?)

A Framework for designing engagementoutcomes and externalities

outputs

media and symbolic space

modelling and organizational dimension, participation process

pre-conditions to participation and motivations participation

culturedigital culture

social needs and intereststrustinformation

organizational and institutional fitnessreachlivenessrichness

activism and advocacy

occasions & eventsdebate

1

2

3

4

A Framework for designing engagement

1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations

participation culture

digital culture

social needs and intereststrustinformation

dialogue democratic behavior

netiquette

access to relevant information content clarity

clear explanation of the processclear link to facts, sources and

policy contents

participatory pact (static or dynamic)

clear link to policy cyclecentrality in policy

security of the platformInformation management

openness to challenge

relevanceurgency

link to current debateopportunity

framing processesidentities

e-skillsdigital dividenetiquette

a pilot model - 1

A Framework for designing engagement1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations

informationaccess to relevant information

content clarityclear explanation of the processclear link to facts, sources and

policy contents

a pilot model - 1

clear link to facts, sources access to relevant information

content clarity


a pilot model - 1

trustparticipatory pact (static or dynamic)

clear link to policy cyclecentrality in policy

security of the platformInformation management

openness to challenge

participatory pact / social trust

technical trust / security

centrality in policyinformation management

netiquette


a pilot model - 1

participation culturedialogue

democratic behaviornetiquette“participation day”

rewarding democratic behavior

rewarding democratic behavior


a pilot model - 1

digital culturee-skills

digital dividenetiquette

digital divide digital literacy


2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

a pilot model - 2

organizational and institutional fitness

reachliveness

organizational micro-politicsboundary work

partnering

richnessenhancing participation styles

ladder of engagementflexibility of participation paths

customization social technographics

ability to produce step-goods, remix,

transcoding

communication effortsvirality and diffusion

mechanism, partneringappeal

storytellingmedia presence


2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

a pilot model - 2

The digital economy moved the richness/reach (quality/quantity) threshold, but attention scarcity keeps it relevant

A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

richnessenhancing participation styles

building ladders of engagementflexibility of participation paths

customization social technographics

54% of respondents to Q1 (8 questions) also completed Q2

(24 questions)

Building ladders of engagement

light weight v. heavy weight production models

Flexibility of participation paths

a pilot model - 2


communication effortsvirality

partneringappeal

storytellingmedia presence

mobile

tablet

Desktop

designing for mobility

partnering

reachcommunication efforts

a pilot model - 2


livenessability to produce step-goods, remix,

transcoding

GOV.UK/performance

analytics dashboard

participation mapping

semantics and argument visualization

debate mapping

a pilot model - 2


livenessability to produce step-goods, remix,

transcoding

a pilot model - 2


Main reasons for e-participation failure(Chadwick, 2011)Budget Constraints and Organizational Instability Policy Shifts Political Ambivalence Legal Risks and Depoliticization Outsourcing / Insourcing

organizational and institutional fitnessorganizational micro-politics / hierarchies

boundary workinstitutional and political partnering

understand the organization

budget constraints

political ambivalence

a pilot model - 2


3 media and symbolic dimension

a pilot model - 3


occasions & eventsdebate

contribution from public debatefostering democratic

occasionsdesign thinking

social innovation

agonistic dimension

A Framework for designing engagement3 media and symbolic dimension

a pilot model - 3

debatecontribution from public

debate


a pilot model - 3

occasions & events

fostering democratic occasions

accreditationdesign thinking

social innovation

Social Innovation Agenda 2013IBAC 2014 (Destinazione Italia)

Design jams as goal-setter


a pilot model - 3


leveraging the agonistic dimension


4 outputs, outcomes and externalities

a pilot model - 4

outcomes and externalitiesaccountability efficiency legitimacy

awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

A Framework for designing engagement4 outputs, outcomes and externalities

a pilot model - 4


awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrustquantity vs quality of debate

who is saying what/how groups behave

turning noise into meaning

cost-effectiveness, completion rates, user satisfaction

actual feedbacks

A Framework for designing engagement4 outputs, outcomes and externalities

a pilot model - 4



conversion rates

- Direct + Search = 62% of total Q1 completed - Campaigns + Referrals = 38% of total Q1 completed - Mobile + Tablet contributes for 14% of Q1 completed - Facebook + Twitter = 7% of of Q1 completed - Main institutional websites = 18,4% of Q1 completed

11%1%1%1%1%1%1%

2%4%

4%

4%

6%

17%

45%

Direct Google FacebookAgenzia Entrate Governo.it INPSACI Comuni MITTiConsiglio.com Province INAILTwitter Other

capturing moments

stickiness

GROUP WORKAPPLYING THE FRAMEWORK

GROUP 1 & 2: The Government wants to raise awareness about European citizenship in the context of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the signing of the “Rome Treaty”.

Framework conditions: high euro skepticism (varying degrees by country), revision of EU general budget, Brexit referendum by October 2016

Possible Subjects: the “four freedoms” of European Union: people circulation (Research, Tourism, Workers), Goods circulation (Duties and taxation), Services (e.g. unified mobile roaming, Internet purchases, Digital single market) and Capital circulation (e.g. Monetary union, the Banking system).

What you need to do: Prepare a timeline for organizing engagement between now and March 25th 2017 (when a celebration with all EU Ministers for a new declaration will be held). Details required: Timeline, tools & techniques used, partners involved, barriers to overcome, incentives to be leveraged, participation phases, communication strategy, outputs and outcomes expected

Part 2 Living Policy

design

Part 2: Lesson plan

“LIVING POLICY” DESIGN

GW - GROUP-WORK PITCH FROM PART 1 & DISCUSSION

2.1 - COMPLETING THE FRAMEWORK: THE POLICY CYCLE

2.2 - INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN: STATE OF THE ART

2.3 - FROM OPEN POLICY TO LIVING POLICY-MAKING

GW APPLIED LIVING POLICY CHALLENGE & FINAL DISCUSSION

GROUP-WORKAPPLYING THE FRAMEWORK

Context: The EU is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. The EU bodies and Member States intends to raise awareness about European citizenship.

Framework conditions: high euro skepticism (varying degrees by country), revision of EU general budget, Brexit referendum by October 2016. The celebration with all EU Prime Ministers will include a new declaration.

Possible Subjects: the “four freedoms” of European Union: people circulation (Students, Research, Tourism, Workers), Goods circulation (Duties and taxation), Services (e.g. unified mobile roaming, Internet purchases, Digital single market) and Capital circulation (e.g. Monetary union, Banking system).

What you need to do: Prepare a timeline of events for organizing engagement between now and March 25th 2017. Details required: Timeline, tools & techniques used, partners involved, barriers to overcome, incentives to be leveraged, participation phases, communication strategy, outputs and outcomes expected

GROUP-WORK examples

GROUP-WORK

PITCH FROM PART 1 FINAL GROUP WORK

--DISCUSSION

(40 minutes)

The Legal roots of

Engagement

2.1

CONTEXT

• OpenGovernment policy: pro-active disclosure of information and for engagement with citizens and stakeholders.

• Stated goals: strengthen accountability of institutions, increasing legitimacy and efficiency of decision and policy making

• sought externalities: filling the democratic gap, reinforce social identity and attain social justice

PLANS AND PRINCIPLES

• US OpenGovernment Directive and the Memorandum for the OpenGovernment initiative (Obama, Feb 2009)• EU Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue (2002), PlanD for Democracy (2005), Better

Regulation initiative (2005) and Smart regulation (2012).

BY SUBJECT AND INITIATIVES

• environment: [1991] ESPOO Convention on Environmental Impact assessment in a transboundary context; [1992] RIO Declaration on Environment and Development; 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; 2000 European Landscape Convention

• constitution-making: India [1950], Bosnia-Herzegovina [1995], Uganda [1995], Poland [1997], Timor-Leste [2002], Afghanistan [2004], Bolivia [2009], Kenya [2005; 2010]

• Peer-to-patent: remedying the information deficit of Patent Offices, such as in the case of establishing prior art which is central to the quality of an examined patent. The peer-to-patent projects show that the Patent community - a relatively clear and competent community with a critical view on the development of the patent system - is capable of supporting the process (Noveck 2006)

The Legal Roots of Open Government / 1

http://www.constitutionmakingforpeace.org/

12.04.2013 First document

of the “wisemen”

2013

17.10.2003 Draft Legislation

2006

25-26.06.2006 Referendum

18.11.2005 Legislation published

25.03/15.10.2005 Final version

approved

Reform Part II of the Italian Constitution

06.2013 extra-

parliamentary working group

08.07.2013 Public

Consultation opens

08.10.2013 Public

Consultation closes

12.11.2013 Report to the

Parliament

turnout 52% Yes 39% No 61%

Reform Part II of the Constitution

--.--.20-- Referendum

18.07.2003 Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

2006

Consultative Referendum29.10.2004 Treaty signed in

Rome

04.10.2003 [IGC]

InterGovernmental Conference starts

Constitution for Europe

Yes Spain, Luxembourg No France, The Netherlands

15.12.2001 Laeken

Declaration

European Convention for the Future of Europe

Ratification period [by October 2006]

Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Austria, Greece, Malta,

Cyprus, Latvia, Belgium, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Germany, Finland

Ratification

suspended: Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal,

Sweden, UK

COM(2005)494 final Plan D

for Democracy Dialogue Debate

Failures and Debates

http://www.camera.it/cartellecomuni/leg14/RapportoAttivitaCommissioni/testi/01/01_cap01_sch01.htm


Devolution - Reform of Title V

12.04.2013 First document

of the “wisemen”

2013

2001

20.01.1998 Draft legislation

18.10.2001 Legge Costituzionale

n. 3/2001

26.09.2000 Unified text approved

08.03.2001 Final version

approved

07.10.2001 Referendum

turnout 34% Yes 62%No 36%

25.06.1944 Norm to call for a consultation at the end of the war on the form of government and to elect a

Constitution Assembly

02.06.1946 Referendum “Istituzionale”

[Monarchy v. Republic]Election of the Constitution Assembly

31.01.1948 Publication of the

Italian Constitution

Monarchy v. RepublicConstitutional Assembly 1948

17.10.2003 Draft Legislation

2006

25-26.06.2006 Referendum

18.11.2005 Legislation published

25.03/15.10.2005 Final version

approved

Part II of the Constitution

06.2013 extra-

parliamentary working group

08.07.2013 Public

Consultation opens

08.10.2013 Public

Consultation closes

12.11.2013 Report to the

Parliament

turnout 52% Yes 39% No 61%

Part II of the Constitution

Italian Constitutional Reforms

http://www.parlamento.it/leg/13/BGT/Schede_v3/Ddliter/4655.htm


— STATED GOALS • ACCOUNTABILITY “The Governments will be forced

to act according to justice only if their actions could be constantly challenged through the publicity: there won’t be any justice if the political action cannot be publicly known” Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace. A philosophical sketch” (1795).

• EFFICIENCY make use of shared and local knowledge, well adapted and needed decisions and rules

• LEGITIMACY increased acceptance and respect of the final decision/rule


—SOUGHT EXTERNALITIES • Reinforcement of local identity • Promote timely disclosure of relevant information• Make use of place-specific knowledge and social norms • Learning and improving the quality of debate• Create trust, strengthen institutional legitimacy and face democratic

deficit • Support in tackling conflicts• Representing heterogeneity and attaining social justice

—ENABLING FACTORS • ICT evolution has opened a useful array of sources and tools • Institutions recognize the need to involve iteratively interested

parties and groups• Citizens manifest increasing expectations from the dialogue with

the institutions


Completing the framework

The Policy Cycle

2.1

The Policy Cycle

long term decision & policy

cycle

action for change or improvement

drafting

decision

adoption

deployment

implementation

evaluation

review

impact assessment


decision & policy cycle

case for change

deployment

evaluation

decision

implementation


ex ante



drafting

decision

adoption

solutions

issues identification

ex ante impact assessment

resources allocation

co-design

e-deliberation

petitions

advocacy



adoption

deployment

implementation

endorsement

buy - in

ecosystems & communities

innovative procurement

awareness

agile policy making


evaluation

impact assessment


monitoring

sustainability

deploymentco-management

pay-for-success

gathering data for quality and quantitative assessment

accelerators

watch-dog




ex post impact assessment

emerging societal needs

feedback-gathering

e-deliberation

evaluation

review

Outputs , Outcomes and Externalities

implementation

design

evaluation

adoption

endorsement

monitoring

solutions

issues identification

ex ante impact assessment

ex post impact assessment

resources allocation

emerging societal needs

drafting

co-design

e-deliberation

sustainability

buy-invisualization

feedback-gathering

e-deliberation


A Framework for engagement

outputs

citizens’ input expected impact in the policy cycle

weak

strong

type of input

simple

complex

co-management

co-design resource allocation

e-deliberation

endorsement

feedback gathering

information - awareness



Innovations in

Policy Design

2.2

1.POLICY DRAFTING 1.PARTICIPATION & GOOD GOVERNANCE2.EFFICIENCY & EVIDENCE-BASED3.SIMPLIFICATION & NUDGING

2.INNOVATION TEAMS 3.PROCUREMENT OF SOLUTIONS

INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

A. POLICY DRAFTING


1. PARTICIPATION

- political polarization- democracy dilemmas- process foul

- internal decisions: specialized information held by diverse people within the executive branch- public comment: draft rules undergoing analysis and feedback from other levels of gov, businesses, interest groups

- substantive, technical, non political, agreeable

good governance practice (not compulsory)

OPEN GOV


2. EFFICIENCY EVIDENCE BASED POLICY-MAKING

Test, Learn,Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials (9 steps)

- short terms costs vs major long term benefits

- Moneyball regulations: substituting empirical data for long-standing dogmas, intuitions, anedocte-driven judgements

DATA-DRIVEN


3. SIMPLIFICATION NUDGES, PATHS, FRAMING

BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES

Choice Architecture: default rules vs active choice

information on consequences together with clear, explicit and actionable instructions

[Sunstein-Thaler] Positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions to try to achieve non forced compliance


CASE STUDY: #GOODLAW


#Good law Participation Efficiency Simplification


Participation

Efficiency

Simplification

Improving Parliamentary and public scrutiny of legislation has been a government objective in recent years, seeking to improve both democratic engagement and legislative quality.

Setting out policy targets in legislation can be “a low-cost way for governments to give the appearance of vigorous action” and a way to strategically influence (or limit) the decision-

making of future governments

consultation and engagement are important. But traditional consultation exercises can feel burdensome and unrewarding; and generic questions asked in a consultation may generate cluttered feedback that is difficult to analyse and to integrate into the policy or the draft bill.In an increasingly complicated policy- making context, consultations that are not predominantly reactive often work better than the traditional model.

- Volume (number and length of statutes and regulations)- Quality (addressing political and social objectives, harmonious, clear and well-integrated, in time and efficiently - Perception of disproportionate complexity (layered and heavily amended, ambiguous or contradictory provisions)

- unnecessary (target unachievable, redundant, unnecessary burdens) - ineffective (it does not achieve intended objectives, fragmented or problematic implementation, substantial negative outcomes) - inaccessible (difficult to identify and access up-to-date versions, language and style, lack of guidance)

#Good lawnecessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible legislation

It is about the content of law, its architecture, its language and its accessibility – and about the links between those things.


#Legislate?!The Cabinet Office has brought out a board game "Legislate?!": a fun way to learn about the passage of laws from Bill to Act


CASE STUDY: DYI


B. INNOVATION TEAMS


Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs - US The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is located within the Office of Management and Budget and was created by Congress with the enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA). OIRA carries out several important functions, including reviewing Federal regulations, reducing paperwork burdens, and overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.

Behavioural Insights Team - UK The Behavioural Insights Team, often called the ‘Nudge Unit’, applies insights from academic research in behavioural economics and psychology to public policy and services.In addition to working with almost every government department, we work with local authorities, charities, NGOs, private sector partners and foreign government, developing proposals and testing them empirically across the full spectrum of government policy.

The Presidential Innovation Fellows (PIF) program pairs top innovators from the private sector, non-profits, and academia with top innovators in government to collaborate during focused 6-13 month “tours of duty” to develop solutions that can save lives, save taxpayer money, and fuel job creation. Each team of innovators is supported by a broader community of interested citizens throughout the country.

Independent charity that works to increase the innovation capacity of the UK. The organisation acts through a combination of practical programmes, investment, policy and research, and the formation of partnerships to promote innovation across a broad range of sectors.Originally funded by a £250 million endowment from the UK National Lottery, now kept in trust, and its interests are used to meet charitable objects and to fund and support projects.

C. PROCUREMENT

OF SOLUTIONS


CHALLENGE PRIZES


•Pay only for success and establish an ambitious goal without having to predict which team or approach is most likely to succeed.

•Reach beyond the “usual suspects” to increase the number of citizen solvers and entrepreneurs tackling a problem.

•Bring out-of-discipline perspectives to bear.

•Increase cost-effectiveness to maximize the return on taxpayer contributions.

•Inspire risk-taking by offering a level playing field through credible rules and robust judging mechanisms.

challenge prizes


challenge prizes


https://ec.europa.eu/research/horizonprize/index.cfm?pg=home

https://longitudeprize.org/

https://www.challenge.gov/list/

INNOVATIVE & Pre-Commercial

PROCUREMENT


PAY-FOR-SUCCESS SCHEMES


Principles for LIVING

POLICY-MAKING

2.3

Living Policy-Making

1.DESIGNING IMPACT-DRIVEN ACTIONS

2.DESIGNING FOR AGILITY 3.FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES 4.FROM PROJECTS TO ECOSYSTEMS 5.ACCELERATORS

EXAMPLES: SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS, PAY FOR SUCCESS SCHEMES

Financial schemes that reward the social impact generated by a publicly-funded program (pay for success) or repay private funding (a “social impact” bond issued by the public)

through savings

• DESIGNING IMPACT-DRIVEN ACTIONS Living Policy-Making

• From courses to learning experiences• From certification to continuous

assessment and badging • From funding for courses to “pay for

success”• Training as professional development,

rather than an obligation

Example: shaping teachers’ training

• Very little impact from courses across time and countries

• Certification increasingly less relevant• Italian teachers more in need than their

peers around the globe• The age factor• The “fear” factor (low skills-low motivation)

• DESIGNING IMPACT DRIVEN ACTIONS Living Policy-Making

Example: the school curriculum

• “National indications” are a rigid and ineffective policy tool

• Teachers training ineffective, especially for “new” skills (e.g. digital literacy)

• Students demotivated by traditional didactics

• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making

Example: innovating the school curriculum • Turning classroom activities into national & global communities• Teachers become facilitators, students as project managers• Gamification + “Format work” (e.g. Data expedition, role-playing)


Innovating the school curriculum • Every classroom projects becomes a community project: the final

step requires a strategy for local engagement


School curriculum as national partnership code.org + Programma il Futuro: a national partnership between MIUR, Italian Informatics professors and Tech companies to bring coding classes to every Italian student


http://code.org

• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES

Sustaining the policy by leveraging a community of tinkerers. The format “instruction” becomes common standard


Every student gets engaged in the “Olympics of entreprenership”

AN ENTRY-LEVEL CURRICULUM FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP

IN EVERY SCHOOL

A CONTEST, HACKATHON, CAMP, TECH GARAGE IN EVERY REGION

1,000 STUDENTS WIN “ACCELERATION”

• FROM PROJECTS to ECOSYSTEMS


• ACCELERATORSSchoolkits


• ACCELERATORSchallenges for models of labs and spaces

to spur innovation in learning environments


• ACCELERATORS

A “Digital ambassador” in every school to: • Organize internal training for teachers and

motivate those more resistant to change• Develop and share innovative and effective

digital practice• Engage communities for digital innovation (e.g.

local communities, parents) and spur student-led innovation


CASE STUDY: THE NATIONAL PLAN

FOR DIGITAL SCHOOLS (2015)

WHERE WE COME FROM

1st phase (2007-2012) classrooms as labs, rather than in labs

• Classrooms 2.0: 416• Schools 2.0: 14 schools• Interactive whiteboards:

35.000 • Digital publishing: 20 schools

2nd phase (2012-2014)

• Classrooms 2.0: 905• Schools 2.0: 21 schools• Interactive whiteboards: 1.931• Plan for “Isolated schools”: 45• 38 “digital training centers”

created• Wi-fi in school

In total… • Roughly 130M investments + 20M

from Regions• 90,000 teachers trained• 25% of secondary schools with fast

broadband (15% of primary schools)• 78% of labs connected, 56% with LIM• 46% of rooms connected (32% with

LIM)• 58% of electronic registers

WHERE WE COME FROM

Starting point: a critical analysis of the context

• We trained 90,000 teachers, but don’t know about impact (and snowballing effects)

• Inconsistent policies over time• Lack of systemic vision and,

especially, impact• Hard technology rather than soft• No support for school (cultural

issues)

This means:

• Our training schemes weren’t effective

• The “classroom as labs” vision proved too tech-centered, and too expensive

• Teachers tried to absorb innovation, but mostly couldn’t deliver to students

• Skills policy mostly linked to tech rather than a comprehensive vision on literacy

• Fragmented projects, low impact: what to incubate?

WHERE WE NEED TO GO1. Not true that digital natives know it all: digital literacy is broadening, and formats are (e.g. MOOC). We need to develop a strategy/service to involve the private sector, civil society and creatives to leverage the “engagement as format work” path.

2. Teachers’ training needs to become permanent and structural: it needs to regard almost 800,000 teachers. How do we organize it, leveraging innovative schools and teachers.

3. We need to create a link between digital skills and the kind of careers they produce (entrepreneurship, emerging jobs, science, research).

4. We need to develop schemes that leverage public + private investments in school infrastructures, connectivity in particular

5. We need to modernize school labs and school spaces, and change the way we think of them as linked to digital education

Studenti Docenti

Longitudinalità

Poli e snodi formativi

I poli (scuole capofila di rete) e gli snodi (sedi di corso) sono individuati mediante tre diversi bandi. I poli per la formazione degli animatori digitali (DM 435/15) e per il team per l’innovazione (DM 762/14) sono già stati individuati e visibili al seguente indirizzo: https://goo.gl/WgjQhH. Fino al 23 febbraio è possibile candidarsi come snodo formativo per i percorsi destinati al Personale scolastico e finanziati attraverso le risorse del PON 2014-2020

D.M. 762/2014

PON 2014/20

D.M. 435/2015

Animatori digitali

Team per l’innovazione

Personale scolastico

cliccare per ingrandire

https://goo.gl/WgjQhH





how institutions approach innovation in policy design

GROUP WORKAPPLIED

“LIVING” POLICY-MAKINGGROUP 1

The Ministry of education needs to improve the ways to talk to, listen to, empower and enable innovation from “Digital School Ambassadors” (8,300 people, 1.000 Eur minimum budget, every school grade).

GROUP 2

The recent school reform has introduced 200-300 hours of Vocational Training experiences during last 3 years of Upper Secondary school. Resources are100 Mln/year, to be used mainly by schools directly and, in a percentage, to mentor and coordinate VET projects.

THANK YOU! @damienlanfrey

[email protected] @dskutz

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

from open government to living policy making

Government & Nonprofit