42993 Beyond Public Scrutiny: Stocktaking of Social Papers Accountability in OECD Countries Joanne Caddy,Tiago Peixoto and Mary McNeil orking W WBI BEYOND PUBLIC SCRUTINY: STOCKTAKING OF SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN OECD COUNTRIES JOANNE CADDY TIAGO PEIXOTO MARY MCNEIL Copyright © 2007 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. and The Organisation for Economic Co-operations and Development The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. The World Bank enjoys copyright under protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. This material may nonetheless be copied for research, educational or scholarly purposes only in the member countries of The World Bank. This paper has not undergone the review accorded to official World Bank publications. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Beyond Public Scrutiny: Stocktaking of Social Accountability in OECD Countries Joanne Caddy, Tiago Peixoto and Mary McNeil 2007. 194 pages. Stock No. 37265 - i - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper was prepared by Joanne Caddy, Innovation and Integrity Division, OECD Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate (OECD/GOV) and Tiago Peixoto, European University Institute in 2006. The study is the result of a partnership between the World Bank Institute, the World Bank's Eastern European and Central Asia Socially Sustainable Development Division (ECSSD) and OECD, and is part of a larger social accountability stocktaking exercise conducted in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. More than 100 initiatives were identified through this larger stocktaking, the results of which will form a companion publication to this study. Overall management of the stocktaking was undertaken by Mary McNeil, World Bank Institute, and Shahridan Faiez, ECSSD, with the assistance of Irina Petrovna Novikova. Special thanks go to Maninder Gill, Sector Manager, ECSSD. The undertaking of the stocktaking was made possible by a grant from the World Bank's TFESSD Trust Fund.1 The authors would like to express their gratitude to colleagues in OECD/GOV who provided valuable comments on the draft template and report: Barry Anderson, Janos Bertok, Elodie Beth, Teresa Curristine, Marco Daglio, Ahmet Korkmaz, Ernst Nilsson, Odile Sallard, Christian Vergez and Marie Vidal. Andre Herzog and Aditi Sen provided comments from the World Bank. Equally, we would like to thank the study's external reviewers for their insights and comments: John Mill Ackerman (National Autonomous University of Mexico), Edward Andersson (Involve, UK), Andrea Ries (Swiss Development Cooperation), Anja Rocke (EUI), Julien Talpin (EUI), Ottil Fastin Tharaldsen (Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Government Administration), and Alexander Trechsel (EUI). Special thanks are due to Marloes de Lange (Radboud University, Netherlands) for assistance with statistical analysis. Many thanks are also due to Melissa Peerless and Drew Harton for editorial assistance in preparing this paper for final publications. Last but not least, the authors would like to express their gratitude to the many practitioners of social accountability who contributed their information, comments and advice during this project. 1Norwegian-Finnish Trust Fund for Socially Sustainable Development - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... V Beyond Scrutiny ........................................................................................................................ v Applying Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................... vi Highlights ................................................................................................................................. vi Policy Challenges and Lessons................................................................................................. vi 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1 2. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................... 3 3. WORLD BANK & OECD APPROACHES TO ACCOUNTABILITY COMPARED .......... 5 4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK............................................................................................. 8 4.1 Scrutiny, proximity and engagement .............................................................................. 8 5. MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................. 13 5.1 Key characteristics............................................................................................................. 13 5.2 Analysis of key factors ...................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Exploring possible links between variables....................................................................... 20 6. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS FOR POLICY.................................................................. 22 7. QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE............................................. 24 8. LIST OF REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 26 ANNEX 1. MAIN FEATURES OF THE 40 CASES................................................................ 27 ANNEX 2. THE 40 CASE TEMPLATES................................................................................. 31 Australia: Charter of Budget Honesty ..................................................................................... 31 Australia: Community Cabinet................................................................................................ 34 Austria: Ombudsman Board .................................................................................................... 37 Belgium: Participatory Budgeting, Mons................................................................................ 40 Canada: Online Pre-Budget Consultation................................................................................ 44 Czech Republic: A Challenge for 10 Million.......................................................................... 47 Czech Republic: Assessment of Public Procurement.............................................................. 52 Denmark: Danmarksdebatten .................................................................................................. 55 Finland: Hameenlinna Participation Tools .............................................................................. 59 France: Consultation on City Project, Gonesse ....................................................................... 63 France: Regional PB on Education.......................................................................................... 66 Germany: Citizen Jury............................................................................................................. 69 Germany: Online Dialogue Participatory Budgeting............................................................... 72 Greece: Municipal Check List................................................................................................. 76 Example of Municipal Checklist ............................................................................................. 79 - iii - Hungary: E-Games .................................................................................................................. 81 Ireland: National Social Partnership........................................................................................ 84 Italy: Sbilanciamoci! "The Other State Budget Report".......................................................... 87 Japan: Info Disclosure and Personal Info Protection Review Board....................................... 90 South Korea: Gender Independent Budget Analysis ............................................................... 94 South Korea: Seoul's Anti-Corruption Efforts........................................................................ 98 Mexico: Budget and Public Expenses Program..................................................................... 102 Mexico: Social Witnesses on Public Procurement ................................................................ 105 Netherlands: Participatory Budgeting of the Young.............................................................. 108 New Zealand: Wellington Long Term Council Community Plan......................................... 112 Norway: Ombudsman............................................................................................................ 118 Poland: Quarterly Bulletin of Public Finance........................................................................ 123 Portugal: Participatory Budgeting of Palmela ....................................................................... 126 Slovak Republic: Assessment of Annual Reports of State Organisations............................. 129 Spain: Interactive City Council of Jun City........................................................................... 131 Spain: Seville Participatory Budgeting.................................................................................. 133 Switzerland: PB of Bolligen.................................................................................................. 136 Turkey: Istanbul is Choosing New Ferries ............................................................................ 139 United Kingdom: Bradford Participatory Budgeting............................................................. 142 United Kingdom: Harrow Open Budget................................................................................ 146 United States: California Budget Project............................................................................... 153 United States: Civic Engagement Project.............................................................................. 156 United States: Hard Choices.................................................................................................. 160 European Union: e-Agora...................................................................................................... 164 European Union: Evaluation of European Consultation Policies.......................................... 170 European Union: Engaging Citizens in Rural Areas Policy-Making .................................... 174 ANNEX 3. CROSSTABULATION TABLES ........................................................................ 179 Engagement ........................................................................................................................... 180 Info Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 183 Legal Basis ............................................................................................................................ 184 Repeated Initiatives ............................................................................................................... 185 Target Group.......................................................................................................................... 186 - iv - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Building open government is a challenge for all countries. Hence the importance of collecting and exchanging experiences on how to put the basic principles of good governance into practice. Transparency and accountability; fairness and equity; efficiency and effectiveness; respect for the rule of law; and high standards of ethical behaviour are all principles that need to be given substance if better public governance is to benefit citizens. This joint OECD-World Bank stocktaking exercise of social accountability (SA) initiatives in OECD member countries contributes to the global exchange of policy relevant knowledge. The stocktaking exercise produced 40 templates detailing social accountability initiatives in 27 OECD countries and the European Commission. Cases were selected on the basis of their focus and level, and potential transferability of their policy lessons. This report ­ undertaken in 2006 ­ is part of the OECD Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development's (GOV) efforts to identify emerging trends and develop pertinent policy lessons for all countries seeking to build more open, accountable and responsive government. It also contributes to the World Bank's series of SA stocktaking exercises, which have been undertaken in various regions of the world. It does not claim to provide a comprehensive inventory of OECD member countries' experience, nor an in-depth description of the myriad activities underway. Rather, it illustrates the wealth of innovative practices currently available, and provides a rich resource for practitioners. Beyond Scrutiny The OECD and the World Bank take complementary, but distinct, approaches to "social accountability". The World Bank defines SA as "an approach towards building accountability that relies on civic engagement, i.e., in which it is ordinary citizens and/or civil society organisations who participate directly or indirectly in exacting accountability." While the term is not used within OECD/GOV, the concepts encapsulated in SA are reflected in its approach to building "open government". Where the World Bank's focus is on the tools used to ensure SA (e.g. independent budgetary analysis, participatory expenditure tracking), OECD/GOV focuses on the functional interaction between governments and the public (i.e. information, consultation, participation) throughout the policy cycle. Building upon the two organisations' definitions, this report proposes a novel approach to analysing SA initiatives. This innovative classification system identifies SA initiatives based on their ultimate objective, as follows: · Scrutiny initiatives aim to enhance assessment, analysis, and review of government actions. · Proximity initiatives aim to reduce the "distance" between citizens and government by identifying citizen needs and preferences. - v - · Engagement initiatives aim to incorporate citizens into the decision-making process. Applying Statistical Analysis Like the other SA stocktaking exercises before it, this review of OECD member countries collected a host of data through the use of standard templates. This project team went one step further than previous work, however, in probing the dataset with the use of statistical analysis. The set of 40 cases was coded and tabulated to highlight the main characteristics and identify key variables, resulting in a set of contingency tables. These revealed a number of statistical correlations. While they cannot be interpreted as indicating a direct causal link between variables, evidence of strong positive and negative correlations among variables do indicate possible relationships that would merit further exploration. For example, SA initiatives that included government-CSO partnerships were more likely to have been evaluated than those that did not. Engagement initiatives tended to be repeated, while proximity initiatives generally were not. On the basis of the findings presented here, this analytical approach appears promising. It argues for a sequential explanatory research design that starts with the quantitative analysis of a large set of SA cases, complemented by qualitative case studies to deepen understanding of how each variable influences the outcomes of SA initiatives. Highlights The 40 cases vary widely in terms of institutional level, initiator, legal basis, and methodology. What they do have in common is their aim to strengthen government transparency, accessibility and responsiveness. Some of the main findings include: · Initiators matter: Government-led initiatives generally aim to enhance proximity with, and engagement of, citizens while CSO-led initiatives focus more on exercising scrutiny. · Declared drivers vary widely: SA initiatives may be implemented as a means to uphold citizens' rights, to enhance trust and effectiveness, to react to public pressure, or to innovate boldly through the use of information and communication technology (ICT). · A legal basis does not make outcomes binding: The 40 cases analysed in the report show no link between the existence of a legal basis for SA initiatives and the binding effect of citizens' involvement. If proven through further research, this could temper the belief that legal frameworks alone are sufficient, or indeed indispensable, for SA initiatives to carry weight. · Evaluating impacts: Most information on the impacts of SA initiatives is general, and cannot be quantified nor verified. Evaluation was only conducted in half of the cases. This results often from a lack of incentives to carry out impact assessments, and to the obstacles of conducting a rigorous study. This gap needs to be addressed to ensure continued support of the implementation of such initiatives. Currently, evaluation is not considered as an essential component of SA initiatives. Policy Challenges and Lessons This stocktaking exercise has demonstrated that government and civil society SA practitioners across OECD countries face common challenges. Several preliminary policy lessons are proposed for consideration and debate: - vi - · Choose a topic, clarify objectives, and include relevant issues. The choice of topic and objective for SA initiatives ­ and their clear communication ­ is crucial. · Set clear rules. Setting clear rules prevents frustration among participants. These rules should specify procedural aspects, and the rights and duties of participants. · Ensure feedback and follow-up. SA initiators must demonstrate how participants' contributions and input are being used in order to maintain public interest and involvement. · Learn to evaluate, evaluate to learn. Evaluation must become an essential, rather than an optional, component of SA initiatives if their full impacts are to be assessed and current practice improved. Further research is needed to ensure challenges are met, and that sufficient lessons can be drawn for policy application. - vii - 1. INTRODUCTION A common goal. Open government is increasingly recognised as an essential ingredient for democratic governance, social stability and economic development. Building open government is a challenge for all countries ­ hence the importance of collecting and exchanging country experience in putting the basic principles of good governance into practice. Transparency and accountability; fairness and equity; efficiency and effectiveness; respect for the rule of law; and high standards of ethical behaviour are all principles that need to be given substance if better public governance is to benefit citizens. This joint OECD-World Bank stocktaking exercise of social accountability initiatives in OECD member countries is a contribution to this global exchange of policy relevant knowledge. It comes at a good time. Much has been done. Over the past two decades, OECD countries have introduced an array of concrete legislative and policy measures to enhance government openness in the conduct of public affairs. Their experience to date demonstrates that successful implementation requires a whole-of- government perspective and an awareness that reforms introduced in one area (e.g. in making government more transparent) may have system-wide impacts (e.g. on the accessibility and/or responsiveness of government). For example, information on public service performance (e.g. via scorecards) can lead to higher-quality and more accessible services, which may, in turn, place a higher premium on responsiveness. But many challenges remain. Both government officials and politicians in OECD member countries are under increasing pressure to take individual responsibility for their use of the power and resources at their disposal. The public increasingly demands information about what decisions have been taken by which officials; in most OECD member countries, the right to access such information is guaranteed by law. There is an expectation that citizens will be made aware and consulted in advance about decisions that affect them. Flowing from this is a right, given institutional form in many states, that the citizen will be able to challenge administrative decisions and seek redress for failures of government. Global policy dialogue. The OECD is evermore frequently called upon to provide a platform for policy dialogue to help both member and non-member countries in addressing these common governance challenges. This stocktaking of social accountability initiatives is part of OECD/GOV efforts to identify emerging trends and develop pertinent policy lessons for all countries seeking to build more open, accountable and responsive government. It also contributes to the World Bank's series of regional SA stocktaking exercises. A wealth of innovative practices. The stocktaking exercise generated 40 templates covering social accountability initiatives undertaken by both government and civil society actors in the majority of the 30 OECD countries2 plus the European Commission. The exercise identified a wide range of 2The 30 OECD Member countries: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the - 1 - initiatives using a variety of tools and approaches, and also served to create a network of practitioners. These findings and in-country contacts will be useful to both the OECD/GOV and the World Bank as they develop their respective lines of work in this area. This paper presents the key findings of the stocktaking exercise and provides an overview of the range of social accountability methodologies and tools currently in use in OECD countries. It does not claim to provide a comprehensive inventory nor an in-depth description of the myriad activities underway. Rather, it serves to illustrate the wealth of innovative practices currently available and provides a rich resource for practitioners seeking "user- friendly" models, policy analysts spotting emerging trends, and decision makers preparing to meet future accountability challenges. Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States. - 2 - 2. METHODOLOGY The main elements of the methodology followed in preparing this stocktaking exercise are set out below: · Template: adaptation of the World Bank's (WB) original template for use in reviewing social accountability (SA) in OECD countries. · Scoping: identification and initial screening of 80 potential SA cases based on a literature review, reference to OECD Budget Reviews, the OECD/World Bank Survey on Budget Practices and Procedures (2003), extensive Internet searches, and the recommendations of an informal network of experts in OECD member countries. · Selection and drafting: selection of 40 cases that met the pre-defined criteria (see Box 1) and preparation of initial draft templates. · Fact checking: to the greatest extent possible, given time and calendar constraints (i.e. summer holidays) emails and telephone contacts were conducted in order to deepen, to enrich and, above all, to check information gathered through the Internet and literature reviews. · Data analysis: the data was gathered the templates were reviewed and analysed; as an outcome of this analysis, trends were identified across the "sample" of 40 cases. The analysis aimed to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms that enhance or limit social accountability practices, and led to a synthesis of the main findings. · Statistical analysis: as an exploratory exercise, the principal factors identified in the templates were subject to statistical analysis using SPSS3 software. The contingency tables produced revealed a number of potential relations among different variables which could indicate promising paths for further exploration. · Quality control: a number of internal and external reviewers were identified to ensure that the template, data collection plans, and draft report met WB and OECD quality standards. 3Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). - 3 - Box 1. Criteria for case selection · Geographical coverage: broad geographical coverage of OECD countries was sought. · Focus: the main, but not exclusive, focus was on SA initiatives that had as their object the flow of public funds or decision-making powers, broadly defined: ­ Upstream: budget preparation, policy preparation, urban planning, etc. ­ Downstream: public expenditures, public procurement, public service delivery, policy implementation. · Level: a balanced coverage of both national and sub-national levels was sought. · Transferability of policy lessons: a preference was given to cases that offered the greatest "learning potential" for other countries. · Information quality: cases offering a larger amount of valuable information for the purposes of the exercise were selected. Consequences and limitations: This stocktaking exercise aimed to provide a broad overview of current practice in the field of social accountability in OECD countries. The set of SA initiatives chosen (40 in total) does not purport to capture the breadth and depth of public scrutiny and participation underway in OECD countries. Nor are the cases chosen intended to be "representative" of a given OECD country. Given these limitations, no firm conclusions regarding trends or categories can be drawn. Nevertheless, this report does provide some valuable insights into current SA developments in OECD countries and identifies several promising avenues for further exploration and analysis. - 4 - 3. WORLD BANK & OECD APPROACHES TO ACCOUNTABILITY COMPARED Context matters. While complementary, the approach taken by the OECD and the WB to the concept and practice of "social accountability" differs. This is in large part due to the very real differences in the "client countries" they serve. In OECD member countries, the formal legal and institutional frameworks for good governance and accountability are today largely in place (e.g. 29 of 30 members have access-to-information legislation) although implementation and standards vary widely. This has not always been the case. A recent OECD report recalls that: "A third of OECD member countries were under non-democratic forms of government in their recent history. The key development since the middle of the 20th century has been the spread of constitutional and democratic systems of government. Governance is therefore a work in progress."4 That the goal of building "open government" is recent in historical terms is borne out by a review of the crescendo of access-to- information laws, which has gathered pace over the last quarter century. In 1980 less than one-third of the (then 24) OECD countries had such legislation. By 2005, a total of 29 of 30 OECD countries had adopted laws guaranteeing access to information. As a relative novelty, it is likely that their full impact as "levers" for systemic institutional change has yet to be felt. This observation underscores the potential for mutual learning and exchange of good practice between OECD member and non-member countries, which underpins this joint project. Institutional mission. The OECD and WB also pursue different, albeit complementary, objectives. The primary mission of the OECD Secretariat is to serve member country governments; this has two consequences for OECD/GOV work on governance and accountability. The first is analytical. While recognising the importance of public demand for good governance the OECD's focus is on the supply side (i.e. strengthening public sector capacity to deliver on that goal). The second is practical, as the OECD's committees and working groups are largely comprised of government officials drawn from member countries. As a result, the majority of the accountability initiatives included in the stocktaking are government-led rather than CSO-led. Terms and definitions: Given its focus on core state functions, OECD/GOV works with a "classic" definition of accountability, namely: "Accountability is the obligation to present an account of and answer for the execution of responsibilities through the political and constitutional structure5". This does not differ greatly from the definition used by the World Bank: "Accountability can be defined as the obligation of power-holders to account for or take responsibility for their actions6". Where the two organisations diverge is with respect to the term "social accountability", which the WB 4OECD (2005) Modernising Government: The Way Forward, Paris: OECD, p. 15. 5OECD (2005) Modernising Government: The Way Forward, Paris: OECD, p. 86. 6Malena C. et al. (2004) Social Accountability: An introduction to the concept and emerging practice: Social Development Papers, Paper no. 76, December, p. 2. - 5 - characterises as: "an approach towards building accountability that relies on civic engagement"7. In short, the term is well-established within the WB, and increasingly within the wider development community, but is not used as such within OECD/GOV. Functional equivalents: However, this is not to say that the concepts encapsulated in the term "social accountability" are absent from OECD/GOV work and reports ­ quite the contrary. Indeed, the WB description of social accountability mechanisms as those that: "promote both responsiveness and accountability at various stages throughout the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of government policies and programs"8 largely reflects the OECD/GOV approach to building "open government". Box 2. OECD working definitions of government-citizen interactions As set out in a widely-cited OECD report9, governments interact with citizens along three main axes during decision-making: Information: a one-way relation in which government produces and delivers information for use by citizens. It covers both "passive" access to information upon demand by citizens and "active" measures by government to disseminate information to citizens. Government Citizens Consultation: a two-way relation in which citizens provide feedback to government. It is based on the prior definition by government of the issue on which citizens' views are being sought and requires the provision of information. Government Citizens Active participation: a relation based on partnership with government, in which citizens actively engage in the policy-making process. It acknowledges a role for citizens in proposing policy options and shaping the policy dialogue ­ although the responsibility for the final decision or policy formulation rests with government. Government Citizens From scrutiny to voice. Given the relatively well-developed and accountable governance systems enjoyed by the citizens of OECD countries10, their demands have generally focused more on ensuring greater voice in government decision making than on simply exercising external public scrutiny. OECD/GOV work to date has therefore included a focus on strengthening government capacity to effectively engage citizens and civil society in policy making (i.e. the "responsiveness" aspect of 7Ackerman J. (2005) Social Accountability in the Public Sector: A Conceptual Discussion: Social Development Papers, Paper no. 82, March, p. 1. 8 Malena C. et al. (2004) Social Accountability: An introduction to the concept and emerging practice: Social Development Papers, Paper no. 76, December, p. 3. 9 OECD (2001) Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy making, Paris: OECD, p. 23. 10 Enjoyed by both individual citizens (with their particular interests and preferences) and civil society organisations (CSOs) composed of non-governmental, non-profit making organisations, unions, formal and informal networks, and voluntary associations. - 6 - social accountability)11. To capture this relationship, it has developed an analytical framework that distinguishes three main functional types of government-citizen interactions (see Box 2). These forms of interaction can easily encompass a wide range of specific tools and mechanisms ­ including those used in ensuring social accountability (e.g. access to basic government data on which independent budget analysis rests would fall under "information"). Impact on choice of cases: Of the four broad mechanisms of social accountability included in the World Bank's previous regional reviews (see Box 3), the first three are usually conducted by civil society organisations or communities outside of government (i.e. independent budget analysis, participatory expenditure tracking, and participatory performance monitoring). The fourth, participatory budgeting, is an initiative driven by government institutions ­ and is therefore more in line with OECD/GOV's usual government networks and focus. Box 3. World Bank social accountability mechanisms12 · Independent budget analysis refers to research, advocacy, and dissemination of information on issues related to official budgets by civil society and other actors independent of the government. · Participatory public expenditure tracking involves civil society tracking how the public sector spends the money that was allocated to it. · Participatory performance monitoring consists of citizen and community scorecards that solicit user feedback on the performance of public services. · Participatory budgeting relates to the involvement, and consultation, of citizens in the budgeting cycle. In light of the above, less than one-third of the SA initiatives included in the report are civil- society driven. Many of those selected do fall into the categories used by the World Bank: independent budget analysis (5); participatory public expenditure (2); participatory performance monitoring (1) and participatory budgeting (6). At the same time, the scope of social accountability mechanisms reviewed in this report has been significantly enlarged to include other tools to enhance social accountability beyond those defined by the World Bank (e.g. citizen juries, e-consultation, etc.) This report casts the analytical net wider in order to capture a greater range of innovative practices which aim to enhance public voice and social accountability in OECD member countries. Common goals: In sum, while the two partner organisations do not use the same terms, both aim to promote a "virtuous circle" whereby efforts to strengthen "internal" accountability mechanisms within the public sector (e.g. internal audit, financial control, external audit, parliamentary review) go hand in hand with ­ and are reinforced by ­ measures to facilitate "external" control by citizens, civil society and business. While this report on stocktaking of OECD countries differs from those conducted in other regions of the world (e.g. Africa, Latin America) it will certainly contribute to advancing our collective understanding of the range of practices and tools currently available to ensure the accountability of government. 11That said, OECD/GOV work on identifying integrity risks in public procurement also reviews the role of direct public scrutiny ("accountability"). 12McNeil, M. and T. Mumvuma (2006) Demanding Good Governance: A Stocktaking of Social Accountability Initiatives by Civil Society in Anglophone Africa, Washington: WBI, p. vi. - 7 - 4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 4.1 Scrutiny, proximity and engagement From an analytical perspective, the World Bank approach to SA practices focuses on the tools used (e.g. IBA, participatory expenditure tracking) whereas the OECD focuses on the functions (e.g. information, consultation, participation). A third, complementary approach to analysing the set of SA initiatives collected has been developed based on these two methodologies. It classifies SA initiatives with reference to their ultimate objective ­ namely enhancing scrutiny, proximity or engagement. These terms are defined as follows: · Scrutiny: initiatives that enhance assessment, analysis and scrutiny of government actions, focusing on the power of information to extract accountability. Such initiatives are most often led by CSOs (e.g. IBA, expenditure tracking) or by the legislative and/or judiciary branches of government (e.g. ombudsman). · Proximity: these initiatives are usually led by governments and aim to reduce the "distance" between citizens and governments. They often seek to identify citizens' needs or preferences but are not designed to seek direct public participation in government actions (e.g. public consultations, community cabinets). · Engagement: these initiatives are essentially government-led and effectively incorporate citizens in the decision-making process itself (e.g. participatory budgeting). The typology proposed below has the benefit of being able to incorporate both World Bank and OECD approaches to social accountability (see Table 1), while providing a better "fit" with the population of SA initiatives reviewed (see Table 2). Table 1. Classifying SA initiatives by objective, function or tools OECD WORLD BANK EXAMPLES OBJECTIVE FUNCTION TOOLS Scrutiny Information Independent Budget · South Korea - IBA for Analysis Women Policies · US - California Budget Project Proximity · Australia ­Community Information Cabinets Consultation · Denmark ­ · Danmarksdebatten Engagement Participation Participatory Budgeting · Switzerland ­ Bollingen Participatory Budgeting · France ­ Participatory Budgeting Education Poitou-Charente - 8 - While the classification of SA initiatives proposed by the World Bank does not capture the full range of experiences within the selection of 40 SA cases identified in the OECD countries (e.g. Denmarksdebatten in Denmark; Community Cabinets in Queensland, Australia), the OECD's functional approach leaves room for overlap in too many cases (e.g. the same SA initiative may include both information and consultation functions). It would appear that the classification of SA initiatives according to their objective offers a clearer framework for their characterisation with fewer ambiguities13. 4.1.1 Scrutiny Scrutiny practices focus on the power of information to extract accountability. Such initiatives may be government led and concern governments' disclosure of information; an example is the Charter of Budget Honesty in Australia, a law that aims to improve the formulation and reporting of fiscal policy, facilitating public scrutiny of government expenditures and performance. However, many SA initiatives that aim to ensure scrutiny are led by civil society organisations (CSOs). Independent Budget Analysis (IBA) involves research, promotion and dissemination of information on issues related to public budgets by civil society and other actors independent of the government14. Examples include the Independent Budget Analysis for Women Policies in South Korea, the Quarterly Bulletin of Public Finances in Poland, or the California Budget Project in the United States. IBA training delivered to CSOs, MPs, journalists and other important stakeholders is an element of the Budget and Public Expenses Program in Mexico; in this case, stakeholders are introduced to budget analysis with the aim of enabling them to conduct their own studies independently according to their specific interests. Public procurement processes are another crucially relevant domain of public scrutiny, given that government purchases correspond on average to 15% of the world's GDP15. Mexico's Social Witnesses on Public Procurement programme represents a milestone in citizens' scrutiny of public procurement procedures; it has significantly reduced the costs of public contracts and increased the number of bidders participating in procurement processes16. 4.1.2 Proximity Proximity initiatives concern those actions ­ usually led by governments ­ which aim to build a closer relationship between citizens and governments but which fall short of inviting citizens to actively engage in the decision-making process. Queensland's Community Cabinets in Australia is a good example of a successful proximity initiative. Ministers hold cabinet meetings in regional cities and towns; according to the initiators of the Community Cabinet, the aim of this policy is to "bring politicians together with the people they represent" by listening to citizens' views, concerns and ideas. 13While there may be overlapping objectives (e.g. an initiative may foster scrutiny and proximity at the same time) this classification allows a clearer identification of the principal purpose of SA initiatives. 14McNeil, M. and T. Mumvuma (2006) Demanding Good Governance: A Stocktaking of Social Accountability Initiatives by Civil Society in Anglophone Africa, Washington: WBI, p. vi. 15OECD (2005) Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery, Vol. 3: Strengthening Procurement Capacities in Developing Countries, Paris: OECD, p. 18. 16For example, the procurement procedure of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad for insurance services, achieved the following results: i) a decrease of 30% in the overall cost thanks to recommendations by the Social Witness to eliminate requirements that increased costs and restricted firms' participation in tenders; ii) during the process, all parties that had expressed interest went on to participate in the tender, when previously only 50% did so (see: www.funcionpublica.gob.mx ). - 9 - Another common form of proximity initiatives are consultations where citizens provide feedback to governments on previously identified issues. The Gonesse City Development Consultation in France involves citizen consultation on the development of the city around six pre-defined themes (e.g. public infrastructures, public services). With this initiative the mayor and his staff intend to create a "sphere where citizens can express themselves". Information and communication technologies (ICT) are increasingly used as a means of obtaining feedback from citizens and reducing the distance between governments and citizens. ICT offers a reliable means of communication, decentralised storage capacities, and lower costs; some governments have used ICT to better address community interests and improve the performance of decision making. Proximity initiatives leveraged by the use of ICT include: · Online Pre-budget Consultation (Canada): Citizens are invited to participate in the national budgeting process by indicating their preferences and proposing alternatives. · Interactive City Council of Jun (Spain): Citizens are invited to submit proposals for the local budget and general suggestions for the city council agenda online. · Danmarksdebatten (Denmark): Citizens and public authorities have the opportunity to debate public matters through a common online platform integrating local, regional, and national issues. The initiative aims "to contribute to the dialogue between authorities and citizens" and to "allow public authorities and elected representatives to qualify their decisions and to present an issue from all angles" with citizens offering feedback on policy issues. · e-Games (Hungary): In an effort to promote greater interaction among citizens and between citizens and the public administration by leveraging the interactivity offered by ICT, e- Games allows people to evaluate the public administration's performance. Users can assess each other's comments on specific issues with positive and negative points, which provides an overall judgement of the value of each user's contribution. The aggregated number of points draws a picture of public opinion based on the forums' users. Interestingly, "VIPs" (e.g. high-level representatives of the public administration and politicians) are regularly invited to chat with citizens at predefined times. The responses during these online "office hours", as well as their other contributions, are also scored by users ­ generating an important source of public pressure. 4.1.3 Engagement Engagement initiatives include actions that effectively incorporate citizens into governments' decision-making processes. Among the sample of SA cases collected, participatory budgeting (PB) practices are the most prominently represented. It should be noted, however, that the term "participatory budgeting" has been applied to many different types of initiatives, becoming in practice an amorphous concept with multiple meanings17. It is broadly defined here as the effective participation of citizens in the allocation of budgetary resources with binding effects.18 Examples 17Within this sample of 40 SA initiatives, some of the practices that are defined by initiators as cases of participatory budgeting are simply public consultation on the budget without any effective binding effect (e.g. the Participatory Budgeting exercise in the city of Palmela, Portugal). 18There are two types of binding effects: legally binding effects and politically binding effects. In the latter case, despite the fact that there is no legal obligation for decision makers to act upon input received from - 10 - include Participatory Budgeting on Education in France; the Harrow Open Budget in the United Kingdom and the Participatory Budgeting of Bollingen in Switzerland. Special attention must be directed to the Participatory Budgeting of the Young in the Netherlands, an initiative that aims at giving young people aged 14 to 19 the conditions and opportunities to acquire the skills necessary to take an active part in local democratic decision-making processes. The methodology applied in this initiative (which was developed by the Dutch Centre for Political Participation19) has proved to have a high potential for replication and sustainability within the Netherlands. Since 1994, the initiative has been repeated in many different municipalities (between 20 and 30 cases per year). Moreover, partnerships to replicate this initiative abroad have been established with organisations in Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. Participatory budgeting practices have also been successfully introduced in larger cities and at the regional level, as seen in the examples of Seville, Spain and the region of Poitou-Charentes, in France. In addition to the more widespread participatory budgeting practices, other initiatives aim to promote citizen engagement in the decision-making process. For example, the Berlin Citizen Jury (Germany) creates a jury composed of randomly selected citizens20 and representatives of the local civil society (associations, companies). It has a fund of EUR 500 000 to finance projects for urban rehabilitation. Any resident or association can submit a project to the jury, which then deliberates to decide whether to finance the project according to its "usefulness" and overall quality (the final decision is generally taken by secret vote). Between January 2001 and December 2003 the juries met about 15 times per year to evaluate about 72 projects, half of which were selected for financing. Last, but not least, the Civic Engagement Project in California in the United States aims to help counties incorporate civil society in the decision-making process. This project also highlights the importance of addressing social inclusion and boasts a set of governance structures addressing issues of ethnicity, language and culture. citizens, strong public pressure generally leads to political commitments that are, in turn, translated into practice. 19Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek, Netherlands. See: http://www.publiek-politiek.nl/. 20Unlike in PB, where citizens' participation is voluntary (open selection) and therefore subject to the bias of self-selection, random selection can ensure a better socio-demographic representation of the population at large. - 11 - Table 2. Clustering SA initiatives by objective: Scrutiny, proximity and engagement OBJECTIVE SA INITIATIVE COUNTRY Charter of Budget Honesty Australia Ombudsman Board Austria Assessment of Public Procurement Procedures Czech Republic S Evaluation of EC Consultations European Union C Sbilanciamoci: Alternative Budget Report Italy R Information Disclosure Board Japan U Budget and Public Expenses Program Mexico T Social Witness on Public Procurement Mexico I Ombudsman Norway N Quarterly Bulletin of Public Finances Poland Y Assessment of Reports of State Organisations Slovak Republic Seoul Anti-Corruption Measures South Korea Independent Budget Analysis for Women South Korea California Budget Project United States Exercise in Hard Choices United States P Community Cabinet Australia R Online Pre-Budget Consultation Canada O National Consultation on Education Czech Republic X Danmarksdebatten Denmark I European Citizens Panel European Union M Himmelina Participation Tools Finland I Gonesse City Development Consultation France T Municipal Check List Greece Y e-Games Hungary Consultation on City Plan New Zealand Palmela City Participatory Budgeting Portugal Interactive City Council Spain Istanbul Consultation on Transport Turkey Participatory Budgeting of Mons Belgium E e-Learning on Participatory Democracy European Union N Participatory Budgeting on Education France G Online Dialogue ­ Participatory Budgeting Germany A Berlin Citizen Jury Germany G National Social Partnership Ireland E Participatory Budgeting of the Young Citizens Netherlands M Participatory Budgeting Seville Spain E Participatory Budgeting Bollingen Switzerland N Bradford Participatory Budgeting United Kingdom T Harrow Open Budget United Kingdom Civic Engagement Project United States - 12 - 5. MAIN FINDINGS The 40 SA cases examined in this report are very heterogeneous. They vary in terms of institutional level (ranging from the sub-national to the EU level), initiator, legal basis and methodologies. The common denominator among this multiplicity of cases is the fact that they are all expected to help to strengthen government capacity to be more transparent, accessible and responsive. Some distinct categories can still be found among these highly diverse cases. In practice, some cases focus on scrutiny (e.g. independent budget analysis, scorecards) while others promote proximity and accountability through direct citizen consultation and others focus on engagement and participation in decision making (e.g. participatory budgeting, consultations on urban development). This section provides a brief overview of the population of 40 selected SA initiatives. A detailed description of each case may be found in Annex 2. 5.1 Key characteristics Institutional level Institutional level Distribution of population: institutional level Within the population of 40 cases, the 25 majority of the cases (21) are at the sub- s 20 national level. The next most frequent se category are the caforeb 15 national-level cases (14) followed by 2 10 cases that cover muN both national and 5 sub-national levels, and 3 EU-level cases. 0 Subnational National National & EU Subnational - 13 - Initiator Initiator The majority of the SA initiatives reviewed Initiator of SA initiative are driven by government institutions (30); the rest are CSO-led initiatives (10). The majority of the government initiatives aim at enhancing proximity or engagement with citizens. This is the case of the Online Pre- 25% Budget Consultation in Canada, the National Govt-led Consultation on Education Policies in the Czech Republic, and the e-Games in CSO-led Hungary; they feature a government Internet platform where citizens can interact with 75% public officials. Most of the CSO-led initiatives aim to subject governments to direct public scrutiny, as is the case of the Independent Budget Analysis for Women Policies in South Korea and the Quarterly Bulletin of Public Finances in Poland. Objective Objective Distribution of population: objective Applying the conceptual framework outlined above, 16 the most recurrent objective of the SA initiatives reviewed 14 was public scrutiny (15 s 12 cases). Thirteen cases se aimed to enhance proximity caforeb 10 and 12 promoted citizen engagement. 8 6 muN 4 2 0 Scrutiny Proximity Engagement Stage of the decision-making process The majority of the SA initiatives reviewed focus on the agenda-setting and decision-making stages of the policy cycle. The Interactive City Council of Jun, Spain, which allows citizens to collaborate in setting the agenda of City Council sessions, illustrates the involvement of citizens at early stages of the decision-making process. The Social Witness on Public Procurement in Mexico ­ where a citizen participates in public contracting procedures and acts as an external observer in order to promote transparency, diminish the risks of corruption, and improve efficiency and effectiveness ­ - 14 - is an example of the association of citizens at the decision-making stage. The rest of the initiatives focus on the evaluation stage (except for one example of a CSO being associated at the implementation stage, the Irish case National Social Partnership Agreement). Public participation at the implementation stage is usually only found when there is a specific co-production agreement between government and CSOs (e.g. in the delivery of public services). Given that the main focus of this stocktaking was public scrutiny and engagement in decision making, rather than service delivery, it is not surprising that only one example of co-production has been identified in the cases selected. A detailed description of each SA case can be found in Annex 2. Legal or policy basis Just over one quarter of the SA cases are based on legal or policy requirements. For example, New Zealand's Local Government Act of 2002 obliges all local councils to undertake public consultation when developing their Long Term Community and Council Plans (LTCCP). An example included in this report is Wellington's City Council. About 20% of the SA cases are based on a specific government programme. An example is the Civic Engagement Project in California, United States. This was based on state government Proposition 10, which prioritised funding for projects aimed towards young children and families that enhanced civic participation. Another example is the Social Witnesses for Public Procurement in Mexico, which was launched within the framework of a broader government anti-corruption programme21. More often than not, however, legal or policy norms are an enabler or are cited as a post hoc justification rather than being a driving force. For example, while the Online Pre-Budget Consultation in Canada refers to the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada22, this policy does not oblige public authorities to launch specific initiatives. Rather, it provides a legal framework for their existence. 5.2 Analysis of key factors Initiator: The nature of the initiator seems to a large extent to determine the characteristics of an initiative. Government-led initiatives tend to aim at better informing and/or enhancing proximity to citizens as a source of legitimacy for decision making. CSO initiatives tend to be focused on promoting scrutiny, indicating that lack of trust in government and demand for greater transparency are at the origin of their efforts. Drivers: Although the reasons to justify the launch of these initiatives vary widely, they are generally driven by a predominant focus on: · Rights: a normative approach which regards increased transparency and/or citizen participation as valuable in its own right. · Trust: governments are constantly looking for ways to enhance public trust, recognising that their actions will have effective results only if they are seen as legitimate. 21 Programa Nacional de Combate a la Corrupción y Fomento a la Transparencia y el Desarrollo Administrativo 2001-2006 22 The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada states that all departments should: Consult the public, listen to and take account of people's interests and concerns when establishing priorities, developing policies, and planning programs and services. - 15 - · Effectiveness: in order to allocate their scarce resources more effectively, governments need to co-operate with citizens (e.g. by consultation), allowing them to identify and respond to citizen needs. · Reactivity: governments may also launch SA initiatives simply in reaction to internal or external pressures (e.g. public criticism, political challenges, peer pressure among governments). · Innovation: the desire to innovate (e.g. use ICT) may itself drive SA practices. In the best case, efforts to modernise government underpin SA initiatives. In the worst case, it may remain superficial (i.e. SA as a solution looking for a problem). Binding effects23 and legal basis: Of the 40 SA initiatives reviewed, 14 have had ­ to different degrees ­ a binding effect. This binding effect may be of a legal nature, as in the case of Australia's Charter of Budget Honesty, or politically binding as in the case of Participatory Budgeting in the French region of Poitou-Charentes. It is important to note that of these 14 cases, 11 are at the sub- national level, and only three at the national level. A possible hypothesis is that the higher the institutional level, the lower the likelihood that citizen participation in SA initiatives will have a binding impact on government decision-making processes. Of the 14 SA initiatives that have had a binding effect, there are only two cases where the initiatives are underpinned by legislation or policy. In short, no causal link between the legal basis and the binding effects of citizens' engagement in social accountability has been found in this, admittedly limited, sample. If borne out by further investigation, this finding would appear to temper the widespread belief in the importance of establishing legal frameworks as a necessary condition for SA to flourish. On the other hand, it bodes well for reformers willing to promote effective SA mechanisms in countries which lack a fully developed legal framework. Government programmes: Government programmes that specifically aim to enhance civic participation in policy formulation, and provide funds to that effect, seem to have a greater ability to mobilise citizens to participate; an example is the Civic Engagement Project in the United States. The context of broader government programmes may also stimulate the implementation of specific SA initiatives. Such is the case of the Seoul Anti-Corruption Efforts in South Korea and the Social Witness on Public Procurement in Mexico. Both initiatives were launched within the framework of large anti- corruption programmes initiated by central government. Government/CSO partnerships: Of the 40 cases, 23 involved government/CSO partnerships ­ some formal and some informal. Many SA initiatives implemented by governments (e.g. consultations) explicitly aimed to reach beyond organised civil society to engage with individual citizens. This may be an effort on the part of governments to diversify their contacts beyond what they often regard as the "usual suspects". However, by doing so, governments miss the opportunity to call upon existing civil society structures and competencies to help mobilise a broader range of citizens and optimise social accountability practices. In short, by ignoring CSOs when launching social accountability practices, governments risk increasing their costs and reducing the effectiveness of their policies. 23As mentioned previously (see footnote 16), two types of binding effects are considered: legally binding effects and politically binding effects. - 16 - Target groups: Of the 40 cases, 21 were directed at specific target groups or made particular efforts to reach specific groups, with most of the target groups being defined within broad categories, such as "young citizens" or "medium- and low-income families". How citizens' participation or consultation is targeted, and how they are selected, appears to have considerable impact. Open selection processes have the advantage of giving the chance to participate to all citizens who wish to do so. However, open selection runs the risk of bias (in that self-selected citizens are more likely to have a specific interest in the issue); additionally, some citizen profiles and interests may not be represented. Stakeholder participation tends to be representative of particular interest groups. However, an exclusive reliance on the participation of stakeholders usually does not allow policy makers to capture the broad preferences of the general public. Actively recruiting participants in order to reflect the demographic and socioeconomic profile of the wider population may result in preferences which are closer to those of the general population24. One promising approach would seem to be the combination of different methods, as in the case of the Berlin Citizen Jury, which combines random selection and stakeholder participation. Deliberative practices25: Although they are included in 19 of the SA initiatives, many successful SA cases do not include deliberative practices ­ at least to any large degree. While deliberative practices are not an essential component of social accountability practices aimed at enhancing scrutiny, they may be an important element for engagement (e.g. consultations, participatory budgeting). Effective deliberative processes rely on discussion in small groups (sometimes in combination with larger assemblies) facilitated by an external mediator who ensures that all participants have an equal opportunity to express themselves. Participants receive the information they need in order to engage in informed discussions beforehand. This information process may be complemented by the presence of experts that can explain the issues at stake. ICT as a tool: Of six practices characterised by the use of ICT26, one operates at the EU level, three at the national level and two at the local level. For most of the cases ­ with exception of the Hungarian e-Games ­ the use of the Internet is seen as an additional means of interaction between citizens and their governments to complement already existing practices. Among the cases reviewed, it appeared that the national-level SA initiatives tend to prioritise the use of ICT as the main tool, whereas those at the local level include ICT as an accessory tool in the process. Media/advocacy support: More than half of the cases (26 of 40) mentioned some form of media or other support. However, in most of these cases there are no clear descriptions of the actions undertaken. Overall, it can be said that there is little information available on specific activities to ensure that the SA initiatives are widely publicised. A notable exception is the case of Wellington City Council in New Zealand, which prepared a detailed communications plan and evaluated its success afterwards. In terms of awareness-raising actions there is little sign of investment either upstream or downstream, with little effort to communicate the results of the SA initiatives. Experience shows that 24For an overview of how participants can be best recruited see: Simmons, R. and J. Birchall (2005) A Joined-up Approach to User Participation in Public Services: Strengthening the Participation Chain, Social Policy & Administration, (39) pp. 260-283. 25Deliberation is defined as an opportunity for citizens to formulate their preferences by participating in a discussion where arguments for and against a given issue are exchanged in the course of a debate before a decision is taken. 26While information about all of the 40 cases can be found on the Internet, initiatives are only included in this category when the use of ICT goes beyond simply providing information online, and where a degree of online interactivity is an important component of the initiative (e.g. online consultation). - 17 - this lack of communication, particularly with regard to results, may generate deep frustration among citizens who do participate and then receive no feedback or realise that their efforts lack visibility. Repeated/scaled up SA practices: The majority of the SA initiatives reviewed have been repeated (31 out of 40). Another six initiatives were designed as one-off events (e.g. a public consultation on a 10-year urban development plan). At first glance, there is an apparent correlation between the repetition of these SA practices and the existence of a legal requirement: of the 11 initiatives that mentioned the existence of a legal framework, seven were repeated (63.6%). However, of the 29 initiatives that did not mention any legal basis, 24 (82.8%) initiatives were repeated. The contingency tables constructed with the data from the 40 SA cases and their analyses show no significant statistical relation among repetition and legal basis (see Annex 3). In contrast, of the 12 cases that were classified as engagement initiatives, 100% were repeated, with the contingency tables indicating a statistical relation between repetition and engagement activities (see Annex 3). Of course, such figures are the outcomes of a reduced number of cases, but they raise an interesting hypothesis which might merit further investigation: effectively incorporating citizens in the decision-making process may be a greater guarantee of replication of the initiative than the presence or absence of a legal framework for SA. The methodology adopted in this report did not allow for the collection of information on how these repeated practices have evolved over time. Further effort should be made to understand the learning processes that these practices may have engendered (e.g. methodology changes) and their possible adaptation to specific contexts. A minority of cases have been scaled up. However, since the conduct of this research did not allow for tracking the initiatives over time and was based only on information provided by initiators, there is not much that can be said about the incentives or obstacles that influence whether SA initiatives are ­ or are not ­ repeated or scaled up. Overall, the existence of a legal basis does not appear to be a sufficient condition for the successful institutionalisation of SA mechanisms. Information on costs: One of the most elusive aspects of the data collection exercise was hard data on costs ­ both to government and to citizens. As a consequence, at present it is not possible to establish any concrete relation between the cost of initiatives and their sustainability. Costs to governments: Information on the costs of the SA initiatives was available for only 13 cases, and all were characterised by a general lack of precision concerning human and financial resources allocated27. This lack of transparency is somewhat paradoxical given that the SA initiatives themselves sought to ensure greater government transparency. In the majority of cases, these costs were given in terms of human resources allocated, and in a very general way. Of these 13 cases, only seven gave information on the budgetary resources allocated to the initiative. This paucity of information does not allow for any judgements to be made concerning the cost/benefit of the SA initiatives themselves. It is likely that since there are no established parameters of costs for SA initiatives, initiators are reluctant to provide such data because they cannot judge whether, in relation to other events, these costs are too high or too low28. This creates a vicious circle of non-disclosure of information, perpetrating the belief that SA initiatives are costly. This gap in information on costs may also simply be related to organisational matters. For instance, several government units or CSO 27A theme worth exploring, and which is not examined here, is that of the political costs and/or gains of SA initiatives (e.g. by opening up a space for challengers) and the relationship between these costs and the sustainability of the SA initiatives. 28For a review of the literature on the costs and benefits of participation see: Warburton, D., E. Andersson and R. Wilson (2005) The True Costs of Participation - A draft framework, London: Involve (www.involve.org.uk/civicrenewal)/. - 18 - partners may contribute their own resources in implementing the same SA initiative, making it difficult to clearly define overall costs. Last, but not least, this lack of information on costs may be due to the fact that the transparency on the initiatives themselves is not considered a priority. Costs to citizens: There is even less information available about the costs incurred by citizens when they take part in SA initiatives (e.g. time, transport)29. Citizens tend to expect their governments to be transparent, and one of the best ways of ensuring government transparency is ensuring the involvement of citizens in government processes. Nevertheless, even though many citizens make vocal demands for transparency, far fewer are willing to get involved in public affairs. As stated by Gerry Stoker, "The greatest empowerment of all is a system of governance that makes life easier, more livable and more full of potential. Running things yourself and making choices can be fulfilling. Having things run for you in a way that enables you to live your life can be even more rewarding."30 In this sense, citizens tend to act as free-riders, hoping that the tasks that will ensure accountability and reinforce democracy will be carried out by others. In fact, surveys in democratic countries have repeatedly shown that few citizens participate in political life in ways other than voting.31 In this context, creating spaces for public participation may be seen as a necessary, but not sufficient, action to enhance engagement. The costs and benefits of participation for citizens is a key issue to be considered before the implementation of any policy that aims at citizen involvement. Clearly, variance in costs is not the only explanatory factor for levels of participation. However, there is potentially a strong link between costs and participation levels: if all other factors are taken as constant, the probability of citizens' participation will be inversely proportional to the costs of participation. With regard to benefits, experience shows that citizens tend to be particularly sensitive to the measure of their real impact on decision making ­ that is whether they are "only" being consulted or whether they are effectively participating in government-led initiatives. Citizens tend to perceive consultations as being less important and less vital than participation practices. In many cases this is reflected in the lower numbers of citizens participating in consultation as compared to participation practices. Citizens might also perceive benefits of participating in SA initiatives that result in their acquiring competencies, skills and a sense of personal empowerment (e.g. grant management, networking). Information on impact/evaluation: Information on impact was available for more than half (26 of 40 cases) of the initiatives. However, there is great variance in the precision and clarity of the information provided on impacts. Most of the information is general (e.g. increased accountability), not measurable and not verifiable. Only a minority used precise definitions of impacts (e.g. impact on a final decision) while most used a weaker definition and indicated more systemic and diffuse impacts of the SA initiatives. Information on evaluation was found in less than half of the cases (19 of 40). This indicates that evaluation is not considered an essential procedure in the majority of the initiatives. Among the cases that do mention an evaluation, the quality of the information provided varies considerably and there is little mention of their results or use. 29 These costs may be either material (e.g. money spent to travel to a meeting) or immaterial (e.g. time spent deliberating). 30 Stoker, G. (2005) What is local government for? Refocusing local governance to meet the challenges of the 21st century, London: New Local Government Network. 31It should be emphasised: despite the fact that citizens do not take advantage of all opportunities and rights that are offered to them under a democratic system of governance, this does not imply that they are indifferent to them. See: Dahl, Robert A.., 2000. "A Democratic Paradox?" Political Science Quarterly 115 (1), pp. 35-40. - 19 - 5.3 Exploring possible links between variables In the course of this stocktaking of social accountability initiatives in OECD countries, the rich dataset offered by the 40 templates was coded and tabulated in order to highlight main characteristics and identify a number of key variables (see Excel sheet in Annex 3). In the spirit of exploration, an additional analytical step was taken. The set of descriptive variables was transposed to a dataset and subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS software. The aim was to produce contingency tables in order to examine the relations between variables (i.e. the frequency with which certain variables appeared together) when looking across the whole "population" of 40 cases (see Annex 3 for the full results of these correlations). Table 4. Selected positive and negative frequencies Variable 1 Variable 2 Frequency Government/CSO Partnership Evaluation + Deliberation Engagement + CSO Target Groups + Evaluation Engagement + Engagement Repeated + Proximity Repeated ­ Legal Basis Engagement ­ National Engagement ­ Table 4 illustrates a selection of positive and negative correlation coefficients. Even though these frequencies were statistically significant32, they cannot be directly interpreted as indicating a necessary causality between variables. Nonetheless, they show to what extent two variables were present in a SA initiative (positive correlations) or to which extent these variables tended not to be in the same SA initiative (negative correlations), thus indicating possible relationships that that deserve further analysis. On the basis of this analysis, set of 40 SA cases examined in this stocktaking exercise demonstrate the following: Positive frequencies: · Social accountability initiatives that included government-CSO partnerships were more likely to be evaluated than those cases where there were no such partnerships. · Engagement practices tended to promote more deliberation. · CSO-led initiatives tended to focus more on target groups. · Engagement initiatives tended to include evaluations more often than other initiatives (i.e. scrutiny, proximity). · Engagement activities tended to be repeated more, as compared to other initiatives33. 32The indexes of correlation (PHI) were submitted to significance tests appropriate to the sample. 33In fact, all engagement activities were repeated. - 20 - Negative frequencies: · Proximity initiatives tended not to be repeated. · Engagement activities tended not to have a legal basis. · SA initiatives at the national level did not tend to effectively integrate the citizens into the decision-making process. Given the small population of cases available, these findings fall well short of providing robust statistical correlations ­ let alone indicating causal relations. Nor were they intended to do so. What they do offer are some initial indications of promising directions for further research, especially if larger datasets could be generated on which to test these working hypotheses. One suggestion for future research would be to adopt a sequential explanatory research design, where research begins with quantitative data collection and the statistical analysis of a large population of SA cases (as attempted for the purposes of illustration here). The next phase would consist of case studies to collect qualitative data with the aim of providing more in-depth interpretation and validation of the correlations identified in the first phase. Employing these complementary methods (quantitative and qualitative) would allow researchers to maximise the benefits and compensate for the trade-offs each method offers (e.g. breadth vs. depth). This would broaden understanding of the role that different variables play in influencing the outcomes of SA initiatives (e.g. the presence or absence of a legal framework, government-CSO partnerships, etc.). - 21 - 6. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS FOR POLICY What emerges clearly from this diverse set of social accountability initiatives is that government and civil society practitioners across OECD countries face a set of common challenges. This stocktaking exercise has allowed their collective experience to be tapped, and leads to a number of policy lessons for consideration and, hopefully, debate. Challenges Policy lessons Clarifying The choice of topic and objective for SA · Choose your topic, clarify your objectives initiatives ­ and their clear communication ­ objectives. is crucial. There is little point in government · Ensure the issues at stake are promising engagement when what is actually relevant to citizens. on offer is simply greater proximity. Equally, CSO-initiated SA initiatives might have more impact if they were to focus on specific "entry points" where public scrutiny can exercise the greatest systemic leverage for reform. Raising public All too often initiators of SA appear to believe · Invest in communication. awareness that it is sufficient to simply post information · Use existing networks (CSOs). about events on the Internet in order to reach a wide audience. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even in OECD countries with high levels of household Internet use, there is a need to invest significant efforts in raising public awareness through traditional media (e.g. radio, TV, pamphlets, posters), new media (e.g. SMS alerts on mobile phones), and via existing intermediaries and networks (e.g. CSOs). Choosing who to Only once SA initiators have clarified whether · Lower the threshold for engagement. involve, when and their objective is scrutiny, proximity or · Engage upstream. how engagement can they choose who to involve · Build partnerships. and the appropriate tools to use. If the objective is to ensure public scrutiny for a highly technical policy issue, then a small professional watchdog which divulges its findings to a wider public may be sufficient. If proximity is the goal, then a coalition of civil society organisations may be best placed to act as relays to "close the gap" between decision makers and grassroots groups or individual citizens. Defining the "rules In order to avoid frustration among · Set clear rules. of the game" participants, it is important to establish a set of clear rules. These should specify both the procedural aspects (e.g. time available for debate, length of oral or written submissions) and the respective rights and duties of the participants. - 22 - Demonstrating Maintaining public interest and involvement · Ensure feedback and followup. results in SA initiatives requires initiators to tighten the "feedback loop" and demonstrate how people's contributions have been used. The challenge is two-fold: to demonstrate efficacy and immediate results while also building support and momentum over time. Preserving One of the greatest impediments to ensuring · Build skills. memory collective learning and improvement of SA · Share lessons. initiatives over time is the high rate of staff turnover in both government and CSOs. Institutional memory and the chance to move beyond experimentation towards mainstreaming SA will be lost. Collecting The current lack of information on the true · Invest in data collection. information on costs of SA initiatives prevents any serious costs debate on their merits or drawbacks. This hardly serves the interests of either proponents or detractors of these new governance models. Estimating Even if complete information on SA costs · Learn to evaluate, evaluate to learn. impacts was available, glaring gaps in our knowledge about the real impact of SA initiatives remain ­ on the process and outputs of government decision making and on outcomes. Evaluation should not simply be an optional extra but an essential component of these initiatives. - 23 - 7. QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE This stocktaking of 40 social accountability initiatives in OECD countries has provided a very limited overview of the myriad activities underway. In so doing it raises more questions than it answers. Of these, the following appear to merit further in-depth discussion and investigation: · Amplifying multiplier effects. Do SA initiatives have a greater impact if they are embedded in a wider policy framework or package? (e.g. is the SA initiative in Himmelina made more effective by the presence of a national Civic Participation Policy Programme in Finland?) · Disseminating good practice. How are innovative SA initiatives disseminated? Which actors and practices help to ensure the transfer of ideas from one place to another, allowing initiatives to be adapted and adopted in different contexts? · Me or we? Deliberation may change, reinforce or have no effect whatsoever on actors' preferences. Can a higher dose of deliberation move citizens beyond "pure" accountability based on narrow self-interest (e.g. feedback on the public services they themselves consume) towards a greater willingness to consider the wider public interest? If so, to what extent? · Context matters, but how much? Can we clarify the role and impact of actors' strategies, and legal, political and cultural frameworks on the workings of specific SA measures? (e.g. compare a similar instrument at work in different countries). · Commitment outweighs laws. In OECD countries, where basic governance arrangements are already in place, specific legislation plays less of a role as a catalyst for introducing social accountability than political leadership and funds. Mainstreaming social accountability and maintaining commitment over time, however, would appear to benefit from the presence of explicit legal or policy provisions. · Does social accountability save money? The example of Mexico's social witness programme would indicate that, at least in some instances, direct public scrutiny and social accountability can save money for the public purse. To provide a complete answer, however, would require: a) better estimates of the costs and benefits of SA; and b) the costs of not ensuring social accountability. · Who does it apply to? Does social accountability differ when applied to the executive, the legislature and the judiciary? Do international organisations have a role to play in promoting or benchmarking social accountability? · With rights come responsibilities. When CSOs and citizens acquire the right to have a real impact on decisions ­ which are then implemented by government ­ who is accountable for failure? How can our definitions and practice of accountability be adapted to the shifting balance of rights and responsibilities? - 24 - Democracies, both old and new, have much to learn from one another. As the wider cross- regional SA stocktaking exercise illustrates, innovative practice in strengthening government accountability and engagement is by no means the exclusive preserve of OECD countries. The emergence and spread of participatory budgeting is itself instructive in this regard. This methodology was originally developed in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and has since been taken up by a growing number of cities across Europe. Countries that have traditionally been propagators of democratic values and practices now find inspiration from younger democracies. This exchange of experience, and the increasingly widespread experimentation with innovative tools for accountability, bodes well for the future of government openness. - 25 - 8. LIST OF REFERENCES Ackerman, J. (2005) Social Accountability in the Public Sector: A Conceptual Discussion: Social Development Papers, Paper no. 82, March. Dahl, Robert A. (2000) A Democratic Paradox? Political Science Quarterly, 115. Malena C. et al. (2004) Social Accountability: An introduction to the concept and emerging practice: Social Development Papers, Paper no. 76, December. Mc Neil, M. and T. Mumvuma (2006) Demanding Good Governance: A Stocktaking of Social Accountability Initiatives by Civil Society in Anglophone Africa, WBI: Washington. OECD (2001) Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy Making, Paris: OECD. OECD (2005) Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery, Vol. 3: Strengthening Procurement Capacities in Developing Countries, Paris: OECD. OECD (2005) Modernising Government: The Way Forward, Paris: OECD. Simmons, R. and J. Birchall, J. (2005) A Joined-up Approach to User Participation in Public Services: Strengthening the Participation Chain Social Policy & Administration. Stoker, G. (2005) What is local government for? Refocusing local governance to meet the challenges of the 21st century, London: New Local Government Network. Warburton, D., E. Andersson and R. Wilson (2005) The True Costs of Participation - A draft framework, London: Involve (www.involve.org.uk/civicrenewal). - 26 - ANNEX 1. MAIN FEATURES OF THE 40 CASES National Subnational COUNTRY Case name Level Level EU Level Nat/ Sub Gov led CSO led Info Australia Charter of Budget Analysis 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Australia Community Cabinet 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Austria Ombudsman Board 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Belgium PB Mons 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Canada Consultation on Budget 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Cz Republic Natl. Consult. Education 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Cz Republic Assesment Procurement 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Denmark Danmarksdebatten 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Finland Himmelina part tools 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 France Gonesse City Development 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 France PB on Education 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Germany OnlineDialoguePB 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Germany Citizen Jury 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Greece Municipal Check List 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Hungary e-games 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Ireland Natl. Social Partnership 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Italy Alternative Budget Report 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Japan Info. Disclosure Board 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Korea Seoul Anti-corruption 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Korea IBA for Women Policies 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Mexico Budget Pub. Exp. Prog 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mexico Social Witness 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Netherlands PB of the Young 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 New Zealand Consultation on City Plan 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Norway Ombudsman 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Poland Bulletin public finances 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Portugal Palmela PB 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Slovak Rep. Assessing state org rep 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Spain JUN Interactive city council 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Spain PB Seville 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Switzerland PB Bollingen 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Turkey Consultationn on Transports 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 United Kingdom Bradford Part. Budgeting 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 United Kingdom Harrow Openg Budget 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 United States California Budget Project 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 United States Civic Engagement Project 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 United States Exercise in Hard Choices 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 European Union e-Learning on Part. Democ. 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 European Union European Citizens Panel 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 European Union Evaluation of EC consult. 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 - 27 - Legal Govt Inc/ COUNTRY Case name Consultation Participation Stage basis prog Binding Repeat Australia Charter of Budget Analysis 0 0 dm 1 0 1 0 Australia Community Cabinet 1 0 as/dm 0 0 0 1 Austria Ombudsman Board 1 0 all 1 0 0 1 Belgium PB Mons 0 1 as/dm 0 1 1 1 Canada Consultation on Budget 1 0 as 1 0 0 0 Cz Republic Natl. Consult. Education 1 0 as/dm 0 0 0 0 Cz Republic Assesment Procurement 0 0 eval 0 0 0 1 Denmark Danmarksdebatten 1 0 all 0 0 0 1 Finland Himmelina part tools 1 1 all 1 0 0 1 France Gonesse City Development 1 0 as 1 0 0 0 France PB on Education 0 1 as/dm 0 0 1 1 Germany OnlineDialoguePB 0 1 as/dm 0 1 1 1 Germany Citizen Jury 0 1 as/dm 0 1 1 1 Greece Municipal Check List 1 0 eval 0 0 0 0 Hungary e-games 1 0 all 0 0 0 1 Ireland Natl. Social Partnership 1 1 all 0 1 1 1 Italy Alternative Budget Report 0 0 dm 0 0 0 1 Japan Info. Disclosure Board 0 0 all 1 0 1 1 Korea Seoul Anti-corruption 0 0 all 0 1 1 1 Korea IBA for Women Policies 0 0 as 0 0 0 0 Mexico Budget Pub. Exp. Prog 0 0 all 0 0 0 1 Mexico Social Witness 1 0 dm 1 1 0 1 Netherlands PB of the Young 0 1 as/dm 0 0 1 1 New Zealand Consultation on City Plan 1 0 as 1 0 0 1 Norway Ombudsman 1 0 all 1 0 0 1 Poland Bulletin public finances 0 0 eval 0 0 0 1 Portugal Palmela PB 1 0 as/dm 0 0 0 1 Slovak Rep. Assessing state org rep 0 0 eval 1 0 0 1 Spain JUN Interactive city council 1 0 as/dm 0 0 1 1 Spain PB Seville 0 1 all 0 0 1 1 Switzerland PB Bollingen 0 1 as/dm 0 0 1 1 Turkey Consultationn on Transports 1 1 as 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom Bradford Part. Budgeting 0 1 as/dm 0 0 1 1 United Kingdom Harrow Openg Budget 1 1 as/dm 0 0 1 1 United States California Budget Project 0 0 as/dm 0 0 0 1 United States Civic Engagement Project 1 1 as/dm 0 1 0 1 United States Exercise in Hard Choices 0 0 as/dm 0 0 0 1 European Union e-Learning on Part. Democ. 1 1 all 0 1 1 1 European Union European Citizens Panel 1 0 as/dm 0 0 0 0 European Union Evaluation of EC consult. 1 0 eval 1 0 0 0 - 28 - Scaled up Target Info on Info on Media/ Info on COUNTRY Case name down group impact costs ICT advocacy eval Australia Charter of Budget Analysis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Australia Community Cabinet 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Austria Ombudsman Board 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Belgium PB Mons 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Canada Consultation on Budget 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Cz Republic Natl. Consult. Education 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Cz Republic Assesment Procurement 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Denmark Danmarksdebatten 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Finland Himmelina part tools 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 France Gonesse City Development 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 France PB on Education 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Germany OnlineDialoguePB 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 Germany Citizen Jury 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Greece Municipal Check List 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Hungary e-games 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ireland Natl. Social Partnership 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 Italy Alternative Budget Report 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Japan Info. Disclosure Board 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Korea Seoul Anti-corruption 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Korea IBA for Women Policies 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 Mexico Budget Pub. Exp. Prog 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mexico Social Witness 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Netherlands PB of the Young 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 New Zealand Consultation on City Plan 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Norway Ombudsman 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Poland Bulletin public finances 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 Portugal Palmela PB 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Slovak Rep. Assessing state org rep 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Spain JUN Interactive city council 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Spain PB Seville 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Switzerland PB Bollingen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turkey Consultationn on Transports 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 United Kingdom Bradford Part. Budgeting 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 United Kingdom Harrow Openg Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 United States California Budget Project 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 United States Civic Engagement Project 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 United States Exercise in Hard Choices 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 European Union e-Learning on Part. Democ. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 European Union European Citizens Panel 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 European Union Evaluation of EC consult. 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 - 29 - Potential COUNTRY Case name Deliberation F/IPartnership Scrutiny Proximity Engage repetition Australia Charter of Budget Analysis 0 0 1 0 0 0 Australia Community Cabinet 1 0 0 1 0 1 Austria Ombudsman Board 0 0 1 0 0 1 Belgium PB Mons 1 0 0 0 1 1 Canada Consultation on Budget 1 1 0 1 0 0 Cz Republic Natl. Consult. Education 1 1 0 1 0 0 Cz Republic Assesment Procurement 0 1 1 0 0 1 Denmark Danmarksdebatten 1 1 0 1 0 1 Finland Himmelina part tools 1 1 0 1 0 1 France Gonesse City Development 1 0 0 1 0 0 France PB on Education 1 1 0 0 1 1 Germany OnlineDialoguePB 1 1 0 0 1 1 Germany Citizen Jury 1 0 0 0 1 1 Greece Municipal Check List 0 1 0 1 0 1 Hungary e-games 1 0 0 1 0 1 Ireland Natl. Social Partnership 1 1 0 0 1 0 Italy Alternative Budget Report 1 1 1 0 0 1 Japan Info. Disclosure Board 0 1 1 0 0 1 Korea Seoul Anti-corruption 0 0 1 0 0 1 Korea IBA for Women Policies 0 0 1 0 0 1 Mexico Budget Pub. Exp. Prog 0 1 1 0 0 1 Mexico Social Witness 0 1 1 0 0 1 Netherlands PB of the Young 1 1 0 0 1 1 New Zealand Consultation on City Plan 1 1 0 1 0 1 Norway Ombudsman 0 0 1 0 0 1 Poland Bulletin public finances 0 0 1 0 0 1 Portugal Palmela PB 1 0 0 1 0 1 Slovak Rep. Assessing state org rep 0 0 1 0 0 1 Spain JUN Interactive city council 1 0 0 1 0 1 Spain PB Seville 1 1 0 0 1 1 Switzerland PB Bollingen 1 0 0 0 1 1 Turkey Consultationn on Transports 1 1 0 1 0 0 United Kingdom Bradford Part. Budgeting 1 1 0 0 1 1 United Kingdom Harrow Openg Budget 1 1 0 0 1 1 United States California Budget Project 0 0 1 0 0 1 United States Civic Engagement Project 1 1 0 0 1 1 United States Exercise in Hard Choices 1 1 1 0 0 1 European Union e-Learning on Part. Democ. 1 1 0 0 1 1 European Union European Citizens Panel 1 1 0 1 0 1 European Union Evaluation of EC consult. 0 0 1 0 0 1 - 30 - ANNEX 2. THE 40 CASE TEMPLATES34 AUSTRALIA: CHARTER OF BUDGET HONESTY Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Name of Intervention Charter of Budget Honesty Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Government Who is being held National government accountable? Location Australia Basic Information Institutional level National Population Sector Public Finances Year of implementation and duration 1998 - Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? It is a permanent event. - To provide a framework for the conduct of government fiscal policy. - To improve fiscal policy outcomes. - To enhance the fiscal strategy, to be based on principles of sound fiscal Context and Scope What are the main objectives? management by facilitating public scrutiny of fiscal policy and performance. - To produce better fiscal outcomes through institutional arrangements that improve the formulation and reporting of fiscal policy. Who is the target audience or Government officials, public authorities, demographic focus? and citizens Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? The initiative is a piece of legislation. Stage of decision-making cycle Decision making 34Where no information was found for a given template category (e.g. evaluation), it was considered not to exist and the corresponding cell was left blank. - 31 - What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? None If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? The Charter legally establishes an integrated fiscal framework that provides for greater discipline, transparency and accountability in fiscal policy. Fiscal discipline is directly enhanced by: - ensuring that fiscal policy is formulated in accordance with principles of sound fiscal management. - requiring governments to outline how they will reverse stimulatory fiscal measures adopted to dampen an economic What specific SA tools and downturn. methodologies are being - enhancing public scrutiny of fiscal used? objectives and performance. Briefly describe the Public scrutiny of the conduct of fiscal methodology(/ies) or tools policy is enhanced by: Tools & used. - requiring governments to be more Methodologies Used explicit about their fiscal policy intentions. - implementing an improved reporting framework that ensures that comprehensive information about fiscal developments is available. This information must be consistent with external reporting standards; the government is required to explain the reason for any departure from those standards. This legislation gives particular attention to providing comprehensive fiscal information prior to elections. What advocacy and media Internet; Widespread publication of a activities support the initiative? text that explains the contents of the Charter Were there any specific tools Government officials and public used to ensure that target authorities are bound to respect the groups were engaged? Charter. - 32 - The proposed legislation increases the accountability of government through What (if any) has been the improved disclosure of fiscal policy impact of the initiative? intentions and information on fiscal developments. The information provided allows the public to better assess the conduct of fiscal policy by government. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No, it is already at the national level. Have any partnerships been Results and Impact established between the government, media, NGOs, communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified Other important information or comments Web sources http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem. asp?ContentID=70&NavID= Documents and reports Email: enquiries@aofm.gov.au Postal address: Liaison Officer Further References Australian Office of Financial Resource persons/contacts Management Treasury Building Langton Crescent CANBERRA ACT 2600 Telephone +61 2 6263 1111 Fax +61 2 6263 1222 - 33 - AUSTRALIA: COMMUNITY CABINET Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention Community Cabinet Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Executive Who is being held accountable? Regional government Location Queensland, Australia Basic Information Institutional level Unit of Federation Population Sector All sectors Year of implementation and duration 1998 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Repeated regularly - To listen to the views, concerns and ideas of every citizen. What are the main objectives? - To bring politicians together with the people they represent. - To discuss ideas, issues and concerns about important local matters. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? Every citizen Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? Stage of decision-making Agenda setting, decision making Context and Scope cycle What budget and/or human resources were allocated to Ministers and their political advisers; this SA initiative by the and the Director-General of each initiator? agency What are the costs to citizens To attend to the meetings of the and CSOs? Community Cabinets on Sundays If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 34 - During weekly Community Cabinets, the Queensland Cabinet visits a regional city or town, where ministers make themselves available to talk directly with citizens. A newspaper advertisement several weeks in advance invites individuals and groups to seek a meeting with the ministers. This formal process ensures that ministers can be briefed in advance on the issues to be raised and therefore participate in an informed dialogue. On Sunday morning, ministers travel to the cabinet location accompanied by their political advisers and the Director- General of each agency, so that both the political and bureaucratic resources of government are available to the community. Sunday afternoon includes a three-part What specific SA tools and meeting in a central public space. For methodologies are being the first hour, the Premier and ministers Tools & used? take questions from the floor. These can Methodologies Used Briefly describe the be on any subject, but typically have a methodology(/ies) or tools strong local focus. Later, ministers, their used. advisers and the Director-General move to their own table, where they meet with any community person or group wishing to talk. The meetings are led by cabinet secretariat staff and the Premier's Office, which facilitates meetings, ensuring that all those who attend are heard. The last hour of the meeting is dedicated to formal delegation meetings. All participants receive letters thanking them for taking the time to get involved in community activities. Often these letters provide specific answers to questions raised during the meetings. There are also formal responses to the delegations, informing them how the government intends to deal with the issues they raised. A short newsletter outlining issues raised in the meeting and any government announcements of consequence for the local community is also distributed. What advocacy and media Advance newspaper advertisements activities support the initiative? invite individuals and groups to participate in the meetings. - 35 - Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target Media support (newspaper invitation to groups were engaged? the meetings). What (if any) has been the It is estimated 33 100 people have impact of the initiative? attended the Community Committees since 1998. Participation surveys show that most of Has the target group been those who attend the meetings are reached? How inclusive was already community activists, individuals the initiative? who are generally most likely to get involved. Has the initiative been scaled up? Yes Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, No; however, interest groups are invited Results and Impact communities, etc.? Describe to participate in the meetings. them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public The methodology creates an deliberation (i.e. multilateral atmosphere for informed dialogue interactivity)? during the meetings. Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified Increase participation of citizens who are not traditionally active. Other important information or comments Web sources http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/Comm unity_Consultation/ Transcripts of a major speech on the Documents and reports initiative: http://www.brisinst.org.au/papers/davis_ glyn_reinventing/print.html Email: Further References ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au Postal address: Premiers' General Office Resource persons/contacts PO Box 15185 City East Queensland 4002 Telephone +61 7 3224 4500 Fax +61 7 3221 3631 - 36 - AUSTRIA: OMBUDSMAN BOARD Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention Volksanwaltschaft (lawyer of the people, Ombudsman Board) Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Independent institution Who is being held Government/public administration accountable? entities Basic Information Location Austria Institutional level Federal, regional and local levels Population 8 233 000 inhabitants Sector All sectors of public administration Year of implementation and duration 1982 (Ombudsman Board Act) Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Repeated regularly - To examine all alleged or presumed grievances arising in connection with the public administrative system. What are the main objectives? - To help citizens who believe they have received "insufficient" or "unfair" treatment by a public authority. - To improve the quality of government. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? All citizens Is the initiative or methodology The Federal Constitution mandates the based on legal requirements? Ombudsman Board and entrusts it with its tasks. Stage of decision-making Agenda setting, decision making, Context and Scope cycle implementation, evaluation What budget and/or human resources were allocated to There are three "Ombudsmans"; no this SA initiative by the information about other staff. initiator? Complaints may be submitted to the What are the costs to citizens Ombudsman Board free of charge. The and CSOs? submission of a complaint is a generally informal procedure and may be done in writing or by personal appearance. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 37 - The Ombudsman Board is an independent institution. Its decisions are exclusively based on legal principles and the requirements of an equitable, fair, citizen-oriented and efficient administrative system. Its review activities are primarily designed to provide help to citizens who believe they have received "insufficient" or "unfair" treatment by a public authority. The Ombudsman Board examines the conduct of civil servants and other public administrative employees. Another task of the Ombudsman Board relates to its review authority for improving the quality of government in Austria. A review typically results in the problem in question being solved or a wrong decision being corrected. In such cases, the Ombudsman Board acts not only as a critic but also as a mediator between citizens and administrative authorities. The Ombudsman Board thus aims to help improve the public's faith in the administrative system What specific SA tools and through of investigations and methodologies are being clarifications. Tools & used? The findings of the Ombudsman Board Methodologies Used Briefly describe the are not concerned with laws. By making methodology(/ies) or tools recommendations to legislators used. (national Parliament, regional Diets) the Ombudsman Board is also instrumental in the further development of the legal system. The Ombudsman Board may also be called upon to assist citizens who wish to submit petitions or to start citizens' initiatives. Quite often the Ombudsman Board is contacted by citizens with special questions and problems that do not result in review proceedings. In such cases, general advice and information are offered. The Ombudsman Board is established under the Federal Constitution. It is organised on a collective basis and has three members. They are elected by the Lower House of Parliament to six-year terms and are sworn in by the Federal President. Members may be re-elected once. Each of the three largest political parties nominates one Ombudsman Board candidate; however, under the constitution, the ombudsmen are independent. They cannot be dismissed and are only bound by the law. - 38 - What advocacy and media Internet; No information about other activities support the initiative? means Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target groups were engaged? What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? Have any partnerships been No partnership with governments, established with the considering that the Ombudsman Board government, media, NGOs, is by law defined as an independent communities, etc.? Describe institution. Results and Impact them. No information about other partnerships. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral None interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments Web sources http://www.volksanw.gv.at/i_english.htm Documents and reports Email: post@volksanwaltschaft.gv.at Postal address: Further References Ombudsman Office Resource persons/contacts PO Box 20 A-1015 Vienna Telephone 01 515 05 0 Toll-free line 0800 223 223 Fax 01 515 05 150 - 39 - BELGIUM: PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING, MONS (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Mons Participatory Budgeting Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Legislative/Executive Who is being held accountable? Executive/Legislative Location Mons, Belgium Basic Information Institutional level Local (District of the Commune) Population 91 000 Sector All Sectors ­ Budgeting Process Year of implementation and duration 2003 - Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Repeated every year - Decentralisation of political and economical decision making. Context and Scope What are the main objectives? - Transparency concerning public resources and expenses. - Improvement of the image and the effectiveness of public administration . Two zones of the city with the most Who is the target audience or socio-economically disadvantaged demographic focus? populations (no information about the total number of citizens expected to be reached). The federal government's programme "Politique de Grands Villes" (Big Cities Is the initiative or methodology Policy) granted funds to cities that based on legal requirements? proposed projects aiming to reduce poverty, which involved citizens in the process. Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens Attend public meetings and CSOs? (No information on the number of meetings.) - 40 - If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total No information investment budget? The two districts selected were divided into six zones, and elections were held to choose four representatives from each zone. These representatives have the following roles: - to communicate to inhabitants about the process. What specific SA tools and - to gather information concerning methodologies are being citizens' priorities through the use of used? questionnaires. Briefly describe the - to meet the other representatives to methodology(/ies) or tools elaborate a list of propositions. Tools & used. - to submit the list of propositions to the Methodologies Used citizens for discussion, changes and final approval. - to present a final "book of demands" to the executive branch. Thematic meetings are also held on five themes based on the questionnaire that indicates citizen concerns. What advocacy and media Representatives diffuse information to activities support the initiative? citizens. No information about other means. Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target Yes groups were engaged? According to the independent "German Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? Report" there were no significant effects until the end 2005. Based on the "German Report": - Weak participation (estimation: only 3% of the target population). - Despite the fact that the initiative targeted two districts with the lowest socio-economic conditions, most Has the target group been elected representatives were from the reached? How inclusive was middle class (independent workers, the initiative? teachers, private sector employees); participants in the assemblies generally belonged to the working class. - There was no gender inclusiveness, with a majority of male participants. In 2004 there were only 4 women out of 32 elected representatives. Has the initiative been scaled up? - 41 - Have any partnerships been established with the No ­ in fact, there seems to be a government, media, NGOs, generalised effort not to associate with communities, etc.? Describe existing CSOs. them. - Low deliberative quality: During the public meetings at zone level, many participants did not know the object of To what extent did the SA the discussion. methodology encourage public - Most of the problems presented by the deliberation (i.e. multilateral citizens are of individual order. interactivity)? - The discussions between the representatives of the zones show a higher deliberative level (e.g. discussing the quality of public policies, level of priorities). Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified To better integrate the population to the process Main points/problems identified by project stakeholders: - Citizens did not know how much of the budget was allocated to the PB during the meetings, which created confusion about the scope of their participation and their expectations of the process. - After the delivery of the "book of demands" there was no more consistent Other important information or interaction with and participation of Comments citizens in the process, creating frustration and breaking the flow of participation (e.g. legislative approval of the demands, followup on public procurement and public expenses). - Because citizens tend to participate more in those events where the mayor/elected officials are present, increased participation of government officials is necessary to enhance public participation. Further References Web sources "German Report" in Yves Sintomer/Carsten Herzberg/Anja Röcke Documents and reports (eds.) "Participatory Budgets in a European Comparative Perspective. Vol II (Documents"), Berlin 2005 - 42 - Postal address: Centre Marc Bloch Resource persons/contacts Schiffbauerdamm 19, D-10117 Berlin Telephone +49 0 30 / 20 93 37 95 Fax +49 0 30 20 93 37 98 - 43 - CANADA: ONLINE PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATION (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Online Pre-Budget Consultations for Budget 2006 and Beyond Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Canadian Department of Finance Who is being held accountable? Location Canada Institutional level National Basic Information Population 32 500 000 Sector General ­ Budget Allocation Year of implementation and 2006, two weeks long (from 6 April to 20 duration April) 2006 is the first year this initiative was implemented on the federal level. A Is this a one-off event or number of provinces have been repeated regularly? undertaking online consultations for several years as part of their annual budget preparation. - To encourage citizen participation in the budget process. Context and Scope What are the main objectives? - To take accountability and openness to a higher level. - To gather innovative ideas for the 2006 budget and the future budgets. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? All Canadian citizens Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? Not specifically (see note below). Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting What budget and/or human Staff were drawn from the Consultations resources were allocated to and Communications branch of he this SA initiative by the Department of Finance, whose mandate initiator? it is to conduct citizen engagement activities. What are the costs to citizens To access the Internet to participate in and CSOs? the consultation. - 44 - If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? A forum for open consultation can be accessed online. There are three key consultation issues that aim to answer the following questions: 1. What would you like to see in the 2006 budget and future budgets? 2. If you propose further tax cuts ­ or spending increases ­ where should the What specific SA tools and government spend less? methodologies are being 3. How can the government deliver used? programmes more efficiently and Briefly describe the effectively? Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools Following these questions, there is an Methodologies Used used. open section allowing citizens to make any other comments. In order to place these questions in context, the consultation Web site includes a link to the "Ministers' Consultation Invitation", where the minister addresses the main questions concerning the national budget. What advocacy and media activities support the initiative? Internet; No other media support Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No groups were engaged? More than 5 600 individuals and Results and Impact What (if any) has been the organisations took part in the process impact of the initiative? by submitting comments to the online consultations. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was The target group was all Canadians. the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, See note below communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public As far as it could be identified, there has deliberation (i.e. multilateral not been any public deliberation that interactivity)? derived from this initiative. - 45 - Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to Still being evaluated change/reform? Specific challenges identified Still being evaluated Other important information or comments Web sources www.fin.gc.ca Documents and reports Email: Bentley.george@fin.gc.ca Further References Resource persons/contacts George Bentley, Senior Consultations and Public Affairs Officer Department of Finance Note: Although not legally prescribed, Consulting Canadians is mandated by the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, which states that all departments should: Consult the public, listen to and take account of people's interests and concerns when establishing priorities, developing policies, and planning programs and services. The government's obligation to reach out and communicate with citizens is concomitant with the right of citizens to address and be heard by their government. In a democracy, listening to the public, researching, evaluating and addressing the needs of citizens is critical to the work of government. The government must learn as much as possible about public needs and expectations to respond to them effectively. The dialogue between citizens and their government must be continuous, open, inclusive, relevant, clear, secure and reliable. Communication is a two-way process. Although this was the first Web-based consultation, the Ministry of Finance has been accelerating its consultation activity since 1994 when, in the context of the fight against the deficit, the Minister launched a national consultation exercise, which later expanded to include the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. The pre-budget consultation process includes three elements: 1. House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, which is required by standing order of Parliament to conduct pre-budget hearings both in Ottawa and across the country involving some 500 groups and individuals, and then report back to Parliament on what it has heard. 2. The Minister of Finance conducts his own pre-budget consultation sessions with key stakeholders. This past year, the Minister engaged more than organisations in a series of four face-to-face roundtables in Ottawa. When schedules permit, there have also been similar sessions in communities across the country. This year's online consultations added another element to the Minister's toolbox of ways to engage Canadians. 3. The Department of Finance stages its own pre-budget consultations where individual branches meet with key stakeholders. At the same time, the Department conducts public opinion research and focus groups as part of the budget preparation process. - 46 - CZECH REPUBLIC: A CHALLENGE FOR 10 MILLION Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention A Challenge for 10 Million Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Executive Who is being held accountable? Executive Location Czech Republic Basic Information Institutional level National Population Sector Education Year of implementation and duration 1999-2000 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? One-off event To create public discussions, the results of which will be used to create a Context and Scope What are the main objectives? strategic document (white book) to determine the overall framework for the national education policy. - The primary target group consisted of teachers and education professionals Who is the target audience or (individuals and representative demographic focus? institutions). - Secondary groups: CSOs, the public at large. Is the initiative or methodology No, however the basic preconditions for based on legal requirements? public participation are assured by the 1993 Constitution. Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting, decision making - 47 - Budget: EUR 57 890 The main management structures of the project included: - Council for Education Policy ­ the minister's advisory body, composed of two representatives from the ministry, two independent experts, and 13 representatives from other institutions and organisations (Parliament, unions, employers, professional associations). What budget and/or human - Executive Council ­ the main resources were allocated to management body for the project, this SA initiative by the headed by the first deputy minister and initiator? including in its membership heads of other organisations participating in the project, a media employee from the ministry, and a representative from the Open Society Fund. - Basic Team ­ led by the Ministry of Education with representatives of institutions dealing with education issues [Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Research Institute of Professional Education, Centre for Education Policy and the "Teachers' News" newsletter]. Costs varied according to the level of What are the costs to citizens engagement (e.g. sending comments by and CSOs? the Internet, actively participating in roundtables). If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 48 - The consultation process was divided into four phases: Phase1- Preparation of a new education policy - May 1999, the "Concept for Education and for the Development of the Education System in the Czech Republic" made available to the public through the Ministry's Web site. In the preface, the Minister of Education appealed to the public to participate in discussion of the document. Initiative published in the written press. Individuals and institutions made contributions to the content of the document. - Approval of a detailed project proposal for the second phase. Phase2- The public consultation - The Ministry of Education communicated to the broad public its intention to launch a society-wide discussion in preparation of the White What specific SA tools and Book on Education Policy. methodologies are being - A set of seven topic-specific Tools & used? background studies served as the basic Methodologies Used Briefly describe the documents for the subsequent public methodology(/ies) or tools dialogue. used. - The Institute for Information on Education (UIV) set up of an Office of Public Discussions to collect all responses and comments submitted by fax, post and email. - A series of roundtable and public discussions with citizens and stakeholders were held. These discussions were initiated by the UIV and/or the stakeholders Phases 3 and 4 - Drafting and discussion at the National Seminar - Based on the results of the second phase and on consultation with experts a version of the White Book was drafted and made available on the Ministry's Web site, along with an email address for proposals and comments. - A national seminar was held, aiming to reach consensus among main stakeholders. - The government approved a final version of the White Book in February 2001. - 49 - Information on the policy proposal and opportunities for public consultation were provided via a special bulletin, What advocacy and media press conferences for the media and a activities support the initiative? dedicated Web site. A series of public discussion sessions and roundtables were organised throughout the country by schools and educational establishments. A "Special bulletin for education Were there any specific tools professionals" was issued and used to ensure that target distributed directly to public groups were engaged? administration and education establishments, as well as the media. Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? Ex post evaluation shows that two-thirds Has the target group been of the professional public (primary target reached? How inclusive was group) received the information bulletin; the initiative? while less than one-half of these read more than five issues, and roughly one- half read one to four issues. Has the initiative been scaled up? No An independent public institution for education (Institute for Information on Education, www.uiv.cz ) and a Have any partnerships been prominent non-governmental established with the organisation (OSF, Education Support government, media, NGOs, Project of the Open Society Fund communities, etc.? Describe Prague, www.osf.cz ) played important them. roles in assisting the Ministry of Education to organise this extensive information and consultation programme. To what extent did the SA The set of public debates and methodology encourage public roundtables, together with documents deliberation (i.e. multilateral aiming to inform the public on the issues interactivity)? at stake, enhanced informed deliberation. - 50 - Two evaluation reports have been prepared. Among the main findings are the following: - The majority of citizens agreed with Has the SA initiative been the subject of the consultation, believing evaluated? What were the that the educational system needed to results? Did it lead to be changed. change/reform? - Among the public at large, half of the citizens were aware of the ongoing discussion. No change was made, since it was a one-off event. - Distrust on the part of citizens towards the public administration. Specific challenges identified - Public administration does not have experience in managing public consultation exercises. Other important information or comments Web sources OECD report: Further References Documents and reports http://publications.oecd.org/acrobateboo k/4201131E.PDF Resource persons/contacts - 51 - CZECH REPUBLIC: ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Assessment of inefficiently used public Name of Intervention funds in public procurement in the Czech Republic Primary agency running Transparency International Czech Intervention (Initiator) Republic (TIC) Who is being held accountable? National government Basic Information Location Czech Republic Institutional level National Population Sector Government Budgeting Year of implementation and duration 2004 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Repeated regularly To assess the losses caused by What are the main objectives? inefficiency and lack of transparency in the awarding of public contracts. Primary target audience: Decision- Who is the target audience or makers, stakeholders demographic focus? Secondary target audience: citizens in general Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making cycle Evaluation Context and Scope What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 52 - The study mapping the process for What specific SA tools and purchasing goods at the municipal and methodologies are being central levels was conducted to assess used? the volume of public funds that are Briefly describe the allocated inefficiently. The analysis was based on data from the Ministry of Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools used. Finance and the Czech Statistics Office, Methodologies Used and the findings of the Supreme Audit Court. What advocacy and media Website, no information about other activities support the initiative? media support Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? Have any partnerships been No. The methodology was consulted established with the and approved by experts in public government, media, NGOs, funds, public administration and communities, etc.? Describe territorial self-government from the them. University of Economics in Prague. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral None Results and Impact interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Expenditures for the purchase of goods and services by central government amounts to 4.3% of the GDP. It is estimated 14.7% of this funding was Other important information or used inefficiently. comments Expenditure for the purchase of goods and services by municipal governments amounts to 6.2% of the GDP. It is estimated that 12% of this funding was used inefficiently. Further References Web sources www.transparency.cz Documents and reports - 53 - Email: krnacova@transparency.cz Postal address: Adriana Krnácová Director Resource persons/contacts Transparency International - Ceská Republika Politických vz 8, CZ - 110 00 Praha 1 Telephone +420 224 240 895-7 Mobile +420 608 069 828 - 54 - DENMARK: DANMARKSDEBATTEN (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) The Danish e-democracy, or SA, initiative is geared towards e-debate, i.e. Name of Intervention Information and Consultation (Danmarksdebatten). Currently it is being extended to include e-election functionality. The initiator was the Danish Ministry of Primary agency running Science, Technology and Innovation. Intervention (Initiator) Currently the project is housed in the Danish National IT and Telecom Agency. Basic Information Who is being held accountable? Local, regional and national authorities Location Denmark Institutional level All levels Population 5.2 million Sector All sectors Year of implementation and The dialogue platform/e-debate solution duration Danmarksdebatten was made available for public use in February 2004. Is this a one-off event or The dialogue platform can be used at repeated regularly? any time. The main scope of Danmarksdebatten is to support the democratic decision process: - To contribute to dialogue among public authorities and between authorities and citizens (i.e. end users). - To further individuals' opportunities to Context and Scope What are the main objectives? actively participate in and contribute to government. - To qualify input from citizens and elected officials. - To allow public authorities and elected representatives to qualify their decisions and present multiple perspectives on issues. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? Public authorities; all Danish citizens - 55 - Danmarksdebatten is democratic and open, but certain rules must be respected: - The debates must be objectively Is the initiative or methodology interesting for a broad group of people. based on legal requirements? - The debates must be carried out in a respectful manner, and may not be insulting or offensive. - All relevant existing legal rules, such as press ethics, must be respected. Stage of decision-making All stages, plus election-related aspects cycle due to e-election. What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? - For citizens, the cost to connect to the Internet, and freely consult and participate in the debates - For CSOs intending to manage What are the costs to citizens debates (including the appointment of and CSOs? moderators and debate owners), Danmarksdebatten is offered free of charge by the National IT and Telecom Agency, which operates the technical facilities. The same opportunity is offered to public authorities. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 56 - Danmarksdebatten is an Internet platform that allows citizens/public authorities/elected officials to interact among themselves and to discuss public issues. For example, a municipality Web site showing families that wait time for child care is six months might also contain a link inviting the family to discuss the municipality's future childcare policy. There may be links to similar topics at the local, regional or national levels, where the family may find arguments that help them to voice their opinions and/or to make more informed arguments. From this discussion of What specific SA tools and municipal childcare policy, the family methodologies are being may then proceed to a debate on used? government family policy.35 Briefly describe the methodology(/ies) or tools Situational engagement can be applied used. to stimulate citizen participation at several levels. Local, regional and Tools & national debates are linked and made Methodologies Used accessible; this allows individuals to view the various ongoing public debates, and permits public authorities and elected officials to collect valuable information on citizen preferences, values and attitudes. A successful electronic debate requires well-defined topics, clear purposes and proactive and dedicated management/moderation. Debate leaders receive recommendations on how to approach online dialogues in terms of preparation, launch and conclusion. Web sites Individual authorities (public sector, What advocacy and media CSO) are responsible for managing the activities support the initiative? debates and working with (national and/or local) media to promote the debates. Were there any specific tools Direct contact to all states, regional and used to ensure that target local authorities by email, letter and groups were engaged? phone; information made available at conferences, etc. 35Example extracted from www.damarksdebatten.dk. - 57 - More than 100 authorities have used What (if any) has been the Danmarksdebatten to manage debates. impact of the initiative? Further development is underway to allow e-voting, e-pooling, and citizen panels. Has the target group been All authorities were contacted and given reached? How inclusive was the offer to use the tool. The target the initiative? group was mainly local authorities; approximately one-third have used it. Has the initiative been scaled The initiative is ready to be employed in up? all levels (local, regional, and national). Have any partnerships been established with the All CSO and interest groups have the government, media, NGOs, possibility to create their own debate Results and Impact communities, etc.? Describe platforms. them. The initiative is essentially deliberative. To what extent did the SA The National IT and Telecom Agency methodology encourage public offers CSOs, political authorities, and deliberation (i.e. multilateral elected officials general assistance in interactivity)? relation to good debating ethics, dialogue, communication strategies, and e-democracy in general. Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the No formal evaluation, but revision of results? Did it lead to target from debates only to include e- change/reform? voting, e-pooling and citizen panels. Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments No information Web sources www.danmarksdeatten.dk (includes text about the initiative in English) Further References Documents and reports No reports yet; an e-democracy paper is planned. Resource persons/contacts Eva Born Rasmussen (er@itst.dk) Adam Lebech (ale@itst.dk) - 58 - FINLAND: HAMEENLINNA PARTICIPATION TOOLS Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Multiple devices of consultation: feedback-carts; surveys; micro-local fund for projects; participatory urban Name of Intervention planning; "parliament for associations"; participatory youth project (e-learning); volunteer center; fora for specific target groups. Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Government/Administration-led Who is being held Basic Information accountable? Government/Administration Location City of Hämeenlinna (Finland) Institutional level Micro-local and city-wide Population 46 000 All sectors of administration; Urban Sector planning; Co-operation with associations; Youth policy Year of implementation and Programmes have been implemented in duration succession since the mid-1990s Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Regularly - Improving the quality of public services. - Strengthening citizens' confidence in local politics. - Enhancing citizen participation. Context and Scope What are the main objectives? - Increasing communication between local government and citizens. - Improving conditions for target groups (youth, elderly, handicapped). - Improving standard of living, especially in disadvantaged districts. - Enhancing solidarity. Who is the target audience or The whole population, with a special demographic focus? focus on young and elderly people. Local governments in Finland are urged Is the initiative or methodology by the central government to encourage based on legal requirements? participation by local residents (e.g. in the Local Government Act of 1995), but they are not required to do so. Stage of decision-making Co-planning, agenda setting, cycle implementation, and evaluation - 59 - This has not been evaluated, because What budget and/or human of the difficulty in doing so for a resources were allocated to multiplicity of programmes; in the this SA initiative by the framework of the micro-local fund, cities initiator? provide about EUR 20 000 (total) per year to inhabitants. What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? Not possible to evaluate. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - Feedback on quality of local services for residents. - Regular surveys citizens' quality of life and specific needs. - Micro-local fund for projects: about EUR 20 000 euro per year, distributed among 20-25 projects. Single residents or groups of residents can apply for funding; evaluation criteria include the necessity of the project, the number of residents affected, local involvement, etc. The projects (renovation of a What specific SA tools and building, cleaning of a beach, etc.) are methodologies are being carried out by inhabitants themselves. used? - Participatory urban planning: Briefly describe the deliberative and long-standing process methodology(/ies) or tools of co-planning between local Tools & used. government and citizens. Methodologies Used - Fora: "parliament for associations"; youth forum; forum for elderly people, etc. Government representatives meet directly with civil society actors to discuss current problems and possibilities for action. - Participatory youth project (e-learning) in schools, which won the best e- learning project in Finland in 2002 and also best e-learning project in the Eschola Competition of the European Network Schoolnet. What advocacy and media Local newspapers inform about the activities support the initiative? projects, but there are no specific advocacy activities. Were there any specific tools Special school project, in schools; used to ensure that target consultative fora for specific target groups were engaged? groups (elderly people, young people, handicapped people, drug addicts). - 60 - Difficult to evaluate concretely because the project is long-term; however, outcomes are: - A more citizen-oriented and transparent local government. Results and Impact What (if any) has been the - Better communication between impact of the initiative? citizens and local government. - More networking between civil society actors in fora, "parliament of associations", etc. - More information about city politics for inhabitants. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was The different fora gave target groups the the initiative? opportunity to express their needs. Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been No official partnerships, but overall co- established with the operation between local government government, media, NGOs, and different actors from civil society communities, etc.? Describe (above all: people active in them. associations) has been strengthened and improved. Public deliberation was encouraged within the process of urban planning, To what extent did the SA where representatives from the city methodology encourage public administration and architects deliberation (i.e. multilateral deliberated with inhabitants about interactivity)? upcoming projects; the fora are also a place for deliberation, but they are not public. The local government itself constantly tries to further develop participatory activities, including civil society in this process (e.g. one fora topic: how to continue?). Different international Has the SA initiative been evaluations in the 1990s within the evaluated? What were the framework of the Carl-Bertelsmann results? Did it lead to competition on "Democracy and change/reform? Efficiency" (e.g. by Naschold, Oppen). Scientific evaluation within a European project on "Participatory Budgets in Europe" (2005) by Sintomer, Herzberg and Röcke. However, these evaluation tools are not specific to local government. - 61 - Incorporating more direct decision- making competence for local citizens, which is not in the "spirit" of the participatory politics of Hämeenlinna; Specific challenges identified the government focuses on continuous co-operation between civil society and the local administration/ government via fora, participatory urban planning, etc., but not on the delegation of power to citizens' councils. Other important information or comments Web sources www.hameenlinna.fi German Report about Hämeenlinna in Yves Sintomer, Carsten Herzberg, Anja Documents and reports Röcke (eds.), "Participatory Budgets in a European Comparative Perspective, Vol. II (Documents)", Berlin, 2005 Email: Anja Röcke (EUI), anja.rocke@iue.it Further References Postal address: Resource persons/contacts Carsten Herzberg / Yves Sintomer Centre Marc Bloch Schiffbauerdamm 19 D-10117 Berlin Telephone +49 (0) 30 / 20 93 37 95 Fax +49 (0) 30 / 20 93 37 98 - 62 - FRANCE: CONSULTATION ON CITY PROJECT, GONESSE Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Projet de Ville: Nos Projets Pour les Dix Name of Intervention Ans ŕ Venir (City project : Our projects for the next ten years) Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Government-led Who is being held accountable? Executive Location City of Gonesse Institutional level Local Population 24 701 The project has 6 themes: Basic Information 1. Urban renovation 2. Reinforcement of solidarity 3. Quality of public services Sector 4. Improving quality of life 5. Setting standards for policies on education, culture and sports 6. Economic development and employment Year of implementation and duration 1 April 2006-January 2007 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? One-off event The mayor and his staff propose new ways to reinforce participatory democracy; this includes a broad Context and Scope What are the main objectives? consultation, which creates a sphere where citizens can express their ideas and concerns, allowing the government to determine collective priorities and formulate proposals for action. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? All local citizens The official Web site mentions the "loi Is the initiative or methodology de démocratie de proximité" of 2002; based on legal requirements? however, Gonesse has made efforts to reinforce local democracy since 1995. Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? - 63 - - Citizens are asked to fill in thematic questionnaires (three to five minutes per theme/six themes), which are made What are the costs to citizens available throughout the consultation. and CSOs? Questionnaires can be submitted via Internet, mail or in person. - Citizens can choose to participate in voluntary public meetings. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? Consultation: Thematic questionnaires (i.e. culture, solidarity) are published each month in the city newspaper. Citizens can also access the questionnaires on government organisation Web sites. The questionnaires can be submitted online What specific SA tools and or by post. methodologies are being Public Debate: Procedures for used? consultation are presented to Briefly describe the neighbourhood councils. A global public methodology(/ies) or tools meeting open to all citizens aims to used. foster the exchange of information Tools & among stakeholders. Six thematic Methodologies Used workshops are also proposed. Specific Methodologies: Special thematic workshops were proposed for the 600 civil servants in Gonesse. (It is unclear whether these meetings actually took place.) What advocacy and media Questionnaires are made available on activities support the initiative? local public Web sites and in the city newspaper. Schools have been involved in planning Were there any specific tools specific activities for younger citizens. used to ensure that target The same actions are planned in groups were engaged? conjunction with the "council of the elderly", "council of the young citizens" and "council of the associative life". Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, communities, etc.? Describe them. - 64 - To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public General public debate; Public debates deliberation (i.e. multilateral on neighbourhoods; Thematic interactivity)? workshops Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or Because the initiative is ongoing, some comments information is not existent/available. Web sources http://www.ville-gonesse.fr/ Documents and reports Service Démocratie Participative Further References Postal Address : Resource persons/contacts 66 rue de Paris - BP 60 95503 Gonesse Cedex Telephone +33 (0)1 34 45 11 08 Fax +33 (0)1 39 85 26 60 - 65 - FRANCE: REGIONAL PB ON EDUCATION Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention High School Participatory Budgeting Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Government-led (Executive) Who is being held accountable? Location Region Poitou-Charentes, FRANCE Basic Information Institutional level Regional Population 1 600 000 Sector Education Year of implementation and duration 2005 Is this a one-off event or The second session of the PB begins in repeated regularly? 2006. - To involve citizens in the decisions that concern them. What are the main objectives? - To identify citizens' needs. - To allocate resources more effectively. - To address the representative democracy crisis. Who is the target audience or Education system stakeholders: school demographic focus? boards, administrative staff, teachers, parents, students. Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making Context and Scope cycle Agenda setting, decision making What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the initiator? What are the costs to citizens Citizens must participate in at least one and CSOs? of two meetings on budget allocation. If the initiative concerns EUR 10 million is allocated to the PB; participatory budgeting: what EUR 110 million total is allocated to high percentage is it of the total schools, representing 9.09% of the total investment budget? education budget. - 66 - - Every public high school in the region (93 schools total) holds an initial meeting. During these assemblies, the global budget for the region is presented; participants also learn the percentage of this funding that goes to high schools, and how participatory budgeting works. The public is then divided into working groups, which present their proposals for the allocation of resources in the high school. A general debate follows these What specific SA tools and presentations. A synthesis of the methodologies are being discussions and the propositions is then used? elaborated. Briefly describe the - Between the first and second methodology(/ies) or tools meetings, government technical used. departments evaluate the technical, financial and legal feasibility of the propositions. For those initiatives that are feasible, a value is estimated. Tools & - A third assembly is held, with the same Methodologies Used formalities as the first meeting. The results of the technical evaluation are presented, along with a list of the propositions from the first meeting including their respective costs. After debate, assembly participants vote to rank the propositions. The regional government commits to execute the three top priorities. - The participatory budget Internet site has extensive documentation, including power point presentations, memoranda from previous assemblies, What advocacy and media methodologies and calendars. activities support the initiative? - The directors of the high schools are systematically informed about the results of the PB via mail. - Students are informed of results by a school-based panel. Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was the initiative? - 67 - Yes; 53 schools participated in the first Has the initiative been scaled participatory budgeting exercise. In up? 2006, all public high schools in the region use PB. Have any partnerships been The NGO ADELS ­ the main CSO established with the working on participatory democracy in government, media, NGOs, France ­ has been charged with communities, etc.? Describe management and moderation of the them. public assemblies. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral interactivity)? - A first independent evaluation has been made by an external organisation. No information is available about the Has the SA initiative been results of this evaluation, nor about evaluated? What were the changes that resulted. results? Did it lead to - During all the assemblies, evaluation change/reform? questionnaires are given to participants. No information is available about the results of this evaluation, nor about changes that resulted. Specific challenges identified The PB school at Poitou-Charentes is a rare (if not unique) example of Other important information or participatory budgeting at the regional comments level. Unlike other participatory budgeting in Europe that has a consultative value, in Poitou-Charentes PB has a decisional, binding effect. Web sources http://www.democratie-participative.fr/ German Report about Poitou-Charentes in Yves Sintomer, Carsten Herzberg, Documents and reports Anja Röcke (eds.) "Participatory Budgets in a European Comparative Perspective", Vol. II (Documents), Berlin, 2005 Email: postmaster@cr-poitou- charentes.fr Further References Postal address : Resource persons/contacts Région Poitou-Charentes 15, rue de l'ancienne comédie BP 575 86021 POITIERS CEDEX Telephone +33 (0)5 49 55 77 00 Fax +33 (0)5 49 55 77 88 - 68 - GERMANY: CITIZEN JURY Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Citizen Jury Primary agency running Federal programme "Social City" Intervention (Initiator) (Soziale Stradt) involving Federal level, Landers and communes Who is being held Municipal and Regional Legislature accountable? (Berlin Senate) Location Berlin (17 neighbourhoods) Basic Information Institutional level Local Population 223 800 (6.7% of the total population of the city) Sector Urban planning Year of implementation and duration January 2001-December 2003 Is this a one-off event or Repeated regularly (meetings every repeated regularly? month) - Citizen participation (mobilising What are the main objectives? citizens). - Improving the image of public officials. - Rationalisation of public expenditures. All citizens of the neighbourhood Who is the target audience or (including foreign residents): half of the demographic focus? jury members were randomly selected, the other half are members of local civil society. Is the initiative or methodology Federal programme aims to spur citizen based on legal requirements? participation. Stage of decision-making Context and Scope cycle Deliberation/Decision making What budget and/or human resources were allocated to EUR 500 000 per jury (one per this SA initiative by the neighbourhood) per year. initiator? What are the costs to citizens Citizens are paid EUR 20 euros per and CSOs? meeting (lasting 3 hours on average) If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what 0.03 % of the total budget of Berlin percentage is it of the total Senate investment budget? - 69 - The Citizen Jury is composed of randomly selected citizens and citizen representatives of local civil society (associations, companies). It has EUR 500 000 to finance projects for the What specific SA tools and urban rehabilitation of the methodologies are being neighbourhood. Any inhabitant or used? association can present a project to the Briefly describe the jury, which then deliberates to decide methodology(/ies) or tools whether to finance the project according Tools & used. to its "usefulness" and general quality Methodologies Used (the final decision is generally taken through secret-ballot voting). The juries met an average of 15 times per year to evaluate about 72 projects; half were eventually financed. What advocacy and media activities support the initiative? Public information campaign Were there any specific tools Specific efforts were made to reach used to ensure that target target groups (e.g. foreigners) and to groups were engaged? ensure a representative composition of the juries. - Faster decision-making process. - Different decisions (more oriented towards social, cultural and leisure projects than in the past). - More transparency and citizen Results and Impact What (if any) has been the monitoring of local public decision- impact of the initiative? making. The programme also boosted local civil society through the creation of new associations and increased the legitimacy of local representatives. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was Highly inclusive, but foreigners remain the initiative? under-represented. Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, No communities, etc.? Describe them. Jury debates on local public To what extent did the SA expenditures included high-quality methodology encourage public deliberations in small groups (about 20 deliberation (i.e. multilateral people) and discussions in non-public interactivity)? settings (jury deliberations were non- public). - 70 - Has the SA initiative been An independent evaluation (by the evaluated? What were the Centre Marc Bloch) provided a good results? Did it lead to evaluation; however, the project was change/reform? stopped due to political and financial reasons. Specific challenges identified - Low participation levels. - Scepticism of some local politicians. Other important information or comments www.quartiersmanagement-berlin.de Web sources http://i.ville.gouv.fr/divbib/doc/SYNTHjur yberlin.pdf Eléonore Koehl and Yves Sintomer (2002) Les Jurys Citoyens Berlinois, Rapport final pour la Direction Interministériel de la ville. Anja Röcke and Yves Sintomer (2005) Documents and reports "Les jurys citoyens berlinois et le tirage au sort : un nouveau modčle de démocratie participative ?" in M.-H. Further References Bacqué, H. Rey, Y. Sintomer, Gestion de Proximité et Démocratie Participative : une Perspective Comparative, Paris : La découverte. Postal address : Yves Sintomer Centre Marc Bloch Resource persons/contacts Schiffbauerdamm 19 D-10117 Berlin Telephone +49 (0) 30 / 20 93 37 95 Fax +49 (0) 30 / 20 93 37 98 - 71 - GERMANY: ONLINE DIALOGUE PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Online Dialogue for the Participatory Budget of Berlin-Lichtenberg - For the participatory budget: Primary agency running Bezirksamt Lichtenberg von Berlin Intervention (Initiator) (Lichtenberg Borough of Berlin) - For the online dialogue: Zebralog - Cross Media Dialogues The local council (Bezirksverordneten- Who is being held versammlung) receives budget accountable? proposals from citizens and makes final Basic Information funding decisions. Councils report on decisions to the public. Location Berlin-Lichtenberg, Germany Institutional level Local Population 260 000 inhabitants Sector Budget Year of implementation and duration August 2005 - July 2006 After a successful pilot in 2005, local Is this a one-off event or council has decided to implement repeated regularly? participatory budgeting as a regular task. - Mutual agreement in policy decisions. - Effective and fair budgeting. Context and Scope What are the main objectives? - Transparency and comprehension in financial matters. - Lively discussion and unbureaucratic solutions. Who is the target audience or A representative, significant sample of demographic focus? all local citizens Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? Not required Stage of decision-making Accompanying process for the whole cycle decision-making cycle Approximately EUR 160 000 in the pilot What budget and/or human year and approximately EUR 80 000 per resources were allocated to year thereafter for external services this SA initiative by the (media, moderation, Web design, etc.), initiator? plus unspecified human resources within the administration. - 72 - Dependent on the media channel: a) Paper survey: 2 mailings; total time per citizen approximately 1 hour b) Public meetings: several What are the costs to citizens neighbourhood meetings; total time per and CSOs? citizen approximately 8 hours c) Internet: 4 weeks online discussion, information reading, newsletters, online polling; total time per citizen between 1 and 32 hours, self-determined If the initiative concerns 100% of the "steerable" municipal participatory budgeting: what budget. This excludes "fixed" transfers percentage is it of the total from the regional authority, e.g. for investment budget? social benefits. a) Paper survey What specific SA tools and b) Public meetings methodologies are being c) Internet: Online dialogue with detailed used? information section, moderated Briefly describe the discussion forum, budget calculator, methodology(/ies) or tools proposal wikis, preference polling, used. newsletter, editor interviews with politicians, etc. - Posters and leaflets. Tools & What advocacy and media - Information stands at local festivals. Methodologies Used activities support the initiative? - Mass media coverage. - Online banners. - Mini-events for minorities and fringe groups. - Free access to online-dialogue in local Were there any specific tools libraries. used to ensure that target - Tech support for online participants. groups were engaged? - Proactive phone support for survey participants. - Interpreters for hearing-impaired citizens at public meetings. The local council has passed 37 of the 42 proposed budget and policy amendments. Results and Impact What (if any) has been the The prioritised list of 42 proposals was impact of the initiative? the result of cross-media dialogue on hundreds of individual submissions. The main impact was enhanced accountability of local government. - 73 - In total 4 000 people participated in the different programmes during the pilot year. The paper survey reached a Has the target group been representative share of the local reached? How inclusive was population. the initiative? The online dialogue reached mainly citizens up to age 50 of both genders. The level of education was higher than in the total population. Has the initiative been scaled Other boroughs of Berlin and other large up? German cities are starting similar budgeting initiatives. Have any partnerships been The Bundeszentrale für politische established with the Bildung (Federal Center for Political government, media, NGOs, Education) has monitored the process communities, etc.? Describe closely and supported the evaluation them. financially. Public deliberation is the core feature of the online dialogue. Citizens identify their issues, debate them with fellow To what extent did the SA citizens, and come up with concrete methodology encourage public proposals. Members of the deliberation (i.e. multilateral administration or the local council interactivity)? answer questions and share their views on the proposals. Each proposal is voted on by participants and submitted to the council. The council reports on its decisions to the public. The process has been evaluated by the University of Speyer and the Fraunhofer Has the SA initiative been Institute IAIS. evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to The design of the dialogue has been change/reform? remodelled in various aspects, due to evaluation results and the professional experience of the project managers. - 74 - As in all (online) dialogues the two main challenges were: 1. to reach disadvantaged target groups (in terms of education or income). 2. to involve participants in the complexity of the problem (to get transparent, fair and rational results). The first challenge was addressed by advocacy and media activities, with success. However, efforts will be increased in the coming years. Specific challenges identified The second challenge seems to be especially important and difficult in budgeting matters. The methodology and technology of www.buergerhaushalt-lichtenberg.de has helped a great deal to encourage collaborative work on the budget. There were moderators, a shared editing function (wiki), and a budget calculator for the concrete proposals. The specific challenge was to design these tools with a simple usability, but also with a complex functionality. This will be an ongoing task for the years to come. Other important information or comments www.buergerhaushalt-lichtenberg.de www.zebralog.de/en/000125.html Web sources www.buergerhaushalt- lichtenberg.de/discoursemachine.php?vi ew=detail&id_item=499 Evaluation reports have been compiled Documents and reports by the University of Speyer and the Fraunhofer Institute IAIS and will be published soon. Mr. Hans Hagedorn Further References Email: hagedorn@zebralog.de Postal address: Resource persons/contacts Zebralog - Cross Media Dialogues Voltastr. 5, 10.2, Elevator 6 13355 Berlin, Germany Telephone +49 30 6162 1906 Fax/Voice +49 30 6162 3681 Home Office +49 30 3253 9284 Mobile +49 170 9959 132 - 75 - GREECE: MUNICIPAL CHECK LIST Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention Municipal Check List Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Local Executive Who is being held accountable? Executive Location Piraeus, Greece Basic Information Institutional level Local Population No information Sector General Year of implementation and duration 2004 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? No information - To identify and address potential areas of vulnerability to abuse of authority and What are the main objectives? management of resources in Piraeus. - To provide a common information base to improve the effectiveness of the municipality. Primary target audience: Public Who is the target audience or authorities, civil servants demographic focus? Secondary target audience: all parties interested in the effectiveness of the municipality Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Context and Scope Stage of decision-making cycle Evaluation What budget and/or human The process involved an outside resources were allocated to person, equivalent to a consultant, who this SA initiative by the met with the main stakeholders of the initiator? city (e.g. municipal staff, CSOs) over a four-day period. What are the costs to citizens The costs involved in meeting the and CSOs? consultant for an interview. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 76 - The Municipal Checklist generates a profile of useful information obtained through (among other means) direct interaction with municipal officials, employees, and other important stakeholders such as businesses and civil society organisations. The checklist consists of a series of questions on those areas of municipal life that have generally been most subject to abuse or in need of strengthening in order to address corruption issues. They may include: Municipal Ethical Framework; Public Complaints; Leadership; Human Resources; Budgeting; Procurement and Audit Procedures (see annex). The process in Piraeus involved an What specific SA tools and outside representative, who met with a methodologies are being wide cross-section of municipal staff used? and unions, two municipal businesses, Briefly describe the and a number of civil society methodology(/ies) or tools organisations during a four-day period. Tools & used. Following this brief diagnosis period, the results of the study were presented to Methodologies Used the municipality. Some of the more important findings of the Piraeus diagnosis are: Ethical Framework - There were no codes of conduct for the Mayor, Vice- Mayors, Councillors, and Senior Staff. Disclosure of Assets - Only the Mayor was required to disclose his assets. Public Complaints - Every person interviewed indicated that the Mayor was very receptive to listening to complaints. However, there was no office within the municipality specifically responsible for following up on citizen complaints, nor was there an established and publicly known procedure for doing so. What advocacy and media There was a formal presentation of the activities support the initiative? results to the municipality. No information about other initiatives. Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target Use of an external representative. groups were engaged? As a result of the exercise, the city subsequently adopted a new Code of Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? Ethics for itself, and continues to work with TI (Greece) to improve its integrity systems. - 77 - Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? Have any partnerships been The initiative involved a study of the established with the operations of the Municipality of government, media, NGOs, Piraeus, jointly undertaken by the city communities, etc.? Describe and Transparency International them. (Greece). To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral No information interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? An approach that more directly involved Specific challenges identified the local community and the local municipality staff would probably have resulted in greater impact. Other important information or The Municipal Checklist was used for comments the first time in the Municipality of Piraeus. http://hq.unhabitat.org/cdrom/TRANSPA Web sources RENCY/html/2_1.html www.transparency.gr Documents and reports Further References Postal address: Transparency International ­ Greece Resource persons/contacts 6-7, Efroniou Street 11634 Athens, Greece Telephone +30 1 7224940 Fax +30 1 7224947 - 78 - Example of Municipal Checklist The Municipal Checklist Municipal Ethical Framework 1. Is there a code of conduct for senior local government leadership? 2. Is it used and thought to be effective? 3. Are the assets and incomes of senior local government leadership disclosed annually to the public through effective means? Public Complaints 4. Is there an independent complaints office within the local government? 5. Is it known to the public and to staff? 6. Is it effective and respected? 7. Is there retaliation against whistle-blowers or are they protected? 8. Can anonymous complaints be made? 9. Is there a programme for testing the integrity of the various local government departments? 10.Is the programme publicised and is it effective? Municipal Leadership 11.Is the local government leadership committed to the fight against corruption and how has this been demonstrated in both words and deeds? 12.Does the public respect the work of the local government? Municipal Human Resources 13.Is there respect for work rules by all staff, including supervisors? 14.Is the local government system for recruiting, disciplining, and promoting staff fair? 15.Are local government pay scales and benefits fair? 16.Is the internal administrative system for appeals of staff decisions considered fair? Municipal Budgeting 17.Is the local government budgeting process well publicised and open to the public? 18.Does the public actively and directly participate in shaping local government budget priorities? Municipal Procurement 19.Is the local government procurement system reputed to be fair? 20.Is it based on competitive principles? 21.Are procurements advertised in advance and made known to the public? - 79 - 22.Is the process for selecting a bidder thorough and fair? 23.Are conflict of interest rules enforced? 24.Are certain types of procurements excluded from competition? 25.Does the local government make its investments through a competitive process? 26.Have there been corruption issues with the procurement system? 27.Is there a regular audit of procurement actions? Audit Procedures 28.Are the local government accounts regularly audited by independent auditors? 29.Is there an internal auditor? 30.Are the results made public in a timely and effective manner? 31.Is there a separate local government public accounts committee? 32.As a result of these audits, are actions taken to rectify systems and practices? Source: Transparency International - 80 - HUNGARY: E-GAMES Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizens feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention e-GAMES (eGovernment Assessment, Measuring and Evaluation System) Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) National government Who is being held accountable? National government agents/officials Basic Information Location Hungary Institutional level National Population Sector All sectors Year of implementation and duration 2004 through present Is this a one-off event or It is a permanent event. repeated regularly? - To promote interaction among citizens, and between citizens and the public What are the main objectives? administration. - To assess, measure and evaluate the public administration, and citizen interest in different issues. Who is the target audience or Citizens, civil servants, government demographic focus? officials Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making Agenda setting, decision making, Context and Scope cycle implementation What budget and/or human resources were allocated to There was no specific budget allocated this SA initiative by the to the initiative, which is a service of the initiator? existing government portal. To access the Internet and register in What are the costs to citizens order to be informed about debates and CSOs? and/or participate in them. (Users are required to use their real names.) If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 81 - e-GAMES is a sophisticated forum integrated into the Hungarian government Internet portal. It offers the opportunity for real-time interactions that are open to the public and assessed quantitatively. To use the forum, citizens access the government's Web portal and register at the Client Gate. In order to implement a well-functioning service, the following rules were defined: - Users cannot be anonymous, and are always identified by their real names. This ensures that users are aware that the forum is a form of participatory government, and holds every user legally responsible for the content of his/ her contributions. - Users can assess each other's comments with positive and negative What specific SA tools and points, providing a value judgment on methodologies are being every user's participation. The used? aggregated points show a picture of Briefly describe the public opinion. methodology(/ies) or tools - In addition to value judgments, the number of contributions to the topics Tools & used. forum leads to a popularity index. Methodologies Used - Public officials are among the users, but they cannot comment on the opinions expressed. - Any external/official moderation of contributions takes place publicly online. The legal background of the online forum and e-GAMES was defined carefully, with efforts to counterbalance data protection, freedom of expression and the moderation of online contributions. Interestingly, VIPs (such as high-level representatives of public administration and politicians) are regularly invited to chat with citizens at a predefined time. The responses during these online "office hours", as well as their other contributions, are measured by points from the users. The initiative is integrated into the What advocacy and media government portal. activities support the initiative? No information about other activities. Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information - 82 - Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled The initiative is already at the national up? level, where new debates and fora can be created freely by the members. Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, No communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public The initiative enhances deliberation deliberation (i.e. multilateral through the forums, and chats with interactivity)? public officials. Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to No change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments No information Web sources www.magyarorszag.hu/parbeszed_ega mes.html Documents and reports Dr. Rozalia Bogó Coordination director of KOPINT- Further References DATORG Resource persons/contacts Email: bogone@kopdat.hu Telephone +36 1 459 4267 Fax +36 1 303 9588 Mobile +36 466 0202 - 83 - IRELAND: NATIONAL SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP Participation by The Wheel as a Social Partner in the development and Type of Interaction monitoring of the implementation of the Irish National Social Partnership Agreement Name of Intervention National Social Partnership Agreement Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Government-led Government and social partners (employer groups, trade unions, farming Who is being held groups and community/voluntary accountable? organizations) hold each other accountable as partners in the development and delivery of the 10-year Social Partnership Agreement. Basic Information Location Ireland Institutional level National Population 4 million Sector All government sectors Year of implementation and duration 2006-2016 The National Agreement is formally Is this a one-off event or reviewed every three years; the repeated regularly? implementation process is driven by quarterly meetings of the Social Partnership Steering Group. To provide a strategic framework to both develop the economy and address the challenges which every individual in the Context and Scope What are the main objectives? state faces at each stage of the life cycle (children, young people, people of working age, older people and people with disabilities). Who is the target audience or demographic focus? All citizens Is the initiative or methodology No. Participation in social partnership is based on legal requirements? entirely voluntary and at the invitation of government. The process involves all stages of the Stage of decision-making decision-making cycle: agenda setting, cycle decision making, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. - 84 - Until recently, there was no budget What budget and/or human allocated to support the social partners resources were allocated to in their participation in this process. This this SA initiative by the year, however, the government included initiator? in the agreement resources to support the participation of community and voluntary organisations in the process. The costs to the 15 organisations in the Community and Voluntary Pillar is significant ­ most organisations employ What are the costs to citizens a dedicated policy or advocacy director and CSOs? (at senior level) to represent them and consult/provide feedback to their respective sectors (e.g. disability sector, senior citizens sector, children's sector, etc.). If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what The government retains authority over percentage is it of the total budgets allocated to actions identified in investment budget? the national agreement. Social accountability is realised, as each of the social partner organisations What specific SA tools and endorses the document and signs up to methodologies are being implement it working in partnership. used? Critics of the process claim that, Briefly describe the although it seeks to facilitate methodology(/ies) or tools participation in the formulation of used. government policy by the social partners, it is not a representative process because the organisations are accountable only to their own members. Each participating organisation in the four Pillars (Employers, Trade Unions, Farmers and CV Sector) generally Tools & seeks to involve its Methodologies Used What advocacy and media constituency/members as closely as activities support the initiative? possible in the development and monitoring of the agreement. There is a high degree of media interest in the process during the negotiations, but interest tails off during the lengthy implementation process. The Wheel has formed a Social Partnership Network of Interest to engage members in the process. The Were there any specific tools network of interest is kept informed of used to ensure that target developments in the process, and The groups were engaged? Wheel seeks to incorporate feedback from members in developing policy priorities in implementing the agreement. Results and Impact What (if any) has been the General government accountability was impact of the initiative? enhanced, indirectly. - 85 - Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, The entire process is a partnership. communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public No public deliberation. Deliberation deliberation (i.e. multilateral among the stakeholders. interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the The process is evaluated every three results? Did it lead to years. change/reform? Specific challenges identified Other important information or comments Web sources www.wheel.ie Documents and reports Email: ivan@wheel.ie Postal address: Ivan Cooper Further References Director of Advocacy Resource persons/contacts The Wheel ISFC 10 Grattan Crescent Inchicore, Dublin 8 Telephone +01 454 8727 Fax +01 454 8649 Mobile +086 8093083 - 86 - ITALY: SBILANCIAMOCI! "THE OTHER STATE BUDGET REPORT" Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizens feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention Sbilanciamoci! "The Other State Budget Report" Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) CSO-led Who is being held accountable? National Executive Location Rome Basic Information Institutional level National Population 56 million Economic and fiscal justice, Sector environmental sustainability, civil rights, gender equality Year of implementation and duration September 1999 - present Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Conducted every year Development of alternative proposals on how to use public expenditure for rights, environment, peace, and economic development. By leveraging fiscal Context and Scope What are the main objectives? expenditures and reducing military expenditures, additional resources are available for other purposes: sustainable development, civil rights, economic policy based on fairness, and international co-operation. National and local government and Who is the target audience or policy makers, parliamentarians and demographic focus? politicians, academic world, CSOs, all citizens. Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No. Review of economic policies emerging from the Budget Law and the State Stage of decision-making Budget; collection of alternative cycle proposals for national budget policies elaborated by CSOs; realisation of The Other Budget Report; advocacy work What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the EUR 150 000/48 person-months initiator? - 87 - All CSOs belonging to the Sbilanciamoci network are required to provide What are the costs to citizens alternative budget proposals in their and CSOs? areas of expertise. They are also required to participate in two three-hour meetings per year. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? What specific SA tools and methodologies are being used? Advocacy tools, politics tools (such as Briefly describe the presentation of amendments in the methodology(/ies) or tools Parliament) used. What advocacy and media National information campaigns, activities support the initiative? newspaper ads, online banners, newsletters, Web site, press releases Organisation of annual meeting Tools & (Counter Cernobbio) with mass media Methodologies Used visibility where policy makers, government delegates and CSO representatives are invited to discuss Were there any specific tools alternative economic policies and used to ensure that target proposals in the Other Budget Report; groups were engaged? elaboration of an indicator of regional quality of development (QUARS) aimed at monitoring the state of welfare, the environment, gender equality; elaboration of a document on military spending; elaboration of a document on the state of international co-operation. About 50 amendments to the financial law were introduced in Parliament; some Other Budget Report proposals have been incorporated in government programmes (building of 3 000 crčches and the implementation of green Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? accountability in the political decision- making process); a working group within the Ministry of Treasury has been established; the regional government of Lazio has integrated regional quality of development in its decision-making process Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was The initiative did not include all political the initiative? views in the Italian scene. It has been scaled down; work is now Has the initiative been scaled underway with the CSOs of the up? Lombardia region to elaborate an alternative regional budget. - 88 - Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, Sbilanciamoci! is supported by 44 CSOs communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA Debate between CSOs and academic methodology encourage public resources on public expenditures and deliberation (i.e. multilateral on the economic and financial feasibility interactivity)? of CSO proposals. Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified Operational and financial challenges Sbilanciamoci! information campaign Other important information or includes many initiatives; the core is the comments "Other Budget Report", which correlates with all other initiatives Web sources www.sbilanciamoci.org The Other Budget Report, Regional Further References Documents and reports Quality of Development Index, White Book on International Cooperation Resource persons/contacts Email: info@sbilanciamoci.org - 89 - JAPAN: INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION REVIEW BOARD Information - Document held by administrative organs/incorporated Type of Interaction administrative agencies, etc. - Personal information held by administrative organs/incorporated administrative agencies, etc. Name of Intervention Information Disclosure and Personal Information Review Board Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Government-led Japanese public administration Who is being held (administrative organs/incorporated accountable? administrative agencies, etc. Location National Institutional level National1 Population Total population Basic Information Public administration (administrative Sector organs/incorporated administrative agencies, etc.)2 Documents: Permanent event since Year of implementation and 2001 duration Personal Information: Permanent event since 2005 Documents: Permanent event since Is this a one-off event or 2001 repeated regularly? Personal Information: Permanent event since 2005 - To increase government accountability to citizens by fostering disclosure of information held by administrative organs/incorporated administrative agencies, etc. - To contribute to the promotion of a fair Context and Scope What are the main objectives? and democratic administration that is subject to accurate understanding and criticism by citizens. - To protect the rights and interests of individuals by ensuring proper handling of personal information by administrative organs/incorporated administrative agencies, etc. - 90 - All citizens, regardless of their nationality, who have requested Who is the target audience or disclosure of information appeals demographic focus? against the disclosure decision under the Administrative Complaint Investigation Law. It is required by the: - Act for Establishment of the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Review Board. - Act on Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs. Is the initiative or methodology - Act on Access to Information Held by based on legal requirements? Incorporated Administrative Agencies, Etc. - Act on Protection of Personal Information Held by Administrative Organs. - Act on Protection of Personal Information Held by Incorporated Administrative Agencies, Etc. Stage of decision-making cycle Monitoring (complaint handling) What budget and/or human Personnel: 15 Board Members and 31 resources were allocated to Staff Members this SA initiative by the Budget: EUR 896 000 = JPY initiator? 134 390 000 (FY2006) What are the costs to citizens Fees are levied on each request, as well and CSOs? as for copying the documents. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? Tool s employed during the review process: What specific SA tools and - Written opinions and other materials methodologies are being submitted by appellants, etc. used? - Administrative/corporate documents Briefly describe the related to the disclosure decision, etc. - Materials classifying or arranging (in a Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools manner specified by the Review Board) Methodologies Used used. the information recorded in the administrative/corporate documents (Vaughn Index). What advocacy and media activities support the initiative? Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target groups were engaged? - 91 - - Increase in the number of requests. - Enhanced government transparency (many documents formerly withheld are What (if any) has been the now disclosed). impact of the initiative? - Growing sense of accountability among citizens and government officials. - Improved government operations. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was Yes, more citizens have become the initiative? interested in government affairs. Has the initiative been scaled up? Have any partnerships been - An Annual Forum aims to strengthen established with the the partnership among review boards of government, media, NGOs, both national and local governments. - All reports of the Board are published Results and Impact communities, etc.? Describe them. on its Web site to communicate with citizens. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public Many CSOs are national in scope, and deliberation (i.e. multilateral lead the debates. interactivity)? Institutional and operational review has Has the SA initiative been been conducted by the government. Its evaluated? What were the report (in Japanese) was published last results? Did it lead to year. Several improvements have been change/reform? made based on the findings of the report. According to the review report, delay in Specific challenges identified disclosure is still a problem, but is decreasing. The report suggests several other issues for improvement. Other important information or comments http://www8.cao.go.jp/jyouhou/index.ht Web sources ml http://www.cao.go.jp/en/disclosure.html Annual reports (in Japanese) http://www8.cao.go.jp/jyouhou/sonota/k atudou.pdf Documents and reports http://www8.cao.go.jp/jyouhou/sonota/k atudou_16.pdf Further References http://www8.cao.go.jp/jyouhou/sonota/k atudou_17.pdf Email: yukio.yamada@cao.go.jp Mr. Yukio Yamada Resource persons/contacts Deputy Director General Affairs Division Secretariat of the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board (1) Almost every local government has its own Board. - 92 - (2) See the Annex Table 1 of The Law Concerning Access to Information Held by Incorporated Administrative Agencies, Etc. (Law No.140 of 2001), http://www.soumu.go.jp/gyoukan/kanri/jyohokokai_f.html - 93 - SOUTH KOREA: GENDER INDEPENDENT BUDGET ANALYSIS Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Establishing a new paradigm for local Name of Intervention governments' women policies and budget analysis" Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) CSO Womenslink Korea Who is being held accountable? Local governments Seven local governments: - two large local governments (Seoul City and Kangwon Province) Basic Information Location - five basic local governments (Wonju City, Goyang City, Jinju City, Dobong gu and Yangchon Gu in Seoul) Institutional level Local Population Sector Public Finances (Gender Budget Analysis) Year of implementation and duration 2001, for 9 months Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? One-off event - To carry out a gender budget analysis of seven local governments. - To study the gender impact of women- Context and Scope What are the main objectives? related policies. - To raise awareness of the importance of considering gender in the policy and budget-making processes. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? CSOs, decision makers, general public Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the 40 members of Womenslink initiator? - 94 - Womenslink funded 40 members to engage in: - analysing the local governments' women-related policies and budget, and What are the costs to citizens presenting a counterproposal every and CSOs? year. - monitoring local assembly meetings, and meeting with heads and members of local governments to discuss gender budget demands. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 95 - Staff and members of Womenslink analysed the budget and policies. In order to educate participants about the concept of gender mainstreaming budgets and methods of analysis, several workshops were held. Advisory groups ­ consisting of members of local assemblies, university professors, activists of civil budget inspection groups and lawyers ­ were established. Three workshops were held: - lecture and discussion about the basic tools of gender budget analysis. - presentation of participants' interim reports on the analysis of each local government's budget and policies. - presentation of final reports and draft of a written request to the government What specific SA tools and to introduce a gender perspective into methodologies are being the policy- and budget-making used? processes. Briefly describe the methodology(/ies) or tools Four- to eight-session education used. courses were also provided for local teams. Participants included staff and Tools & members of Womenslink who worked Methodologies Used on the analysis, activists from local women's organisations and civil society groups. The methodology of the budget analysis included an assessment of: - data about population and social conditions of local governments. - goals and focus of women-related policies. - administrative system to enforce women-related policies. - analysis of budget and expenses. - funding and regulations. - analysis of women-related policies and budget from a gender-sensitive perspective. The results of the findings were published and distributed to women's organisations, CSOs, decision makers, What advocacy and media and national and local media. In order to activities support the initiative? further disseminate and share the results, Womenslink arranged several meetings with civil society and women's networks. Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? - 96 - Although no causality effect can be verified, the Ministry of Genders' Equality White Paper on Women's What (if any) has been the Related Issue, published in 2002, impact of the initiative? introduced the concept of gender budgeting for the first time and stated the budget amount for women-related policy. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? Have any partnerships been Results and Impact established with the government, media, NGOs, communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public Womenslink arranged several meetings deliberation (i.e. multilateral with civil society and women's networks. interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments Web sources Documents and reports Womenslink Korea Further References Resource persons/contacts Email: minwoo@womenlink.or.kr Telephone +02 737 5763 - 97 - SOUTH KOREA: SEOUL'S ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Seoul's City Anti-Corruption Efforts: A Systematic Approach Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Local government Executive Who is being held accountable? Local government Basic Information Location Seoul, South Korea Institutional level Local Population Sector General, Public Finances Year of implementation and duration No information Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Regularly To create an administrative system that What are the main objectives? effectively eliminates the causes of corruption and wrongdoing. Who is the target audience or Citizens, CSOs, public and private demographic focus? organisations, public authorities and elected officials Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? Stage of decision-making Agenda setting, decision making, cycle implementation Context and Scope What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? No information If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 98 - Preventive Measures - Deregulation: Seoul organised the "Regulation Reform Committee" comprised of citizens of high repute. The committee operates under the public-private system to facilitate the reform process. Seoul is actively promoting deregulation in all areas of administration by improving groundless regulations in the law and clarifying indefinite systems or customs. - Elimination of the Zone Jurisdiction System: To eliminate potential collusion, the long-standing practice of assigning jurisdiction to a specific area (building permits, public procurement) has been abolished. Officials are now assigned on a daily basis to handle applications from What specific SA tools and different areas. methodologies are being - Rotation of Duties: To break the links Tools & used? between corruption and long-standing Methodologies Used Briefly describe the practice in the districts, officials from 25 methodology(/ies) or tools districts who are dealing in vulnerable used. areas (including housing and building, sanitation and taxation) were reassigned. Punitive Measures - Zero Tolerance for Corruption: The "one strike you are out" (i.e. "permanent removal from officialdom even if receiving only a single cent directly after exposure") system has been imposed for all senior officials. - Corruption Report Card to the Mayor: Under this system, return postcards are sent to individuals who have business with the city government in fields prone to corruption. These cards are also placed in city offices to record municipal proposals and ideas, as well as reports of corruption. - 99 - Ensuring Transparency in Administration - Online Procedures Enhancement for Civil Applications System: Seoul city has developed a system that opens administrative procedures closely related to civic life on the Internet to satisfy the civic right to know about and to prevent corruption. - Anti-corruption Index (ACI): Seoul's ACI is calculated on the basis of opinion polls of those who have actually submitted civil applications, for the purpose of encouraging sound competition among public servants and strengthening their commitment to the What specific SA tools and anti-corruption drive. methodologies are being used? Public-Private Partnerships Briefly describe the - Joint Inspection with Citizens: There methodology(/ies) or tools are more than 130 000 restaurants and used. bars in Seoul. In order to maintain fairness in the method of inspection, civil volunteers have been invited to take part in a joint public-private inspection team. - Citizens Ombudsman and Direct Dialogue Channel: The Ombudsman system assists citizens who have been disadvantaged by irrational administrative treatment. Two citizen "ombudsmen" hear civil issues and grievances and investigate them. In addition, various channels of direct dialogue are available between citizens and the mayor (hotlines, emails, "Mayors Saturday Date with Citizens" programme). What advocacy and media Internet activities support the initiative? No information about other means Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No information - 100 - Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, No information communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral No information interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to No information change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments Web sources http://english.seoul.gov.kr Further References Documents and reports Resource persons/contacts - 101 - MEXICO: BUDGET AND PUBLIC EXPENSES PROGRAM Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Programa de Presupuesto y Gasto Name of Intervention Publico "CIDE" (Budget and Public Expenses Program) Primary agency running Program of Budgeting and Public Intervention (Initiator) Spending Who is being held National/regional units of federation, accountable? Local governments Location Mexico Basic Information Institutional level National/Regional/Local Population Sector Public Expenditure Year of implementation and duration 1998 - Is this a one-off event or Since 1998 the CIDE has led work on repeated regularly? Independent Budget Analysis and Government Reform - To help members of the general public understand their rights to know the way public resources are spent. - To provide professional analysis of the Context and Scope What are the main objectives? best alternatives for allocation of resources for maximum impact for the benefit of society. - To enhance debate about feasible public expenditure alternatives. Who is the target audience or Decision makers, CSOs, media, and the demographic focus? public in general Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making Agenda setting (budgeting), law making cycle (state reform), implementation (state reform) What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? Citizens and CSOs can consult the IBA and state reform reports free of charge. What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? Citizens and decision makers and can follow a training on Independent Budget Analysis to effectuate the analysis according to their sectors of interest. - 102 - If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? IBA Reports: The IBA programme produces solid analytical reports that are accessible to governmental decision makers, the media and the general public. CIDE is concerned with questions related to transparency, corruption, distribution of income, decentralisation, expenditure incidence, and administrative and fiscal reform. IBA Training: A training course, "Tools for the analysis of the federal public budget", is offered by CIDE to members of the media, CSOs and decision What specific SA tools and makers in general. Participants gain a methodologies are being general understanding of the broad used? contours of Mexico's federal budget, Briefly describe the exposing them to the origin, approval, Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools administration, destination and impact of Methodologies Used used. public resources. The course is designed for members of Congress, legislatives staff, journalists specialised in public finance and CSO staff concerned with the budget process. More specifically, this training: - Describes the political and legal context in which the budget is negotiated. - Reviews the operational framework of the budget. - Provides tools for macroeconomic and socioeconomic analysis of the budget. - Offers tools for assessing the effectiveness of current budget policies. What advocacy and media Internet activities support the initiative? No information on additional means Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No information - 103 - Have any partnerships been established with the No information is available about formal government, media, NGOs, partnerships; however, MPs, members communities, etc.? Describe of CSOs and journalists have them. participated in the training. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral No information interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to No information change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments Web sources www.presupuestoygastopublico.org Further References Documents and reports Resource persons/contacts - 104 - MEXICO: SOCIAL WITNESSES ON PUBLIC PROCUREMENT Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention Social Witness Central Government ­ Inter-ministerial Commission for Transparency and to Combat Corruption Primary agency running This initiative concerns public contracts Intervention (Initiator) from the following state organisations (main public buyers in Mexico): Federal Commission of Electricity, Petroleos Mexicanos, Office of the Secretary of Communications and Transportation. Basic Information Who is being held accountable? National government/ Ministries Location Mexico Institutional level National Population Sector General/Public Finances Year of implementation and duration 2004 - Is this a one-off event or Repeated every time there is a public repeated regularly? contract in the participating organisations. Context and Scope What are the main objectives? To fight corruption and to promote transparency Who is the target audience or demographic focus? State organisations No specific legal requirements. Is the initiative or methodology However, the initiative is in the based on legal requirements? framework of a broader national programme to combat corruption. Stage of decision-making cycle Execution What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? - 105 - If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? The social witness is a representative of the civil society of recognised professional, ethical and moral prestige who participates in the contracting procedure as an external observer. The social witness works with the What specific SA tools and individual/organisation participating in methodologies are being the contracting procedure to devise the used? terms of tender and even the emission Briefly describe the of the corresponding award. The social witness makes recommendations to Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools promote transparency, to diminish the Methodologies Used used. risks of corruption and increase efficiency and effectiveness. Once the procedure is finished, the social witness releases public testimony that describes what has been observed during the process, and making recommendations to improve such processes. What advocacy and media activities support the initiative? No information Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? The following beneficial results indicate the success of this programme. For example, for contracts with the Commission Federal de Electricidad: - A savings of USD 26 million was achieved, due to recommendations by the social witness to eliminate requirements that increased prices and Results and Impact What (if any) has been the limited participation. impact of the initiative? - Because interested bidders' questions were answered in a more precise and clear manner during meetings, the number of bidder participants increased by over 50%. - The time limit for the presentation of proposals has been expanded based on the recommendations of the social witnesses. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? Yes - 106 - Have any partnerships been established with the Several partnerships exist with CSOs, government, media, NGOs, which act as social witnesses (for communities, etc.? Describe example, the Mexican chapter of them. International Transparency). To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral No public deliberation interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to change/reform? Specific challenges identified Because use of the social witness is increasing, further guidance was needed to describe the reach of witness participation and the limits of their responsibility. A consultation process with CSOs, federal organisations, and associations of professionals was launched. New regulations include: - A registration in charge of the Administration Public Secretary Function. - Statutes forbidding social witnesses to hinder contracting procedures. - Requirement that bidders be notified of Other important information or social witness participation in comments contracting. - Requirement that social witnesses behave ethically and professionally. - Statutes granting social witnesses the right to remuneration for their services, to be established by a Committee of Designation. - Creation of a Social Witness Designation Committee, to include public officials and union representatives. - Implementation of sanctions for social witnesses who make undue use of the information they obtain during their official function. Web sources www.programaanticorrupcion.gob.mx Further References Documents and reports Resource persons/contacts - 107 - NETHERLANDS: PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING OF THE YOUNG Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Find Your Way in Local Government Primary agency running Dutch Centre for Political Participation Intervention (Initiator) (Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek), Amsterdam Who is being held accountable? Local government Basic Information Location Implemented in various municipalities Institutional level Local government Population Young people aged 14-19 Sector Local government, secondary education Year of implementation and duration From 1994, 20-30 times per year. Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? From 1994, 20-30 times per year. The Find Your Way in Local Government project aims to give young people aged 14-19 the opportunity to acquire skills necessary to actively take part in local democratic decision-making processes. These aims and objectives will be realised in co-operation with participating municipalities. The main objective is to help young people achieve political goals and learn about local politics. The work is done by and Context and Scope What are the main objectives? for young people. Most young people find politics boring. This programme aims to change this attitude by giving young people funding and responsibility to develop and implement local government measures. Programme participants create plans and determine how to spend their budgets. Municipalities then work with them to implement selected projects. This shows young people that being involved in politics works. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? Young people aged 14-19 Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No - 108 - Stage of decision-making cycle Local authorities pay for the projects What budget and/or human (action days) in the municipalities. This resources were allocated to includes hourly payments to IPP this SA initiative by the employees who are involved in initiator? preparation and organisation, facilities costs, and actual implementation of selected projects. What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? None If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? Students prepare for the action day during two classes at school. Generally, the first lesson givers a general introduction to local government/politics and the second lesson provides practical information on the action day. The local government creates a budget to execute the "best" project, selected by students during the action day. Project proposals are made in accordance with a theme or policy field (selected by local government in agreement with teachers). What specific SA tools and methodologies are being During the action day, students are Tools & used? divided into small groups (eight to ten Methodologies Used Briefly describe the students) to create policy proposals methodology(/ies) or tools around this theme. A press group used. publishes an action day newspaper. Throughout the day, students meet with "real politicians" ­ civil servants and interest group representatives, council representatives, etc. They can ask questions about the feasibility of their project proposals and address local political subjects of interest to young people. In the evening, all project proposals are presented at a youth council meeting (including representatives of each project group), where delegates decide by majority vote which project proposal will be executed. What advocacy and media Student-produced action day activities support the initiative? newspapers, widespread local media coverage. - 109 - Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target Local media outreach groups were engaged? The project is a major IPP success story. Between 20 and 30 action days are organised each year. Advocacy and publicity activities will be increased for future events to ensure continuity and growth of the programme. The project gives municipalities an opportunity to connect directly with young people, and aims to increase Results and Impact What (if any) has been the young people's interest in the political impact of the initiative? process. It can therefore contribute enormously to young people's feelings of political efficacy. The voters of tomorrow, young people must become aware of and support municipal policy ­ which often most affects citizens. The local media is always interested in action days, allowing municipalities to present themselves in a positive and approachable manner. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? Plans are forthcoming. Plans are underway to implement the programme abroad, in the Balkan Have any partnerships been countries. Partnerships have therefore established with the been established with organisations in government, media, NGOs, Romania, Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. communities, etc.? Describe Representatives of these groups them. attended training in the Netherlands in May 2006 and are now preparing for local implementation. To what extent did the SA Young people are put in contact with methodology encourage public politicians and representatives of deliberation (i.e. multilateral advocacy organisations for assistance in interactivity)? creating their proposals. Has the SA initiative been The action days are evaluated annually. evaluated? What were the For next year, a larger-scale and more results? Did it lead to thorough evaluation of the methodology change/reform? is planned to ensure the future of the project. - To ensure that every municipality in the Netherlands organises at least one Specific challenges identified action ay per year. - To further stimulate and train foreign partner organisations to implement this programme abroad. - 110 - Other important information or comments Web sources www.publiek-politiek.nl Documents and reports Karel Ploeger Further References Resource persons/contacts Email: k.ploeger@publiek-politiek.nl Telephone +31 20 521 7673 - 111 - NEW ZEALAND: WELLINGTON LONG TERM COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLAN Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Consultation on the Wellington City Council 2006-2016 Long Tterm Council Community Plan (LTCCP). The draft LTCCP is a core document for Basic Information Name of Intervention the city. It details over the medium to long term what the Council aims to achieve for Wellington, the projects it will deliver to accomplish these aims, the costs of providing them, who will pay for them, and how we intend to measure progress towards these goals. Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Wellington City Council Who is being held accountable? City Council representatives Location Wellington, New Zealand Institutional level Local government Population 183 000 Sector City Council The consultation period ran for four weeks from 12 April 2006 to 12 May 2006. The final Long Term Council Community Plan was adopted on 28 June by Council and came into effect on 1 July 2006. Prior to consulting on the Long Term Year of implementation and Council Community Plan, community duration outcomes were drafted, consulted on for four weeks and adopted by a cross section of community representatives. Council facilitated the process but did not take part in the discussion or decision-making processes. These outcomes were used by council in the planning of council outcomes and levels of service. - 112 - The Long Term Council Community Plan covers a 10-year period. It covers the first three years in detail and provides an Is this a one-off event or outline for the remaining seven. repeated regularly? Variations to the Plan are consulted on every year through the Annual Plan. A new Long Term Council Community Plan is consulted on and adopted every three years. The objective of the Long Term Council Community Plan is to provide: - integrated planning and a long-term focus for the decisions and activities of the City Council. - a basis of accountability of Council to the community. The Consultation and Communication plan for the Long Term Council Community Plan sought to encourage community participation in the decision- making process through: - raising awareness of the LTCCP process and communicating the importance for the community to Context and Scope What are the main objectives? participate in the consultation exercise. - raising awareness in the community of specific proposals and levels of service proposed within the LTCCP. - making it easy for citizens to provide feedback. Issues addressed in the consultation include: - levels of service. - the Council's work programme for the coming three years. - budget. - fees and charges. - performance measures. - outcomes. - policies. Who is the target audience or The target audience was all Wellington demographic focus? residents, with targeted efforts towards specific sectors (youth, disabled, etc.). Is the initiative or methodology Part 6 of the Local Government Act of based on legal requirements? 2002 requires the Council to adopt the LTCCP and consultation processes. Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting - 113 - What budget and/or human The LTCCP process was overseen by resources were allocated to the Planning, Performance and this SA initiative by the Research, and Finance business units, initiator? which are responsible for overall planning and consulting with the public. There were no direct costs to the residents of Wellington in providing feedback. All information, including free post submission forms, were readily What are the costs to citizens available at 12 libraries and service and CSOs? centres. All information and submission forms were also available online. Public meetings were also held during the consultation period, where elected representatives outlined various proposals and answered questions If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? What specific SA tools and methodologies are being Council engaged with the community in Tools & used? a number of ways leading up to and Methodologies Used Briefly describe the during the consultation period. methodology(/ies) or tools used. - 114 - Consultation tools included: - News releases provided at regular intervals leading up to and during the consultation period. - The Council's Web site outlined the consultation process, provided consultation documents, submission forms, and contact details for more information. - A letter outlining the timing and the scope of the LTCCP was sent to the 500 (approximate) customers on the Council database. - The planning process and timelines were outlined in a letter to resident and progressive associations. - Public notices were placed in local newspapers. - A series of editorials was published over four weeks in the Dominion Post and local papers prior to and throughout the consultation period. - The Council's direct mail publications were used to highlight the timeline, What advocacy and media process and some key areas of new activities support the initiative? activity. - A series of radio ads highlighting key issues and the availability of the draft were aired prior and during consultation. - Posters outlining timelines, the availability of the draft and public meetings were posted in Council-owned facilities and other key public areas. - Numerous public meetings included a video outlining the long-term plans. Elected members were on hand to answer any questions. - Informal communication was used with council's existing networks i.e. city communities and other business units with high contact time with the community were briefed on draft LTCCP matters and asked to raise awareness of the draft LTCCP and the proposals contained therein in their daily contact with the community. Informal communication remains a very effective mechanism to raise awareness about issues, especially with hard-to-reach audiences such as youth, etc. Were there any specific tools Maori, Pacific Islanders, youth, and the used to ensure that target disabled were targeted through radio groups were engaged? adverstising. - 115 - 1 368 written submissions were received. More than 100 individuals and/or organisations also made oral submissions. Approximately 50% of all submissions were made online. Once decisions were made, all Results and Impact What (if any) has been the submitters received a response outlining impact of the initiative? the decisions made in regard to the points they raised. Major decisions were also communicated through media releases and advertisements in local newspapers. As a result of submissions, some proposals were rejected and others amended. The target groups have been reached. Overall, the percentage of submissions Has the target group been received by age group, gender and reached? How inclusive was ethnicity reflects Wellington's the initiative? demographics. There was also a good mix between individual submitters and those representing business, cultural, social or environmental groups. Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been Council worked with key partners and established with the stakeholders in the development of government, media, NGOs, various initiatives as part of the LTCCP communities, etc.? Describe throughout the planning, consultation them. and implementation stages. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral Not formally interactivity)? All submissions are collated and Has the SA initiative been evaluated. A summary of these is then evaluated? What were the presented to elected members. results? Did it lead to change/reform? As a result of the consultation a number of proposals were amended or rejected. Specific challenges identified Still being evaluated - 116 - Council has seen a steady increase in the number of submissions received as part of the annual and long-term planning exercises. Much of this increase can be attributed to the Other important information or increase in online and emailed comments submissions. This has been a result of a comprehensive review of the Council's consultation policy undertaken over the last year, which included a revised engagement policy aimed at enhancing relations with the community. This policy is currently out for consultation. http://www.wellington.govt.nz/plans/annu alplan/0607/volume01.html Web sources http://www.wellington.govt.nz/plans/annu alplan/0607/volume02.html Documents and reports Further References Baz Kaufman, Corporate Planning Advisor Planning, Performance and Research Resource persons/contacts Wellington City Council Email: Baz.kaufman@wcc.govt.nz - 117 - NORWAY: OMBUDSMAN Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizens feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Parliament Who is being held accountable? Government (Public Administration) Basic Information Location Norway Institutional level All levels Population Sector General (Public Administration) Year of implementation and duration Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? It is a permanent initiative. - To investigate complaints from citizens concerning the public administration. - To ensure that human rights are Context and Scope What are the main objectives? respected. - To improve administrative agencies in general. - To strengthen citizen confidence in the public administration. All citizens who believe that they have Who is the target audience or been unjustly treated by the public demographic focus? authorities or subject to a bad government decision. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway of 17 May 1814 requires the Parliament: "to appoint a person, not a member of Is the initiative or methodology the Storting, in a manner prescribed by based on legal requirements? statute, to supervise the public administration and all who work in its service, to ensure that no injustice is done against the individual citizen." (Article 75, 1) Stage of decision-making cycle Decision making, implementation - 118 - The Ombudsman's office employs a staff of 39, including five Heads of Division, one Assistant Head of Division and one Head of Administration. In What budget and/or human addition, the office has 21 legal resources were allocated to executive officers and 10 people this SA initiative by the employed in administration. IT system initiator? support is hired on an hourly basis. The Ombudsman's office has four divisions, each with its own area of expertise. Registering complaints with the Ombudsman's office is free of charge. Complaints must be in writing and signed by the complainant (with proof of identity) or by another person What are the costs to citizens authorised by the complainant. An and CSOs? ordinary letter is sufficient, and there are no special requirements with regard to the form of the letter. The complainant should provide an explanation of the injustice or error and preferably enclose any documents relating to the case. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 119 - Election: After each General Election the Storting elects an Ombudsman for Public Administration, the Civil Ombudsman, to a four-year term from 1 January of the year following the General Election. The Ombudsman must meet the qualifications prescribed for appointment as a Supreme Court Judge, and must not be a member of the Parliament. Process: When it has been determined that a complaint rightfully comes under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, the first decision is whether there are sufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to process the complaint. For all accepted cases, the Ombudsman decides the scope of the investigation, using documents as well as information and statements from the administration, when necessary. (Investigations What specific SA tools and generally are limited to a study of case methodologies are being documents and other written Tools & used? documents, but conferences with the Methodologies Used Briefly describe the Ombudsman or a staff member can be methodology(/ies) or tools requested.) The Ombudsman used. investigates cases in an objective and impartial manner, and may not act as counsel, attorney or other form of representative on behalf of the individual citizen in relation to the public authorities. The Ombudsman may, however, express an opinion on matters under the office jurisdiction. Investigations made by the Ombudsman may therefore result in criticism of, and requests and recommendations to, the public authorities. The Ombudsman may point out that errors have been made or that there has been neglect on the part of the public body or a civil servant, and may also request the public body in question to correct errors, neglect or bias. Moreover, public agencies have a legal obligation to evaluate the question of public disclosure, and the Ombudsman will point out if no such evaluation has been made. Information on the Ombudsman What advocacy and media programme is available through different activities support the initiative? channels (on the Internet, in newspapers, by personal application, and from administrative agencies.) - 120 - Information on the Ombudsman Were there any specific tools programme is available through different used to ensure that target channels (on the Internet, in groups were engaged? newspapers, by personal application, and from administrative agencies.) According to the 2004 official report: "In 2004, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received 1932 complaints concerning What (if any) has been the administrative agencies. In addition, the impact of the initiative? Ombudsman dealt with 18 cases on his own initiative. 2035 cases were concluded (completed and closed) in 2004." Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public The initiative does not include public Results and Impact deliberation (i.e. multilateral deliberation. interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the No. An annual report is submitted to the results? Did it lead to Parliament. change/reform? Specific challenges identified A reorganisation of the office that commenced on 1 October 2002 was reviewed in November 2004. It led to creation of divisions within the office, providing a higher degree of specialisation in different legal areas; Other important information or this is now regarded as a success, even comments by those who were previously sceptical. However, the review showed that work pressure in the different specialist divisions is somewhat unequal. This will be taken into consideration when following up the review in order to achieve a more equal distribution of the workload and personnel. Further References Web sources http://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/eng/s tatisk/som.html Documents and reports http://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/eng/fi les/AnnualReport2004.pdf - 121 - Postal address: Sivilombudsmannen Resource persons/contacts P.O. Box 3 Sentrum, 0101 Oslo Telephone +47 22 82 85 00 - 122 - POLAND: QUARTERLY BULLETIN OF PUBLIC FINANCE Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Name of Intervention Quarterly Bulletin of Public Finance Primary agency running NGO: Gdansk Institute for Market Intervention (Initiator) Economics, Public Finance Section Who is being held accountable? Executive/Legislature Location Poland Institutional level National Basic Information Population Total population Sector Public Finance Year of implementation and duration Since 2002 Public Finance Bulletin is published Is this a one-off event or every quarter, and a press conference repeated regularly? presenting the research findings is held for each publication. - Current information on public finance in Poland. - Assessment of Poland's public finance Context and Scope What are the main objectives? in terms of international transparency standards. - Assessment of new bills (proposed by government, private member bills, etc.). Who is the target audience or Journalists, NGOs, universities, demographic focus? business sector (especially banks and consulting companies) Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making Independent assessments of the cycle economy for the business sector and public opinion What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the Four staff from Public Finance Section initiator? What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? - 123 - If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? The bulletin contains the current expertise on the state of public finance in Poland: state budget execution, public debt, local self-government What specific SA tools and finance, appropriated funds, methodologies are being descriptions of new legislation used? concerning public finance, and other Briefly describe the articles. It includes forecasts of public methodology(/ies) or tools revenues and expenditures, and used. describes the relation between fiscal Tools & policy and macroeconomic performance Methodologies Used of the economy. A press conference presenting the research findings takes place every quarter. Public Finance Bulletin, newspaper ads, radio interviews, press releases What advocacy and media available for download on the Internet activities support the initiative? site (Polish only) http://www.ibngr.edu.pl/pdf/konferencje/ konf-4082006.pdf Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target groups were engaged? The impact was: What (if any) has been the - proposals of the necessary changes in impact of the initiative? the general government sector. - enhancing government accountability in general. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was Information is usually made available in the initiative? the daily newspapers and on the radio. Has the initiative been scaled No, but the Bulletin will be available up? online once financing is available. Have any partnerships been established with the Results and Impact government, media, NGOs, Only informal partnerships communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to No change/reform? Specific challenges identified Other important information or comments - 124 - Web sources Sample of the bulletin available on the Further References Documents and reports Web site for free download: http://www.ibngr.edu.pl/pdf/publikacje/bi uletyn/bfp17.pdf Resource persons/contacts - 125 - PORTUGAL: PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING OF PALMELA Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Participatory Budgeting of Palmela Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Executive Who is being held accountable? Local government Location Palmela, Portugal Basic Information Institutional level Local level Population 53 535 inhabitants Sector All sectors of public administration Year of implementation and duration Since 2002 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Every year since 2002 - To enhance public participation in the elaboration of the budget. - To increase quantitatively and What are the main objectives? qualitatively the participation of citizens in public management. - To increase transparency and efficiency of the local administration. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? All local citizens Is the initiative or methodology Methodology approved by the local based on legal requirements? council. Stage of decision-making Agenda setting, implementation, Context and Scope cycle evaluation What budget and/or human resources were allocated to Five persons for two months, and a this SA initiative by the part-time team of three persons. initiator? What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? Spending two hours at a public meeting. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what Full budget is based on discussion, percentage is it of the total consultation. investment budget? - 126 - What specific SA tools and methodologies are being used? Inquires, direct observation and data Briefly describe the processing for two-way communication with citizens. Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools Methodologies Used used. What advocacy and media Web site, information campaigns, activities support the initiative? newspaper ads, radio information. Were there any specific tools Not at the moment; however there are used to ensure that target possible plans to begin this type of work groups were engaged? with local schools and young people. What (if any) has been the Better decisions, more responsive to the impact of the initiative? information and needs addressed in the public meetings. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, Yes, with neighbourhood associations, communities, etc.? Describe to survey the process. them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public More interactivity between citizens and deliberation (i.e. multilateral local government. interactivity)? Results and Impact Yes, the number of territorial meetings Has the SA initiative been has been increased to promote the evaluated? What were the programme and make easier for citizens results? Did it lead to to participate. change/reform? Evaluation is still ongoing, and is expected to lead to further changes in the process. - More debate on specific issues, and more local interventions to be Specific challenges identified addressed. - Better information, provided in time to be used in public meetings. - Participation on Process URBAL Red 9, in FAL (local authority Forum), OIDP Other important information or International Observatory of comments Participatory Democracy. - Continuous search for similar processes in Europe to exchange experiences. Further References Web sources www.cm-palmela.pt http://op-palmela.slworks.net Documents and reports http://op-palmela.slworks.net - 127 - Luís Guerreiro/ António Mestre Resource persons/contacts Email: cmp.divcultural.mail.telepac.pt - 128 - SLOVAK REPUBLIC: ASSESSMENT OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATE ORGANISATIONS Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Name of Intervention Assessment of Annual Reports of State Organisations Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Slovak Governance Institute (CSO) Who is being held accountable? State organisations Basic Information Location Slovak Republic Institutional level National Population Sector General (all state organisations) Year of implementation and duration 2002 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? No information What are the main objectives? To assess annual reports of state organisations. Who is the target audience or The organisations themselves, the demographic focus? public at large Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No information Stage of decision-making cycle What budget and/or human Context and Scope resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? No information If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 129 - Since 2001 the Slovak Republic has specified which state organisations are obliged to produce and to publish their annual reports. The annual reports must What specific SA tools and contain information about the methodologies are being organisational mission and mid-term used? outlook, activities and related costs, and Briefly describe the detailed information on budgets and human resources; they must also Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools used. assess their benefits to citizens. The Methodologies Used annual reports assessment project seeks to provide feedback to the organisations that produce annual reports and to increase the awareness of their status. What advocacy and media activities support the initiative? No information Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No information Have any partnerships been established with the The team of assessors is made up of government, media, NGOs, journalists, civil servants and communities, etc.? Describe representatives of the business sector Results and Impact them. and CSOs. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral No information interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to No information change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments Web sources www.governance.sk Further References Documents and reports Resource persons/contacts - 130 - SPAIN: INTERACTIVE CITY COUNCIL OF JUN CITY (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Name of Intervention Interactive Municipal City Council Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Executive/Legislative Who is being held accountable? Local government Location Jun, Spain Basic Information Institutional level Local Population Sector General: Lawmaking, Public Finances Year of implementation and duration 1999- Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? - To improve communication/information processes of local government. What are the main objectives? - To increase local government transparency. - To reinforce local democracy. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? All citizens Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting, lawmaking What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information Context and Scope initiator? To access the Internet to make suggestions for the agenda of City Council sessions, and/or to access the Internet to make suggestions What are the costs to citizens concerning the budget, and/or to access and CSOs? the Internet to interact with the Mayor and City Council members, and to answer participate in online consultations concerning lawmaking and budgeting. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 131 - The process starts 15 days before the City Council meeting, with an open agenda for the Council sessions. Citizens must then propose subjects to What specific SA tools and be addressed during the meeting. If a methodologies are being Council session concerns budgetary used? questions, citizens may make budgetary Briefly describe the proposals ­ either a global budget or a methodology(/ies) or tools specific proposition concerning the used. allocation of resources. During the Tools & Council sessions, citizens can interact with their elected officials via a live Methodologies Used Internet broadcast. Online consultations concerning timely policy issues are also offered. What advocacy and media Internet activities support the initiative? No information about other means In order to ensure that citizens were Were there any specific tools able to use the Internet and to access used to ensure that target the online tools, a digital inclusion groups were engaged? program was implemented; it has reached 80% of the total population of Jun. What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No information Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, No information communities, etc.? Describe them. Results and Impact Public deliberation is encouraged to the To what extent did the SA extent that citizens can interact with methodology encourage public their elected officials during the deliberation (i.e. multilateral sessions of the City Council; these interactivity)? interactions are simultaneously broadcast to all other citizens connected to the Internet. Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to No information change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments Web sources www.ayuntamientojun.org Further References Documents and reports Resource persons/contacts - 132 - SPAIN: SEVILLE PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Participatory Budgeting of Sevilla Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Executive Who is being held accountable? The Municipal Council Location Seville, Spain Basic Information Institutional level Local Population 713 000 Sector Citizen participation, sport, urban planning, employment, district councils Year of implementation and duration 2004 to present Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Regularly throughout the year Social: To foster social justice through citizen participation and "territorial affirmative action". What are the main objectives? Administrative: To lead to an administrative modernisation. Political: To increase the legitimacy of the local political system and to strengthen democracy. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? Every citizen in the city Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Context and Scope Stage of decision-making Agenda setting, decision making, cycle monitoring of implementation What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens To attend participatory budgeting and CSOs? assemblies. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total Around 2% investment budget? - 133 - The city is divided into three territorial levels: neighbourhoods, districts and the city as a whole. Each territorial level has a specific deliberative body. The neighbourhood assembly is open to all residents, who can make proposals What specific SA tools and within the limits of the city's methodologies are being competences; they also elect delegates used? to represent them at the district- and Briefly describe the city-level assemblies. At these two methodology(/ies) or tools higher levels, delegates prioritise Tools & used. citizens' proposals following "social Methodologies Used justice criteria." A final list of proposals is established and integrated into the municipal budget. The following year a specific commission is set up to monitor the implementation of the participatory budget. What advocacy and media Public advertisement campaigns in local activities support the initiative? newspapers and TV channels. Were there any specific tools Gender Mainstreaming: It was used to ensure that target determined that the half of the positions groups were engaged? within the PB should be held by women. Half of the delegates are also women. - Territorial redistribution of municipal funds towards the neediest Results and Impact What (if any) has been the neighbourhoods. impact of the initiative? - Increased link between the administration and local civil society. - Empowerment of local communities. There has been strong participation by Has the target group been women, but lower levels by socially reached? How inclusive was deprived groups and ethnic minorities. the initiative? The initiative is highly inclusive even if there is a relative over-representation of association and political party members. Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been Formally, no. However, many informal established with the contacts with local associations and government, media, NGOs, community leaders lead to their communities, etc.? Describe inclusion as much as possible in the them. process. To what extent did the SA Few large group deliberations, but methodology encourage public widespread deliberation in small groups deliberation (i.e. multilateral among delegates to evaluate the interactivity)? sustainability of PB proposals. Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the Evaluation of the quality of deliberation results? Did it lead to by a research group from the University change/reform? of Seville. - 134 - - Participation by socially deprived Specific challenges identified groups. - Division of the municipal majority between pro- and anti-PB factions. Other important information or comments This is the biggest PB in Europe. Web sources www.participacionciudadana.sevilla.org Further References Documents and reports Available on Web site Resource persons/contacts Virginia Gutierez - 135 - SWITZERLAND: PB OF BOLLIGEN Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Participatory Budgeting of Bolligen Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Municipality of Bolligen Who is being held accountable? Local government authorities Location Bolligen, Switzerland Basic Information Institutional level Local Population Sector Public Finance Year of implementation and duration Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Repeated regularly What are the main objectives? Enhance public participation in the public finance sector Who is the target audience or demographic focus? Every local citizen Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No information Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting What budget and/or human Context and Scope resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens Cost of attendance at public meetings of and CSOs? the PB If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 136 - The Municipal Assembly of citizens approves the budget, decides on the tax rate, and approves the annual accounts. The Municipal Council, which proposes the budget, is elected by the citizens. What specific SA tools and methodologies are being The instruments applied include: used? - Public debate. Briefly describe the - Approval/adaptation/rejection of Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools budget and tax rate by citizens' Methodologies Used used. assembly. - Information on long-term financial planning for four to eight years. - Financial referendum. - Involvement of citizens through political system. What advocacy and media activities support the initiative? No information Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? - Identification of citizens with strong interest in local affairs. What (if any) has been the - Majority-driven decisions by multi- impact of the initiative? stakeholder participation. - Legitimacy and acceptance of decisions (of particular importance regarding tax rates). Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No information Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, No information communities, etc.? Describe Results and Impact them. To what extent did the SA Public debates are part of the methodology encourage public methodology; however, there is no deliberation (i.e. multilateral current information about the quantity interactivity)? and quality of deliberation that takes place during the public debates. Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to No information change/reform? - Co-operation and co-ordination beyond boundaries of local entities. Specific challenges identified - Low participation and accidental majorities at the Citizen's Assembly is an inherent risk. Other important information or comments - 137 - Web sources http://www.bollingen.ch/ Further References Documents and reports Resource persons/contacts Tel.: 055 225 70 00 Fax: 055 225 70 01 - 138 - TURKEY: ISTANBUL IS CHOOSING NEW FERRIES Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Istanbul is Choosing New Ferries Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Metropolitan Municipality (Executive) Who is being held Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality accountable? Executive Location Istanbul Basic Information Institutional level Local Population 14 million Sector Sea transportation Year of implementation and duration 2006-2007 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? One-off IDO was founded by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality in 1987 to help with the sea transportation, thereby easing traffic problems in the city. Travel via sea is one of the most promising solutions to the traffic problem, as Istanbul is located on the Bosporus sea. Istanbul has a population of 14 million and 234 kilometers seashore; however, sea transportation is only 4 %. In 2004, IDO served 12 million passengers and Context and Scope What are the main objectives? carried are 960 000 vehicles. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality aims to increase sea transportation by 10%. In order to achieve this goal, ferries will be renewed and modernised, in order to: - Identify the sea transportation needs. - Improve the technical capacity of ferries. - Encourage citizens to choose ferries. - Gather views and ideas about new ferries. - Improve the quality of service by encouraging citizen participation in the decision-making process. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? All citizens who travel by ferry. Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No - 139 - Stage of decision-making cycle Decision making, implementation What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens and CSOs? To answer a questionnaire If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total No information investment budget? What specific SA tools and methodologies are being used? - Public debate Briefly describe the - Surveys (Internet, ports, shopping methodology(/ies) or tools malls, metro stations) Tools & used. Methodologies Used What advocacy and media Information campaigns; online banners; activities support the initiative? newspaper ads; TV news; Web sites; newspaper articles; press releases Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target No information groups were engaged? Outputs and outcomes: models for the Results and Impact What (if any) has been the ferries have been discussed, new impact of the initiative? technologies have been approved, the budget has been debated Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was Surveys involved 368 000 people, the initiative? 230 000 through the Internet Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been established with the Formal agreement between Istanbul government, media, NGOs, Technical University and the communities, etc.? Describe Metropolitan Municipality them. To what extent did the SA Citizen debates on local public methodology encourage public expenditures; methodology enhanced deliberation (i.e. multilateral the dialogue between NGOs and the interactivity)? municipality Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the Internal evaluation by municipality; no results? Did it lead to information about reforms change/reform? - 140 - - Increase participation by citizens who are not active Specific challenges identified - Address resistance to new technology - Address distrust on the part of citizens towards municipality's public expenditures Other important information or Comments No information www.ido.com.tr/index.cfm?page+SubPa ge&textid=526&ln=Tr Web sources www.ido.com.tr/index.cfm?page=SubPa ge&textid=522&ln=Tr Documents and reports Further References Ahmet Paksoy General Manager Resource persons/contacts Email address: ahmetpaksoy@ido.com.tr Telephone +90 212 455 69 70 - 141 - UNITED KINGDOM: BRADFORD PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Bradford Participatory Budgeting Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Government-led The Government Office, Neighbourhood Who is being held Renewal Unit, is accountable for funds accountable? disbursed through Bradford Vision, the local strategic partnership. Location Bradford Basic Information Institutional level Local 207 000 in Neighbourhood Renewal Population areas and (460 000 total in Bradford District) Sector Environment Year of implementation and duration 2004-March 2006 Is this a one-off event or The initiative is expected to be repeated repeated regularly? in 2006 and 2008. - To encourage innovation in local Context and Scope What are the main objectives? environmental projects. - To link local priorities to the LSP strategy. Who is the target audience or All residents living in areas eligible for demographic focus? NR funding. Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? It is part of the NR strategy. Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting, decision making One full-time employee to conduct What budget and/or human financial monitoring, October 2004- resources were allocated to March 2006. One full-time employee for this SA initiative by the on-the-ground project support. initiator? Approximately 250 person hours for event planning/facilitation. Projects delivered by "mixed economy" of voluntary/community and statutory What are the costs to citizens providers, so some activists committed and CSOs? to applying, attending PB day and project delivery, while others supported projects delivered by professional organisations. - 142 - If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what GBP 700 000 was allocated from the percentage is it of the total total NR budget (GBP 2.1 million for investment budget? environmental initiatives in the District). This initiative allows groups to distribute funds to themselves: participatory budgeting using intra-community allocation. Individuals and community groups pitch project proposals to a collection of their peers, competing for GBP 600 000 for environmental What specific SA tools and improvements within the LSP budget. methodologies are being used? Qualifying projects were pre-selected Briefly describe the through Neighbourhood Action Tools & methodology(/ies) or tools Partnerships, each of which entered two used. Methodologies Used projects. Participants were given three minutes to present their ideas to the other representatives. Those who were not chosen were given assistance in the search for alternative funding and improvement of the proposal itself. What advocacy and media Information campaigns, online banners, activities support the initiative? newspaper ads Were there any specific tools An example: for the target group "single used to ensure that target mothers", the cost of transport/child care groups were engaged? to attend the meetings was covered. - Funding released to projects quickly and transparently. - "Political education" process of Results and Impact What (if any) has been the participants in terms of understanding impact of the initiative? issues relating to resource allocation. - Increased understanding by statutory agencies of local citizens' ability to be responsible for allocation/delivery. The initial NR areas were self-selecting, Has the target group been and projects in the PB initiative were reached? How inclusive was initiated through contact with these local the initiative? neighbourhood partnerships, so access to "hard-to-reach" groups within disadvantaged areas was limited. - 143 - The LSP is currently piloting a more developed PB initiative in Keighley Constituency, where residents identify themed priorities (environment, health, etc.); they will then be invited to vote on Has the initiative been scaled proposals under these themes, and up? subsequently take part in scrutiny of project delivery. The total amount available is GBP150 000 (from NRF funds) for the Keighley area (one of five constituencies in Bradford District), to be spent in the 2006-March 2008 NRF budget. Bradford Vision (the LSP) is a member of: - the PB National Reference Group (membership includes Treasury and Have any partnerships been Audit Commission reps). established with the - a PB practitioners group (facilitated by government, media, NGOs, the Manchester-based PB unit). communities, etc.? Describe them. The PB unit is also providing consultancy support to the Keighly PB pilot. Bradford University is conducting a research study into five case studies: three in South America, one in Salford, and the Keighley Pilot. Community activists were involved in To what extent did the SA the event itself and had informal methodology encourage public networking opportunities as a result. deliberation (i.e. multilateral The Keighley Pilot is aiming to increase interactivity)? levels of public interaction around the PB topic. Has the SA initiative been An evaluation of the event/process was evaluated? What were the carried out by the PB unit. Internal results? Did it lead to evaluation/reports for the NR unit were change/reform? produced as part of the project monitoring process. The process requires a lot of "front- loaded" support, particularly in terms of time resources. Bradford Vision was Specific challenges identified well placed to provide this in partnership with other organisations. The challenge remains to find ways of mainstreaming this methodology once NR funding stops. - 144 - It is hoped that the work undertaken so far, as well as the Keighley pilot, will make a strong argument for mainstreaming the PB method for future Other important information or non-mainstream funding and/or a small, comments but significant percentage of mainstream budget allocation. (Through this work, the necessary processes become more streamlined and deliverable.) Web sources http://www.bradfordvision.net/index.php www.involve.org.uk Further References Documents and reports "Participatory Budgeting ­ Involve Briefing Sheet" ­ www.involve.org.uk Resource persons/contacts alan.budge@bradfordvision.com - 145 - UNITED KINGDOM: HARROW OPEN BUDGET Type of Interaction (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention Harrow Open Budget Primary agency running Harrow Council; run by independent Intervention (Initiator) organisation "Power Inquiry" Who is being held accountable? Local government Location London Borough of Harrow, UK Institutional level Local Basic Information Population 210 000 Sector General (Public Finances) Year of implementation and duration 2005 The first initiative was in 2005. The Is this a one-off event or intent is for the Open Budget to take repeated regularly? place yearly, but at present it is unclear if this will happen. - 146 - - To rebuild public faith in local council decision making, which has witnessed significant popular distrust in recent years. - To engage even the most vociferous and dissatisfied elements of the community in considered deliberations. - To provide a popular sense of "ownership" of the final budget priorities. - To help residents understand the issues facing elected officials. - To elected officials understand the concerns and needs of residents. - To offer opportunities to engage the Context and Scope What are the main objectives? local media (in contrast to other forms of community engagement, which happen "below the radar" of media and most residents). - To begin a larger process of rebuilding democratic engagement and dialogue. - To take community engagement seriously and employ innovation in involving citizens. - To increase the profile and importance of local Councillors by allowing them to engage in direct dialogue with Harrow residents and stakeholders about the most central decisions facing the authority in a structured and resourced fashion. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? Every citizen of the borough Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting London Borough of Harrow: paid for venue, IT equipment and expenses. POWER Inquiry: Provided staff time to manage process and designed the What budget and/or human engagement process itself. resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the Unofficial estimates put the participant initiator? and facilitator costs at around GBP 10 000 (excluding travel and childcare expenses). The technology was provided at a much reduced rate (around GBP 10 000). - 147 - All participants attend an assembly that takes place from 12:30 to 18:00 on a Sunday. The 30 citizens that make up What are the costs to citizens the panel of elected citizens must and CSOs? scrutinise the Council's decision on the budget and report back to everyone interested in the process. This involves a number of evening meetings over the course of six months to a year. Less than 50%. Note: the process only allows participants to give broad If the initiative concerns preferences for what the council should participatory budgeting: what deliver rather than detailed proposals. percentage is it of the total Large areas of council spending were investment budget? left out of the process because central targets leave no local discretion for spending. - 148 - - In August and September, Directorates begin to draft "High Level Service Plans", laying out the broad options and priorities for the coming three years. - The Council has decided to use the results of the Harrow Open Budget Process in its budgetary decisions. The Open Budget process was designed based on the participatory budgeting process in Porto Alegre (Brazil) and the use of wireless technology for the AmericaSpeaks process from the USA. - An assembly of 300 residents meets and agrees upon a set of priorities for the next years' budgets. This set of options is identified by the officers who run the council and the councillors. These options are wide enough in scope to present real choice to the citizens, but detailed enough to allow the public to make informed choices and to understand the constraints in which the council operates. However, some participants criticised the process for predetermining the discussion around What specific SA tools and the options without allowing participants methodologies are being to submit their own. Tools & used? - The assembly is designed to Methodologies Used Briefly describe the encourage people to discuss issues in a methodology(/ies) or tools detailed and creative way: it is divided in used. tables of ten citizens each, with each table guided through a by a trained facilitator who ensures that no one person dominates the debate or causes undue conflict. Each table uses wireless laptops to transmit their collective views and decisions to a team that displays them to the assembly as a whole. Following this, participants vote on the options individually using electronic vote pads. The results appear immediately on screens. - The Assembly also elects one person per panel to a panel of citizens to scrutinise the Council's decision and report on the assembly process and participants. - The panel of 30 elected residents works creatively with the Council to implement the assembly's priorities as the budget is developed. - The Open Budget is organised by an independent body, "Power Inquiry", to ensure that it is run in the interests of the citizens and that it is not controlled by the Council of Harrow. - 149 - Internet, wide outreach with articles in What advocacy and media local and national media, paid activities support the initiative? advertisements in local newspapers to recruit participants Assembly participants are recruited through the local media and local civil society. Care is taken so that the gender, age, ethnic and area make-up Were there any specific tools of the assembly is as close to the make- used to ensure that target up of the city as possible. As wide a groups were engaged? range of people as possible is encouraged to participate. The organisers actively recruit participants from groups who do not apply in sufficient numbers. It has been a short time since the event; however: Participant satisfaction: The participant evaluation forms revealed very high levels of satisfaction with the assembly and a positive impact on views of the council: - 90% regarded the event as "good" or "very good". - 74% felt the process should "definitely" be repeated next year. - 43% stated they now had an improved Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? view of the Council. - 55% reported no change in their view. - 80% stated they would now be more interested in Council decisions. While it was hard for the panel to determine the exact impact of the Open Budget process on the final council budget, the panel found that "in the broadest terms, Harrow Council did appear to have attempted to reflect the wishes arising from the Assembly across most of the five budgetary areas covered with the 2006/2007 Budget." - 150 - Local media: The assembly was a very accurate reflection of Harrow's ethnic diversity. Geographic representation from across the borough was also good. All age groups were over-represented (including 16- to 19-year-olds), except Has the target group been the 20-44 age group, which was under- reached? How inclusive was represented. There was also a small the initiative? gender imbalance with 40 more men than women attending. However, these imbalances have been rectified in the panel, which has the 20-44 age group over-represented and only four more men than women. It is also notable that there are eight 16- to 19-year olds on the Panel of 34. Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been The event itself was a partnership established with the between the London Borough of Harrow government, media, NGOs, and the "Power Inquiry". Due to a communities, etc.? Describe revised mission, it is unlikely that the them. Inquiry will play a similar role if the process is repeated in the future. To what extent did the SA The activity is essentially deliberative, methodology encourage public with a methodology (i.e. tables of ten, deliberation (i.e. multilateral facilitators) that enhances the quality of interactivity)? the debate. - 151 - The Open Budget was evaluated by Power Inquiry. The final report of the Open Budget Panel also had elements of an evaluation. Both sources identified the Open Budget as an overall success; however, there were also areas of concern. The panel felt that its role was unclear and that it did not receive the support it required. The official evaluation found the following problems: - failure to engage Councillors more deeply in the process. Has the SA initiative been - failure to allocate resources and evaluated? What were the planning more appropriately between results? Did it lead to the assembly and the panel. change/reform? - failure to allow more time for the pre- assembly consultation to engage with the wider community. Recommendations for future events include: - The process should take place over the whole annual budget cycle. - Much more resources, effort and particularly time needs to be allowed to ensure that the pre-assembly consultation engages with community groups. - Resources and planning should be allocated more evenly between the assembly and the panel. Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments Web sources www.harrowopenbudget.org www.powerinquiry.org The Power Inquiry(2006) Harrow Open Further References Documents and reports Budget ­ Final Evaluation Harrow Open Budget Panel Report (2006) Harrow Open Budget Panel Resource persons/contacts Edward Andersson, Involve Email: edward@involve.org.uk - 152 - UNITED STATES: CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROJECT Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Name of Intervention California Budget Project Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) CSO-led Who is being held accountable? Executive/Legislature Location State of California, USA Basic Information Institutional level Regional (State level) Population 34 440 000 Sector Public Finances Year of implementation and duration Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? It is a permanent event. To improve public policies affecting the What are the main objectives? economic and social well-being of low- and medium-income Californians. Who is the target audience or - Low- and medium-income citizens. demographic focus? - Local and state policy makers. Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting, decision making What budget and/or human Context and Scope resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? Citizens normally bear the cost of What are the costs to citizens informing themselves (for example, and CSOs? reading the quarterly newsletter of budget analysis). If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 153 - The California Budget Project (CBP) serves as a resource for the media, policy makers, and state and local constituency groups seeking accurate information and analysis of a range of state policy issues. It provides: independent fiscal and policy analysis; public education; and collaboration with other organisations. What specific SA tools and The CBP presents research findings methodologies are being and policy analyses to state and local used? policy makers in the form of testimony, Briefly describe the written reports and briefing materials. methodology(/ies) or tools To increase public understanding of Tools & used. state fiscal policy issues, the CBP conducts an active outreach programme Methodologies Used involving presentations and workshops for a range of state and local organisations. Along with periodic briefing papers and in-depth reports, the CBP publishes a quarterly newsletter, Budget Watch, keeping readers updated on important developments in state and federal policy. What advocacy and media California Budget Project initiatives and activities support the initiative? analysis are widely covered by local and state media, particularly newspapers. Were there any specific tools used to ensure that target The media support should ensure that groups were engaged? target groups are affected. What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? Has the target group been Only 50% of the expected target group reached? How inclusive was was reached. It was not possible to the initiative? include young people in the initiative. Has the initiative been scaled up? Yes, from the local to the regional level. Have any partnerships been established with the The CBP has partnerships with grant government, media, NGOs, foundations that offer financial support communities, etc.? Describe for its activities. Results and Impact them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public The information provided can be used deliberation (i.e. multilateral as an input to informed deliberation. interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the results? Did it lead to No information change/reform? Specific challenges identified No information Other important information or comments - 154 - Web sources Further References Documents and reports Resource persons/contacts - 155 - UNITED STATES: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT PROJECT Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) (iii) Participation (e.g. Participatory budgeting) Name of Intervention CEP: Civic Engagement Project Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) CSO-led Who is being held accountable? Executive Location Eight counties in the State of California Basic Information Institutional level Local Population Sector Young children and families Year of implementation and duration November 1999 to February 2004 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? One-off event - To build long-term partnerships among a wide diversity of communities and public policy makers. Context and Scope What are the main objectives? - To promote the collaborative development and implementation of public policy on behalf of young children and families. The aim is to include new, and often unheard, voices in policy development. These include: parents and Who is the target audience or grandparents; low-income communities; demographic focus? pregnant and parenting teens; ethnic minorities; urban and tribal American Indian communities; migrant and new immigrant populations; and the faith and business communities. The initiative is grounded in California Proposition 10, the "Children and Is the initiative or methodology Families Act of 1998", which came into based on legal requirements? effect on 1 January 1999 and provided USD 700 million annually to fund public policies concerning children and families. Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting, decision making What budget and/or human resources were allocated to The CEP was funded by five this SA initiative by the foundations that pooled over USD 4 initiator? million to implement the project. - 156 - What are the costs to citizens No financial costs; costs of participation and CSOs? depending on the activity level of each CSO and citizen. Proposition 10 funds were intended to promote, support and improve early childhood development by co-ordinating resources and programmes that emphasise family support, parent education, child care and development, and health care. In a historic effort to gather input from the public, each county was directed to create a strategic plan based on extensive input from communities including families, service providers and advocacy groups. The funding priority was programmes that would enhance civic participation. Eight counties participated in the CEP. The programme had three main goals: - To improve decision-making processes by incorporating community perspectives through deliberative dialogue. What specific SA tools and - To increase community benefit by methodologies are being promoting decisions that produce Tools & used? meaningful improvements for children Methodologies Used Briefly describe the aged 0-5 and their families. methodology(/ies) or tools - To enhance the relationship between used. the community and public officials and elected authorities. The core activities of the CEP included: - Community discussions with public officials about general and specific policy issues. - Small-Scale Grants: Some counties awarded small-scale grants to programmes that promoted civic engagement through direct grants to community members. - Governance Structures: In an effort to integrate the community's voice, most counties established a governing structure such as an advisory committee. - Leadership Opportunities: Many counties undertook additional activities for community members to lead community improvement projects or build their capacity as civic leaders. - 157 - Workshops, seminars, and information What advocacy and media material were used to inform the activities support the initiative? participants in the project as well as the larger public. The involvement of diverse communities was explicitly encouraged. Governance structures addressed issues of ethnicity, Were there any specific tools language and culture. Many counties used to ensure that target and staff aimed to work in culturally groups were engaged? appropriate ways to encourage the greatest levels of community volunteer participation from different ethnic groups. An evaluation report identified the following main impacts: - Communities' visions and preferences were incorporated to the process of decision making (e.g. slower decision- making). - An overwhelming majority of surveys conducted with community participants indicated that they gained "some" or "a lot" of skills (90%) and knowledge (97%). Skills related to topics such as: parenting, leadership, grant management, communication, networking, event organising and computers. - All eight counties participating in the Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? project confirmed that the incorporation of community perspectives achieved through deliberative dialogue helped them to develop more effective plans. CEP offers online and free of charge: - The 150-page bilingual (Spanish/English) guidebook "Promising Practices: Innovative Strategies for Engaging Our Communities". - Access to a video toolkit of five clips that illustrate the benefits and impacts of civic engagement on communities. (California residents can borrow the full version of the videos.) - Training handouts used during the project. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was No information the initiative? Has the initiative been scaled up? No - 158 - Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, There was a formal agreement with the communities, etc.? Describe counties that participated in the project. them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public Governance structures and community deliberation (i.e. multilateral discussions were designed to enhance interactivity)? the deliberation processes. An independent evaluation has been Has the SA initiative been made by the consulting firm evaluated? What were the Harder+Company Community results? Did it lead to Research. Since the evaluation was a change/reform? final evaluation, it has not led to any changes in the process. - Significant staff turnover in the County Commissions that worked with the community participants during the project. - Slowness of system change in the decision-making process. - Finding enough volunteers to work on the projects. Specific challenges identified - Obtaining full participation in the Commissions (for decision making). - Gaining the community's trust. - Designing programmes that were responsive to diverse communities with disparate needs and priorities. - Organisational challenges such as programme management, organisation of activities, finding qualified staff to work on activities. Other important information or comments Web sources http://www.f5ac.org/civicengagement/ Evaluation Report: Documents and reports http://www.f5ac.org/civicengagement/ou r_work/CEP%20Evaluation.pdf Email: mphf@mphf.org Further References Postal address: Miriam and Peter Haas Fund Resource persons/contacts 201 Filbert Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone +1 415 296 9249 Fax +1 415 296 8842 - 159 - UNITED STATES: HARD CHOICES Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) Name of Intervention Exercise in Hard Choices Primary agency running CSO-led/Committee for a Responsible Intervention (Initiator) Federal Government Who is being held accountable? Location United States Basic Information Institutional level National Population Sector National Budget Year of implementation and duration Since 1983 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? Regularly To educate the public about the choices What are the main objectives? involved in achieving and maintaining a responsible budget Who is the target audience or demographic focus? General public Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting, decision making What budget and/or human resources were allocated to The average cost per Exercise is USD 16 000-20 000 in direct costs for space, Context and Scope this SA initiative by the initiator? materials, travel, etc. The cost to citizens to participate is three-four hours. The activity is very What are the costs to citizens labour intensive for the CSO, which and CSOs? annually updates the materials, organises the Exercises, raises funds, conducts the meetings, and tabulates, analyses and publishes the results. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 160 - The "Exercise in Hard Choices" allows citizens to mimic Congressional debate over the budget by negotiating a series of budget decisions that reflect current opinions and issues. The Exercise aims to educate citizens about budget issues and the budget process ­ particularly the constraints of compromising and of decision making in a context where demands are limitless but resources are limited. Exercises are typically co-sponsored by local media partners, who publicise the event and provide registration information. In addition a Member (or Members) of Congress help host the event. Before an Exercise, participants receive an Exercise booklet, which contains background information to familiarise them with budget facts that are essential What specific SA tools and to their decision making. methodologies are being Tools & used? The Exercise, moderated by a CRFB Methodologies Used Briefly describe the representative, takes place over three to methodology(/ies) or tools four hours. Sessions of up to several used. hundred people are divided into small groups of eight to ten. In order to ensure diversity, the small groups are formed according to the responses to a demographic questionnaire answered by participants in advance. Each small group organises itself and works independently through the decisions. The results of each budget Exercise are reported to Congressional representative(s) and to each participant. The results of all Exercises conducted during the year are complied into an annual report, which is sent to every member of Congress, members of the President's Cabinet and representatives of the national media (and local co-sponsoring media organisations). It provides feedback to policy makers concerning citizen perceptions on budgetary matters. - 161 - Local media agencies serve as Exercise What advocacy and media co-sponsors and help to publicise the activities support the initiative? event. Interest groups are recruited by the CRFB to publicise Exercises and urge their members to participate. Special outreach activities are conducted to attract members of groups Were there any specific tools that are often under-represented (e.g. used to ensure that target people under the age of 30, people of groups were engaged? color). Exercise groups are formed according to responses to a demographic questionnaire. Since 1983, over 15 000 people have participated in the Exercise. What (if any) has been the Congressional participants have impact of the initiative? expressed interest in the Exercises, which serve as a type of focus group on policy options. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was Participants tend to be representative of the initiative? the voting public. Has the initiative been scaled up? Yes Have any partnerships been established with the The University of Akron has received a government, media, NGOs, federal grant to develop an online communities, etc.? Describe version of the Exercise accessible to Results and Impact them. high school and college students. To what extent did the SA The initiative encourages deliberation to methodology encourage public the extent that participants are able to deliberation (i.e. multilateral debate on an informed basis aiming at interactivity)? final decisions. No outside evaluations have been Has the SA initiative been conducted. However, the University of evaluated? What were the Akron evaluated the Exercise as part of results? Did it lead to its assessment of its online model and change/reform? found it to be an effective means of improving participants' knowledge of the budget and the budget process. Specific challenges identified Dissemination of the Exercise to a wider audience. Other important information or comments Further References Web sources www.crfb.org - 162 - An Exercise in Hard Choices: Using Technology to Engage in Long-Distance Group Decision Making by Evangeline Varonis, Dwight Bishop, Chris Collins, Documents and reports John Kelley and Sayee Rajamany at the University of Akron www.oln.org/conferences/ODCE2004/p apers/OCDE2004_Hard_Choices.pdf Susan Tanaka, Consultant Email: susan_tanaka@verizon.net Resource persons/contacts Maya Macguineas, President, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Email: macguineas@newamerica.net - 163 - EUROPEAN UNION: E-AGORA: DISTANCE LEARNING ON PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) e-Agora Project Program on Local e-Democracy and Name of Intervention New Forms of Governance: Opening ways to the implementation of practices in local democracy e-Agora Project: Municipality of Issy-les- Moulineaux, France Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) Participatory Democracy Project: PRODEP, Brazil (in the framework of the European Program URB-AL) Basic Information Who is being held accountable? Training given in 11 different countries Location including France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Brazil and Chile Institutional level EU Level (European Program URB-AL) Population Sector Participatory Democracy, Social Accountability Year of implementation and duration 2005, duration of eight months Is this a one-off event or New versions of similar training are repeated regularly? carried out by the Participatory Democracy Project (PRODEP) - It was intended to carry out a distance training program to link civil servants and other relevant actors (e.g. citizens, CSOs) from several European and Latin American cities. - The goal was to provide social and Context and Scope What are the main objectives? public actors with tools that promote participatory processes at the local level. - To enable local government actors and citizens to actively take part in the process of implementation of participatory initiatives. - 164 - The program aimed to reach different countries and cultures ­ particularly from the EU and Latin America. Online courses were therefore provided in three languages (Portugese, French Who is the target audience or and Spanish) to the following target demographic focus? groups: - Civil servants - Public authorities - Other relevant stakeholders expected to have a multiplier potential (e.g. CSO members, citizen representatives, youth representatives) Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making cycle All What budget and/or human resources were allocated to Overall costs: EUR 40 000 (EC funding) this SA initiative by the for a capacity of 110 enrolled initiator? participants, so EUR 364 per participant As the program was funded through the EC, the training was offered to participants free of charge. However, participants were required to: have What are the costs to citizens access to the Internet (public or private); and CSOs? be available to participate in the online discussion with teachers and colleagues; read the texts provided for each course (7 modules, including participatory democracy, social accountability, etc.) If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 165 - The structure of this training program included 7 modules offered in three languages: Portuguese, Spanish and French. Teachers participated from Brazil, Argentina, France and Switzerland. Altogether, 110 citizens and municipal actors from 11 countries were enrolled in the program. The challenge was to create a training environment which could offer students theoretical background on several subjects, giving them systematisation tools linked to their particular situations. At the same time, students were stimulated to interact with teachers and colleagues in an open environment. The program focused on the development and promotion of participation practices. What specific SA tools and To ensure that all participants from methodologies are being different countries and languages had a Tools & used? similar understanding of the program Methodologies Used Briefly describe the and its supporting structure, information methodology(/ies) or tools was online used. (www.democraciaparticipativa.org). From this Web site, students could access e-ProInfo's distance learning environment (www.eproinfo.mec.gov.br). Each student had a user login identifier and a password which gave them access to the courses. One of the main supporting tools were videos to explain the contents of their courses. The teachers also used obligatory readings in all three languages. Interactive chats allowed participants to talk to the teacher, to other students and to the technical team. This enabled the exchange of information and experiences between different cultures, nationalities and languages. Another interactive feature was the discussion forum (35 topics). Existing networks (e.g. municipality What advocacy and media associations, CSOs) publicised the activities support the initiative? existence of the training course. This allowed the program to reach its target groups with very low costs. - 166 - The first step was to rely on existing networks with good access to the target groups. Were there any specific tools For the second session, with high used to ensure that target demand for the 110 places, a selection groups were engaged? was made based on geographical distribution, heterogeneity of stakeholder functions (e.g. civil servants, elected officials, CSOs), and gender. General impacts: - At the conclusion of the training, participants were enabled to actively take part in participatory democracy processes at all stages, from implementation to evaluation. - The contact established between citizens, elected officials and civil servants (charged with creation, implementation and evaluation of public policies), and university teachers/researchers demonstrated Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? various viewpoints on each issue and pointed to concrete methods for improving democracy. Specific impacts: - Out of 110 participants, 98 have participated officially in at least one module. The Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil) granted 35 Professional Masters degrees and 20 certificates on "New forms of Governance" to individuals who met all training requirements. The program has taken specific Has the target group been measures to ensure geographic reached? How inclusive was distribution, heterogeneity of the initiative? stakeholder functions, and gender balance. Has the initiative been scaled It is expected to be scaled up, and up? negotiations to do so are ongoing. - 167 - The initiative resulted from a partnership between: - e-Agora Project (city of Issy-les- Moulineaux, France), European Have any partnerships been Program URB-AL established with the - Participatory Democracy Project government, media, NGOs, (PRODEP): Federal University of Minas communities, etc.? Describe Gerais (UFMG), Brazil them. - E-PROINFO: Brazilian Ministry of Education The project also received support from the Electronic Democracy Centre (e- DC) in Switzerland. To what extent did the SA The training initiative enabled methodology encourage public participants to better implement, deliberation (i.e. multilateral conduct, and evaluate public interactivity)? deliberation methodologies. Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the The initiative has been evaluated and results? Did it lead to the impacts cited above have been change/reform? confirmed. Specific challenges identified Additional funding to scale up the initiative. Participants from five cities: Issy-les- Moulineaux (France), Frameries (Belgium), Vina del Mar (Chile), Juiz de Fora (Brazil) and Ipatinga (Brazil) simultaneously participated in the effective creation and implementation of Other important information or social accountability initiatives in their comments cities. The training was essential for implementation of these initiatives. Testimonials from stakeholders show that this process led to changes in local democracy (from conception to evaluation). www.democraciaparticipativa.org Further References Web sources www.issy.com www.eproinfo.mec.gov.br edc.unige.ch e-Agora: The White Book of Local e- Documents and reports Democracy, www.forum-edemo.org/IMG - 168 - Marie Virapatirin, e-Agora Project Coordinator Email: marie.virapatirin@wanadoo.fr Resource persons/contacts Professor Leonardo Avritzer, Participatory Democracy Project Coordinator Email: prodep@fafich.ufmg.br - 169 - EUROPEAN UNION: EVALUATION OF EUROPEAN CONSULTATION POLICIES Type of Interaction (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) Questionnaire on Consumer Name of Intervention Representation in Standardisation Activities at National, European and International Level Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) EC Health and Consumer Directorate Who is being held EC Health and Consumer Directorate Basic Information accountable? Location EU Institutional level EU level Population Sector Consumers Associations Year of implementation and duration 2003 Is this a one-off event or No information repeated regularly? - To collect information on consumer associations' experiences, difficulties, views and proposals on the issue of representation of consumer interests in standardisation activities with a view to Context and Scope What are the main objectives? identifying future needs and opportunities for improving representation. - To provide a picture of the present situation of consumer representation in standardisation in the European Union. Who is the target audience or demographic focus? European consumer organisations Wide consultation is one of the Commission's duties according to its mandate. Protocol 7 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and Is the initiative or methodology proportionality, annexed to the based on legal requirements? Amsterdam Treaty, stipulates that "the Commission should ... consult widely before proposing legislation, and, wherever appropriate, publish consultation documents." Stage of decision-making cycle Policy making - 170 - What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No information initiator? What are the costs to citizens Costs to the CSO of answering the and CSOs? questionnaire. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? The Commission has sent 154 questionnaires to Consumers Associations in the 25 Member States. The questionnaires aimed to approach the following questions: - Level of awareness, participation, information and involvement in standardisation activities. - National organisation of the representation of consumers in the standardisation process. - Financial, technical and administrative support available to perform What specific SA tools and standardisation work. methodologies are being - Experience participating in used? standardisation work. Briefly describe the - Critical problems preventing the methodology(/ies) or tools organisation from participating in the used. standardisation process; specific Tools & problems encountered by the Methodologies Used organisations when participating in the process; general problems with the standardisation system itself. - Evaluation of the participation in the standardisation system. - General evaluation of the level of consumer representation and its effectiveness in the standardisation system. - Proposals to improve the participation of consumers' representatives in the standardisation system. What advocacy and media activities support the initiative? No information The questionnaires were sent directly to Were there any specific tools the Consumers Associations. However, used to ensure that target there is no information about followup to groups were engaged? ensure that the associations answered the questionnaires and sent responses to the Commission. - 171 - The questionnaire presented the following results: - The sample is quite limited: of 154 questionnaires only 39 replied. It is therefore difficult to draw widespread, valid conclusions. - In practice, the level of involvement is diverse, depending on countries and specific situations of the organisations concerned. - There is a general awareness of the importance of consumer representation in standardisation. - Consumer Associations and Consumer Committees within a standardisation body have access to general information on standardisation activities. - Consumer organisations understand their roles; however, in many cases the resources available are limited and consumer organisations experience conflicting priorities preventing adequate Results and Impact What (if any) has been the involvement and monitoring. impact of the initiative? - Lack of financial resources and expertise are the main problems preventing full participation of consumer organisations. - In some cases, consumer organisations feel that the added value of consumers' representation is not recognised. - There is a very uneven level of influence of consumer organisations in the standardisation process, ranging from no recognition to full consideration. - The framework for participation is varied: ranging from no formal right to full, institutionalised involvement of consumer organisations. - The majority of requests relate to a more consistent and binding framework and increased financial and technical support. - One particular problem concerns the participation of consumer organisations in international standardisation, which seems to be out of reach at present. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was Of 154 questionnaires sent, only 39 the initiative? replied. Has the initiative been scaled up? - 172 - Have any partnerships been established with the government, media, NGOs, communities, etc.? Describe them. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public deliberation (i.e. multilateral No information interactivity)? Has the SA initiative been evaluated? What were the There is no concrete information about results? Did it lead to the changes/reforms that may have change/reform? resulted from the questionnaire. Specific challenges identified Other important information or comments Web sources http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_org /eval_report_en.pdf Further References The Amsterdam Treaty: Documents and reports http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/s50000 .htm Resource persons/contacts - 173 - EUROPEAN UNION: ENGAGING CITIZENS IN RURAL AREAS POLICY-MAKING Type of Interaction (i) Information (e.g. Independent budget analysis, Budget literacy) (ii) Consultation (e.g. Citizen feedback on multi-year planning) European Citizens' Panel: Engaging Name of Intervention citizens in European policy making ­ The case of rural areas Primary agency running Intervention (Initiator) European Citizens' Panel Who is being held EU government officials and public accountable? authorities Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Basic Information Location Italy, The Netherlands, Romania, Switzerland, the United Kingdom Institutional level EU level Population Sector European policies affecting rural areas Year of implementation and duration First semester 2006-first semester 2007 Is this a one-off event or repeated regularly? One-off event Global objective: To encourage a bottom-up contribution from citizens to the discussion on the future of European policies affecting rural areas. Operational objectives: - To organise and facilitate structured exchanges between citizens on the future of rural areas at the regional and at European levels on the basis of well- Context and Scope What are the main objectives? balanced and accessible information. - To facilitate citizens' ability to identify policy priorities in this field at those two levels. - To provide a means for the dissemination of citizen recommendations to policy makers, stakeholders and the wider public. - To design and test a method for a citizen panel at the European level that could be repeated later for other important European policies. Who is the target audience or Policy makers, stakeholders and the demographic focus? wider public - 174 - Is the initiative or methodology based on legal requirements? No Stage of decision-making cycle Agenda setting, decision making What budget and/or human resources were allocated to this SA initiative by the No info initiator? Citizen participation in the panels runs between three and four full days, What are the costs to citizens including studying preliminary and CSOs? information on the issue selected and participating in a discussion to create recommendations for policy makers. If the initiative concerns participatory budgeting: what percentage is it of the total investment budget? - 175 - Phase 1: Regional Panels: Nine regional panels, in which citizens from a cross-section of society are invited to participate, will be established. - Citizens taking part in panel deliberations represent a microcosm of the diversity of populations at the regional level. - A common communication system (launch event, communication chart and strategy, Internet site, video, etc.) will create a "European image" for the panels (all part of the same pan- European project) and facilitate interaction among participants in the panels and with the public at large. - Each participant, selected in a random manner, will receive similar information on the issues at stake, using a common European "Infopack" adapted to the needs of each region. The information input will be designed at the regional What specific SA tools and level and can include different support methodologies are being materials: publications, films, field trips, Tools & used? meetings with experts and stakeholders, Methodologies Used Briefly describe the contact with other regional panels, etc. methodology(/ies) or tools - Each panel will draw up its report with used. the help of professional facilitators. The reports will include recommendations to be presented to appropriate decision makers and stakeholders. Phase 2: European Panel: - Each panel will identify 10 "delegates", to be gathered in one panel organised at the European level. - Delegates will present and compare their respective proposals, meet new stakeholders to integrate a wider vision of the issues, and together develop a truly European perspective and recommendations. - This document will be presented to institutions and key stakeholders at the European level. The institutions that supported the panel's work at the regional level (regional authorities, foundations, etc.) will also be formal targets of these recommendations. These will also be widely disseminated to the general public. What advocacy and media It is expected that the media will cover activities support the initiative? the process, as they are very interested in this type of activity. - 176 - The regional level has been chosen as the basic building block for this initiative, with nine regional panels established to include citizens from a cross-section sample representative of society. About 500 citizens will be taking part in the panels at the regional level, and it is expected that their deliberations will influence policy making and have an impact on the daily life of thousands of Were there any specific tools people. used to ensure that target groups were engaged? At the European level, 10 "delegates" will be identified by each regional panel. They will develop European recommendations to be presented to institutions and key stakeholders at the European level. This pilot project will be documented and evaluated by an independent organisation to ensure than it can be replicated and adapted to other issues with an important European dimension. Results and Impact What (if any) has been the impact of the initiative? No information The panels were constituted following a methodology that aims to ensure inclusivity and representation of society as a whole. Has the target group been reached? How inclusive was A launch event took place on 10 May to the initiative? attract the attention of European Institutions and stakeholders to the initiative and to alert policy makers that the citizens' contribution will be available by the middle of February 2007. Has the initiative been scaled up? No Have any partnerships been established with the The initiative is itself a consortium government, media, NGOs, composed of CSOs, regional communities, etc.? Describe governments, funding institutions and them. universities. To what extent did the SA methodology encourage public The panels are designed to encourage deliberation (i.e. multilateral an informed deliberation composed of interactivity)? representative members of the society. The initiative is ongoing; however, it is Has the SA initiative been expected that an independent evaluated? What were the organisation will conduct an evaluation results? Did it lead to to ensure that it can be replicated and change/reform? adapted to other issues with an important European dimension. - 177 - Specific challenges identified Other important information or comments Web sources http://www.citizenspanel.org/ Further References Documents and reports Resource persons/contacts - 178 - ANNEX 3. CROSSTABULATION TABLES Summary classification of crosstabs by decreasing value of PHI Crosstabulation PHI coefficient Pearson Chi-Square Significance GOV / CSO Partnership * Info 0.615 .000 significant Evaluation Deliberation * Engagement 0.480 .002 significant CSO * Target Groups 0.434 .006 significant Info evaluation * Engagement 0.361 .023 significant Engage * Repeated 0.353 .026 significant Legal Basis * Repeated - 0.204 .196 not significant Proximity * Repeated - 0.393 .013 significant Legal basis * Engagement - 0.403 .011 significant National * Engagement - 0.423 .007 significant Note on the statistics: The following crosstabulations are a selection of the significant results that were found to be relevant to this study. The Phi coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables. In its interpretation, this measure is similar to the correlation coefficient. It varies from 0 to 1. The higher the value of Phi, the higher the degree of association. Pearson Chi-Square tests the statistical significance of the crosstabulations. Phi coefficients start to be considered significant with values below 0.100. The closer to zero, the higher the significance. Although there is no absolute rule, statisticians agree that an expected frequency of 5 or less means that the Chi-square test can be problematic. Considering that many of the crosstabulations score low in the number of expected counts, some of the chi-square values can be considered problematic. However, this does not invalidate the exploratory results of the correlations, since Fishers tests36 confirm the significance of the results produced (See crosstabulations). Fisher coefficients start to be considered significant with values below 0.05. The closer to zero, the higher the significance. 36The Fisher exact test of significance is used in place of the Chi-Square test in small 2-by-2 tables. - 179 - ENGAGEMENT National_level * Engagement Crosstabulation Engage Total No Yes National_level No Count 13 11 24 % within national_level 54.2% 45.8% 100.0% Yes Count 15 1 16 % within national_level 93.8% 6.3% 100.0% Total Count 28 12 40 % within national_level 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.163(b) 1 .007 Continuity Correction(a) 5.402 1 .020 Likelihood Ratio 8.284 1 .004 Fisher's Exact Test .012 .008 Linear-by-Linear Association 6.984 1 .008 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4,80. Approx. Value Sig. Phi -0.423 0.007 Cramer's V 0.423 0.007 Legal_basis * Engage Crosstabulation Engage Total No Yes Legal_basis No Count 17 12 29 % within legal_basis 58.6% 41.4% 100.0% Yes Count 11 0 11 % within legal_basis 100.0% 0% 100.0% Total Count 28 12 40 % within legal_basis 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% - 180 - Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.502(b) 1 .011 Continuity Correction(a) 4.681 1 .030 Likelihood Ratio 9.533 1 .002 Fisher's Exact Test .017 .009 Linear-by-Linear Association 6.340 1 .012 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3,30. Approx. Value Sig. Phi -0.403 0.011 Cramer's V 0.403 0.011 Info_evaluation * Engage Crosstabulation Engage Total No Yes Info_evaluation No Count 18 3 21 % within info_evaluation 85.7% 14.3% 100.0% Yes Count 10 9 19 % within info_evaluation 52.6% 47.4% 100.0% Total Count 28 12 40 % within info_evaluation 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.199(b) 1 .023 Continuity Correction(a) 3.743 1 .053 Likelihood Ratio 5.357 1 .021 Fisher's Exact Test .038 .026 Linear-by-Linear Association 5.069 1 .024 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,70. - 181 - Approx. Value Sig. Phi 0.361 0.023 Cramer's V 0.361 0.023 Deliberation * Engage Crosstabulation Engage Total No Yes Deliberation No Count 14 0 14 % within deliberation 100.0% 0% 100.0% Yes Count 14 12 26 % within deliberation 53.8% 46.2% 100.0% Total Count 28 12 40 % within deliberation 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 9.231(b) 1 .002 Continuity Correction(a) 7.164 1 .007 Likelihood Ratio 12.979 1 .000 Fisher's Exact Test .003 .002 Linear-by-Linear Association 9.000 1 .003 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4,20. Approx. Value Sig. Phi 0.480 0.002 Cramer's V 0.480 0.002 - 182 - INFO EVALUATION Formal / Informal Partnership * Info Evaluation Crosstabulation Info_evaluation Total No Yes F_IPartnership No Count 15 2 17 % within F_IPartnership 88.2% 11.8% 100.0% Yes Count 6 17 23 % within F_IPartnership 26.1% 73.9% 100.0% Total Count 21 19 40 % within F_IPartnership 52.5% 47.5% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 15.140(b) 1 .000 Continuity Correction(a) 12.750 1 .000 Likelihood Ratio 16,.34 1 .000 Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 14.761 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8,08. Approx. Value Sig. Phi 0.615 0.000 Cramer's V 0.615 0.000 - 183 - LEGAL BASIS Legal_basis * Repeat Crosstabulation Repeat Total No Yes Legal_basis No Count 5 24 29 % within legal_basis 17.2% 82.8% 100.0% Yes Count 4 7 11 % within legal_basis 36.4% 63.6% 100.0% Total Count 9 31 40 % within legal_basis 22.5% 77.5% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.672(b) 1 .196 Continuity Correction(a) .755 1 .385 Likelihood Ratio 1.570 1 .210 Fisher's Exact Test .227 .190 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.631 1 .202 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,48. Approx. Value Sig. Phi -0.204 0.196 Cramer's V 0.204 0.196 - 184 - REPEATED INITIATIVES Proximity * Repeat Crosstabulation Repeat Total No Yes Proximity No Count 3 24 27 % within proximity 11.1% 88.9% 100.0% Yes Count 6 7 13 % within proximity 46.2% 53.8% 100.0% Total Count 9 31 40 % within proximity 22.5% 77.5% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.180(b) 1 .013 Continuity Correction(a) 4.333 1 .037 Likelihood Ratio 5.871 1 .015 Fisher's Exact Test .038 .021 Linear-by-Linear Association 6.025 1 .014 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,93. Approx. Value Sig. Phi -0.393 0.013 Cramer's V 0.393 0.013 Engage * Repeat Crosstabulation Repeat Total No Yes Engage No Count 9 19 28 % within engage 32.1% 67.9% 100.0% Yes Count 0 12 12 % within engage 0% 100.0% 100.0% Total Count 9 31 40 % within engage 22.5% 77.5% 100.0% - 185 - Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.977(b) 1 .026 Continuity Correction(a) 3.304 1 .069 Likelihood Ratio 7.488 1 .006 Fisher's Exact Test .037 .025 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.853 1 .028 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,70. Approx. Value Sig. Phi 0.353 0.026 Cramer's V 0.353 0.026 TARGET GROUP Csoled * Targetgroup Crosstabulation Targetgroup Total No Yes Csoled No Count 18 12 30 % within csoled 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% Yes Count 1 9 10 % within csoled 10.0% 90.0% 100.0% Total Count 19 21 40 % within csoled 47.5% 52.5% 100.0% - 186 - Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.519(b) 1 .006 Continuity Correction(a) 5.647 1 .017 Likelihood Ratio 8.469 1 .004 Fisher's Exact Test .009 .007 Linear-by-Linear Association 7.331 1 .007 N of Valid Cases 40 a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4,75. Approx. Value Sig. Phi 0.434 0.006 Cramer's V 0.434 0.006 - 187 -