Showing posts with label public policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public policy. Show all posts

10/20/08

Heron's Eye: 20/10/08

How drugs laws compound race inequality 08/10/08
Sebastian Saville on how drugs laws disproportionately effect minorities and those on low income. [Guardian]

Hard times: The myth of public v private has now been exposed
Peter Beresford muses on the shift in opinion between private and public organisations and whether it is a ‘Berlin Wall’ moment. [Guardian]

Hard times: Can PFI deliver hospitals and roads during a credit crunch?
Alison Benjamin considers whether PFIs have any place in current and future public investment projects. [Guardian]


Below is my response:

I agree with the above posters view that PFIs need close scrutiny, especially given that we are in a period of political economic introspection at the moment. The last thing desired is to perceive PPPs as some solution to our present and future challenges. Successive governments since the 1980s have colluded with private interests to carve out the public realm. This needs to be reversed, with more decisions to be put in the hands of local regions and local professionals, with a greater emphasis on encouraging grounds up initiatives.

PFIs and PPPs have acted as a conduit for introducing neo-liberal practices into the public sector, practices that in my opinion have lacked both equitable and efficiency benefits. By some it also was seen as a method of destabilising the public sector and strengthening centralisation. Its ‘architects promised a new solution, training the public sector to become a better, faster, stronger champion. Unfortunately, the coach has been forcing its athletes to train in the wrong event.

Effective governance and public policy should be based upon the balancing out of differing strengths and weaknesses of private, public and third sector organisations. Through taking the positions that the private sectors motivation will be able to secure efficiency savings like a pig searching for truffles and that the flow of money should be the overriding factor to decide investment decision. However, private investment decisions are likely to be different to public or third sector decisions, as the emphasis in our current hyper-capitalist economy is geared to short-term investment decisions to maximise share value.

There is a high degree of moral hazard from large scale PFI projects, as the contracts tend to offer high rewards for success but minimal risk for downturns. This means that once the contracts are signed contractors are free to skimp and save on long term investments (such as painting tube stations rather than installing air conditioning), place emphasis on quick or easy fixes (such as 3 road sweepers governing an area rather than 4 to boost efficiency(meant as an innocent example but question it if you may)) which a competent public servant should be able to initiate, and try to lobby for extra funding, due to unforeseen spending requirements and the need to sustain vital public infrastructure (cant see the wood for the trees).

PFIs have a tendency to be a drag on investment decisions, pernicious as I mentioned previously. Most PFI schemes tend to be greater in budget than initially expected. This usually results in other services being cut, as they do not have the security of 30 investment contracts.

It should be emphasised that economies of scale are not necessarily everything. Doing the right thing badly is usually better than doing the wrong thing well. In the case of PFI contracts the ability to streamline is neutered, as there are very complex rules, procedures and formulae to navigate before any changes are made. Sometimes natural economies have been ignored by politicians, carving up infrastructure to create false competition (e.g splitting the London Underground into two).

Who will save us from this dilemma? To address the Little Otiks the government needs to step in, wearing the mask of regulation. They spend their time exchanging lawyers and civil servants in the process of accountability. The system has been at the expense of local democracy and professional influence, as PFIs tend to be made at the big table. The UK has had a generation of politicians who can only think large. They walked past local experts, went to big organisations and signed long-term deals that guaranteed Westminsters involvement in decision-making in return for private sector action. Remember Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling forcing through the PPP of the London Underground all those years back despite Ken Livingstones alternative of a publicly financed and publicly upgraded Tube(2002?).

This blurring between the public and private sphere is ugly. Residency in the UK is like living on a road with two violent gangs. You have to pay each gang off to buy protection from the other gang. They promise you that you will be safe and they are going around to the others to sort things out to keep the peace. I swear I could here laughter last time I was passing by, last time they met. The optimist in me is hoping that some of the recent positive press from the part privatisation of the banking system is cause for improvement. I just cant held thinking that its the same suspects demanding greater public trust in larger government, larger finance companies and greater public appropriation of future tax decisions.


Click here to read more information on Mr Grimsdale, King Heron and Mobius

1/2/08

Are Agencies Electric? Mapping The Development of Cross Stakeholder eGovernment Platforms

Background
There has been a significant ICT investment by the UK Government both nationally and locally to reform the provision, promotion, and usage of public services. eGovernment has been the articulation of many of these projects, helping to exploit the power of information and communications “in order to transform the accessibility, quality and cost-effectiveness of public services.” [1] The Government’s previous policy of putting as much public information online as possible has been successful but belies an unwillingness to face organisational reform. The majority of investments have been directed towards projects that are more piecemeal in nature, adding new features to public sector delivery whilst attempting to work within the existing framework. This ‘silo mentality’ is becoming increasingly outdated, as organisations which fail to build responsive structures that facilitate CRM systems and collaborate between public sector organisations and societal stakeholders are starting to look increasingly outdated when compared to more ICT focused and inclusive organisations.


The bulk of this £6 billion eGovernment strategy[2] has been directed towards raising the quantity and standard of government information online, ensuring public access to the Internet and creating inroads towards more collaborative projects between organisations and communities. In many ways government policy has been successful. For instance, government information is freely accessible online and organised by websites which provide seamless access across departments and regions without the user needing to be conscious of the differences. Also, government initiatives are slowly starting to foster greater cooperation, which helps to improve levels and quality of information and decision-making.


M. Jae Moon,[3] the UK National Audit Office,[4] the UN/ASPA,[5] Rita Santos and Richard Heeks,[6] and Darrel West[7] identify four or five stages of e-government, which distinguish where different government organizations are on the road to transformation:

  1. The Billboard Stage: Where information is put online but it is only one way
  2. The Partial Delivery Stage: Where information is communicated in two directions
  3. The Portal Stage: Where online services reach a technical level to reduce administrative burdens
  4. The Seamless Stage: Where government services are seamlessly intertwined
  5. The Interactive Democracy Stage: Where web-based political participation tools enable citizens to comment and make political improvements


However, the majority of investments have been directed towards the earlier stages, providing considerable amounts of information but lacking sufficient interactivity and input from users, resulting in many public sector websites being tarred as being too passive. To fully benefit from eGovernment the adaptation of new technological advancements “requires a careful investigation into the philosophy, structure and productive processes of the public organisations participating in eGovernment.”[8]Such a holistic view requires consistently considering public administration “as a socio-technical system and, as such, as a unit of: individual citizens, employees of authorities and governments, groups and society, technical and information systems, norms and laws, social and cultural practices, moral and ethics and natural environmental issues.” [9]


Much of the early reforms required for early stage Internet platforms were painless, merely requiring information to systematically be added online and sufficient marketing to encourage uptake by citizens and businesses. This was partly because the public sector is good at refining and improving existing services, such as through longer opening hours and drop in services. In terms of eGovernment adding a website which contained reports, key information and contact details required little organisational change but was able to provide visible results. This level of modernisation also helped to fulfil the Government’s goals of all information being put online creating too much emphasis on piecemeal upgrades rather than upgrading internal structures based around new ICT possibilities.


These lower level reforms were also easier to sell to the public than more problematic, technical and organisational reforms that provided less tangible results. Joint projects between government departments are very difficult, as any work requires the close cooperation of a large number of actors. There has not been enough development towards creating a framework that encourages this cooperation, with the Government having previously failed to put enough pressure and financial incentives for greater joint projects. However, the Government is finally starting to push through various initiatives that help introduce incentives to create new approaches to improving efficiency and improve the quality of government. These usually take the form of either ‘back office’ reforms or ‘One Stop Shops’.


The author believes that organisational cultures are the greatest obstacles preventing a more modern ICT influenced public sector. The
UK’s public administration style should be better equipped to developing an attractive, dynamic and high value Internet framework as a result of it being “more concerned with customer needs than in the EU continental styles based on administrative laws and legal procedures.”[10] However, research by L. Torres, V. Pina and B. Acerete on local governments’ eGovernance revealed some interesting analysis of UK public websites. The report found that although numerous UK cities performed well the emphasis on providing ‘billboard’ information, rather than interactive services highlighted that most local governments were merely concerned with the “image of modernisation and responsiveness rather than with the introduction of real changes in the way in which public administrations interact with citizens.” [11]

The proposed research aims to answer the following, with a view of examining why and how different agencies or stakeholders plan and implement public websites:

  • What are the organisational factors that influence how eGovernment projects develop?
  • Is there an optimum type of eGovernment culture? And if so, what does it look like?
  • What are the key influences that push projects forward and what inhibits them? How do they impact on project success/failure?

Methodology

Possible Methodologies:

  • Grid-Group Analysis + Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
  • Multiple Perspective Analysis + Action Research


The problem of assessing eGovernment projects is that there will be different competing goals between different stakeholders in the planning and implantation process. Policy alternatives and their outcomes may also be unknown, such that estimates of risk and uncertainty are not possible. As a result the author considers that the problems will be ill-structured and that the methodology will require an analysis that actively defines the problem, taking care not to impose any bias. As a consequence policy analysis will be devoted towards problem structuring as well as problem solving.


Grid Group Analysis + Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The author believes that grid-group cultural theory originating from Mary Douglas [12] and later developed into a public policy tool by Christopher Hood [13] would form a major analysis to aid problem structuring. Its ability to capture the diversity of human preferences and relate differing preferences to different possible styles of organisation, each with its own advantages and disadvantages should help to explain the interactive process of many government websites.


For example, examining the cultural differences between different web portals to the public sector should provide insights into the way organisational behaviour affects structure and results (see ‘One Stop Shops’ analysis below):

  • DirectGov.com, a hierarchical style website setup by the government and intended as the first point of access
  • DirectionlessGov.com, a individualist rebuke to the site by volunteer computer programmers to highlight the failure of over centralised and over expensive government endorses websites
  • YourLondon, an egalitarian portal developed following numerous symposiums of London councils to form collective solutions to their common eGovernment requirements
  • Pre ‘One Stop Shop’ key links web pages found within government websites based upon the sites context (fatalism)


Cost-effectiveness analysis is considered a better fit than cost-benefit analysis as the author believes that eGovernment has the possibility to go beyond mere efficiency savings, as increased information would also result in better decision-making. Because of the uniqueness of government these social benefits can be included without the distorting analysis of quantitative measurement.

Multiple Perspective Analysis + Action Research Analysis

Multiple perspective analysis allows for greater insights into problems and potential solutions through applying personal, organizational, and technical perspectives to problem situations. Especially suitable for ill-structured policy problems, the utilisation of technical, organisational, and personal perspectives has been useful at dealing with social technical and challenges such as eGovernment.[14]


Action research would form a useful mode of enquiry, as combining a problem-solving rationale and a research-orientated one simultaneously.[15] The former is preoccupied with the resolution of some organisational problem, via a research based intervention; the latter involves using the intervention as a vehicle for the production of new knowledge of interest to public policy.


Back Office Reforms

‘Back office’ reforms are used to improve the machinery of government processes, such as increasing the amount of high quality, localised data transfer between departments and regions. The introduction of technology and its adoption, such as sharing information through pooling ‘back office’ computing systems between government organisations has the potential to greatly improve the value for money and quality of government services. However, the reforms needed to introduce such strategies are complex and require a significant amount of commitment from all stakeholders involved. Otherwise the myriad number of obstacles to success will result in wasted time, overspending or even project collapse. This is most successful when “technology has entwined with management reform, while addressing the demands of consumers.”[16] As a result, emphasising reforms through the window of e-Government and its possibilities will give as many opportunities for efficiency gains as New Public Management and Deregulation in the 1990s but through increased productivity and not at the expense of services.

One interesting example of multi-agency cooperation was in Lancashire, where a multi-agency data exchange (MADE) system was developed to streamline data transfer between 300 wards in 14 districts. This was done so that organisations and councils could send and receive information to and from one centre, using homogenous software and a common set of standards. This helped to avoid the headaches of organisations having to negotiate common standards and then pool resources many times over and for administrators to not have to constantly query whether or not they are permitted to divulge certain pieces of information or not. One of the conclusions of the report was that ICT was not holding project development back and that the ‘‘real’’ problem was the intellectual inability of many partnership members to recognise the utility of data to support collaborative decision-making, compounded by the low level of human resource available for analytic work.[17]


The benefits of MADE data were significant, for example enabling one town to identify that the top two wards for crime were also the top two for fire and ambulance incidents, with a similar pattern being replicated across all districts. This resulted in a multi agency ‘vulnerability index’ being created using a variety of indicators previously unavailable and permitted a greater understanding of local regions and better informed policymaking decisions.


One major example of Government creating a positive environment for cooperation is the Digital Challenge, involving a £6 million grant for one region and nine £200 thousand grants to the runners up. This was to purposefully create a unique incentive for a region, city or smaller sized area to introduce joined-up technology reforms to meet the needs of their local community and individual citizens. This major investment goes further then fostering best practice for ‘eGovernment champions’, as the structure of the grants should help to encourage the Digital Challenge finalists and the winner to work together and with central government to pool practices in order to tackle social exclusion and be exemplars in their field.


One Stop Shops
‘One-Stop-Shop’ government requires that all public authorities are interconnected and that all groups and individuals are able to access public services at a single point even without the need for users to know which department or local authority they need to answer queries. When successful these platforms can be incredibly useful for helping people navigate public services. However, the weaknesses and unpopularity of many schemes have shown limitations of ‘one stop shops’ against search engine sites and rival forms of communication, such as telephones and digital television.


Online portals such as YourLondon act as a ‘one stop shop’ to unify the websites of
London into a cohesive whole. The ease of use offers an effective method of encouraging trust in e-Government, as it reduces the time spent searching for information on London services. This facility needs to be better promoted in order to maximise use and expanded upon its successes. For example, in a section on YourLondon’s website residents can report information on areas such as vandalism or abandoned cars through placing a flag on a map, which would inform the correct borough without the user even being aware of which council the street was in.

Table 1: If there was a website where you could find public services all in one place from car tax to council tax to local school information and congestion charging would you use it? [18]

Research from Tickbox.net (above) has shown that there is a keen interest among many in using one-stop-shops, with 74.6% saying that they would consider using such a service. [19] DirectGov is the Government’s main channel for communication, with already having replaced up to 500 of the 3,000 or so government websites.[20] This one-stop shop helps to direct people effectively to the council or government service that they require. However, it intitially difficult to market, with a £5 million campaign to persuade users to contact their local council via a central government web portal having little effect, according to an independent study. [21] The Connect to Your Council campaign targeted people via radio and press and advised people to visit www.direct.gov.uk. However, despite claims by the DCLG that more than 250 thousand people visited the website in May and that more than 40 percent of respondents thought the campaign would encourage use[22] the consultants, SocITM Insight highlighted that one area of the campaign received only a 1.25 percent increase. [23] Despite referrals from Directgov rising threefold after the campaign, fewer than 1 percent of visitors found their local authority through the site and most relied on a commercial search engine (53 percent), while 16 percent guessed the address. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London felt that the number of referrals from DirectGov had increased sevenfold in a year but that only accounted for 700 out of the 97,000 unique users that its website handled in August. [24]


Public sector ‘one stop shops’ have struggled when competing against highly established search engines such as Google, with users finding it easier to type in some key words to hunt down the required site, rather than using and then navigating through public portals such as DirectGov. This is because the familiarity of Google and its ease of use limits the appeal of users transferring to the other service. In order to justify their existences and attract significant levels of traffic platforms such as DirectGov will not only have to match Google’s utility it will have to exceed it.


The hierarchical nature of sites such as DirectGov has led to critics describing the framework as overbearing in its dictations to other websites and unaccountable to its users. As a consequence grassroots websites such as DirectionlessGov have been launched by collectives such as Democracy.org.uk (also responsible for TheyWorkForYou and UpMyStreet among others), which creates an impartial and voluntarily supported alternative to either the centralised DirectGov approach and the monolithic Google approach.[25]


This was written by Jonathan McHugh in February as part of an unrealised research application


[1] E-Government Review Greater London Authority: Audit 2004-2005 (Audit Commission) 2005 p. 4

[2] P. Foley, X. Alfonso, et al Connecting People: Tackling Exclusion? An Examination of the impact of the Internet by Socially Excluded Groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 24

[3] Moon, M. Jae. 2002. “The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities:

Rhetoric or Reality?” Public Administration Review 62: 4–12.

[4] United Kingdom National Audit Of.ce. 2002. Government on the Web 11. House of

Commons 2001–2002 Session, HC 764. London: Stationery Office.

[5] United Nations/American Society for Public Administration (UN/ASPA). 2002.

Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective. New York: UN/ASPA.

[6] Santos, Rita, and Richard Heeks. 2003. ICTs and Intra-Governmental Structures at

Local, Regional and Central Levels: Updating Conventional Ideas. Manchester, UK:

IDPM, University of Manchester.

[7] West, Darrel. 2004. “E-government and the Transformation of Service Delivery

and Citizen Attitudes.” Public Administration Review 64: 15–27.

[8] M. Wimmer A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project (Electronic Commerce Research and Applications ) 2002 p. 93

[9] M. Wimmer A European perspective towards online one-stop government: the eGOV project (Electronic Commerce Research and Applications ) 2002 p. 95

[10] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 292

[11] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 296

[12] M. Douglas Cultural Bias, from In The Active Voice(Routledge) 1982 p. 183-254

[13] C. Hood The Art Of The State: Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management (Oxford University Press) 1998 p. 7-12

[14] W. Dunn Public Policy: An Introduction 3rd Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentis Hill) 2007

[15] McKay, J., & Marshall, P. The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology and

People, (2001). 14, 46–59.

[16] SmartGov: Renewing Electronic Government for Improved Service Delivery Jul 2003 p59

[17] D. Wastell a, P.r Kawalek et al Information systems and partnership in multi-agency networks: an action research project in crime reduction (Information and Organization) 2004 p. 197

[18] DirectGov Internet Thinking (Tickbox.net) 2006

[19] DirectGov Internet Thinking (Tickbox.net) 2006

[20] Quoted in: http://www.idealgovernment.com 18/02/08

[21] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006

[22] Councils Blast Euro RSCG Take-up Campaign (Campaign) June 16, 2006

[23] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006

[24] £5m e-government awareness campaign flops The Guardian October 12, 2006

[25] http://www.directionlessgov.com/about.html

6/1/07

The UK and eGovernment: Chapter VI, Conclusion

The UK Government has been successful at preparing the ground for future eGovernment projects through establishing a large telecommunications infrastructure, enabling citizens and business to access high speed broadband However, its emphasis on building on contemporary processes of government rather than using it as an opportunity for reform has resulted in it being less innovative compared to countries such as Canada and Finland. Their greater emphasis on interactive, citizen-centric and transformative government has resulted in a higher level of use of eGovernment compared to the informative but one sided approach adopted by UK government websites. The Government has slowly come to realise this problem, with new initiatives such as The Digital Challenge and more recently Transformational Government, which aims to put customer centric services, shared services and professionalism at the heart of UK policymaking through promoting technology advisors on a par with policy, legal, statistic or economic advisors.[1]


There needs to be a concerted ongoing effort to educate the population about the benefits of the Internet in general use and their interaction with government services such as ‘One Stop Shops’. Without this expensive projects will be underused, reducing the growth of future beneficial projects. Expensive marketing campaigns do not appear to work so well, with people preferring to use more standard but inefficient processes such as Google to find their information, making it important for new approaches.


Government drives to encourage use of computers should foster greater confidence in the Internet. As users start to learn more they must be made aware of the options available to them and the benefits. The use of online centres and courses tailored to local needs appears to be working but the investment put in place appears to be very short-term and is already starting to eat away at other projects budgets as funding is drying up. We are still a long way away from making the
UK population confident with using the Internet, let alone creating sufficient demand for government services online. The hope that market forces will make everybody consider the Internet to be treated as a common utility is very strong among policymakers. However, if we don’t sustain investment in ensuring that everybody is part of the knowledge economy then it may take a long time before the ‘Digital Divide’ closes.


The coming trajectory of eGovernment is not so clear cut, with policymakers more content to maintain existing practices than face the difficulties of transformational government starting losing momentum for further reforms. To build on the successes of previous projects will require a higher level of effort and a greater commitment to change organisational structures and processes. The future of eGovernment will become increasingly ideological and challenging to the public sector and the relationship between government organisations, citizens and business and will be as great a challenge to public policy as New Public Management and Deregulation did in the last twenty years. This will occur especially in regards to how much the public sector invests in projects, who provides online service, how it is funded and how society will deal with the ‘Digital Divide’. The benefits from countries using more advanced eGovernment strategies are becoming increasingly apparent. However, it is not too late to catch up in order to fully modernise government.


Written by Jonathan McHugh inJune 2007.

Pa
rt of Electronic Horizon: An Examination of the Importance of eGovernment and the UK Governments Approach to ICT, the Internet and its Impact on Modern Government

[1] Transformational Government (Cabinet Office) 2007

The UK and eGovernment: Chapter V, The Digital Divide



Around 40 percent of adults in the UK have no experience of using a computer and only 50 percent of homes have some kind of access to the Internet. [1] One report even goes far enough to suggest that over 140,000 families are at risk of being excluded by the fast development of the knowledge economy. This even extends to more successful UK cities, with a third of Londoners lacking skills and living in ‘skills poverty’. [2]


Dugdale, Daly et al suggest that this is “one of the leading challenges to the success of e-government is the lack of participation in the information society by those groups in the population who are the biggest users of government services.” [3]

The factors creating this Digital Divide are the same historic factors of social exclusion, namely income, employment and age.


Although the costs of PCs and the Internet are becoming increasingly competitive, there are still a large number of people for which these are unaffordable. Efforts to improve equality of access through PCs in libraries and centres help but are unable to fully solve this problem. For example, for socially excluded groups only 6 percent had Internet access at work compared to 38 percent for all
UK users found by an ONS study. [4] Initiatives to encourage employers to increase access to the Internet and ICT training in the workplace should be encouraged, particularly areas with higher incidences of social exclusion.


The most significant factor is age. Older people have lived the majority of their life without going online and many are indifferent to the benefits, despite the potential benefits to them.


There is much debate as to whether the Internet will exaggerate existing social trends, with the more dynamic in society reaping the benefits of technological development, leaving the least off behind, or whether the advancement of broadband and development of technology into all areas of society will eventually make everybody proficient.


For Bourdieu, theories of social reproduction suggest that technological innovation and change unwittingly reinforce existing social power relations and modes of consciousness that legitimises those relations.[5] In the context of the Internet, the socially deprived have limited opportunities to familiarise themselves with technology they stand a greater chance of being left behind by others who are able to benefit from technological advances. GLA research has voiced concerns following research into the Digital Divide that it does still exist and that there is a risk that it will widen rather than reduce, if appropriate measures are not adopted to avoid it. [6]

On the other hand, many consider the growth of broadband and its application in all areas of life in the future will make the Digital Divide disappear. London Connects takes the optimistic approach, considering that this will happen through market forces and intervention by the year 2012, in time for the Smart City Vision.


In regards to the development of eDemocracy, whereby people on the Internet are able to form part of the decision-making process any Digital Divide could have consequences to the form of Democracy in the future. Jenson voices concerns that without significant equality of use and appropriate regulation online public spheres will end up becoming the coffee houses of the eighteenth century. [7] This concern is backed up by Torres, Pina and Acrete, who feel that despite increased government transparency, efficiency and customer orientated service delivery that “technology is behaving as an enabler within pre-existing social and political structures.”[8] However, Jenson still is aware that the opportunity for new media helps to provide “citizens with enhanced possibilities for gaining information and communicating with politicians, which altogether might potentially lead to a revitalisation of the public sphere.” [9]


As Warscauer points out, there is no overriding factor for determining or closing such a divide, as it is “woven into social systems and processes.” To deal with this he argues that this involves “not only providing computers and Internet links or shifting to online patterns but also developing relevant content in diverse languages, promoting literacy and education and mobilising community and institutional support toward achieving community goals.”[10]

One of the main concerns for people attempting to counteract symptoms of deprivation is that ICT is often not articulated in any meaningful or coherent way. For example, in London there is no evidence or data with which to measure local demand for ICT which makes it difficult for policymakers to support and continue ICT projects, as it is difficult to make business cases from their budget or apply for government grants.


Reaching Out to Disadvantaged Group


There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to encouraging use of the Internet, with experience showing that a careful understanding of target groups and their needs is critical to any project success. This approach is likely to benefit local authorities rather than central government, given their greater contact and understanding of constituents’ issues.

The route to users buying computers at home is usually two stage. Firstly, people experiment with the Internet in public access points. This usually lasted a couple of months, with only 26 percent of participants using the Internet for less than twelve months having access from home. [11] If people purchase a computer later it is because their greater use has made then more aware of its benefits.

Where participants use the Internet [12]


Centres

The
UK has been successful at creating an infrastructure for everybody to have the opportunity to access the Internet, such as through a network of over 6000 UK Online centres, providing community-based access and learning points.[13] Also, the Peoples Network Initiative (PNI), a National Lottery initiative has helped to invest £120 million in key frontline services[14] through putting computers in every library in the country.


Research has found that these centres and IT facilities have played a very important role in assisting socially excluded groups to get online. Clayton considers that with 340 million visits a year public libraries are the biggest generator in ‘customer capital’ in the local public sector. [15] The interest from many in learning how to use computers from many people who lacked basic literacy skills was a major encouragement for such centres, as the curiosity factor was enough to initiate self betterment from some. One poll on the effect of informal ICT learning from library users was highly positive, with:

51 percent ending up having the Internet at home

42 percent making online purchases

77 percent becoming more interested and confident in working

36 percent applying for a job or starting up a business

40 percent finding a job

48 percent progressing to accredited training courses[16]


However, there are concerns for the infrastructure. Firstly, many of these centres lack of scale or size has left them unable to develop their activities sufficiently. A more concerning development has been the lack of long-term funding for computing equipment, as the PNI investment was one off. The cost of sustaining computers, including upgrades, servicing and software licensing is getting to the point where libraries are having to make the difficult choice between scaling back the number of computers available or cut funding in books. Clayton and Hepworth consider part of this funding crisis to be as a result of libraries ‘falling between the cracks or silos’, between the DfES, DCMS, and ODPM nationally, and between council departments and partnership agencies locally and regionally. [17]


There have been a number of concerns raised by participants that there is a bewildering array of Internet training and skills development courses offered by ICT centres and learning centres. Some policymakers have suggested that one way to deal with this is to create a Public Resource Centre to provide a unified front to people enquiring for courses and shared access to resources such as staff training, mentoring, equipment and the development of best practices.


Support Structures

There have been a range of support services introduced to different communities beyond just installing centres. These often reflect the communities individual characteristics.


For example, in
Westminster councillors noticed a lack of interest from its Bengali community in its libraries. To counteract this they hired an outreach worker who could speak Bengali in order to teach ICT courses. This was a huge success, with over 59 percent of the Bengali community becoming active library users, particularly women, far higher than the 5 percent target envisaged. The library involved has now become the main point of access to community services of the Bengali community in Westminster and has now helped many to get onto the jobs market.


The importance of community-based advocates of Internet technology has slowly been realised. Research has found that many new Internet users are keen to volunteer and to assist others to start using the Internet. They would be useful in buddy schemes or to lead groups to help reduce the stigma of not understanding computers and provide role models to demonstrate the advantages of ICT. Demand for such existing schemes is high and appears to be a cost effective way to reach out to people. However, they need much support and perhaps training in order to reach out and increase awareness of ICT effectively.


Creating forums between businesses and getting them into the same room in order to encourage their use of ICTs and promoting partnerships should greatly increase the strength of UK ICT companies. For example, Brixton Online, a social entrepreneurship works with approximately 150 to 200 businesses a year, providing consultations, ICT packages and workshops to encourage young businesses to embrace ICT.


Encouraging social entrepreneurship is a useful way of building partnerships within the community. For example, the Mayor of London works in partnership with Maxitech to refurbish computers and redistribute them to Age Concern centres in the capital.


Projects

Shoreditch is at the centre of
London’s Smart City plan for 2012. Currently it suffers from being one of Europe’s most deprived areas, with 40 percent of people economically inactive despite having over one thousand SMEs located in an area less than the size of two local authority wards.[18] However, due to massive levels of investment coordinated with the Mayor of London’s investment in the East End it should become the largest ICT literate broadband community in Europe, covering over twenty thousand residents and its businesses. [19]


The network offers an ultra high speed broadband connection five times faster than regular lines. It will offer households:

· Entertainment e.g. digital TV, video on demand, network games, music file sharing

· Welfare to work e.g. Online NVQ courses, basic skills, English as a Second Language courses, local jobs website

· Consumer e.g. local ‘e-bay’ and ‘Loot’ services, online group buying for utilities, repair reporting to local authority, approved list of personal service suppliers like childcare, plumbers, carpenters etc.

· Security e.g. online webcam CCTV across the estates that can be monitored by residents in their homes, through the Network

· Community information e.g. GP Surgery opening times, GP bookings, benefits entitlements

· Communications e.g. free local phone calls, e-mail, PC applications like MS Office and internet explorer, community chat rooms, community voting


For businesses, especially SMEs it will include:

· Network services e.g. latest versions of MS Office, Sage, specialist software needed by knowledge economy enterprises, backup of files on network drive

· Security e.g. Online webcam CCTV, monitoring premises and surrounding areas, that can be viewed by SMEs over the network. Panic buttons and security systems, enabled by the high speed connection.

· Business support e.g. award winning online support packages developed by London Met University New Media lab, online premises matching services, online loan finance through ShOW’s SME loan development fund

· Business services e.g. approved lists of service suppliers such as Accountants, Legal, HR etc.; online group buying of common services such as utilities, online sector forums and networking areas


There will very generous introductory offers to encourage initial uptake. Although there will be a subscription to the service in order to guarantee its long-term sustainability the large economies involved are expected to save households £300 a year.


This investment examines the strengths of weaknesses and creates a framework that should be successful both socially and efficiently at transforming the region.


Written by Jonathan McHugh in June 2007.

Pa
rt of Electronic Horizon: An Examination of the Importance of eGovernment and the UK Governments Approach to ICT, the Internet and its Impact on Modern Government

[1] Acting now to provide for an exciting future (Western Morning News) September 14, 2006

[2] The London Knowledge Economy (Knowledge Economy Network) 2006 p. 6E

[3] A. Dugdale, A. Daly et al Accessing e-government: challenges for citizens and Organizations (International Review of Administrative Sciences) 2005 p116-7

[4] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 8

[5] R. Morrow C. Torres Social Theory and Education: A Critique of Theories of Social and Cultural Reproduction. (New York Press) 1995

[6] The digital divide in a world city, GLA, June 2002

[7] J. Jensen Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison (Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 26 – No. 4) 2003 p350

[8] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 300

[9] J. Jensen Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison (Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 26 – No. 4) 2003 p349

[10] M. Warschauer Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide (MIT Press) 2003 p. 39

[11] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 7

[12] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 38

[13] G. Kuk The Digital Divide and the Quality of Electronic Service Delivery in Local Government in the United Kingdom (Government Information Quarterly) 2002 p. 355

[14] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 64

[15] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 7

[16] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 64

[17] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 65

[18] Shoreditch: The Digital Bridge

[19] Shoreditch: The Digital Bridge