Engagement practices in Estonian Government Agencies

Annika Uudelepp, Maiu UusCenter for Policy Studies

August 9th, 2010

Objectives of the research

• To analyse the overall performance of engagement practices in Estonian ministries

• To map the strengths and weaknesses of engagement processes

• To compare engagement practices of Estonian ministries

• To bring forward lessons learned and best practices• To gather feedback to involvement from non-

governmental partners and information on how they participate

• To propose recommendations on how to develop engagement and how to evaluate the progress in the future.

Multimethod research

Questionnaire for partners 428 respondents, 351 have been engaged in policy formation

Questionnaire for officials

8 ministries, 224 respondents

Case studies 28cases from

8 ministries

Defining engagement

• Engagement is a process of involving the public or stakeholders in policy making.

• Public cervants, officials INVOLVE stakeholders (including informing, consulting, empowering etc).

• Stakeholders PARTICIPATE• Current analysis has only looked at stakeholder

involvement and participation.

T1. Distribution of partners n % Ministry of Social Affairs 114 34.2 Ministry of Education and Research 60 18 Ministry of Agriculture 37 11.1 Ministry of Environment 31 9.3 Ministry of Culture 24 7.2 Ministry of Economic Affairs and

Communications 22 6.6

Ministry of Finance 19 5.7 Ministry of the Interior 14 4.2 Ministry of Foreign Affairs 7 2.1 Ministry of Defence 3 0.9 Ministry of Justice 2 0.6 sum 333 100.0

The objectives of engagement

• 2004 survey reported an alarming divide between ministry officials and stakeholders in involvement. By 2010 they have come closer to each other in their understandings about the reasons (and thus also potential gains) of engagement.

• Main reason for engaging stakeholders is to highlight alternative views and to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to express their views.

• Bigger qualitative change in the stakeholder responses: in 2004 perceived themselves like rather troublesome problem to the ministries, now the focus is more on solving the target groups’ and societies problems in partnerships with ministries.

• Partners still think one of the reasons is their own activity, officials still think it is not important – a difference of opinions that lasts.

Officials(%) Partners(%)highlight alternative views and to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to express their views 41 50

raise the quality of decision making and social legitimacy 40 33improve the laws / policies and the quality of their preparation 40 34to increase stakeholders' awareness of policy decisions 40 20To ensure the balance of different and public needs 39 16To find the best solution for society together with stakeholders 38 43To strengthen cooperation and relation with stakeholders 38 26to collect additional data regarding the draft legislation / policy (what might occur in the implementation, economic, budget, etc.. risks and effects)

37 29

to ensure better implementation and enforcement of legislation / policy documents 36 19

Ministries’ top management favors the involvement of stakeholders 36 -reduce the interest groups opposition to a new legislation / policy documents drafted/adopted 35 25

Engaging stakeholders is compulsory 29 26The stakeholders themselves are interested and want to participate actively 29 39

we emanate from the European Union requirements, international practices 20 18

increase stakeholder responsibility - 10Respondents N 221 349

T2. Why does your ministry/ department involve nongovernmental partners? Why do you think ministries involve your organisation?

The foundations of engagement

• Officials are rather satisfied with current engagement practices and procedures. Partners’ mean evaluation for ministries is “rather good”.

• A new and actual topic, since the Code of Good Practice on Involvement hasn’t taken on very well (approved by Gov. In 2005).

• 57% of officials say that there is no source or systemic basis for determining when to engage.

• 51% of officials say the needs and possibilities for engagement differ greatly between policies. Only Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications has their own Code on Involvement.

• Engagement is mostly reinvented with each case, because it is based on unwritten principles and agreements.

*scale: 1-very satisfied, 2-rather satisfied, 3-rather unsatisfied, 4-not at all satisfied**scale: 1-very good, 2-rather good, 3-rather bad, 4-very bad

T3. How satisfied are you with the current engagement practices and procedures..

top management middle management

specialist

all together

There is no systematic rationale yet, engagement is decided case-by-case

11 44 51 106

37% 48% 57% 50%

When non-governmental organisations might have strong interest in a policy/decision

23 61 57 141

77% 66% 63% 67%

When the policy/decision influences large social groups in society

24 58 57 139

80% 63% 63% 66%

When the media and public at large might have strong interest in a policy/decision

23 44 34 101

77% 48% 38% 48%

When it is distinctly regulated by law

21 39 38 9870% 42% 42% 46%

N of resp. per group 30 92 90 212

T4. In which cases does your ministry engage stakeholders in the formulation of policies?

top

managementmiddle

management specialist all together

Yes, a distinct engagement work plan is drawn up

2 26 20 487% 27% 21% 22%

Yes, engagement is also considered, when drawing up the annual work plan

17 40 49 106

57% 42% 52% 48%

no

4 21 9 3413% 22% 10% 16%

don’t know8 20 21 49

27% 21% 22% 22%kokku

30 95 95 22014% 43% 43% 100%

T5. Does your ministry plan engagement processes into the annual work plan?

Following the Code of Good Practices on Involvement

• Code: http://www.ngo.ee/11583• 25% of officials and 17% of the stakeholders are still not informed about

the Code.• 34% of officials say their ministry/department does (partly) follow the

pronciples of the Code.• That stakeholders were involved in the preparation of the draft as early as

possible is considered the most important principle by partners. Opinions differ, whether ministries follow that principle or not: officials say “often”, but only 17% of partners agree.

• The weakest links are goal setting for engagement processes and assessing the results and engagement overall. Seems that officials see engagement to be an integral part of their everyday work, rather than a separate activity. No distinct beginning and end.

yes Yes, partly no

Don’t know, because not

familiar with the Code

sum

Ministry of Education and Research 16 18 .0 8 4238% 43% 0% 19% 100%

Ministry of Defence 2 3 .0 7 1217% 25% 0% 58% 100%

Ministry of Culture 5 3 0 3 1146% 27% 0% 27% 100%

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

15 8 0 3 2658% 31% 0% 12% 100%

Ministry of Agriculture 11 12 1 10 3432% 35% 3% 29% 100%

Ministry of Finance 8 17 1 5 3126% 55% 3% 16% 100%

Ministry of the Interior 7 9 0 7 2330% 39% 0% 30% 100%

Ministry of Social Affairs 5 13 0 6 2421% 54% 0% 25% 100%

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 4 4 0 6 1429% 29% 0% 43% 100%

All together73 87 2 55 217

34% 40% 1% 25% 100%

T6. Does your ministry follow the Code of Good Practices on Involvement?

Followed

bestFollowed

worstMost

important*Stating the initial assignment, expected result, and

projected effect of engagement19.6 30.4 46.3

Determining the parties with whom to consult, and take their wishes, needs, and distinctive features into consideration

42.0 12.0 39.0

Involving the parties in the preparation of the draft as early as possible and continuing the engagement throughout the entire course of the process

17.2 37.4 61.3

Designing an engagement plan that is as detailed as possible 4.3 17.2 8.3

Ensuring that the public, interest groups, and those possibly affected by the strategic document will be informed

13.2 30.1 31.3

Compiling an interim summary of the course of the engagement, correcting the particulars of the process, and informing the parties of the interim summary

24.5 14.7 24.2

Inform the engaged parties of the results of the engagement 24.2 19.0 24.5

Assessing the engagement and the applicability of its results 4.3 23.0 11.7

Difficult to say 35.0 25.2 5.5

sum 100 100 100

T7. Engaged partners evaluations on which principles ot the Code are followed best and which are nor followed, compared to their assesment of the importance of all principlaes

Involvement at different stages of the policy process

• 7%-points more partners than in 2004 have been involved in policy-making in the earliest stage.

• Significantly greater proportion of partners, who have always or frequently contributed to a legislative or policy draft in its latest round of coordination: from 32% to 47%. Might be said that this has been one of the main carriers of spreading engagement in recent years.

N mean*Always+

oftenthe earliest stage of defining problems and possible solutions 276 1.95

22.1%

drawing up a proposal of drafting a legislation or policy 286 1.87Drawing up a legisltion or policy draft 300 2.16 34.3%

late stage, when the draft is ready and sent out for last consultation and coordination by ministries (e-law) 289 2.37

46.7%

Riigikogu is proceeding the draft 253 1.70Implementing the new legislation / policy document (eg, development-, implementation plan) 254 2.13

the results and impact assessment of the (new) legislation / policy document 255 1.69

*scale:1-never, 2-rarely, 3-often, 4-always

T8. In which stage of policy process and how often has your organisation been involved?

Who is engaged

• Most officials engage experts, trade and proffessionals associations. • Individual NGO-s and foundations are being engaged somewhat

more than NGO associations. • Only engaging politicians has decreased noticeably since 2004.• T9 shows that engagement has spread: more officials responded.• Since most officials have had to think about policy target groups

and who to consult with or engage in policy formation, clarifying participant selection principles is important topic now.

• The most common selection principle is whether a stakeholder represents a social group or subjects of a policy field. 24% of NGOs say they always engage their target groups, 44% engage often.

T9. How often has your department engaged listed stakeholders? % of “always”+”often”

2010 2004

Experts (lawyers, researchers etc) 76 74trade and professional associations 67 67Entrepreneur and business organisations (such as Estonian Employers Confederation) 59 41

individual NGOs and/or foundations 59 41National sectorial associations of NGOs (such as Estonian Union for Child Welfare) 49 36

National associations of NGOs (such as Network of Estonian Nonprofit Organizations) 47 44

Associations of enterprises of different fields (Association of Estonian Food Industry) 45 36

Trade unions 30 31

Small enterprises (up to 49 employees) 26 5

Politicians, parties 26 31

officials partners justified

Interest group is representative of a target/social group 65 59 78

Interest group is competent in their field of action/ in certain policy 58 48 75

There is some earlier experience of cooperation with the interest group 19 47 13

That the engaged paries would offer practical solutions to the policy problems at hand

24 21 42

The professionalism and constructiveness of interest group 4 20 59

Target or interest group has expressed their wish and interest to be engaged 37 17 20

Openness to engage new target- and interest groups 12 2 15

Respondents N 224 315 324

T10. What are key principles of participant selection? the answers of officials and partners compared to which principles are justified in partners’ opinions

Informing and consultation methods used

• While in 2004 informal communication was most widespread, in 2010 officials evaluate personal contacts and informal meetings to be complemenraty communication channels. Information regarding policy processes is mainly spread via official letters.

• It is curious that less officials (than in 2004) said ministres web-page to be one of the main channels for disseminationg information for stakeholders.

• Officials: Stakeholders are mainly involved in the negotiations and discussions (eg, bilateral meetings) (52% of officials), and ad hoc committees / working groups (eg development plan workshops) (43%).

• Stakeholders answers shown in graph1..

G1. In what ways are organisations involved in policy processes? Distribution of stakeholders answers

Taking into account the stakeholders proposals

T11. How often does the ministry take into account/use your proposals and additional information when developing legislation or policy documents? (%)

always often rarely neverdon’t know sum

Public sector 2.6 44.7 27.6 1.3 23.7 100

Business sector 2.6 23.1 41.0 5.1 28.2 100

Non-profit sector 2.4 31.6 46.6 2.4 17.0 100

Incl. NGO-s 2.7 33.0 46.5 2.7 15.1 100

all 2.5 33.6 41.4 2.5 19.9 100

• stakeholders don’t think their proposals and information given reflects in policies. In 2004 42% of stakeholders replied, that their proposals are “rarely” taken into account – thus there has been no change during 6 years.

Consider substantially

Repair the wording

Consider as background information

Consider at impact analysis

Haven’t used input from

interest groups

Ministry of Education and Research

41 29 21 27 0100% 71% 51% 66% 0%

Ministry of Defence 4 1 7 3 240% 10% 70% 30% 20%

Ministry of Culture 10 6 4 5 0100% 60% 40% 50% 0%

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

19 14 10 11 086% 64% 46% 50% 0%

Ministry of Agriculture 27 20 16 15 193% 69% 55% 52% 3%

Ministry of Finance 27 19 18 15 093% 66% 62% 52% 0%

Ministry of the Interior 17 8 12 9 185% 40% 60% 45% 5%

Ministry of Social Affairs 17 10 12 11 090% 53% 63% 58% 0%

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 8 6 7 8 073% 55% 64% 73% 0%

Sumgroup

170 113 107 104 489% 59% 56% 54% 2%

T12. How stakeholders’ proposals and additional information is used by ministries when developing legislation or policy documents?

Assessment of involvment process and results

• Striking is the percentage of respondents who did not know whether his ministry/department assesses engagement processes, practices and results: 21-37% of respondents from different inistries.

• It is seen as important, but also officials say the focus of their work is elsewhere. Also, until engagement itself is not very systematic there is no purpose for assessment.

• 33% of the officials said that they have evaluated at the end of the engagement process, but only most important ones.

• Those who do assess engagement, have been interested in whether engaging stakeholders has helped reach better outcomes (legislation and policy documents). There is very little interest in assessing the administrative side of engagement.

yes no don’t know sum

Ministry of Education and Research 19 19 11 4938.8% 38.8% 22.4% 100.0%

Ministry of Defence 1 6 3 1010.0% 60.0% 30.0% 100.0%

Ministry of Culture 4 4 3 1136.4% 36.4% 27.3% 100.0%

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

8 9 8 2532.0% 36.0% 32.0% 100.0%

Ministry of Agriculture 17 8 8 3351.5% 24.2% 24.2% 100.0%

Ministry of Finance 6 21 7 3417.6% 61.8% 20.6% 100.0%

Ministry of the Interior 6 11 10 2722.2% 40.7% 37.0% 100.0%

Ministry of Social Affairs 8 8 5 2138.1% 38.1% 23.8% 100.0%

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 5 4 5 1435.7% 28.6% 35.7% 100.0%

all together 74 90 60 22433.0% 40.2% 26.8% 100.0%

T13. Does your ministry/department assess engagement and its results?

Main problems of engagement

• One result of this analysis is that the stakeholders in policy formulation are facing the same problems than six years ago.

• Ministry officials say to be most exposed to the problem of interest groups inactivity (46% of officials). That assessment has also stayed the same since 2004.

• Even though officials said there is no need for more guidlines of engagement, several problems that are still unresolved can be connected to not hanid core principles and guidelines.

• It is positive that the partners and the ministry officials are quite unanimous in what kind of stakeholder behaviour effects engagement processes negatively and reduce officials motivation to engage better. Noteworthy divide is between opinions is regarding the influence of officials behavior on stakeholders motivation to participate.

n %*Too little preliminary information 161 51.1The deadlines for submitting proposals and comments are too short 149 47.3Not enough human resources 142 45.1Participating is too timeconsuming 115 36.5It is difficult to understand draft legislations 54 17.1Not receiving financial compensation for participating 39 12.4Limited knowledge and experience of participation in the organisation 31 9.8Don’t know how to participate 12 3.8

T14. What are the major problems for your organisation when participating in the elaboration of legislative and policy documents?

*Out of 315 respondents

OFFICIALS: Which problems have you encountered the most when involving stakeholders in policy making?

n %*target groups and stakehoders in my policy area are passive 89 46The political impact on decision preparation (too tight timeschedule, inflexible positions, unpredictable change)

8946

involving is too timeconsuming 77 40involved stakeholders have little knowledge and experience of participation in policy-making processes

7137

engagement processes require budgetary resources, which have not been obtainable

5026

target groups and stakehoders in my policy area are incompetent 33 17knowledge and experience is scarce on how best to involve stakeholders and how to carry out/manage engagement processes

3116

the necessity and usefulness of involvement is doubtful 30 16Within the Ministry there are no uniform principles and guidelines for the involvement of stakeholders

2513

it has not been possible to plan engagement processes into a work schedule of the ministry / department

179

don't know, not familiar with involving stakeholders 13 7don't know whom to involve 7 4

*Out of 193 respondents

partners officials difference

(%-points)N % N %

Engaged party is considered unreliable by the public 46 16 2 1 15

Engaged party doesn’t enable constructive disvcussion 156 53 76 39 14

Engaged party has repeatedly come to consultations unprepared 61 21 28 14 7

Engaged party has usually acted upon their own private interests 153 52 115 58 6

When engaged, the partner has been too passive 107 37 60 31 6Engaged party is incapable of grasping the general picture of the policy and other related fields under discussion

169 58 104 53 5

In previous cooperation the engaged party has backed down from reached agreements at the last minute

- - 30 15

T15. Which negative experiences with the engaged parties might diminish the officials’ motivation to engage the same parties in the future?

Respondents: partners N=293, officials N=197

partners officials difference (%-points)N % N %

A narrow circle of long-term partners are engaged and new organisations have little access

84 28 155 78 50

Engagement is formal, the decisions have already been made by officials 196 65 73 37 28

It is not explaned to engaged parties why their proposals were not taken into account 99 33 115 58 25

The opinions and proposals of other officials are taken into greater account than those of interest groups

111 37 35 18 19

There is no feedback from officials to interest groups about whether their proposals vere taken into account or not

79 26 81 41 15

Officials do not prepare meetings / discussions with enough substance 51 17 47 24 7

The deadlines for submitting proposals and comments are too short 138 45 102 51 6

Decision-maker is not trying to find a consensus between the interests involved 83 27 63 32 5

The views and suggestions of interest groups are not taken into account 91 30 65 33 3

T16. Which negative experiences with the officials might diminish the engaged parties motivation to participate in the future?

In conclusion

• There is more involvement in 2010• Engagement is not systematic and not seen as

independent process, without a beginning (seting goals) and end (evaluating results).

• Early engagement has improved since 2004, but still one of key weaknesses in the engagement processes

• In 2010 the engaged organisations and experts are basically facing the same problems as in 2004.

• The overall attitudes of the officials and their engaged partners are closer now than in 2004. However, there are different understandings regarding the role of the officials.

For further information please contact:

Annika Uudelepp, annika.uudelepp@praxis.ee

Maiu Uus, maiu.uus@praxis.ee

http://www.praxis.ee