Engagement practices in Estonian Government Agencies

1. Engagement practices in Estonian Government Agencies Annika Uudelepp, Maiu Uus Center for Policy Studies August 9th, 2010

2. 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.

3. Multimethodresearch Questionnaireforofficials 8 ministries, 224 respondents Questionnairefor partners 428 respondents, 351 havebeenengagedin policyformation Casestudies 28cases from 8 ministries

4. 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.

6. 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.

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

8. 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.

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

10. T4. In which casesdoes your ministryengage stakeholders in the formulation of policies?

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

12. Following the Code of Good Practices on Involvement • Code: http://www.ngo.ee/11583 • 25% of officialsand 17% of the stakeholders are stillnotinformedabouttheCode. • 34% ofofficialssaytheirministry/departmentdoes (partly) followthepronciplesoftheCode. • Thatstakeholderswereinvolvedin the preparation of the draft as early as possibleisconsideredthemostimportantprinciplebypartners. Opinionsdiffer, whetherministriesfollowthatprincipleornot: officialssay “often”, butonly 17% ofpartnersagree. • The weakest links are goal setting forengagementprocessesand assessingtheresults and engagementoverall. Seemsthatofficialsseeengagementtobe an integral part of theireveryday work, rather than a separate activity. No distinctbeginning and end.

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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. T8. In which stage of policy process and how often has your organisation been involved? *scale:1-never, 2-rarely, 3-often, 4-always

17. 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.

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

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

20. 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..

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

22. 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? (%) • 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.

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

24. Assessment of involvment process and results • Striking is the percentage of respondents who did not know whether his ministry/department assesses engagement processes, practicesand 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.

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

26. 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.

27. T14. What are the major problems for your organisation when participating in the elaboration of legislative and policy documents? *Out of 315 respondents

28. OFFICIALS: Which problems have you encountered the most when involving stakeholders in policy making? *Out of 193 respondents

29. 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

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

31. 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.

32. For further information please contact:Annika Uudelepp, annika.uudelepp@praxis.eeMaiu Uus, maiu.uus@praxis.ee http://www.praxis.ee