Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the EUPAN Learning Team on Administrative Burden for Citizens
Minutes of the sixth meeting of the EUPAN learning team on administrative burden for citizens
Vienna, 20 October 2009
Introductory remarks
Chair (Michael Kallinger) welcomes the members of the LT, followed by a short introduction round
Analysis of the Report on National approaches and discussion on the different approaches
Philip Parzer of KDZ (Competence Centre for Public Management) explained the main outcomes of the analysis, which was based on the provided information of the national questionnaires published in the report on National Approaches (July 2009).
- 55% percent of the countries are using qualitative approaches, 45% does not apply the SCM.
The SCM is important to set up policy targets.
- Simplification of procedures (28%) and E-Government solutions (32%) solutions are the main improvement actions, followed by organisatorial reforms, one stop shops and use of web portals.
- Around life events a wide variety of measures have been taken, mostly dealing with finances. A big category is yet not specified (“others”, 37%), due to lack of detailed information in the report.
- Efficiency (12%) and participation (5%) seem to be the aspects which determine improvement actions regarding AB’s for citizens, as customer orientation (62%) and transparency (21%)
John commented that it would be good to include the progress made over the past 2 years, however, not all data is up to date. This requires an update of the report on national approaches + an additional analysis by country (using the report of May 2008 and a to be updated report November 2009).
Francois wonders if the analysis gives an accurate view of the strategy. Thomas confirms that it would make sense to make a more indepth research to simplification of procedures (28%), as simplification is the main element of public administration reform.
Thomas answers on request of John that ‘skipping of legislation’ is not part of simplification in this analysis.
Maria asks whether what the difference is between customer orientation versus other actions, as the citizens (customer) is central focuspoint. Again, this would require a more indepth analysis. Thomas stresses that ‘participation’ contains all information coming from citizens, like ideas or requests to solve complaints. Question remains: what is the correlation here, as customer orientation should be 100% and we should allow multipurpose measures. Which is the most recognisable impact?
At the moment examples of qualitative measures were not present in the report.
Costumer satisfaction (PM)
Aida would like to see a differentiation of the 37% of ‘others’ in life events. Perhaps split horizontal vs live event approaches (PM)
Vaivra PalancafromItaly would like to update her report on NA as pilots are finally running.
ACTION:
- all contactpersons submit an update of their national approach by mid November to Thijs
Application of the Standard Cost Model in Austria: Baseline measurement for citizens
Theresia Niedermüller, Austrian Ministry of Finance gave a PPT presentation.
Austrian model is based on time and money, by which out-of-pocket costs have been measured by the Austrian bureau for statistics. For the preparation, the experience of this LT has been used. External consultants identified potential AB reductions.
An ex-ante tool (AB calculator) has been developed, which includes time management and an executive summary. A final check of the outcomes is being made by the Austrian ministry of finance. When sending legislative proposals out for consultation, one should annex the results of the ex-ante tool. The tool can be found at (German only!)
Communication with citizens: The new French 2.0 website "Ensemble simplifions"
François Beauvais, Ministère du Budget, des Comptes publics, de la Fonctionpublique et de la réforme de l´Etat.
“A communication tool consistent with the comprehensive methodology of life events and CJM”
The site is divided to clients’segmentation: individuals, businesses, NGOs and local governments.
“The website which listens to the users”, is a site for participation, dialogue and debate.
It has 5 possibilities to participate:
– Votein rating existing proposals
– Commentproposals, in giving one’s opinion about suggested simplifications
– Suggest new simplifications in order to contribute to the work in progress, and help the
emergence of new ideas
– Debate on dedicated fora
– Answer to online surveys
– Every 2-3 month themed consultations, currently a special survey on a theme for each segment of clients, e.g theft and aggression, driving license reform
François shared with us the first lessons of the pilot:
– Sometimes very sharp and documented proposals
– Some easy quick win suggestions
– Good communication tool
–Help to create awareness
John gives a compliment to his French collegues, as Netherlands is thinking how to include web 2.0, and the input from the LT is very valuable. Danny adds that this tool will score very high. A Belgium peer review concluded that our authorities should interact more. We should keep in mind that citizens will not come with solutions, local civil servants will.
Francoise explains that there is no one-to-one feedback to each post on the forum, and input is redirected to contact persons at the different ministries.
Conclusion: Ensemble-simplifions: progresses from a suggestion box to a ‘codesign’ process
“Babypoint” – The Viennese One-Stop-Solution for the life-event birth
Beatrix Hornschall and Franziska Waldmann of Immigration, Citizenship and Registry Officesof the city of Vienna
The Vienna city administration has two one-stop shops in the biggest hospitals of Vienna to issue birthcertificates, provided that the mother has all necessary documentation with her. For this purpose, the civil servant visits pregnant mothers visiting the hospital. The civil servant at the hospital has access to the local citizens database of the city administration, and can directly issue the document.
Illigal persons give birth is no obstacle, according to the law a birthcertificate should be provided. In worst case, only the name of the mother is sufficient. As civil servant I’m not interested if she has a valid visa, it’s about the birthcertificate which can be modified when a pasport of the mother is available.
In case of a terminal sitiuation, marriages can be arranged in the hospital, however, certificates of death are not issued due to lack of HR.
No additional legislation was required to implement this ‘babypoint’.
Next steps until the Meeting in Malta, any other business, concluding remarks
The Swedish Presidency of EUPAN has requested the learning team for input for the upcoming Mid Term Programme, within the three main priorities:
- performing administrations (efficiency)
- administration serving citizens (user orientation)
- sustainable public administration
John kicks off the discussion how this EUPAN LT could continue, as the participants still experience the added value of this LT.
3 options for continuation:
1)as a network of experts
2)working on the challenges provided by KDZ’analysis and ask for a new recommendation
3)align with the SCM network
Currently more and more countries are focussing on AB for Citizens, now the need of sharing experience becomes evident, while simultaneously this LT has expired the EUPAN lifetime.
The particularity of this LT is the multidisciplinary dimension instead of fragmented (SCM/IPSG/E-gov).
EUPAN is there to enlighten the EU presidencies.
AT: continue to share experience, closer to SCM network
MT: continue with SCM, CJM, life events within EUPAN with fewer but longer meetings (2 days). Objects IPSG due to their agenda setting.
ES: Our DG is not in charge of EUPAN participating in the mideterm programme of the presidency. More concrete mandate focussed on methodology. SCM is too technical for citizens’ perspective.
Wishes to continue in a way.
BE: DG: upcoming Belgium presidency: include BR Group, but chances are slim as they focus only on business with 70 participants. Wishes to continue in a way, as without EUPAN no permission to travel.
NO: continue with bi-annual meetings as Norway is currently introducing AB for C
Prefers IPSG above not having any EUPAN setting at all.
FR: Conitue as an ad hoc group for interested people, not in IPSG, eventually SCM. draft a programme with a clear mandate.
SK: Continue, something between option 2 and 3
PT: Had no consultation, but PT is currently starting AB for C programme. Many questions do arise, we need to be able to consult. E-Gov doesn’t have a programme, we can be content provider.
NL: Continue with current multidisciplinary group / pool of experts
We expect others to bring this further. First we need a declaration with the Swedish, within EUPAN. Therefore I suggest to introduce in our expression to the DGs:
- What have we done
- Why it was useful
- Why important to continue
- Support from DGs / countries
Before the Malta meeting we need
- To update the report on National Approaches with specifications of our life event measures.
Each country describes (comparable to the national approaches report) short and clear how it improves the service delivery around a few life events.
The country contribution should answer the questions:
- What is the state of art on service delivery around the life events birth, marriage and death.
- What are the services connected to this life event?
- How do citizens value the services?
- How are the administrative burdens identified (both in a quantitative and qualitative way)?
- What are the main findings/ perceived problems?
- What are the (foreseen) solutions?
- What are the learning points?
- Answer what was the biggest achievement for the LT and for the country.
- To become part of the midterm programme, but not a working group
Deadline for submission National Approaches to Thijs van Welij: 13 November
Next meeting 30 November in Malta.
Provisional agenda:
-Outcome Swedish discussion
-Maltese experiences
-Updated National Approaches analysis
-Collaboration with local level (CZ)
-…