Engagement practices in Estonian Government Agencies Annika Uudelepp

Engagement practices in Estonian Government Agencies Annika Uudelepp, Maiu Uus Center for Policy Studies August 9 th, 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 nongovernmental 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 officials 8 ministries, 224 respondents Questionnaire for partners 428 respondents, 351 have been engaged in policy formation Case studies 28 cases 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.

T 1. Distribution of partners Ministry of Social Affairs n 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 22 6. 6 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. 6 333 100. 0 Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Finance sum

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.

T 2. Why does your ministry/ department involve nongovernmental partners? Why do you think ministries involve your organisation? Officials(%) Partners(%) highlight alternative views and to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to express their views raise the quality of decision making and social legitimacy improve the laws / policies and the quality of their preparation to increase stakeholders' awareness of policy decisions To ensure the balance of different and public needs To find the best solution for society together with stakeholders To strengthen cooperation and relation with stakeholders to collect additional data regarding the draft legislation / policy (what might occur in the implementation, economic, budget, etc. . risks and effects) to ensure better implementation and enforcement of legislation / policy documents Ministries’ top management favors the involvement of stakeholders reduce the interest groups opposition to a new legislation / policy documents drafted/adopted Engaging stakeholders is compulsory The stakeholders themselves are interested and want to participate actively we emanate from the European Union requirements, international practices increase stakeholder responsibility Respondents N 41 50 40 40 40 39 38 38 33 34 20 16 43 26 37 29 36 19 36 - 35 25 29 26 29 39 20 18 221 10 349

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.

T 3. How satisfied are you with the current engagement practices and procedures. . . in your department? …in your ministry? Partners evaluation on engagement N mean** N mean* 33 1. 73 7 2. 14 130 2. 11 8 2. 25 0 - 22 2. 14 Ministry of Culture Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Agriculture 10 2. 00 1 2. 00 50 2. 18 24 2. 00 3 2. 00 82 2. 21 28 1. 86 3 2. 33 58 2. 03 Ministry of Finance 26 2. 04 4 2. 00 73 2. 48 Ministry of the Interior 15 2. 07 6 2. 33 50 2. 20 Ministry of Social Affairs 21 2. 05 2 2. 50 157 2. 27 Ministry of Foreign Affairs 9 1. 89 2 2. 00 32 2. 03 174 1. 95 28 2. 18 130 2. 11 Ministry of Education and Research Ministry of Defence all together *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

T 4. In which cases does your ministry engage stakeholders in the formulation of policies? top management There is no systematic rationale yet, engagement is decided caseby-case When non-governmental organisations might have strong interest in a policy/decision When the policy/decision influences large social groups in society When the media and public at large might have strong interest in a policy/decision When it is distinctly regulated by law N of resp. per group 11 middle management 44 speciali all st together 51 106 37% 48% 57% 50% 23 61 57 141 77% 66% 63% 67% 24 58 57 139 80% 63% 66% 23 44 34 101 77% 48% 38% 48% 21 70% 30 39 42% 92 38 42% 90 98 46% 212

T 5. Does your ministry plan engagement processes into the annual work plan? top management Yes, a distinct engagement work 2 7% plan is drawn up Yes, engagement is also 17 considered, when drawing up 57% the annual work plan no 4 13% 8 27% don’t know kokku 30 14% middle all specialist management together 26 20 48 27% 21% 22% 40 49 106 42% 52% 48% 21 22% 20 21% 95 43% 9 10% 21 22% 95 43% 34 16% 49 22% 220 100%

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.

T 6. Does your ministry follow the Code of Good Practices on Don’t know, Involvement? Ministry of Education and Research Ministry of Defence Ministry of Culture Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Finance Ministry of the Interior Ministry of Social Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs All together yes Yes, partly no 16 38% 2 17% 5 46% 15 58% 11 32% 8 26% 7 30% 5 21% 4 29% 73 34% 18 43% 3 25% 3 27% 8 31% 12 35% 17 55% 9 39% 13 54% 4 29% 87 40% . 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 2 1% because not familiar with the Code 8 19% 7 58% 3 27% 3 12% 10 29% 5 16% 7 30% 6 25% 6 43% 55 25% sum 42 100% 11 100% 26 100% 34 100% 31 100% 23 100% 24 100% 14 100% 217 100%

T 7. 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 Stating the initial assignment, expected result, and projected effect of engagement Determining the parties with whom to consult, and take their wishes, needs, and distinctive features into consideration Involving the parties in the preparation of the draft as early as possible and continuing the engagement throughout the entire course of the process Designing an engagement plan that is as detailed as possible Ensuring that the public, interest groups, and those possibly affected by the strategic document will be informed Compiling an interim summary of the course of the engagement, correcting the particulars of the process, and informing the parties of the interim summary Inform the engaged parties of the results of the engagement Assessing the engagement and the applicability of its results Difficult to say sum Followed best Followed worst Most important* 19. 6 30. 4 46. 3 42. 0 12. 0 39. 0 17. 2 37. 4 61. 3 4. 3 17. 2 8. 3 13. 2 30. 1 31. 3 24. 5 14. 7 24. 2 4. 3 35. 0 100 19. 0 23. 0 25. 2 100 24. 5 11. 7 5. 5 100

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.

T 8. In which stage of policy process and how often has your organisation been involved? the earliest stage of defining problems and possible solutions drawing up a proposal of drafting a legislation or policy Drawing up a legisltion or policy draft late stage, when the draft is ready and sent out for last consultation and coordination by ministries (e-law) Riigikogu is proceeding the draft N mean* 276 1. 95 286 1. 87 300 2. 16 289 2. 37 253 1. 70 Implementing the new legislation / policy document (eg, 254 development-, implementation plan) the results and impact assessment of the (new) 255 legislation / policy document *scale: 1 -never, 2 -rarely, 3 -often, 4 -always 2. 13 1. 69 Always+ often 22. 1% 34. 3% 46. 7%

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. • T 9 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.

T 9. How often has your department engaged listed stakeholders? % of “always”+”often” 2010 2004 76 67 74 67 59 41 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 Experts (lawyers, researchers etc) trade and professional associations Entrepreneur and business organisations (such as Estonian Employers Confederation) individual NGOs and/or foundations National sectorial associations of NGOs (such as Estonian Union for Child Welfare)

T 10. What are key principles of participant selection? the answers of officials and partners compared to which principles are justified in partners’ opinions Interest group is representative of a target/social group Interest group is competent in their field of action/ in certain policy There is some earlier experience of cooperation with the interest group That the engaged paries would offer practical solutions to the policy problems at hand The professionalism and constructiveness of interest group Target or interest group has expressed their wish and interest to be engaged Openness to engage new target- and interest groups Respondents N officials partners justified 65 59 78 58 48 75 19 47 13 24 21 42 4 20 59 37 17 20 12 2 15 224 315 324

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 graph 1. .

G 1. In what ways are organisations involved in policy processes? Distribution of stakeholders answers Written consultations (by letter or e-mail) and. . . 42. 0 participating seminaries, conferences 29. 7 participatory strategic planning 28. 9 public discussion events 20. 4 permanent advisory board 20. 1 unofficial consultation (personal meetings, . . . 8. 7 submitting comments via public consultation (. . . 8. 2 0% this too not this 20. 4 58. 3 12. 0 43. 1 28. 0 56. 3 27. 7 16. 3 taking part in a feedback survey mainly this 37. 6 23. 3 52. 2 62. 1 40. 2 51. 0 33. 2 25% 21. 6 58. 6 50% 75% 100%

Taking into account the stakeholders proposals T 11. How often does the ministry take into account/use your proposals and additional information when developing legislation or policy documents? (%) always often rarely don’t know never 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.

T 12. How stakeholders’ proposals and additional information is used by ministries when developing legislation or policy Haven’t used documents? Consider as Consider at Ministry of Education and Research Ministry of Defence Ministry of Culture Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Finance Ministry of the Interior Ministry of Social Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sum group Consider substantially Repair the wording 41 100% 4 40% 10 100% 19 86% 27 93% 17 85% 17 90% 8 73% 170 89% 29 71% 1 10% 6 60% 14 64% 20 69% 19 66% 8 40% 10 53% 6 55% 113 59% background information impact analysis 21 51% 7 70% 4 40% 10 46% 16 55% 18 62% 12 60% 12 63% 7 64% 107 56% 27 66% 3 30% 5 50% 11 50% 15 52% 9 45% 11 58% 8 73% 104 54% input from interest groups 0 0% 2 20% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 1 5% 0 0% 4 2%

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.

T 13. Does your ministry/department assess engagement and its results? don’t Ministry of Education and Research Ministry of Defence Ministry of Culture Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Finance Ministry of the Interior Ministry of Social Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs all together yes no 19 38. 8% 1 10. 0% 4 36. 4% 8 32. 0% 17 51. 5% 6 17. 6% 6 22. 2% 8 38. 1% 5 35. 7% 74 33. 0% 19 38. 8% 6 60. 0% 4 36. 4% 9 36. 0% 8 24. 2% 21 61. 8% 11 40. 7% 8 38. 1% 4 28. 6% 90 40. 2% know 11 22. 4% 3 30. 0% 3 27. 3% 8 32. 0% 8 24. 2% 7 20. 6% 10 37. 0% 5 23. 8% 5 35. 7% 60 26. 8% sum 49 100. 0% 10 100. 0% 11 100. 0% 25 100. 0% 33 100. 0% 34 100. 0% 27 100. 0% 21 100. 0% 14 100. 0% 224 100. 0%

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.

T 14. What are the major problems for your organisation when participating in the elaboration of legislative and policy documents? Too little preliminary information The deadlines for submitting proposals and comments are too short Not enough human resources Participating is too timeconsuming It is difficult to understand draft legislations Not receiving financial compensation for participating Limited knowledge and experience of participation in the organisation Don’t know how to participate *Out of 315 respondents n %* 161 51. 1 149 142 115 54 39 47. 3 45. 1 36. 5 17. 1 12. 4 31 12 9. 8 3. 8

OFFICIALS: Which problems have you encountered the most when involving stakeholders in policy making? target groups and stakehoders in my policy area are passive The political impact on decision preparation (too tight timeschedule, inflexible positions, unpredictable change) involving is too timeconsuming involved stakeholders have little knowledge and experience of participation in policy-making processes engagement processes require budgetary resources, which have not been obtainable target groups and stakehoders in my policy area are incompetent knowledge and experience is scarce on how best to involve stakeholders and how to carry out/manage engagement processes the necessity and usefulness of involvement is doubtful Within the Ministry there are no uniform principles and guidelines for the involvement of stakeholders it has not been possible to plan engagement processes into a work schedule of the ministry / department don't know, not familiar with involving stakeholders don't know whom to involve *Out of 193 respondents n 89 89 77 71 50 33 31 30 25 17 13 7 %* 46 46 40 37 26 17 16 16 13 9 7 4

T 15. Which negative experiences with the engaged parties might diminish the officials’ motivation to engage the same parties in the future? partners difference officials N % (%-points) 46 16 2 1 15 156 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 6 169 58 104 53 5 - - 30 15 Engaged party is considered unreliable by the public Engaged party doesn’t enable constructive disvcussion Engaged party is incapable of grasping the general picture of the policy and other related fields under discussion In previous cooperation the engaged party has backed down from reached agreements at the last minute Respondents: partners N=293, officials N=197

T 16. Which negative experiences with the officials might diminish the engaged parties motivation to participate in the future? A narrow circle of long-term partners are engaged and new organisations have little access Engagement is formal, the decisions have already been made by officials It is not explaned to engaged parties why their proposals were not taken into account The opinions and proposals of other officials are taken into greater account than those of interest groups There is no feedback from officials to interest groups about whether their proposals vere taken into account or not Officials do not prepare meetings / discussions with enough substance The deadlines for submitting proposals and comments are too short Decision-maker is not trying to find a consensus between the interests involved The views and suggestions of interest groups are not taken into account partners N % officials N % difference (%-points) 84 28 155 78 50 196 65 73 37 28 99 33 115 58 25 111 37 35 18 19 79 26 81 41 15 51 17 47 24 7 138 45 102 51 6 83 27 63 32 5 91 30 65 33 3

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