Tag: netsquareduk

Government websites need pavements

A simple summary from Steven L Clift about key ingredients for government websites if they are to help strengthen democracy:

The typical e-government experience is like walking into a barren room
with a small glass window, a singular experience to the exclusion of
other community members. There is no human face, just a one-way process
of paying your taxes, registering for services, browsing the
information that the government chooses to share, or leaving a private
complaint that is never publicly aired. You have no ability to speak
with a person next to you much less address your fellow citizen
browsers as a group. As I’ve said for years, it is ironic that the best
government web-sites are those that collect your taxes, while those
that give you a say on how your taxes are spent are the worst or simply
do not exist.

In summary he says websites should be like streets with places to meet and talk. I suppose Steven means government sites should be social objects in their own right.

Review of the new Local Priorities web service from the Dept of Communities and Local Government

I do like the idea behind this new web service from the Department of Communities and Local Government which tells you about your Local Area Agreement.
Local Area Agreements (LAA) are negotiated between a local council (plus the local strategic partnership, like BeBirmingham) and central government. Together they create a list of key improvements and sign a three year deal to hit some key targets – that’s the LAA. Every local authority will have a different set of priorities – Birmingham will include tackling gun crime, Boscombe wont.

This new website uses a map to help us find out what the priorities are for where we live. This is good. In the simple sense information empowers people. If I know what the council or police force’s priorities are I can negotiate with them better. I can improve the way I influence them. I can also decide whether to challenge those priorities and make the case for new priorities. It all helps focus and clarify the conversation between citizen and those who serve the citizen.
So the principal is great but execution has shortcomings. First of all the information isn’t very usable. If I go to the Birmingham part of the site I can’t create a permanent link to this information. Instead I get the link which generates the data from the database:

http://www.localpriorities.communities.gov.uk/LAAResults.aspx

This means that a local newspaper or a local community group can’t link to the Birmingham part of the site to share with others what the targets are for the neighbourhood. Without permanent links the whole web service is based on the assumption that people will come to your site rather than the more realistic idea of letting your information go to where they are on the web.

Next the information lacks detail.

It tells me Birmingham has 35 targeted priorities. I have to presume they are not listed in any order of importance. For example NI (national indicator?) 001 tells me that we have a target called “% of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area”. What it doesn’t say is what that percentage is in Birmingham at the moment and or the percentage we’re trying to achieve. Likewise NI 154 tells me nothing more than one of Birmingham’s 35 agreed priorities is called: “Net additional homes provided”. That’s it. No more place specific detail.

Is this a question of time? Will the extra information about specific numbers for Birmingham be added? If not why not? If so how is this happening?
The whole process could be streamlined if individual local authorities have their own login to add the specifics of their targets.
They could further update it when/if those targets have been met. They could add links to evidence of the achievement, whether text, video or audio. Alongside that residents could leave their comments, a little like public comments on parliamentary debates on TheyWorkForYou. Local residents, newspapers, businesses and communities group could also keep track of this and share it if you provided an rss feed for every local authorities set of targets.

The information could also be used to create a game or competition to encourage local authorities to keep the data refreshed. Politicians like to keep track of who’s on top. They might even respond to a widget which rings a bell every time a target is hit – either in their region, or nationally.

One last thing – it isn’t really local enough. Many people don’t know which local authority area they live in. If we want everyone to easily access the LAA priorities then a postcode or map based search system would be better – integrating perhaps google maps with the site. This is something already done by others (notably mysociety with fixmystreet), so technically is now quite straightforward.
The bulk of these things would be relatively easy to do through ning or perhaps wordpress multiuser – all on the same url as now.

To sum up it’s a good idea but I can’t see many people finding it very useful in its current form.

Birmingham's Local Strategic Partnership on Youtube: Cutting CO2

[youtube:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gvO4_oT5NQE]

Here’s a short film we made last week for Be Birmingham, the city’s recently revamped Local Strategic Partnership.
The film is a short piece which includes Dame Ellen MacArthur talking about the launch of the partnerships CO2 challenge for 2008 – that each of us should look for way to cut 100kg of CO2 in the next year. The yachtswoman is passionate about how we are wasting resources and used her own blog to say how impressed she is with the energy building up here in brum.

In the 100 seconds are also some tips from people on what you might want to do. If you start changing your behaviour to save CO2 you can also sign up here – so your tally is added to the cities huge target of cutting carbon by 60% come 2026. All part of last week’s enjoyable yet controversial Climate Change Festival.
You can comment on the film here and I’d love it if you did.

Hands up whose blog helps them learn? The Charity Commission thinks you're wrong.

I’m frowning at a consultation report published in March 2008 by the Charity Commission.

Public Benefit and the Advancement of Education March 2008 is the commissioners trying to clarify when an educational institution (private school) can or can’t claim charity status. However on page 18 they write:

There are two main aspects to educative merit or value:
• is the subject capable of being of educative value; and
• is the process such that it delivers educative value?

Fair enough, except by way of illustrating point 2 they add:

A modern example might be a ‘wiki’ site which might contain information about
historical events but, as the content is superficial and this information is not
verified in any way, it would not be accepted as having educational value without
positive evidence.
The Commission, having been satisfied on the evidence before it, accepted in a
particular case that an interactive website was a process capable of delivering
educative value as it was capable of delivering learning through improving the
student’s analytical and learning skills.
An individual’s blog, on the other hand, is not likely to be of educative value, as
neither the subject matter nor the process is of educational value.

As an explanation of why key social media tools are mechanisms with limited educational value I would say the report appears to be superficial and I can’t see that the information is verified in any way. I learn huge amounts through my blog and from wikis.

So which of you find your blogs to be of educational value? Which of you have been able to use wikis as a way of learning?

If you want to give the commission feedback on this consultation there doesn’t appear to be a way of commenting online on the document. It would of course be much better on the web not as a clunky pdf but as a wiki or maybe even a blog with a series of pages so we can comment on different aspect of the consultation – and then everyone can learn from it.

The only email address I could find was pressenquiries@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk – which is OK to use because the press office will show a close interest in how the commission communicates and its reputation online.