Linked articles

Dematerialization of public services: a connectivity obligation that weighs on the most fragile publics....

 In an article published in La Vie des Idées, the sociologist Pierre Mazet draws up a stimulating, severe and well-founded report on the effects of exclusion produced by the dematerialization of the administrative relationship.  The contribution of this article does not lie in the collection of facts or observations (it is largely based on the work of the digital society mission, the Digital Barometer, the Capacity report or the reports of the defender of rights), but in the analysis it proposes of a demand for connectivity that weighs, first and foremost, on the most fragile groups: it introduces, in particular, a distinction between "digital exclusion and "exclusion by digital means" (as a result of implicit norms of dematerialization that prevent individuals from exercising their rights). He also formulates, in conclusion, a concern about digital inclusion steps that would not tackle "the social inequalities that structure digital inequalities". Pierre Mazet observes, first of all, that "today we do not have a precise census of all the dematerialized procedures. (...) Far from being anecdotal, this state of affairs is symptomatic of a deployment carried out without anticipation or real management, the coordination of the multiplicity of its actors being complicated by the absence of any body or structuring framework of national dimension. (...) This shift towards dematerialization of the relationship appears all the more powerful because it has occurred at the same time as a reduction in physical reception and other modes of contact, reinforcing the perception of a dehumanization of contact with the administrations. As connectivity is becoming " a sine qua non condition for access to administrative procedures", Pierre Mazet is reviewing the work on "non-digitally autonomous" people. "Statistically, the profile of people with "digital difficulties" is clearly established. All the studies indicate a strong correlation between digital use and age, level of education and level of resources: those who are not connected are older, less educated and have fewer financial resources than those who are connected; this remains true for those who are "distant" from the digital world. On the other hand, we have "no figures that would allow us to relate the degree of digital autonomy to the online procedures that the people described must carry out. In other words, they are often blind in terms of measuring the effects, and make any reliable and realistic projection of the impacts of a generalization of the dematerialization of procedures - and therefore of the scope of the measures to be put in place to remedy the situation and support the public - uncertain.) It is indeed a constant in the announcement of administrative simplification to evade the requirements of dematerialization. These requirements are financial and material (connection, equipment) but also cognitive and cultural: " the use of administrative sites supposes other competences than the only ability to know how to connect to Internet": interfaces, procedures of identification and validation, capacities of navigation and location in the succession of the pages and the global architecture of the sites") What's more, "administrative digital technology has its own requirements that distinguish it radically from other online uses (leisure, entertainment, commercial, information). On the one hand, because it is above all administrative: it therefore assumes a minimum of administrative autonomy in order to find one's way around the administrative universe and language; on the other hand, because the effects of a mishandling are out of all proportion to other online uses: a mistake can have dramatic consequences in terms of suspension of rights, often essential to the financial equilibrium of precarious households dependent on the payment of benefits."Exclusion through digital technology" The administrative obligation to connect is thus "very unequal between individuals: a person receiving social rights subject to a quarterly declaration of resources is automatically more obliged to connect than a person not receiving social benefits. We find here the famous double penalty already described by Credoc in 2016, and denounced, regularly, by many associations and by the Defender of Rights. It is the most precarious individuals, both economically and in terms of social isolation, who are the least connected, even though they are more dependent on social rights and benefits and have a greater obligation to do so. "More than digital exclusion, which would refer to a lack of skills of individuals who would not be at ease with the digital, this unequal exposure to the obligation to connect leads us to speak of exclusion by the digital: it is primarily the implicit norms of dematerialization that make users unable to request their rights.  Pierre Mazet proposes a reversal here: he invites us to look "at the production of exclusions by technical processes" rather than "at the (digital) incapacities of individuals, which would make them personally responsible for the withdrawal of their rights. "In many situations, individuals are made unable to apply by the material and behavioral standards required" .. . This incapacitation concerns all the sequences of the access to law process: "on the application process, but also on access to information (increasingly exclusively online), the follow-up of one's approach or even the making of an appointment; it also concerns people with the capacity to use ("digitally autonomous"), but lacking equipment or a satisfactory connection, making it all the more difficult to engage in the process and more likely to abandon it." Disabling effects probably underestimated "We do not currently have any figures that would allow us to objectively assess the impact of dematerialization on non-use," adds Pierre Mazet. "However, feedback from the field is all converging to attest to the extent of the phenomenon: front-line receptionists, social workers and volunteers all describe the influx of people who come to them because they don't know how to use "digital" technology...  The national strategy for digital inclusion in May 2018 had identified these phenomena of postponement of the public in difficulty with the digital to the Communal or Intercommunal Centers of Social Action, town halls, social centers, even media libraries or libraries.  In a survey conducted in a priority district of the city's policy, researchers Gwenhaël Burgy, Vincent Dubois and Thierry Renaudier described as "public intermediaries by overflow" these local public actors who come to the aid of people to carry out procedures. Pierre Mazet adds that "what these digital inclusion actors and mechanisms have in common is that they often rely primarily on non-professional actors (volunteer associations and civic services), that they leave the definition of autonomy relatively open-ended (often reduced to the ability to carry out administrative procedures online on one's own), and that they do not commit to the sustainability of the means they implement. Paradoxically, concludes Pierre Mazet, " these devices for fighting against the effects of digital exclusion within the framework of dematerialization risk missing the challenges of digital inclusion (...) Express formulas of one-shot mediation will therefore neither allow individuals to acquire stable digital skills, nor organizations to empower their users, who will inevitably come back to ask for help at the first modification of the exchange interface.

• Inclusion

Published on 28/05/19



Dematerialization raises questions for social workers about the scope of their activity and the updating of their professional practices

Pierre Mazet and François Sorin report in an article published by the journal Terminal on a survey conducted in the context of the delivery of professional training to more than 200 professionals in the field of social work (community agents, social workers).They point out the " disturbances imported into the professionalism of social workers by the demand for digital assistance (...) The obligation of connectivity imposed on users of public services by dematerialization has thus come to impact the daily work of social workers, by importing a digital dimension into the relationship of assistance and social support (who) must now deal with a strong and recurrent external demand for digital assistance from the users they accompany in the context of their intervention (.... They are thus forced to take on a new dimension, which is in fact unavoidable if they want to be able to carry out their missions of access and support towards rights, but which has not, however, been the subject of any clear definition by their institution" . Agents may find themselves in the same situation as users The two researchers point to a series of difficulties: " Digital assistance is not part of the social work reference system, and digital support has not, for the time being, given rise to a specific theme within social work interventions. "Social workers do not have in their curriculum, learning or approach to digital issues, which would allow them to situate requests for help in the broader framework of "digital cultures". "The agents are not involved in the production of the interfaces they have to deal with, and these interfaces are imposed on them by the users' requests for rights. More often than not, it is in and through their daily work, during requests for assistance, that they discover the sites, the interfaces and their functionalities, the different access and navigation paths, their new features and developments. From this point of view, agents are in the same situation as users: " they must know and be able to master the digital interfaces that are imposed on them externally by the dematerializing institutions, and yet are an integral part of their work.The two researchers thus distinguish two levels of disorders in practice. Digital help is becoming a non-choice in the helping relationship A large number of the professionals we met questioned the appropriateness of taking charge of people's digital difficulties in the context of the aid relationship: "should we help? Shouldn't it rather be up to the social administrations, communities and state services that are massively dematerializing to assume this task?" "And if social work has to play its part in assisting with administrative procedures, for what type(s) of needs, situations, or publics is it appropriate or legitimate to get involved? It is the perimeter of the professional activity that is questioned here by the professionals."In most situations, digital assistance is described as time-consuming and many professionals deplore the growing importance in their activity of preventing the risk of a breakdown in social rights and managing the situations of people who have lost their "administrative autonomy". "Carrying out or assisting with online administrative procedures takes up the time available, to the detriment of a more global approach to people's situations".The question of resources is the second recurring reason for questioning by professionals: computer resources that restrict digital practice (fixed workstations, immovable screens, browsing restrictions, etc.); but also unsuitable reception or interview areas that do not allow "digital practice together" or guarantee the confidentiality of exchanges and information on the screen."Despite these constraints and uncertainties, professionals can hardly remain deaf to the requests of the users they receive. Access to rights and the prevention of non-use are an integral part of their missions and role. Without a clear mandate or explicit institutional positioning, the decision to take charge of digital difficulties therefore rests essentially with the professionals."The pressure that is exerted in their concrete work situation is all the stronger because a refusal or inability to respond to this request for digital assistance would have the immediate effect of leaving the user without a response, and most often outside of his or her rights."If the realization of the digital help has a cost, not answering the request also has a cost for the professional who can have the feeling of abandoning the user to his difficulties and failing in his function and mission ".In this sense, conclude Pierre Mazet and François Sorin, "the help relationship engages social workers and the handling of digital difficulties often appears as a non-choice". Hijacking and tinkering in the context of shared digital practices The second level of questioning concerns the effective implementation of digital aid: how to help, what postures to adopt, what methods and means to mobilize, and for what objectives.The digital help provided by social workers can, in fact, take several forms.It can be to carry out an administrative procedure in the place of a third party, under his control or under his guidance, to explain "how to do it", to familiarize or reassure the user through a demonstration or to "make the person do it", to bring him to carry out "himself" the procedure, following the advice or instructions of the helper."In each of these cases, digital assistance requires looking at a common screen together, and therefore being able to move the screen (turn it) or to be able to move oneself in the interview space, while taking care to keep the information displayed confidential. This is not always easy or even possible when the help is provided in busy or public spaces. "Today, however, neither the hardware configurations nor the design of the platforms to which professionals connect lend themselves to shared use."In the same way, the digital spaces that must be accessed to carry out an online procedure are individual, secure spaces, which are accessed via an identification process and which do not provide for the intervention of a third party."Professionals can thus put themselves in a position of strong responsibility with regard to the administrative situation of the user, while increasing a situation of dependence which they know is antinomic to the ideal of autonomy which they must nevertheless work towards."Faced with requests for digital aid, professionals often appear to be caught up in the tensions of doing: "they know that they should not "do instead", but "do with" or even "let the users do"". Until when, how far should we help? For social workers, "it is a question of positioning themselves professionally in the face of a phenomenon (the increase in requests for digital assistance), in the absence of instructions or a clearly established mandate; and of adopting a professional practice (the implementation of digital assistance) without these objectives (to make people feel secure or to make them independent) being clearly defined. In this respect, digital assistance appears to be largely undefined, in both senses of the word: it seems to have no end in sight (until when/until where should it be provided?), but also without a specific purpose (what should digital assistance aim to achieve?)."Although it has come to impact and upset the terms of support for many, the "digital" does not manage to emerge as an institutional subject that must be defined and framed in general terms - contrary to the constant announcements of the necessary "digital transition" in public organizations.

• Inclusion

Published on 14/12/20



Dematerialization of public services, where do we stand? Findings and recommendations of the Human Rights Defender [Report]

The Defender of Rights had devoted a report in 2019 to the dematerialization of administrative procedures. He warned about a dematerialization carried out " at a "forced march", without taking into account the very real difficulties of a part of the population and the specific needs of certain categories of users ". It made 22 recommendations to the administrations.Three years later, the Defender of Rights (Claire Hédon, appointed in July 2020 as head of this independent authority, responsible for defending the rights of citizens) returns, in a detailed report, on the inequalities in access to rights caused by the dematerialization of public services.In 2021, nearly 115,000 complaints were addressed to the Human Rights Defender, 91,000 of which concerned public services, according to the figures published in the report presented by the independent authority on February 16, 2022. The dematerialization of administrative procedures represents a significant part of these cases. On the basis of this report, she makes 38 new recommendations. A contrasted assessment Measures to promote digital inclusion The issues of inclusion have been taken into account more in the discourse of public authorities in this area, observes the Human Rights Defender. "In recent years, the state has introduced numerous measures to support users in difficulty and to measure and improve the quality of digital services. It has also invested in expanding the possibilities of real access to an Internet of sufficient quality to carry out its online procedures. Improvements in network coverage and internet connectivity are noticeable, with the deployment of superfast broadband and fiber, and an increase in the rate of connection and connectivity. The effort to support users has resulted in the transformation of the Maisons des services au public (MSaP) into France Services centers. As part of the France Recovery Plan, 250 million euros are dedicated to digital inclusion. " This plan has enabled the implementation of measures such as the France Services digital advisors, whose role is to make users aware of the challenges of digital technology and to assist them with their online administrative procedures. The Caregiver Connect tool is part of this same logicOnce deployed, it will enable authorized professional caregivers, via a France Connect identification system, to carry out administrative procedures online in a legal and secure manner on behalf of people who have difficulty using digital tools. The distribution of the Digital Pass targeted by prescribers (local authorities, CCAS, public establishments, companies) has brought vulnerable people closer to qualified places with the aim of enhancing the skills acquired and not focusing on the deficiencies. Finally, in all of the approaches intended to improve support for users, the public authorities are promoting "outreach". A renewed focus on the "quality" of digital services "Alongside the levers mobilized for digital inclusion, a comprehensive approach to improving the quality of digital service was announced as early as October 13, 2017, as part of the launch of the Public Action 2022 plan."The Interministerial Digital Directorate (DINUM) "is positioned as a player in improving the quality of all digital public services . " It contributes to this through the "Observatory of the quality of online procedures", which makes it possible to monitor, according to various indicators (of simplicity, accessibility, satisfaction...) the evolution of the 250 administrative procedures most often carried out on the Internet".Several innovative tools aim to collect users' opinions in order to take them into account in the design or evolution of public sites: the "ServicesPublics+" program designed to identify the difficulties encountered by users in carrying out their procedures, the opening of the "voxusagers.gouv.fr" and "Oups.gouv.fr" websites19, the integration of the "I give my opinion" button at the end of an administrative process to collect the user experience, the "Digital Solidarity" telephone platform, which aims to provide daily answers to citizens' digital problems, the Pix platform, Deployment of territorial hubs that aim to structure digital mediation actors on an interdepartmental scale... "These efforts and public investments reflect a fairly recent awareness of the need to support the transformations that digital technology is bringing about in society, particularly in the relationship with the public service, and as such they should be generally welcomed. However, they are clearly not enough to bridge all the digital divides, nor to ensure equal access for all to public services, with or without digital technology. Continuing difficulties Dematerialization processes that are still inadequate "With regard to the reliability of dematerialization processes conducted by the administrations, some of the difficulties reported in 2019 are still true. In particular, the cases handled by the Rights Defender show once again that some digital processes do not take into account all the situations provided for by the texts. In such cases, digital technology only offers a degraded and narrowed access to users' rights." Service quality monitoring that misses out on those who are in the most difficulty "The systems put in place have a limitation that seriously distorts the analyses that can be made of their results: in most cases, they only collect the opinions of those who manage to connect, or even to complete the entire process.A multi-channel approach that is not designed as the norm Some procedures still do not provide a real alternative to the online procedure. " These situations characterize a rupture of equality in front of the public service, give rise to a feeling of relegation or even exclusion for those who are subjected to them, and contribute to undermine our social cohesion.Physical reception facilities for users that do not cover all needs "When they require users to access their services via the Internet, some administrations make the effort to offer a complementary physical reception service, which is not strictly speaking an alternative to digital access, but which represents a service to support the completion of online procedures. The report mentions, in this regard, the "digital reception points" (PAN) present in the prefectures and sub-prefectures of each department: it observes that the support of mediators there "is limited to support in the use of computer tools".With regard to the creation of France Services spaces, the report observes that this is "still a very young system, which is still being deployed. In the long run, its relevance and effectiveness will certainly depend on several factors: a sufficiently fine network of the territory, the quality of the training and the employment framework for the reception agents who are in contact with users, the constant commitment of the partner institutions, and the sustainability of the financial support.A digital inclusion offer that is poorly known and not very clear The Human Rights Defender underlines " the lack of knowledge of the users of the support systems, including the local public service offer France Services, even though the latter was the subject of a national communication campaign in the second quarter of 2021", a lack of knowledge, "which is not unrelated to their multiplication" . "A large number of actors - local authorities, government services, social security organizations, associations and commercial companies - are developing support tools on various scales, with different target audiences and varying services and approaches. In theory, this multiplicity of services has the advantage of giving users many points of entry, or even of finding services adapted to their personal situation. It also allows remarkable initiatives to emerge. However,"some social support professionals have trouble knowing which is the right simulator or the right training, or the right interlocutor, which service is actually provided, to ensure its relevance or quality". A long way to digital autonomy ..."Digital training cannot, however, take the place of the only policy for access to rights and public services, as the user cannot be held responsible for his or her ability to master the computer tool" observes the Defender of Rights."It is not only illusory to believe that all people who have difficulties with digital technology are ready to become autonomous by means of a simple training, but it should also be remembered that training is not an obligation: users have the "right" not to be trained in digital technology and not to use digital technology for their exchanges with the administration. They cannot be deprived of their access to fundamental rights, nor to the services for which they are eligible, simply because they do not use electronic communications. Short-term funding" The provisions of the France Relance plan that make digital inclusion a government objective provide significant resources for the recruitment and training of digital advisors between 2020 and 2022, but without specifying the funding planned beyond these first two years." The burden and responsibility for the proper functioning of the procedure rests with the user Already in 2019, the Defender of Rights had warned that the digitization of procedures made access to public services conditional on the user's ability to pay: cost of equipment, subscription, costs related to the use of private service providers who offer, in return for payment, to carry out certain administrative procedures (requesting a residence permit, birth certificate, driver's license, etc.) on behalf of the applicants."This transfer of financial burden, which today clearly puts some users in difficulty in accessing their rights, is accompanied by a transfer of workload: on the Internet, the user must obtain information, find his or her way around, fill in online forms on his or her own, keep track of his or her e-mails on one or more messaging systems, update his or her browser and the various software programs required, fully understand the implications of checking this or that box, adapt to changes in the sites, digitize documents, etc." Finally, this transfer of responsibility is accompanied by a new responsibility that weighs on the user: " he or she must be able to do all of this, with ease, without making mistakes, by taking the necessary initiatives to do so. The dematerialization process seems to be implicitly based on a specific conception of what the user should be today, in the digital age: a perfectly autonomous actor, who does not mobilize administrative resources. This is an ideal user, towards which all users should strive. And for those who can't, forced dematerialization is a form of institutional abuse. In addition to a still important digital exclusion, new forms of difficulties for the users are added "Despite the investments and measures put in place by the public authorities, the situation of users has changed little since the previous report of the Human Rights Defender, and most of the observations made in 2019 are still valid today: a significant part of the population does not, in fact, have access to dematerialized procedures, due to a lack of appropriate equipment, know-how, and access to an Internet connection of sufficient quality, and many referrals to the territorial delegates in terms of relations with public services stem from the difficulties generated by the digital transformation.In 2021, the Human Rights Defender observes an increase of 15% in the number of complaints concerning users of public services. Digital divides that are not being bridged "A significant portion of the population does not use online procedures, and of those who do, 13% have difficulty doing so on their own. The inability to access digital administration is not marginal, it affects millions of people." This observation is based on data from the Digital Barometer and the National Observatory of Poverty and Social Exclusion (ONPES). 19% of French people do not have a computer at home, 22% of people have neither a computer nor a tablet at home. 28% of people consider themselves not very competent or not competent to carry out an administrative procedure online. The declared "incompetence" is higher among the least qualified individuals, those with a low standard of living or those living in rural areas, among 18-24 year olds and among those over 70 years old, but regardless of the categories analyzed, a significant portion of the population does not feel competent to carry out its online procedures. 8% of French people do not have a personal or professional e-mail address. 76% of French people aged 18 and over used digital administration in 2020, an action more easily carried out by the most highly educated and privileged groups. In 2019, while in the majority of cases people achieve this on their own without difficulty, 13% needed outside assistance to achieve this. 6% of people failed. For the latter, in half of the cases, people achieve their ends by going directly to the counter of the administration concerned, or by making contact by phone. But in almost one out of three cases (28%) the process was not completed. This observation is also based on the feedback from the 530 delegates of the Human Rights Defender: they report that the dematerialization of administrative procedures represents a significant part of the cases submitted to them and that, for the past two years, the number of complaints related to dematerialization has been increasing."The negative effects of dematerialization also concern caregivers, whether family members or professionals in the social sector, associations, and public officials, particularly in small towns. They all have to adapt to this change over which they have no control. They are thus required to comply with the digital processes decided by the public services, must adapt to them and modify their relationship with the administration. Some populations are structurally penalized by the development of digital administration At the beginning of 2022, 40% of public websites are now accessible to people with disabilities. "This increase can be welcomed as a step forward, but it is not enough to guarantee universal access to administrative procedures, since more than 60% of public sites are still "out of reach" for people with disabilities. "Thesame is true of the situation of detainees, which has hardly changed at all, even though they are faced with the need to carry out administrative procedures in order to exercise their rights.A similar observation prevails for other categories of people, such as people living in poverty, the elderly and protected adults. Obstacles to access to rights seem to have even increased for young people, for some parents or for foreigners, who are still victims of very serious administrative malfunctions that jeopardize their access to some of their fundamental rights. Strengthen the digital inclusion policy and offer users the possibility to really choose their modes of interaction with the administrationsIn this report, the Human Rights Defender proposes ways to help ensure that dematerialization benefits all users, not just a few."Of course, the effectiveness of the digital inclusion policy must be strengthened, it must be set in stone, it must be given resources and visibility, and the quality of dematerialized procedures must be improved. Numerous measures are proposed in this direction, particularly for the populations currently most penalized by dematerialization. It is also proposed to " reverse the perspective and offer users the possibility to really choose their modes of interaction with the administrations so that the public service adapts to the needs and realities of the users and not the opposite (...). The dematerialization of administrative procedures would thus be an additional offer and not a substitute for the counter, paper mail or the telephone. 38 new recommendations To set up a real system of control of the conformity of the public websites to the rules of accessibility, accompanied by dissuasive sanctions and an obligation to take into account, in particular in the specifications of the public markets, accessibility at the time of the design or the reorganization of a site.The Human Rights Defender invites the Government to consider the creation of an interministerial delegation for digital accessibility, which would be responsible for the steering, control and long-term monitoring of the digital accessibility of public services.Introduce digital accessibility training into the initial and ongoing training of digital professionals.Guarantee access to the websites of public services, social organizations and online training sites recognized by the Ministry of National Education and the Ministry of Higher Education and Research for persons deprived of their freedom.To propose to people deprived of their liberty a training in digital tools and an accompaniment in their administrative steps.Involve precarious or poor users, the associations that support them and social workers in the design and ongoing evaluation of public sites in order to understand their difficulties and to study their proposals for adapting their ergonomics and the vocabulary of the forms.Encourage the development of partnerships between fixed-line telecommunications operators and public or private social landlords or managers of student housing, boarding houses or even emergency shelters, to offer these tenants a connection at a negotiated solidarity price.Provide access to internet and cell phone charging in medical and social facilities, including shelters.Develop the recovery and reconditioning of computers, tablets and smartphones, to give them a second life at fair prices, in line with the law of November 15, 2021 aimed at reducing France's digital environmental footprint, which provides that, within six months of its enactment, the Government shall submit a report to Parliament on the measures that could be considered to improve the recycling, reuse and reemployment of digital equipment and on the feasibility of these measures.Better control the cost of calls to government offices, which are still not negligible from prepaid cards, and better inform users of the costs involved in using videoconferencing.To set up "outreach" actions, aimed at those who are furthest away from public services, from digital technology and therefore from access to rights.Simplify the procedures for accessing rights, such as the digital safe.To make adjustments to best guarantee the rights of protected adults. The Human Rights Defender also recommends that the Cnaf ensure that the conditions of access to its website are harmonised for the different statuses of the legal representatives for the protection of adults (services, individuals, agents, families or relatives) so that there are no disparities depending on the way the measure is exercised.Be vigilant in the deployment of the new digital health space, which aims to gather users' medical data in the form of a digital health book (prescriptions, tests, results of analyses, etc.).Extend access to the "Caregiver Connect" feature to family guardians and curators.Train young people in the digital world of everyday life and facilitate the steps they must take as young adults from a single point of entry.Organize consultations within the educational community on the transmission of information on the schooling of primary and secondary school students (grades, homework, absences, etc.) to ensure that this is done in a way that is based on pedagogical choices and not dictated by technology - always with the best interests of the child in mind. The Human Rights Defender also recommends that families should be able to obtain from schools and educational institutions the maintenance of non-digital communications.Accompany the dematerialization with additional staff in all prefectures where processing times are currently too long.The Human Rights Defender reiterates the recommendations made in her decision 2020, in particular: guaranteeing several methods of effective access to public services so that no administrative procedure is accessible only by paperless means; allow users to contact the agent in charge of processing their request in order to be regularly informed of the progress of the instruction of the latter; Establish a procedure allowing the user to report a difficulty - of a technical nature or due to an unforeseen situation - in carrying out the process, by any useful means; allow the agents to whom these difficulties are reported to have sufficient prerogatives to resolve them. Open permanent digital access points dedicated to assisting foreigners in at least every city where a prefecture or sub-prefecture is located, staff them with agents trained in the right to stay - in sufficient numbers - and give them access to business tools enabling them to resolve any technical difficulties encountered by users in the course of their procedures.Guarantee equal access to prefectural offices for all foreigners, regardless of their administrative situation.Modify the system for issuing dematerialized certificates that create rights so that they are issued as soon as a file is registered and considered complete, including to people in an irregular situation.Add to the list of documents required to prove the legality of residence in order to receive family benefits and housing assistance, as set out in the Social Security Code, the dematerialized certificates issued via the ANEF.Further develop the possibilities of multiple access to public services, as the implementation of multi-channel reception cannot be limited to the France Services areas alone. Wherever they are, users must be able to choose the most appropriate method of communication for their situation when dealing with the administration.Adopt a legislative provision, within the code of relations between users and the administration, imposing the preservation of several methods of access to public services so that no administrative procedure is accessible only by electronic means.Make the telephone platforms of all public services (toll-free number) really free and not only the non surtaxation of the calls.Improve user information in order to raise awareness of the fact that administrative procedures are free of charge and to put an end to the practice of directing users to a paying private service.To give the user the possibility of withdrawing, at any time, his consent to dematerialized exchanges, either permanently or temporarily.Introduce the principle of sending paper notifications of the granting, withdrawal or revision of rights, including deadlines and appeal procedures, unless the person expressly consents in advance to electronic exchanges.Guarantee a deadline for making corrections for all administrative procedures carried out online.Include digitally challenged users in the development and evaluation of the dematerialization processes of public services.Group the modifications of the interfaces in order to limit their number so as not to disturb the users, because repeated changes of interfaces and close in time have an impact on the users (loss of reference points, sometimes renunciation) but also on the guides who have to readapt their pedagogical tools of accompaniment (update of tutorials).Adopt in all public services producing online procedures or distributing online information, an approach facilitating the understanding by all of the tasks, steps, choices, important information... This approach, which will benefit all users, should be based on : the use of ergonomics adapted to all and the use of simple vocabulary and wording. In this regard, the Defender of Rights had recommended in 2019 the use of "easy to read and understand" (FALC) language; the development of tutorials explaining how the process works and the documents needed to complete the process. These tutorials, as well as the forms, especially those for foreigners, could be translated into several languages and made accessible to people with disabilities. Develop data sharing and pre-filling of forms between social, national and territorial public services.Develop free WIFI spaces and conduct a consultation on a "right to connection" or a "right to digital access", involving both Internet service providers and vulnerable people. Conduct experiments to determine the best model for making the Internet accessible to all.Take all necessary measures to ensure that the support systems for users are known, that their services are identified and qualified, and that their action is coordinated.Create, at the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of the Civil Service and the Ministry of National Education, an industry for digital mediation jobs, particularly in the local civil service, thus ensuring the sustainability of their action and their usefulness.Promote, in all places where administrative procedures are supported, particularly in France Services areas, the presence of a digital public writer accessible free of charge. 

• Inclusion

Published on 07/03/22



Dematerialization of public services: the Council of State rules on residence permit applications and sets a general framework

In spring 2021, the Government has imposed foreigners wishing to obtain a residence permit in France to submit their application online, via a teleservice, while providing for a gradual entry into force of this new system. Several foreigners' aid associations had asked the Council of State to cancel this measure. "Making a teleservice mandatory is possible, but with guarantees"The Conseil d'État ruled that that, in general, the obligation to use a teleservice to complete administrative procedures with the State may be introduced by the Government. This obligation does not fall within the domain reserved to the law, and there is no constitutional right or principle to prevent it.However, the Council of State specifies that such an obligation can only be imposed if users' normal access to public services and the effective exercise of their rights are guaranteed. To this end, the administration must take into account the nature of the procedure that is being dematerialized, its degree of complexity, the characteristics of the digital tool proposed, as well as those of the public concerned - in particular, difficulties in accessing or using online services.For certain particularly complex and sensitive procedures, the text that imposes the mandatory use of a teleservice must provide an alternative solution: this is the case for applications for residence permits.The Conseil d'Etat sets two conditions for the obligation to use a teleservice for residence permit applications to be legal: " Users who do not have access to digital tools, or who encounter difficulties in using them, must be supported; if it appears that some users are unable, despite this support, to use the teleservice, for reasons related to its design or its mode of operation, the administration must guarantee them an alternative solution. These conditions are intended to take into account the particular characteristics and situations of foreigners applying for a residence permit, who could lose the right to remain in the territory if their application is not registered.Currently, while the Government provides for support for users of the teleservice, it does not provide for an alternative solution in the event of a failure related to the design or operation of the teleservice. The Conseil d'Etat therefore considers that the Government must complete its texts to provide for the existence of such an alternative solution. In the meantime, if a foreigner is unable to submit his application via the teleservice for such reasons, the administration will be required, by way of exception, to allow the application to be submitted using another method.Finally, the Conseil d'Etat clarified, in its response to a question posed by the Montreuil Administrative Court and the Versailles Administrative Court, that prefects could not make the use of teleservices mandatory before the Decree of March 24, 2021, for the filing of applications for residence permits. A much commented decision, which is a milestoneThis decision, sometimes described as "historic ", has given rise to many comments. La Gazette des Communes: Mandatory Teleservice: why the decision of the Council of State marks a turning point Banque des territoires: The Conseil d'État sets limits to the imposed dematerialization Le Monde : Online procedures for foreigners: the Council of State rejects the Government Cimade: the Council of State sanctions the illegal dematerialization of residence permit applications Acteurs Publics : The Ministry of the Interior reminded of the dematerialization of procedures Furthermore, in a notice of December 17, 2015, the Defender of Rights had recommended "that a clause be introduced to protect vulnerable users for any procedure of dematerialization of a public service, by providing for the obligation to offer an alternative way to the digital service".A recommendation taken up in 2019 in a report by the Human Rights Defender devoted to the dematerialization of administrative procedures and to be repeated in 2022 A recommendation taken up again in 2019 in the report of the Defender of Rights dedicated to the dematerialization of administrative procedures: "to guarantee several modalities of effective access to public services so that no administrative procedure is accessible only by dematerialized means".

• Inclusion

Published on 20/06/22



Dématérialisation, difficultés d’accès aux droits et de dialogue avec les administrations, «facteurs de crispation sociale»

« Les dernières années ont été secouées par des mouvements sociaux d’ampleur comme les « Gilets jaunes » et traversées par des mutations, des adaptations brutales de l’environnement social notamment occasionnées par la pandémie de la Covid-19 (…) Il apparaît indispensable d’ouvrir « la boîte noire des attentes, des colères et des peurs » qui traversent la société pour être mieux à même d’anticiper ses évolutions, de capter les « signaux faibles », le plus possible en temps réel ». (Conseil national des politiques de lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion, CNLE).Le Premier Ministre a chargé le Conseil national des politiques de lutte contre la pauvreté et l’exclusion (CNLE) « d’enrichir la connaissance qualitative de l’évolution de la pauvreté ».Apres la publication, en mai 2021, d’un rapport combinant cadrages quantitatifs et études qualitatives, « La pauvreté démultipliée Dimensions, processus et réponses », le CNLE a entrepris d’élaborer un baromètre qualitatif afin d’enrichir « l’approche quantitative habituelle de mesure de la pauvreté » et « produire une connaissance actualisée des catégories de la population confrontées à diverses difficultés et des affects sociaux qui traversent ces publics ».Le Baromètre de suivi qualitatif de la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale du CNLE s’appuie sur les travaux de chercheurs et sur l’expertise d’acteurs de terrain (associations, élus et acteurs publics)Les réponses de ces acteurs ont fait émerger trois principaux résultats :les difficultés sanitaires et sociales qui sont apparues ou se sont aggravées pendant la criseles difficultés conjoncturelles et celles pouvant s’ancrer dans la durée.les facteurs de crispation sociale et aux affects qui émergent dans la société durant ou après cette crise.Des personnes en difficulté dans l’accès aux droits pendant la criseParmi les difficultés qui sont apparues ou se sont aggravées pendant la crise, le Baromètre de suivi qualitatif de la pauvreté pointe les difficultés dans l’accès aux droits :« Les ouvertures de droits ont pu être problématiques pendant le confinement, le constat global des acteurs étant que ces difficultés persistent y compris en sortie de crise».Les personnes les plus concernées sont celles ayant eu nécessité à ouvrir des droits lors de la crise sanitaire : des personnes de nationalité étrangère sans titre de séjour ou ayant besoin de son renouvellement, des indépendants et travailleurs saisonniers ne vivant plus de leurs revenus professionnels, des retraités et notamment des veufs ou des personnes âgées en perte d’autonomie lors des confinements ».« Les mesures de distanciation sociale ont conduit à la fermeture des guichets physiques et à une accélération de la numérisation comme mode d’accès au service public ».« Les personnes peu à l’aise dans l’usage des outils numériques ou dans la compréhension du fonctionnement administratif se sont trouvées dans l’impossibilité de faire valoir leurs droits. Cette impossibilité perdure du fait d’un retard parfois conséquent pris dans le traitement des dossiers de demandes et dans la poursuite de la numérisation. D’autres publics qui jusque-là étaient autonomes dans leurs relations avec les administrations, sont démunis face aux difficultés à les joindre et perdent le contact avec elles ».Des contraintes croissantes d’accès aux droits, de nouveaux besoins identifiés et la persistance de non-recoursLe Baromètre de suivi qualitatif de la pauvreté revient sur les « difficultés croissantes que rencontrent les populations pour accéder aux droits font craindre une hausse du non-recours».« Le fonctionnement parfois qualifié de « dégradé » des administrations se poursuit et les acteurs constatent que les démarches restent complexes, les possibilités d’accueil physique très rares, l’injonction au recours aux démarches en ligne en hausse».« Alors même qu’ils relèvent des besoins grandissants, dont certains trouveraient réponse en allant vers les personnes parfois très isolées et ne connaissant pas leurs droits, les acteurs notent un éloignement accru entre les administrations et les usagers».« Cette moindre accessibilité est à l’origine d’un non-recours dont, par définition, les acteurs ne connaissent pas l’ampleur. Ils relèvent la démotivation de certains qui renoncent à faire valoir leurs droits et dont les situations se dégradent».Les difficultés d’accès aux droits et de dialogue avec les administrations, facteurs de crispation sociale« La montée de l’agressivité revient très régulièrement dans les réponses des acteurs. Beaucoup la constatent sans l’expliquer », observent les auteurs du Baromètre de suivi qualitatif de la pauvreté. « Certains la relient aux difficultés d’accès aux droits et de dialogue avec les administrations. Cette agressivité émane peut-être de situation de frustration engendrée par l’impossibilité de faire valoir des droits et aggravée par l’absence d’interlocuteurs qui seraient à même d’entendre les difficultés rencontrées et de proposer des solutions. Cette frustration s’exprime alors par des comportements agressifs envers les acteurs associatifs ou les intervenants sociaux voire, par des violences dans les lieux de vie et les quartiers ».À côté de cette attente d’accès à des prestations existe une revendication envers des droits auxquels les usagers pensent être éligibles. « Ce sont notamment les échanges sur les réseaux sociaux qui les confortent dans le sentiment qu’ils doivent pouvoir bénéficier de soutiens ou d’aides, que ces droits revendiqués soient réels ou non. Ce mode d’accès à l’information constitue également un signal de l’éloignement entre les administrations et les usagers et d’une certaine défiance des usagers à l’égard des représentants des institutions ».Le Baromètre de suivi qualitatif de la pauvreté et l’exclusion sociale du CNLE repose sur les réponses de 128 acteurs en contact direct avec les catégories les plus fragiles de la société : travailleurs sociaux de départements et des centres communaux d’action sociale, conseillers bancaires, des associations caritatives et gestionnaires de structures (centres d’hébergement, foyers, ateliers et chantiers d’insertion, banques alimentaires), personnes de structures de la petite enfance ou des Écoles des Parents et des Éducateurs, conseillers de Pôle Emploi, éducateurs d’aides éducatives en milieu ouvert, assistants sociaux en entreprise…En mai 2021, dans son rapport au Premier Ministre, « La pauvreté démultipliée Dimensions, processus et réponses », le CNLE formulait « une nouvelle mise en alerte sur la fracture numérique et l’accès aux droits », avant de conclure : « le tout numérique n’est pas une solution pour un accès effectif aux droits ».Le CNLE formulait en septembre 2020 douze propositions pour accompagner les plus vulnérables face à la crise. Parmi ces propositions figuraient la création d’un forfait d’urgence illimité et celle d’une tarification sociale du numérique.

• Inclusion

Published on 17/10/22