Voting Rights for EU Citizens beta reassessment
Service Standard assessment report Voting Rights for EU Citizens 30/04/2024
Service Standard assessment report
Voting Rights for EU Citizens
| Assessment date: | 30/04/2024 |
| Stage: | Beta reassessment |
| Result: | Amber |
| Service provider: | DLUHC |
Subsequent reports
Service description
This is a use once only service to enable EU electors to answer an eligibility question to determine whether they retain the right to vote or not, following changes to the legislation around voting post EU Exit.
Service users
This service is for EU Citizens who need to confirm their eligibility to remain on the Electoral register as requested by their Electoral Registration Officer. They are citizens of 19 European countries, those which are part of EU but who don’t have bilateral voting arrangements with the UK, who are resident in the UK and are currently registered to vote.
Things the service team has done well:
- excellent team approach to user research, making this a team sport and covering a range of user groups and end to end testing of the whole journey.
- the service is fully accessible and translated into Welsh.
- evidence presented of sharing research findings with Gov.UK, the Electoral Commission to make improvements to the service in supporting information.
- shared research insights with others to make improvements to the invite letter.
- iterated design and content based on user research against policy and legal constraints to help users complete the task.
- identified and shared associated pain points for British Citizens not being aware of the need to re-register.
- involved electoral registration officers (EROs) in the development of the service
- joint working with policy colleagues and other government departments (for example the Home Office).
- the team uses contractors, but it is good to see the contract is in place for 4 years which will provide sustainability in Live Service.
- the team have made use of an existing infrastructure approach, making it easier to support and maintain the service during its lifetime.
- the team have identified a potential “early beta” user they can engage with to ensure the service works as expected.
- the infrastructure of the service has been designed to be easily scaled and using asynchronous/queuing patterns to ensure reliability even if there are issues with downstream systems.
- the team have performed multiple “no downtime” deployments, enabling them to update the service without impacting existing users.
1. Understand users and their needs
Decision
The service was rated green for point 1 of the Standard.
2. Solve a whole problem for users
Decision
The service was rated green for point 2 of the Standard.
3. Provide a joined-up experience across all channels
Decision
The service was rated green for point 3 of the Standard.
4. Make the service simple to use
Decision
The service was rated green for point 4 of the Standard.
5. Make sure everyone can use the service
Decision
The service was rated green for point 5 of the Standard.
6. Have a multidisciplinary team
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 6 of the Standard.
Recommendations:
- the team must provide evidence of Governance documentation including Security Risk Assessment and Departmental Business Impact Assessment.
7. Use agile ways of working
Decision
The service was rated green for point 7 of the Standard.
8. Iterate and improve frequently
Decision
The service was rated green for point 8 of the Standard.
9. Create a secure service which protects users’ privacy
Decision
The service was rated green for point 9 of the Standard.
10. Define what success looks like and publish performance data
Decision
The service was rated green for point 10 of the Standard.
11. Choose the right tools and technology
Decision
The service was rated green for point 11 of the Standard.
12. Make new source code open
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 12 of the Standard.
Recommendations:
- the team must investigate the effort that would be required to separate the service’s source code from the Register to Vote code, or to maintain a separate public repository that “mirrors” only the service’s code.
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns
Decision
The service was rated green for point 13 of the Standard.
14. Operate a reliable service
Decision
The service was rated amber for point 14 of the Standard.
Recommendations:
- the team must explore how they could implement an easy mechanism to “shutter” the service to users more quickly, for example if the service was not behaving as expected.
- the team must continue to ensure that the “break glass” access to the production infrastructure is not needed as frequently (even if notably this is primarily for another service on the same infrastructure).
Next Steps
The team must address the recommendations given for the amber points within three months and share the evidence.