Using openness to improve government transparency

John Moore, who recently wrote about Gov 2.0 for Fortune Magazine, asks the internet what the biggest obstacle to local transparency is.

Moore tries a new crowdsourcing program, Quora, to collect answers. And the answers are all insightful, and come from interesting sources:

Douglas Barnes, Attorney: “The real problem is when there is strong institutional resistance or even hostility towards greater accountability to the public.”Take the NYPD (please). Their policy on FOIL requests? Drop them on the floor until you litigate. Providing data for timely crime mapping or community alerts? No way. The data and the technology is all there — after all, what do you think is driving CompStat? But god forbid the public would ever be brought into the loop in a meaningful way. The Village Voice recently ran an excellent series that highlights many of the reasons the NYPD might have for wanting to avoid transparency: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010…”

The really great thing about this piece is that it’s very much in the spirit of Gov 2.0 and open government. Moore uses an innovative means of finding answers by using Quora. He also uses crowdsourcing, a favorite of open government advocates—include everyone, make their opinions public.

And the responses are expert. One responder notes that a weakness specific to Canadian local government is a focus on technology by the agencies housing records, as opposed to a focus on information delivery. That’s an opinion that identifies remediable problems concretely. It should thus serve as an example to government officials to include us, because we won’t let you down.

The piece is definitely worth checking out.

The Journal of eDemocracy

The second volume of the Journal of eDemocracy is now out, and free for all to read. The journal features articles about transparency and open government under three categories: invited papers, scientific research papers, and case studies.

I’ve written before about how transparency is headed is towards academia. It’s still a happy surprise that it has gotten there so soon. The Journal of eDemocracy’s second issue of the second volume has a lot of internationally-focused, gov 2.0 issues, but there are articles relevant to state and local transparency.

For example, “Procedures and Methods for Cross-community Online Deliberation” by Cyril Velikanov is about how communities can use mass online deliberation to resolve conflict. Governments can take a page from this sort of research to understand how they can incorporate online methods to interact with their citizens.

“To ‘e-’ or not to ‘e-’: Re-locating innovation in ‘electronic’ decision-making” by Ben Li looks at the variable of making processes “e”–that is, electronic. He finds that whether or not something is “e” has little to do with whether it serves to promote democratic outcomes. This is also applicable to local governments: going online and embracing gov 2.0 isn’t all there is to open government.

I look forward to reading more issues of the Journal of eDemocracy. Let us know what articles you find useful.

Open data sites and how to make them worth it

David Eaves is an open government adviser, and at his blog he’s talking about the what it takes to build an effective government transparency portal. He breaks it down into three steps.

First, he recommends governments create their portal so that data is automatically updated.

If you are going to launch an open data portal, make sure you’ve figured out how to automate the data updates first. It is harder to do, but essential. In the early days open data sites often live and die based on the engagement of a relatively small community or early adopters – the people who will initially make the data come alive and build broader awareness. Frustrate the community and the initiative will have a harder time gaining traction.

Not doing this has several consequences. Manual updates of data rely on public servants doing the data updates sustainable. Because these updates are work intensive, they are unsustainable. Also, the herculian nature of manual updates for some of these data sets basically ensure that they will be innacurate, which garners ill-will from tech advocates and developers, who spread the word to citizens.

Second, Eaves also suggests keeping the barriers to entry low:

What you shouldn’t do is require users to register. If the data is open, you don’t care who is using it and indeed, as a government, you don’t want the hassle of tracking them. Also, don’t call your data open if members must belong to a educational institution or a non-profit. That is by definition not data that is open (I’m looking at you StatsCan, its not liberated data if only a handful of people can look at it, sadly, you’re not the only site to do this). Worst is one website that, in order to access the online catalogue you have to fax in a form outlining who you are.

This is the antithesis of how an open data portal should work.

Lastly, he strongly recommends governments “think like librarians”; that is, they’re data should be organized and easy to access. Governments shouldn’t demand that users figure our where they data they need is, it should be easy to find and consume. Eaves notes one Canadian transparency site that offers a phone operator service where someone can help walk you through the site and find data. But this is one step too many: data should be easy to find and use, period. No help desk needed.

Eaves ends his essay by noting that good open data portals are collaborative: they encourage feedback from users and take it into account. I would say collaboration is one of the chief reasons to have an open data site in the first place. One thing’s for sure, though, and that is that if governments don’t have a sustainable open data site, they miss out of all the benefits of it, including collaboration.

Louisville recognized for its great transparency site

The National League of Cities, a taxpayer-funded lobbying organization, recently released a resource guide of governments using technology to increase government transparency.

Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations are funded by public dollars. Officials or local governments will use tax funds to pay for dues to membership to these organizations, which then lobby for appropriations or legislation. Often, these activities go undisclosed to constituents.

The National League of cities (NLC) highlighted the effort of six cities in using technology to increase transparency in their report. Louisville, Kentucky is one of the cities profiled. The city has a tool called “Your Tax Dollars At Work.” This is an excellent tool.

The site has six easy to understand options. These are:
*Where the City Gets its Money
*How the City Spends Your Money
*Louisville Checkbook, which allows you to search expenditures by agency and vendor
*City Employees Salaries (a tool Bell, California could have used)
*Stimulus Funding for Louisville
*Questions & Answers, a frequently asked questions and context section.

Louisville not only discloses key information to taxpayers on its site, but it does it in a visually-appealing way. The website looks modern and simple. But it’s not just appealing in a superficial manner: the layout of the site contributes to how usable it is. It takes more than design to make a website usable, it takes thought. The site is incredibly intuitive and straightforward.

This is important. A government that discloses information in a matter that isn’t usable by its citizens may as well not disclose anything; in the end, no one is using or understanding the information. The same goes for governments that disclose information without context. Even something as simple as meeting minutes can seem abstruse for a person not used to reading information in that format or unfamiliar with certain jargon. I’ve often received information I’ve specifically asked for through Freedom of Information Act requests and had no idea how to approach the list of vendors and purchase orders. Easy-to-understand information is invaluable.

One thing we’ve been working on at Sunshine Review is getting information about organizations like the National League of Cities. Part of what we consider on our 10 point transparency checklist is whether a local government discloses its lobbyists and membership in lobbying organizations. Most don’t. Citizens have a right to know whether their taxes are being directly used to lobby for issues. Either way, we should start demanding this level of disclosure from our governments.

So kudos to the National League of City for promoting innovation in transparency. Louisville is proof that it doesn’t take extreme measures to provide information to citizens. And here’s hoping the National League of Cities may take its focus on transparency as inspiration to proactively disclose more about its functions.

What does it mean for governments to engage their citizens?

A study by Harris Interactive and RightNow Technologies found that most people aren’t feeling “engaged” by their governments:

Ninety-six percent of respondents said the government could improve how they engage with citizens, and nearly 70 percent think that the government should prioritize social networks to engage the public, the study found.

92 percent of 18 to 34-year-olds preferred online communication to phone or in-person communication. Because governments are entrusted with serving citiznes, officials should take note and really focus on their efforts to reach out to citizens through a means they want to use.

But what does “engagement” really entail?

A blog post at CSEDEV, an information technology consulting firm, hails the innovation in San Francisco after the city opened up its data. One particularly useful application to utilize open data shows the city’s publicly accesible parking.

While citizens are benefiting from local governments making data public, there seems to be something missing. Knowing the location of available parking is actually knowledge that can greatly improve quality of life. But engagement it is not. The study discovered that 54 percent of all respondents have interacted with the government online. But if this interaction includes passive interactions, like using apps, it seems to be missing the point of engagement.

Again, there is nothing wrong with passive interaction with the government: both governments and citizens can benefit from applications like Maryland’s innovative CitiStat. The application maps out occurences of crime by frequency, allowing citizens to stay safe and enforcement officials to place their resources where they will have the most impact.

But engagement looks a little different. It involves the citizens not just as customers, but as peers. It is a conversation. Cities and agencies could look at the example set by Austin. The city launched an online forum that allows citizens to vote on government programs they feel deserve funding.

Austin’s idea is very basic, but the significance is great. They aren’t merely throwing data out at its citizens; Austin is inviting citizens to participate and really influence how government works.

While everyone benefits from cool apps and open data, government engagement means something more, something stronger. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but if Austin serves as an example, it is clear that engagement doesn’t require a lot of resources or even reinventing the wheel. It requires governments sincerely asking for the input of its citizens, and talking to us online, how we prefer.

Transparency innovation means citizen involvement

We’ve written before about how governments are sponsoring contests involving citizens and small technology companies to better deliver government data.

The outcome of these contests has been positive. The contests have resulted the data released on data.gov becoming useful, data previously criticized as being low quality, into maps that display geographic clusters of asthma, for example. In Washington, D.C., the value of the software created by the first Apps for Democracy competition is estimated to be in excess of $2.2 million. That contest gave out $20,000 in cash prizes.

David McClure of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies for the Obama Adminsitration stated that the government must learn to accept the notion that innovation in governing will increasingly occur beyond the government sphere. In other words, he is urging governments to get used to the fact that they benefit from, and need to, collaborate with citizens in order to maximize the good we get from innovation. And, as noted, that is a good message. The benefits of giving citizens a key to open data are many.

However, that statement doesn’t go far enough. Citizens are important in helping government deliver information in usable, innovative ways, but they are also the most important part of the equation. Government isn’t doing us a favor by collaborating with us; it’s the government’s job to have an ongoing discussion with its citizens.

Innovation in transparency is a great means of ensuring this discussion happens. Ealier this week, the New York City Council held an open meeting, inviting experts and citizens to testify on how the city can make good use of data released by every city agency under a new bill.

Now, private companies are providing a means for beating government to the punch. Bing.com has just launched an app contest, and open data fans are taking that as a cue. The trend of citizens taking advantage of information the government allows us to have is only growing, and we look forward to the continued positive outcomes.

NYC 2.0: Public data access hearing to address open data accesibility and usability

The New York City Council is holding a hearing today to establish open data standards. All city agencies will be in attendance.

The hearing is based on a bill, Introduction 029-2010 (formerly Intro. 991-2009), which was drafted in an effort to increase government transparency and facilitate access to public data. More access means more interaction between government and citizens. The bill will require the City to create a centralized online repository of all publicly available information either produced or retained by the City. Data published under this legislation must be posted in a format that will be readable by any computer device, whether that is a laptop or a phone.

One important question that needs to be addressed is how the information will be delivered. Along with information comes the responsibility of delivering it to consumers. If data isn’t usable, then more data can actually be a burden. However, the benefit of this legislation is that citizens get more information, but technology-centered businesses will also have the opportunity to display their goods. Socrata, social data experts, note the legislation has more than good government benefits:

*The bill will unlock city data enabling web developers and entrepreneurs to interact with City government in new ways.
*Data published under this legislation will be readable by any computer device for innovative developments.

The benefits so far are: More access, re-energizing of technology sectors, more government involvement, and ultimately cheaper data. Digital Democracy, a nonprofit based out of New York, will focus its testimony on the benefits open data in real time will have for students. “Young people would be engaged in meaningful ways with the world around them.”

Another testimony comes from the Manhattan Institute, which urges the proactive disclosure of information by governments. They suggest posting responses to the state’s Freedom of Information Act, the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), online so that the requester can have an easy to work with digital response, and other citizens can benefit from the availability of the information requested.

In the spirit of Gov 2.0, the hearing is being livecast. Let us know what your favorite panels are and what ideas you think can benefit your city.

Citizens making the most of open information, government returns the favor

Government 2.0 is the combination of innovation by government, transparency of its processes, collaboration among its members, and participation of citizens. Mark Drapeau notes that these steps taken together “constitute a huge transformation of government, at any level.”

That transformation hasn’t happened yet. But it is starting.

The Obama Administration’s open data initiative, data.gov, has been criticized for the lack of value of the data sets disclosed. But the innovators on the net have made it so these data sets are actually useful.

The Institute for the Future has summarized five of the top innovations they have seen inspired by the data sets. While the apps and websites are just really cool in the fact that they look sleek and they offer ways of interpreting information that weren’t available to us before, there’s a very practical aspect to them. They make data relevant to our lives. Specifically using health data, new apps and websites unveiled at the Community Health Data Forum were able to create an “asthma map” detailing occurences of asthma by geography, for example, and Sonoma County integrated the data to gauge the health status of different communities. The are worth reading about in detail.

Those innovations are an excellent example of how government can involve citizens and partner with them to offer a better end-product for information distribution and consumption. And while the government’s response so far hasn’t been unanimously praised, it is a sign that government is working towards Gov 2.0.

In Canada, government employees are receiving Twitter training. The training in itself is not what is newsworthy, but rather what it symbolizes: a real government commitment to understand how citizens communicate, and a commitment to attempt to better disburse information.

California and Gov 2.0: Innovation in transparency

Gov 2.0 isn’t just hip and trendy; it can lead to real change.

What is Gov 2.0? Any government initiative designed to better give citizens information through online innovation, whether that be a sleek website design or a revolutionary application that brings local government transparency to your phone.

The state of California, with the help of the Center for Digital Government, will partner with Microsoft, Google and Programmable Web to run an apps contest this summer to seize the benefits of Gov 2.0.

California’s transparency app contest comes with a refreshed Data.CA.gov, which contains over 100 million records in several different file types.

California wants to improve its data for citizens’ use. But as one article notes, such contests come with added benefits to states in rough financial shape:

The value of the software created is often worth more than the prize money distributed. Peter Corbett, the founder of iStrategy Labs, recently said Washington, D.C. estimated the value of the software created by the first Apps for Democracy competition to be in excess of $2.2 million. That contest gave out $20,000 in cash prizes.

That’s a great deal: $2.2 million for the price of 1/100 of that. But the deal is in actuality much greater. The projected price does not take into account several positive consequences. First, the fact that government is involving citizens in helping improve government-to-citizen communications does a great deal to increase the legitimacy of that government. Second, government watchdogs have their job made easier with these enhanced tools, which means they can do a more effective job of uncovering discrepancies, weeding out corruption, and finding honest mistakes. Lastly, having interesting and new ways to display data makes the data valuable in the first place. It’s great for governments to make their data available, but it’s all for nothing if citizens don’t understand it.

Government app contests is a growing trend. The District of Columbia hosted an Apps for Democracy contest, based on Washington’s data catalog, and was followed by Apps for America, which used datasets from data.gov. The Army has joined in the fun and plans on announcing winners of its Apps for the Army contest in August. The World Bank also plans on bringing innovation to its new data catalog, data.worldbank.org.

As boring as this may sound, it is a great source of excitement. For example, this morning on Twitter, the big news on the #opengov hashtag list was the fact that the Department of Health and Human Resources unlocked its data. The Department is also welcoming and tracking suggestions for how to improve its (sleek) website and the data available.

It’s good to see governments start caring about things like usability and innovation. They can be assured that we care back.

Maryland and transparency innovation

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley spoke at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy recently, touting the importance of government transparency and technology. The governor is particularly interested in how technology can help government and its citizens measure progress openly.

The governor has experience in pairing transparency with technology. Maryland instituted CitiStat, an award winning tool modeled after a similar tool in New York City, which aggregates crime data onto a map to determine the best way to deploy law enforcement resources. The Maryland tool is more encompassing than the one it is modeled after and includes performance measures for many city agencies, like waste management and housing. The success of the tool is evident, as CitiStat has been further adopted by governments both in the US and abroad.

The governor stressed the importance of information that is “shared by all” in order to help citizens and leaders understand what is at stake. Another benefit to such tools is that it helps law and policy makers measure the success of their policies. That way, the effectiveness of a new law can be seen immediately, and problem areas can be addressed.

This is just one of the innovative, new ways that technology is being used to help governments be more transparent. We’re interested in innovation that has been going on in your local government in order for government to help meet citizens’ information needs.

Join us tomorrow on Twitter for FOIAchat, our live chat for journalists, transparency advocates, and just regular citizens to share information. We’ll be speaking about innovation in transparency at 2 pm EST, use hashtag #FOIAchat.

Next Page »