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.

Transparency, a scholarly pursuit

An interesting post in the site NextGov (“technology and the business of government”) posits that “the practice of disclosing government data in a way that is meaningful to the public and holds the government accountable could become a growing area of scholarly interest.” In other words, transparency is gaining interest.

In particular, scholarly interest. The article notes that Obama’s transparency promises played a large role in making open government a priority by giving the idea a high profile, even if his policies in effect have been worthy of some criticism. This increased attention on transparency makes it easier to obtain funding for projects related to releasing government data in a usable format.

The article also notes that the body of work on the subject of using data to drive transparency is limited. I recently wrote about how some people are incentivizing the development of programs that would do just that.

The experts interviewed implied three things:

1) Transparency is complete. It means all of the related documents, all information.
2) Transparency comes with the responsibility of interpreting the data.
2a) There is a need for scholars’ perspectives:

“You might need legal experts to be able to explain how information fits into the statutory or regulatory framework; you would need cognitive specialists to talk about attentional issues, human-computer interaction specialists . . . and social scientists of some sort to do follow up.”

3) The collaboration between governments and citizens has to be real. (In fact, one scholar’s concern about Obama’s policies was the lack of genuine participation from citizens.)

The article continues to talk about the need and pursuit of funds for funding the academic study of government transparency. We, of course, are happy whenever any attention is paid to government transparency, from whatever angle. It tends to produce good outcomes. The scholarly angle in transparency can do nothing but add and improve to our current knowledge.