Is usability essential to transparency efforts?

Is usability essential to transparency efforts? My answer—you bet it is. One of the most common questions I receive from volunteer writers is how long they should search a website for a checkpoint on our transparency checklist. I tell them that if they can’t find it within a couple of minutes to mark the point as a “no.”

And let’s be honest, most citizens won’t give a website more then 10 seconds to satisfy their curiosity before they’re clicking back to Google. This is why I was so excited to see that Seattle.gov conducted a usability test on the business portal, asking questions like “Contact an elected official about the issue.”

I would love to hear of similar tests being conducted at municipal levels. Questions like “Where is the current budget?” would go a long way towards satisfying watchdog citizens inquiries.

And if any municipal governments are looking for usability test volunteers, I’d be happy to help get this trend started.

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.

Wisconsin senator wants transparency website

Wisconsin leaders are on the path to providing more transparency. Senator Mary Lazich recently wrote an op ed lamenting the fact that Wisconsin does not have a transparency website.

The senator notes that the private sector is able to give consumers information at the touch of a button. Governments should be able to do the same.

Lazich notes three critical benefits that transparency websites offer:

*Online databases can pinpoint corruption,
*Transparency efforts boost citizen confidence in government, and
*Open government encourages fiscal responsibility.

And transparency websites come in at a fair price. Government transparency websites range from costs of several thousand dollars to $1 million. In return, states can save millions. Texas, for example, has reported $4.8 million saved thanks to the state’s transparency portal.

The senator also touches on two points we at Sunshine Review think are key to transparency website. First, she notes that “Design is critical,” which it is. (The idea of making websites that are clear and intuitive is called “usability.”) If you think about it, a transparency website with a confusing design that prevents you from finding information may as well not have any information.

She also thinks that local governments, cities, counties, and school districts, should also be concerned about how they disclose information online. Lazich doesn’t think that transparency is merely a state issue. Every level of government should be communicating with its citizens through information disclosure.

There is one important thing worth noting: Wisconsin isn’t that bad. Here’s the inspiration behind the senator’s commitment to transparency:

Since Wisconsin is one of 14 states that fail to have a transparency website, the U.S. PIRG April 2010 report gives Wisconsin an F grade in providing online access to government spending data.

The U.S. PIRG ratings are on all of our state website ratings. How does its rating of “F” compare to Sunshine Review’s assessment of Wisconsin’s state website? We give Wisconsin an “A.” Wisconsin does not currently have a transparency portal, but it does a decent job of disclosing key information. While a better, more encompassing transparency website would do wonders for Wisconsin, as the senator notes, it is still important to acknowledge when a state does a decent job of being transparent to its citizens.

U.S. PIRG on transparency: more states should do more of it

Along the same lines of the policy brief on Florida’s transparency I blogged about yesterday, the U.S. PIRG has come out with an interesting study on states providing online access to government data, concluding that there are no downsides to government providing data online in a searchable format, there are only benefits.

In Following the Money: How the 50 States Rate in Providing Online Access to Government Spending Data, the authors aim to provide a benchmark for comparing states in their individual road to providing government data online. They start by highlighting several key points about transparency in general. Among these:
*The movement toward Transparency 2.0 is broad, bipartisan, and popular.
*Transparency 2.0 saves money and bolsters citizen confidence.
*Even in leading states, there are many opportunities to improve transparency Web sites.

What does the study propose? Simply put, more—more information, more usability. The study outlines three criteria for Transparency 2.0. First, the portal a government posts its data on should be comprehensive, including all spending data for all levels of government. Second, it should provide all of this information in one site, not make you jump around to partner sites. Lastly, the information and search functions must be user-friendly, allowing citizens to enter a single query or browse common-sense categories.

The study also highlights innovative governments that get creative. San Francisco, for example, recently launched DataSF, a searchable Web site that provides data on a variety of city issues and allows users to comment on and rank the datasets with the hope of improving government performance in the future. The Web site also provides mobile phone apps that integrate the data and provide residents with useful tools. We at Sunshine Review love that sort of

So why should governments embrace transparency, according to U.S. PIRG? Transparency websites can help reduce fraud and misspending. The promise of posting information online makes shady officials know they have citizens to answer to and reminds fiscally irresponsible officials to think twice about a line item. Transparency portals are “excellent tools of civic engagement.” They encourage citizens to work together with government and remove that distance between voter and candidate. The study’s authors note in another section that without accurate and up-to-date data, citizens lack the tools to interact with their elected officials. The lines of communication only flow one way. And for all these benefits and the others detailed in Following the Money, the cost of a web transparency portal isn’t much. Another benefit of transparency: it’s cheap.

Basically, every facet of transparency is a good, inexpensive, money-and-legitimacy saving consequence. It’s like music to our ears. If governments want to ensure a happy citizenry that is engaged, it should collaborate with us by following the spirit and ideas outlined in Following the Money.

Obama transparency update: unions exempt from rules, data guru to advise board

Today, the Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is rolling back rules proposed by the Bush administration that expanded the financial disclosure statements required of labor unions.

Critics note the rules were rolled back while the Obama administration was seeking more stringent regulation of corporate America. This is inconsistent, making some charge that the administration is giving “preferential treatment” to unions.
Besides that, Rep. John Kline of Minnesota notes that rescinding and revoking those rules makes it more difficult for union workers to see how their dues are spent. Mr. Kline said to Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis that Mr. Obama had “made it a point on a number of occasions to talk about this administration wanting to be the most transparent and open administration in our nation’s history.”

Mrs. Solis told the congressman that transparency was the goal, but the department did not want to “overburden a system where information that was previously asked for may not be of much importance or significance.” We’ve heard that before. The focus of transparency and open government is empowering citizens with information, not giving public officials an easy time.

Because the President has made a point to promise to claim he’ll have “the most open and transparent” administration in history,” several times, it is important for citizens like you and I to hold him to his promise and continue reminding him of it.

But all isn’t cloudy on Obama’s sunshine promises. Last week, President Barack Obama announced that he would be appointing Edward Tufte to the independent panel that advises the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. Many people are excited about this, including the nonpolitical. Tufte is a renown information designer, which means the White House’s transparency effort may see some of that innovation we’ve been waiting for.

Innovation in transparency

When thinking about transparency, we often think in terms of the benefits that will come to private citizens. However, there are many direct benefits for governments and officials, including increased legitimacy, reduced duplication, better cross-pollination, and the ability tap into innovation.

The innovation is already under way as governments and private companies look to cell phone programs, known as “apps” (short for “applications”) to make transparency easier, as smart phones are expected to become the dominant platform to access the Web. DotGov, Inc. is developing a mobile program that will provide citizens with tools to interact with and benefit from all the information and services that local governments offer. The company plans to launch its app in May 2010.

One of my biggest gripes against many well-intentioned transparency projects is their lack of usability: either the platform the information is released on is confusing, or the information itself is too raw to interpret. But innovation is starting to touch this problem, too. A $30,000 prize by iStrategy Labs worked to motivate technologists to develop phone applications that help with usability issues, and the results were apps valued at $2.6 million.

It seems that expectations are changing. Now, we ask not just that the government give us information, but that it help us use it. The questions becomes one of making available information better, as opposed to making that information available.

Still, posting information remains commendable, and any government that moves to posting information online deserves praise.