Toward an Accountable Open Government Culture

Posted by Panthea Lee, a principal at Reboot, a social enterprise working to improve governance and development worldwide.

This is the final post in a six-part series on open government.  By sharing the conversations at the 2013 Forum on Communications and Society (FOCAS) and the ideas they inspired, we hope to advance a constructive dialogue around open government and a future of more equitable and accountable governance.

Despite the great many initiatives taking root worldwide, the open government movement has yet to achieve its potential. Open data has been used toward civic ends for nearly a decade, yet its current focus appears disproportionately targeted towards improving the quotidian details of our lived experience. I’ll be the first to applaud the streamlining of public services, but a more efficient e-government is not the same as a more accountable open government.

In other words, enough with the gateway drugs. Let’s get to the hard stuff.

Let’s employ open government initiatives instead of scrutinizing special interests that undermine democracy. Let’s bring open government to bear on how campaign finance and electoral systems are considered by government. Let’s close the gap between what could be done in open government, and what is being done.

The Issue: Limited Understanding, Limited Investment

To realize open government’s full potential, scale of adoption is required from both governments and citizens. To achieve scale of adoption, both sides require greater understanding of the full potential of open government.

It’s a classic chicken-and-egg challenge.

FOCAS 2013 participants agreed that establishing larger awareness of open government’s benefits among both government and citizens is a critical next step.

“Government officials need more success stories,” said Kathy Conrad of the US General Services Administration. “Before they invest, they want more proof beyond the same examples they hear all the time.”

Still, given the relative youth of open government, many initiatives struggle to demonstrate the kind of cost-benefit that public agencies or international donors seek. According to Tiago Peixoto of the World Bank, “[Public sector] funders may think a certain open government initiative shows promise, but they need to first understand the return on investment.”

Here, civic entrepreneurs have a role to play. “There are many conversations in government about what’s possible [in open government], and prototypes can help crystallize those opportunities,” said Nick Sinai of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “That’s where outside partners can add value.”

Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation agreed. She stressed the value of civic entrepreneurs who, compared to government, are more nimble, and have greater freedom to experiment — critical factors in creative problem solving.

“In the early days [of open government], we didn’t fully recognize the importance of entrepreneurs to advancing open government. Today, it’s clear. The depth of [civic entrepreneurship] will be the source of innovation.”

But mission-driven entrepreneurs often have a tough time attracting funding, given private investors’ limited understanding of the open government space.

“Venture capitalists and others that fund small companies need to be educated about the potential of open data,” said Caitria O’Neill of Recovers.org. “They want proprietary data, and the concept of open data is anathema to them.”

For open government to move forward, perceptions need to change.

The Solution: Driving a Culture of Open Government

The work of the Open Data Institute (ODI) may prove instructive. ODI is a UK-based nonprofit that seeks to engage diverse communities in catalyzing open data culture.

“Part of our work is changing perceptions of what open data is and what it can do,” said ODI’s Gavin Starks (pictured above) at FOCAS. “We want to show how data can help solve problems — it doesn’t matter the sector. We need global momentum from global stories that drive awareness about open data and push for standards.”

ODI’s initiatives are diverse in focus and take many forms. It established a physical hub to give London’s open data community a gathering place. It curates resources to share knowledge about what works — and what doesn’t — when publishing and consuming open data. It commissions open data-driven artwork. And it seeks to encourage shared standards and professionalize practitioners through certification.

To demonstrate open data’s value to a wider audience, ODI’s Open Corporates illustrated the complexity — and potentially dubious practices — of well-known multinational companies. It showed, for example, that Goldman Sachs consists of over 4,000 corporate entities globally, some of which are 10 layers removed from its US headquarters. Of those entities, approximately one-third are registered in tax havens. The campaign generated popular interest, including media coverage from Wired, the London Evening Standard, andBoingBoing. As ODI’s Sir Nigel Shadbolt explained, to capture popular interest, we first need relatable narratives.

“From early on, we believed that demonstrating economic value was going to be important for the open data movement,” said Shadbolt at FOCAS. “This, in turn, would help drive social and environmental value. For open data to gain traction in the mainstream, we needed compelling stories to increase depth of impact, and capture people’s imaginations to envision change.”

So far, ODI’s model seems to be working: 25 countries are seeking to establish their own national chapter, as part of ODI’s vision of a Global Open Network.

Ideas in Practice: ODI USA

FOCAS participants saw the benefits of a US chapter of ODI to promote open data culture among key audiences, support professionalization of the field, and encourage dialogue and coordination between diverse actors.

Much like how Red Hat became the ‘missing’ salespeople for open source software, ODI USA would help prime and educate the market. Activities to help advance open government may include working closely with government officials to understand their current challenges, then design and implement initiatives that help address them using open government principles or tools. Or helping journalists understand the potential of open data for public benefit, and sharing these stories with their readers. Or educating funders about what open data is and what it can do to enable informed, strategic investments.

At FOCAS, several participants, led by open government technologist Waldo Jaquith, signed on to lead the development of ODI USA. Since the FOCAS meeting, and with funding from the Knight Foundation, they have already launched the organization and begun mapping their plans, answering questions such as: What can be adapted from the UK model, and what needs to be different? Where would the US chapter’s efforts be most effectively allocated? What impact can it have on open government in America?

Towards our Own Accountability

As the open government community works to educate diverse audiences on the potential of inclusive, transparent government, we must also ensure that not only are we preaching accountability, but we are practicing it, too. Since its inception, many have questioned the viability and utility of open government. For all the tools, commitments, and initiatives, how do we ensure they actually achieve their intended impact?

In 2001, political scientist Archon Fung and sociologist Erik Olin Wright questioned the sustainability of participatory governance models. Empowered, deliberative governance is an innovative approach, they believed, but is yet historically unproven. And based on their survey of initiatives at the time, they warned of unintended consequences:

[O]ne might expect that practical demands on [public] institutions might press participants eventually to abandon time-consuming deliberative decision-making in favor of oligarchic or technocratic forms. […] After participants have plucked the ‘low-hanging fruit,’ these forms might again ossify into the very bureaucracies that they sought to replace. Or, ordinary citizens may find the reality of participation increasingly burdensome and less rewarding than they had imagined, and engagement may consequently dim from exhaustion and disillusionment.

In 2007, civic technologist Guglielmo Celata, in reflecting on his Italian e-democracy site Openpolis, noted, “Administrators are interested in e-participation projects, but they want to reduce the possibility of issues emerging directly from citizens, and of course, they try to change the nature of the project, from a participative one into a consultative one. A kind of Poll 2.0, if one wants to be cynical.”

From 2007 to 2013, a study from Spain showed that in many participatory governance initiatives, municipal governments simply cherry-pick citizen proposals that reinforce the existing positions of political parties, special interest groups, or vetted experts. Other studies have reached similar conclusions: Initiatives are often designed to prevent citizens from freely providing input, only allowing them to choose from proposals already deemed agreeable.

And, in 2013, early reflections on Liberia’s Open Budget Initiative — one of its Open Government Partnership commitments — were not particularly encouraging. Under the Initiative, the Ministry of Finance had set up an electronic billboard outside its office in Monrovia as a bold symbol of openness. Yet several key aspects of the country’s budgets, including government compensation, remain in closed cabinets.

Of course, in discussing open government, we must steer clear of employing false binaries: for instance, a government is open or closed, or a program is a success or a failure. But we should remember that the way an initiative is designed can help or hinder citizens’ ability to provide input on the processes of governance, a state’s ability to meaningfully respond, and our collective ability to ensure the initiative’s accountability. If we are to realize the potential of open government, we must be sensitive to these realities.

So as we continue to secure commitments, build tools, and launch programs, let us make sure we hold ourselves accountable for their impact on human livelihoods.

Yes, the open government community is still experimenting. But we must be thoughtful and intentional in our experimentation. We should first clearly define our goals and assess our progress towards them so that, as a movement, we can understand how to build upon our successes, and learn from our failures. We should be honest in recognizing our biases to enable our own accountability to those we seek to serve. We should be sensitive to the needs of citizens and governments alike, and design solutions that meet the needs of both, and avoid placing unreasonable demands on either. And, as noted in this post, we need more widespread understanding of the benefits of open government before we can realize its potential.

The conversations at FOCAS 2013 were positive steps in this direction. Here’s to citizens and civil society, entrepreneurs and technologists, venture capitalists and international donors, and governments the world over, collaborating to advance equitable, accountable governance.

Open Government Needs Empathy for Government

Posted by Panthea Lee, a principal at Reboot, a social enterprise working to improve governance and development worldwide.

This is the fifth post in a six part series on open government.  By sharing the conversations at the 2013 Forum on Communications and Society (FOCAS) and the ideas they inspired, we hope to advance a constructive dialogue around open government and a future of more equitable and accountable governance.

Bemoaning government ineptitude is a popular pastime. There are times when it feels justified, but usually, it just reveals our lack of understanding on how government works.

“Where are the public sector Foursquares and Twitters?” we ask. “Why hasn’t anyone developed a Kickstarter for government?”

The way the public sector is structured hugely constrains government’s ability to do so.

Rather than assuming what government officials are like and pontificating about why they are resistant to change, FOCAS 2013 participants — which included US and former UK government officials at the national, state, and local level — sought to understand their unique challenges.

The Issue: Government is Designed to Avoid Risk

“[In the private sector], venture capital provides a dynamic and readily available source of funding to seed innovative initiatives,” explains (PDF) management professor Sandford Borins, “while compensation through share ownership enables startup firms, their investors, their employees, and, increasingly, their suppliers to reap large financial rewards from this activity.”

Compare this with the public sector where funding comes from legislative appropriations, civil servants don’t receive equity, and bonuses are comparatively tiny. Also in the public sector, the costs of failure — so often hailed by the private sector as a necessary step towards success — are unbearable. In a cutthroat    political climate and unforgiving media culture, one misstep can end a  career.

In short: the carrots are non-existent and the sticks are omnipresent. Put in  their shoes, would you be able to ‘innovate?’

“We need to recognize the constraints that [civil servants] face and the culture  that has been drilled into them: Minimize risks. A procurement officer’s job is  to dot i’s and cross t’s,” said Clay Johnson (pictured left) of The Department of Better Technology. “Government is risk-averse for good reason. We’ve given it the responsibility of protecting taxpayers’ dollars.”

The Solution: Understand Institutional Culture

Despite the norms of conservatism, there are ways to enable new ways of thinking and doing. To do so, we must first understand how each government culture works. Just like with “citizens” and “communities,” “government” is not homogenous either.

The Boston Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics, recognized to be among the most innovative city governments in the United States, is a unique case. Susan Crawford, a professor and Roosevelt Institute fellow, recently studied the Office to try and dissect what made it so successful.

What is the secret sauce? It’s the leadership and people.

In an era where governments are eager to embrace the latest civic app, Boston Mayor Tom Menino favored human touch over high tech. He long refused to permit voicemail use in City Hall, because he didn’t want Bostonians to get an automatic response when they called. He opted out of adopting the standard, three-digit “311” number for his city services hotline — instead staying with the ten-digit 617-635-4500 — because “311 sounded too bureaucratic…faceless.”

But each government institution has its own personality, dynamic and idiosyncrasies. What works in one place may not work in another. FOCAS participant Story Bellows of the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics said her Office only gained credibility among other city agencies when it was selected as a winner in the Bloomberg Philanthropies Mayors Challenge. While it had always had the support of the mayor, the internal institutional validation that was needed to get other agencies engaged only came with this badge of external recognition.

”Buy-in at the top was necessary but insufficient,” said Bellows. “Given the risks associated with doing things differently, we needed external validation of our ideas.”

Of course, not all cities are lucky enough to have Offices of New Urban Mechanics or chief innovation officers. Some cities, as Caitria O’Neill of Recovers.org reminded us at FOCAS, only have Earl the Webmaster. And even if Earl had the time and technical skills, what would be his incentive to try and “open” his local government?

“In small communities, nothing hinders them from implementing open data,” said O’Neill, “but nothing encourages them or facilitates it, either.”

Ideas in Practice: Government Innovator Cohorts

At FOCAS, John Bracken of the Knight Foundation noted that several participants were “insider/outsiders.” These are individuals who had worked in government but were now outside, or former corporate or nonprofit types that had recently joined government. He encouraged the group to use these unique perspectives to understand how we can enable government innovation. But given the diversity of institutional environments, political will, and resource availability, perhaps we should stop trying to create the perfect conditions for innovation. Rather, perhaps we should empower individuals within government to shape their environments to be more conducive to innovation.

“We haven’t yet had a conscious effort toward helping those working on the inside,” he observed. “How can we find mid-level managers and highlight their work? Can we help accelerate what they are doing by providing support and activating our and their networks?”

With these thoughts, the Government Innovator Cohorts concept was born (see video below). The program would support civil servants with a track record in driving public sector innovation. Ideally, fellows would be long-term civil servants that have both executive visibility and operational resources. Short-term political appointees would not be eligible, as they are typically installed to implement a new policy or mandate, and therefore likely to already have high-level support and ready resources.

Selected fellows would be given skills training in technical (e.g. how to design effective programs), institutional (e.g. how to gain political cover), and managerial (e.g. how to implement public sector change) areas. The curriculum, however, while useful, may not be the key benefit of the Cohort program.

Several FOCAS participants had been involved in similar programs. Andrea Sáenz of the Chicago Public Library is a Broad Residency alum, and Jessica Lord of Github, and Max Ogden are both former Code for America fellows. All confirmed that the greatest value of their respective fellowship programs was the peer support networks they gained. As Cohort fellows continue in their public service careers, having a network of like-minded peers with whom they can brainstorm, celebrate, and commiserate, could be invaluable.

Understand Government to Enable Open Government

Many open government initiatives are driven by empowered citizens and civil society. This, in itself, is not a bad thing. But there is often an implicit negative bias against government in these initiatives.

In Dave Eggers’ “The Circle,” the main character, Mae, creates Demoxie, a platform where critical society questions are decided by citizen votes. She reflects on her creation:

“[Mae] thought of that painting of the Constitutional Convention, all those men in powdered wigs and waistcoats, standing stiffly, all of them wealthy white men who were only passably interested in representing their fellow humans. They were purveyors of an innately flawed kind of democracy, where only the wealthy were elected, where their voices were heard loudest, where they passed their seats in Congress to whatever similarly entitled person they deemed appropriate. There had been some incremental improvements in the system since then, maybe, but Demoxie would explode it all. Demoxie was purer, was the only chance at direct democracy the world had ever known.”

The prose is eerily reminiscent of some of the narrative surrounding open government, rhetoric that serves demand-side goals well. This is a narrative that unites organizers, motivates citizens, and attracts funding. This is also a narrative that can ultimately undermine open government.

In democratic societies, citizens select leaders for their vision and their perceived ability to implement those visions. In electing these leaders, citizens also entrust them to act in their best interest over the course of their term. Open government initiatives have the potential to displace a leader’s medium- and long-term plans for the needs of a loud and organized few.

In Uganda, the monitoring of elected community leaders has shown mixed results (PDF). On the one hand, some monitoring incentivizes leaders to work harder for their constituents. Too much, however, and competent, effective leaders quit.

As we work toward equitable, accountable governance, we need to balance between demanding transparency and participation, and allowing our governments to do what we elected them to do. And we need to ensure our push for “open government” does not lead us down a path where competent leaders with technical expertise and long-term vision are upended by the immediate whims and desires of a small, elite faction. Otherwise, we’re right back to the image of the Constitutional Convention described by Eggers’ protagonist.

Open Government Needs to Understand Citizens

Posted by Panthea Lee, a principal at Reboot, a social enterprise working to improve governance and development worldwide.

This is the fourth post in a six part series on open government.  By sharing the conversations at the 2013 Forum on Communications and Society (FOCAS) and the ideas they inspired, we hope to advance a constructive dialogue around open government and a future of more equitable and accountable governance.

Among open government practitioners, “the citizen” is a beloved topic of conversation. We love to talk about how “the citizen” is frustrated, how “the citizen” should be empowered, and — our favorite — how “the Citizen” will rise up to solve “the challenge.” But who are these mythical citizens? And, more importantly, what are they frustrated about, how will they be empowered, and why on earth do they want to rise up to solve this undefined problem?

At FOCAS 2013, Bryan Sivak of the US Department of Health and Human Services (pictured below) advocated for a more nuanced definition of “citizen.”

Indeed, “citizens” and “communities” are not homogeneous groups. Each citizen or community has distinct aspirations, capacities, and constraints. To develop open government initiatives that citizens find useful, we must start with a more sophisticated understanding of those we seek to serve.

The Issue: We Think We Know Citizens

Open government, at its core, believes that citizens care about shaping the processes and outcomes of governance. Is this true?

A study on political engagement in the UK found that 90 percent of respondents believed political processes were in need of reform. Yet, of the reform ideas they proposed, only 16 percent gave regular people a greater say in politics. While people want improved governance, they don’t necessarily want to be involved in improving it.

Around the world, evidence of citizen appetite for open government values is spotty. Recent Globalbarometer surveys show declining support for democracy throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and the former Soviet Union. Even in Latin America, often touted as a hotbed of civic innovation, surveys found that 54 percent of respondents in the region preferred democracy to other forms of government, and only 28 percent were “fairly” or “very satisfied” with democracy. In many countries, including Open Government Partnership countries Colombia, Peru, Brazil, and Mexico, either a minority or a small majority of people believe democracy is preferable to other forms of government.

Of course, variable faith in democracy does not mean a lack of support for democratic principles. But it does call into question our assumptions about citizen engagement in open government initiatives.

As Frank Hebbert of OpenPlans asked, “why aren’t we building tools that transform the experience of being an engaged citizen?”

Surely plenty of organizations have tried, but often they leave something to be desired.

Take the World Bank, for example, which has been committed to open data initiatives since its first Apps for Development Challenge three years ago. Then-President Robert Zoellick urged entrants to “help change the world by using the World Bank’s data collection to help find solutions to today’s development challenges.” Bank staff wanted to “build really useful applications addressing local problems.”

The winning app produced interactive visualizations of World Bank data. Second place was an app that measures progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and shows how events such as war impact such progress. And taking third place was a tool that enabled people to rank different countries by their personal prioritization of development indicators. While the tools were useful, it’s unclear how they would “address local problems” for citizens in developing countries.

The Bank has tried to improve the accessibility of its tools to diverse user groups. One example is its flagship mobile apps, which lists the World Bank’s portfolio of projects, finances, and procurement data. The app is free, works without a data connection, and is available in nine languages on both the iOS and Android platforms.

That’s the good news.

The bad news? It is 30MB. In Nigeria, a country where over 60 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day, the app would cost about $3 USD to download. Accessibility is also limited by the fact that projects are listed by their Bank code, rather than program name. If a user searched for “Fadama,” an agricultural subsidy program with signs all over Nigeria, they would get a blank screen. Only by scrolling through all of the Bank’s listed projects in the country can a user find Fadama. And project finances are categorized as International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) Loans, International Development Association (IDA) Credits, and IDA Grants, and without sufficient granularity to be useful to a budget monitoring activist or a community leader. In short, the apps’ design limits its ability to “transform the experience of being an engaged citizen.”

The Solution: Design for Citizen Engagement

In terms of user segmentation and effective design, the open government community has a lot to learn from the private sector.

No company worth its salt hawking a new product would claim “the consumer” as its market — and with good reason. A company has clear incentives to know exactly which consumers are going to buy which products through which channels. No market intelligence means no sale and no company. Granted, government agencies are obviously without these same incentives, but the absence of market intelligence on the citizens that may use or benefit from an open government initiative yields the same results: no uptake and no open government.

Companies are also skilled in attracting and retaining users. They don’t take any user for granted: they design interactions and experiences that engage and delight, and use sophisticated analytics to ensure their strategies are paying off. When they don’t, they change course. Open government initiatives would do well to learn from them.

Fortunately, open government initiatives are increasingly attuned to citizen needs and behaviors. Outline, currently in beta, is a public policy simulator that allows citizens to better understand how government budgets and policies will impact them individually. For example, a household can visualize how a tax cut will affect its income, or how a new healthcare bill may impact its health insurance costs. Outline pulls data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Census Bureau, and other government agencies, and puts that data in context for regular people.

CivOmega is also trying to make open government less obtuse and more useful for people. This initiative allows people to ask questions about government in plain English — for example, “what bills did Eric Cantor sponsor?” — and provides users with answers, pulled from multiple open government datasets.

It’s no Siri just yet, but it’s a start.

Usability challenges include rigid syntax requirements for user queries. “What bills have Eric Cantor sponsored?” is incomprehensible. But the CivOmega team hopes to change that soon by incorporating natural language processing to enable a more intuitive user experience.

Ideas in Practice: The Public Experience Network

The Public Experience Network (PEN), a concept proposed at FOCAS, is a step in the right direction. The premise: many of today’s problems require collaboration beyond government, and every citizen has some untapped expertise. So let’s bring citizen expertise into government to help tackle public sector challenges.

This idea itself is not revolutionary. More interesting, however, was that not once were the words “crowdsourcing” or “new platform” uttered in the concept development conversation. Rather, FOCAS participants spoke of people they knew who might participate in such a program. They wanted to know why and how they might participate, and how government could keep them engaged.

Mark Meckler of Citizens for Self Governance (featured in the video below) described a friend who was passionate about mountain biking and would be eager to help design and maintain state parks. Alissa Black of the New America Foundation shared the story of an elderly African American woman in California who had despised government all her life, but when asked to join in a citizen consultation program by her city, she became its most enthusiastic participant. Turns out all she had wanted was for government to ask for her opinion.

Once we understand who the users are, what they care about, and what their lives are like, we can then understand how to work with them. PEN would start by building a network of citizen experts through referrals who would be engaged in specific and discrete tasks relevant to their stated expertise. Participation incentives would be tailored to citizens’ unique motivations. Once the pilot is successful, PEN would experiment with how technology may support or extend existing processes. For example, both government offices and citizens could rate interactions they have with each other so reputations can be a part of structuring assignments.

Going Beyond Citizens?

So we’ve agreed to design solutions that suit citizen needs. But should average citizens be our target user? It depends.

Citizens don’t always have the means, technical skills, or motivation to participate in an open government initiative.

Take, for example, the Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation. Nearly 100 countries have implemented such laws, but their utility and impact have been hard to measure. Filing requests can be cumbersome and time-consuming, meaning citizens often tire of trying. Well-resourced corporations are instead the beneficiaries of FOI. Would resources be better spent helping the average citizen navigate FOI procedures, or would they be better put towards enabling journalists who have the professional motivation to chase hard-to-get data, as well as the technical training to put it into context?

“It’s not enough to give people access to information,” said Evan Smith of The Texas Tribune at FOCAS. “We need intermediaries, such as journalists, to help citizens interpret information, and to enable them to be able to act on information.”

Pierre Omidyar agrees. The eBay and Omidyar Network founder launched the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest after he learned that government agencies routinely rejected journalists’ requests for reports, documents, and other information. The Center provides free legal help to journalists seeking to advance open government. His recent investigative journalism venture — founded with Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill — is another vote for the role of journalists in ensuring citizens are able to benefit from open government, and governments are held to account for their promises.