Azavea Product Specialist Patrick Han and Product Manager Stephanie Thome share how Cicero’s District Match app makes it easy for nonprofits to mobilize their constituents to contact their elected officials.
Okay, I admit it: Even as a champion of open data, I find that it’s often mundane to view data on a portal. Simple lists of datasets — and even the maps and charts you can create — don’t truly show the intrinsic value of data that’s been freed to benefit communities.
Open Gov’s CEO Zac Bookman shares how OpenGov the company’s new open data solution will impact public administration – including how governments engage with citizens such as civic developers.
Having access to timely and comprehensive election data is fundamental to democracy.
While there is much technology that can be sifted into must-have, nice-to-have and maybe-someday categories without a negative impact on smart city advancement, there are a few basic pieces of technology cities will need in order to extract value from the real-time data that has already begun to flow through smart cities.
While it is commonly acknowledged that cities today produce massive amounts of data, it is less often noted that much of the data referenced is not actually produced directly by city systems, but rather by cities’ ecosystems of partners in domains such as transportation, waste and water management and energy services.
An odd thing happened in Dehradun, the capital city of the northern state of Uttarakhand, when the city received news that it would receive funding as one of 100 cities chosen to participate India’s $15 billion Smart Cities Mission. Rather than celebrating making the coveted list, the city instead found itself embroiled in a dispute that saw local activists take to the woods to hug trees in protest against Dehradun’s smart city proposal.
You can accomplish many smart city goals in a timely and inexpensive manner by exploring options for leveraging an existing infrastructure of low-tech, collaborative information and communication technologies like mobile phones, social media, online platforms and low-cost sensor kits, before making hefty new technology investments.
For many years, open access to data has been viewed as an important means of improving government transparency and accountability and deepening citizen engagement, and today hundreds of local and national governments worldwide are using open data portals to publish data and documents that they produce over the course of their operations.
Hillary Clinton released her technology and innovation agenda that promises to expand the U.S. Digital Service and agency-specific digital teams, encourage the continued adoption of open source and open data and bring a more user-friendly approach to federal government operations.
Over the past few days, I’ve been thinking about Omidyar Network’s recent report, “Engines of Change,” and the need to better label and define the movement happening around civics and government with respect to technology.
The Federal Aviation Administration is looking for a chief data officer. Salary is $124,900 to $175,700. Application deadline is July 12.
The state of California is looking for a chief data officer to “promote the availability and use of data in state government.”
“No ugly, old IT” jumped out at me when I first reviewed DataSF’s strategic plan, “Data in San Francisco: Meeting supply, spurring demand,” and it still sticks, mostly because someone inside government was so bold as to make this a priority and openly communicate it and also because this should be a mantra for everyone building civic technology.
“Anonymous access to the data must be allowed for public data, including access through anonymous proxies. Data should not be hidden behind ‘walled gardens.’”
– 8 Principles of Open Government Data
In the world of open data, there are few things that carry more weight than the original 8 principles of open data.
Drafted by a group of influential leaders on open data that came together in Sebastopol, Calif., in 2007, this set of guidelines is the defacto standard for evaluating the quality of data released by governments, and is used by activists regularly to prod public organizations to become more open.
With this in mind, it was intriguing to hear a well-known champion of open data at the Sunlight Foundation’s recent TransparencyCamp in Washington, D.C. raise some interesting questions about one of these principles, typically considered sacrosanct in the open data community.
Andrew Nicklin (formerly at the helm of open data efforts for both the City and State of New York, and now Open Data Director for the Center for Government Excellence at Johns Hopkins University) asked TransparencyCamp attendees to consider some of the implications of the sixth principle on open data – which calls for non-discriminatory access to data. This principle is generally taken to mean that users of open data should be able to access it anonymously and that governments should not require users to identify who they are or what they plan to do with the data as a condition of accessing it.
While there is obvious merit to this principle, Andrew observed that when governments know who is using their data and how they are using it, there are enormous opportunities to enhance the data and make it more useful for data consumers. If governments don’t understand what user’s want, providing useful data that can meet their needs is difficult – strictly enforcing anonymous access to data may end up being be an impediment to better understanding what data users actually need.
Without being directly critical of the principle or the original intentions behind it, Andrew made a thoughtful suggestion for open data advocates at TransparencyCamp to consider. To me, these comments highlight an important issue facing the civic technology community and governments themselves – one that almost no one is talking about.
When it comes to building the infrastructure of open data – putting in place the pieces of technology that users will leverage to find and use government open data – very little thought seems to be given to what users – data consumers – want or need.
The idea of “build with, not for” has become a central tenant to how civic technology solutions are designed and implemented. Yet this idea seldom applies to the platforms that governments use to make open data available, which form the foundation of many civic technology solutions.
Costs and benefits
“Funding is the most cited barrier to implementing or expanding open data initiatives.”
– Empowering the Public Through Open Data
A recent collaborative effort between the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy and the USC Price School of Public Policy produced a hugely valuable report on the current state of open data in the 88 incorporated cities comprising Los Angeles County.
Based on surveys and interviews with city officials on their open data efforts, this report provides unique insights into the ways that government leaders view open data. Among the findings – government officials surveyed for the report consider funding to be the most significant barrier to expanding work on open data. This isn’t a surprise, and this sentiment is likely not unique to the Los Angeles County area.
But when taken together with other findings, it can seem counterintuitive. Along with citing funding as a constraint, government officials expressed a preference for commercial open data catalogs over open source (or free) alternatives. These commercial solutions – some of which impose non-trivial costs on local governments – appear to meet a perceived need on the part of government officials in that they are viewed as making it “easier to publish [data] and put it in the hands of the citizens.”
Commercial software generally tends to fare better in the government procurement process than open source software, so this outcome isn’t all that shocking. But it’s worth noting this contradiction in the findings of the USC report between the cost constraints limiting more progress on open data and the reported preference for (sometimes pricy) commercial open data catalogs.
Cost aside, there are a few reasons why upfront investment in a commercial open data catalog may not be the best way to start a new open data effort.
The web … took the idea of participation to a new level, because it opened participation not just to software developers but to all users of the system.
– Tim O’Reilly, The Architecture of Participation
First, and somewhat ironically, public information on the cost of commercial open data portals can be hard to come by. Another report on municipal open data efforts in southern California found a wide disparity in what different governments – some just a few miles apart, and almost identical in population – pay for commercial open data catalogs. This can make it difficult for governments to know if they are getting good value for the price being paid.
In addition, commercial open data catalogs often come with visualization, mapping and charting tools out of the box. This can make it easier for governments to augment open data offerings by showing what can be done with it. Though these offerings may come at an additional price, some may view them as a way to help advocate open data to internal skeptics – a picture (or a graph, or a chart) is worth a thousand words as the saying goes.
From a user needs perspective, this approach feels very unidirectional – this is government telling the data community what it believes is important, not the other way around. There are a host of examples of sophisticated visualizations and applications being built with government data by outside data users. And while this approach requires outreach and engagement, there is an ever-increasing abundance of tools available for members of the data community to use to create maps, visualizations and new applications.
These two approaches – out of the box vs. community built – are not mutually exclusive. We can see a number of examples of governments using commercial open data catalogs to engage with external data users that produce useful, valuable visualizations and apps – New York City, the City of Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco are all great examples of this dual approach.
However, open data efforts in all of those cities have benefited from robust technology and startup communities and often visionary leadership. Almost all of these cities have a long tradition of civic hacking. For cities that don’t have these assets (or have them in smaller quantities), outreach and engagement to nurture and build a data community will be a crucial factor in the long-term success of an open data program. These cities – many of them smaller and with more limited resources – may also feel the cost constraints of implementing an open data effort more acutely than larger cities.
It’s fair to say that the next wave of cities that adopt open data programs may face a very different set of challenges than the cities that have come before them.
Putting Users First
“The procurement model of government digital services generally leads to services that satisfy policy needs, not user needs.”
– Government Technology Procurement Playbook, Code for America
The time feels right to rethink how cities put in place the basic infrastructure of open data.
At last year’s Code for America Summit, I gave a talk on how open data was being adopted in small to midsized cities in the U.S. In researching my talk, I found that while larger cities have almost all implemented some form of open data program, less than 20% of the 256 incorporated places in this U.S. with populations between 100,000 and 500,000 have an open data program.
Open data in this country is still – almost exclusively – a big city phenomenon.
Efforts to address this imbalance are underway – the What Works Cities initiative (of which the Center for Government Excellence at Johns Hopkins is a key part) is now working to bring open data and data-driven decision making to 100 mid-sized cities. More and more, small and mid-sized cities are starting to look at open data as a key driver of government innovation.
We are now at a juncture where we can not only help a new cohort of cities adopt open data, but to help ensure that these efforts embrace the principle of “build with, not for” from the ground up. If we’re going to be successful, it’s important that we question long-held beliefs – like the original 8 principles of open data – to ensure our efforts are most efficiently aligned with the outcomes we desire.
It’s worth considering whether commercial open data catalogs provide the best option for the next wave of cities that are embracing open data to succeed and build a healthy data culture, both inside and outside of government.
But whatever foundation we choose to lay for the next phase of open data, we’ll need to make sure we’re putting user’s needs first.
(Note – the term “cult of catalogs” is not my own. I first heard it used by Friedrich Lindenberg, though others may have used it as well.)
My fundamental suggestion is that government-run open data platforms be fully open source. There are a number of technical and procurement reasons for this, which I will address in the future, but I believe strongly that if the platform you’re hosting data on doesn’t adhere to the same licensing standards you hold for your data, you’re only doing open data half right.
The state of California has launched a $25K Find a New Way innovation contest that gives residents a chance “to identify areas of improvement within the state government and share their untapped expertise to create solutions.”
As part of a new What Works Cities initiative, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a $42 million effort to help 100 U.S. cities “elevate and accelerate” their “use of data and evidence to engage citizens, make government more effective, and improve people’s lives.”
The federal CIO Council’s Innovation Committee has published an open data prioritization workbook and toolkit, including a data inventory tracker and prioritization matrix, to help agencies best evaluate and prioritize data for release to the public.
San Francisco’s DataSF team continues to quietly and effectively demonstrate what an efficient, holistic and personable approach to open data looks like with the announcement of its year two plan and retrospective of the past year.
The General Services Administration and 18F recently held an open request for quotation related to a new blanket purchase agreement for a federal marketplace for agile delivery services. The transparency throughout the entire process was refreshing and provides a window into the future of procurement as well as what FedBizOpps could and should be.
The Boston team will focus on connecting youth to summer jobs and the St. Louis team on making it easier to navigate the criminal justice system.
As momentum around appointing public sector chief data officers grows, it’s time for the federal government to get ahead of the curve and create a formal chief data officers council similar to, but more inclusive, proactive and public than the already-established U.S. Chief Information Officers Council.
According to a U.S. Project Open Data GitHub pull request, it appears the U.S. Department of Energy has named Dave Dutton as its chief data officer.
Chicago Chief Data Officer Tom Schenk has a great follow-up blog post riffing off my Friday commentary on the CDO’s role as business developer.
I occasionally get asked about thoughts on how to increase open data consumption, and think about this more and more, especially as it increasingly becomes an issue for those seeking validation and return on investment.
For the past 15 years, I’ve spent much of my professional life working with and in startups. It’s an environment I love. You have complete control over your destiny, and you win by blending the perfect amalgam of people, design, technology, strategy and execution all into one mission.
The White House has officially released the write version of the “We the People” application programming interface that now allows developers to feed data back into the petition platform via third-party applications.
As part of this work I’m always on the look out for valuable public assets across city, state and federal government, and help make sure the conversations around these assets always include application programming interfaces, so that we aren’t just building web and mobile applications in silos, and limiting the potential for public access by individuals and small businesses.
San Francisco Chief Data Officer Joy Bonaguro shares her vision for the city’s open data future at the 2014 Code for America Summit.