Intergovernmental Solutions Newsletter

GSA Office of Citizen Services and Communications

Fall 2009

The Intergovernmental Solutions Newsletter is produced twice a year by the Center forIntergovernmental Solutions, GSA Office of Citizens Services and Communications; Lisa Nelson,Editor. Send comments and suggestions to: lisa.nelson@gsa.gov.

Increasing Citizen Engagement in Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1By the People, For the People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Citizen Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5National Dialogues Build Communities . . . . . . .7Believable Change: A Reality Check on Online Participation? . . . . .9Reinventing “We the People” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Data is Not Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Could Citizens Run the White House Online? .16E-Petitions Preserves an Old British Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18My better Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Participatory Lawmaking in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . .22Brazil and Argentina: From ParticipatoryBudgeting to e-Participatory Budgeting . . . . . .23Pew: Well-off and Well-educated Are More Likely to Engage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Public Engagement on Fairfax County’s Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Citizen Engagement in Oakland County . . . . . .27Washington Goes to Mr. Smith: The Changing Role of Citizens in Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Ohio Redistricting Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Planning for Citizen Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . .32Potholes and PDAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34New Media Makers Pioneer Novel Forms of News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Putting Your Audience to Work: EPA’s Radon Video Contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37A Millennial Model of Civic Engagement . . . . .38Emerging Themes for Effective Online Citizen Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40The Importance of Open Web Standards in the Move to Open and TransparentGovernment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

See the Spring 2009 Intergovernmental Solutions Newsletteron Transparency and Open Government online at:http://www.usaservices.gov/events_news/newsletters.php

About 2500 years before the Internet Age, Athenians developed asystem of self-government they called democracy, which reliedon active citizen participation for direction and decision-making.

A few millennia later, the founding fathers of the United States built acountry around the proposition that government must be responsive tothe needs of its citizens. They knew that, for democracy to flourish,citizens must take an active part in public life, sharing their ideas andopening their minds to the opinions of others, and taking ownership inthe well-being of the country.

The arrival of the Internet created new opportunities for citizenengagement through its powerful ability to organize. Online townmeetings, social media, chat rooms, bulletin boards, deliberativeprocesses for e-rulemaking, and feedback mechanisms that sort inputfrom public meetings are examples of inexpensive mechanisms forsoliciting citizen input. All of these tools have a positive impact on publicpolicy development because when people get involved everyone learnsfrom each other, relationships are built, trust is established and the finaloutcome improved.

Connecting to the Internet has become easier than ever. The members oftoday’s digital generation have grown up with phones in their pocketsand expect a government that attends to their needs 24/7. Newapplications appear daily and allow users to create, share and linkcontent. These new applications intersect with the Internet but alsoreach beyond it.

As civic participation online grows, so does the public’s understandingof what is behind government policies and processes and so does thegovernment’s understanding of the diverse public views and knowledgeabout complex problems. Online engagement also helps buildcommunities around the issues that people find important, letting thecommunity members interact with each other, and eliminates barriersassociated with physical distance and travel costs and other

Increasing CitizenEngagement in GovernmentBy Darlene MeskellDirector, Intergovernmental SolutionsGSA Office of Citizen Services and Communications

Engaging Citizens in Government

2

impediments facing citizens who want to have their voicesheard.

GSA’s Intergovernmental Solutions has compiled thesecontributions from governments, advocacy groups andacademia to show how the use of the Internet to facilitateopen government is already making a difference across thecountry and around the world. Following is a run-down ofthe stories they tell.

When people have the opportunity to contribute ideas andopinions to government decision-making processes theyare empowered to mobilize and become involved with realinitiatives on a national level and in their communities.Echoing Abraham Lincoln in By the People, for thePeople, Katie Stanton, the new U.S. director of CitizenParticipation, discusses the online engagement practicesthe Obama Administration has used to change thelandscape from one where citizens are viewed as“customers” to one in which they have a personal stake.

The United Kingdom has made great strides shifting theparadigm from government communication to citizens toone of collaboration with the public. In CitizenEngagement, Andrew Stott, the U.K.’s new director ofDigital Government, describes their journey to use theInternet to give citizens a voice. The potential of theInternet for public engagement is just beginning to betapped and we are already seeing its impact on thedemocratic process. During fiscal year 2009 the NationalAcademy of Public Administration conducted four onlinepublic dialogues on topics ranging from the very focuseddialogue on the recovery.gov website to the much broaderquadrennial homeland security review. NAPA’s experiencein this area informs a discussion of how NationalDialogues Build Communities but leads its Lena

Trudeau to counsel that governance is still the province ofgovernments, which cannot delegate their responsibilitiesto the crowd.

In Believable Change: A Reality Check on OnlineParticipation, Jed Miller, Internet Director at the RevenueWatch Institute, reminds us we still have a long way to gobefore the tools are ready and institutions and individualscan turn the optimism into actual operational change.Drawing a parallel between the evolution of IT and theInternet, California Chief Technology Officer P.K. Agarwal,in Reinventing “We the People,” envisions how civicengagement will be improved through the evolution ofmobile appliances and wireless technologies. Whiletechnology and other tools are essential to participatorygovernment, Carolyn Lukensmeyer of AmericaSpeakscautions that Data is Not Democracy and that civicparticipation still calls for in-person interpersonalengagement.

Imagine how the White House might work if it were run bythousands of people over the Internet. Could CitizensRun the White House Online? describes what happenson a website that simulates setting Administrationpriorities by crowdsourcing. In a somewhat more tradition-bound practice, the U.K. has digitized its long-standingcustom whereby the prime minister accepts citizen-generated petitions for changes to government policies orpractices. E-Petitions Preserves an Old BritishTradition. Posting these petitions along with the primeminister’s response has enlivened the interaction betweencitizens and their government.

Other countries are also inviting online participation.Estonia, a Baltic nation that was once a part of the SovietUnion, has created a Web-based e-participation portal that

Wordle created at http://www.wordle.net/

3

promotes active citizen engagement in the nationallegislative process. My better Estonia shows the progressthat has been made using this forum for citizens to discusslegislative proposals. The Brazilian House ofRepresentatives recently launched the e-Democraciaproject to engage citizens in the legislative process. E-participatory Lawmaking in Brazil looks at theapproach Brazil is taking to open the debate on law-making. Elsewhere in that country, participatory budgetingallows citizens to influence budget allocations made bytheir government and has a big impact on the lives ofcitizens. Brazil and Argentina: From ParticipatoryBudgeting to e-Participatory Budgeting examineswhether this experiment can live up to expectations. Backin the United States, the Pew internet and American LifeProject reports that the Well-off and Well-educated AreMore Likely to Engage with the government online—andoff.

Attempts to bring citizens into policy-making are commonon the local level, but federal and state agencies also aresoliciting public participation in policy development. WhenFairfax County, Virginia, faced a revenue shortfall of$650,000 million for fiscal year 2010, the county turned to itscitizens for help. Through face-to-face meetings, anextensive media campaign and outreach program, and useof social media, Public Engagement in FairfaxCounty’s FY 2010 Budget helped create a budget thatwas acceptable to the community. In Citizen Engagementand E-Government, Oakland County, Michigan’s PhilBertolini provides real-world examples of how e-government and Web 2.0 functionality enable, support ,anddeepen citizen engagement at the local level.

In Washington Goes to Mr. Smith: The ChangingRole of Citizens in Policy Development, MattLeighninger of the Deliberative Democracy Forum reportslessons learned from several federal agency programs onhow governments can work productively with citizensonline. In one of the most impressive examples of theimpact of Web-enabled democracy, the State of Ohioinvited citizens to participate in an Ohio RedistrictingCompetition to design a legislative redistricting plan.When three winning entries proved to be more fair andequitable than the State Legislature’s version, anamendment to the State Constitution was drawn up topermanently change the way districts are apportioned inthe future.

Planning for Citizen Engagement offers advice for ruralcommunities on how to engage more citizens in thedecision making process. In Worchester, Massachusetts,citizens roam the streets each weekend carrying handheldcomputers and digital cameras looking for potholes,abandoned vehicles and other public nuisances and reportthem to the appropriate government agency. Potholes andPDAs highlights creative ways local governments arecollaborating with citizens to improve service delivery forthe benefit of the entire community.

Civic Journalism is helping ordinary people engage moredeeply within their communities, as New Media MakersPioneer Novel Forms of News. Jan Schaffer, director ofthe Institute for Innovative Journalism, looks at how thisphenomenon—fed by the rapid economic decline oftraditional news organizations—Is providing communitieswith reliable, accurate and independent information.Contests, too, bring out the innovators. When theEnvironmental Protection Agency needed a fresh new wayto get the word out about the dangers of naturally occurringradon gas, it designed a video-production contest to recruitcreative citizens to help spread this critical public healthmessage. Putting Your Audience to Work: EPA’sRadon Video Contest gives the results.

Many members of the generations born after the Internetare working hard to bring about meaningful change in theircommunities. Two of them created A Millennial Model ofCitizen Engagement. Kim Kobza of NeighborhoodAmerica identifies Emerging Themes for EffectiveOnline Citizen Engagement that include having a clearsense of purpose, sensitivity to human motivators, anetwork perspective, and a willingness to relax traditionalrules.

So we won’t forget the ongoing worldwide collaboration tocreate universal standards that makes open governmentfeasible, The Importance of Open Web Standards forOpen and Transparent Government emphasizes theimportance of available and accessible interfaces andtools, so that what is saved, discoverable, archived andmanaged will be available in the future on demand.

Countries around the world are creating opportunities forcitizens to participate in government. The Web is fosteringbetter communications and allows people to participate inimproving the operations of their government. Byharnessing the collaborative nature of the Web, democraticgovernments are engaging the public like never before. Inthe memorable words of folksinger Pete Seeger, whosingle-handedly inspired the citizens’ campaign thatsuccessfully cleaned up the Hudson River in New YorkState: “Participation—that’s what’s gonna save the humanrace.”

Darlene Meskell is the Director of the GSA Center forIntergovernmental Solutions in the GSA Office of Citizen Servicesand Communications.

4

One of President Obama’s first acts was signing aMemorandum on Transparency and Open Government.The memorandum outlined three principles in the

workings of government: transparency, participation andcollaboration. With the help of innovative and emergingtechnologies, we have seen these principles come alive inmany forms across the Government, including the Open forQuestions program, Data.gov, the IT Dashboard and theOpen Government Brainstorm.

The Open for Questions program launched in March andoffered Americans a direct line to the President. The programencouraged the public to submit questions via text or videoand to vote on the best questions to ask the president. Withina few days, more than 90,000 people representing all 50 statessubmitted over 100,000 questions and cast over 3.6 millionvotes. The average number of votes per participant was 38.The questions covered a wide range of issues includingeducation, home ownership, health care reform and greenjobs and energy. President Obama responded to several ofthe top questions at a town hall held at the White House,which was streamed live on Whitehouse.gov as well as theofficial White House channels on Facebook and YouTube. Inaddition, several members of the Administration, includingKareem Dale, Special Assistant to the President forDisability Policy, and Jared Bernstein, the Vice President’sChief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor, providedfollow-up answers through video.

Data.gov provides access to federal data as well as givingthe public the ability to use data creatively outside the wallsof government. Data.gov launched in May and had 47datasets including ozone trends, mineral resources, andpatent applications. By August, there were over 110,000datasets and some terrific examples of citizens reusing thesefeeds. For example, one uses data from the Federal AviationAdministration, National Oceanographic and AtmosphericAdministration and Bureau of Transportation Statistics viaData.gov to find the most on-time flight between twoairports.

In July, the IT Dashboard, part of USASpending.gov,launched. The IT Dashboard provides an easy way for thepublic to track federal IT initiatives and hold the governmentaccountable for progress and results. The dashboard allowscitizens to see which IT projects are working and which onesare on schedule and to provide direct feedback to the

respective chief information officer at federal agencies. Soonafter the launch, the IT Dashboard helped shed light on theperformance of projects within the federal government. Forexample, the Department of Veterans Affairs found 45 techprojects that were either behind schedule or over budget sothey put a temporary freeze on them. The combined value forthe 45 projects was approximately $200 million. The worstoffender was estimated to be 110 percent over budget and 17months behind schedule. The department is currentlyauditing these projects to determine which ones need newmanagement, which ones need additional resources andwhich ones should be completely discontinued.

Another interesting program was the Open GovernmentBrainstorm, a partnership between the National Academy ofPublic Administration and the White House Office ofScience and Technology Policy. This platform allowed thepublic to submit their ideas relating to open government,including innovative approaches to policy, projects, andgovernment agencies. In over a week, the Brainstormgenerated 4,000 users and over 1,120 unique ideas thatprompted 2,176 comments and 46,469 votes.

But it isn’t just these big projects which are making adifference. There are plenty of great, smaller projectshappening everywhere in government. Many agencies’ blogsnow have thriving commenter communities such as theTransportation Service Authority (http://www.tsa.gov/blog/).The Environmental Protection Agency is getting its readersto answer questions to help further its mission(http://blog.epa.gov/blog/category/question-of-the-week/).We are also seeing a number of agencies run contests tooffer incentives for citizens to become more involved in theirgovernment. For example, USA.gov had a photo contest onJuly 4th (http://www.flickr.com/groups/4th-of-july-2009-usagov/rules/) and the Department of Health and HumanServices is currently running a video contest to promotebetter health habits around H1N1(http://www.flu.gov/psa/psacontest1.html).

All of these actions help shape a landscape of open,transparent and participatory government. Further, they helpraise some important questions: How do we use theaggregate input to create efficiencies and stronger policydecisions? How do we sift through thousand of comments to

understand what citizens are tellingus? How do we create engagementplatforms that have a low barrier toentry, so that everyone canparticipate? How do we ensureevery American can participate, andwill want to participate in theprocess?

Katie Jacobs Stanton was appointedDirector of Citizen Participation in theWhite House Office of New Media inFebruary.

By the People, For the PeopleBy Katie StantonDirector of Citizen ParticipationThe White House

Knowledge is power. The fundamental driver behindcitizen engagement is that only those with access toknowledge are truly empowered. The great

democratisation comes not from allowing people toaccess data but from letting them use it in a way they seefit.

The use of all forms of digital media – not just the Internet– allows for tremendous influence on public policy andservices. It is not “communication” in the conventionalsense. We must start with informing, and doing so in wayswhich fit the needs of modern citizens who expect to findthe information when and where they need it, rather thanwhen an agency wants to broadcast it. However theinforming must allow engagement, with the ability torespond and to be seen to respond. The process needs tobecome two-way, and lead to a dialogue not only with theagency but also between its citizens and otherstakeholders; hearing a plurality of views is important inany evidence-based decision-making, and if a balance canemerge that commands broad support then the eventualdecision will be more sound and more sustainable.

In essence, therefore, engagement is about turningcommunication into collaboration - collaboration in whichcitizens can make their voices heard, policy-makers candetect areas that really concern the public, serviceadministrators can streamline delivery, and the leaders ofgovernment can use these new channels to work acrossorganisational and geographic boundaries. And byexpanding beyond the traditional Internet – into “Web 2.0”country – we reach a generation for whom websites areconsidered too conventional; the same generation withwhom it is most important to engage in longer-term change- on sustainability and climate change, on fighting obesityand promoting health and on developing skills.

The UK Government’s Digital Engagement journey beganaround three years ago with the independent Power ofInformation Report by Ed Mayo and Tom Steinberg.Among its many insights was that citizen engagement wasalready happening on the Internet among citizensthemselves - in discussion groups, blogs, social mediasites and membership groups such as Netmums, anetworking site for parents. The key issue was that theGovernment was not engaging with that engagement, andthat its principal model of operation was still a broadcastone.

Although the Power of Information Report set out someclear principles, and some overriding policy changes whichwere needed (and which were made), the key to makingprogress in the next phase was to encourage innovationwithin and outside government - to find out what workedand what did not, quickly and at moderate cost, and withreal use and value to citizens - and then build on success.

One of the first services, launched in 2006, was the e-Petitions part of the No. 10 website.http://www.number10.gov.uk is the official website of theUK prime minister’s office and refers to its address at No.10 Downing Street, London. This was seen as shockinglynovel at the time, and it was pushed through by acombination of bold leadership and an innovativecommunications and development team. Yet it quicklyestablished itself as a part of the architecture of politicaldebate, and has now had nearly 10 million signatures on25,000 petitions with a wide range of subjects. Indeed theimpact and relevance of e-Petitions has reached beyondthe “digital” community into the mainstream of politicalanalysis and debate, particularly after 1.7 million citizenssigned an e-Petition about congestion charging. Yet it canonly be one of a range of tools for a government to listen tocitizens’ views: as Peter Riddell, one of Britain's leadingpolitical journalists, wrote: “Petitions ... indicate theintensity of feeling on an issue and often the extent oforganisation by protesters, but not the balance of views. ...

5

Citizen EngagementBy Andrew StottDirector of Digital EngagementThe Cabinet OfficeUnited Kingdom

The use of all forms ofdigital media – not just the

Internet – allows fortremendous influence on

public policy and services.

6

Direct participation should supplement, not replace,representative democracy.”

So we have been moving digital engagement forward froma simple vote to giving the citizen a voice. An importantsubsequent step has been to start publishing consultationpapers and reports in a commentable form, where citizenscan comment on individual proposals at a paragraph-by-paragraph level, and can see what others are commentingand comment on that. That changes the dynamics ofconsultation - not longer just the flood of letters andemails at the end of the consultation period, but a dialoguethroughout. Many departments have used theCommentariat theme for Wordpress to implement this; thiswas developed for the Science White Paper by theDepartment for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and wehave released the theme back to the community as OpenSource. We are also looking at how government documentscan be released in XML or through an API so that otherscan embed them in their web services.

In parallel with this, we are also developing our capabilityto use “new media” to inform and enthuse citizens aboutthe work that government is doing on their behalf. Blogsfrom individual civil servants about doing their jobs - forinstance project officers working overseas for theDepartment for International Development bring home toour own citizens what our aid programme is reallydelivering to communities across the developing world,and the ability to comment and interact gives the changefor people here to find out more and become engaged inthat work.

At the same time we always need to be conscious that asignificant proportion of the population are not yet onlineand "digitally included." In Digital Britain the UKGovernment has announced major initiatives to ensurethat the infrastructure enables broadband to the wholecountry and that people have the skills and the motivationto access the Internet. But we do need to ensure thatengagement itself is inclusive, and that means using ablend of channels to reach those who need to be engaged.

Going forward there are three key challenges. First, toensure that the learning and knowledge of what worksspreads quickly and effectively from agency to agency.Second, to ensure that engagement is embedded as anormal part of the policy and the service design processes,as we have set out in Working Together: Public Services onYour Side. Third, to ensure that we look at newtechnologies as they emerge as new opportunities and newtools to apply the principles of good communications andengagement.

Andrew Stott was named the UK Government's first Director ofDigital Engagement in May. He was previously the UKGovernment's Deputy CIO.

A sampling of open petitions athttp://petitions.number10.gov.uk, one of a range of tools tolisten to citizens’ views

7

“Our commitment to openness means more than simplyinforming the American people about how decisions aremade. It means recognizing that government does not haveall the answers, and that public officials need to draw onwhat citizens know. And that's why, as of today, I'mdirecting members of my administration to find new waysof tapping the knowledge and experience of ordinaryAmericans -- scientists and civic leaders, educators andentrepreneurs -- because the way to solve the problems ofour time, as one nation, is by involving the Americanpeople in shaping the policies that affect their lives.”

President Barack Obama, January 21, 2009

A Call to ActionCivic engagement is a long-standing principle and practiceof good government—it’s in our democracy’s DNA. Rightnow, however, there is a unique convergence—between the

need to do things in government in a fundamentallydifferent way (which isn’t all that new) and our ability touse Web 2.0 and the collaboration it enables to achieve this(that’s the new part).

President Obama has directed his appointees and theagencies they lead to collaborate with their colleagues andthe public to develop new solutions to our country’sproblems. The White House itself has embraced new waysto engage stakeholders and citizens in such conversations,using one of the most effective methods of engagement – astructured online discussion using a flexible web-based2.0 platform. The National Academy of PublicAdministration has been pleased to assist with severalsuch “national dialogues” – for the White House RecoveryAccountability and Transparency Board (website), theOffice of Management and Budget (website), and, mostrecently, for the Department of Homeland Security at:http://www.homelandsecuritydialogue.org/

The temptation when developing a collaborative dialogueis to focus on building the perfect technology platform. Butthe functionality of the platform is irrelevant if no oneparticipates in the conversation. And let’s never forget—although an increasingly powerful tool, technology alone isnot the answer to civic engagement.

Building a CommunityBy their very nature, web-based consultations that areopen to the public promote the creation of what HarvardProfessor Andrew McAfee has called “emergentexpertise” – communities of people who may not be official“experts” on a topic, but who are knowledgeable, engaged,and willing to devote time and energy to the issue. Ratherthan “one and done” events, online dialogues can be usedto build productive and durable relationships betweengovernment and a community of interested citizens.

Through its work on the Collaboration Project and fourincreasingly successful online dialogues, the NationalAcademy has identified four important steps in theprocess that will help you build a durable, problem-solvingcommunity online.

1. Define the Problem: Choose a real problem that iswithin your purview to address. Asking questions thatare too broad or generic is a sure-fire way to increaseyour bounce rate – people who take one look and thenleave. And seeking solutions to problems that youragency can’t address is a sure-fire path to frustration. Ifyou are worried that people won’t understand the issue,remember that you can provide background informationon the site itself. In fact, you should plan on it. Justmake sure the background information, like your issue, isaccessible, relevant and engaging.

2. Determine Who Cares…or Should Care: Don’t kidyourself…”the public” is probably not your target

National Dialogues Build Communities By Lena E. Trudeau, Vice PresidentFrank Reeder, FellowNational Academy of Public Administration

The temptation when developing a collaborative dialogue isto focus on building the perfect technology platform.

But the functionality of the platform is irrelevant if no oneparticipates in the conversation.

8

audience. As much as everyone in Washington wants tobelieve that everyone should care about the intricaciesof public policy and government programs, they don’t.But you can be sure that some people care, and it’s yourjob to figure out what distinguishes them from everyoneelse.

3. Create a Value Exchange: You’re going to ask peopleto give you their time, their ideas, and their consideredjudgment of the ideas of others. What will they get inexchange? Clearly, we’re not talking about financialremuneration, but it’s not enough to simply give people aplace to sound off. If you want to create a durablecommunity, you not only have to tell them how theirinput will be used, but also tell them how it has beenused. Feedback is critical, as are continuingopportunities to engage on the same or relatedsubstance. In fact, the National Academy has foundthat a multi-tiered process is often most effective;giving participants separate and distinct opportunitiesto (1) submit ideas, (2) discuss and collaboratively refinethe ideas, and, finally, (3) rate and prioritize them.

4. Develop and Execute an Outreach Strategy:You’ve figured out the problem to be addressed and youunderstand who cares. Now you need to figure out howto reach them. What associations, community groups orsocial organizations are members of your targetaudience likely to participate in? Ask those groups toreach out to their members. Where are they likely to getinformation online? Some well-placed blog entries,Twitter feeds, Facebook groups, or website links willboost participation, as well. But never underestimate thepower of the personal ask – in person, by email or on thephone. And, staying in touch with early visitors throughregular email updates will encourage repeat visits andbetter outcomes.

Reality CheckYou’ve built a great community. You found greatorganizations and started a campaign that went viral.

Thousands of people contributed ideas, commented onothers, and voted for the best. What now? There are twomaxims that will tempt you. The first is “majority wins”; thesecond is “the wisdom of the crowd.” After all, people did“vote,” didn’t they? And everyone was welcome on the site,right?

First, remember that you have not put issues to the vote ofthe entire U.S. population, nor have you conducted arepresentative poll. The people not included were (1)people who either had no physical access to thetechnology or who did not have the skill and fluency toparticipate competently and comfortably; and (2) peoplewho did not belong to the networks that you used tomobilize participation or didn’t understand the relevanceof your work to their own concerns. Don’t assume that thepeople who participated can speak on behalf of those whodid not.

Second, remember that governance is the job ofgovernment, and as government leaders you can’t delegateyour responsibilities to the crowd. You still need to sift andanalyze, and ultimately make decisions about what willwork in the operating environment as you know it, how toprioritize the many ideas and options that emerged, and, ofcourse, whether the resources are available and theexpense is worth the investment. There is much good thatcomes from collaboration, but in the words of an earlierpresident, “the buck stops here.”

A New Era of Civic EngagementAs Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitanorecently observed, “We are a nation of more than 300million. More than that, we're a nation of families,communities, organizations, of cities, suburbs, tribes, andall of their local governments and organizations. Andwithin these groupings lies an extraordinary pool of talent,ingenuity and strength.”

The President has called on government to tap theextraordinary pool of talent that is our nation. There liesthe true promise of civic engagement: a public that issubstantively engaged in the important issues of our day,and a government that is in touch with the ideas andpriorities of the public it serves. The challenge is notchoosing the “right” technology solution. The challenge is– as it always has been – building durable, engagedcommunities that will work hand-in-hand with governmentto find new solutions to the problems of our time.

Lena Trudeau is a Vice President of the National Academy of PublicAdministration, and oversaw the four online public dialoguesconducted for the federal government in fiscal year 2009. FrankReeder is a Fellow of the National Academy of PublicAdministration and President of the Reeder Group.

9

To be effective, Internet professionals navigatebetween two dangerous currents: dismissal andutopianism. The challenges of dismissal are pretty

obvious—the boss who forgets to invite you to themeeting, or the subtler demotion of online work to a puremarketing function.

The risks of utopianism are harder to see, but the danger isjust as great: If we overstate how online tools can changethe world, we ask our clients and colleagues to sail onfaith into uncharted waters and we risk losing allies in thedaily work that makes change a reality over time.

The Obama Administration arrived on a surge of optimismabout online partnerships between citizens andgovernment. As excitement transitions into a season ofexperimentation, Internet professionals, governmentprofessionals and regular people face important questionsabout the readiness of tools, institutions and individuals toturn optimism into operational change.

Beth Noveck, White House Deputy CTO for OpenGovernment, is leading the effort to rethink publicparticipation. She says the administration wants “to makegovernment more relevant to people’s lives” by providingmore information, and to create “opportunities for peopleto share their expertise and participate in solvingproblems.”

Noveck believes that transparency and participation toolsare most powerful when combined. “Data helps to focuspeople’s attention,” she says, “to develop actionableproposals based in empirical measures.” Noveck and theOffice of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) havealready coordinated web discussions on declassificationpolicy, FCC rules, use of web cookies, Pentagon Web 2.0guidelines and recommendations on the Open GovernmentInitiative.

Despite the innovation—and fanfare—behind the WhiteHouse pilots in transparency and public input, leaders inonline collaboration temper their enthusiasm withquestions.

On TechPresident.com, co-founder Micah Sifry complainedabout the open government discussion that “the very topicwe are being asked for input on isn’t one that most peoplethink about every day.” In its busiest phase, that discussiondrew about 1,000 suggestions and nearly 21,000 readers,according to the National Academy of Public

Administration. For an online policy dialogue, that's a bigsuccess, but as a harbinger of a new era of digitalcitizenship it's a modest beginning at best.

The Obama campaign showed how digital tools can fusethe personal touch of local organizing with the powerfulmessage of a national candidate and create a large,mobilized, virtual community, but online strategist BrianReich is still looking for signs that Barack Obama thepresident can make the political personal as deftly as

Obama the candidate made the personal political. “Obamadid that extraordinarily well during the campaign becauseit was decentralized,” says Reich, who is also a formerstaffer to Vice President Al Gore, “but the White House isthe ultimate top-down communications vehicle.”

The traditional polarity of governance is not the onlychallenge to grassroots engagement by the White House.The pace and the detail of federal policy-making are ill-suited to creating the momentum of a winning politicalcampaign. “Getting 13 million people to agree to pull thelever on one day for one guy is very different than getting13 million people to agree on what healthcare reformshould be,” says Andrew Rasiej, founder of PersonalDemocracy Forum and an advisor on transparency to theObama transition team.

One way to refine a clutter of online opinions into themesis to use tools that “let the community do the filtering,”says David Stern, founder of MixedInk, one of the flagshipsystems OSTP is using to add structure and prioritizationto its online policy forums. But Stern says the value of the

Believable Change: A Reality Check on Online ParticipationBy Jed MillerRevenue Watch Institute

Getting 13 million people to agree to pull the lever onone day for one guy is very

different than getting 13million people to agree on

what healthcare reformshould be...

10

process depends in part on the number of participants. “Inorder to have a wise crowd, you need a crowd,” he says,“and the bigger the crowd, the wiser it is.”

The buzzword “crowdsourcing” conjures an image of avast group whose diverse views are refined by technologyinto a shared purpose. Thus far, however, OSTP hasconvened brain trusts, not crowds—modest-sized nichediscussions among experts or interested non-experts.Noveck acknowledges and seems to welcome this. Theambitions for Open Government may be sweeping, butNoveck says, “This is not about inviting everybody andanybody to participate in a conversation abouttransparency policy,” or any single issue. “The goal is notto have millions of people. The goal is to create many,many opportunities for people to participate around theinterests that engage them.”

Echoing Noveck, Reich says, “We need to stop looking attechnology as a facilitator for giant things, and insteadlook at it as a facilitator for hundreds of millions of littlethings.” Even as government demonstrates a newcommitment to civic engagement, and technology evolvesto provide new tools, some leaders insist that permanentchange, if it comes, must come offline and beyond theBeltway: in life as it’s lived locally.

For author and speaker Rich Harwood, hope is the centraltheme in revitalizing community life and “publicinnovation,” but he grows severe when asked how theWhite House can most effectively promote participation.“I don’t think we want a president dictating whatengagement questions we’re going to be wrestling with. Ifyou think that’s sufficient, we’re in big trouble.” Harwood islooking for the White House not only to reach out withnational-level questions, but also to “catalyze thedistributed capacity” of communities, organizations andindividuals so they can grow “from consumers to citizensto active participants.”

According to Columbia University law professor EbenMoglen, when relevant public information can reachinterested people with sufficient structure, “governmentlearns it has users.” A longtime champion in the freesoftware movement, Moglen says that if governmentprovides usable data “without platformizing it orproductizing it,” then people will engage “not in somePlatonic way, but at the fish market, in the schools, in theplaces where they want to take action.”

Moglen is also an unrelenting realist about the potential ofcorporate structures to block progress. Traditionalgovernment software contractors, he says, “have neverhad to make a good program because they never made aprogram for anybody who had a choice of any kind aboutanything.”

Speaking from inside the bureaucracy, Noveck is moremoderate about the institutional challenges. She saysresistance from federal employees, if it comes, comes notin dismissal but in “a lack of familiarity with the new toolsand techniques for obtaining input,” and “a concernwhether it’s doable to get meaningful, structured input”that is not “unmanageable” or “garbage.”

Our culture of instant punditry can make it hard to see thedifference between innovation and transformation. Realchange happens not at the speed of a website launch or anelection night, but at the organic, often maddening, pace ofinstitutions and behaviors.

Moglen compares the emergence of new tools andpersonalizable data streams to the invention and massproduction of the automobile. “It’s okay to require ageneration to learn how to drive,” he says.

Furthermore, the change we’ve been waiting for may not bemonolithic but, to quote organizers like Reich andHarwood, decentralized. Rasiej doesn’t claim to knowwhich tools will take participation to the next level, but hesays the usable information on sites like Data.gov willallow a hundred projects to emerge.

Noveck, herself a career evangelist of “little-d” democracy,is the first to rein in breathless claims about a new age. “Idon’t think we’re there yet,” she says from the hub of thenew experiment. “It’s too soon.”

We should remember that it took 20 or 30 years for theInternet itself to evolve from a small government projectinto a ubiquitous platform that has permanentlytransformed public life.

Jed Miller is Internet director at the Revenue Watch Institute and acontributing blogger for Personal Democracy Forum. He waspreviously director of Internet programs at the American CivilLiberties Union.

11

“You have to remember one thing about the will of thepeople: it wasn’t that long ago that we were swept away bythe Macarena.”

Jon Stewart“The Daily Show”

2008 will prove to be a watershed year in the evolutionof the relationship between government andinformation technology. In 2008, the Obama campaign

rewrote the book on campaigning, with its innovative useof IT and the Internet. Henceforth, the business ofelections has changed forever. If a candidate does notunderstand IT, he or she will not get elected – period. TheObama administration hasn’t stopped there, however. Thelessons learned during the campaign are being morphed

into tools to change the business of governance in somegroundbreaking ways.

Some very interesting historical parallels can be drawn tothe current evolution of IT and the Internet. Historically,every medium’s commercial success has been followed byits successful adoption by a public figure. Franklin D.Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler and John F. Kennedy built upon thecommercial successes of radio, movies, and television,respectively, to the get their messages to the masses.

Radio’s commercial success in the 1920s and '30sprompted FDR to grasp its potential value to government,and he seized on this potential with his “fireside chats”during the Great Depression. Movies matured as amedium during the '40s and '50s, and it was Hitler whocapitalized on the medium’s power for propaganda

Reinventing “We the People”By P.K. AgarwalChief Technology OfficerCalifornia Department of Technology ServicesState of California

The virtual front porch leads to face-to-face dialogue within small groups.

12

purposes. Television came of age during the '60s and '70s,and it was Kennedy, followed by Ronald Reagan, whounderstood how to harness its power. Similarly, the Obamacampaign understood the power of IT and the Internet, andused them successfully for fundraising and engaging thepopulace during the 2008 presidential campaign. Thelessons learned during the campaign are now beingtransferred into the business of government to foster civicengagement and transparency.

To date, the Obama administration has used IT to enablecivic engagement and foster transparency in three ways.The first, I would dub “the virtual town square,” or thecrowdsourcing model, which engages a large number ofpeople in public deliberation. This is also being labeled the“idea jam.” This software-driven process allows people toprovide ideas, review and comment on the ideas of others,and vote ideas up or down — thus creating a group rankingof ideas. The second model is what I call the “virtual frontporch,” which engages individual neighborhoods in publicdiscussion. The outcome of this software-driven process isa face-to-face meeting among people in a smallgeographical area, typically a ZIP code. The software toolsallow users to search for a meeting (or a party) in theirneighborhood or express their interest in hosting onearound a specific issue. The third model is that ofelectronic petitions — websites that enable users tocreate, circulate, and sign a petition on issues of interestto them.

The Obama campaign used the virtual town squareapproach during the election (barackobama.com) to gatherideas and during the transition (change.gov; CitizensBriefing Book) to get a pulse on the issues in the minds ofthe people. Subsequently, the virtual town square wasused for a national dialogue on IT solutions, which yielded542 productive ideas related to the American Recovery andReinvestment Act. In March 2009, the White House becameopen for questions, soliciting questions for the president in11 categories, including healthcare, the auto industry,green jobs, and budgets. This effort produced more than100,000 questions, which garnered close to 2 million votes.Subsequently, the president answered the top rankingquestions in a Web conference. Ironically, the highestranking question pertained to the legalization ofmarijuana, proving that well-organized campaigns work nomatter what the medium. In May 2009, an open governmentdialogue was launched. This effort collected ideas on howto make government more transparent, participatory, andcollaborative. In this effort, the idea-gathering stage wasfollowed by a discussion phase, and then a policyformulation stage.

The front porch model was used during the campaign fororganizing unmediated house parties (Mybo.com) followed

by the first lady’s effort to get people to talk about nationalservice. More recently, it has been used for neighborhood-level discussion and debate on health care issues. Thewhole idea behind this approach is to encourage people tolook to themselves and their neighbors to solve theproblems of the community and the nation.

Both of the models discussed above are inside-out orgovernment-sponsored in design. Electronic petitions areoutside-in and are also getting a lot of attention. A numberof electronic petition Web sites (e.g. petitionsonline.com)allow one to start a petition or sign a petition. It is tooearly for these petitions to have a legal standing, but themere fact that a large number of people would sign apetition conveys a message. As an example, a petition wasstarted requesting the Obama administration to create theposition of a secretary of the arts. Within the first sixweeks of the start of this petition, more than 200,000 peoplehad signed it. These electronic petitions hold the promiseof replacing the current process for getting propositionson the ballot once electronic identities become legallybinding.

In the infancy of all mass media, including radio, movies,and television, a utopian vision of societal transformationwould result from the medium’s potential to spreadinformation and knowledge. However, that vision hasgenerally never materialized. Is the Internet headed for thesame fate? I think not, because the Internet is unique inthat it provides for direct people-to-people communicationwithout the need for center. All other media prior to theInternet were either one-to-many (broadcast) or one-to-one (personal communication such as telegraph ortelephone).

To summarize, the virtual town square approach is well-suited for gathering ideas and building consensus aroundpopular ideas. The virtual front porch allows for localempowerment and leads to face-to-face dialogue withinsmall groups. Electronic petitions are a powerful emergingtool for the voices of the people to be heard. The rapidevolution of mobile appliances and wireless technologieswill further enhance this agenda of civic engagement andgovernment transparency.

The next few years should provide for considerableinnovation in the use of IT in government and the remakingof the institutions of democracy. It is exciting to be living inthis age of transformation.

P.K. Agarwal is the Chief Technology Officer for the State ofCalifornia. For additional information contactP.K.Agarwal@dts.ca.gov.

13

Technology and data are critical to the expansion ofopen government, but where participation isconcerned, will anything truly replace the power of

meeting face to face?

The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy is drivingPresident Obama’s Open Government Initiative full-speedahead. Thousands of Americans have added their ideasand opinions to this groundbreaking online effort, whichwill help form the overall recommendations for input andopenness in the federal government.

While the Open Government Initiative rightly placessignificant emphasis on transparency and shows thepossibilities of online action, the potential power of thiseffort to specifically increase citizen participation, bothonline and in person, should not be overlooked orunderestimated. Democratizing data answers the need foraccess but does not answer the need for the citizen’s voicein governance. Our collective voice made Americandemocracy unique when it was created, and now is thetime to evolve our structures at all levels, revolutionizingthe way we conduct the public’s business.

Towards Universal Broadband Access Despite America’s lamentable ranking as No. 15 worldwidein the adoption of broadband Internet technologies,broadband adoption continues to expand. A June 2009 Pewstudy showed a full 63 percent of Americans with currentaccess to high-speed Internet; up from 55 percent in 2008.President Obama is devoted to continuing these trendsand closing the international gap. The American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act sets aside a whopping $7.2 billion topromote broadband adoption in low-income communities.

Democracy Moves OnlineExpanding broadband access means increasing socialinteraction. Increasing amounts of online activity arefinding their way into high-quality, high-touch onlinecommunications. Social networking sites such asFacebook, MySpace, and Twitter each boast subscriberbases in excess of 100 million. Local governments andagencies provide an increasing volume of data andtransactional services online, ranging from paying parkingtickets, to raw data at data.gov, to the deep and broadrange of services offered through GSA’s portal athttp://www.gsa.gov/citizen/services.shtml. The Obamacampaign’s groundbreaking use of Internet-based social

networking demolished any doubts of the intersection oftechnology, government and politics. MyBarackObama.commobilized millions of volunteers and supporters, andhelped to raise more than half a billion dollars online.

These currents and thousands like them are rewriting bothhistory and conventional wisdom. Politics, democracy, andgovernance will henceforth include online participation.Americans are eager to get involved.

Data Democracy and Its DiscontentsAs the data and processes of politics and governmentbecome more available to Americans hungry forinvolvement, the Open Government Initiative is taking abrave step beyond transactional government towardauthentic empowerment. As with any new era, there aresignificant dangers and new discoveries to be made.

Initially, Open Government Initiative comments werepopulated with suggestions from citizens and interestgroups keen to play a valuable role in the discussion. Oncethe openness of the forum became known, however, things

Data is Not DemocracyBy Dr. Carolyn J. LukensmeyerPresident/FounderAmericaSpeaks

The 21st Century Town Meeting links technology with face-to-facediscussion so that thousands of people can express a sharedmessage to decision-makers.

14

became a bit unruly. For example, a vicious andindefatigable crew of radicals clogged the site calling forfull disclosure of the president’s birth certificate anddoubting his right to serve in the office.

In subsequent phases of the initiative, these voices weremitigated. The requirements for discussion became muchsteeper, and simple technical features such as the abilityto link only to subject areas and not specific commentscreated a demotivator for what is known in online parlanceas the “noisy idiot problem.”

Still, this is one instance of the problems that arise inonline deliberation, and which may stand in the way as theonline seeks to become more democratic and asdemocracy seeks to move progressively more online.

Lessons From the FieldAmerica has a rich tradition of bringing people together intown meetings to grapple with critical public decisions.Online engagement would seem a natural progression forthis tradition, but there are many pitfalls. Beyond theexample above, other questions arise: Will decision-makers include public voices in their deliberations? Howcan an open process account for demographic diversity?

Lessons from one organization may show a pathway toaddressing these and other issues. The 21st Century TownMeeting convened by the nonprofit AmericaSpeaks is apublic forum that links technology with small-group, face-to-face dialogue to allow many people to deliberatesimultaneously about complex public policy issues andexpress a shared message to decision-makers.

Through a combination of keypad polling, groupwarecomputers, large-screen projection, teleconferencing andother technologies, these town meetings enable people tosimultaneously partake in intimate discussions and

contribute to the collective wisdom of a large group. Thesemeetings have been used to successfully allowcommunities to discuss such diverse issues as theprioritizing of efforts after Hurricane Katrina; allowing thepublic to make decisions on the disposition of New York'sground zero; and setting a course for the future of healthcare in California.

Rules of EngagementThe success of AmericaSpeaks’ work can be ascribed to aset of core principles that underlie all of its citizen-engagement activities and set them apart from otherapproaches:

1. Diverse representation ensures that the fullcommunity is represented in the process.

2. Informed participation provides participants withhighly accessible materials that neutrally frame theissues and provide a baseline of information to begindiscussions.

3. Facilitated deliberation makes certain all voices areheard and that each participant plays an active role inthe deliberations.

4. Shared priorities are the endgame, so the process isdesigned to foster a high level of agreement amongparticipants’ common priorities.

5. Links to action are the backbone of civic participation,requiring active involvement from decision-makers andkey leaders throughout a project.

6. Large scale meetings (500 to 5,000 participants)enable the outcomes to have greater visibility andcredibility with policy-makers, the media, keystakeholders, and the public as a whole.

7. Sustaining citizen engagement in the policymakingprocess – through opportunities to take action –develops civic leadership and enhances implementationof public priorities.

These principles are harnessed by AmericaSpeaks’ 21stCentury Town Meeting process and are ready to bedeployed in a broader, face-to-face or online mix.

Dr. Carolyn J. Lukensmeyer is Founder and President ofAmericaSpeaks, a U.S.-based nonprofit that develops andimplements innovative deliberative tools.

15

During the summer of 2009, AmericaSpeaks, Demos,Everyday Democracy and Harvard's Ash Institute convenedmore than 80 advocates to develop a set of recommendationsfor advancing the democracy reform movement. Participantsincluded advocates and scholars from the fields of publicdeliberation, electoral reform, transparency, communityproblem solving, media reform, public service, andcommunity organizing, as well as champions of participation

from the federal government. Joining too were keyrepresentatives from the Administration, including theOffice of Public Engagement, the Office of Social Innovationand Civic Participation, the Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy, Office of Management and Budget and theDepartment of Justice.

Here is a brief synopsis of the group's final report includingrecommendations, goals and next steps.

Working Together to Build a Stronger Democracy

GOALS NEXT STEPS

1. Involve the American public in meaningful deliberations about important policy questions

Build capacity in government and in society to involve theAmerican public in regular and meaningful deliberations aboutimportant policy questions

Demonstrate the value and efficacy of public deliberation byorganizing opportunities for broad cross-sections of Americans todeliberate and express views on issues of national importance

2. Support and promote an electoral reform agenda

Support and promote comprehensive electoral reform Eliminate unnecessary barriers to voter participation

3. Improve Federal Public Participation and Collaboration

Make permanent improvements in federal public participation,collaboration, and transparency activities through an executiveorder and legislation

Reaffirm and institutionalize participatory and collaborativegovernance in the federal government

4. Explore Lessons from the Open Government Dialogue

Advise government agencies on best practices for solicitingpublic input and participation

Leverage the knowledge and resources of the participation andinformation access

5. Recognize and Support Engagement Carried Out by Traditionally Disenfranchised Communities

Ensure that the engagement practices of traditionallydisenfranchised groups are highlighted and supported

Learn from and support innovative forms of engagement

6. Create a Report on the Health of our Democracy

Create a Health of our Democracy Report Measure the level of civic and democratic health by tracking hardand soft indicators over time

7. Build Skills and Capacity for Public Engagement

Increase the capacity of the public and of public officials toparticipate meaningfully in governance

Build skills, knowledge, and expectations necessary for the publicto exercise democratic practices

8. Increase the Availability of Federal Funding for Democratic Participation

Identify and make available sources of federal funding Ensure adequate resources for public engagement in federalprograms.

9. Convene an International Democracy Conference

Convene an international democracy conference for policymakersand advocates

Learn about innovative and alternative ways that people areworking to strengthen democracy throughout the world

10. Create an Ongoing Mechanism for Sustaining Leadership

Create an ongoing infrastructure to ensure all constituencies ofthe democracy movement can collaborate and communicate withthe Administration and leaders in other branches and levels ofgovernment

Create a “point” organization for the Administration to use as asounding board and mechanism to open up an ongoing and deeperconversation

Shortly before the 2008 election, I started a website,WhiteHouse2.org, to imagine how the White Housecould work if it was run democratically by thousands

of citizens over the Internet. I was excited about thepotential for citizen engagement that an upgradedWhiteHouse.govcould bring, but Iknew there were allkinds of restrictionson what they coulddo, both legally andculturally. I figuredif I could showthousands ofcitizens actively andenthusiasticallyengaged in a non-partisan politicalforum online, itcould push theofficial efforts inthat direction, andthe techniquescould be used formany governmentsites.

The main power ofthe modern WhiteHouse is to set theagenda, so atWhiteHouse2.org,everyone sets theirown list of priorities, and thecomputer compileseveryone's into one listand ranks them as if itwere the Billboard musiccharts or the Nielsen TVratings. This is different than just voting, as it forcespeople to really think about what matters to them most.Every time they put something on their list, it meanssomething else is pushed down.

There have been many challenges in makingWhiteHouse2.org work. Here are a few, and how I amaddressing them.

Finding Good ContributionsAmazon.com is known for its product reviews. People areasked at the end of each review whether it was helpful ornot; the most helpful reviews are shown on the main

product page. WhiteHouse 2 uses the sametechnique for talkingpoints, which are shortreasons for or againstan individual priority.

The problem is thatwhichever talkingpoints have beenaround the longest endup getting the mostvotes. When someonewrites a new talkingpoint, it's not enoughto just ask if it ishelpful, we need to askif it is more helpfulthan each of theexisting ones.

Tennis has a solutionto this problem. Theyhave to rankthousands of people,and give newcomerssome chance to riseto the top. So they

use a ladder. If you beatsomeone higher than you on

the ladder, you move up, andvice versa.

So make finding the besttalking point a game by putting two

side by side in a duel, and asking which one is better.

Encouraging Good ContributionsHow do you encourage people to write helpful talkingpoints? White House 2 has its own economic model thatuses a currency called political capital. It is shamelesslystolen from massively multiplayer online games like Worldof Warcraft, and modeled after how political capital worksin real life. Famously, former President Bush earned

16

Could Citizens Run the White House Online?By Jim GilliamFounderWhiteHouse2.org

political capital by winning the 2004 election, and spent itunsuccessfully trying to privatize Social Security.

You earn “pc” by writing talking points people find helpful,bringing in new members, when people follow you, thingslike that. You can spend it buying ads for the homepage topromote your priorities.

Now there's a positive feedback loop: I have an idea, I canpost it, I can write talking points explaining why it is a goodidea, I earn political capital if people find those helpful, andthen I can spend it promoting my idea on the home page.

Like priorities, everyone understands money, so it is a verysimple tool that can be used in countless ways toencourage good contributions. Imagine if instead trying toget money out of politics, we flooded it with a new kind ofmoney, one that is earned by people being better citizensand by helping their community.

Crazy IdeasPresident Obama is doing much of what he said he would,so those priorities are coming off the list, and what is leftare a lot of things that will never happen. That is not useful.

Here we can learn something from the stock market. It ispossible to predict a date by letting people bet theirpolitical capital on when it will happen. Then we can re-sort the list. Imagine a "wisdom of the crowds" calendarfor the White House agenda.

Noisy IdiotsA perennial challenge in any political forum is how to dealwith disruptive influences. At WhiteHouse2.org, there isone primary rule: no personal attacks. You can attack anidea, but not the person suggesting it. If someone violatedthis rule, I used to send them a note asking them to stop.This did not work. In the heat of an argument, some wouldstill lash out personally, quickly making the wholediscussion useless. So I created a four-step process.Anyone could flag a comment as violating the rules, and ifI agreed, the offending person received a warningexplaining the rules and the four-step process. If ithappened again, they would lose a small amount ofpolitical capital. On the third violation, they would lose alot of political capital and were not allowed to participatefor a week. Finally, the fourth step was expulsion.

A funny thing happened. I issued several warnings, and allthe problem people left in a huff. I never needed to go tostep 2.

Balancing Competing InterestsThe founding fathers created three branches ofgovernment as a way to provide checks and balances, toensure no one branch had too much power. Like Executive,Judiciary, and Legislative, we can use “branches” to groupconstituencies with different goals.

This is easiest to understand in the context of acorporation. Shareholders want the stock price to go up,employees want salaries to go up, and customers wantprices to go down. There might be a hundred thousandcustomers, but only a couple hundred employees. It is notfair for customers to completely dominate the agenda, butby grouping people into branches, we can track whether anidea is more important to customers, shareholders, oremployees and make better decisions.

How Do We Get More People Involved?Make it simple and fun. At WhiteHouse2.org, all you haveto do at first is make your list of priorities. Everyoneunderstands a to-do list. People who want to do more, canwrite talking points, start discussions, earn politicalcapital, and buy ads.

The most important thing by far is simply to show peopletheir efforts have an impact. I have been dismayed at someof the priorities at WhiteHouse2.org. For example, #382 is“Admit Government Can Fix Nothing; Can Only MakeWorse.” There is a big opportunity for people ingovernment to connect with citizens, and show thatgovernment can fix their problems.

In the United Kingdom, a government-sanctioned e-petitions site for the Prime Minister put together byMySociety, a non-profit, got 10 percent of the UKpopulation involved. A similar site, approved by PresidentObama could attract 20 million people in a year.

Jim Gilliam is the founder of http://www.Whitehouse2.org and ofthe technology platform behind it. For additional informationcontact jim@gilliam.com.

17

Petition signing questionsWhat is an e-petition?

An e-petition is a form of petition posted on a website.Individuals or groups can create a petition on the site andvisitors can add their details to the petition to “sign” it.The format makes it easy to collect signatures, and it alsomakes it easier for us to respond directly using email.

What's the difference between an e-petition anda paper petition?

There is no theoretical difference, only the way in whichthe signatures are collected and delivered. A petition cangather names and addresses in either or both forms,though once someone has signed a petition in one format,they cannot sign it in another.

Petition signing questionsHow do I sign a petition?

To sign a petition, you will need to give your name, addressand email on the form provided. Once you have signed thepetition, you will receive an email asking you to confirmthat you wish to add your name to the petition by clicking alink. Once you have done this, your name will be added tothe petition.

What will you do with my name and addressdetails if I sign a petition?

Nothing, unless you expressly ask to sign up for otherservices available on the Downing Street website (e.g.,email updates). We will use your email address to confirmyour signature and, unless you ask us not to, we will alsosend you a maximum of two responses to the issues raisedin the petition. In the future we may introduce a facility to

18

E-Petitions Preserves an Old British Tradition

There is a well-established tradition of British citizens presenting petitions at the door of Number 10 Downing Street, thehome and office of the Prime Minister. Since November 2006, they have been able to deliver those petitions online, athttp://petitions.number10.gov.uk, and more than 10.5 million signatures have been delivered on nearly 63,000 e-petitions.

According to the website, “the e-petition system has been designed to be transparent and trustworthy. For legal and anti-spam reasons this site cannot host every petition submitted, but the rule is to accept everything that meets the terms andconditions of use,” and “no petition will be rejected unless it violates these terms…[E]ven when petitions cannot behosted, No10 will still publish as much of rejected petitions as is consistent with legal and anti-spam requirements,including the reason why it could not be hosted.”

Frequently Asked Questions posted on the E-Petitions site describe the workings of this system, which is said to be thelargest-ever non-partisan democracy site by number of users. Here are some excerpts.

enable the creator of the petition to send you a maximumof two emails as well…. The data themselves are not heldby the Prime Minister's Office or any other governmentbodies or agencies.

More than one person shares my email address— can we sign the petition?

I’m afraid that there is a trade-off to be made betweenallowing anyone to sign the petitions regardless of havingan email address, and protecting the petitions from toomuch abuse. We have come down on the side of using oneemail address per person to act as an anti-abusemechanism because it is now possible for anyone to get anemail address for free in a few moments. On the converse,if we let people use one address to sign multiple times wewill likely see considerable fake signatures almost straightaway.

Why not “sign against” petitions?

Many people have suggested changes to the e-petitionsservice during this test phase, and a number ofimprovements have been made as a result.

One of the most popular proposals has been the creationof a ‘sign against’ mechanism, which would allow users todisagree with petitions. After much discussion, we havedecided not to add this function.

The rationale is this: “e-petitions” is designed essentiallyas a modern equivalent of the traditional petitionspresented at the door of No.10. It enables people to puttheir views to the Prime Minister. It is not intended to be aform of quasi-referendum or unrepresentative opinion poll(professional polls use special techniques to ensurebalanced samples). With a “vote against” function, that iswhat it would effectively become.

It is of course possible to create a counter-petition to anexisting campaign (as many people already have). Thisremains the best option if you disagree with a particularpetition.

Petition creation questionsHow do I start an e-petition?

You can start a petition using our e-petition form. You willbe asked to provide some basic information about yourselfand your petition. We aim to make your petition live on thewebsite within five working days, although during busyperiods it may take longer.

Do you accept all petitions?

We aim to accept as many petitions as possible. Howeverthis site has to meet standards that are set out in ourterms and conditions and in the Civil Service Code.

Petitioners may freely disagree with the Government orcall for changes of policy. There will be no attempt to

exclude critical views and decisions to accept or reject willnot be made on a party political basis.

What happens if my petition is rejected?

If your petition does not meet these criteria, we will send itback to you along with an explanation of the reason(s) forrejection. We will give you the option of altering andresubmitting the petition.

If you decide not to resubmit your petition, or if yoursecond iteration is also rejected, we will list your petitionand the reason(s) for not accepting it on this website.

Can I still send in a paper petition?

Yes. Paper petitions can still be posted/delivered toDowning Street. If you would prefer to collect signatureson paper, you should send them to:

10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA

How long will my petition run for?

You can decide how long your petition can run for and wewill carry it for up to 12 months.

What will happen to my petitiononce it is finished?

Once your petition has closed, usually provided there are500 signatures or more, it will be passed to officials whowork for the Prime Minister in Downing Street, or sent tothe relevant Government department for a response.

Every person who signs such a petition will receive anemail detailing the Government's response to the issuesraised.

Organisational questionsWhy have you set up this service?

We are offering this service to enable as many people aspossible to make their views known to the Government.The service will enable smaller groups who may not havethe funds to set up a website to still collect signaturesonline. It also will enable us to respond directly to thosewho have signed the petition online via email.

Can I make my own petitions site?

Yes, the software behind this petitions site is open source,and available to you under the GNU Affero GPL softwarelicense. You can download the source code (look under‘pet’) and help us develop it. You’re welcome to use it inyour own projects, although you must also make availablethe source code to any such projects.

19

My Estonia is a civic initiative designed to findcreative and effective solutions to the country'sproblems, in times of recession, and, on the other

hand, to find new community leaders to implement theseideas. The initiative is based on the belief that a morecoherent and efficient society is built on citizens’ ideas andactions, both bold and small.

May 1 is a notorious date for all nations that used to belongto Soviet Union. This day was once dedicated to globalsolidarity of the working class (the proletariat). In reality,the regime was deviating from all democratic values, so thegovernment-led mass celebrations in honour of the daywere forced and insincere.

In 2009, solidarity was once again in the minds and hearts ofordinary people in Estonia. On May 1, the word regainedmeaning, when more than 11,000 people (among a nation of1.3 million) convened on brainstorming sessions to discusscommon problems and support each other in achievingcommon goals. The slogan of the initiative read: “ThinkingTogether for a Better Estonia."

Notions such as solidarity, democracy,or even civil societyneed to be put into practice to reveal their true value. Beliefin the common good is important, but what is most neededis momentum to bring democracy alive.

“Our main aim is to increase understanding among people,bring the state closer to citizens and solicit them to becomeactively involved in improving their lives instead of passivelyhoping that someone else will do it,” said Estonian ICTentrepreneur Rainer Nolvak, one of the main organizers ofthe My Estonia initiative.

For this purpose, organizers provided 400 think tanks incultural centers, schools and other popular institutions.Trained volunteer discussion leaders moderated the panel.Brainstorming was based on the open space deliberationmethod, designed to create a space and time for people togather around issues that matter to them – immediateconcerns that may need a simple or creative solution. Openspace has been used in diverse cultures and circumstancesaround the world, to facilitate productive meetings from fiveto 2,000 plus people, and to encourage people to organizethemselves and take responsibility for solving problems.

Discussions were simultaneously held online and laterlinked to the central website, the pledge bank.Brainstorming sessions were also organized by Estoniancommunities in 12 other countries.

Analysis of brainstorming results is under way. Within a fewmonths, organizers hope to get a thematically grouped listof development scenarios that can be applied in everydaylife. Ideas and solutions range from better governance toinnovative child care services. Projects will be discussed infurther workshops; discussions are planned for airing onnational television. Some community initiatives werestarted on the spot and have been implemented. Other willbe implemented in association with nongovernmentalorganizations, enterprises, or government agencies.

The My Estonia initiative was built on the success of amassive garbage collection campaign in 2008, which united50,000 volunteers to collect 10,000 metric tons of illegallydumped garbage during one day.

The success of both campaigns proved that people are

20

By Hille HinsbergState Chancellery Republic of Estonia

My better EstoniaMy better Estonia

A view of the city of Tallinn, Estonia.

ready to commit themselves for the well-being of society. Itgenerated trust that the voice of citizen counts.

My Estonia is a grass-roots movement towards bettersociety. What kind of systems are in place by publicadministration to support democracy and develop strongercivil society?

Engaging interest groups in drafting legislation andpreparing policy documents is not mandatory underEstonian law. However, elements for engaging interestgroups can be found in the constitution, rules of thegovernment of the republic, and legislative drafting rules ofthe government and the Parliament. These elements pointout that legislative drafting must be open andunderstandable for citizens, and enable active participation.

Since the basic legal framework is in place, the public ismore and more interested in observing how involvementworks in practice: whether all affected groups have beeninvolved in policymaking, whether the dialogue issubstantial and if an agreement is reached regardingdecisions.

In recent years, a systematic approach has been taken bythe central government related to enhancing publicparticipation in policymaking. The latter is obviouslyinterrelated with the growth of civil society, voicing stronglythe ideals of participatory democracy.

An important foundation for e-democracy was establishedby the Public Information Act at the beginning of 2001. Theact obliged all public institutions to create websites and toprovide extensive online content of public interest, includingdrafts of policy documents and legislative acts. Providinginformation about activities of public institutions is animportant prerequisite of transparent and accountablegovernment.

Several important processes for democratic developmenthave stemmed from approving the Estonian Civil SocietyDevelopment Concept approved by Parliament in 2002. It is astrategic document defining the mutually complementaryroles, mechanisms and priorities of public administrationand civic initiative.

In 2005, a Code of Good Practice on Involvement wasdeveloped by representatives of public sector and civilsociety organizations, elaborating the key principles thatsupport active and meaningful participation of CSOs andthe wider public. The code suggests principles that shouldbe incorporated into the policy planning process.

Key people have been appointed in line ministries, whosedirect responsibilities include involving the public indecision-making processes. These civil servants supervisethe implementation of the Code of Good Practice onInvolvement in their respective agencies, and advise bothgovernment officials and civil society organizations in thematters of involvement.

The government’s central participation portal,www.osale.ee, was launched in 2007, allowing interestgroups and individuals to post comments about drafts ofpolicy documents. The summaries of public consultationson this website are included in the consecutive drafts forlegislative acts.

As a separate function, citizens can make their ownproposals to the government, for better regulation or simplyto improve acute problems. The Website enables people togain a better understanding of the aims and routines ofadministrative agencies, which can gauge the expectationsof the public better.

For example, when preparing the National HealthDevelopment Plan, the Ministry of Social Affairs set anobjective to map the factors affecting health by involvingthe public and asking what everybody could do for their ownhealth.

According to the civil servants in the Ministry of SocialAffairs, the consultation was lively and emotional, with avaried scale of opinions presented. The development planwas amended drastically in two years, based on publicinput, and in its final version, it definitely reflects theopinions of the public.

The government needs to acknowledge the citizens’ voice,either in the form of results from a brainstorming session ormediated by civil society organizations. The governmentalso continues to systematically build the scene forparticipation, by offering tools for better policymaking anddecision processes, developing the skills of civil servantsetc.

Regardless of the administrative level, development ofdemocracy requires common understanding of the aims fora better society, as well as horizontal and verticalcooperation across and between the levels and spheres ofadministration.

Hille Hinsberg is the communication officer with Estonia's StateChancellery. For additional information contactHille.Hinsberg@riigikantselei.ee.

21

Estonia, once a part of theSoviet Union, regainedindependence in 1991 andjoined the EU and NATO in2004. Situated on the coastof the Baltic Sea, thecountry has 1.3 millioninhabitants. It has becomea pioneer in ICT services,e-government and cyber-defence systems.

Recently launched by the Brazilian House ofRepresentatives, the e-Democracia project aims toengage its participants in the lawmaking process in

order to achieve concrete legislative results. Relying onthe use of social media, combined with offline legislativeevents (e.g. committee hearings, conferences), theinitiative is intended to reach a broad public that includescitizens, parliamentarians, civil servants, researchers,nongovernmental organizations and interest groups. Sucha program is driven by a belief that the lawmaking processcan benefit from the convergence of politicalrepresentation and citizen participation, in a virtuous cyclewhere one model strengthens the other.

The backbone of the initiative is its website. It aims toinvolve users in three core moments of the lawmakingprocess:

• The sharing of information about a problem that needsto be addressed by law;

• The identification and discussion of possible solutionsto the problem; and

• The drafting of a bill itself.

As to the sharing of information, the website providesusers with the possibility to upload and downloadresources in text, audio and video format, and thepossibility to follow up on pertinent legislative actionbeing taken at the House of Representatives. To enhancethe debate among the participants, different resources areavailable, such as video chats, forums and customizablesurveys. Users are also able to create and edit their ownpersonal profiles and to form thematic social networks.These networks are expected to be particularly useful as ameans to bring together different users across the countryaround a specific topic. Finally, considering that in thelegislative process much of the relevant discussion takesplace during the drafting of a bill itself, the websiteprovides users with the “wikilegis” area. In thiscollaborative environment, users can elaborate their ownversion of a bill or suggest amendments to existing billswhile simultaneously discussing and qualitativelyevaluating bill proposals. Conceived as a free softwaresolution, the platform may be appropriated by state andmunicipal legislatures as a tool to increase citizenparticipation in their own lawmaking processes.

The e-Democracia website was conceived to address thespecific needs of the initiative. In order to learn from themerits of similar experiences around the world and to

avoid repeating mistakes, preliminary studies wereconducted. In this sense, the current architecture of the e-Democracia website is the fruit of the particular needsthat were identified, and a careful reflection on existingsolutions and preliminary testing.

The website will be a permanent work in progress, buildingon identified needs, user feedback, challenges andavailable technology. For instance, we have opted not toimplement ranking systems that are used in othercollaborative initiatives, where the user is shown the levelof agreement that other users have expressed in relationto submitted ideas. We made this decision in order to avoidthe bias that may be generated during the process in theform of a conformity effect, whereby user choices tend tobe influenced by the previous judgments made by othersand where early events may produce great variations in theoutcome.

Bearing this in mind, we are considering alternative-choicearchitectures to better source input from a large number ofusers. For instance, we consider a system where thedegree of agreement with an idea expressed by previoususers (e.g., overall rating of an idea, top-rated ideas)should only be visible to a new user after he or she haspassed judgment. Such a mechanism should be able togenerate a redistributive effect where each idea wouldactually receive a similar share of visibility. In a similarvein, we are considering how argument-mapping toolscould be used in the framework of the e-Democraciawebsite. Another question under debate concerns theelaboration of a strategy to integrate the use of other tools(e.g., Twitter and Facebook) in the process, in an attempt toreach the target public in environments in which they arealready interacting. Finally, we are beginning to considerhow the use of mobile phones could be integrated into theinitiative.

Considering the challenges involved in the implementationof such a project, the use of technology per se is far frombeing the only ingredient for success. Citizen involvementis essential, but it is only sustainable if the initiative allowsusers to have an actual voice in the decision-makingprocess. However, in ensuring this kind of participation,numerous political, institutional and organizationalvariables come into play. For example, a previouscommitment from Members of Parliament and fromlegislative staff – beyond those directly in charge of theproject – is fundamental. In other words, internal support isalso a key factor. Based on this assumption, at a very early

22

Participatory Lawmaking in BrazilBy Cristiano Faria and Tiago Peixotoe-Democracia Project

stage, a particular effort was deployed to involve – alongwith external stakeholders – MPs, their staff, and theservants of the House in the co-design of the initiative.Currently hosting a specific discussion regarding “TheNational Policy of Climate Change,” the project relies on agreat deal of support from the political and administrativespheres of the House. A high degree of involvement hasbeen generated among major internal actors such as thespeaker of the House himself, the EnvironmentalParliamentary Group, the Committee on Environment andSustainable Development, and a multitude of civil servantsfrom different House departments. As the project isappropriated by different stakeholders, we expect that inits second phase, the e-Democracia website will be able tosimultaneously host initiatives related to national andsubnational lawmaking processes.

Leveraging the knowledge dispersed throughout societyand bringing the Parliament closer to the citizens is by nomeans an easy task, and there is no silver bullet for it. Weexpect that the e-Democracia initiative will play its part inthe Brazilian context: that of a young democracy open toinnovations.

Cristiano Faria is the legislative intelligence manager at theBrazilian House of Representatives and project manager of e-Democracia. Tiago Peixoto is the e-participation adviser to the e-Democracia project and researcher at the European UniversityInstitute. For additional information, contactcristiano.faria@camara.gov.br and tiago.peixoto@eui.eu.

23

Participatory Budgeting (PB) can be broadly definedas the participation of citizens in the decision-making process of budget allocation and in the

monitoring of public spending. Originating in the Braziliancity of Porto Alegre, PB has spread across the world andhas received international praise as a good governancepolicy. In practice, the implementation of PB has beenassociated with desirable outcomes such as reduction oftax delinquency, increased transparency and better andinnovative delivery of public services.

In a traditional PB process, citizens are invited to periodicpublic assemblies that are held across the city todeliberate on the allocation of public resources. In thissense, PB presents some problems in terms of thematerial (e.g. paying for transport) and immaterial (e.g.time consumption) costs associated with participating inthe process, that is, attending the public assemblies. Thesecosts have often been reflected in low turnout levels,where only a small percentage of the city population getsinvolved in the initiative.

Until 2004, this had been the case for the city of BeloHorizonte, Brazil, where participation levels in the PBstood at around 1.5 percent of the city’s electors. In 2006,alongside the traditional PB process, the cityadministration launched a Digital Participatory Budgeting(e-PB) process. In addition to the budget of $43 million(USD) allocated to the traditional participatory budgeting,$11 million was assigned to the new initiative. Whereasthe traditional PB required citizens to attend meetings at acertain time and place, with the e-PB the city’s electorscould discuss and cast their votes online during a period of42 days, where voting was enabled by the provision of aunique electoral register number.

At the completion of the process, with a budget nearly onefourth that of the traditional (offline) PB, the e-PBattracted over six times more participants, with 173,000inhabitants (10 percent of electors) taking part in theprocess. The winning projects, subsequently delivered tothe communities, were of undeniable salience and benefitto the citizens. They included initiatives such as therenovation of transport systems and hospitals, the building

Brazil and Argentina: From ParticipatoryBudgeting to e-Participatory BudgetingBy Tiago Peixoto, European University Institute Guilherme Lessa, Fábrica do Futuro

24

of educational centers and the creation of ecologicalparks. In 2008, with similar success, the city repeated theprocess with the added possibility for citizens to vote bycalling a toll-free number.

However, even if lowering participation costs through theuse of technology seems to address the issue of lowturnout, e-PB processes such as that of Belo Horizontehave been criticized for insufficient deliberation and,consequently, allegedly low quality participation.

In a traditional offline PB citizens must attend adeliberative face-to-face meeting before casting theirvotes. However, generally, in e-PBs, citizens can votewithout participating in a deliberation and without goingthrough face-to-face experiences – that are difficult to

simulate online – where individual interests are confrontedwith collective purposes and community bonds are createdand reinforced.

In 2009, the administration of La Plata, Argentina, launcheda $4.1 million PB initiative with an innovative participatorydesign which consisted of two main phases. During thefirst phase, 40 face-to-face deliberative meetings wereheld across the city, where citizens were permitted todirectly allocate up to 30 percent of the total budget, and topresent a list of options for the allocation of the remaining70 percent of the budget. The second phase consisted of alarger process of voting among the options previouslyselected by the deliberative meetings, where a securedsystem allowed votes to be cast through paper ballots,electronic ballots and text messages (SMS). As a result,during the second phase, a total of 29,578 peopleparticipated, representing over 10 percent of the city’selectors. Particularly noteworthy and elucidating is thatthe second phase attracted over 9 times more participantsthan the first, face-to-face phase (3,200).

Such a design, where deliberation and participation levelsare equally taken into account, addresses the apparentincompatibility between deliberation and high levels ofparticipation which is frequently highlighted by experts inthe field and identified in practice. Furthermore, incentivesare created for a variety of citizens – who are willing tobear diverse costs of participation – to engage in theprocess. By giving citizens who attend the meetings the

opportunity to definitively allocate up to 30 percent of thebudget and to select the options for the remaining budgetto be submitted to vote in the second phase, an additionalincentive for residents to attend the deliberative stage ofthe process is created. The second phase creates anopportunity for a broader section of the population toparticipate in the process, by voting among options thatare the fruit of a previous deliberative process which isequally open to all citizens.

It is well-known that trust in a participatory process is adeterminant of citizen participation. In this respect, onecan hypothesize that a process with large-scaleparticipation and lowered costs may become an entrypoint to more sophisticated and costly models of

engagement. For instance, taking part in a PB process bysimply casting a vote through text messages (i.e. lowparticipation cost), which has a clear impact on thedecision-making process, may generate increased trust inthe process. Consequently, citizens may be more inclinedto attend the face-to-face deliberative stage of the nextPB. This could be particularly pertinent if a more proactiveapproach is taken, for example by sending a text messageto citizens who voted using a mobile phone, inviting themto attend subsequent face-to-face PB assemblies.

Despite its infancy, e-Participatory Budgeting is startingto provide compelling evidence of being one of the few e-democracy initiatives with the potential to deliver itspromises. The articulation between online and offlineactivities, the enabling of different levels of engagement(e.g. sending a text message or attending a meeting) andthe use of mobile technology are some of the paths beingexplored. Further developments in the domain are to befollowed closely by those interested in the use of ICTs forcitizen engagement.

Tiago Peixoto is a researcher at the European University Instituteworking with online and offline participation. Guilherme Lessa is awriter and social entrepreneur. For more information, contacttiago.peixoto@eui.eu and guilhermelessa@fabricadofuturo.org.

...incentives are created for a variety of citizens – who are willing to bear diverse costs of participation –

to engage in the process.

Just as in offline politics, the well-off and well-educated are especially likely to participate in onlineactivities that mirror offline forms of engagement,

according to a study conducted in August 2008 andpublished in September 2009 by the Pew Internet andAmerican Life Project. But there are hints that socialmedia may alter this pattern. Here is an excerpt from theSummary of Findings.

• Whether they take place on the internet or off,traditional political activities remain the domain ofthose with high levels of income and education.

• There are hints that forms of civic engagement anchoredin blogs and social networking sites could alter long-standing patterns that are based on socioeconomicstatus.

• Those who use blogs and social networking sites as anoutlet for civic engagement are far more active intraditional realms of political and nonpoliticalparticipation than are other internet users. In addition,they are even more active than those who do not use theinternet at all.

• The internet is now part of the fabric of everyday civiclife. Half of those who are involved in a political orcommunity group communicate with other groupmembers using digital tools such as email or groupwebsites.

• Respondents report that public officials are no lessresponsive to email than to snail mail. Onlinecommunications to government officials are just aslikely to draw a response as contacts in person, over thephone, or by letter.

• Those who make political donations are more likely touse the internet to make their contributions than arethose who make charitable donations; however, largepolitical donations are much less likely to be madeonline than are large charitable donations.

Authors of the Internet and Civic Engagement report are: AaronSmith, Research Specialist; Kay Lehman Schlozman, BostonCollege; Sidney Verba, Harvard University; and Henry Brady,University of California-Berkeley. For the entire report, go to:http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/15--The-Internet-and-Civic-Engagement.aspx

25

Pew: Well-off and Well-educatedAre More Likely to EngageBy the Pew Internet and American Life Project

Fairfax County is just outside Washington D.C. It has apopulation of more than 1 million residents, acombined county/schools budget of nearly $6 billion

and nearly 35,000 county/schools employees. It is a keyeconomic engine for the commonwealth and the NationalCapital Region. Fairfax County offers citizens many toolsfor interaction and participation with county government inorder to improve citizen-to-government networking. With theuse of modern information technologies to improve citizenaccess to government information and services, socialmedia platforms are employed to expand and redefinecommunication efforts beyond traditional news releases.The county fosters communications and booststransparency using Web 2.0 platform tools with its “GetFairfax” branding on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

When it focused on the challenge of eliminating a projectedrevenue shortfall of $650 million for the 2010 fiscal year,which began July 1, 2009, the county turned to its citizensfor help. The public was encouraged to participate throughface-to-face meetings, an extensive media campaign, anoutreach program with extensive use of social media and aone-stop shop on the county’s revamped website. The goalwas to create a budget that included the appropriate level ofservices that, in light of the projected shortfall, were bothsustainable and acceptable to the community.

The county held 20 face-to-face community dialoguesessions, with 718 members of the public attending; and fiveemployee brownbag lunch sessions, with 197 employeesattending. Concurrently, the county used online andtelephone (integrated voice response) technology for publicquestions, comments and suggestions. More than 1,497distinct comments were recorded electronically.

An extensive media campaign for the effort included newsreleases, newspaper advertisements, 1,900 fliers to schooland community groups, 200 posters in county and schoolfacilities, video segments broadcasted on the county’stelevision station, and information and videos posted on thecounty’s Facebook and YouTube sites.

All of the documents presented at the community dialoguesessions were published online here so people who couldnot attend a meeting had access to the information. Thiswas a critical step not only for outreach but also educationbecause the budget is a complex topic.

A separate Web page also was created for employees on

the county’s intranet with specific workforce information.The county executive hosted a live online chat whereemployees sent in questions; he and key staff answeredmore than 75 questions online.

As the community outreach process came to a close, thecounty shifted its strategy to inform the public about budgetproposals and final adoption through social media and itswebsite www.fairfaxcounty.gov. Now, Fairfax County usesTwitter to provide live coverage of the Board of Supervisorsmeetings. When the county executive proposed his budgetto the elected officials, every major idea he presented wastweeted, so the county’s followers could see the potentialchanges and then provide feedback online through e-mail orto their elected officials. Fairfax County also used itsFacebook page throughout the process to point people backto the government budget page RSS feeds were also usedto keep the public informed when new information waspublished; including the hundreds of questions electedofficials asked county staff to reply to regarding the budget.All of these questions and answers were published onlineto provide transparency.

The result of this multichannel public engagement effortwas a great deal of public input to help the county executiveand staff create a proposed FY 2010 budget and ultimatelyto guide the decisions of the county’s Board of Supervisorsin approving its final budget plan.

Addition of enhanced interactive features to the websitewill remain a strategic focus. These include videos ondemand and streaming videos through the county’sgovernment-access television station, library audio books,special-needs registry supporting emergency responsesituations, and citizens’ participation in countywideinitiatives. The numerous online services offer the citizensthe opportunity to conduct business and transactions withthe government 24/7, without walls, doors or clocks, creatinga virtual government.

Fairfax County harnesses new information, communicationand social technologies in order to empower publicservices, affirming the county’s strategic goals and beliefthat return on investment is really “return on engagement.”

David Molchany is a Deputy County Executive in Virginia’s FairfaxCounty. For additional information, contactdmolch@fairfaxcounty.gov.

26

Public Engagement on Fairfax County’s BudgetBy David Molchany, Deputy County Executive Greg Licamele, Office of Public AffairsJeremy Lasich, Office of Public AffairsMark Matthews, Office of Management and BudgetAnita Rao, Department of Information Technology

27

E-government is a critical component of citizenengagement efforts at all levels of government. Butwhat does e-government-enabled citizen engagement

look like at the local level? Oakland County, Michigan, hasexplored a range of opportunities for harnessing e-government to engage citizens in local government.

In today’s world, technological advances are carrying usfarther into the information age at an unprecedented pace.With each leap forward, the Web becomes progressivelymore integrated in the daily life of most Americans.Considering the often uneasy balance between citizens’increasing demands for convenient, accessible governmentservice and governments’ shrinking budgets, how can localgovernments continue to engage citizens in meaningfulways?

E-government can facilitate citizen engagement in a waythat benefits everyone, enabling a digital community that iswell advanced in the adoption and integration oftechnology into daily life at home, work and play. E-government is a purposeful response to a new informationeconomy, with emphasis on citizen-focused servicedelivery.

The development of e-government programs has generallyoccurred in four stages. The first two stages, presence andinteraction, consist mainly of one-way Web-basedcommunication from government to citizens. Under thismodel, citizens are consumers of government information,and are still reliant on government employees to completea given task. In the third stage, transaction, citizens areempowered to complete entire tasks online, using Web-based self-service applications. The fourth stage,transformation, redefines the delivery of governmentinformation and services while reshaping the relationshipbetween citizens, businesses, employees and government.

Ideally, the transaction and transformation phases movebeyond simple automation of routine tasks, emphasizingdevelopment of robust services for citizens, instead ofthrowing services at citizens and hoping for the best. Toengage citizens in this process, governments must shifttheir view of citizens as consumers, and allow citizens tobecome contributors in the development of governmentpolicies and programs. This type of citizen engagementcreates avenues for two-way dialog.

This dialog is critical for the ongoing success of localgovernment operations. Unlike most other services,citizens cannot shop around for an alternative government.In some cases, such as payment of taxes, citizens arecompelled to accept the government services. Thesecompulsory transactions with government can and shouldbe balanced through a more collaborative relationshipbetween citizens and government. When citizens areengaged and have a role in the development of relevant,efficient and convenient government services, everyonewins.

One of Oakland County’s earliest citizen engagementsuccesses was the Business Roundtable. Created 1993,this advisory group includes representatives of business,government and education in Oakland County. Theroundtable is charged with creating programs thatenhance Oakland County’s business climate and quality oflife. Over the years, the group has crafted a range ofstrategies for better funding for road improvements,simplified business development processes, and improvedaccess to job training programs. More than 80 percent ofthe several hundred roundtable recommendations havebeen implemented. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholmreplicated elements of Oakland County’s BusinessRoundtable on a statewide basis when forming theGovernor’s Council of Economic Advisors.

One of the most unique examples of citizen engagementthrough cross-boundary services is the county’s one-of-a-kind service model for e-mail subscription and alertservices. When Oakland County launched GovDelivery’s E-mail and Digital Subscription Management solution on itsown website, the county also negotiated a contract toexpand the service to each of its 62 local governments,who may now use the system free. This enables smallermunicipalities to maximize citizen engagement throughcommunication technologies that they might not have beenable to fund otherwise. The email subscription functionprovides an opportunity for citizens to receive updatedinformation for topics they are interested in. The OaklandCounty web site contains over 25,000 pages of contentwhich can be overwhelming to the average user of countyservices. A citizen can choose their preferred topics bysimply subscribing for a specific set of information, forexample, H1N1 Flu Information. Every time the web contentis updated by county staff an email is generated and sentto the subscriber with a specific link to the new content.Receiving only the data they need will be a more efficientcommunication relationship between government andcitizen.

Oakland County also makes good use of focus groups,surveys and polls to engage citizens in the development ofnew programs and services at the local level. Suggestionsand requests are collected directly from citizens or viaemployees of county departments, who often act as e-government eyes and ears in observing opportunities forcitizen-focused service improvements. Some of the

Citizen Engagement in Oakland CountyBy Phil Bertolini Deputy County Executive/CIO Oakland County, Michigan

28

In the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” ourinnocent leading man, played by Jimmy Stewart,becomes a senator almost by accident. He has only one

legislative priority: setting up a summer camp for boys inhis home state. In order to accomplish his goal, and ensurethat the voices of his constituents are heard, he is forcedto shout above the din of big media and corrupt politicians.During a dramatic filibuster, the strength of his convictionshines through, and he wins the day.

For a variety of reasons, a growing number of federalmanagers are reversing the roles in Frank Capra’s script. Inorder to keep public decisions from turning into politicaldebacles – and in order to make their own voices heardover the din of activists and the media – federal managersare bringing those decisions directly to the public. Theywant the public to take on an intermediary role in policydevelopment, somewhere between utter ignorance andabsolute control. They want ordinary people to becomemore informed about the issues, settle some of theirdisagreements, and appreciate the tough choices thatofficials are forced to make. In agencies as diverse as theCenters for Disease Control, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Federal Highway Administration, and the NationalNanotechnology Coordination Office, Washington is goingto Mr. Smith.

This trend has been evident for some time, but the 2008presidential election and the advent of the Obamaadministration have given it added momentum. Theelection showed that the new attitudes and capacities ofordinary citizens could be harnessed as part of a nationalelectoral strategy; the challenge of the new administration

is to transfer that energy into the day-to-day work ofdemocratic governance.

When they turn toward Mr. (and Ms.) Smith, managersgenerally have several goals in mind:

• Gathering policy input from a broad cross-section ofcitizens;

• Defusing tension and conflict around particular publicdecisions;

• Rebuilding public trust and helping citizens understandhow difficult the role of government can be;

• Gaining a better understanding of the language andideas they would need to use in order to reach evenlarger numbers of people; and

Washington Goes to Mr. Smith: The ChangingRole of Citizens in Policy DevelopmentBy Matt LeighningerExecutive DirectorDeliberative Democracy Consortium

county’s most heavily used Web-based e-commerceservices were initially developed in this way.

Citizen engagement is further enabled through the use ofWeb 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 includes a broad range oftechnologies. Adding a social dimension or opt-incommunication feature to a local government websiteengages citizens where they are and on their own terms,instead of forcing citizens to conform to government’sterms. Oakland County has used Web 2.0 technologies toengage citizens through its podcasts, multimedia videoseries, e-mail and alerts subscriptions, blogs and forums.

By making its media communications available on iTunesand participating in popular social websites – includingFlickr, YouTube and Facebook – the county is reaching awider base of citizens than ever before.

More information about all of the examples discussed hereis available at www.oakgov.com.

Phil Bertolini is the Deputy County Executive/CIO for OaklandCounty, Mich. For additional information, contactbertolinip@oakgov.com.

A scene from the movie, ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” starringJimmy Stewart as the title character.

• Encouraging citizens (and the nonprofit organizations,advocacy groups, businesses, and faith-based groupsthey belong to) to take actions that support andcomplement public policies.

All of these goals respond to, and capitalize on, the newcapacities and concerns of 21st century citizens. Thechange in citizenship is most evident at the local level,where ordinary people are playing increasingly active roles– sometimes productive, sometimes disruptive – in publicdecision-making and problem-solving. Citizens may haveless time for public life, but they bring more knowledge andskills to the table. They feel more entitled to the servicesand protection of government, and yet have less faith thatgovernment will be able to deliver on those promises. Theyare less connected to community affairs, and yet theyseem better able to find the information, allies, andresources they need to affect an issue or decision theycare about. The bottom line is that citizens are better atgoverning, and worse at being governed, than ever before.

Attempts to incorporate citizens into policymaking havebeen far more common at the neighborhood, local, andcounty levels than at the state and federal levels. Thefederal agencies with the most experience in citizeninvolvement tend to be the ones that make local decisions– how to manage a toxic waste cleanup, for example, orwhether to protect an old-growth forest – and theirinteractions with citizens usually focus on those localpolicies rather than national ones. However, citizenparticipation projects dealing with state and federalpolicies are on the rise, partly because some officials atthose levels of government are now feeling the same kindsof pressures as their local counterparts.

To address these challenges and opportunities, publicofficials, public employees, and other kinds of leaders aretrying various ways – some successful, some not – ofworking more productively with citizens. Severalsuccessful principles have emerged from this work:

1. Recruiting people by reaching out through the variousgroups and organizations to which they belong, in orderto assemble a large and diverse critical mass of citizens.The best involvement projects map their communities,figure out what people belong to, and convince leaderswithin those groups and organizations to recruit peoplethey already know.

2. Involving those citizens in a combination of small- andlarge-group meetings: structured, facilitated smallgroups for informed, deliberative dialogue and largeforums for amplifying shared conclusions and movingfrom talk to action. One of the worst practices intraditional citizen involvement has been to use largemeetings for things (such as dialogue) that can only beeffective in small meetings and vice versa.

3. Giving the participants in these meetings theopportunity to compare values and experiences, and toconsider a range of views and policy options. Peoplehave to be able to connect these issues to their ownlives and what matters to them.

4. Encouraging and effecting change in a number of ways:by applying citizen input to policy and planningdecisions; encouraging change within organizations andinstitutions; creating teams to work on particular actionideas; and/or inspiring and connecting individualvolunteers. The result of this more comprehensiveapproach is essentially policy with a small ‘p,’ meaningnot just laws and ordinances but all the things that all ofus can do to solve public problems.

Building on these principles will be critical if we want toenhance democracy at the federal level. The Internet hasso far been underutilized in this work; online technologiesoffer terrific potential for tracking and measuring public

engagement, providing new incentives for people toparticipate, helping participants find the information theyneed, and providing new venues for dialogue anddeliberation. At the same time, the four successfulprinciples are often most evident in local, face-to-facesettings. As Will Friedman has pointed out (see Friedman,“Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Scope,”Journal of Public Deliberation, 2006), our attempts toinvolve citizens in federal issues should capitalize on, andhelp to strengthen, local democratic structures andopportunities.

These attempts to reach out to citizens are, on one level, areversal of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” But they aremotivated by many of the same impulses apparent inJimmy Stewart’s character: the need to understand andexplain citizen values in Washington, and the desire torebuild trust and communication back home. The newdynamic in 21st century politics has given us a newurgency, and new opportunities, to recast the relationshipbetween citizens and government.

Matt Leighninger is the executive director of the DeliberativeDemocracy Consortium. Portions of this essay were adapted fromhis book, The Next Form of Democracy (Vanderbilt UniversityPress).

29

Citizens may have less time for public life, but theybring more knowledge and

skills to the table.

30

In March 2009, a partnership of organizations andindividuals, announced an Ohio RedistrictingCompetition, which challenged the public to design a

Congressional redistricting plan for the state that would befairer and more balanced than the plan currently in place.

Creators of theCompetition formeda public-privatepartnership amongcitizen leaders,including theLeague of WomenVoters of Ohio,current Ohio StateRepresentativeDan Stewart andformer Ohio StateRepresentativeJoan Lawrence,professors at TheOhio StateUniversity, OhioCitizen Action,and CommonCause Ohio, someof whom haveworked onredistrictingissues for decades.Approached by thepartners, Ohio Secretary ofState Jennifer Brunner agreed tohost the process and to make resources and trainingavailable to the public. When the Competition kickedoff after more than nine months of planning, the public hadthe historic opportunity to demonstrate that an openprocess based on objective criteria can produce fairlegislative districts in Ohio. Redistricting is inherentlypolitical, but the Competition demonstrated how unduepolitical influence in the redistricting process could beminimized.

Competition ObjectivesA good redistricting process should rely on two big ideas:preserving Ohio communities and promoting competitiveelections. These ideas work together to create fair districts

and minimize the ability to “game” the system for anypolitical party.

Keeping those ideas in mind, contest objectives weredeveloped as a guide for participants. To endeavor topreserve Ohio communities, participants were scored ontheir ability to preserve communities of interest byminimizing the fragmentation of counties andmunicipalities for purely political reasons, and to achievecompactness, by avoiding bizarre, politically-motivated,“gerrymandered” districts.

Participants were encouraged to aim for competitiveness,by creating districts that could reasonably be won by either

major political party, andfairness, by achieving abalance of electedrepresentatives that mirrorsthe political preferences ofOhioans.

Competition ProcedureTo promote dialogue onredistricting reform, theCompetition partners

provided broad access to thetechnical, demographic, and

political data required toredraw district boundaries.

Through partnerships with theNorthern Ohio Data and

Information Service at Cleveland

State University and with The Ohio StateUniversity, the partners offered free access tohighly specialized redistricting software using

geographic information systems technology thateach competitor could access via the Internet on a

home computer. The Ohio Channel permitted on-demand web access to a training video on the software.

Many interested individuals from across Ohio and thenation who requested information on the Competition werealso granted access to the software program.

Competition ResultsResults were announced on June 18, 2009. Of 14 planssubmitted by members of the public, three plans werejudged to be the best based on the scoring criteria used inthe Competition. There was no one winner declared the“best plan,” nor were there prizes for the three winners.Three plans were disqualified because they did not meetthe threshold requirements of having substantially equalpopulation, being composed of contiguous, non-

Ohio RedistrictingCompetitionBy the Office of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner

The current boundaries of OhioCongressional Districts

31

overlapping areas, and complying with voting rightsprotections under federal law. The other eight plans did notscore as well when they were compared in the matrix.

According to the Ohio Redistricting Competition partners,the Competition provides concrete proof that an openprocess based on objective criteria can produce fairlegislative districts in Ohio. The use of a balanced, robustscoring model made it difficult for an individual to “game”the system to benefit any one political party.

The results showed that even the lowest-scoring entry inthe Competition was quantitatively fairer than the actual2000 redistricting plan. The Competition yielded districtsthat were evenly split, competitive for either party, with ahigh level of community preservation and appropriatecompactness. The results were in stark contrast to the waydistricts are currently split along partisan lines, with veryfew that are competitive, a low level of communitypreservation and a low level of compactness.

The winning plans improved upon the current processwhere there are no rules or criteria other than federal caselaw and principles delineated in the Constitution regardingcompactness and equipopulation. It guaranteed a processthat was not open for “political games.” Because theCompetition was open to everyone, unlike the traditionalpartisan process where Congressional districts are drawnby the General Assembly through legislation andLegislative districts are drawn by the ApportionmentBoard, citizens felt engaged in this process thatencourages a vibrant democracy.

The Ohio Redistricting Competition succeeded where thecurrent process failed because it was open to the public,relied on objective rules that everyone could follow andfocused on the public interest, not partisan gamesmanship.Anyone could submit a plan because the software andtraining were free for participants and every step of theprocess was transparent.

As the dialogue on redistricting reform in Ohio continues,the results of the Competition demonstrate that a fair,open, objective process relying on citizen involvement canprovide valuable information for policymakers. The partnerorganizations have since pulled together a draftconstitutional amendment based on the lessons learnedfrom the Competition. They hope to work with the GeneralAssembly to place the issue on the ballot in 2010.

Contributors to this article include: Patrick Gallaway, Bryan Clark,Josh Kimsey and Luisa Barone.

The three winning plans judged to be more fair andbalanced than the current Congressional Districts.

32

Local governments, community organizations, andpublic agencies make better decisions and have agreater impact when they increase the frequency,

diversity, and level of citizen engagement. Citizens areengaged when they play an effective role in decision-making. They are actively involved in defining the issues,identifying solutions, and developing priorities. Here, wesummarize strategies that:

• Increase citizens’ knowledge

• Encourage citizens to apply that knowledge

• Create opportunities for citizens to engage each otherand

• Ensure opportunities are ongoing.

Why Engage Citizens?It’s the right thing to do: Citizen engagement supportsprinciples of a democratic system, including equalopportunity to influence public decision-making andpopular sovereignty. It supports the ethic that all thoseaffected by a decision should have a say in that decision.

It works: Citizen engagement creates more effectivesolutions. Participatory processes enhance legitimacy ofsolutions and decrease conflict.

It creates other benefits: Engagement improvescitizens’ knowledge, communication, and problem-solvingskills. Participants who have traditionally beenmarginalized can become empowered. Trust in communityorganizations and governmental agencies can increase.

What are Basic Principles of Citizen Engagement?Effective engagement results from a high-quality process.Principles of successful citizen-engagement activitiesinclude:

• Diversity: Seek participants who represent multipleviewpoints, ideas, resources, and social networks;

• Inclusivity: Reduce barriers to participation, includingknowledge, experiences, and cultural differences;

• Equality: Ensure equal participation and influence inthe process;

• Transparency: Communicate the work of the groupclearly, both internally and externally;

• Legitimacy: Justify all decisions, and show howparticipants’ input affected the decisions;

• Deliberation: Provide opportunities to share ideas andvalues, discuss them, and come to agreement as agroup;

Planning for Citizen EngagementBy Kathryn J. BrasierAssistant Professor of Rural SociologyPennsylvania State University

• Substance: Create opportunities to learn and applythat knowledge;

• Influence: Ensure the outcome influences decision-making;

• Ongoing: Create opportunities at all stages of thedecision-making process, and allow time for reflection;

• Accommodation: Provide opportunities to participateat multiple times and locations.

Developing a Citizen Engagement PlanA citizen engagement plan will identify why citizenengagement is necessary, what you hope to achieve, andthe processes you will use. First, identify the goal: What doyou want to learn or change? Are you prepared to act onthe results? Do you have the necessary time andresources? To start, assemble a planning team to representall stakeholders. The team will identify goals, selectappropriate techniques, recruit participants, and publicizethe project.

Step 1: Define the Issue: Frame the problem as an issuefor discussion. This shapes perceptions of the issue andthe range of solutions. The frame should set a neutral toneand identify a feasible scope of action. For example, framethe problem of "latch-key kids" as "opportunities foryouth."

Step 2: Identify the Purpose of Engagement:Why dopeople need to be involved, and to what extent? There is acontinuum of possibilities:

Inform > Consult > Engage > Collaborate

• To inform means to provide citizens and decision-makers with information.

• To consult is to get feedback or stimulate public debate.

• To engage means incorporating citizens’ views in thedecision-making process.

• To collaborate involves creating long-term partnershipsof citizens and officials to address the issue.

Step 3: Identify Tools for Engagement:The purpose ofengagement will guide the choice of tools.

• Tools to inform include interviews, surveys, and publichearings. These tools describe demographiccharacteristics; assess priorities; describe opinions,attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors; assess policy support;evaluate existing programs and identify gaps inservices; and provide a platform to express opinions.

• Tools to consult include nominal group processes (i.e.,listening sessions), Delphi techniques, and focusgroups. These techniques generate prioritized lists ofissues, problems, or opportunities, and can initiatediscussion of issues.

• Tools to engage include public issues forums, citizens’panels, and design workshops, and result inrecommendations for policymakers. These processesprovide citizens with multiple perspectives and time forinteraction and reflection.

• Tools to collaborate include study circles andcommunity task forces, and produce prioritized goalsand action steps. Collaboration involves enhanced,repeated interaction among participants.

Step 4: Identify Potential Participants: All those whocan affect or who may be affected by a decision should beinvited. Effective recruiting brings diverse ideas, skills, andexperiences that enhance discussions. Recruit from bothestablished groups (leaders, officials, organizations) andfrom groups often overlooked (minorities, women, youth,newcomers, low-income individuals, etc.). Invite those whohave disagreed in the past, as they have demonstratedconcern. Identify barriers to participation (i.e., language,knowledge, location, cultural differences) and removethem.

Step 5: Develop a Recruitment and Retention Plan:A formal plan targets participants and identifies contactmethods. The recruitment plan should also identifyretention strategies that support participants’ growth andreward their efforts.

Step 6: Create a Positive Environment: Create anenvironment in which participants’ time is used effectively.Ensure that meetings are productive and comfortable forparticipants, and communicate clearly about objectivesand action steps. Most importantly, follow up with action.

Step 7: Identify Evaluation Criteria: Establishbenchmarks, and continually evaluate progress toward thegroup’s goals. Be sure to celebrate successes.

Step 8: Maintain Lines of Communication: Provideongoing opportunities to participate and be informed. Thiscould entail periodic publications (e.g., newsletters), awebsite, as well as special activities (celebrations, familyevents, etc.). Develop a plan for working with local media.

ConclusionA more engaged citizenry leads to better decisions, moreefficient resource allocation, and reduced conflict.However, getting all the pieces in place can be dauntingand take considerable resources. The suggestions includedhere provide a starting point for enhancing your citizenengagement efforts.

Funding support for this research was provided by the Center forRural Pennsylvania. A copy of the full report is available at theCenter’s website (http://www.ruralpa.org). University Park, PA16802. For additional information contact kbrasier@psu.edu.

33

Since they started “Reinventing Government” in theearly 1990s, public managers have looked for new waysto deliver high quality services to citizens in a cost-

effective, efficient manner and courteous manner. Squeezedbetween declining revenues and increasing costs, localgovernments learned to become, in the words of authorsDavid Osborne and Ted Gaebler, more “mission driven,”“customer driven” and “market oriented.”

Advocates of civic engagement, however, often object to thelanguage of markets and customer relations with itsimplication that citizens are passive consumers of goods andservices. Yet the two values of public-administration, bettercustomer relations and active citizen engagement -- are byno means contradictory. As the old saying goes, knowledge ispower, and some of the same information systems developedto increase efficiency and enhance “customer satisfaction”can be used to foster citizen engagement and public learning.

ComNET (Computerized Neighborhood EnvironmentTracking) was developed by the Fund for the City of NewYork’s Center on Government Performance as part of itseffort to find new ways of engaging citizens in performanceassessment and reporting. During a series of focus groupmeetings, it was discovered that citizens and governmentemployees didn’t always measure the performance ofgovernment agencies in the same way. One revelation wasthat citizens care a lot more about the appearance of theirstreets and sidewalks than many public works officialsrealized. It is one of the most visible indicators of how their

neighborhoods are faring, and ComNET helps themunderscore that point.

Worcester, Massachusetts, began using ComNET andchanged the way public managers and citizens view theirrespective roles and responsibilities. The program armsneighborhood groups with handheld computers and digitalcameras, allowing them to document street level problemsand report them to the appropriate agency. Traveling ingroups of three or four, citizens roam the streets onweekends looking for potholes, buckling sidewalks, derelictvehicles, weed-strewn lots, illegal garbage dumps anddowned stop signs. The information is uploaded via theInternet to the Worcester Regional Research Bureau’sComNET Connection. The bureau then generatesspreadsheets, analyzes the information and shares thefindings with neighborhood associations, which get a betterpicture of what they should be asking the city to fix. Since2003, thousands of abandoned vehicles have been removedfrom the streets by Worcester’s Department of Public Works,thanks in part to New York City’s ComNET.

In Somerville, Massachusetts, a Boston-area city of about80,000, local officials hope to combine the benefits of a data-driven performance management system with regularlyscheduled, ward-based public meetings. Somerville began itsResiStat meetings in 2007 to complete the feedback loopbetween citizens and government. The comments andsuggestions of residents are reported back to the city’s semi-weekly data-driven performance evaluation meetings andcompiled in an annual Resident Report that is publishedalong with the official city budget. Thomas Champion,executive director of the city’s office of communications, saysemail groups have emerged from these ResiStat meetingsand these groups are constantly sharing information. “Thereis a lot of communication between ResiStat members directlyto SomerStat throughout the year,” he says. “We are creatinga civically engaged group in each ward that is constantlytalking to itself and to the city and using a common reference

Potholes and PDAsBy Mike McGrathEditorNational Civic League

34

35

point. They know what is going on. They have an inside look athow the city is allocating resources in their areas.”

“This brings us to a position of mutual understanding andknowledge,” says Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone whenasked about his “ResiStat” program. “We’re building a levelof true collaboration between citizens and government, andthat’s great for the future of the city.” The origins of ResiStatgo back to 1994 and efforts by the New York City PoliceDepartment to link crime fighting efforts to timely, accuratedata generated by police calls, computers and databasesunder the city’s CompStat program. Geographic informationsystem software was used to pinpoint problem areas in thecity and regular performance management meetings wereheld to ensure that resources were being deployed in themost efficient manner. The resulting drop in crime rates wasdramatic, and other cities noticed.

As part of Somerville’s “ResiStat” program, the mayor, thelocal alderman and other city officials meet with citizens ineach of the city’s nine wards, which correspond roughly toneighborhoods, and five special interest groups (parents,young people and speakers of the city’s three main foreignlanguages—Spanish, Portuguese and Creole.) The goal ofthese public meetings is to present information generatedthrough SomerStat, the city’s data-driven performancemanagement system, and get feedback from citizens. To buildSomerStat the Mayor borrowed the CitiStat model fromBaltimore, which itself had been adapted from New YorkCity’s CompStat.

One outcome from SomerStat was development of a 311 CallCenter, a 24-hour service allowing citizens to ask questionsand make requests for service from the city. Easy to answerquestions are handled immediately. Others are answered in atimely manner through e-mail or a follow-up call, ensuringthat citizens are not shunted from one department to another.Requests for service are entered into a database, given atracking number so citizens can find out how things areproceeding. The 311 calls and work orders became animportant source of data for SomerStat.

It is too early to judge the success of ResiStat. Somervilleofficials readily acknowledge that it is a work in progress, butit offers an interesting model that other cities seeking to linkdata management, performance assessment and civicengagement may want to consider. Also, it has already raisedexpectations among Somerville residents. When a change inparking regulation was announced recently, somecomplained that there wasn’t adequate public input. “Theperception is that the old modes of civic engagement aren’tgood enough anymore,” says Champion. “Citizens do feelthat on a whole range of issues and services, they are betterinformed and more engaged than they have ever been.”

Mike McGrath is editor of the National Civic Review, a 98-year-oldjournal of civic affairs published by the National Civic League(www.ncl.org) and Jossey-Bass. His recent report on the “The NewLaboratories of Democracy: How Local Government is ReinventingCivic Engagement” is online at: http://www.pacefunders.org/

The first U.S. forays into citizen media began inearnest only in 2004. By mid-2009, it was clear that so-called “citizen journalism” was not a monolithic

phenomenon, but rather it was evolving in some interestingand exciting ways. Indeed, from bedroom communitiesoutside New York City to the exurbs of Boston topostindustrial behemoths like Philadelphia, new mediamakers have begun launching all kinds of news andinformation projects.

Some are random acts of journalism, such as eyewitnessesuploading photos or videos of a major catastrophe or event.Some are the rants of Internet cowboys opining on the stateof neighborhood affairs in their individual blogs. But a moreimportant phenomenon is under way. Increasingly, effortsare launching to try to fill information gaps in communities.They tend to be websites, constructed with an architectureand a mind-set to report about discrete topics or covergeographic areas.

Many of these new media makers don’t aspire to bebloggers. They seek to provide accurate accounts of day-to-day happenings in communities that nowadays have little orno daily news coverage. “We’re trying to produce what usedto be a newspaper," said Christine Yeres, who launchedNewCastleNOW.org two years ago in Chappaqua, N.Y.,which got little coverage from other news outlets inWestchester County. “I think we get the readership that wedo because ... it is professional. It’s been gone over verycarefully."

Here are some examples of different citizen-media efforts.They all add value in different ways:

• Micro-local news sites founded by people trying to fill

New Media Makers Pioneer Novel Forms of NewsBy Jan SchafferExecutive Director J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism

36

news voids in their communities, such as the award-winning JDLand.com, which covers the Washington, D.C.,area around the new Nationals baseball stadium.

• Local or citywide sites founded by former journalists.These include MinnPost.com in the Twin Cities, the St.Louis Beacon and NewHavenIndependent.org inConnecticut.

• Sites launched by conventional media to attract user-generated content. Take a look at CNN’s iReport.com, theChicago Tribune’s TribLocal.com or the New York Times’The Local.

• National and international sites, such as NowPublic.com,which solicit and publish public photos, video and articlesfrom around the world.

• Smart blogger sites, such as HuffingtonPost.com orTalking Points Memo.

• Sites that aggregate, curate (and sometimes translate)Third World bloggers, often filling gaps created bynonexistent media or government-controlled media. SeeGlobalVoicesOnline.org and its Rising Voices micro-funding arm.

• Sites such as Ushahidi.com that use mobile phones andtext messages to report on crisis hot spots.

Increasingly, as legacy news organizations fret about futurebusiness models or fail entirely, these startups areattracting support from philanthropic organizations whosemission statements never mention the word “media.”

A new study released in June 2009 by my center, J-Lab: TheInstitute for Interactive Journalism, found that 180foundations had awarded at least $128 million in grants tosupport 115 news initiatives since 2005.

Attesting to the new media-makers trend, nearly 87 percent– or 102 of the 115 news initiatives – launched in only thepast three and a half years. They range from hyperlocal tohealth to watchdog sites.

Remarkably, almost $65 million of these philanthropicdollars went to support investigative journalism. Of the 11Investigative projects tracked in the study, six had launchedsince 2005. They range from the well-funded Pro Publica($30.8 million) to American University’s InvestigativeReporting Workshop ($720,000), to the newly launchedWisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism ($100,000).

Many funders see their support as no less than a bulwark todefend democracy. “The core of all this is that democracyneeds a free flow of information,” said Alberto Ibargüen,president and CEO of the John S. and James L. KnightFoundation.

Knight has blazed a trail in funding news startups withinitiatives such as the Knight News Challenge and the

Knight Community Information Challenge and with supportfor J-Lab’s New Voices community news startups.

Ibargüen is jump-starting a role for other foundations tofund media by promising to match their support forcommunity news and information projects to the tune of $24million during the next five years. The first call for projectsattracted 170 proposals for $5 million in Knight funding.Twenty-one winners were announced in February 2009.

Elsewhere – in Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco –other foundations are responding to diminishing newscoverage and vanishing newspapers by analyzing their localmedia landscape and asking what role they should beplaying.

For the most part, these foundations are not so muchseeking to shore up commercial news enterprises as theyare looking to shore up community knowledge-sharing. Theyare looking to build community, not simply to cover it.

And they can be forthright in acknowledging this. SanDiego philanthropist Buzz Woolley founded the enterprisingVoice of San Diego in 2004 out of frustration that newscritical to the city’s health was not being brought to public’sattention.

“We did not start this as an act of journalism or an act ofbusiness,” Woolley said of his news site, which is now a $1-million-a-year operation. “We did this as a civic effort toprovide information to the community about things that areimportant.”

It is on this new terrain that old journalism values –accuracy, independence and objectivity – are combiningwith new journalism conventions. Where Big-J journalistsexcel at covering communities from the outside-in, many ofthese new media makers are creating the models for how tocover communities from the inside-out.

“Sometimes, we want to be the New York Times, andsometimes we want to be the church bulletin," says SusiePender, co-editor at NewCastleNOW.org.

The New York Times has been a beacon for aspiring mediamoguls for well over a century. But the new millennium hasbrought an economic crisis in the newspaper industry andtechnology that allows up-to-the-minute, on-the-spotpersonalized news. It suggests a model that may be closerto an electronic church bulletin in the future than the “GrayLady” that ruled the golden age of newspapers.

J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism is a center ofAmerican University’s School of Communication in Washington,D.C. Its study, “New Media Makers. A Toolkit for Innovators inCommunity Media and Grant Making” is online at the KnightCitizen News Network, http://www.kcnn.org/toolkit

How do keep your organization’s message fresh andaudience engaged? This question takes on new levelof urgency when your mission is to educate the

public about radon, a radioactive gas responsible for morethan 20,000 lung cancer deaths annually. To reach a wholenew generation of homebuyers we designed a video contestto recruit creative citizens to us help spread this criticalpublic health message.

The ChallengeRadon, the second leading cause of lung cancer, aftersmoking, has long been a public communications challenge.The naturally occurring radioactive gas is invisible andodorless, and with no bad guy, public outrage has given wayto apathy. Fortunately testing is easy and inexpensive, andhomes with high levels can be fixed. For almost 20 years,EPA’s radon program has produced public serviceannouncements, which have garnered donated televisionand radio time, resulting in millions of Americans testingtheir homes. But today’s first-time homebuyers have manymore media options than their parents did. Overloaded withmarketing messages, consumers are more likely than everto tune out or fast-forward past even the best-crafted publichealth messages.

Online video sharing is a promising new tool the publiccommunication toolbox. Video-sharing sites such asYouTube have grown exponentially during the past fewyears and are popular among younger demographic groups.Compared to television, online videos are often cheaper toproduce and easier to target to specific demographics. Thismade online video-sharing a promising medium for radonmessaging, but rather than develop our own content, weopted instead to sponsor a video contest to:

• Tap the creativity of our target audience;

• Populate the Web with multiple videos on the program’skey message; and

• Track online views to provide insight into which creativeapproaches were the most effective.

The IdeaIn 2008, EPA sponsored an Earth Day photo contest usingFlickr asking for photos to illustrate the agency’s mission toprotect the environmental and public health; 162 photos

were submitted demonstrating the potential for audienceengagement using Web 2.0 tools. Although the privatesector had used video contests successfully, no federalagency had yet tried the approach. We consulted early onwith multiple offices within EPA to explore how toimplement such a contest. Key considerations exploredwere:

• Government Contests. Given the challenge of thesubject, we needed an incentive to pique interest. Could afederal agency sponsor a contest with a cash prize?EPA’s Office of General Counsel had to go all the wayback to a 1927 precedent in the GAO Redbook (4-162), adesign contest for the Arlington Memorial Bridge, whichallows agencies to procure artists’ designs through acompetition. The award, OGC told us, must be related tothe cost of the expense of producing the entry, so weprepared a cost estimate and settled on a $2,500 award.

• Competition Process.We required a fair and opencompetition process. We posted contest eligibilityguidelines, rules, and judging criteria on the program’sWebsite and selected a technical evaluation panel ofEPA employees to judge the entries against the criteria.We also had to obtain special permission to issue thewinner payment by check.

• Copyright.The winner(s) would have to waive theirrights to the video.

• Video Submittal. We set up a free YouTube group toaccept entries and also gave contestants the option ofmailing them directly to us. We included anonendorsement disclaimer for YouTube on theregistration page.

The ContestWe launched the contest in July 2008, with entrants givensix weeks to submit their videos. Soon after launching theregistration site – along with the rules and guidelines, andaccompanying YouTube group to display the entries – webegan marketing the contest. The first week of marketing isperhaps the most critical to success. We marketed primarilyon the Web, and the only cost was our time. The mosteffective targets included:

37

Putting Your Audience to Work: EPA’s Radon Video ContestBy Jeremy AmesOffice of Radiation and Indoor AirU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

38

• Websites and blogs for aspiring filmmakers, and sitesspecifically to showcase video contests, e.g. Vidopp.com,Filmthenext.com;

• Social and environmental cause forums, e.g.treehugger.com, socialedge.org;

• Social and professional networking sites such asFacebook and GovLoop; and

• Media tagging sites such as Digg and del.icio.us.

Waiting is perhaps the most difficult part of the process, butpatience pays off. The first entry came after two weeks, andmore than half the entries came in the last week. In total, wereceived 30 entries, beating our best expectations. Thejudges panel evaluated the videos on creativity, originality,quality, technical accuracy, and content.

The ResultsIn September, we announced the winning video at theNational Radon Meeting in Las Vegas. “Eddie’s Story” takesthe form of a personal (and true) testimonial from lungcancer survivor Eddie Metcalfe, who explains his surprisinglung cancer diagnosis despite being a non-smoker, andsubsequent effort to test and fix his home, the video makersusing close-ups and graphics to illustrate Eddie’s words.

The video is on www.epa.gov for viewing and sharing, and infall 2009 will be distributed to television stations. Closed-

captioning made the video 508 compliant, a requirement forall federal government websites. Three additional videoswon honorable mentions.

All the entries can still be viewed at on the YouTube contestpage. As of August, 2009 they had received more than 24,000views collectively, continued to average 1,000 additionalviews each month. Media also provided positive coverage ofthe contest.

EPA’s Office of Water adapted this approach and launchedits own Water Quality Video Contest in March. That contestasked for 30- to 60-second Public Service Announcementsand one- to three-minute educational videos, with a $2,500prize for each category. The office received more than 250entries, with the winners announced in June. TheDepartment of Health and Human Services launched a FluPrevention PSA contest in July with similar rules and prizeand received over 230 entries. Several other federalagencies are planning their own contests, and EPA isamong a number of agencies to launch its own YouTubechannel.

Social media tools offer many opportunities for citizenengagement, and federal agencies are beginning to take theplunge.

Jeremy Ames joined EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air in2004. For additional information, contact ames.jeremy@epa.gov.

The tools of engagement have changed. A newgeneration is rising. Modern technology and ideas ofcitizen participation are redefining civic engagement

in the 21st century: Barriers to entry are lower, and thefundamental relationship between citizens and the entitiesthey are connected with is different. Organizations –nonprofits, government agencies, and others – that willsuccessfully adapt to this new model will understand theiryoung audience and the new ways to engage them.

The millennial generation, those born roughly between 1976and 1996, is composed of about 80 million people. Time-strapped and debt-laden, millennials have one main thing togive: energy. They are defined by a sense of civicresponsibility post-9/11 and are motivated by the large andgrowing social challenges facing our nation. They are lookingto make a difference. But there are some strings attached.

Before reaching out to young people, the first question anorganization should ask itself is whether its mission andmeans of achieving it aligns with the values of its audience.Volunteer service, for example, is a core value of millennials.While youth turnout at the polls as a percentage of theelectorate increased by a point in the 2008 general election,larger gains were seen at places such as schools, soupkitchens and public lands, where 9.8 million millennialsvolunteered 1.87 billion hours and made up more than half ofall new volunteers, according to the Corporation for Nationaland Community Service.

Organizations should provide a way to engage young peoplethrough service. But it is important to keep in mind that thegreatest obstacle to engaging millennials other than the timethey have to give, is convincing them that they can have asignificant impact. Organizations should make a clearbargain as to what will come of a potential volunteer’s efforts,and be able to uphold that promise if they wish to retain theirmillennial supporters. Social media can be an effectivemeans to convey these ideas in a way that is appealing andunderstandable to young people.

Organizations should also adhere to the bedrock principles ofyouth engagement: inclusivity, transparency and shareddecision-making. Young people want to have ownership oftheir causes. This is a lesson from the 2008 election that theObama administration has attempted to replicate with itsUnited We Serve summer initiative, providing do-it-yourself

A Millennial Model of Civic Engagement By Nick Troiano and Chris GoldenCo-FoundersmyImpact.org

39

toolkits on serve.gov for individuals to organize communityservice projects. A citizen-centered approach to engagementnecessitates organizations not just plug in those they engagebut empower them to create change where and how they seefit, according to “Citizen at the Center: A New Approach toCivic Engagement,” a 2006 report of the Case Foundation.

Mobilize.org, an organization that involves young people inpublic policy, uses interactive keypad voting at theirconferences to allow participants to set the agenda andground rules before the real work even begins. This is key tothe organization’s theory of change called Democracy 2.0,defined as a more open, participatory and innovativeapproach to societal problem-solving (see “Democracy 2.0:Millennial-Generated Change to American Governance”).Millennials are not foot soldiers; they are leaders. Progressmust be citizen-driven not organizer-dictated. Bureaucracyand hierarchy are kryptonite to this Super Generation.

With these principles in mind, organizations shouldconcentrate on how to leverage online tools to enhance theirwork, building on another millennial value of technology.Important components to an effective Internet strategyinclude reaching young people where they already are,facilitating community and interaction, and providing ways tobecome involved that are not time- or labor-intensive.Successful cyber engagement is simple, scalable and social.

First, organizations must listen to the ongoing conversationand see where they can join in. The idea that “If we build it,

they will come” is often digital suicide in creating an onlinepresence. Though the exact methodology will vary byorganization, being present on a variety of platforms iscrucial. Creating a space where young people already are canbe a simple as using a hash tag on Twitter, which brought outthe crowds organizing around the Iranian election, or morecomplex like creating an application on Facebook, such asCauses, which gathers support for nonprofits.

Second, millennials are social creatures by nature and areattracted to spaces where they can interact with others whilecontributing to a certain goal. The Pickens Plan recruitssupporters by letting them help shape the movementalongside other activists on its ning.com community.Because of their trust and frequent online interaction withsocial networks, millennials themselves become the mosteffective vehicles to spread a message or get others involvedin a cause, a characteristic that sites such as SocialVibe aretaking full advantage of. In this decentralized model, eachactivist or volunteer becomes a spokesperson for a particularorganization to his or her peer group.

Finally, it is all about combining forces. Tasks that used to becompleted by a small number of people who had a largeamount of time have been handed over to a large number ofpeople with a small amount of time. When “You” were namedTime Person of the Year in 2006, the magazine wrote, “Thenew Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringingtogether the small contributions of millions of people andmaking them matter. … It's really a revolution.” Not only isthere an inherent value in engaging more people through thiskind of civic “crowdsourcing,” but tasks that were once costor labor prohibitive are now possible.

The Extraordinaries is pioneering the concept ofmicrovolunteerism. The organization’s smart-phoneapplication allows users to complete small, skill-based tasks,such as tagging images for a museum’s online collection, intheir free time, such as when they are riding a bus or waitingin line at the store. The focus is on the least commondenominator, requiring a small buy-in from participants whileproviding an opportunity for them to scale their efforts at will.

We are living in an era of civic realignment, catalyzed by newcommunication technologies and a generation that isreinventing the ways in which we can cooperatively solvesocietal issues. Given this potential, we must recognize thatour society will be only as successful as the sum of the partsthat are engaged, and that the new tools at our disposal willbe only as effective as the entities that use them. It isincumbent upon organizations to take advantage of these andother best practices to sustain and grow citizen participation.

Nick Troiano and Chris Golden are co-founders of myimpact.org, anemerging online platform and social network for young peopleinvolved in community and national service programs. They areundergraduate students at Georgetown University and AmericanUniversity, respectively. This essay is adapted from a featureddiscussion at the National Conference on Citizenship’s website,www.ncoc.net.

40

Understaffed, budget-constrained agencies,generally don’t perceive opportunity when asked torun large public involvement projects. We think of

complex projects that often become protracted andemotionalized. With every new issue or political concern,we experience special interest groups and “smart mobs”with a passion for taking over the process. For thegovernment professional, it all adds up to more work.

Yet federal, state and local agencies are being asked toexpand their public involvement — often with new anduntested social media tools. They increasingly findthemselves in a new world vs. old world dilemma, withrising expectations but old world methods and process.

Here are several themes that borrow from both, and thatjust might make your next online public involvementprocess more manageable and constructive.

PurposeThe first theme is the importance of establishing a clearpurpose. Why do we encourage citizen engagement —whether online or offline? Is it because we want to take thepublic’s temperature on every issue? Do we want to makeevery policy question or government decision a binarythumbs up or down vote — simply without the normal rulesof voting?

Or are we motivated to promote inclusive citizenengagement because we are on a hunt to discover newideas? Do we want to draw upon a diversity of citizenexperiences to discover what might go wrong in our publicdecisions or how to make them better?

Effective citizen engagement has to start with a clear well-defined purpose. Citizens have a need to know what ispromised. What is the mission?

More than a technology projectThe second theme is to focus on the human behavior thatdrives success. Online engagement is so often viewed as atechnology project. It is not. Technology is important, butthe dynamics of human communication are even more so.

Successful engagement projects are characterized bysensitivity to human motivations such as these examples:

1. Value to the citizen. Citizens have many noble

initiatives competing for their time. Why should theychoose to be involved in your initiative? What is thevalue to the citizen, and is it being projected? Whyshould they engage?

2. Value to government. For agencies to promoteengagement, they, too, have to believe that value isbeing delivered. At the end of the day, how doesgovernment work better? Did citizens help?

3. A definition of success. Can we describe whatproject success means? Citizens want to make adifference. How will they know when success isachieved?

4. Results.What happened? How was a citizen’s inputconsidered? What impact did it have? Results drivetrust.

The key is to remember that citizens are confronted withmany choices. To be successful, agencies must project avalue proposition for how and why citizens should getinvolved. Again, they must make promises and keep thepromises they make.

A network perspectiveThe third theme is to keep a network perspective. Citizenengagement is an opportunity to leverage the power ofnetworks. Historically, value in government processes hasbeen created in linear processes — based on a broadcastof information. But today, so much more is possible.

Today, citizens can provide responsive input andcollaborate with each other to develop new solutionpossibilities for some of our most vexing social problems.Knowing when, how and why to use social media is key toleveraging this collective input to improve governmentprocesses and effectiveness.

Government is characterized by an almost infinite numberof decision-making processes — some internal, someexternal. There is no single way for citizens to be mosteffective in online engagement. There are many ways inwhich citizen networks can help government achieve itsgoals.

Emerging Themes for Effective Online Citizen EngagementBy Kim KobzaPresident and CEONeighborhood America

41

For instance, in situations involving policy issues, citizensmight be asked to provide very structured comment for alimited period of time. Conversely, alternative analysesinitiatives may involve multiple phases over an extendedperiod of time, where agencies collect and publish multipledesign choices and ask citizens to help narrow down thesechoices through public comment. Now with a manageablenumber of alternatives, citizens may then be invited todiscuss the strengths and weaknesses of each throughsocial collaboration tools, with the ultimate goal ofproviding the knowledge and feedback needed to enablethe agency to make the best choice possible.

Other times, government objectives rely upon theavailability of resilient networks — citizen networks thatcan sustain a discussion over a long period of timeregardless of intervening events. Examples of businessproblems that require resilient networks are naturaldisasters, health pandemics, and homeland securitychallenges.

The language of network science and simple principles ofsupporting network behaviors is now essential forgovernment professionals who manage publicengagement. The key is to remember that there is not asingle network experience that solves the publiccommunications challenge. There are many. And the mostsuccessful choices will be a function of the specificproblem and citizen/user experiences that will bestleverage the value of citizen input.

Understanding and elimination of barriers to citizen participationThe final theme is that we should always be cognizant ofthe need to remove barriers. Assuming that we establishclear expectations, and that we embrace the mostappropriate form of network support, what yet stands in theway of online success? What are the remaining barriers tocitizen engagement? Let me share three:

• Time. Agencies vie for a citizen’s attention. You have alimited time to capture it. To do so, you must make yourpresentation interesting and unique, something thatprovides a compelling reason for citizens to getinvolved.

• Social Fear. Citizens are often afraid of seeminguninformed or uneducated. Fear of publicembarrassment is a powerful inhibitor to publicparticipation online involvement. This is the reason it isso important for agencies to create the right onlineenvironment that includes requirements for identity,attribution and on-topic contributions – much like thatwhich is required in offline public comment standards.

• Rules and regulations. Most rules and regulations aredesigned to enable transactional communications — notto facilitate open dialogue with the public. Relaxingrules to invite participation and to make it easier canoften be the difference between success and failure ofpublic outreach initiatives.

As we understand and eliminate these barriers, we projecta message that invites citizens in, and we make it easy toengage.

Keys to SuccessBy having a clear sense of purpose, sensitivity to humanmotivators, a network perspective, and a willingness torelax traditional rules, new online capabilities promisebetter, more constructive citizen engagement for everypart of government.

Kim Patrick Kobza is a co-founder of Neighborhood America. Youcan learn about his Gov 2.0 perspective by following him on Twitter(http://twitter.com/kpkfusion) or by subscribing to his podcastseries at http://www.inflectionbykim.com.

42

The WorldWide Web Consortium’s (W3C) ElectronicGovernment Interest Group published an extensiveissues paper demonstrating the variety of standards

available for governments and their respective vendors ordevelopers to use. The group is currently in the process offormulating its second year charter which will focus onopen and linked government data and web interface andinteroperability.

While the work necessary to produce a truly opengovernment system is still in process, an intense level ofenergy is being focused on electronic governmentinitiatives. The activities and new energy restore theconfidence of many who are looking for governments toadopt open practices and technologies. The outcomes ofwhich will enable greater levels of access and exchangebetween a government and its citizens.

It appears that we are on the cusp of great change, so howshould we prepare our systems and staff to meet new opengovernment directives? First, it is important to considerwhat Web and related technologies are necessary and howthese technologies affect the ultimate success of ourefforts. The goals of open government – accessibility,interoperability and citizen inclusion and interaction willrequire the adoption and use of open Web and technologystandards. Without them, data cannot be exchanged orinteroperate with other applications, Web pages cannot berendered effectively, information cannot be shared orinterpreted nor can Web pages or data be managed for thelong term.

The movement to adopt openness and transparencyprinciples and strategies, including those related toparticipation and engagement, is coming at a time whengovernment entities are struggling to master Web 1.0.According to most definitions, Web 1.0 refers to Webinfrastructure, including basic Web pages, Web sites, theimplementation of basic search technologies andmetadata schemes. The basic open Web standards for Web1.0 should be the foundation of a government’s Webinfrastructure plans, to ensure the intended goals areachieved, a solid infrastructure is in place, and thedemands of new technologies and opportunities are met.

Once the Web 1.0 standards are understood, governmentsshould begin to learn and incorporate the open Web

standards that allow for a richer experience via the Web.What some describe as Web 2.0 – including engagement,participation, transparency and openness – requiresincorporating or extending Web 1.0 principles to allow foradvanced and complex functions, and a richer and moredynamic online experience.

The W3C and many other technical standards-basedorganizations work diligently to identify needs, createstandards, validate their use, and communicate theiravailability for the technical community. Standards

organizations, including the W3C, are now applyingresources to standards development that help meetgovernment’s unique needs. Standards available todayinclude those for achieving technically sound Web sites,accessibility, interoperability, multichannel delivery, andopen and linked data. These standards include AJAX,HTML, CSS, XHR, and ECMA script for richer and deeperinterface experiences, while RDFa, Semantics, ontologies,XBRL, XML provide structure and formats for exposing,linking, and making data available. Current open Webstandards recommendations from the W3C are supportedby many browsers, services and applications.

Future standards and frameworks include those to allowand manage authentication, identification and long-termdata and information management. Authentication andidentification standards and technologies will allowcitizens to use one ID to securely access all of theirinformation held by or available from a government. Long-term data and information management standards willensure that the technologies and applications supporting

The Importance of Open Web Standards in theMove to Open and Transparent GovernmentBy Kevin NovakCo-Chair Electronic Government Interest GroupWorld Wide Web Consortium

It appears that we are onthe cusp of great change, sohow should we prepare oursystems and staff to meet

new open governmentdirectives?

43

information, data, and knowledge of today are preservedand available for future generations.

As global Web developers design next generation pagesand applications that use mash-ups and complex utilities,Web standards will helppreserve the longevity of thepages, applications and datafound within for today andfor tomorrow. Web standardsand associated validationtools, such as W3C’s HTMLvalidator(http://validator.w3.org/), areavailable for creating Webpages according to approvedHTML standardsrecommendations. Alsoavailable are guidelines andstandards to helporganizations meet itsSection 508 accessibilityrequirements, providing allusers the opportunity tointeract with and receiveinformation and serviceregardless of physical ormental barriers to accessingWeb content.

Standards associated withinteroperability, includingXML and XBRL, allowapplications to communicateand share data with eachother. Some governmentsystems leverageproprietary or legacyapplications that to do notfollow interoperability bestpractices. Some are new butwere implemented withoutopen data formats or thethought that another agencyor government may want toshare data or display it onthe Web. Data going in are often difficult to get out of thesystem, let alone share with other applications. Withoutthe use of interoperability standards, the governments willnot be able to share all that they aspire to nor all that thepublic desires.

Standards associated with multichannel delivery, andthose focused on mobile devices and browsers, allowcommunication through devices not resident or interactingwith a PC. Multichannel delivery includes information andservices delivered to interactive televisions, kiosks, andmobile and phone devices. The mobile device market nowincludes many vendors and types of devices, each with a

different mobile browser installed. Using open mobile Webstandards allows an organization to have information andservices display and function on a majority of knownbrowsers, not just those commonly used by consumers tobrowse the Web. The use of these standards ensures that

the greatest number ofusers possible can receiveand interact withgovernment online.

Today’s world is becominghyperconnected. Mobiledevices are proliferating,and more and more usersare expecting to accessservices and information viamobile and other devices.The demand will only grow,making open Web standardsmore critical as the Webcontinues to grow and theservices continue toproliferate.

Standards are increasinglyimportant to the effort giventhe amount and differenttypes of data that will bemade available via the Web.Standards also allow us tomake data discoverable andprovide insight and contextto those seekinginformation.

In using the variety of openWeb standards available,governments can ensurethat they have the technicalinfrastructure andarchitecture that allow data,information, and services tobe made available via theWeb, mobile devices, andapplications. Today’s effortsand activities offer greatpromise. Electronic

government is finally here. Let's make sure that we payattention to the important infrastructure items to make thedreams, ideas, and efforts a stable and fruitful reality.

Kevin Novak is Vice President, Integrated Web Strategy andTechnology, for the American Institute of Architects and Co-Chair,of the W3C Electronic Government Interest Group. For additionalinformation contact KevinNovak@aia.org.

The W3C document, Improving Access to Government throughBetter Use of the Web, is online at: http://www.w3.org/TR/egov-improving/

U.S

. General S

ervices Adm

inistrationO

ffice of Citizen

Services and

Com

munications

Intergovernmental S

olutions Division

Official B

usinessP

enalty for Private U

se, $300