Heading into the second decade of the 21st century, we constantly hear about how social media, geolocation, mobile apps and similar technological innovations are changing the way we interact with each other. But how are they changing the way we interact with our governments (particularly local governments)? Are they offering new opportunities for civic engagement? Are they changing the way residents view their role in local government, creating new opportunities for citizen involvement? Or are they cementing old ideas of citizens as customers by facilitating the delivery of government services?
These questions are of particular interest to those of us at the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership as we seek to help solve public problems by promoting citizen's participation in governance. We have created this blog to provide up-to-date information relating to what is being called "Government 2.0." We hope what you find here will help local governments and their residents make the most of the technology available for genuine citizen engagement.
New to Gov 2.0? Check out our foundational documents »
Back in September at the California Leadership Forum, innovators from some of California’s most forward-thinking cites shared strategies for creating more transparent and efficient local governments. On NationSwell, Courtney Subramanian highlighted three of recommendations from Lee Deesing of Riverside, CA and Jeremy Goldburg of San Jose, CA :
- Foster a cultural change in the workplace
- Engage citizens to help spur ideas
- Keep a focus on cybersecurity
You can read more about these steps here.
As cities the world of online engagement really moves into the 2.0 phase- with residents engaging government and one another as well as simply seeking information online, some local governments worry about how to make sure that the voices they’re hearing are really the voices of their residents and not people who don’t even live in the community. Salt Lake City, whose Open City Hall has been mentioned before on this blog, has tried to limit the reach of outside influence on to city matters. They have required people to register to be involved and make them share their address, which is “geocoded” to protect the individual registering. This gives a more credible voice the people of Salt Lake City as they seek to offer input to their city:
Outsider influence can occur when a government puts its public forums online. Once a forum is online anyone outside as well as inside the community can try to influence the conversation. Local governments want to focus on feedback from their constituents, not outside interests. . .
. . . While the comments from people living outside of Salt Lake City could be informative, the city’s residents, staff, and officials were able to use their online platform’s analysis and reporting tools to easily filter the feedback and focus on comments from constituents living in Salt Lake City. They were even able to drill down and analyze feedback by council district, within the downtown area as well as by gender, age group, and key words.
You can read the full article here.
Civic disengagement is pivotal to creating conditions which foster corruption. In a big city like Los Angles, excuses can be cited- life is fast paced; every passing minute has to be accounted with productivity and success. Whatever the excuse, civic disengagement is comes with a cost and creates a vacuum where our leaders operate unchecked. In such circumstances, public service is incapacitated with the prevalence of corrupt practices. About a year ago, Julian Tyler wrote a provocative piece on how “Civic innovation” offers a cure to corruption. Its a familiar (though strongly stated) theme for readers of this blog:
Civic innovation — transparency and accountability — is the cure to corruption. Civic Innovation allows “the public” to identify corrupt people and corrupt practices using technology, data, metrics and open government initiatives. Civic innovation shines bright light into the darkness where corruption hides.
The question remains of course, what exactly does this look like? It isn’t enough just to put information out there – information must be made accessible and interpretable – and civic innovation must itself be adopted with discernment and accompanied by metrics. It isn’t quite enough to say “technology and innovation will fix things,” we also must ask which technologies are best suited to which purposes.
Thanks to contributor Sarah Mirimbe, Pepperdine School of Public Policy, MPP Candidate ’16, for contributing to this post.
On the “Engaging Cities” blog, Emily Shaw takes a look at how civic technology needs to focus on tangible solutions, not just technological deliverables. She notes that civic technology needs to look beyond the digital world and take account of the physical community it is intended to serve. If the production of new technological designs takes no account of the “existing power structures,” it’s usefulness towards solving social problems is likely to be countered.
The true meaning of the word “technology” encompasses all useful tools, not only the digital. Since this isn’t an automatic insight for the civic tech community, it is especially vital that we remain conscious of the range of necessary skills when developing our strategies. To solve problems with the power-distant public, digital work must be put in service to information gathered through use of “soft skills” like training, like facilitating, outreach, and liaising. People who are not comfortable with technology often do not feel empowered by interacting with it — but everyone feels empowered when they are listened to or taught new skills.
You can read more here.
Contributor: Sarah Mirembe, Pepperdine School of Public Policy, MPP Candidate ’16
Initiatives such as the “Open Government Partnership” are using “crowdsourcing” as a tool for channeling public ideas towards governmental reform. Established by the UK government, “Open Government Partnership,” acts as a partnership model between the government and the citizens in formulating ‘open government action plans,” thus encouraging governmental transparency and citizen participation in governmental reform. Could this model work well in the US?
“Crowdsourcing is an online, distributed problem solving and production model that leverages the collective intelligence of online communities for specific purposes set forth by a crowdsourcing organization — corporate, government, or volunteer. Uniquely, it combines a bottom-up, open, creative process with top-down organizational goals.” Professor Daren Brabham, University of Southern California.
You can read more here.
Contributor: Sarah Mirembe, Pepperdine School of Public Policy, MPP Candidate ’15