Blog Posts of Roger Strother*

Time for Agency Data Quality Plans Comes and Goes with Little to Show

 

The Open Government Directive (OGD) issued on December 8, 2009 included a mandate that all agencies create a data quality plan that enhanced the transparency of how agencies spend federal funds.  Two weeks ago, these plans were supposed to be finalized and released to the public but so far we can only find one agency’s plan.

On Feb. 8, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Deputy Director Jeff Zients issued a memo outlining a timeline for public release as well as what information should be contained in the data quality plans.  Data quality plans were due to OMB by April 14.  OMB was to work with agencies to improve their plans and finalize them by May 14.

The OGD required that agencies to be accountable for the quality of federal spending information that is publicly disseminated through public venues such as USASpending.gov and similar websites.  The plans were to address problems agencies currently encounter with this information.  These include duplicate data, missing data and transactions, inaccurate data, and untimely data.

Now, two-weeks after the finalization date, the only plan we have been able to find is that created by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  EPA’s plan is a good review of what the agency current does to ensure data quality.  However, the plan leaves much to be desired and we hope that it is not a sign of things to expect from other agencies.

There’s plenty of room for improvement in this plan.  EPA’s plan could do more to give the public a full understanding of their efforts to enhance their capacity for data quality improvement instead of simply outlining its current practices.  For instance, there is no mention of participation and collaboration plans to gather feedback from the public as required by Zients’ Feb. 8 memo.  In identifying deficiencies in their process to ensure completeness of federal spending information, EPA does not provide possible solutions or list the steps they are taking to remedy them.  I’m also not sure what EPA means when it identifies “the possibility that information would be used for purposes it was not designed for” as a risk of information release.  That’s not a legitimate risk of releasing information.  The release of personally identifiable information, which is a legitimate worry, is not even mentioned.

In discussing their current program of monitoring for data quality we see a couple of things the EPA could do to enhance transparency.  First, the EPA mentions compliance reviews performed in each contracting office at least once every three years through its Quality Assessment Plan.  How about making the results of these reports public?  Secondly, it discusses quarterly reports distributed by the Office of Acquisition Management concerning year-to-date acquisition data.  Releasing this information to the public in a collaborative and participatory way can dramatically help the agency improve its existing program.  However, the plan makes no mention of efforts to do so.

EPA can still improve its plan and hopefully the plans that come forth from other agencies will go further.  Still, EPA should be applauded for at least coming out with a plan on time.  It remains unclear as to whether agencies met their deadline to report to OMB and if OMB has provided feedback to all agencies concerning their plans.  The White House's open government dashboard does not track agency progress on the plans.

(Roger Strother* 05/28/10; 0 comments)

Data.gov Celebrates First Birthday with a Makeover

 

The website that currently stores thousands of databases containing federal agency information received a welcome makeover last week as its first birthday present.  Since its launch last year, the Data.gov has sparked a national and global movement amongst governments interested in increasing their transparency.

Launched in May 2009 with 47 datasets, Data.gov has been continually expanded since the inception of the Open Government Directive (OGD).  Under the OGD, published Dec. 8, 2009, executive branch agencies had 45 days to release at least three "high-value" datasets on their websites and register them with Data.gov. These datasets were to be information "not previously available online or in a downloadable format" and were to be published "online in an open format."  On the deadline, the website held about 300 datasets in total but now boasts of a library containing more than 270,000 sets.

In terms of public participation, the website has made striking improvements.  The website prominently features a system by which the public can suggest datasets that should be present on Data.gov.  This feedback mechanism enables agencies to more easily identify the types of information of interest to the public.  If an agency has the requested data, it is more likely to prioritize that information for release.  Datasets that have been posted to the site as a result of public request can be identified by the hand logo seen to the right of this post.  Between May and December 2009, Data.gov received over 900 requests.  Among them, 26% were determined to be actionable, 35% potentially actionable and 16% were already on the website.

Also of interest in the newest phase of the website is the inclusion of usage statistics.  With this data agencies are able to better gauge the interests of the public in determining what data to release next.  The public is also able to better assess how responsive the federal government is being to meeting public interest.  According to the site, data from the Department of Agriculture have been of the most interest to the public with over 430 downloads in the past week.  The most popular dataset in the entire collection is the Interior Department’s Worldwide M1+ Earthquakes database which lists real-time information on global earthquakes during the last 7 days.  It has been downloaded over 100,000 times.

Unfortunately, this website still places its Apps showcase in a secondary portion of the website.  Although it is linked on the homepage, the site overall is not public facing in the truest sense.  The great majority of the public is not going to the website to obtain raw data.  My parents, for instance, are not programmers and would only benefit from the Apps.  A truly public facing website would present the Apps upfront in a way and thereby make the site more usable to the general public.   Further, the Apps showcase is not an exhaustive list of the tools that are available to the public.  For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency provides a "TRI Explorer" to manipulate toxics release information.  Data.gov only links to this tool in a buried part of its website and not in the showcase.

Overall, this new makeover is a good sign of the administration’s commitment to this project to make federal agency data public.  So far, the effort of the administration to utilize this measure as a system to increase transparency and public collaboration has spawned a global, state, and local effort to do so as well.  The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, California, Utah, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York City, and San Francisco have also developed websites on the data.gov model.

 

 

Birthday cupcake image by Flickr user Theresa Thompson used under a creative commons lisence.


(Roger Strother* 05/24/10; 0 comments)

OMB Restricts Authority of Paperwork Reduction Act on Social Media but Some Controls Remain

 

Today, the Obama administration cleared a major hurdle for agencies seeking to solicit public input into policymaking and implementing the reforms called for in the Open Government Directive (OGD) issued on December 8, 2009.  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo that exempts web-based interactive technologies from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).  Now, agencies are freer than before to communicate with the public in an unstructured way but there are still some restrictions on the solicitation of structured feedback.

The memo was released pursuant to the requirements of the OGD.  Agencies are currently bogged down with excessive reporting requirements under the PRA in order to do such simple things as gather user feedback on the content of their website.  The PRA, a 1980 law, seeks to reduce the burden of paperwork in government by maximizing the utility of information collected by the government.  Thus, agencies are required to seek a control number from OMB which authorizes all forms that solicit input from the public and impose a paperwork burden.  Current policies are unclear on whether or the use of web-based tools to communicate with the public are regulated under PRA requirements.

Unfortunately, many agencies have seen the PRA as a deterrent from using such tools as Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and others.  They would rather not deal with the time and cost burden of getting such projects approved and then get that approval renewed every three years.  As a result, the government has not been using technology to its full potential to engage citizens in their democracy. 

Today, this has all changed.  The new social media policy states that “the PRA does not apply to posts that allow members of the public to provide general or unstructured feedback about a program.”  However, items like surveys, web-polls and any structured items are subject to the PRA.  Blogs, public conference calls, webinars, discussion boards, forums, message boards, chat sessions, social networks, most Wikis, and online communities are all seen as “in-person public meetings” and exempt from PRA.

Importantly, the social media policy concerns itself with agency record-keeping as well and reminds agencies that “their activities may create new federal information that will need to be managed like other information resources.  Thus, the new OMB guidance clarifies information generated by social media is governed by the same rules as government records.   A December 22, 2009 memo from the National Archives provided advice on implementing records management requirements of the OGD.

Overall, this is a positive step forward but I worry that it doesn’t really go as far as it might in establishing a truly robust dialogue with the public.  It’s important to remember that contributions to surveys and other structured questionnaires published by the government are usually voluntary.  I argue that the voluntary nature of such items means they should not be subject to the PRA since there is no public burden involved.  However, if an agency posts a survey on Facebook then it’s still subject to PRA under this policy.  I argue that if I don’t have to take that survey to communicate my ideas on that agency’s Facebook page then the agency shouldn’t be required to have that survey approved by OMB.  Such surveys are useful to get immediate structured feedback – which is more useful than unstructured feedback – on policy issues happening in real-time.  As it is, agencies will still have to wait months to get such surveys approved by OMB.

 

(Roger Strother* 04/07/10; 0 comments)

Congress forms Caucus on Transparency: Plans to Focus on Education, Legislation, and Oversight

 

Today, Reps. Michael Quigley (D-IL) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) announced the creation of the bipartisan Congressional Transparency Caucus in the House of Representatives.  The Caucus will work to develop policies and data standards that will give Americans better abilities to scrutinize the actions of government.

A big positive thing to note about this caucus is that it has identified issues in both the executive and legislative branches.  All too often Congressional transparency initiatives focus on the executive while ignoring their own transparency.  A March 2010 letter by Quigley and Issa states, “federal agencies and Congress have failed to publish their records and information online, including proposed laws and regulations, and budget and performance data.”  The recognition of the need for publication of “proposed laws and resolutions” is especially heartening.  Although President Obama promised to post non-emergency legislation to the White House website days before his signing of it, the measure is relatively meaningless because the legislation has already passed Congress and the public can no longer have an impact on its content.

Further, Congress has realized that changes are required not just in law and regulations but also in the overall culture of secrecy in government.  This was a key component of recommendations made by the coalition of groups organized by OMB Watch published the November 2009 report, Moving Toward a 21st Century Right-to-Know.  The caucus announced that it was making education its chief priority followed by legislation and oversight.

The full set of principles as stated by the caucus are:

  • The American people have the right to public access to all of their government's information.
  • The American people have a right to analyze their government's information.
  • The American people have a right to interactive access to federal laws, regulations, & rules.
  • The American people have the right to demand objective, transparent performance standards for all federal agencies.
  • The American people have the right to agressive, independent oversight.
  • We must institutionalize a culture of open government.

We laud this important initiative by Congress that displays its commitment to creating a more transparent government.  We believe that its bipartisan nature shows that transparency is not a party issue.  We hope that this caucus will work closely with the administration to further the recommendations of the right-to-know community, many of which call for Congressional as well as executive branch action.

 

(Roger Strother* 03/25/10; 0 comments)

Sunshine Week 2010 Webcast TODAY @ Noon

 

On his first full day in office, President Obama committed his Administration "to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." To help meet that goal, the Administration has issued an Open Government Directive and a new Memorandum on Freedom of Information Act and Attorney General Guidelines. The Administration has also launched an expansive effort to open up data to developers, advocates, and the public via Data.gov. Join OpenTheGovernment.org for this three panel event to hear our panelists -- transparency experts from inside and outside government-- discuss these initiatives and their effect on the public. Panelists will also take questions from the live and viewing audience.  Watch live here.

(Roger Strother* 03/19/10; 0 comments)

Celebrate President Madison's Birthday with Sunshine Week!

 

James Madison’s birthday is an exciting time for open-government wonks.  Madison, the father of our Constitution and fourth president, was an outspoken advocate of open government.  This is why we dedicate an entire week to heightened public advocacy of transparency issues through public events, legislative initiatives, and op-eds.  This year offers several opportunities for public participation.

This week, our blog will be highlighting some basic ways to access government information such as how to use the Freedom of Information Act, how to access government data, and to know what information is already available to you as a citizen.

The week kicks off nationally today, March 15, with the 2010 National Freedom of Information Day Conference at the First Amendment Center.  The theme of this year’s conference is to assess the current state of government openness and then to look forward to what we can expect in the near future.  Concluding the week’s events will be a tri-panel webcast on March 19 sponsored by OpenTheGovernment.org and hosted by the Center for American Progress.  For more events during the week, see the Sunshine Week calendar here.

There are a number of activities going on at the regional, state, and local levels as well.  For more information about these events you can look up your local coordinator here and contact them.

(Roger Strother* 03/15/10; 0 comments)

D.C. Court Rejects OMB Assertion of FOIA Exemptions

 

Today, the DC Circuit court reissued an opinion in Public Citizen v. OMB that rejected the agency’s use of exemptions 2 and 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  OMB had attempted to withhold information from Public Citizen that detailed which agencies submit materials to Congress without clearance by OMB.  This court case adds an important legal support to the FOIA practice of discretionary disclosure.

Exemption 2 of the FOIA allows agencies to withhold information concerning internal personnel rules and practices while exemption 5 applies to inter- and intra-agency materials that are pre-decisional and deliberative.  However, the DC Circuit found that the records have nothing to do with OMB’s internal practices.  Further, for exemption 5 to apply the records must be both pre-decisional and deliberative which do not apply in this instance.  Therefore, neither exemption can apply to these records in full.

This case is an important one in that it limits the way these specific FOIA exemptions can be used by agencies to withhold information from the public.  Government openness advocates have long argued that these exemptions are applied too broadly by agencies. 

Although the Obama administration has attempted to better define the applicable uses of these exemptions, advocates have not seen a decline in their actual assertions.  The Office of Information Policy at the Justice Department released a memorandum last May that instructed agencies to exercise greater discretion to release information under both of these exemptions if there would be no reasonably foreseeable harm from release.  Far too often, agencies will use exemption 5 to withhold records in their entirety when only part of the information in an entire document might actually fall under that exemption.  Further, agencies usually take vast liberties to apply exemption 2 broadly and withhold information that could inform the public in regard to activities of the government.  Hopefully this case will help push agencies to better comply with executive branch FOIA policy.

(Roger Strother* 03/12/10; 1 comment)

What Information do you want from YOUR Government?

 

Curious about the information government is tracking about your community’s health?  What about data on the wetlands in your area?  Or perhaps the federal contracts going to your community’s businesses?  Well, now is the time to let the government know what you want to see.  They're listening.

All agencies are currently soliciting public input into what federal information to release via Data.gov.  If you know what kinds of information would be useful to you, even in the broadest sense, then you can submit your request directly to the agency.  You can also view other items your fellow citizens have requested.

The best way to submit your ideas is to go to the OpenGov Open Feedback Firehose over at Intelletics.  The Firehose is a catalog of all the portals where you can submit requests to specific agencies.  Simply click on the link to the agency you want speak to, sign in, and leave your comment.  You can also vote on the requests made by others!

(Roger Strother* 02/24/10; 0 comments)

FCC Seeks Public Input on the Future of Media

 

As the role of the Internet in daily life expands rapidly, and with the role of newspapers and traditional journalism in steep decline, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is soliciting public input on possible changes to federal policy.  These policy changes would, hopefully, ensure that media remains strong enough to inform the public, protect consumers, and hold our leaders accountable.

According to a recent study by the Knight Commission on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, “Emerging media have become amazing forces for enabling people to connect. But their full potential is not yet realized in the service of geographic communities, the physical places where people live and work.”  For this reason, the FCC is attempting to identify policy changes that will help bridge this digital divide while also protecting first amendment rights.  Potential policy changes include regulatory change effecting broadcast and online communication and may alter the economic structures of media. 
 
The FCC is soliciting public input to questions divided into six categories:

  • Information Needs of Communities & Citizens
  • Business Models & Financial Trends
  • Commercial Broadcast TV, Radio, Cable, and Satellite
  • Noncommercial and Public Media
  • Internet and Mobile
  • Newspapers and Magazines

You may participate in the discussion online.

(Roger Strother* 02/23/10; 0 comments)

Administration Releases Framework for Spending Data Quality

 

On Friday, the White House met another Open Government Directive deadline by issuing a framework for federal spending data quality.  The framework requires that agencies submit plans by April 14 for improving quality of their spending data, implementing internal controls and process changes.  

Current challenges that need to be addressed such as missing data, duplicate data, and inaccurate data.  The new policy is meant to meet some of these problems, but it doesn’t do so as completely or thoroughly as it might have.  For instance, it doesn’t allow for independent data quality verification whether from inspectors general or by comparing the data to the Treasury Department’s disbursements.

According to the policy, OMB is to monitor progress through “potential” dashboards that will be publicly available.  However, it doesn’t promise to make agency data quality plans public.  How can we know how well the data verification process is if we don’t have the plan?  Regardless, this is a positive step forward to ensuring consistency in data reporting.

Once the plans are received, OMB will provide initial feedback by April 30 and work with agencies to develop final plans which are due on May 14.  Although the framework states that portions of the plans will be used to monitor agency implementation, they do not mention any mechanism to be provided to the public to report data and implementation problems.

 

 

(Roger Strother* 02/15/10; 1 comment)