Gov 2.0 Toronto - Harvey Low Presentation - OGP lessons learned
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Gov 2.0 Toronto - Harvey Low Presentation - OGP lessons learned



This is part 1 of Harvey Low's presentation at the Gov 2.0 Toronto event on May 16, 2012 at Toronto City Hall

This is part 1 of Harvey Low's presentation at the Gov 2.0 Toronto event on May 16, 2012 at Toronto City Hall



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Gov 2.0 Toronto - Harvey Low Presentation - OGP lessons learned Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Canadian Council on Social Development A Post-Conference Synopsis Open Government Partnership Brazil April, 2012 Harvey Low (Canadian Council on Social Development, Community Data Program)
  • 2. OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP“a new multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments fromgovernments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, andharness new technologies to strengthen governance”  Launched in September 2011, eight countries, including the US, the UK and Brazil, launched a partnership to formalise their commitment to more open, transparent use of information  Brazil hosts the first annual conference on open government in April 2012  This partnership has grown rapidly from 43 countries in 2011 meeting to over 70 at the conference this year!  Philosophy: A belief in the power of government transparency, anti-censorship, and openness. Aim is to encourage countries around the world to develop and deliver on promises and reforms for more open government. These developments will occur "under the watchful eyes of citizens and civil society”
  • 3. OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPDECLARATION:Increase the availability of information about governmental activities Promoting increased access to information and disclosure. Increasing efforts to systematically collect and publish data on government spending/performance. Providing high-value data in a timely manner, in formats that the public can easily understand and use. Seeking feedback from the public to identify information of greatest value.Support civic participation Ensuring public participation of all people, equally and without discrimination. Protecting the ability of not-for-profit and civil society organizations to operate in consistency with OGP commitmentsto freedom of expression, association, and opinion.Implement the highest standards of professional integrity throughout our administrations Committing to robust anti-corruption policies, mechanisms and practices, ensuring transparency in the management ofpublic finances. Maintaining or establishing legal framework to make public information on the income and assets of national, highranking public officials. Implementing rules that protect whistleblowers. Increasing deterrents against bribery and other forms of corruption in the public and private sectors.Increase access to new technologies for openness and accountability Harness technologies to make more information public.
  • 4. OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPTOP TEN COMMON PLEDGES:Innovative public accountability mechanisms – including a new ‘openness barometer in Slovak Republic, a‘governance observatory’ in Peru and ‘public scorecard in Dominican Republic.Open data portals – covering everything from crime statistics and political party funding to local budgets andprocurement (proposed by Chile, Estonia, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Peru, Romania, Spain and Tanzania).New legal and institutional mechanisms – including the creation of new state agencies (including in Peru andUruguay), changes to access to information laws and systems (Canada and Croatia) and new anti-corruptionlaws/strategies (Estonia, Jordan and Peru).Improved service delivery – including an interactive local water-point mapping system in Tanzania, digitized medicalrecords in Spain and new/improved portals on service delivery in Italy, Israel, Tanzania and Uruguay.Natural resource transparency – Ukraine and Colombia have both signed up to the Extractive Industries TransparencyInitiative, while Bulgaria, Colombia and Canada are taking steps to increase transparency around natural resourcesconcessions and associated revenues (at both a national and local level).International aid – Spain and Canada have committed to making their development agencies more transparent andaligned with international donor reporting agreements like the International Aid Transparency Initiative.Public integrity – introduction of new whistle-blower protection laws in Slovak Republic and Montenegro.Citizens’ budgets – Bulgaria, Croatia and Tanzania are all creating citizens’ budgets at the national and/or local level toensure public access to information to where public resources are going in plain, accessible language.E-petitions – Ukraine, Slovak Republic, Moldova and Montenegro are all introducing online e-petition portals to collectand respond to citizens’ proposals more quickly and effectively.Challenges and prizes – Uruguay, Israel, Italy, Jordan and Colombia are introducing government-sponsored prizes andchallenges to encourage the private sector and public agencies to better use government data.
  • 5. OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPNEXT STEPS (and thoughts)… How to get the evidence that openness works; how to share those stories; and how to ensurethe partnership itself is sustainable. Managing expectations to deliver on promises, particularly given the different stages andbreadth of progress among participating countries. What is the international benchmark for progress? Monitoring the implementation of thesecommitments will be a major issue for all the member countries. A monitoring mechanism isbeing set up, but what are the measures? What about cost and resources to ensure sustainability? Review OGP Steering Committee mandates, articles of governance etc - which is good! The UK government has now taken over co-chairing the partnership with brazil, and as itprepares for next years 2013 conference in London. For Civil Society, the question from my perspective is: How much do we focus on OGP vis-à-visOpen Gov within Canada, G4… beyond the context of just OGP and the Federal Action Plan????
  • 6. SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS… (not mutually exclusive issues!)
  • 7. DATA1. Open Data is not Open Government. Need to define the differences. OG needs to mature beyond the simple desire for "more raw data“. There are three recommendations in my mind: I. must include more relevant data that addresses the full spectrum of public services that residents need II. must accompany the data with metadata (notations on use and mis-use) and qualitative data III. must marry data with the corresponding analytical and research reports based on the data (support more than just raw data sites, but also coordinate portals which provide data but within a operational business unit context)2. Include more than just politically neutral data (need more data on public integrity, anti-corruption, and corporate accountability) – need to change CULTURE!3. BUT the extent of data collection and provision must not compromise service provision (e.g., Don’t collect vast amounts of profile data from clients if it delays service or the data are not relevant)!4. Austerity measures are running counter to open government commitments! There is no acknowledgement of the resources within government that need to be in place to ensure data provision, that will help change culture!5. Broaden discussions to include "open standards" as it relates to implementation, and discuss with experts in Civil Society on better standardization of data6. Data coordination among source providers is never discussed! Issues: Accuracy, vintage, time series, legislation limits!7. Include more core cross-reference data (postal code, address geo-spatial), indexing, taxonomy8. Capacity issues – training on how to use the data , manage expectations, leverage “intermediaries” to help disseminate data (e.g., professional associations)9. MOUs between levels of government should be translated into public agreements and eliminate insider data trading’ or data restrictions10. Remove overly restrictive media protocols for government policy and research scientists.
  • 8. Civic Engagement1. Federal Action Plans are not the only the sole representation of OG in any country. Much wider input needed for sub-national, municipal (and their NGO partner perspectives) – an intergovernmental model of OG with CS involvement in shaping the goals2. Include other Civil Society (CS) communities of interest that are often not included in the traditional definition of CS (e.g., disabled communities, academia, media) – a multi-stakeholder consultation process!3. Leverage national professional and data networks and (not just individual agencies or “single experts”) in feedback on OD/OG4. Bridge these networks so each community of practice can better understand how they can co-operate and co-support each other5. Have public/CS mechanisms in place to rate or provide feedback as to what data are missing, what data are irrelevant, quality issues etc.6. Increase linkages between technology community and communities of practice (e.g., healthcare providers, social workers, urban planners) – foster joint hack days that go beyond single audience inclusion7. Policies of OG must go hand-in-hand with government policies of social inclusion!8. Develop measures and indicators of government progress towards OG as the next chapter in OG/OD evolution!9. Link private and CS organizations that can help with training of technology to those with less capacities to engage10. OD is also about making data available to those with less power or capacity!
  • 9. LEGISLATION1. Related legislation needs review/strengthening/monitoring to ensure transparency (e.g., Federal Lobbying Act, Access to information Act, Conflict of Interest Act, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, Elections Act , Library and Archives Act, etc.) Open Data is again not Open Government!2. Review legislation to allow for merging and integration of data, within privacy protection (e.g., Assessment Act)3. FOI is a foundation upon which open data is built (FOI provides explicit rights) - A fundamental pillar to the issue of OD and OG.4. But there are issues. For example, FOI legislation is set up as a reactive procedure. The public makes an information request; the government must respond based on established procedures. There is no provision in FOI requiring the publication of information or data proactively. This has caused many civil servants to simply refer data requests from the public to the FOI process!5. Adopt internal government retention, data standards, and use/reporting policies to ensure continued collection, maintenance, reporting and access to data6. Close the Policy-Research divide by emphasizing the need to maintain data consistency, not only for hot issues “of the day”, but sustainable data collection over time regardless of government political priorities and ensure collection of common core data as part of existing legislated tools (e.g., official plans)7. Must review how we define personal and private data and not hide behind it under the guise of privacy
  • 10. TECHNOLOGY1. Introduce new concepts of OPEN ACCESS and OPEN ANALYSES!2. Coordinated internal database design to permit more seamless integration between govt data for more advanced analysis and understanding of needs3. Provide better data visualization tools4. No international standards with respect to on-line document maintenance and archiving nor is there and infrastructure in Canada to do so. Poor search functions in some data apps.5. Civic I&T can present further challenges with too much red tape, and too many standards4. I&T not to lead but to support and be an equal component of OG5. Leverage data technology to expand access to data (interactive mapping, cloud technology)6. Explore challenges and opportunities with new technology for disabled communities (e.g., AODA)7. Direct intervention is required to ensure that elements currently absent in the local technology and social ecosystem are in fact, made available to all sectors of CS8. Reduce the data divide by reducing the digital and technology divide!9. Interoperability: the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate). The term is often used in a technical systems engineering sense, or alternatively in a broad sense, taking into account social, political, and organizational factors that impact system to system performance. In this case, there needs to be a fundamental realization on the issues of "interoperability" in OD and OG from data coding standards, to data duplication/synchronicity and linkages with service providers!
  • 11. Civil Society Feedback: Canadian Council on Social Development (OGP Consultation Notes) emid=228&lang=en Datalibre (updated links to OG OD Resources)
  • 12. • Stephane Guidon, ZoneConeThanks to:• Tracey Lauriault (my partner on OGP) • Nathalie Hui, York Region, CPD, FCM & Open Data Pilot• Mark Weiler, FOI expert • Tara Vinodrai, Canadian Association of Geographers• Michael Lenczner, Ajah • Sheila Subramanian, CMHA Ontario• Sara Mayo, Social Planning & Research • Susan Chin Snelgrove, York Region Council of Hamilton, GIS Specialist & Pam Lahey, CMHA Ontario (email?) Researcher • Kathryn Wilkins, Canadian Society for Epidemiology• Ted Hildebrandt, Community and Biostatistics Development Halton, GIS Specialist & • James McKinney, Open North Researcher • Valentyn Kliuchnyk, York Region• Veronique Dryden, Region of Peel • Andrew Satterthwaite, York Region Open Data Pilot• Heather Morrison, BC Library Association • Catherine Roy, Independent, Disability Access to & Open Access advocate Web and Technology• Jury Konga, Open Data and Open • Vincent Gogolek, BC Freedom of Information and Government Consultant Privacy Association• Richard Pietro, CitizenBridge • David Eaves, Independent Open Data and Open• Leigh Golden, Region of Waterloo Government Advocate• Michael Gurnstein, CRACIN, Critical • Duff Conacher, Democracy Watch research in access in overseas • Oriana Sharp, Manager, Information Management development context and Archives , Archives of Region of Waterloo,• Ashley Casovan, Open Government City of Region of Waterloo Open Data Edmonton• Diane Dyson, Woodgreen
  • 13. Endorsements – Thank You•Community Data Program of the Canadian Council on Social Development, PeggyTaillon•Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), Michael Buda•Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), DavidFewer•Woodgreen Community Services, Diane Dyson,•Open North Inc., James McKinney,• Social Planning Toronto, Beth Wilson•Center For Community Informatics Research, Development & Training (CIRDT) andJournal of Community Informatics, Michael Gurstein• eGovFutures Group Open by Design, Jury Konga• co-Authors and founding members of, Tracey P. Lauriaultand Hugh McGuire•City of Toronto Social Development Finance & Administration Division. Chris Brillinger,•, George Irish•Geographic and Numeric Information Systems (GANIS), Ted Hildebrandt•Environics Analytics, Doug Norris•Community Foundation of Canada, Cindy Lindsay•OpenConcept Consulting Inc., Mike Gifford•The West End Urban Health Alliance (WEUHA), Terrie Russell• Author of and founding member of, Stéphane Guidoin•TeleCommunities Canada, Gareth Shearman
  • 14. Harvey Low CCSD Community Data Program& Representative of Canadian CivilSociety at the OGP Meeting, 2012 416-392-8660