propecia
October 13, 2010 by
Filed under
Is usability essential to transparency efforts? My answer—you bet it is. One of the most common questions I receive from volunteer writers is how long they should search a website for a checkpoint on our . I tell them that if they can’t find it within a couple of minutes to mark the point as a “no.”
And let’s be honest, most citizens won’t give a website more then 10 seconds to satisfy their curiosity before they’re clicking back to Google. This is why I was so excited to see that conducted a on the business portal, asking questions like “Contact an elected official about the issue.”
I would love to hear of similar tests being conducted at municipal levels. Questions like “Where is the current budget?” would go a long way towards satisfying watchdog citizens inquiries.
And if any municipal governments are looking for usability test volunteers, I’d be happy to help get this trend started.
propecia
August 10, 2010 by
Filed under ,
The , a taxpayer-funded lobbying organization, recently released a resource guide of governments using technology to increase government transparency.
are funded by public dollars. Officials or local governments will use tax funds to pay for dues to membership to these organizations, which then lobby for appropriations or legislation. Often, these activities go undisclosed to constituents.
The National League of cities (NLC) highlighted the effort of six cities in in their report. is one of the cities profiled. The city has a tool called “.” This is an excellent tool.
The site has six easy to understand options. These are:
*Where the City Gets its Money
*How the City Spends Your Money
*Louisville Checkbook, which allows you to search expenditures by agency and vendor
*City Employees Salaries (a tool could have used)
*Stimulus Funding for Louisville
*Questions & Answers, a frequently asked questions and context section.
Louisville not only discloses key information to taxpayers on its site, but it does it in a visually-appealing way. The website looks modern and simple. But it’s not just appealing in a superficial manner: the layout of the site contributes to how it is. It takes more than design to make a website usable, it takes thought. The site is incredibly intuitive and straightforward.
This is important. A government that discloses information in a matter that isn’t usable by its citizens may as well not disclose anything; in the end, no one is using or understanding the information. The same goes for governments that disclose information without context. Even something as simple as meeting minutes can seem abstruse for a person not used to reading information in that format or unfamiliar with certain jargon. I’ve often received information I’ve specifically asked for through requests and had no idea how to approach the list of vendors and purchase orders. Easy-to-understand information is invaluable.
One thing we’ve been working on at Sunshine Review is getting information about organizations like the National League of Cities. Part of what we consider on our is whether a local government discloses its lobbyists and membership in lobbying organizations. Most don’t. Citizens have a right to know whether their taxes are being directly used to lobby for issues. Either way, we should start demanding this level of disclosure from our governments.
So kudos to the National League of City for promoting innovation in transparency. Louisville is proof that it doesn’t take extreme measures to provide information to citizens. And here’s hoping the National League of Cities may take its focus on transparency as inspiration to more about its functions.
propecia
July 8, 2010 by
Filed under ,
Wisconsin leaders are on the path to providing more transparency. recently wrote an op ed lamenting the fact that .
The notes that the private sector is able to give consumers information at the touch of a button. Governments should be able to do the same.
Lazich notes three critical benefits that transparency websites offer:
*Online databases can pinpoint corruption,
*Transparency efforts boost citizen confidence in government, and
*Open government encourages fiscal responsibility.
And transparency websites come in at a fair price. Government transparency websites range from costs of several thousand dollars to $1 million. In return, states can save millions. , for example, has reported $4.8 million saved thanks to the state’s transparency portal.
The senator also touches on two points we at Sunshine Review think are key to transparency website. First, she notes that “Design is critical,” which it is. (The idea of making websites that are clear and intuitive is called “.”) If you think about it, a transparency website with a confusing design that prevents you from finding information may as well not have any information.
She also thinks that local governments, cities, counties, and school districts, should also be concerned about how they disclose information online. Lazich doesn’t think that transparency is merely a state issue. Every level of government should be communicating with its citizens through information disclosure.
There is one important thing worth noting: Wisconsin isn’t that bad. Here’s the inspiration behind the senator’s commitment to transparency:
Since Wisconsin is one of 14 states that fail to have a transparency website, the U.S. PIRG April 2010 report gives Wisconsin an F grade in providing online access to government spending data.
The ratings are on all of our state website ratings. How does its rating of “F” compare to Sunshine Review’s assessment of state website? We give Wisconsin does not currently have a transparency portal, but it does a decent job of disclosing . While a better, more encompassing transparency website would do wonders for Wisconsin, as the senator notes, it is still important to acknowledge when a state does a decent job of being transparent to its citizens.
propecia
April 16, 2010 by
Filed under ,
Along the same lines of the I blogged about yesterday, the has come out with an interesting study on states providing online access to government data, concluding that there are no downsides to online in a searchable format, there are only benefits.
In , the authors aim to provide a benchmark for comparing states in their individual road to providing government data online. They start by highlighting several key points about transparency in general. Among these:
*The movement toward Transparency 2.0 is broad, bipartisan, and popular.
*Transparency 2.0 saves money and bolsters citizen confidence.
*Even in leading states, there are many opportunities to improve transparency Web sites.
What does the study propose? Simply put, more—more information, more usability. The study outlines three criteria for Transparency 2.0. First, the portal a government posts its data on should be comprehensive, including all spending data for all levels of government. Second, it should provide all of this information in one site, not make you jump around to partner sites. Lastly, the information and search functions must be user-friendly, allowing citizens to enter a single query or browse common-sense categories.
The study also highlights innovative governments that get creative. , for example, recently launched DataSF, a searchable Web site that provides data on a variety of city issues and allows users to comment on and rank the datasets with the hope of improving government performance in the future. The Web site also provides mobile phone apps that integrate the data and provide residents with useful tools. We at Sunshine Review love that sort of , , , , , , , ,