US government summary of the 5th US NAP consultation to date; deadline 12/9 for feedback

[alexande...@gmail.com]

Hi all --

The US  team posted a summary of what their team has heard to date through the consultation at open.usa.gov, which I'm posting in full below:

https://open.usa.gov/national-action-plan/co-creation/making-government-more-inclusive-and-responsive/

It's not clear to me why no one from the team has published this summary on the list-serv, nor promoted it on social media: https://twitter.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fopen.usa.gov%2Fnational-action-plan%2Fco-creation%2Fmaking-government-more-inclusive-and-responsive%2F&src=typed_query&f=live …but it's not a great sign for the future of nurturing iterative feedback loops that they've asked feedback on.

The White House did not release this as a press release at wh.gov and push to the press list. As with the Summit for Democracy consultations, this opacity by obscurity continues to undermine the legitimacy of the and undermine the potential of this work to rebuild public trust through heightened awareness of effort.

That's unfortunate, as there's much to like in the proposed efforts – albeit a continued focus on the existing priorities and programs of the administration, as opposed to commitments to transparency and accountability that were developed over the course of 2020 by an open government coalition: https://blueprintforaccountability.us/progress-report/

The administration invited us "to read and share these summaries and let us know what you think by December 9, 2022 by emailing ope...@ostp.eop.gov." I would suggest doing so, but also cc'ing this newsgroup and the websites of the organizations here, to bring the conversation and feedback into the open.

I will once again highlight the Open Government Partnership (OGP) 's co-creation standards, which OGP has acknowledged the US has not met to date:

The 5 Participation and Co-Creation Standards

• Standard 1: Establishing a space for ongoing dialogue and collaboration between government, civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders.
• Standard 2: Providing open, accessible and timely information about activities and progress within a member’s participation in OGP.
• Standard 3: Providing inclusive and informed opportunities for public participation during co-creation of the action plan.
• Standard 4: Providing a reasoned response and ensuring ongoing dialogue between government and civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders as appropriate during co-creation of the action plan.
• Standard 5: Providing inclusive and informed opportunities for ongoing dialogue and collaboration during implementation and monitoring of the action plan.

https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-participation-co-creation-standards/

Where is the space for ongoing dialogue? Is this newsgroup really it?

Where is the timeline of activities and progress?

Where is the reasoned response and ongoing dialog?

Where is the promotion of inclusive and informed opportunities for dialogue and collaboration by the White House?

Most urgently, where is the disclosure of all of the inputs the US government has received? Without seeing that corpus,  civil society cannot understand whether this summary is an accurate representation of the feedback the administration has received to date, or if these (vague) proposed commitments reflect civil society priorities.

In the last cycle, we could see and browse these commitments: https://github.com/GSA/participate-nap4/issues This process is a black box. That's neither in the spirit nor practice of open government.

---

Making Government More Inclusive and Responsive: What We Heard—and What We’re Exploring

Over the past year, we’ve invited members of the public to share ideas about how the Federal Government can be more inclusive and responsive—including in the ways Federal agencies can develop regulations and share data to create more equitable policies. We’ve reviewed hundreds of responses to our public Requests for Information, and discussed commitments with hundreds of individual members of the public, small businesses, and civic organizations that have attended our public engagement sessions.

These individual ideas will inform the development of public commitments in the Federal Government’s Open Government National Action Plan to support a more equitable, transparent, and accountable government, and deliver on the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to advancing equity for underserved communities.

Before we finalize these areas of work, we want to share summaries of what we’ve heard in four important areas of work—and corresponding commitments that we’re considering for inclusion in the National Action Plan. These areas include (1) increasing public participation in the regulatory process; (2) collecting and sharing data with the public; (3) making government records more accessible to the public; and (4) transforming government service delivery.

We invite you to read and share these summaries and let us know what you think by December 9, 2022 by emailing ope...@ostp.eop.gov.

Area 1: Engaging the Public in the Regulatory Process

We heard from members of the public that the Federal Government could improve its engagement with the public in the regulatory process. More specifically, we heard that the Federal Government should help the public understand the regulatory process and opportunities for engagement; ensure that regulatory materials are more accessible and usable by members of the public; and proactively engage communities early on—and throughout—the regulatory process using a variety of in-person and online formats, recognizing and addressing barriers that communities may face to participation.

We are exploring a potential commitment to address these comments that could include developing tools, guidance, and resources for Federal agencies to support greater public engagement in the regulatory process. We’re exploring possibilities like in-person or online townhalls, Requests for Information, online materials like infographics and videos, collaborations with community-based organizations to share regulatory priorities and solicit input, and greater use of the Regulatory Agenda planning process for public engagement.

In addition to supporting greater public engagement in the regulatory process, we are exploring commitments related to the following areas:

• encouraging greater public participation in science, including through Federal prize competitions, challenges, and crowdsourcing; and
• developing open innovation techniques to engage the public in Federal procurement.

Area 2: Broadening Access to Data to Improve Government Accountability

Members of the public shared with us a number of ideas for how the Federal Government can better collaborate with civil society in collecting, producing, and sharing data that can improve government accountability. Comments suggested improving the ways that Federal agencies collect data on different demographic groups, including:

• capturing characteristics like race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, and gender identity and information on those who fall into multiple groups;
• making more data sets accessible and useable through easy-to-use online tools and user-friendly tables, charts, and filters that accompany standardized, machine-readable detailed data files;
• providing training to help community-based organizations and state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments better access data;
• ensuring that Federal funding can be used to support building data infrastructure in community-based organizations and state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments; and
• creating stronger accountability feedback loops between civil society and Federal agency data stewards.

We are exploring potential commitments to address these comments that could include providing guidance, tools, and resources to agencies to encourage stronger equitable data collaborations and partnerships with community-based organizations and state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments; revisiting data standards; and supporting the creation of new channels for communication between local communities and Federal agency data stewards.

In addition to the potential commitments described above, we are exploring commitments related to the following areas:

• ensuring greater public access to Federally-funded research findings and data; and
• using new data to promote effective and accountable policing and criminal justice practices, including through the implementation of the Executive Order on Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety (Executive Order 14074).

Area 3: Making Government Records More Accessible to the Public

In our public engagement sessions, stakeholders expressed interest in strengthening access to government information through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Specifically, members of the public noted that more information should be publicly available to reduce the need for some of the most common FOIA requests. They additionally noted that the user experience for engaging in the FOIA process could be improved to make requesting information easier, and to clarify what is and is not made available through FOIA.

We are exploring potential commitments to strengthen the implementation of FOIA and the U.S. Attorney General’s 2022 FOIA guidelines, which emphasize that the proactive disclosure of information is fundamental to the faithful application of FOIA. We are also exploring how the Federal Government can increase proactive disclosures of commonly-requested material, including by sharing best practices. Last, we are exploring how the Federal Government can improve the experience of users on FOIA.gov, the central website for FOIA, including for locating published records and identifying the right agency to which a FOIA request should be directed.

Area 4: Transforming Government Service Delivery

In our engagement with the public, we heard concerns about how the Federal Government communicates with recipients of government services. We also received ideas from stakeholders about how the government can improve those communications, regarding the content and design of communications, the channels through which they are distributed, the reading level of the content, language accessibility, and other elements. We also heard ideas about how the Federal Government can reduce the burdens and barriers that individuals face when trying to access public benefits and services. Finally, stakeholders expressed a desire to be able to “see” government processes that they’re involved with, including knowing when the government has received their information and being offered better explanations of the steps involved in the process from start to finish.

We are exploring potential commitments to address these comments, by leveraging the processes and structures created by the Executive Order on Transforming Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery to Rebuild Trust in Government (Executive Order 14058). We are also looking to reduce the burdens and barriers faced by the public in accessing public benefit and services. Along these lines, we are considering developing guidance, tools, and resources to support agencies in better estimating and addressing administrative burdens and by continuing to identify high-impact burden reduction opportunities through data analysis and engagement with the public.

In addition to the commitments described above, we are exploring additional commitments related to the following areas:

• improving the operation of “High Impact Service Providers”; and
• supporting agencies in the development and implementation of Agency Equity Action Plans as part of the implementation of the Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities (Executive Order 13985).

[Philip Ashlock - QQA]

Hi All,

One thing to highlight from this update is "We invite you to read and share these summaries and let us know what you think by December 9, 2022 by emailing ope...@ostp.eop.gov."

Thank you Alex for re-posting the update here. All those who registered for the sessions should have received this update by email, but I agree that it would have been good to ensure it was also posted here even if most would have already received it by email. I'm sorry we didn't address that sooner, but thank you for helping to make that happen and highlighting the discrepancy.

Best,

Phil

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "US Open Government" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to us-open-governm...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/us-open-government/1ad520be-0ef6-4011-bebf-53f053c7400bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Buckley]

Hello OpenGov@OMB/OSTP,

I am responding to your request for input for drafting version 5.0 of the U.S. National Action Plan for Open Government.

In the spirit of open discussion, I am also posting (cc'ing) this to the public email-group on the U.S. Open Government program (est. 2009) for improving citizens' participation in government decision-making .. partially described here:

https://open.usa.gov

Prior in this thread, Alex Howard made a previous point about a lack of evidence by your OMB office to show why you are choosing a few selected areas on which to focus for improving public engagement and trust.

So, I would ask you to first consider the Biden administration's policy for requiring you, as a federal office, to show, at least, some evidence on which you base any recommendation for a proposed #OpenGov commitment that lacks references or evidence for that need.

https://evaluation.gov

For example, as a former bureaucrat at five federal agencies, I often wished that more people even knew that there was a process for them to influence the creation of federal regulations.

So that's why I'd very much like to see any evidence behind your finding that the American people have a deep desire (maybe unconsciously?) for it to be easier for them participate in the making (i.e. "promulgation") of federal regulations. (!)

From my experience, I would have guessed that they'd rather shape decisions that are closer to their everyday life, e.g., like a proposal to add bikelanes and a roundabout to Main Street.

By copy of this email to the OMB/OSTP's Evidence Team, I ask that be ready to explain to you (and us here) that, while improving "customer experience" in Public Participation is a noble goal, there will be no way to show (as per WH policy) that it is truly happening .. without having evidence!

And that evidence would be in the firm of data gathered from feedback surveys about the degree that people felt they were being informed and engaged in the decisions that affect their lives.

And when we gave evidence that the public feels "listened to", properly and consistently, then the public's trust will begin, at least, to stop going down.

If the public doesn't feel that they are being engaged, i.e., being listened to, then it doesn't matter, in their "experience" as citizens, if government people are trying their earnest best they know how .. or if they has been tasked with an urgent document (i.e., "Action Plan") deadline to meet.

I could go further into this, but I would ask you to focus, for now, on the fact that, after almost 14 years since #OpenGov was started by the Obama-Biden administration, there are still no #OpenGov benchmarks (i.e., metrics) being used to evaluate people's feelings about whether they are being informed and engaged in a meaningful way.

Also, please do not have any further "confidential" meetings with the public .. about the value of "open government" .. where participants are instructed not to divulge anything discussed at that meeting. (OMG!)

I would invite you, or anyone reading this, to share further information and join in open discussion by subscribing to the U.S. #OpenGov email-group by sending a blank message to:

us-open-govern...@googlegroups.com

best regards,

Stephen Buckley

direct: 508-348-9090

#OpenGov rep

Int'l Assn for Public Participation (U.S.)

https://IAP2usa.org

Citizen/Customer Experience (CX) Lead

American Society for Quality (Govt. Div.)

https://ASQ.org

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/us-open-government/CAA5Fb-a7nutCaJb%2BP%3DgJvFgfqpj-bCCByqxByVLzwcNn3M%3DiRg%40mail.gmail.com.