Open Government in California: Connecting Citizens To eServices with Social Media

Can state governments deliver more services with constrained budgets? How can social media and collaborative software be used to engage citizens and lead to better policy decisions or investments? Can open government lead to better e-government?

Open government, e-government and We government

That’s a reciprocal relationship I wondered about earlier this year, when I visited the Social Security Administration.

My central analysis after the visit was that open government is a mindset.

Thinking about that topic brought me back to the a day earlier this year when I interviewed Carolyn Lawson about precisely these issues. Lawson is the Deputy Director, Technology Services Governance Division, Director of the eServices Office of the state of California.

Our interview is embedded below. Following is a longer discussion into the ways that California government agencies are using social media to connect citizens to e-services.

Earlier in the day, I’d reported on her talk at the Gov 2.0 Expo.

“What we have to do is open up the conversation about what it means to be a public servant,” said Lawson, kicking off the Expo’s first session. In “Navigating the Maze, Lawson offered guidance, perspective, case studies and, appropriate to the topic of social media in government, lively give and take between the audience and presenter. Lawson explored the many ways that the state of California has employed e-services and online engagement strategies, along with a simple driver: cost.

“Our workforce is furloughed three times a month,” said Lawson. “It’s really painful. Our exploding population really needs services.”

The reality of California’s budget woes come at a time when the expectation for government to be responsive online has never been higher. “Immediate access to data has become a cultural expectation,” she said.“The expectation is there now that government will be open, honest and will communicate.”

Lawson described how both the California Unemployment Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles have used social media and online platforms to deliver better services without additional cost.

“You can tweet @CA_EDD and get answers like how long until you get a check, where to go on the website or job fairs,” said Lawson. “I don’t think the creators of Twitter thought it would be a helpdesk for EDD.” That social response is paired by e-government services that enable workers to file for unemployment online. Lawson said that online applications for unemployment went up by about 1.8 million from the previous year. “What would have happened if we’d blocked that?”

California is using other online platforms and technologies to deliver services that have been affected by budget woes. California couldn’t afford to offer driver training in schools, explained Lawson. “Something had to be cut. What the DMV did, since they already had YouTube videos, is to create an entire curriculum.” The California DMV YouTube channel provides the means for every high school to watch training videos like the one below without additional cost:

“We were thinking of this a culturally relevant tool, not as a forum for expression” said Lawson. “These videos have more than nine million views. If we weren’t government, they’d be calling that viral. It’s all about being where people are.”

And, on that count, the @CA_DMV has developed an iPhone app, DMV Now.

Lawson strongly defended both the importance of the role that social media engagement plays for the California state government and its utility. “Technology is not driving Web 2.0, Twitter or Facebook.,” she said. “People are driving these services. And blocking Web 2.0 isn’t going to solve your problems.”

She made the analogy to the conversations about the telephone in the workplace in the early 20th century, or email in the 1990s. “What we do as a government when we cut off the ability to communicate through the Web 2.0 world is to remove our ability to be culturally relevant,” she said.

Adopting social software or connection technology usage that emphasize protocol over common sense can be problematic as well.

“One of the things that kills government’s ability to use social media is speaking to employees in terms of thou shalt, thou shalt not,” said Lawson. She shared a public available wiki of government social media resource that offers some best practices and frameworks for discussion or practice.

Lawson observed that California itself is still evolving in how it uses social media. “We still have many departments blocking the governor’s Twitter,” she said, alluding to Governor @Schwarzenegger’s massively popular account. The challenge, as Lawson posed it, is to show how government use of social media combines with open data initiatives. “What are we afraid of? The consequences of transparent. We were really afraid of crowdsourcing ideas to improve California IT with Ideasalce. We got beat up – but we also got ideas. We’re the government: we’re going to get beat up. You can’t take it personally.”

Lawson broadly described a cultural shift going towards open government brought about by the Obama admin, though she recognized that many efforts had gone on before. “This is being pushed through by Obama’s transparency initiatives,” she said. “It used to be revolutionary for public documents to be available in a municipal building to people walking in. No more.”

So how should an organization tackle objections that put social media age into a technology issue, rather than a management challenge? “That’s where I have my ‘activity or accomplish’ conversation,” said Lawson. “Is this that conversation about the telephone in 1920s? Or is it something that we need to do to protect our data and information? You have to get people engaged in the conversation. That took us more than a year. If you can relate behavior to behavior to technology, that’s where you have a win.”

The bottom line is that nobody has this all figured out yet, said Lawson. “You just have to work your way through it.”

On Language: Putting Government 2.0 in Context

Does the public need to understand what the term Government 2.0 means? Many look to my publisher, Tim O’Reilly, to explain, given that he has written eloquently about the topic and worked with Dick O’Neill to convene the Gov 2.0 Summit last year. O’Reilly talked with CBS News this summer about what Gov 2.0 means to him. Others might ask the nation’s technology executives, US CIO Vivek Kundra and CTO Aneesh Chopra, both of whom participated in the Summit in Washington last summer and will join it again this year.

In 2009, the attendees of that summit explained “What Gov 2.0 means to you?” in an online contest, offering up a multitude of interpretations of the nebulous term. Here at Govfresh, Jake Brewer wrote that Gov 2.0 means accountability, better services and economic opportunity.

If you turned instead to Wikipedia for the crowd’s opinion, the entry for “Government 2.0” defines it as:

“a neologism for attempts to apply the social networking and integration advantages of Web 2.0 to the practice of governmentWilliam (Bill) Eggers claims to have coined the term in his 2005 book, Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy.[1] Government 2.0 is an attempt to provide more effective processes for government service delivery to individuals and businesses. Integration of tools such as wikis, development of government-specific social networking sites and the use of blogs, RSS feeds and Google Maps are all helping governments provide information to people in a manner that is more immediately useful to the people concerned.[2]

Well and good. The line I find most compelling in the above explanation for the term is the “attempt to provide more effective processes for government service delivery to individuals and businesses.”

If I had to explain the idea to my technophobic friends, that’s the tack I’d take. O’Reilly defined government 2.0 as a platform, which I also find to be a useful metaphor, if one that demands the explanation that O’Reilly himself provided at TechCrunch. More takes on what a definition might be can also be found at Govloop, the government social network, or elsewhere around the Web.

Getting technical with government

For those more technically inclined, it might be useful to talk about open data, mashups, Data.gov, the Open Government directive, XML, XBRL, virtualization, cloud computing, social media and a host of other terms that have meaning in context but without prior knowledge do little to inform the public about what, precisely, the “2.0” means.

Most people have some sense of what “government” is, though there’s no shortage of opinion about how it should be constituted, run, regulated, managed or funded. Those discussions go back to the earliest days of humanity, well before organizing principles or rules emerged from Hammurabi or were enshrined on the Magna Carta or constitutions.

In all of that time, the body politic and its regulatory and enforcement arms have been equipped with increasingly sophisticated tools. In 2010, agencies and public servants have unprecedented abilities because of the rapid growth of online tools to both engage and inform both their constituencies, relevant markets and others within government. The question that confronts both citizens and public servants around the globe is how to turn all of that innovation to useful change. Savvy political campaigns have already found ways to leverage the Internet as a platform for both organizing and fundraising. Few observers failed to see the way that the Obama campaign leveraged email, text messaging, online donations and social networking in 2008.

One area that will be of intense interest to political observers in 2010 will be whether that same online savvy can be harnessed in the Congressional mid-terms. Micah Sifry wrote about an “Obama Disconnect” at length; I leave it to him to explore that question.

What I find compelling is whether any of these technologies can be turned to making better policy or delivering improved services. In theory, good data can be aggregated to create information, which can then in turn be used to form knowledge. Whether the Open Government Directive dashboard at White House.gov reveals information or simply adherence to defined policy is on open question.

Where Web 2.0 matters to Government 2.0

So does the public need to know what Government 2.0 is, exactly? One might wonder if the public needed to know about what “Web 2.0” was? Judging by search traffic and years of Web 2.0 Conferences, my perception has been that there’s interest, if only to know what the next version of the World Wide Web might be, exactly. After all, the Web that Tim Berners-Lee’s fecund mind brought into being has been one of the most extraordinary innovations in humanity’s short history: what could be better? The short answer has often reflected the definition of Government 2.0 above: a combination of technologies that allows people to more easily publish information online, often with a social software or computing component that enables community between their online identities.

In 2010, the dominant platforms that represent Web 2.0 are well known: Blogger, Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, Delicious, Digg, Ning, WordPress, StumbleUpon and a host of new mobile communities or platforms. In each case, the company is often defined by what it allows users to do: upload pictures or video, stay connected to friends, track and discover news, save bookmarks or create communities that do all of those things.

When it comes to government 2.0, I believe that’s precisely how any service be defined: by its utility to helping citizens or agencies solve problems, either for individuals or the commons. The “2.0” term provides an umbrellas term for the movement and the technologies. That greater point is precisely the one that Booz Allen’s social lead, Steve Radick, makes when he wrote that the public doesn’t need to know what Gov 2.0 is but they do need to experience it.

Why explaining Government 2.0 matters

As a thought experiment, I asked five different people in the hotel lobby in Los Angeles where I was writing if they knew what “government 2.0” was.

I asked the same question of “Web 2.0.” In every circumstance, no one could explain the term. And yet, in every circumstance, people knew what Facebook, Twitter or YouTube was, including the use of those technologies by government officials.

That’s one reason why Bill Grundfest’s talk at Government 2.0 Camp Los Angeles was a useful balance earlier this year, not least because as a Hollywood resident the creator of  “Mad About You” is thoroughly outside of the Beltway echo chamber. Christina Gagnier, an IP attorney located in LA, wrote about Grundfest’s approach at the Huffington Post in “Gov 2.0: A message from Hollywood to the Beltway.”

As she captured there, the focus of Grundfest’s frequently entertaining interview with Alan Silberberg was grounded in the entertainment business: communicate clearly, humanize what’s being offered and move away from jargon. G

Grundfest had listened to the morning’s unconference sessions and took copious notes, in a way that was novel to this author, capturing the themes, memes and jargon shared in the talks on coffee cups.

That message was delivered to a room, by and large, that knew and used the jargon often used around Gov 2.0. For that audience, getting advice from a true outsider held utility in both its clarity and lack of pretension. Grundfest may not have developed or managed government programs to deliver services but he has certainly learned how to tell stories.

And that’s the rub of it: Storytelling, as journalists and teachers know well, is one of the most powerful ways to share information. It’s an art form and human experience that goes back to our earliest days, as hunters and gatherers huddled around fires to share knowledge about the world, passing on the wisdom of generations.

The activity is scarcely limited to our species, as anyone who’s watched a honey bee shimmy and shake to pass on the details of a pollen gathering trip knows, but humanity’s language skills do tend to advance our ability to convey knowledge, along with the technologies we have at our disposal.

To get beyond the circle of people who are advocates for open government, transparency or innovative use of technology in government, the storytellers will have to get more involved.

That won’t be easy.

As the comments on ReadWriteWeb co-editor Marshall Kirkpatrick’s meditation on getting people excited about government data stories suggest, releasing bulk XML isn’t going to do draw more interest in an over-saturated media environment.

To help people understand what Gov 2.0 is, in other words, focusing on the contributions of people to platforms have to be balanced with explanations of the platforms themselves. Grundfest recommended the use of video, testimonials and other narrative forms to provide an entrance point into the what, how, where and, especially, why of new government technologies or platforms for engagement.

That impetus is why I wrote about a lesser known example of Gov 2.0: putting SEC data online in 1993 this month. Instead of dwelling any further on what Government 2.0 might be or couching discussion or branding in jargon, explain what the technology or platform will do — and what problem it will solve. And at the end of the day, remember that on language, usage drives meaning.

Considering open source healthcare IT standards at Transparency Camp

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/5759369?v3=1

A discussion of healthcare IT standards, with moderation from Brian Behlendorf. More information at healthIT.hhs.gov

DC CTO Bryan Sivak and Peter Corbett at DC Week

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/7701166?v3=1

A discussion of technology, open data and innovation in DC government.

Anil Dash & Gina Trapani on ThinkUp App and crowdsourcing answers for government

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/8591838?v3=1

A talk from the 2010 Supernova Conference in Philadelphia.

At the In Code We Trust #tcamp2010 session (nod to @lessig) with @noneck & friends

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/5757222?v3=1

Transparency Camp 2010 NY Senate Session.

Gov 2.0 Day at DC Week: Cammie Croft & Charlene Li

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/7705056?v3=1

Department of Energy director of new media Cammie Croft spoke about online engagement, followed by Altimeter Group founder Charlene Li on open leadership.

Tim Berners-Lee on open linked data and principles for open government

The inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, talked about open linked data and global principles for open government in this interview at the Gov 2.0 Expo.

Social Security CIO Frank Baitman on Gov 2.0 and Open Government

Frank Baitman is the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at the Social Security Administration (SSA). He joined the agency in September 2009. In this video, he explains what gov 2.0 and open government mean to him. For more context, read “Will Social Security Get Social Media in the Government 2.0 Age?” in the Huffington Post.

The GSA’s Mary Davie talks about open government and wikis at the Gov 2.0 Expo

Mary Davie is the Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Assisted Acquisition Services (AAS) in GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). In this interview, she talks about using wikis in government.