Please use the this template in accordance with our guidance on contributing suggestions. You can delete this introductory text as well as the instructions below, but please keep the headings in place (the lines that begin with ##) and use them to organize your submission.
Topline Description
The U.S. government not kept its previous NAP commitment to evaluate its initial attempt at "best practices and metrics" by federal agencies in Public Participation, as embodied in its "Public Participation Playbook" (2015).
Paragraph Description
The U.S. committed, in its NAP 2.0, to develop "best practices and metrics" for Public Participation. Their result, in February 2015, was the "The Public Participation Playbook - Open Beta". It has never been finalized as an official "version 1.0" document.
Then, two years later, the U.S. committed in its NAP 3.0 (see page 12 of 21) to:
Improve and Report on Implementation of the U.S. Public Participation Playbook. In 2015, the
Administration launched the U.S. Public Participation Playbook, a template providing best practices,
resources, and performance metrics to encourage public participation in government decision-making.
The United States will update and improve the U.S. Public Participation Playbook based on feedback
from agencies, civil society, and the public, and begin publicly sharing how the playbook’s resources >are implemented in order to improve public participation in government.
There has been no "public sharing" of evidence about how the Playbook is being used by any federal agencies for "best practices and metrics" in Public Participation. There has been no update, nor use of its own "best practices", to engage in an open and public review of its usefulness.
Key Objective(s)
The objective for NAP 4.0 is to commit to finally complete a commitment from NAP 3.0 to evaluate a commitment from NAP 2.0 that should have been in NAP 1.0, i.e., how can we tell which OpenGov practices are "best" (or mixed or bad)? If you can't figure how to measure for improvement, then you don't really know if you are improving ... at anything!
There has been no objective evaluation as to whether The Public Participation Playbook" (Open Beta) contains anything that would be considered as "best practices and metrics" by the wider community of practitioners in Public Participation (e.g., "legacy" orgs like IAP2-USA).
And if there have been no objective measures (metrics) for evaluating both the the Quality & Quantity of Public Participation, then any practices can be subjectively and anecdotally judged as passable ... as the last three OpenGov NAPs of the U.S. have exemplified.
Measurable Metrics
In this search for "better metrics", the best approach would be to follow the new OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards that are now required of the U.S. government (and other countries) in order to remain a member of the Open Government Partnership.
A preliminary and fundamental indicator of progress in achieving this commitment would be an open and inclusive process that provides timely information to allow for early and meaningful participation by any interested citizen. Civic technology can increase participation without requiring in-person meetings, and orgs like IAP2-USA should be allowed to show how to do better Public Engagement online.
The ultimate metric for Public Engagement is the percentage of people who feel that they "have a say" in what their government is doing. By June 2019, that should be the primary question in a standard survey that offered at every level (federal, state, and local) to allow the public to provide feedback on the government's attempt at Public Participation.
People do not want to wait every four years for an election in order to voice their frustration. This is a golden opportunity for the Trump Administration to involve more people in their government in order to hold it accountable.
Please use the this template in accordance with our guidance on contributing suggestions. You can delete this introductory text as well as the instructions below, but please keep the headings in place (the lines that begin with ##) and use them to organize your submission.
Topline Description
The U.S. government not kept its previous NAP commitment to evaluate its initial attempt at "best practices and metrics" by federal agencies in Public Participation, as embodied in its "Public Participation Playbook" (2015).
Paragraph Description
The U.S. committed, in its NAP 2.0, to develop "best practices and metrics" for Public Participation. Their result, in February 2015, was the "The Public Participation Playbook - Open Beta". It has never been finalized as an official "version 1.0" document.
Then, two years later, the U.S. committed in its NAP 3.0 (see page 12 of 21) to:
There has been no "public sharing" of evidence about how the Playbook is being used by any federal agencies for "best practices and metrics" in Public Participation. There has been no update, nor use of its own "best practices", to engage in an open and public review of its usefulness.
Key Objective(s)
The objective for NAP 4.0 is to commit to finally complete a commitment from NAP 3.0 to evaluate a commitment from NAP 2.0 that should have been in NAP 1.0, i.e., how can we tell which OpenGov practices are "best" (or mixed or bad)? If you can't figure how to measure for improvement, then you don't really know if you are improving ... at anything!
There has been no objective evaluation as to whether The Public Participation Playbook" (Open Beta) contains anything that would be considered as "best practices and metrics" by the wider community of practitioners in Public Participation (e.g., "legacy" orgs like IAP2-USA).
And if there have been no objective measures (metrics) for evaluating both the the Quality & Quantity of Public Participation, then any practices can be subjectively and anecdotally judged as passable ... as the last three OpenGov NAPs of the U.S. have exemplified.
Measurable Metrics
In this search for "better metrics", the best approach would be to follow the new OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards that are now required of the U.S. government (and other countries) in order to remain a member of the Open Government Partnership.
A preliminary and fundamental indicator of progress in achieving this commitment would be an open and inclusive process that provides timely information to allow for early and meaningful participation by any interested citizen. Civic technology can increase participation without requiring in-person meetings, and orgs like IAP2-USA should be allowed to show how to do better Public Engagement online.
The ultimate metric for Public Engagement is the percentage of people who feel that they "have a say" in what their government is doing. By June 2019, that should be the primary question in a standard survey that offered at every level (federal, state, and local) to allow the public to provide feedback on the government's attempt at Public Participation.
People do not want to wait every four years for an election in order to voice their frustration. This is a golden opportunity for the Trump Administration to involve more people in their government in order to hold it accountable.
Stephen Buckley @OpenGovMetrics