A few concerns I have include:

1. None of the Data.gov principles in the CONOP address the “real-world effects” we hope to achieve through data.gov–from an operational programs perspective. All seven principles in the CONOP address “internal” activities (means). We need to address success in terms of what citizens will realize through the Data.gov effort.

2. The entire Data.gov effort appears to be driven out of context from any government performance planning and evaluation process. Shouldn’t the need for data transparency be driven by specific strategic management questions?  Where are the links to the President’s Management Agenda? Agency strategic plans?

3. There are more than 200 Congressional Committees with varying degrees of oversight of over a similar number of agencies in the Executive Branch. How will Data.gov impact Congress’ efforts to monitor (oversee) agency performance? What will happen when there is a disparity between a) what an agency says it’s doing, b) what oversight committee(s) say they are doing, and c) how the public views that agency’s performance based on data posted on Data.gov?

4. Transparency, Participation and Collaboration (TPC) are the buzz words of the month, but what does that really mean?  The opening sentence of the CONOP states “Data.gov is a flagship Administration initiative intended to allow the public to easily find, access, understand, and use data that are generated by the Federal government.” Do we really expect the general public to access and analyze the data at Data.gov? If so, do we really understand how the public will want to see/access the information? More importantly, are we (agencies) fully prepared to digest and respond to received public feedback?

5. Who will pay the agencies to support data transparency? Do we really understand the burden involved in achieving open government? The last thing federal agencies need is another unfunded mandate.

6. Finally, how do we know the data that’s made accessible via Data.gov is good data (correct)? The GPRA required OIG review and certification of agency data published in annual performance reports. What can we expect in the way of quality from near-real-time access to agency performance data? Will we require the same data quality process for data feeds posted on Data.gov? Will agencies be funded to do it right? 

I provide similar commentary on this issue and an analysis of the recent Executive Order in a December 17th blog posting here: http://www.nowheretohide.org/2009/12/17/open-government-directive-another-ambiguous-unfunded-and-edental-mandate/

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for open government, but let’s do it right. Let’s give the techies a couple of days off and let’s take a good hard look at the non-technical issues that could really hurt this effort if they’re not properly addressed.

Your comments and thoughts welcomed.

Thanks…r/Chuck

What made this matter of particular interest to me was that one of my law enforcement friends was considering paying back a grant they received to hire additional officers becuase they would (within a year) end up having to lay-off an equal number of officers to accomodate a nearly $3,000,000 budget cut the City was going to impose on the agency. I asked him what his Chief was doing to build a case to prevent from having to take the cut? From the tone of his response, it didn’t sound like they were confident that such a strategy would be successful. He then remarked how unfair it was that when the local Fire Department asked for a new station, they received the money to build it without question…but when the police department makes a comparable request, it fails to pass.

So, I looked him in the eye and asked him…”So what is YOUR firehouse?”

An agency’s budget is built (for the most part) on a political processs pretty much based on the old value equation. In other words the level of agency funding is based on the percieved public safety value of the actions and materiel to be funded; (VALUE=BENEFIT/COST).  Agencies that want to protect or enhance their budget must take strategic (and political) actions to build the case that cutting their budget would be detrimental to sustaining safe communities.

Just as a Fire Department can easily show the value of a new fire truck or firehouse, law enforcement agencies must be able to articulate the consquences of either cutting their budget or failing to fund new initiatives, and they must do it in a way that captures the political will necessary to support their cause. Unfortunately, many agencies try to make the best of the situation and strip their internal capacity and/or reduce their services in other areas to compensate for the cuts, leaving themselves open to public criticism.

I suggested to my friend that instead of “sucking it up” and accepting the cut, that he (and his chief) figure out a strategy to build public and (if necessary) private support for either finding alternatives to the budget cut or (at a minimum) reducing the amount of the budget cut they are expected to take.

I am a big believer in the “shifting the burden” strategy whereby the law enforcement agency (or any agency for that matter) would layout the public safety problems faced by the community, the operational strategies required to address those issues, and an estimated cost of the resources (by budget category) to undertake those actions (performance based budget), and then present that to the County Manager/Council, City Manager/Council, etc., and let them decide what will be funded or not funded. The key here is to SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THEM TO SAY NO TO ADDRESSING PARTICULAR CRIME CONCERNS.

Unfortunately, many agencies will be uncomfortable with this strategy and would instead perfer to set their own priorities–some may disagree with me, but agencies that do this (in my opinion) leave themselves open to the risks associated with being held to those objectives without being given the resources to be successful. I also see the “shift the burden” strategy as a) a way for agencies to hold their state, county, city leadership accountable for fully funding public safety initiatives and b) as a strategy to prevent those same leaders from cutting initiatives they originally agreed to fund–this puts the burden for establishing the value of law enforcement in the hands of those with the checkbook, and…

What politician is going to want to tell their constituants that they want less public safety?

Your thoughts and comments welcomed..r/Chuck