Transparency in Government: Solution or Sinkhole?

One of the misconeptions about transparency is that simply by making information, particularly data, available one is increasing transparency. In fact, simply dumping information on the web can be counterproductive. It can make the solution people are seeking harder to find and create the perception that doing so was intentional.

In the following essay by Irene Etzkorn, which appeared in Federal Times, a publication for US Federal government employees, she explains what transparency can and should mean in the government context:

"It is important to know that the promises we made about increased transparency we've executed here in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I mean, this is the first White House in history where you know anybody who has walked into my office, anybody who has walked into the White House, you actually have a record of who comes in. We have put more stuff on the Internet than ever."

— President Obama in an ABC News interview, January 2010

And that might just be the problem. For many, the appeal of transparency was that it would foster comprehension and understanding. But Obama cites putting "more stuff on the Internet." Access to information is certainly a step toward comprehensibility, but it is a rather low hurdle in the gating process.

The Internet is the largest sinkhole imaginable. A Feb. 11 Google search of the word "transparency" gets 39.3 million hits, and "transparency in government" only pares it down to 24.1 million. As long as the administration clings to the notion that transparency — an X-ray of what the topic or issue is, no matter how complicated, voluminous and bureaucratic — is a significant accomplishment, it will meet resistance, skepticism and derision.

What the citizenry yearns for is an empathetic connection facilitated by simplicity, clarity and transparency. The government needs to shorten the distance between people and the government so that their interactions are more personal and informed. This involves reducing, simplifying and personalizing interactions. Transparency alone does not ensure simplicity; it merely makes evident what lies beneath the surface. If the government is to reconnect and gain the respect and loyalty of the American people, it must provide clear, accessible and functional communications.

Ironically, the government's boldest attempts at transparency are the most inwardly directed. The Patent and Trademark Office's new "dashboard" has an inviting, highly visual interface that uses cockpit-style gauges to illustrate data — a step in the right direction. But the data is just a fancy report card, and no one seems to have paused to reflect on whether the viewer would understand what the gauges measure: "first office action pendency," "traditional total pendency" and "actions per disposal." It's managed to make an intuitive activity — applying for a patent — sound mysterious.

Implicit in transparency is not only unveiling information but winnowing, organizing, rewriting and redesigning. Clearly the government is releasing a lot of data through websites like Recovery.gov, Data.gov and USASpending.gov, but it is merely shoveling massive amounts of data onto these sites. If the administration is not careful, Americans will become even more outraged by seeing reams of tantalizing but overwhelming data.

In contrast, New York City seems to be on the right track. Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched NYC Simplicity, saying: "We want to make New York City government as simple and efficient as possible, easy-to-use and responsive to our customers — the residents, taxpayers and businesses that call NYC home. To do that, we are working to streamline operations, clear away unnecessary rules and encourage innovation at every turn."

The website allows residents to apply online for benefits and city services in one aggregated spot. Similarly, businesses can access procedures for operating in the city.

It's not the city patting itself on the back reporting its accomplishments. Rather, the site makes it easier for residents to interact with services and benefits — the very definition of responsive government. The mindset of catering to customers is one that the federal government should consider.

Transparency should mean:

• Presenting information at the right time.

• Expressing concepts in everyday language.

• Explaining real-world implications.

• Offering examples.

• Using inviting design.

By focusing on reporting about its activities rather than making life easier for citizens accessing federal benefits and services, the Obama administration appears self-absorbed and self-congratulatory. People are likely to tell one another about a surprisingly easy passport application process, a clear Social Security form or a well-written IRS notice — but unlikely to tell someone about a mouthful of statistics about miles of paved highway.

Above all, the administration should recognize that transparency must be experienced, not sold. Citizens who feel confident and informed will conclude that the government has been forthright and clear.