Tag Archives: public policy

Make Government easier (part 1)

The other week I had the pleasure of giving a keynote at the annual DPI conference – put on by the Association of Public Service Professionals. (I’m hoping to slidecast the presentation soon – just trying to get my hands on a recording ofthe presentation).

In the audience were something like 800 IT professionals from the Public Service – a great group of people – many of whom I’m had a great time connecting over email with this past week.

direct.srv.gc.ca_direct500_images_english_titleObviously, I spent some time talking about social networking in a government context – Facebook.gc.ca as I’ve come to refer to it. As many people know (but don’t think about in these terms) the government does offer a social networking piece of software, its called the Government Electronic Directory Service or, for short, GEDS.

As I’ve mentioned before GEDS has limited functionality, it only helps you find someone whose name, phone number or title you already know. But that can still be useful and so a ton of people – both within and outside government. However, after talking to a number of people, I’ve discovered that not one person I’ve met actually knows how to get to the GEDS website. They all have to search for it in Google to find it! Talk about making one of the best IT tools within government difficult to find/use!

Why is that?

Because the GEDS URL (or web address) is the easy to remember:

http://direct.srv.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/BE

Really? Why did the people who created this IT directory simply not make everyone’s life easier and make it:

http://geds.gc.ca

Now, while I think GEDS should be replaced but something more sophisticated, I nonetheless bet that its usage would be much higher – or at least, its users would be much happier – with this little address change.

It’s a simple change – but exactly the kind of thinking that applied more broadly, could make our government run just a little more smoothly.

The Conference of Defence Associations – Thinktank?

So I really wanted to write on Public Service Sector Renewal after last thursday speech – but it will have to wait a day or two because…

On Saturday I received my weekly email from the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) with links to the week’s various defence related articles. Normally each article includes a link, a descriptive sentence and more rarely, a guide to the piece’s most relevant paragraphs or chapters. I was pleased to see that it included Taylor and I’s Embassy Magazine op-ed on the potential impact of aerial bombing on the insurgencies in Afghanistan.

I was displeasing however, to see that our article was the only one that included an editorial comment warning CDA members about or piece’s thesis. Below is a brief sample the suggested articles, ours is at the very end.

Much has been made in the media in the last week about reports that Canadian military personnel were ‘negotiating’ or ‘reaching out’ to the Taliban. Tara Brautigam for the Canadian Press reports Defence Minister’s Peter MacKay’s denial that Canadian soldiers were doing so, while Ryan Cormier for Canwest writes that Canadian soldiers’ outreach activities to Afghan civilians may have been misconstrued as negotiations with the Taliban.

Colin Freeze in the Globe and Mail reports on the issue of rules surrounding CSIS activities in Afghanistan.

James Travers in the Toronto Star explores the ability of individuals with “smarts and chutzpah,” such as General Rick Hillier and Auditor General Sheila Fraser, to “lever limited institutional authority into sweeping informal influence.”

Taylor Owen and David Eaves in Embassy draw parallels between the impact of aerial bombardment of Cambodia in the late 1960s and early 1970s and today in Afghanistan. The CDA urges its readers to not draw hasty parallels between two very different conflicts.

Glad to know that the CDA is there to inform their readers what to think.

This would conform with a larger trend however. I’ve noticed that the CDA tends to highlight articles that praise the Canadian military and more importantly, the mission in Afghanistan, rather than those that cast a critical eye. If it really is a clearing house for debate on the military you’d think that articles critical of the mission, and its execution, would more frequently find their way into its email list. While I haven’t done a statistical sampling, my anecdotal survey suggest they do not. When they do, they often include editorial comments from the Executive Director downplaying them.

If you are interested in this debate others have questioned the independence of the CDA, noting that it receives significant funding from the Department of National Defence (ay $100,000 a year at last check), and others have defended it.

For myself, both perspectives are correct. Although the CDA has been broadly supportive of the Afghan mission it has, at times, provided throughtful critiques. But I’m not concerned by the CDA’s discussions about how the war is prosecuted, this is at least a defence related issue. What I am concerned about is the CDA’s discussions about if the war should be prosecuted, as these are often political issues. A scan of the webpage of the CDA’s publications on Afghanistan reveals several letters and articles outlining why Canada should be in Afghanistan and why it shouldn’t pull out. Again, these are political decisions. It strikes me as problematic that an agency directly funded by the government echoes that government’s position (both Liberal and Conservative) while presenting itself to the press and public as independent.

So much data… locked away

I’m preparing for the keynote on Public Service Sector Renewal and technology I’ll be giving at this year’s DPI conference on Thurdsay in Ottawa. I’ve been working on creating a series of slides that I’m hoping will be quite interesting and tha I promise to share either here or via slideshare.net.

What has been most interesting is how hard it is to get data about the government. In my case, I’ve been trying to determine the address of every major ministry (or, if you must, department) in Ottawa in 1930, 1960, 1980 and today. I know this information exists – the problem is finding it. It would appear that it can only be found in the national archives – in hard form, from a protected document that people aren’t really allowed to access.

Sigh.

It makes me think of how much data the government has collected over the years – or even minute by minute that gets stored – even digitally – in inaccessible ways, making it harder for companies, non-profits or other entities to leverage the public resource.

If our government is going to get one thing right, it would be enabling its citizens to do that.

Open Source Legislation

The American Sunlight Foundation – which seeks to reduce corruption by using the power of information technology to enable citizens to monitor Congress and their elected representatives – has recently put its draft legislation online.

In a sense the draft legislation, entitled the Transparency in Government Act 2008 has been open sourced in that it can be read and commented on by anyone. Of course some may disagree since the process is not a wiki – people cannot edit the document directly (which would be much cooler) but it is nonetheless very interesting model. Indeed, the Sunlight Foundation very much views this project as an experiment.

Private members bills are allowed in Canada… one wonders how long before some intrepid MP uses this approach refine his or her proposed legislation and build popular support?

My first 911 call – lessons for open systems

So this Saturday morning, on my way downtown to conduct a negotiation workshop for several wonderful people in Vancouver’s environmental NGO community, my friend Rikia and I were stuck behind a white 16 cubic foot box van that began weaving very erratically (I mean, into oncoming traffic erratically).

After some initial hesitation I made my 911 call ever.

(As an aside, I think I’m a pretty lucky guy to have made it to the age of 31 before feeling like I was in a situation where I had to call 911 – and frankly while this situation was dangerous, I myself was never in danger)

During the call I was struck by how patient and restrained the operator was. Although he never sounded cavalier, nor did I pick up any sense of urgency – likely a tactic to ensure callers stay calm. In addition, I noticed how the operator never doubted the underlying veracity of my story.

This observation got me thinking about a post I wrote a while back about how 911 is a perfect example of how public services already use open source principles. Accepting this argument, my 911 experience actually affirmed some things  I’m sure many open source veterans already know.

Any open system (and many closed ones) rely on a community of people to provide it with important data (e.g. where eradic drivers are, or where critical bugs may exist in the code). Since people often come into the 911 community (or an open source project) with a problem or concern they are likely predisposed to be agitated. Consequently, I suspect that open systems that retain the most users are those that are predisposed to assuage them and keep them calm. Indeed this probably not only improves retention (increasing the likelihood a caller/bug register calls again) but likely also helps maintain the sanity of those helping them. So lesson one: a little patience is essential for long term success.

In addition, I mistook the road the truck was driving on not once but twice (talk about testing one’s patience!). However, if the operator was annoyed,  I didn’t know it. While it is important that 911 get accurate information a worse outcome would be for a call where the operator and the caller get into a dispute – if a user has a negative experience with 911 they may never call again – significantly diminishing the value of the system and increasing the risk to society. Obviously the stakes aren’t quite so high for an open source software project, but putting a premium on accuracy above all else probably isn’t wise either. While we want users to be accurate – a system that penalizes inaccuracy so heavily that they never return is probably not wise either. So lesson two – always lead by trusting, but of course, verify.

Expert Advisory Committee report: Insite works

insiteLate Friday afternoon (PST) Health Canada tried to quietly release the Final report of the Expert Advisory Committee on Supervised Injection Site Research. (Since government reports are public domain I’ve created a downloadable, easier to read, PDF version that can be found here).

Why quietly release such an upbeat report? Because the Health Minister is ideologically committed to closing Insite. Unfortunately for him, the report confirms what researchers and scientists have been telling us all along: that Insite works.

Consequently, for what must be the first time in Health Canada’s history the department is trying to bury a study that highlights how one of its programs improves healthcare outcomes to Canada’s most marginalized citizens.

Ah, the irony.

Well, one can’t blame him. The Minister simple doesn’t want anyone to know that his own hand picked experts have robbed him of any scientific basis for ending the program.

Below are some of the report’s highlights about how INSITE benefits the public:

  • INSITE encourages users to seek counseling, detoxification and treatment. Such activities have contributed to an increased use of detoxification services and increased engagement in treatment. Translation: INSITE helps drug users get off drugs.
  • Observations taken 6 weeks before and 12 weeks after the opening of INSITE indicated a reduction in the number of people injecting in public. Translation: INSITE gets drug users off the streets, making the safer and more community friendly.
  • There was no evidence of increases in drug-related loitering, drug dealing or petty crime in areas around INSITE. Translation: INSITE doesn’t increase crime.
  • A private security company contracted by the Chinese Business Association reported reductions in crime in the Chinese business district in a surrounding area outside the DTE. Analysis of police data for the DTE and surrounding areas showed no changes in rates of crime recorded by police. Translation: INSITE definitely doesn’t increase crime.
  • There is no evidence that INSITE influence rates of drug use in the community or increase relapse rates among injection drug users. Translation: INSITE doesn’t encourage drug use.
  • Every dollar spent on INSITE saved 0.97 to 2.90 in government spending on other services. Translation: INSITE saves taxpayers dollars – especially in heathcare costs.

These benefits are significant. However, the Conservatives spin machine is already hard at work. Specifically, it is trying to use this line – out of context – to support its claim that INSITE is ineffective:

“The injections at INSITE account for less than 5% of injections in the Downtown Eastside. This limits the likelihood of significant direct impact from INSITE in the Downtown Eastside.”

However, since the report also points out (contrary to what James Moore has misleadingly telling his constituents) that:

“An average of more than 600 visits a day shows that INSITE operates near capacity.”

The report isn’t arguing that INSITE is ineffective, it’s simply pointing out that it isn’t large enough to meet the demand. This is akin to claiming that a hospital should be declared “ineffective” and shut down because the people it didn’t have the capacity to serve were still dying of heart attacks.

The Conservatives now have two months before the June deadline they created to decide: are they going to shut down a program that reduces drug addiction and saves the public money?

Selling of RADARSAT

The sale of RADARSAT-2 is one that has been bubbling below the surface and is finally starting to get some media attention. There is a real and valid concern that the sale of B.C.-based MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates (MDA) to Alliant Techsystems of Minnesota will result in the loss of domestic capacity to monitor ice and traffic in the North – capacity that Canadian taxpayers paid to develop and deploy.

For those who are also concerned about this issue – or who simply want to learn more – the Liu Institute and the Rideau Institute will be holding a joint event this Wednesday, April 7th 16th at the H.R. MacMillan Space Centre in Vancouver.

RADARSAT-2: ARE WE SELLING OUR EYES?

A Public Forum on the Proposed Sale of MacDonald Dettwiler’s space division

Wednesday, April 16, 7:00 PM

H.R. MacMillan Space Centre, Vanier Park, Vancouver

Speakers include:

Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, UBC
Paul Cottle, former employee, MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates
Wade Huntley, Director, Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research, UBC
Steve Staples, President, Rideau Institute on International Affairs

Sponsored by the Liu Institute for Global Issues, UBC & Rideau Institute on International Affairs

ALL WELCOME

Walking blues

As some of you know (and for reasons outlined here) I try to walk at least one direction to every meeting I have in Vancouver.

Obviously I’m interested in all things walking which is why – in a brief fly by of Boston – I was stunned to find this store. A specialty store dedicated to walking nerds. If only I’d had time…

Still interested? Well… fellow walking nerds may wish to know about Pednet. Founded by Chris Bradshaw, Pednet was started in 1995 and (according to the site):

“is the international list for those advocating for more and safer walking, focusing on urban environments. Topics include: intersection design, pedestrian-driver interface, effects of walking on individual & streetscape, weather conditions, trends, disabled/children/seniors, & cetera.”

Something that combines my interest in public policy with my zeal for walking… could be dangerous! But such are the opportunities afforded to us by the internet. H/T and thank you to Peter M. for the link.

myforeignpolicy.ca

So in February, during the online discussion with Granatstein and Axworthy, when I picked up on the Canada25 Middle to Model Power thread and argued that:

“As a country we may appear adrift, but, as individuals, Canadians are more effectively and successfully engaged than ever. Quietly, we’ve transitioned from a middle power — a plucky country whose government prevented conflicts and ensured stability — to a model power — a country whose plucky citizens innovate solutions to new global challenges.”

and that

“In an era where technology enables individuals to self-organize, deploy resources, or simply get involved, Canadians have jumped at the opportunity.”

These women – profiled by the Globe & Mail – pretty much refer exactly to what I was talking about.

They are making their own foreign policy – and power to them.

The other reason young people don’t vote – or why I didn’t vote yesterday

I tried voting yesterday in a local by-election (advanced poll). Sadly, I was unsuccessful.

First, I went to the Elections Canada by-election website. Guess which link tells you the election dates and locations? (hint: it is under the “and more…” link).

Unsurprisingly, the advanced poll was at a local church (more on that below) that was a half kilometer away from all the local bus routes. But the kicker was that I’d failed to notice the opening time of the polling station, so upon my arrival at 10:15 (I was hoping to arrive after the prework rush) I discovered that the polling booth wouldn’t open until 11:00am. With a 11am meeting scheduled downtown, my day of democracy was over. Was my negative experience Elections Canada’s fault? Absolutely not. I’d failed to notice the polling start time. But it did make me wonder about the whole process of voting, and why young people seem to avoid it.

A lot of noise has been made about the dropping voting rates among young people. Some (usually young people) argue politicians and political parties don’t advocate agendas or messages that appeal to young people. Others (usually their parents) claim our schools fail to teach enough civics and that society doesn’t imbue the behaviour in our young people. And finally, still other people (usually their grandparents) believe young people are simply hedonistic, self-centered, and lazy (and likely undeserving of the right to vote anyway).

I agree that many young people don’t vote because they fail to see how a single vote in a the political process will have any impact, particularly when the choices are, quite frankly, not that appealing. That said, the rise of Barack Obama clearly points to the fact that young people will mobilize themselves and vote in fairly large numbers if stirred.

There is however another, important reason why I believe young people don’t vote. Some call it laziness. I prefer the term convenience.

The simple fact is that the voting infrastructure we use today was essentially built by and for our grandparents. Since then, it has been barely tweaked. Try this out. In the 1960’s if you were a “young person” (e.g 20-30) you were almost certainly married and had two kids. (60’s avg marriage age was 24 for men, 20 for women). Thinking in terms of the 1950s and 60s: What were the 3 institutions you probably visited on a daily basis? How about A) the local community centre, B) the local school, and C) the local church.

Now, if you are between the age of 25 and 35 or under, name me three institutions you probably haven’t visited in over a decade.

…exactly.

Do young people not vote because they are lazy? Maybe. But they also didn’t have a voting system designed around them like their grandparents did. Why aren’t their voting booths in subway stations? The lobbies of office towers? The local shopping mall? How about Starbucks? Somewhere, anywhere, where people actually congregate. Heaven forbid that voting booths be where the voters are.

I don’t claim that such a move would magically solve the youth voting issue. But imagine if such a move increased young voting turnout by even 5%. Suddenly the youth demographic would be the fastest growing segment of voters and you can bet your bottom dollar that political parties would suddenly pay a lot more attention. That in turn might create a virtuous circle: with more parties appealing to them, more young people might turn out to vote.

It’s not magic bullet – but since we can’t make political parties appeal to young people, let’s fix what we can control. Besides, it wouldn’t hurt to have a voting infrastructure designed by and for the 21st century, would it?