NEPA and the USDA Forest Service: Some Lessons Learned Over 40 Years of Implementing "Open Government"

In the Open Government world, we spend a lot of time focusing on phone apps, e-mail marketing, data sharing, social networking, blogging, etc. All of these are great tangible examples of openness, but really, they are just tools. At the heart of an Open Government there are three guiding principles: transparency, participation, and collaboration. An example of a government agency that has been working toward these goals and has gotten pretty darn good at reaching them for over 40 years is the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

The Forest Service did not just come to work one day in 1970 and decide “Hey! We’re going to involve the public!” Really, they came back after the New Year holiday and discovered that the entire legal landscape had shifted for their agency, though it would take some time to realize the shift had occurred.


On January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law. Among other things, NEPA requires that for every major federal action, an environmental analysis be done to determine the possible impacts of the action on the environment and that the public be involved in nearly every stage of the process. These environmental analyses often take years and sometimes have hundreds of opportunities for the public to get involved.

The Forest Service also operates under the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960. MUSYA directs the agency to manage its lands for the uses of timber, range, water, recreation and wildlife equally. Often, these uses are competing and the conflicts around these uses are intractable, further complicating the NEPA mandate to involve the public.

NEPA forced the Forest Service to learn the benefits of transparency, participation, and collaboration the hard way. When the public feels as if their preferred use of the forest has not adequately been considered or that they were not adequately involved in the NEPA process, they can sue. These lawsuits cost the Forest Service millions of dollars a year in legal fees and lost time, not to mention the emotional toll exacted on agency employees who sometimes are required to re-do years worth of work or see it tossed out altogether.

The costs that the Forest Service has incurred have not come without their benefits. In the last 40 years the Forest Service has arguably undergone a paradigm shift about its relationship with the public from a “father knows best” attitude to a “let’s work together” attitude. Throughout this time period, the Forest Service has had some “lessons learned” that can apply to all Open Government initiatives.

It’s all about values…

When I’ve interviewed Forest Service employees about these public involvement processes, they almost always conclude one thing: public values are the most meaningful information that they can get from the public. I’ve heard about public meetings conducted by the Forest Service where participants were given colored dots to place next to proposals that they thought were ideal. These exercises were perceived as useful initially, but when they stopped to think about it, they realized they had very little information. They knew that plan A was preferred to plan B, but had no idea why. They had turned their public participation opportunity into an election (and all know the outcome of most elections: 49% of us just end up angry about the outcome). This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing--they had more information from the public than when they started. But they realized that they could have spent their time more productively by trying to get at what the public valued, instead of giving them a few options that they were forced to vote on.

Quality over quantity…

The previous example also helps illustrate how quality public engagement is more useful than a lot of bad public engagement: quality over quantity. You’re probably thinking, “James, tell us something we don’t know.” But what I didn’t tell you in the previous example was that the people on this particular Forest Service project didn’t learn that they had no data until they had held over 10 “dot sessions!” The problem here is “how do we measure success?” Unfortunately, we are most often measured by our outputs, our countable metrics so we end up touting that we have 100,000 subscribers to a mailing list or hosted 50 listening sessions, or posted X volumes of environmental analysis online, but have little to show for it in return.

What we should be focusing on is our outcomes and the quality of those outcomes. The principles of open government all address outcomes of public engagement. Collaboration is a subjective term; what is good ‘collaboration’ to one person may not be for the next. This can be a major pain point for assessing the quality of public engagement.

Quality public collaboration is something that the Forest Service has grappled with over time and from my discussions with field personnel it may ultimately boil down to one concept: trust. There is no phone application to build trust. Trust is built when the public and the agency both have a reasonable expectation that the other will follow through on what they say and do. Building trust takes time and effort. To this end, the Forest Service has hired a cadre of social scientists and public involvement specialists to assist in engaging the public, now spends a great deal of time engaging the public, and gives nearly every employee some kind of training on interacting with and engaging the public.

There’s no turning back from Open Government

The Forest Service knows, once you involve the public – there’s no turning back. In the 1980s the Forest Service struggled with which projects they should be actively engaging the public. They quickly learned: all of them.

One person who I talked with told me about a highly controversial project where they successfully engaged the public in a meaningful way and the project was implemented successfully. Soon thereafter another project was initiated where the agency did not engage the public as much as before and there was a public backlash to not being involved. Trust in the agency was eroded, the public accused the agency of attempting to hide things, members of the public were alienated, and after the project was over, lawsuits were filed against the agency.

The fact is, the public perceives participation and collaboration in government as their right and rightfully so. The Constitution notes that all rights not reserved for the federal government are devolved to the states and those not reserved to the states are devolved to the people. Few would debate that public participation in government is necessary for a functioning democracy. As Open Government and other previous administration initiatives such as e-government become seen as more of a way of doing business, rather than just empty buzzwords, we can expect that the public will not only expect to continue to participate and collaborate in government through electronic means, they will demand it.

So remember what the Forest Service already knows; once all the #opengov hashtags have dried up and we have moved on to whatever the next cool new buzzword is out there: public participation is largely about incorporating public values, quality of collaborative efforts trumps quantity, agency-public trust is a fragile and fleeting thing, and that the principles of Open Government, transparency, participation and collaboration have been here for a long time and they are here to stay.

Some questions to keep the discussion going:


1) Values come not only from individuals, but also from groups who represent the interests of their members. How can agencies use open government to best incorporate values from multiple sources without running the risk of alienating anyone?


2) Additionally, how can government best build trust with the public through open government and what are some strategies to avoid damaging that trust?

Suburban Sprawl and Sustainable Communities: Enhancing Mission and Public Value through Open Government and Partnerships

For the last year, I’ve been blogging about the three pillars of the Open Government Initiative—transparency, participation and collaboration—both on my featured series on Govloop and Phase One Consulting Group’s Transformation in the Federal Sector Blog. Each pillar points at the same theme: the Government cannot provide the best value with taxpayer dollars on its own. External partners are crucial to ensure value is maximized. Furthermore, Open Government in itself is not the mission of any Federal, state or local government; however its principles do help agencies achieve their particular missions more effectively. In practice, aligning these principles with existing programs and practices can be incredibly complex. In this week’s blog posting, I will describe one complex mission area and how Open Government principles may advance its provision.

Complex Mission Provision: Encouraging Livable and Sustainable Communities

This year, leveraging Open Government principles, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) openly collected public feedback on their draft strategic plans (HUD used uservoice whereas DOT used ideascale). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also collected public feedback on their draft strategic plan during June and July of this year. HUD, DOT and EPA share one common strategic goal: to encourage livable and sustainable communities.

Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck distill the issues surrounding sustainable communities phenomenally in their book “Suburban Sprawl: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream”. In this book they describe how throughout the last century many government policies and professional standards have contributed to sprawling communities in America with underperforming schools, pollution, traffic and congestion, crime and unaffordable housing. But what defines “suburban sprawl” and how does this urban development model create communities that differ from traditional communities? Table 1, below, describes the differences between traditional communities and those developed as a result of suburban sprawl.

Table 1: Dominant Characteristics of the Two Models of Urban Growth

The clumping of land-use types in sprawling communities is partially a result of Federal policies after the Second World War, including the terms of FHA and VA loans that encouraged the construction of new homes and not the renovation of existing homes, the interstate highway program, and the neglect of mass transit [1]. On top of these Federal programs and policies, the planning profession worsened the physical separation of the aspects of daily life through zoning laws which require housing types, commercial and civic buildings to be separated.

But why should these differences matter to each of us and why is “livability” an important strategic goal for HUD, EPA and DOT?

• Our streets are less safe both for pedestrians and drivers, and we spend way more time commuting, extending our work-day [2]
• Homes are less affordable, and cars take away resources for buying a home for many people [3]
• Federal, state and municipal funds can’t keep pace with new growth at acceptable levels of taxation [4]
• If you’re one of the 80 Million Americans unable to drive, you have serious accessibility issues [5]
  

How to Improve through Openness and Partnerships

Given the coordination challenges across the Federal, state and municipal governments regarding livability issues, the need to engage experts in problem solving, and the responsibility of each citizen to advocate for their community, the livability mission area is ripe for more effective use of Open Government principles. In particular there are several ways that each level of government could “open up” and better coordinate community planning.

Municipal level: Local planning should be done with public participation [6]. This can include developing community master plans, monitoring compliance with guidelines, advisory committees and ongoing feedback and ideation.

Regional level: The US largely lacks regional government. Coordination between municipalities for regional planning is largely based on loose partnerships. This is not necessarily a problem if effective public-private partnerships amongst municipal and state governments and appropriate private partners can be formed and sustained to address regional issues. Regional planning and partnerships should be incentivized.

State level: At this level, interrelated issues begin to become siloed. In the words of Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck , “[if state DOT’s] wish to play a role in the creation of healthy communities, [they] must come to view transportation policy as an integral component of a regional land use plan, not just as an autonomous problem with a financial solution”. [7] Transparency with spending data, participation in the planning process, and collaboration between state agencies with different missions are crucial to expose areas for improvement.

Federal level: There are many complex issues at this level, including:

• Determining how Federal funds trickle down through grant programs to fund state and municipal government’s development funds. Without coordination and engagement with other Agencies, the public, and experts on policy choices about what to do with Federal funds, these grant programs can work against each other rather than complimenting one other.
• Determining how to address the decline of the Highway Trust Fund and the lack of money to adequately fund sustainable transportation. The Federal government should be prioritizing developing innovative approaches to transportation financing (in addition to FHWA and FTA’s efforts), including how to best leverage private capital and expertise through non-traditional means. This could be an area ripe for prizes and competitions.
• Leveraging household, workforce, transportation, and labor data to inform decisions about place-based policy making (CTPP has a lot of great information here).
  

In general, government policies often exist to correct some sort of perceived market failure or need. Open Government can help by providing the government with more complete information on what market failures exist and what needs the proposed policies may fill (or hinder). Livability is an example where embracing Open Government principles at ALL levels of Government could help improve policy choices and each American citizen’s quality of life.

Are you aware of any examples of where transparency, participation and collaboration at the municipal, regional, state or Federal level is happening currently to address livability? What’s working? What’s not working?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and as always, please feel free to reach out to me at jgustetic@phaseonecg.com at any time during this series to continue to conversation. Also, if you’re interested in more discussion about this subject, I encourage you to register for the GOVgreen Conference & Expo (http://www.govgreen.org/ ), Nov. 9-10 at the Washington, DC Convention Center.

Jenn

[1] Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck. Suburban Sprawl: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. North Point Press. New York, NY. © 2000. P 7-8.
[2] Duany. P 119-125.
[3] Duany, P 56.
[4] Duany, P 7, 127-29.
[5] Duany, P 115.
[6] Duany, P 226.
[7] Duany. P 231.

Congress Simplifying a Process? Making Prizes more attractive to the Federal Government…

Prizes and competitions provide one way to stimulate innovation and tap “solver communities” that may not have been leveraged previously when considering some of our nation’s grand challenges (see my blog posting from the White House/ Case Foundation event on prizes and competitions in April where I discuss this assertion in more detail). Building on their work to drive the use of prizes and competitions in government, the White House Office and Science Technology Policy’s (OSTP) Tom Kalil and Robynn Sturm recently described a significant step towards enabling innovation through these methods on the OSTP blog. In this posting, they describe how during the week of July 19, “the Senate Commerce Committee approved the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 with a provision that could further empower public sector use of prizes and challenges to spur innovation. The Prize Competitions section of the Committee bill would provide Federal Agencies across the Executive Branch with explicit authority to conduct prize competitions. The prize authority provision draws heavily from S. 3530, the Reward Innovation in America Act of 2010, introduced by Senators Pryor and Warner in June.”

The impact of this legislation would be huge for conducting prizes and competitions government-wide. As I blogged last month, both on my featured jennovation series on Govloop and the Phase One Consulting Group Transformation in the Federal Sector Blog, there are several hurdles to federal Agencies conducting prizes and competitions, including explicit authorization by Congress to do so. The Pryor/Warner language would advance Agencies’ ability to use these innovative problem solving methods by granting and/or expanding several key exemptions and authorities, including:

• General prize authority to EACH Agency head: Sec 24(b) states that “each head of an agency may carry out a program to award prizes competitively to stimulate innovation that has the potential to advance the mission of the respective agency.” Right now, some Agencies have the authority to conduct prizes and competitions. However many others do not. Having the explicit authority to award prizes is a crucial first step in paving the way for Agencies to consider these methods as viable options for problem solving and stimulating innovation.
• Exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act for Judging: Sec 24(k)(4) states that “the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any committee, board, commission, panel, task force, or similar entity, created solely for the purpose of judging prize competitions under this section.” FACA applies when an advisory committee is established or utilized by one or more Agencies, in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more Agencies or officers of the Federal government. This law requires advisory committees to follow a rigorous process for selection and meetings. Exempting judging panels will significantly relieve many of the procedural burdens currently associated with selecting prize winners through panels of expert judges.
• Gift authority for prizes and competitions: Sec 24(m)(1) states that “support for a prize competition under this section, including financial support for the design and administration of a prize or funds for a monetary prize purse, may consist of Federal appropriated funds and funds provided by the private sector for such cash prizes. The head of an agency may accept funds from other Federal agencies to support such competitions.” Currently, if a non-governmental organization is paying for anything at all (financial or in-kind) agencies have to pay close attention to their gift authority. In most cases, a legal consultation and partnership agreement is required that details the Agency’s authorities for accepting gifts. In other cases, the federal government is prohibited from receiving gifts. This expanded gift authority, for the use of prizes and competitions, will significantly assist agencies in identifying the funds to support the prize “purse” and well as operational expenses, making prizes a more viable option still.
  

In the coming months I’ll be keeping a close eye on the progress of this legislation through the Senate. It’s hard enough to design and operate an effective prize and competition, but without a permitting legal framework the upfront procedural work can be so burdensome that they are never explored as viable options. This upfront procedural burden is one of the largest roadblocks for prizes and competitions. Thus, this legislation is a crucial piece of the puzzle to drive forward the President’s Innovation Agenda and the principles of Open Government.

Are there any other barriers to the use of prizes and competitions that you’ve seen torn down recently? Perhaps the promise of the www.challenge.gov portal to market and support the operation of prizes once they are identified?

As always, please feel free to reach out to me at jgustetic@phaseonecg.com at any time during this series to continue to conversation.

Jenn

Mind the Gap: How Innovative Partnerships Can Help Fill the Funding Gap

In my introductory posting in the “jennovation” series for Govloop and Phase One Consulting Group’s Transformation in the Federal Sector Blog, I introduced you to an innovative platform known as the Department of Education’s Innovation Portal.

This week I want to describe a little more about how that portal, in combination with data.ed.gov and the i3 Foundation Registry, demonstrates how government 2.0 technologies can help to create secondary markets to fill funding gaps. This is making a bit of a jump from my last posting, where I focused on Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure development. However, both examples, whether it be building a road through a PPP or funding innovative education solutions, demonstrate how in many instances private capital must supplement federal funding to solve the grand challenges of our time.

The Department of Education was appropriated $650M through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the Investing in Innovation (i3) grant program to “provide competitive grants that expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative and evidence-based practices, programs and strategies that significantly:

• improve K-12 achievement and close achievement gaps;
• decrease dropout rates;
• increase high school graduation rates; and
• improve teacher and school leader effectiveness.

[The funds are intended] to accelerate the creation of an education sector that supports the rapid development and adoption of effective solutions.” [1]

Instead of disbursing the funds through an entirely traditional grant program, the Department of Education has leveraged the principles of Open Government in several innovative ways to pilot “open grant making”. Their approach has opened up the entire process of grant making to make federal funding demand more visible, to encourage a more transparent award process, and to create a secondary market for unfunded applications. They are piloting how to do this through several innovative websites that provide different functions:

• Data Visualization: The data.ed.gov portal visualizes important information about the grant applications (no awards have been made yet): location of applications, amount requested, summaries of the projects, and the ability to filter by priority area and project type (development, validation and scale-up). This is a relatively novel way of displaying pre-award grant information. Currently USASpending and the Federal Assistance Award Data System display award information but not pre-award information. Why is this important? It’s hard for us to do the research to know who applied for funds but didn’t receive them in a systemic way. Data.ed.gov allows the public to understand trends in applications for federal funds, not just the awards, and thus get a better view at the demand for federal funds in this issue area.
• Ideation and Challenges: The open innovation portal provides a second crucial functionality to education’s innovation agenda. This portal allows anyone to post challenges on education issues (once they are moderated). In addition, this portal acts as a gathering place for the education community to submit ideas about how to improve our nation’s education system. This platform will plug into www.challenges.gov once that new government-wide challenges portal is launched in August. This portal allows new issue areas to be identified and collaborated on in a transparent fashion.
• Secondary Market for Education Solutions: The i3 Foundation Registry, in my mind, is the REALLY cool part of this innovation triad. Typically grant programs receive applications, review and score those applications, and then award funds based on the scoring of the applications and the total amount of funding available. There are usually quite a few applications that score relatively well but can’t be funded due to insufficient funds. It’s not a revolutionary concept that federal funds are often not able to meet the demand for funding in many fields. What makes the foundation registry so cool is that it allows foundations that would be likely to fund innovative solutions in this issue area to find grant applications that weren’t successful in receiving federal funds. This site creates a secondary market for innovative education solutions.

You may have heard of kiva.org, a non-profit that connects people, through lending, for the sake of alleviating poverty (see how kiva works). “Kiva empowers individuals to lend to an entrepreneur across the globe. By combining microfinance with the internet, Kiva is creating a global community of people connected through lending.” [2] On this site, anyone can donate to an entrepreneur a world away that might just need $200 to start their business. Lenders are paid back in full 98.78% of the time [2]. Often time, the entrepreneur just needs some start-up capital that doesn’t have prohibitive interest rates. Kiva allows multiple lenders to combine their resources to fund one entrepreneur. Some quick stats:

· Total value of all loans made through Kiva: $150,250,250

· Number of Kiva Users who have funded a loan: 468,971 [2]

Kiva created a way for lenders to find projects they’d be likely to fund through the power of the internet. The i3 foundation registry has done something very similar, albeit for projects that require much more funding. By displaying the grant applications that could not be funded, foundations that would be likely to fund these types of projects are able to find possible investment opportunities. Partnerships will be possible that would likely never have been possible before. Foundations are able to identify projects that might not have been on their radar before.

The i3 grant program is a pilot in innovative and open grant making—sharing more information throughout the grant process to leverage secondary markets to fill the funding gap between the federal supply of funds and the demand for funding.

This concept has recently had me thinking a lot about other critical issue areas where this model might work:

• Health research
• Transportation solutions
• Sustainable community development
• Energy research

The challenge in many of these problem areas however is who would constitute to secondary market. At least in transportation, many of the interested parties would largely be for-profit entities, not non-profit foundations like in education. So I turn the question around on you: In what other major issue areas for the U.S. government could open grant making principles be leveraged? What would the challenges be? Where could possible funders be better connected with those innovative solution providers out there?

As always, please feel free to reach out to me at jgustetic@phaseonecg.com at any time during this series to continue to conversation.

Jenn

[1] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/factsheet.html

[2] http://www.kiva.org/about/facts

Innovative Partnerships: There’s More than One Way to Build a Road

In the last posting for my featured Govloop series and Phase One Consulting Group’s “Transformation in the Federal Sector” blog, otherwise known as “jennovation”, I highlighted the major motivations for public-private partnerships. In the discussion resulting from that posting, it was clear that there was some confusion about what forms public-private partnerships can take. Are contracts and partnerships one in the same? Are grants a form of partnership? Furthermore, and more importantly, are all forms of partnership equally supported and scrutinized by the Government?

There are many different forms that public-private partnerships can take. Figure 1 displays some of the partnership structures that are common depending on the degree of private and public sector involvement they require.

Figure 1: Types of Partnerships based on the Degree of Public and Private Involvement [1]

However, there isn’t a “one size fits all” partnership structure for similar service provisions. To illustrate that point, let’s look at two similar road construction projects that used very different partnership structures to provide a new transportation option for the public: The Dulles Toll Road Extension in Virginia and the I-595 Express in Florida.

Dulles Toll Road Extension (Virginia)

Now known as the “Dulles Greenway”, this road construction project kicked off in the late 1980’s, when a group of private developers proposed that a 14-mile road extension be built starting at the airport and ending in Leesburg, VA. When first proposed, the Commonwealth of Virginia did not authorize private roads to be built. So the coalition’s first stop was Richmond, where they worked with lawmakers to pass the Virginia Highway Corporation Act of 1988 that authorized private roads in Virginia.

In 1990, the $200 million project became the first private, for-profit toll road authorized in Virginia since 1816. But this was only after the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) submitted a competing proposal for what a VDOT built, owned, and operated road would cost. One of the largest arguments for the public road was the projected toll costs over the 30 year life of the project. However after independent financial analysis scrutinized both proposals, it was found that the toll required to maintain the road would exceed $3.50 per car for BOTH options. However, the private option could be built much quicker. [2]

Readers from the DC area, ever wonder why the toll on that road is so “high”? Well folks, it’s largely because that road never would have been built without those tolls paying back the upfront construction costs and ongoing maintenance expenses. In this partnership, the tolls you pay, go back into the pockets of the private developers that paid to build the road.

In the end a road was built that required significant public oversight, but that was largely privately developed. The road opened for traffic in 1984 and is currently owned and operated by a private group known as the Toll Road Investors Partnership II. This example of road construction and maintenance was much more towards that bottom end of the spectrum—private involvement—in Figure 1.


I-595 Express (Central/South Florida)

Let’s fast forward nearly two decades. This roadway improvement project, including the construction of several express toll lanes, began in 2009 and is expected to be completed in the spring of 2014. The road construction project is being implemented as a public-private partnership between the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and a private concessionaire—the I-595 Express, LLC (ACS Infrastructure Development)—to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain the roadway for a 35-year agreement term. This is particular type of concession contract, one of the partnership types listed in Figure 1. With this concession contract, the FDOT has more control over the roadway than VDOT does with the Dulles Greenway. Among its partnership responsibilities FDOT will: provide management oversight of the contract; install, test, operate and maintain all tolling equipment for the express lanes; set the toll rates; and retain the toll revenue.

But if the private company is not retaining the toll revenue, how are they profiting from this partnership? What’s particularly interesting about this road construction project is that it is the first U.S. application of availability payments to a transportation project. Meaning…

• “I-595 Express, LLC will receive no compensation from FDOT until the facility is fully operational. Upon FDOT's final acceptance of the project construction, I-595 Express, LLC will be eligible to receive a series of annual lump sum final acceptance payments, including potential incentive bonuses for completing a series of interim milestones (related to major construction activities) within established contractual deadlines.”
  
• “Performance-based availability payments will be made monthly during the operating period of the project. A maximum availability payment of $65.9 million (in 2009 dollars) begins in 2014 and escalates annually. If quality and performance requirements stipulated in the contract as well as availability of the roadways to traffic are not met, then the availability payments will be subject to downward adjustment in accordance with the contract.” [3]

In this case, oversight of construction and operations are much stricter—as would be expected with a partnership that has MORE public involvement on the partnership spectrum. However, in both cases:

• road improvement projects are completed;
• private partners are crucial for financing the construction and operation; and
• private companies profit off of publicly used infrastructure.

Ultimately the end result would not have been possible without public and private sector involvement. Neither could have done it completely alone—though there were many options for HOW they could partner.

Hopefully these examples show that although the most common partnership arrangement are contracts and grants, that there are several other partnership “vehicles” that government’s have to produce public value. These options might just not be on their radar.
As always, please feel free to reach out to me at jgustetic@phaseonecg.com, at any time during this series to continue to conversation.

Jenn

[1] Gustetic, Jennifer. A Framework for Understanding and Designing Partnerships in Emergency Preparedness and Response. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries, 2007.
[2] Gomez-Ibanez, Jose A; Meyer, John R. The Dulles Toll Road Extension. Kennedy School of Government Case Program. 1995.
[3] AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance. I-595 Corridor Roadway Improvements. http://transportation-finance.org/projects/i_595_corridor_improv.aspx

Jennovation 1.1: Don’t Go it Alone: Why Public-Private Partnerships Make Sense

Welcome to the second posting of my featured Govloop blog series—Jennovation—coming to you every other Monday. This series contains my musings on innovation, Open Government (Open Gov) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs).

Let me start by saying, I was rather surprised by the comments on my first posting. While Gov 2.0, Open Gov and innovation have been hot topics recently, the majority of the comments on my first posting (both on Govloop and Phase One Consulting Group’s blog) focused on PPPs and the potential for partnerships. I am a HUGE PPP nerd/fanatic, so the fact the readers latched onto that topic and are asking for more information on that subject made me very, very excited. So, for the next few postings I’ll focus on PPPs with a pinch of Open Gov and innovation thrown in. Several comments from the community inspired this posting in particular, including the following one made by the International Consortium on Governmental Financial Management (ICGFM):

“There is a lot of concern about the impact of PPPs on government risk. (Notion that the government is on the hook for PPPs should there be failures.) It also tends to move expenditures off the balance sheet to give the illusion of fiscal discipline. And, there is the opportunity for PPPs to be used for short term budget balancing at the expense of future commitments. There have been some disappointing results in the UK. There is no question that the private sector has demonstrated certain efficiencies. These potential advantages must be weighed against risks.”

I couldn’t agree more that no partnership should be entered into without first weighing the benefits, costs, and risks. In my research [1], there are typically eight factors that drive the desire to partner or privatize:

1. Resources
2. Information
3. Productivity
4. Legitimacy
5. Cost-reduction
6. Risk-sharing
7. Introduction of competition
8. Accountability

Thus in theory, sharing of risk is one of the reasons partnerships emerge in the first place. Many services may not ever be provided if it weren’t for partnerships—since the risks would be too large for any one party to bear by themselves. In fact, one expertise of the private sector is to calculate how much risk should cost. Risks in large project or service partnerships can include completion risk, performance risk, market risk, economic risk, political risk, equity risks, and force majeure. “By partnering with the private sector, the Government is able to relieve the burden of carrying all those risks and shed some to the private sector who may be able to bear them more effectively. For example, the private sector is often more apt at bearing some forms of performance risk since their profit is directly tied to performance metrics.” [1]

The public sector and the private sector are driven by very different things. A partnership should leverage existing incentive structures to ensure that goals are uniformly pursued by all parties and that conflicting incentives don’t jeopardize results, as pointed out by the ICGFM. Fiscal discipline is often MORE of a motivator for the private sector than the government. “Whereas a private firm generally prospers by satisfying paying customers, a monopolistic public agency can prosper even if the customer remains unsatisfied. When a private company performs poorly, it tends to go out of business; when a public agency performs poorly, it often gets a bigger budget. Paradoxically, the budget can grow even as customer dissatisfaction grows; in this respect a rising crime rate is good for a police department, a housing shortage is good for a housing agency, and an epidemic is good for a health department.” [2]

Bottom line: Partnerships are complex and should not be entered into lightly. This goes for large-scale infrastructure development projects, event focused partnerships, and partnerships that focus on providing a specific service for periods of time.

Open Government and innovation focused partnerships are no different. Apps contests? Prizes to address our grand challenges? Enhanced collaboration to achieve Open Gov objectives? ANY partnership that is entered into by the federal government should be carefully considered. In addition to figuring out the motivators of each partner so the right risk sharing structure can be set up, the following questions are also crucially important for any Government agency to consider. (Beware: if you don’t have a best friend in your legal shop and you’re interested in setting up some partnerships, now’s the time to bake cookies for the 9th floor…)

1. Will the partnership require any resources (financial or human capital) to operate? If so, who’s contributing the resources? If a non-governmental organization is paying for anything at all (financial or in-kind) agencies will have to pay close attention to their gift authority. Can the agency accept gifts? Under what terms? Consult your legal counsel…
2. How does the partnership further the agencies mission? Appropriated resources (property, staff, and dollars) must further the mission of the agency.
3. How will the Government support to partnership from an advertising standpoint? There are VERY strict laws on what agencies and government employees can do with regards to endorsements and advertising. Consult your legal counsel…
4. What will be produced through the partnership? Who owns it when the partnership is completed? Negotiating intellectual property splits up front is critical to ensure each partner is getting what they expect out of the partnership. Consult your legal counsel…
5. What is the background of the potential partners? Are there any potential ethical, lobbying, or perception issues with particular partners? Consult your legal counsel…
6. Did you give other potential partners a chance to join the partnership? “Sole-sourcing” a partnership is often possible, but can jeopardize the legitimacy of the partnership, so allowing the breadth of possible partners to compete for the chance to participate is optimal. This area, in particular, is a space where new Gov 2.0 technologies have allowed partnership opportunities to become more open and have allowed more potential partners to step forward.

Partnerships have the potential to add a TON of value, but they require a decent amount of homework to do right.

Though this posting was a bit more research and background info oriented, in future postings I will highlight some of the really cool PPPs from yesterday and today (per Andrew Krzmarzick’s suggestion). As always, please feel free to reach out to me at jennovation1@gmail.com, at any time during this series to continue to conversation.

Happy almost 4th of July!

Jenn

[1] Gustetic, Jennifer. A Framework for Understanding and Designing Partnerships in Emergency Preparedness and Response. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries, 2007.
[2] Savas, E.S. Privatization and Public Private Partnerships. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers, 2000.

Leveraging Innovation, Open Government, and Public-Private Partnerships to Create Public Value

Welcome to the first posting of the Jennovation blog series! As a featured blogger on Govloop, I will be posting every other Monday, beginning June 14, 2010, about my musings on innovation, Open Government (Open Gov) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs).

But how to these three—seemingly loosely connected subject areas—relate enough to justify being lumped together? In my opinion, innovation, Open Gov and PPPs are some of the most effective means for the Government to maximize the public value it provides.

A great example of a government program that demonstrates embraces all three strategies is the Department of Education’s Open Innovation Portal. The Open Innovation Portal is self-described as “a collaborative community designed to identify, improve, and implement innovative solutions to educational challenges.”
How does it further Open Gov principles? This web-based portal embodies the principles of participation and collaboration by providing a gathering place for education stakeholders to participate in the problem solving process and identify opportunities to partner to create public value. The portal uses many web 2.0 functions, including allowing users to:

• Rate solutions and fellow members (think Amazon or eBay).


• Connect with other members (think Facebook or LinkedIn).


• Post classifieds to seek or offer services (think Craigslist).


• Earn points for participating (think loyalty programs).

How does it encourage and leverage PPPs? The Open Innovation Portal allows PPPs to assemble based on common ideas and needs to provide value to the education community. Through the ideation functionality, the best ideas float to the top, where they attract the attention of other innovators, potential funders, or contributors of in-kind resources.

How does it encourage innovation? The Portal allows members to post challenges relating to education, ask questions relating to challenges, contribute helpful comments on challenges, and rate other user’s ideas. The discussion helps innovators improve the quality of their ideas, for submission to other Portal challenges or external grant programs. “The Portal is itself an innovation in education.”

However, all government programs need not utilize components of all three strategies to create value—it’s just extremely cool and forward thinking when they do. Throughout this series I will strive to create a variety of postings that:

• Inform readers of academic and practitioner research in innovation, Open Gov and PPPs;


• Share my opinion on to how to most effectively drive these practices in the Federal Sector and overcome obstacles to their acceptance; and


• Stimulate conversation by identifying hard situations/questions and providing an opportunity for crowd sourced solutions.

Also, as an innovation and Open Gov advocate, I believe in the value of ideation for identifying problems, issue areas and topics that might not be on my radar—but are on yours! In the spirit of acknowledging what I don’t know, I’d also like to ask you, the reader, to feel free to reach out to me at jennovation1@gmail.com, at any time during this series, and request a blog posting on a specific topic in these subject areas. I’ll do my best to work with you to identify interesting spins on the topic, research the topic fully, and share our collective thoughts in this series—even co-author if you’d like. To make this series as rich as possible, I’m committed to adhering to the principles of transparency, participation and collaboration in its creation.

To kick-off the series, I’ll ask a simple question: How do YOU define Innovation, Open Government and Public Private Partnerships? For this series, I am starting with the following definitions/scope. What do you think?

• Innovation: “Fundamentally, innovation is the development of new products, services, and processes.” [1] Following Schumpeter, contributors to the scholarly literature on innovation typically distinguish between invention, an idea made manifest, and innovation, ideas applied successfully in practice. [2]


• Open Government: “The three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration form the cornerstone of an open government. Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the Government is doing. Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that their government can make policies with the benefit of information that is widely dispersed in society. Collaboration improves the effectiveness of Government by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the Federal Government, across levels of government, and between the Government and private institutions.” [3]


• Public-Private Partnership: “A partnership is a collaboration among business, non-profit organizations and Government in which risks, resources and skills are shared in projects that benefit each partner as well as the community”. [4] Furthermore, Donahue and Zechauser define PPPs/Collaborative Governance as the “pursuit of authoritatively chosen public goals by means that include engaging the effort of, and sharing discretion with, producers outside the Government.” [5]

The goal of this blog series is to demonstrate how these methods can be used in combination to maximize the value that the Government provides to the citizen. Looking forward to discussing these exciting subjects with you!

[1] The White House’s “A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs”, page 4.
[2] Schumpeter, Joseph (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[3] The Open Government Directive
[4] Osbourne, Stephen P., ed Public Private Partnership: Theory and Practice in International Perspective. London, UK: Routledge Advances in Management and Business Studies, 2000. P 11
[5] Donahue, John and Richard Zechauser, “Public Private collaboration” “Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Ed. Robert Goodin, Michael Moran, and Martin Rein. UK: Oxford University Press, 2006. P 430

Lessons for Driving the President’s Innovation Agenda through Prizes and Competitions

On April 30, 2010, over 200 public and private sector participants convened at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to think big about how the Government can learn from the emerging trend to use prizes and competitions to solve some of the grand challenges of our time. This event, led by Robynn Sturm from the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, built on the President’s Innovation Agenda and the Open Government Initiative by stressing some key concepts:

• We have an opportunity to identify and scope problems and national challenges like never before;
• There are many ways - some traditional and some relatively new - to identify a variety of possible solutions to those challenges;
• The process employed to develop those solutions could lead to innovations that have never before been possible; and
• The government has an opportunity to strategically leverage the principles of Open Government (transparency, participation and collaboration) to drive and support these innovation efforts.

Throughout the day, an impressive lineup of thought leaders and practitioners shared their expertise and knowledge about these core concepts—some far-reaching and some refreshingly practical—with the Government-focused audience. With a waitlist as long as the attendance list, the event was structured to capture knowledge for the folks that couldn’t attend through liveblogging, tweeting, webcasting, and content repositories. Beth Noveck and Aman Bhandari liveblogged on the keynote speakers’ presentations and the lunchtime interview with Vivek Kundra, the US Chief Information Officer. Several attendees tweeted throughout the day under the hashtag #opengov. The Case Foundation, co-sponsors of the event, provided live webcasting on their Promoting Innovation webpage, from which they will generously provide all the materials and video from the event.

Already, attendees are beginning to share their impressions of the event. Micah Sifry, the co-founder of the Personal Democracy Forum, captured his thoughts in a blog post on prizes, challenges and government innovation. In that spirit, this post summarizes some of my key take-aways from attending the event. In addition, I would highly recommend that you take the time to read through the resources listed at the end of this posting—they are invaluable to understanding the President’s vision for innovation, the potential for prizes to drive innovation in government, and the linkages between innovation and Open Government.

I took several important lessons from Jonathan Bays, a Consultant in McKinsey & Company’s Social Sector Office and one of the keynote speakers, including:

• Prizes don’t need to be monetary or recognition-based. McKinsey’s report on prizes describes six different types of prizes that create value and change.
• There are many reasons why prizes work; it’s not just the money. Goal, Glory, Guts, and Gold all motivate participants.
• A surge in capital has become available for prizes over the last decade— at an 18% growth rate per year. With more funding comes an increasing opportunity to leverage these methods to solve more problems.
• Prizes can and should be combined with other traditional funding mechanisms (like grants and contracts) if the problem solvers can’t accept all the risk associated with pursuing a solution. For example, the targeted use of grants can push possible solvers through the proof of concept phase.
• Prizes are only part of the “portfolio of actions” directed at the overall aspiration. After the challenge/competition is conducted it is critical to continue to build the legacy and reinforce the impact.

The first keynote speaker, Peter H. Diamandis, the Chairman and CEO of the X Prize Foundation, also shared some important observations about the value and operation of successful prizes:

• Prizes have the potential to apply a significant multiplier to the initial investment. Peter has observed that prizes incentivize the investment of resources at a rate of 10-40x the prize amount. For example, the teams that competed for the $10M Ansari X prize collectively invested over $100M in their efforts.
• Prizes reinvent philanthropy and procurement by changing the paradigm about how much value can be created for each dollar invested. Many non-profits are accustomed to a 30-cent return on the dollar, whereas prizes have a multiplier effect.
• Great prizes that aim to expose solutions to grand challenges require a long term commitment. Some of the most revolutionary prizes have taken 3 to 8 years to demonstrate progress.
• Visionary prizes grow industries by mobilizing capital, encouraging the definition of multiple viable solutions to problems, encouraging those solutions to be brought to market and compete for business, and creating profit and jobs.

The great challenge for the audience that attended the event on Friday is to translate those lessons into a viable approach for the government to strategically leverage the potential of prizes. The federal government faces many unique challenges in this space:

• The vast majority of agencies’ authorized funds focus on contracts and grants as the primary means for partnering with non-governmental entities. Over $1 Trillion is authorized for grants and contracts in the President’s budget, with only a small fraction of those funds able to be used for innovative means, such as prizes and competitions.
• Many agencies lack the partnership authority to create the optimal arrangement of public and private partners to tackle their most pressing problems.
• The default problem solving mentality of the government focuses on leveraging internal expertise and resources, grants, contracts and/or other formal arrangements. Prizes are not typically considered as a viable option.
• Federal employees are neither empowered to nor tasked with identifying and managing innovative ways to partner and solve problems.

Despite these challenges, this is an extremely exiting time for the federal government. This is a time where innovation, public-private partnerships, and technology solutions are creating a perfect storm for generating huge leaps in solving the grand challenges of our time, including: energy and the environment, development and human rights, transportation, health, education, exploration, and life sciences. We have the opportunity to inject disruptive thinking into the way the government organizes to deliver results. The White House is committed to helping the federal government overcome its challenges, leverage lessons learned and best practices from the private sector, and identify new opportunities for innovation. In fact, Beth Noveck closed the event by announcing that a new community of practice, led by the White House, will be formed around this topic to keep the conversation/inter-agency collaboration going.

We look forward to joining that dialogue and helping to move the Innovation Agenda forward.

Key Resources:
The White House’s “A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs”
OMB’s “Open Government Directive”
McKinsey’s “And the winner is…: Capturing the Promise of Philanthropic Prizes”
Knight Foundation’s “Information and Communication Contests: An Analysis”
OMB’s “Guidance on the Use of Challenges and Prizes to Promote Open Government”

Examples of Innovation and Prizes in Action:
Department of Education Innovation Portal
Ashoka’s Changemakers
XPrize Foundation
Apps for Democracy

Gov 2.0 Efforts are Selfish, and Rightly Should Be

Last week at a Gov 2.0 event sponsored by Fedscoop I had great conversations with several government 2.0 rockstars. But one conversation and one statement in particular really resonated with me.

Gwynne Kostin from GSA, in her brilliance, said:

“Participation and collaboration are selfish activities. Most people don’t participate or collaborate without wanting to gain something in return.”

This isn’t a revolutionary concept in itself, but it does shed a different light on the types of initiatives that have largely been pursued in the spirit of openness. Even though the rhetoric in the Open Government community has been increasingly about tying new initiatives to strategic goals, much of the action has demonstrated a “if you build it, they will come” mentality. Often the things that are easy to do in transparency, participation and collaboration aren’t those things that have a discrete tie to the mission of the organization: standing up a twitter account, starting a blog, creating an iphone app, opening up ideation tools, etc... I’m not saying that these activities can’t be incredibly valuable, if done right. However, there are countless examples of services, products, and programs that demonstrate “what we CAN do” and not “what we SHOULD do”.

“What we should do” must be strategic, and provide value both for the provider (government) and the consumer (the public, stakeholder groups, academia, industry, etc…). People will only participate and collaborate if they can get something discrete and valuable out of the experience. Gwynne’s statement made me think that a large part of what we “should do” is not wholly reinvent the process for identifying how to effectively partner to solve business problems. Individuals and groups have been partnering forever to solve problems. Gov 2.0 just gives us some new methods for partnering that are more mobile, real-time and individualized.

This got me thinking about partnership theory, which was the subject of my master’s thesis. Mark Moore from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government has done significant writing since the 1990s about the key issues that should be considered by public managers before they commit themselves and their organizations to specific actions. The following issues constitute what is known as the “strategic triangle”:

· “First, what is the important “public value (PV)” the organization is seeking to produce?
· Second, what are the “sources of legitimacy and support (L&S)” that would be relied upon to authorize the organization to take action and provide the resources necessary to sustain the effort to create the value?
· Third, what “operational capabilities (OC)” (including new investments and innovations) would the organization rely on (or have to develop) to deliver the desired results?”

Furthermore, PV, L&S and OC can be provided in various degrees by multiple people or groups. This is where partnership comes in. For example, if the OC is fully provided by the private sector, the partnership may likely be a contracting arrangement.

These are the SAME questions that we must ask when designing participation and collaboration initiatives through the Open Government Initiatives. But how is partnership in this sense selfish? It’s in its very definition. Without public value—the “so what” for the consumer—the action doesn’t have enough legs to stand on.

Key Area to Consider in Open Government Planning: Stakeholder Management

SECTION ONE: Importance of Stakeholder Management Issues in Open Government Planning

As many of the previous blog posts indicate, the Open Government directive is a cross-functional, and hence cross-organizational initiative. Notwithstanding this clear need for proactive stakeholder management, the cultural, technological, and political shifts that must take place for Open Government to be successfully implemented in and of themselves merit significant stakeholder management activities to take place. As with any successful change management plan, a baseline set of expectations and perceptions must be collected from all stakeholders. This creates a roadmap that can direct and enable an Agency’s Open Government management team to analyze and address significant gaps or misperceptions in stakeholders’ minds.

The most important part of addressing these misperceptions is properly framing the response. Any such plan must frame the benefits of Open Gov from the perspective of the stakeholder; what utility does this bring my organization, how can this benefit the mission?

Stakeholder management activities must also occur on a frequent and regular basis. In order to create stakeholder buy-in, they must feel that they have had a significant impact on the outcome of Open Government planning and implementation outcomes. In order to achieve this, stakeholders should be engaged before strategy and implementation frameworks are finalized, and given responses to their input as to why it was or was not used. Moreover, they should be informed of Open Government activities on an ongoing basis as development and implementation work takes place, especially in regards to highlighting the successes and returns that an Agency has received through its Open Government efforts.

SECTION TWO: Linkages with the Open Government Directive

The Open Government directive does not explicitly state the need for stakeholder management activities to take place, but it is certainly implied through many of the reporting requirements. For example, the requirement that an Agency explain in detail how it will improve participation will require an Open Government project team to interact with all of the necessary parts of an organization that participative tools or activities may touch. Without doing so, an explanation may be given to OMB that internal stakeholders do not agree on, and hence will not support to put into action.

Furthermore, such discussions may illustrate new or novel ways in which a requirement can be addressed, while providing a public facing tool or dataset that brings utility to citizens. Essentially, stakeholder management activities open the possibility of an Open Government management team finding solutions to complex problems by engaging personnel with differing points of view.