Web 2.0 for Pre-Proposal Outreach

1. Web 2.0 for Pre-Proposal Outreach July 28, 2009

2. Goals • Provide an Overview of Existing Public Feedback on Rulemaking Sites • Discuss Alternative Existing Tracking Systems

3. How Do We Know What the Public Wants? • Government-Sponsored Blogs • Existing e-Rulemaking Models • Non-profit blogs and analysis • Other Government Experiments with Rulemaking Websites • Academic Analysis • Watchdog Groups • Your experiences working with stakeholder groups.

4. Snapshot of Two Blogs • OSTP Blog: Improving Online Public Participation in Agency Rulemaking. June 12 June 21, 2009. • Regulations Exchange: New Regulations.gov Features, May 21-July 21, 2009

5. Blog Major Themes • Usability • Navigability • Transparency • Education • Outreach • Customization

6. Feedback from Regulations.gov Exchange and OSTP Blogs Regulations.gov Exchange Blog: New Features Discussion OSTP Online Feedback: Improving Online Participation in E-Rulemaking

7. Usability • “Even more important than features and tools is a Web site that is easy to use and based on good data, so that it works well and provides dependable searches” (Bob Carlitz, Information Renaissance NGO). • Overview pages should be used that have little detail but link to more information-heavy pages. • Users should not have to understand agency roles. • No matter what tools and features are included, standard principles of design, test - preferably real usability testing - and redesign are important.

8. Navigation • Consistent emphasis placed on creating a powerful and flexible search function. • Threaded comments would be extremely valuable for comments on regulations. That way, people could build off of one another's suggestions and not beat a dead horse.” (Exchange, Kol on Sat, 05/30/2009).

9. Transparency • Provide information about rulemakings not required to be in the Regulatory Agenda (e.g. regulations or rules limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters) (OSTP Blog).Provide average citizens with the information they need to participate early in the process. • Modify the regulatory agenda to encourage timelier, more effective participation. Specifically, eliminate the “Long Term Actions” category. • Improve and expand use of tools such as Action Initiation Lists for informing people about regulations under development.

10. Transparency (Cont.) • Make it easier to stay in touch with the status of rules under development by 1) encouraging or requiring agencies to open dockets much earlier in the rulemaking process or 2) enabling the public to sign up for notifications from regulations.gov as soon as rulemaking is added to the Regulatory Agenda or Action Initiation List. • Invite people with expertise to volunteer to be individually contacted to get input on specialized matters during rulemaking. • Explain the Office of Management & Budget’s role in rulemaking, specifically demands made on advance drafts of agency rules.

11. Education & Outreach • There are several well-rehearsed objections to involving the public in online policy deliberation, most of which concern the public's ability to represent its own views in an informed fashion (Coleman and Gotze). • “I am just your basic user so I don't understand much of the jargon. A tutorial on what these ANPR, NPR,NPRM, FACA (you get the idea)mean and how they affect citizens etc. I'd like to see tutorials as videos or some sort of interactive component… I believe you should do some audience segmentation. “ (Exchange, catlady on Fri, 05/29/2009) • Desire for plain-language explanations of rulemaking (OSTP and Exchange blogs). • Provide average citizens with the information they need to participate early in the process (OSTP Blog).

12. Notification & Customization • General Topic Notification: • “[H]ow would one go about subscribing to the general topic or related topic areas?” (SMDOR on Wed, 07/01/2009) • “Email notification can be set only for dockets, not (as in DOT’s DMS system) by subject area; as a result, it cannot help the user learn about new rulemakings or other proceedings.” (ABA Report 31). • Personalization. • Some Regulations.gov users like the idea of a personalized "My Profile" page, which might also be an idea for tracking, as would the calendar ideas suggested by "jonni." • Flexibility: • “Is it possible to allow users to create a page that can be updated and incorporates adding features, changing themes, advanced search preferences, video features, threaded discussions, and gadgets?” (nhgreen on Tue, 06/09/2009)

13. Takeaway Messages from Blogs • More important than features or tools, is a web site that is easy to use and based on good data. • The public is looking for a user-friendly, easily navigable way to be involved in rule-making. • General interest exists for gaining notification and opportunities for earlier involvement in the rulemaking process.

14. Existing Reg. Tracking Sites • DOT • Virginia Regulatory Town Hall • Nebraska • European Union

15. Variation Among Trackers • Internal/External Audience • Level of Complexity of Information • Notification Features • Search Features • Level of Reported Citizen Efficacy

16. Similarities • Awards won by both Nebraska and Virginia • Lack of extensive citizen feedback on any of the sites

17. Additional Slides

18. Preview: Pre-Proposal Outreach Advance Paper • Purposes of Pre-Proposal Outreach • Web 2.0 Solutions • Identified Barriers • Suggestions for the Advance Paper

19. Why Conduct Pre-Proposal Outreach? • Better Rules: • Gather specific data to shape craft a better rule proposal. • Less Conflict: • Provide an opportunity for “parties to exchange views and to focus on finding constructive creative solutions to problems” (Lubbers 213). • Possibly limit legal challenges to rules • Gather impressions about level of general public concern. • Promote Transparency • Increase variety of stakeholders involved. • Faster Process: • Potentially increase speed of rulemaking by providing a forum for agencies and stakeholders to identify and resolve differences early in the process, which can possibly limit protracted comment periods. • Build Communities

20. How can Web 2.0 Tools Facilitate Pre-Proposal Outreach? • Types of Web 2.0 Tools • Widgets • Podcast • Photo sharing • RSS Feed • Social Bookmarking • Social Networking Services • Widgets • Wiki • Video sharing • Virtual Worlds

21. Benefits of Web 2.0 • Change Stakeholder Involvement: • Simply transferring the standard notice-and-comment process to the Internet is not enough significantly to alter traditional patterns of who participates in rulemaking (Balla & Daniels 2007; Shafie 2007). • Access to more physically disparate stakeholders. • Increase Participation: • “The second purpose of the transformation of rulemaking is a participatory one—making it possible for participants to participate in real time with other stakeholders in a rulemaking process (an Idealized “chat room”) that allow a more rational, interactive, and less adversarial path to an optimum final rule” (Lubbers 227). • Facilitate Collaboration: • Back and forth flow of information and comments could provide a more useful place for commenters to react and learn from one another. • More User-Friendly and Informal Contact: • Blogs, twitter, etc. provide a more accessible mode of interaction between citizens and rulemakers.

22. Barriers to Adoption by Government Employees Social Media and the Federal Government: Perceived and Real Barriers and Potential Solutions, December 23, 2008, Produced by the Federal Web Managers Council

23. Overcoming These Barriers • Which of these problems can EPA directly address? • Where is cross-agency collaboration necessary? • Additional problems missing from this list?

24. Additional Slides

25. Advance Paper Recommendations:How can the EPA overcome these barriers? 1. Develop a social media/Web 2.0 communications strategy that describes how it will use their agency website and the larger Web to: • accomplish its mission • reach new audiences • engage the public. • Should all Tier one rules require outreach entailing Web 2.0 technology? 2. The strategy should include resources needed to accomplish these goals. • Recommend creating a centralized resource center to provide training and consultation? 3. Address the gap between IT and programmatic personnel. • Recommend creating a centralized resource center to provide training and consultation.

26. Additional Slides

27. Other Concerns About Online Engagement • Managing Expectations • Criticisms of Pres. Obama’s Transparency Policy) • Selection and Representation of Participants • Lack of Citizen Knowledge or Interest • Digital Divide • Problems of Scale • Low Feelings of Citizen Efficacy

28. Recommendations for Online Outreach • Matching Tools to Outreach Goals • Online policy deliberation must be mediated, rule-based and well-moderated if it is to contribute to the democratic process. • Governments should not offer online consultation as a gimmick; they must be committed to integrating evidence gathered into the policy process and being responsive. Source: Coleman and Goetz, Bowling Together

29. 2. Employee access to online tools • The new Administration should require agencies to provide access to social media sites unless the agency head justifies blocking certain employees or certain sites.

30. Barriers to Effective Pre-Proposal Outreach Using Web 2.0 Tools • Level of Technological Complexity of the Rule’s Subject Matter • Level of Controversy or Novelty of the Subject Matter • Amount of Time Necessary for Participating Personnel • Size of Group Involved (small, medium, large) • Direction of Interaction (one-way, two-way or multidirectional?) • Level of control over the information presented (particularly relevant for controversial hearings) • Number of identifiable interests (also plays a role in negreg). • Will there be balanced participation? • Amount of resources necessary • “For example, consensual rule making is thought to be most effective under certain conditions, such as when the number of stakeholders is small and when stakeholders share fundamental values and perceive opportunities for mutual gain (Krause and Meier, 189).Guidelines for Online Behavior • What else?

31. ABA Report • “Lacking sustained and systematic involvement of nonfederal users in the design of the public website,regulations.gov continues to reflect an “insider” perspective –i.e., the viewpoint of someone familiar with rulemaking and the agencies that conduct it. The website design also shows the effects of constrained resources, and the difficulties of designing a single site that must be each agency’s official medium for presenting its rulemaking materials to the public. Without doubt, significant improvements have occurred within the last year, and continue to be made. Still,regulations.gov remains neither intuitive nor easy to use, even for those knowledgeable about rulemaking. Recent additions (e.g., email notification, full-text search, RSS feed)are highly desirable improvements, but these important functionalities are not as convenient, effective, or powerful as what is needed and possible.” (4). • Recommendation: “Agencies that engage in substantial rulemaking activity should provide more detailed rulemaking information on their own public websites and explore web-based methods for increasing the breadth and quality of public participation.” (5). • “Steps taken to narrow the gap between information technology professionals and program personnel will also increase opportunities for circulating ideas, developing collaborative ventures between agencies with similar needs and interests, and sharing results” (20).

32. Existing Models • “For example, the Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had begun experimenting with forms of web-based presentation that sought better comments by providing additional information about the rule and soliciting comments via targeted questions” (ABA 40).

33. Types of Online Engagement Source: Dr Sue Goss, of the UK's Office of Public Management