Impacts of Government-Led Civic

Tech: US CitiesEmily ShawUS Civic Tech ResearchermySociety

Studying the effects of government-led civic tech tools in US cities

•Why?•What?•Where?•How?•…and what have we learned?

People Government

Improving two-way information flow

Thinking about civic tech as a new pipe connecting people and

government

The model we know

People Government

The model we don’t know

People Government

What could be different about government-led civic tech?

•Quality•Equity•Trustworthiness•Ease of Use

More broadly:What effects do we expect a government’s civic tech tool to have? And are these expectations borne out?

Who’s looked at city-led civic tech in the past?E-government literature (e.g. Palvia & Sharma 2006) locates two-way dialogue as stage in government evolution.

Who’s looked at city-led civic tech in the past?E-participation literature (e.g., Macintosh 2004) looks at the types of public engagement that tools make possible.

Who’s looked at city-led civic tech in the past?ICT4D literature (e.g., Peixoto and Fox 2016) has explored the relationship between tools and government accountability.

Defining “civic technology” for project• Lots of potential definitions for “city-led civic tech”• For purposes of this project defined it as:• Digital service• Tool or process incorporates avenues for resident “voice”• Government-owned—on a city-owned website, for example• Led by a US municipality, not a county or region

First case: SpeakUpAustin

Second case: Chicago LargeLots

Third case: Oakland RecordTrac

Fourth case: DC 311

Fifth case: Seattle OPA Police Complaint Tracker

Research Methods• Structured interviews in each city:• Project manager• Department head• Internal users• External users• Tool developer

• Online surveys in each city:• Tool users• Facebook users (proxy for local internet-using residents)

Status as of April 2016:• Interviews complete• Surveys ongoing

People Government

General preliminary finding:Civic tech tools create new forms of pressure on departments, leading to regular incremental effects.

Whoa!

Impact of civic tech #1:Shifting role for department staff• Tools are new: DC 311 (2011) is oldest, OPA Complaint Tracker (2015)

newest

• In four of five cases, interest in the tool came from the department head, not the program manager

• Project managers become critical point for dealing with new work stemming from tool• Role shift for this individual: more—sometimes all—of their time newly

devoted to tool-connected program

Impact of civic tech #2:Discovery of maintenance needs• Although projects often are not planned with future

maintenance in mind, all civic tech tools require updates and changes to remain attractive to internal and external users• If departments can’t devote additional ongoing funds for tool

improvement, tool uptake and sustainability is limited•Where tools are externally developed, procurement creates

an additional obstacle for maintenance

Impact of civic tech #3:Increased interest in digitizing records/assets• In all cases, tool created interest among relevant staff in

improving digitization or digital records management• In four cases, tool sparked internal interest in improving the

digitization and management of existing records• In the fifth case, an internal stakeholder wanted to digitize in-

person input to consolidate the location for resident feedback

Impact of civic tech #4:New focus—problems beyond the front door• External stakeholders were moderately to very pleased with the way

that the tools themselves worked• In three cases, external users expressed displeasure with city service

past the point of the tool• External users expressed dissatisfaction with the speed or completeness with

which their request was addressed.• In one city, external users from separate interviews independently observed a

jarring contrast between the smoothness of the tool and the impenetrable bureaucracy past the first contact.

Impact of civic tech #5:Use is by already-connected, unless intervention• Only in one case was there a strategy for non-digital community

outreach about the tool, and that outreach was funded and performed by non-government partners• Tool-users who found and used the tool on their own appear to be

either people who were already in contact with government or residents with higher socio-economic status.• Examples of users mentioned in interviews included lawyers, real estate

developers, and bicyclists (in a city where bicyclists are disproportionately high-income.)

Next!• Survey analysis to come• Looking to connect with people studying “incremental effects”

models of civic tech impact

Icon design creditsFrom the Noun Project:

• Weightlifting by Ben King• Vanity by Luis Prado• Police car by romzicon• Trust fall by Juan Pablo Bravo• Piggybank by Ryan Choi• Rights by Alberto Miranda• Community by Dmitry Baranovskiy• Government building by Chacha Sikes