I like Pew Charitable Trusts. I like the Pew Research Center. I like the Pew Internet and American Life and Pew American Cities projects. These guys know their stuff and provide a valuable service to advancing social, economic and political understanding and practices. I particularly enjoy reading the results of their research on these topics.

However, I was surprised by a recent report entitled “Civic Involvement in the Digital Age” (25 April 2013). Civics, public participation and governance and their connectivity to each other in the digital age are topics of personal interest. What surprised me was the heavy, almost exclusive emphasis on political activity Pew studied that was presented as civic involvement in this report.

I admit, I am probably splitting hairs here. But from its title, I was expecting to read a very broad brushed approach to fresh material on civic involvement in the digital age. In this report, Pew seems to be following a trend that suggest political activity and civic engagement are synonymous.  While I agree political activity is one measurement of civic involvement, there is a much broader spectrum of practices citizens can display that would be considered civic involvement.

Pew also approached civic involvement with this same narrow approach in their 2009 version of this report. Pew did distinguish between “Political and civic involvement…” in the report’s first sentence, but from then on used “civic” engagement to mean political as well.

Many folks have given this report  high acclaim.  It is a good and insightful report on the public’s political habits or ad hoc activities. Yet, it is just that: civic involvement in politics.  And my claim is that civic involvement is much more than political involvement. I suggest the level of civic involvement in a community will be a determining factor of political involvement by its residents.

Take a quick Poll!

How about you? Do you believe there are other activities citizens do, as individuals or in groups that you would consider to be civic involvement? Please take a moment to respond to 20 statements of actions or practices a citizen may attempt and identify those you would consider represent “civic involvement.” This is an opinion poll. Of course we have to settle on a definition of “civic involvement,” and I present one in the poll. If you would like to add activities you believe constitute civic involvement that are not listed, please leave them as a comment to this post. Thank you.

 Loading ...

An online collective social process based on the Group Forming Networks (GFN) model with third party facilitation (perhaps via a community foundation or other local nonprofit) offers an effective solution for successful resident engagement for public policy making. It is essential that the process be accepted by elected officials and other policy making agencies that must contribute information and data for the networks, and accept the collaboration of their subgroups and participants as valid, deliberative civic engagement.

Residents will become engaged around a policy discussion (and perhaps join a network on the topic) based on a certain variables including:

• interest, existing knowledge or expertise in the subject matter
• personal or community impact or relevance from decisions surrounding the policy topic(s); and
• belief that participation will lead to real or visible outcome or resolution.

Government (as policy maker) must support these networks by providing objective, in-depth information about a policy issue, project or challenge to establish and feed a knowledge base for citizen/resident education.

Government needs informed citizen participation that helps address its many challenges with new ideas and knowledge. It is in their best interest to embrace structured networks to increase resident participation and consensus in the policy making process, and to increase efficiency in providing programs and services. But it should not be responsible for maintaining these networks.

Because of legal, political and technological challenges government is not suited to steward the social media environment of GFNs and all that comes with it. Instead, a third party facilitator such as a community foundation or other nonprofit, civic organization or public (education) institution should have that responsibility on behalf of the resident constituents. These bodies have the latitude to embrace social media solutions that meet public wants, needs and expectations for how they access information and communication, vertically and horizontally.

There is also a technology challenge.  As cited by David Bollier in his April blog post The Next Great Internet Disruption: Authority and Governance, when it comes to realizing the potential of GFNs, the need is to “develop a network architecture and software systems that can build trust and social capital in user-centric, scalable ways.”  In other words, the solution must facilitate GFNs along with their many subgroups and network members in a structured online environment that provides standards, practices and processes that all participants can work with and value as an effective form of civic engagement among the many constituencies.

Building trust and value into a system is important for its use and acceptance, but not a guarantee. Still, citizens or residents and their governing bodies need, want and expect (at least citizens do) online access to information, discussions and to decision makers that advance traditional democratic principles and good government practices.

Residents ultimately will determine the success of these public policy networks. It is as much a cultural challenge as it is a technology one. That will mean subscribing to some form of participation order that blends new technology with traditional practices. Participation should be enabled to allow for anonymity and attribution of participants. But it should not be comingled or combined. Just as traditional practices of democracy separate a public demonstration from a public comment proceeding, so, too should the online equivalents be allowed, even enabled, but treated in and as different venues. Positive and informative contributions (qualitative or quantitative) can come from either, but the practice should be separate.

This outline sets up a scenario for further discussion and debate and proposes key “players,” procedures and variables that should be included as part of that conversation and for a successful solution.

How can trash collection be improved? Where does a new bridge need to go? How can we lower crime? How do we help youths advance to college or career after high school? How do we make our libraries more relevant and useful to residents? How do we streamline some government services?

What do residents think? Does conventional citizen feedback at the council meeting or at a public forum add value? Here’s an idea for elected officials to reach out to a selective group of residents, invite their participation, then advance the discussion to the community whiling creating a new, trendy form of resident engagement where other citizens want to join the process.  Yes, I did say “want.”

If you’re the chief elected official, or a council member and want citizen ideas or even more knowledgeable input, even expertise on a public project, program or challenge, start small and work your way up.

How?  Start by forming a group of citizens that can be a part of a selective focus group. Using the voting rolls, look at precincts, census tracts, or council or school districts, and select 50* or so residents who, as a collective, represent the community at large by race, age, gender, education etc.  Contact them via an invitation from the elected official(s) (email, US mail, or phone) asking them to serve on the mayor’s/council’s/city’s resident focus group for a period of one month.  (*Obviously, you want to keep it manageable and it has to scale to your community. In a larger metropolis, the number of participants may be in the hundreds –but maybe not if that number is unrealistic to achieve starting out.)

During that month, the focus group members will be asked to provide input on whatever issue(s) may be before local government that could benefit from fresh thinking, outside expertise, or consensus. These could be answering the questions above or may relate to current events in the community, across the state or nationally, but affect the residents of their locale.

Be sure to provide any background or technical information they require in order to understand the challenge and respond with meaningful input. This can be done online in a special section on the government’s web site, or be facilitated by a local civic organization/foundation on theirs. Be sure to state expectations from the start letting them know what you are looking for from their participation and how their input will be part of the decision making process. Participants should also be willing to partake in the process with attribution.

Once the input is received from the residents, the feedback becomes the initial community thinking and “pulse” on the particular topic. The next step is to report the feedback to the entire community along with accompanying support information about the challenge on the local government or third party web site. For the next week or longer depending on the issue, request residents to add their ideas or respond to input from the focus group. Finally, close the process and report the findings. Formally deliberate and decide.

While this is going on, the focus group has begun working on another issue. Continue the process for a month. After the month, replenish the focus group with a new group of resident volunteers who have been identified and invited to participate. Those who have participated are now part of that community’s resident focus group alumni. If the process is done correctly, local government has captured a profile of these residents along with their interests in local government and/or the community and their professional knowledge, experience and expertise where they may be called upon in the future to lend support for another issue or challenge.

The objective, of course is to start the ball rolling for a new form of resident engagement. The goal is to have citizens contacting local government volunteering to join one of the monthly focus groups. Success will be realized when there is a waiting list or when the size of the focus groups increases. In the meantime, government can be facilitating the volunteer process with online sign up forms that establishes and expands “expert resident” profiles.

Soon, local government can begin to engage volunteers — whether they are part of focus group initiative or not— who have interest, knowledge, and better, expertise in a particular area of public policy.  There’s a new problem with increasing in juvenile crime? Pull together residents who have expressed interest and knowledge in criminal justice, youth development and education. Supply the needed data and information and put them to work discussing solutions. Facilitate that process through online and conventional engagement; conducted through government or a third party such as the community foundation.

Benefits to be realized:

• Establish a successful public participation program
• Open/Transparent Government initiative requiring sharing data and information with participants
• Citizens learn more about their local government, their community and the its challenges
• Residents take responsibility for their government and community and for finding solutions to problems
• Connect with citizens via online and conventional outreach and engagement methods
• Empower residents who may want to participate but have not found the preferred avenue to do so
• Build a database of knowledgeable citizens interested in helping solve community problems
• Political advantages for elected officials

What do you think? Is this an approach that can scale and sustain itself as an ongoing form of resident engagement and citizen participation?

I was just reviewing Pew Research Center’s January 2013 report, “Library Services in the Digital Age”. I’ve always been a fan of the library and still consider it my-office-away-from-my-office.  The report focused on the findings about how this public institution is fairing with citizens in the new age of digital. It considered not only the digital services being provided by libraries, but how digital media is impacting libraries and even looked at how people view libraries today and how they use them.

While we gauge citizen perceptions and their activities associated with libraries, we should also be polling them about the future. One survey question asked if libraries should remove some of their books and book stacks in order to free up space for other uses such as tech centers, reading or meeting rooms, and events. While 20% of those polled age 16 and older said “definitely,” 40% said “maybe” and 36% said “definitely not.”  Besides uncertainty, I’m not sure whether these responses show ambivalence or apathy.

The future of libraries, though have everything to do with such alternative uses. The question is how to accommodate these services or functions without sacrificing its core tangible and intangible assets –books (media) and knowledge.

When considering the options for our libraries, we should establish a new baseline to develop a vision.  That is, not look at libraries for what they are now, but to consider what they offer and stand for, and what that role looks like in the future for communities and citizens.

When 40% of the respondents to Pew’s survey cite the main reason their use of the library has decreased because they “can get books, do research online and the internet is more convenient” (meaning they do not have to leave home/business/school to access these services) it’s obvious they are looking at the library in a traditional sense.

Susan Benton, president and CEO of the Urban Libraries Council has talked about the changing role of libraries in a digital society as “part of the natural infrastructure of the community.”  In addition to the being part of the natural infrastructure, libraries are an important part of a community’s civic infrastructure.

I’ve been an advocate for libraries to be a central component in citizen engagement and public involvement in the affairs of communities and local government. I’ve relied on libraries in my work as a gathering place for citizens and public officials. The library is a unique facility that allows both conventional and electronic citizen engagement to occur under one roof.

Consider the savings and benefits if local government delegated many of its services and public outreach across its network of libraries as citizens hardly visit government facilities today.  In another study from Pew, Government is cited by less than 2% of adults as a source of community information.  Government has yet to develop a strong Internet model or presence to make it a go-to source for information. Libraries can be government’s best solution for reaching out and engaging citizens on its behalf.

Another example where the library can be that central repository of government outreach is shown in the good intentions that fall short from the City of Boston.  It’s new “City Hall on Wheels” effort seeks to improve government service delivery by driving around a large van in Boston neighborhoods for citizens to access some city services including those already available online. What if that van, and what it represented and the services it offered were transferred to each of the libraries throughout Boston increasing easier access to government services while exposing citizens to one of their community’s greatest public assets?

If communities committed to developing a new path for their libraries as its center for civic engagement, and all that that implies, and directed the needed resources (financial and in-kind) from the local public and private institutions, a new vision for their potential would emerge.  After all, with a 91% approval rating that libraries are important to communities, it seems citizens would be in favor to the future success of their libraries.

Additional Resources:

The Future of Libraries – Minnesota Public Radio

The Knight Foundation Library Initiative

Why Libraries should be the next great Start-up Incubators – the Atlantic – Cities

So Now What? The Future for Librarians – Info Search World

I was reading some web content from GovLab, or the Governance Lab at NYU, and came across a 4/15 blog post called “Participation is Law.” The post is about a paper on regulating the risk of new technologies (in this case, nanotechnologies) and the value of citizens’ participation toward regulating new technologies. It was conducted in Europe and the authors concluded that in the end, the “actual regulatory power of citizen involvement seems limited.” That is, they had no impact on the discussions for or against government regulations.

Here is a case, where it appears that in order for citizens to have an impact on the discussion and subsequently on the decisions, a high or higher degree of knowledge on the subject matter would be required. This isn’t a policy discussion about widening a road or extending Downtown bar closing times.

While government entertains public input on these matters, how can citizens make informed comments on issues of such a technical nature? We are seeing more and more complexity in public policy making around healthcare, the environment and the economy, for example that have major impacts on society and its surroundings.

Another form of public policy complexity can be found in the growing amount of legalese “coded” into the descriptions and narrative of proposed policies and legislation that ordinary citizens don’t understand.  In some cases these are issues that are of general nature and would normally not be considered complex, but become confusing to the public and to voters.  In both cases, the result is citizens don’t participate in the process. They don’t comment on them because they don’t comprehend the issue, and they don’t vote because they don’t realize the initiative’s intent.

Such examples suggest the need for subject-matter-experts, or SMEs, to provide a translation of both technical and legal concepts for citizens to better understand them and participate in a discussion. There is the assumption then that a responsible (and objective) party would be available to ensure the public is knowledgeable. Or, is it the public’s responsibility to become knowledgeable? If so, then there is another challenge to become informed, which is different than being knowledgeable. Here, technology can support both challenges: increasing awareness and building knowledge.  Thanks to communication and information technology, the Internet can help locate information. It can connect SMEs to local policy discussions even around the the planet. So the particular SME that weighs in on a local water issue in Idaho may not be local or even national, but is from Australia where a local community there faced a similar challenge.

Government is structured, bureaucratic and institutional –nothing that would denote rapidity or spontaneity.  It’s part of government’s DNA, and it applies to its procedures for processing information and communication.

And those are the two themes –data and dialog—would just happen to dominant the 831 submissions for the Knight News Challenge on Open Government to improve the way citizens and government interact.

The challenges have been echoed before: more information, easier access to data, reshaping data to improve government services; more knowledge about government finances, budgets and policy making and easier access for citizens to collaborate and influence those processes.

However, many of the ideas show more sophistication for using government data and for the technologies that would drive those processes.  Plus, the submissions were diverse and appeared to be tackling more complex open government and citizen engagement challenges.  Submissions came from nonprofits (but not community foundations), educators, citizens and even a few governments, in addition to the submissions that typically come from the IT and “hacker” communities.  Some of the submissions are still concepts on the drawing board seeking feedback to improve them, while others demonstrated working models already launched.  These provided a glimpse into what’s “sticky” in Open Gov right now, perhaps gaining popularity from the numerous government  and civic “hackathons.”

Submissions that present new partnerships formed between the public and government show potential for success just by having a willing partner who would put the solution to the test.  Others are from organizations and individuals who are not waiting for an open door from government to build their idea.  In many cases, it’s just an open database they require to craft their solutions for improving public access and engagement.

Governments are sparking new waves of civic involvement to improve their service delivery or operations by being proactive pushing out their data and actively seeking innovative solutions from the public.  There are growing signs governments are stepping up to meet many of the challenges by sharing information with developers and NGOs to find ways to help improve their city.

And while governments appear more willing to share access to their data and discussions around it, there is still hesitancy in opening up access to elected officials beyond the conventional avenues currently in place. The news challenge submissions targeting digital forms of collaboration with elected officials are coming exclusively from the public.

However, change could be coming sooner than later. Because just by opening their data, government is connecting with citizens and that leads to public feedback and expectations.  This creates a challenge, perhaps even a political one, for governments to collect, organize and respond to these responses particularly if they are being received through a third party or a social network that doesn’t adhere to conventional means for collecting public comment.

The Knight News Challenge on Open Government provides an incredible knowledge base for the public and for government to learn about what’s needed, what’s possible and what’s next. And whether from economic pressure, political pressure or public pressure, opening government processes through digital solutions is advancing in a positive way, even if incrementally.

It’s exciting to see a new face in the “Open Gov” crowd, especially when that face has an amazing history and track record to advancing principles and practices in governing institutions around the world.  The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation is known for many notable achievements including its News Challenge grant programs. This year they have included open government as a grant funding category.

This week, Knight kicked off the News Challenge for Open Government that runs until  March 18^th to accept applications for funding innovative ideas and initiatives on open government. “Open government” is broad, and ranges from small projects within existing structures to ambitious attempts to create entirely new ones and is an opportunity to accelerate promising ideas and trends.

They began accepting funding submissions or applications this week with the kick-off for the “inspirational phase” asking people to submit their suggestions, ideas, and experiences in open government. They have seven missions or categories:

1. Share Success Stories – what’s working? What tools are you using in your community or administration?
2. Identify Needs – what do people in your community need or want? What’s missing?
3. Identify Opportunities – What are major areas or groups of opportunity?
4. Find New Data Sources – What public information do we need access to? What data sources could we use better?
5. Grow the Network – Who should be engaged in open-government who’s not currently? How do we expand the definition?
6. Rapid Prototyping – What kinds of ideas could we build and test quickly?
7. Everything Else – Anything that inspires you that doesn’t fit the above missions

Throughout the contest, Knight hopes to help extend the spirit of open gov and to catalyze partnerships between hackers, civic innovators, governments, journalists and others. They also seek to drive more open government wins in local communities, particularly beyond big cities. And they want to reinforce the idea that the promise of open government cuts across ideological, demographic and geographic lines.

Help Knight spread the word via your blog or social networks and let’s continue to drive the discussion on challenges and solutions to promote better government both online and on the street.

I was reading a year-end blog post from 2009 (“Jane and John Q. Public’s Year-End Gov 2.0 List“) focused on citizen expectations from government to help them embrace Gov 2.0 and realized some of these challenges continue to exist or have become even more challenging.

Then I read some blogs about solutions that have been recently launched and what is going to be launched and what is still on the drawing boards and I get excited about what’s to come. It’s still all alphabet soup, spaghetti, goulash (choose your metaphor), in terms of developing standards, practices and processes, but more solution providers are honing their efforts to deliver new online and interactive solutions to help government be more responsive and effective and help citizens to have greater access to data and agency personnel.

I’m wondering how many members of the public know what’s all available to them and what’s in the planning stages. Probably not many. Even less would be the number of citizens who have actively participated in defining the (their) challenges or contributing ideas to devise solutions to them, or are even interested in using them.

Fault can be found in a number of places from social culture to both solution providers and solution users. While much of the citizenry may be classified as “Missing_in_Action” when it comes to online governance, efforts must continue, even stepped up to bring them to the table by whatever means possible, even if it means using pre-1.0 tactics to secure their involvement. It’s easy to understand citizens’ feeling of powerlessness or disenfranchisement from the government institutions that represent them. They still have a responsibility to make the effort to reconnect and to engage. Elected officials can help by removing the acrimonious political environment that exists and start creating examples of collaboration and bi-partisanship. “Yeah, right” you say. True. But we can’t enjoy (and benefit from) a democracy full-time with only part-time citizen participation.

To all the solution providers: Continue the race, keep working to create new vehicles, but do so by catering to the spectators first and to the technology second. Remember, winning this marathon is by having more participation not by being first.

Many years ago, I worked for the Mayor. This Mayor liked to walk neighborhoods –a lot of neighborhoods on a regular basis. He once walked across the state in a failed bid for governor. He also liked to hold town hall meetings, actually all around town (known as “Whistle Stops”). Most of the time when we were meeting with citizens, they wanted to complain, compliment, or ask a question on a public project or policy that affected them.

I cannot remember when or if anyone ever asked if they could pay their property taxes or request a birth certificate.  Back then, before the Web and eGovernment, people came to city hall to transact business with their local government. Today, much of those transactions can be accomplished online.  But what appears to be a throw-back to the days of one-on-one constituent outreach, Mayor Thomas Menino, a/k/a the City of Boston has rolled out (literally) “the nation’s first city hall on wheels.”

The city says the City Hall to Go program was “inspired by the ubiquitous food truck.”  As I recall, those glistening silver trucks provide sustenance to their patrons.  So what will someone get by patronizing the Boston CHOW Wagon (city hall on wheels)? Transactions.  The web site states citizens will be able to “pay or dispute parking tickets, request birth, death or marriage certificates, or pay property taxes.” Can you see a resident running down the street waving her arms to catch the CHOW Wagon to request a marriage certificate like a kid chasing the ice cream truck for a fudgesicle? Neither can I.

I’m going to give the mayor and the city a solid grade of “B” on this new initiative because it has a lot of elements, if refined, that can provide an excellent public service to the citizens of Boston and perhaps set a precedent for other municipalities (and mayors) who see mobile outreach as something besides handheld devices.

Focus on Relationships

Don’t focus on transactions. Instead focus on building relations.  City services such as those mentioned as part of the mobile offerings can be conducted in person at City Hall or a satellite office (think Libraries) or in the obvious space known as cyberspace.

The web site says the truck “offers one more way for Boston residents to get personal, timely service from the City, and makes it even easier by cutting out the trip to City Hall.” Yet, the city already provides the same services via their web site, so why add to the ozone layer by repeating it up and down Boston’s congested streets?

If you insist on allowing mobile transactions for these services, then have a couple of computer stations on board.  Provide web access and let citizens complete these services or requests online while at the same time learning more about what their local government offers on its web site.

Listen

Use the CHOW Wagon to solicit feedback and ideas on city plans and governing policies from residents. Instead of “…gathering input on the types of services Bostonians want the truck to offer,” engage in a dialog that gathers what Bostonians want and need from their local government.  Better roads, cleaner streets, less crime, quicker responses for snow removal, sanitation pick up, and emergency services may be what are on their minds instead of disputing a parking ticket.

Encourage formal, attributable public comment from residents who provide their name and address along with their comment. Consider “carpooling” with city council members and make them part of the caravan when visiting their districts. They, too, can benefit from the comments made by their constituents in or about their neighborhoods.

 Connect to needed services

Some services cannot be conducted online or at City Hall, and for those types of services, the CHOW Wagon can be a godsend to some residents. Tie-in health screening and education services. Partner with Workforce development agencies to help residents seek out employment in the Boston area. Again, connect with libraries to help them branch out in their neighborhoods with books or reading programs.

A City Hall on Wheels might be considered Old School to progressive thinking on delivering local government services. However, with the right combination of offerings that benefit residents more than government, the concept could be a welcomed sight by residents and a novel way to help bridge the chasm that exists between the electorate and their elected officials.

You can follow Boston’s @CityHallToGo on Twitter.

Governments and community foundations should include within their missions how they will tackle three challenges in 2013. The challenges are unique to each group and task each organization and institution within the three categories.  Of course, members within each category have their own unique challenges they must address that may not be challenging to their peers. For example, the State of Florida and its counties have to make sweeping changes for managing the electoral and voting processes including how it administers it’s state constitutional revision processes. Still, making progress on these three challenges will yield benefits to help address most other obstacles they face:

Challenge #1

Federal government – Disconnecting from special interests and reconnecting with citizens.

When talk of “Gov 2.0” began, the topic dominating the discussion was about constituent communication and how government and citizens will be able to connect and relate in ways like never before.  A new era of public participation was to be ushered in. Unfortunately, due to governments’ inability to create standards, practices and processes that could enable this new exchange to be used across all levels and all jurisdictions to meet the public’s new-found desires and expectations for how they want to receive information and communicate, the social media technology that was supposed to enable this new relationship has instead created an even greater chasm between the elected and the electorate.

Today, the promise of Gov 2.0 is focused more on data instead of dialog.  Building apps and solutions to access static, low hanging fruit instead of solving the challenging dynamic of online discussion has resulted in a stagnant, unrealized benefit of online governance benefiting the few who know how to collect the data and use it for gain. Certainly, more and easier access to data helps open government and increases transparency, and the data is being published in public venues for all to access. Yet, when there are probably more apps to connect to data than there are citizens who are interested in doing so because they have become disenfranchised from and distrustful of their elected officials, are we truly advancing online democracy?

Challenge #2

State and local government – Meeting the public’s needs with less resources.

This year, we saw the bankruptcy of more municipal governments. We also saw desperate efforts by governments to collect donations from community members and also the privatization of, or conversion to non-profit status of traditional government programs and services.

With revenue shrinking, government must be more aggressive to find ways to manage its human and financial resources more efficiently.  It is a problem for both government and citizens, and efforts to solve it must include everyone in a discussion of how revenue is generated and how it is and should be spent.

Challenge #3

Community Foundations – Build a new business model and apply new strategies as a community solutions provider.

Gov 2.0 advocate Tim O’Reilly predicts a future where “government is a convener and an enabler rather than the first mover of civic actions.” As government budgets tighten, and with their slow adoption of collaborative technology, this prediction may already be emerging –or waiting for someone to formally structure it.  Citizen groups and non-profits may become the conveners and the role of government may shift dramatically to be that of supporting partner, perhaps as a provider of data, a facilitator, and enabler of public policy rather than the decision maker.

This scenario presents an opportunity for creating a new form of deliberation “cog” in a community.  More and more, community foundations have supplemented, and actually replaced the role of watchdog and public steward that traditionally has been the role of local government. The reasons for how or why government has been relinquishing this role are as diverse as they are numerous. There is a growing and expanding opportunity for public organizations such as community foundations to establish and increase their roles beyond information provider and communicator to community convener and all that that implies. Having the ability to easily deploy social media and digital platforms, where government is challenged legally and politically; perceived as a nonpolitical, nonpartisan nonprofit, where today news mediums tend to have a reputation of bias; all these circumstances offer great advantages to community foundations and make sense for them to step into such a leadership role in their communities. It’s the next wave of innovation offered to community foundations whether they realize it or not.

For government or for community foundations, being successful in 2013 and beyond is about being able to deliver more informed and equitable decision making that provides greater good and value to their constituents. This undertaking requires formal changes to their internal and external policies. It will also require a collective response to work together from a foundation of openness, transparency, information sharing, collaboration and partnerships.

Happy New Year!