The Usability of Government Information:
The necessary link between transparency and participation
Suzanne Piotrowski
Associate Professor
[email protected]*
and
Yuguo Liao
Doctoral Student
School of Public Affairs and Administration
Rutgers-Newark
Prepared for the 1st Global Conference on Transparency Research
*Corresponding author
Do not quote or cite without written permission of the corresponding author.
The Usability of Government Information:
The necessary link between transparency and participation
Abstract
This study explores the importance of government information usability in promoting
citizen participation in public administration. Rather than an emphasis on the volume
of information released by government, the notion of information usability calls for
greater emphasis on information quality. To begin, we examine the definitions of
transparency and government information usability. A set of criteria on useable
government information are identified: accurate, accessible, complete, understandable,
timely, and free or low cost. These criteria are applied to two cases: USAspending.gov
and the 1-800-MEDICARE helpline. We develop a typology illustrating the relationship
between government openness and information usability. The typology is a combination
of the range of information usability and the distinction between openness and secrecy.
Finally, how information usability links transparency and citizen participation is
discussed. This study bolsters the argument that the ultimate purpose of releasing
government information is to enable the public to hold government accountable.
1
Introduction
When the topic of governmental transparency is broached, it is usually quickly followed
by a discussion of public participation. We argue that governmental transparency alone
does not facilitate participation. The information released through transparency
measures does not always facilitate participation, and in some cases may obfuscate it.
The nature and the quality of the information released are relevant. Within this chapter,
we explore this under examined area—the usability of government information.
Government information that is released through transparency measures must have a
minimum level of usability to facilitate public participation. We identify six criteria for
ideal information usability and present a discussion of each of these. A new typology
maps the relationship between information usability and transparency. These criteria
and typology are then applied to two case studies: USASpending.gov and the 1-800MEDICARE helpline. Our intention is to show how the issues of transparency and
usability intersect in both theory and current cases.
Understanding the Concept of Transparency
Transparency has been widely prescribed as a cure-all for better government
management. However, the notion of transparency is more discussed than defined.
Philosophically, it is a state in which appearances corresponds to reality (Marks 2001).
In the field of public administration, it refers to narrowing the gap between what a
government seems to be doing and what government is actually doing. A growing
number of researchers have discussed the rationales of transparency, including
maximum social openness, improving social morality, deterring corruption, building-up
political trust, and the realization of other human rights (Bok, 1989; Kopits & Craig,
2
1998; Hood, 2001; Florini, 2007). Transparent procedures also denote policy
predictability and stability. Heald (2006) suggests that transparency could be
distinguished between event transparency and process transparency. Whereas event
transparency enables the general public to evaluate and decide whether government
could live up to its promise; transparent procedures boost public trust toward
government through predictable and consistent decision-making and policy
implementation. Although some scholars have questioned transparency as a one-for-all
recipe (Marks, 2001; Prat, 2006) and others have called attention to transparency
policy‟s context or habitat (Hood, 1994; Heald, 2006). It is generally accepted that
transparency is essential in enhancing democratic accountability (Hood, 2007).
We examine the concept of transparency by exploring three questions: (1) In terms
of information nature and content, what kinds of information need to be released?; (2)
To whom should government information be released?; and (3) How should
government information be disseminated?
1. The scope of information release
Discussions over the nature of information dissemination vary considerably. Some of
the more radical definitions of transparency refer to no or minimal anonymity. Under
these definitions of transparency, everyone is under the observation of all others
(Rousseau, 1772; Marks, 2001; Putterman, 2001; Hood, 2007). This complete
transparency falls into Hood‟s (2007) category of general transparency under which
privacy is minimized. Citizens are subjected to tight surveillance so that any violation of
government-set rules could be reported to authorities. The notion of complete
transparency will only be achieved at the expense of individual rights. Indeed, this
3
vision of general or complete transparency is rarely embraced in history. To the contrary,
a more liberal definition applies transparency only to the public domain, as opposed to
private life. That is, there is a fine line between public and private life, and transparency
should only be applied to one‟s public life (Barnstone, 2005). With the later definition of
transparency, what should to be available is information that is related to public sphere
and public interests. By drawing a clear line between public and personal life, this
particularized definition of transparency ensures that information disclosure
encourages enhanced government accountability rather than distrust and society-wide
surveillance.
2. Recipients of Information Release
The ultimate purpose of transparency is to fulfill individual‟s rights to know. However,
different groups of citizens might exhibit different levels of understanding in receiving,
digesting and applying the released information (Schroder et al., 1967; Gletiman &
Gleitman, 1970). Hood (2007) noted that there are two strains of transparency. Direct
transparency is the more “populist” definition through which information is released
either through direct observation or direct interact between administrators and citizens.
Indirect transparency is another more technocratic strain. Indirect transparency refers
to the fact that some information and its reporting “makes activity or results visible or
verifiable…only to agents or technical experts (Hood, 2007, p. 194)”. This perspective
emphasizes that government information should be released in a professional way so
that information could be interpreted in a precise and technical way. Clearly, while
direct transparency sets general citizens as the main recipients of information, indirect
transparency essentially excludes accessibility of citizens at large in which neutral and
4
competent experts are treated as the primary recipients of government information.
3. Approaches of Information Dissemination
There are a variety of ways in which government information is released including:
government websites, newspapers, press conferences, television, and government
periodicals. With the advancement of new technologies, the cost of dissemination is
lowered. The main avenues of accessing government information, however, could be
categorized as proactive information dissemination, individual requests, open public
meetings, and whistleblowing and leaked information (Piotrowski, 2009). In the
proactive model, government information is released according to statutory or
regulatory requirements, tradition, or trust-building efforts. The requestor model is
contrary with the proactive model in which government document is released only when
individuals or organizations file a request. Once a request is filed, the government is
required to either release information promptly or withhold information citing legal
exemptions.
In essence, the notion of transparency is comprised of potentially competing
answers to a set of questions we stated earlier related to the scale and scope of
information disclosure, the recipients of disclosed information, and the process of
disclosing information. One‟s understanding of transparency is a function of these
different approaches to the concept.
Defining Government Information Usability
The usability of government information refers to the extent to which citizens can use
information easily and efficiently for their individual purposes. With the increased
5
popularity of result-oriented management in government (Ingraham & Moynihan, 2001;
Brudey & Wright, 2002), questions like “transparency for whom?” need to be posed. In this
sense, our discussion on government information usability is a nuanced response to the
question, who should be the recipients of disclosed information?
Most of the previous research regarding information usability focuses on online
information design or technology efficiency, such as how to design a user-friendly
webpage (Faiola & Dorman, 2008; van den Haak et al., 2009; Baker, 2009). However,
few studies have assessed government information usability with attention to the issue
of the potential manipulation of information. Indeed, to what extent usable government
information is released depends largely on the interplay of political concerns within
government. Rather than a sole emphasis on the volume of information released by
government, the notion of information usability calls for an increased emphasis on
information quality. Information recipients should be clearly targeted; there should be
an assessment of the recipient‟s expectation on released information; and an evaluation
of the context within which information will be used should be completed.
This line of research is important for several reasons. First, quality information
is crucial to holding government accountable. The rationale of governmental
transparency lies in the entitlement of citizens to understand how government is
operated. This places government under the scrutiny of general public. Moreover,
government management is operated in an increasingly complex environment in which
the definition and solution of problems are hardly definitive. Therefore, it is crucial to
communicate with citizens in a timely and understandable way in order to nurture and
maintain citizens‟ interest to engage in public affairs.
Second, the advancement of new technologies brings new opportunities as well as
6
challenges for citizens to take full advantage of open government information. One of
the major objectives of e-government is to set up a web portal, making information
more accessible for citizens (Ezz et al., 2009). The ever-growing amount and depth of
information disclosure requires integration, as well as coordination of the information
and services across various public agencies. However, structural reorganization and
integration will not easily be achieved for public agencies since both involve cultural and
management challenges, such as inflexible bureaucratic structures and procedures, lack
of standardization across agencies, and the diversity of organizational culture (Riediel,
2000; Ezz et al., 2009). Information released in a user-friendly manner is more than
just a straight technology issue for e-government policy. The increased use of technology
with respect to information release brings to light other issues such as the digital divide,
when there is a large proportion of population only has limited Internet access (Dewan
& Frederick, 2005). Income, education and age have been shown to all impact the
intention to use e-government services (Bélanger & Carter, 2009). In this way, the
purpose of useable information is to maximize the possible benefits of what new
technology has to offer.
Third, there is a disparity among information recipient‟s skills, which are
necessary to effectively interact with open government information. Mossenburge et al.
(2003) use the notion of information literacy to describe one‟s ability to recognize when
information can solve a problem or fill a need and effectively employ information
resources. Individuals differ in their ability to notice, absorb, retain and integrate
information. Therefore, to make open government information relevant, it is critical to
move one step forward from making information available to making information
understandable and applicable.
7
Our discussion on usable information highlights our assertion that information
release should be citizen-centric to enhance government accountability by better linking
the public‟s demand and official‟s action. We propose that government information
usability should contain the following ideal standards. Even though it may be unrealistic
to embrace all principles at the same level due to their inherited trade-offs, we
encourage administrators strike a balance among these potentially competing
expectations.
(Insert Table 1 here.)
Accurate--In the field of public administration, the term accuracy is used to describe
how precise government information complies with the actual fact. The notion of
accurate information has both managerial and political implications. First, inaccuracy
could occur when intra-organizational information flow is obstructed. For example,
front-line employees without solid training fail to disseminate the requested
information to citizens. The Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2004) found that
when Medicare beneficiaries, their families, and other members of the public called a
nationwide toll-free telephone help line about program eligibility, enrollment, and
benefits, more than 30 percent of calls were answered inaccurately or received no
answer by customer service representatives. Information disclosure could also be
manipulated to meet political purposes. For example, the reasons originally justifying
Iraq War turned out to be misleading and wrong (Goldenberg, 2008). According to the
Center for Public Integrity, the pre-war intelligence was a carefully launched campaign
of misinformation in order to rally support for the invasion of Iraq (Lewis & Smith,
8
2008). As such, political objectives outweigh the efforts to make government
information accurate and consistent.
Accessible--In principle, government information should be accessible by anyone from
anywhere at anytime. Accessibility requires that information is disseminated through
multiple mechanisms to reach citizens. Each method of information disclosure targets a
certain--though overlapping--group of recipients. The employment of multiple
mechanisms, thus, should cover as many recipients as possible. The Internet, along with
other emerging technologies, has already reshaped the way in which information flows
between public agencies and the public. However, in reality, universal access does not
exist. Some citizens have cognitive or physical limitations while others may have limited
access to new technology devices (Signore et al., 2005). The traditional avenues of
information dissemination, such as physical service facilities, need to be maintained.
Complete--Information disclosure should not omit any portion due to intentional
concealment. In practice, there are limits to this principle. Information dealing with
national security, law enforcement, and personal privacy all are well established
rationales for limiting release. Helen Darbishire (2010) proposes a minimum standard
for public information release. Her discussion of proactive dissemination includes
institutional information, organizational information, operational information,
decisions and acts, public services information, budget information, open meetings
information, decision-making and public participation information, subsidies
information, public procurement information, lists, registers and databases,
information about information held, publication information, and information about
9
the right to information.
Incomplete information cannot provide a satisfactory basis for policy analysis.
Adrian Fozzard (2002) discusses how the structure of budget reporting could distort
policy priorities. He noticed that Ministerial financial reporting in Mozambique only use
broad functional classification (such as education), without a breakdown of Ministries‟
accounts at departmental level. “[C]onsequently, while it is possible to determine how
much has been allocated to and spent on education, it is not possible to determine, on
the basis of budget documentation and accounts, what proportion is intended for or
delivered to primary education (Fozzard, 2002, p.32).” This incomplete financial
reporting would hinder the consistency and monitoring of public expenditures. Along
the same lines, Mark Schacter (1999) outlines four types of performance measures
which a complete performance information system should include: input measures,
output measures, efficiency measures and outcomes measures. In sum, complete
information provided by government is a crucial precondition of objective decisionmaking.
Understandable--Government information reporting should be clear and
comprehensive for citizens from various backgrounds. Many members of the public are
non-expert users of government information. To make released information
understandable to individuals, the information must be compelling and responsive to
citizen‟s concerns in a straightforward way. However, being understandable is at times at
odds with the requirement of being accurate and complete. Take performance
measurement as an example. With the development of measurement skills, performance
measurement has become more sophisticated and elaborate. This is a result of the
10
efforts to make performance measurement more scientific, reliable and valid. Over time,
the primary users of performance information have been policy makers and legislators
(Melkers & Willoughby, 2001). In many cases, citizens are gradually excluded from
actively participating and benefiting from performance measurement programs. In
order to assure the original objective of transparency--to hold government accountable
to citizens, one possible way to meld the interests of administrators and citizens is to
encourage governments to solicit citizen input in decision-making process (Cooper et.
al., 2006; Ebdon & Franklin, 2006; Franklin et al., 2009). By receiving citizen input,
public officials can more effectively differentiate what information should be used for
internal consumption and what information should be disseminated publicly in a
citizen-centered way (Ho, 2007). The key managing the trade-offs between
understandability, accuracy, and completeness is that public interest and government
accountability should always be the guiding principles regarding what and how
information should be disseminated.
Timely--Information should be available and updated as quickly as possible. Material
available in electronic or hard copy form should indicate when the information was
released or updated. Citizens should also be informed how often the information is
being updated. However, this requirement of timeliness may conflict with criteria of
accuracy and completeness (Hilton, 1981; Ballou & Pazer, 1995). This tension is
especially true when the information is used for strategic planning purposes. In many
cases, the quality of information utilized for decision and planning becomes increasingly
more valid and reliable with the passage of time. The timely release of the preliminary
information is based on the available data and a changing environment. In the same
11
vein, when the information about a fixed point becomes more accurate and complete
over time, it becomes less current and relevant since most of the policy issues are time
sensitive. For example, cost estimates for an infrastructure project are made based on
available data. The estimated costs are more accurate as the project progresses.
However, with the passage of time, the actual cost becomes less relevant for decisionmaking and planning purposes. Thus, public managers need to strike some balance
between updated but not-very-accurate or complete information and accurate or
complete that is not-that-updated information.
Free or Low Cost--Information should be available to the public free of charge or at a
low cost. Added value is most likely to be created when the public has access to the
government information free of charge or at consistently low cost. Darbishire (2010)
argues that information available electronically should be free of charge. There should
not be a charge for core information related to law, the budget, annual reports, forms of
governmental services whether they are available electronically or in hard copy
(Darbishire, 2010).
The Relationship between Transparency and Usability
Government openness and information usability constitute two related but distinct
aspects of the efforts to counter government secrecy. Generally, openness or
information disclosure is a requisite of usable information. In a society dominated by
administrative secrecy, high quantity and quality open government information is hard
to obtain. Openness is necessary, but far from being sufficient to facilitate
accountability. The notion of usable information coupled with government openness,
12
embodies a higher expectation than government openness alone. As Bok (1989) noted,
to counter the tendency of secrecy publicity requires more than mere openness with
respect to actual practices. Information usability coupled with transparence could serve
as one prescription for better governance and accountability.
(Insert Figure 1 here.)
Figure 1 is a straightforward combination of the range of information usability discussed
in the last section and transparency. Four different variants have been identified to
illustrate the relationship between transparency and information usability.
Ideal (Quadrant 1, High transparency--High usability)
The ideal variant signifies that a great deal of information is readily available for public
decision-making. Information disclosure is in accord with the usability principles of
accurate, accessible, complete, understandable, timely and low cost information. This
variant represents the most ideal combination of transparency and information usability.
With complete and undistorted information, citizens--for whom transparency should
ultimately serve--could scrutinize government activities and evaluate government
performance. In this sense, this variant is best for nurturing public value, building-up
public trust, and reconciling public accountability and administrative effectiveness.
Pseudo (Quadrant 2, High usability--Low transparency)
The second variant, pseudo, refers to governments that have provided some simple and
partial information to individuals. The material that is released may have been provided
13
promptly, however the extent to which information is disclosed is still within the tight
control of public officials. For example, when public officials are dealing with open
government information regulations, they might be interested in disseminating
institutional procedures and decision rules completely and timely through multiple
channels (Hood, 2007). More politically salient information, such as that which could
decrease corruption, is still safely kept in a black box. Open government information
regulations operate in controlled and incremental ways, which excludes active citizen
engagement. Citizens are discouraged to request government information based on their
specific needs and are confined to oversimplified and, at times, biased portion of
information. The pseudo variant violates many of the criteria for ideal information
usability discussed above.
Opaque (Quadrant 3, Low transparency--Low usability)
This variant represents the least optimal combination of transparency and information
usability. The opaque variant represents the situation where a minimum of government
openness is permitted and the process of information release is politically manipulated
to best serve the people who have control over it. Some theorists have argued that
secrecy can serve rationality and efficiency in administration (Weber 1968). Full
transparency regarding operational aspects of process could hinder administrators from
working in a safe and creative way (Prat, 2005; Heald, 2006). However, the immense
destructive power of secrecy repeatedly shows us that secrecy could not only increase
the chance of power being abused, but also hamper rational decision-making due to
inadequate understanding of public policy‟s context, alternatives and consequences
(Rourke & Christoph, 1975; Mathews, 1978; Bok, 1989). As Bok (1989, p.181) warned us,
14
“[T]here should be a strong presumption against government control over secrecy
because of the abuses it can conceal, the power governments exercise, and their special
obligations of accountability.”
Overload (Quadrant 4, High transparency--Low usability)
This variant refers to the situation in which government information is disclosed in a
great amount, but without sufficient attention to information usability. Previous
research has focused on the amount of information disclosed rather than the quality or
effectiveness of the information disclosed. A notable example of this variant would be
reporting problems observed in performance measurement efforts. Metzenbaum (2009)
noted that even though websites have been extensively established to facilitate access to
agency performance information, there is a lack of effective reciprocal communication
to make performance information relevant to citizens. Along the same lines, more indepth analysis on what factors make performance decline or improve is encouraged in
performance reporting (Liner et al., 2001). A simple display of performance results
without explanation and comparison or a mere focus on what is easiest to measure will
make users, particularly citizens at large, not have complete understanding of what has
happened and why it has occurred. At the municipal government level, a common
example of information overload is when the town‟s mayor or city manager sends out a
newsletter that is extremely long with the most important information, such as the time
and date of a planning board meeting, buried in the middle.
15
USASpending.gov
President Obama has made transparency of government a focus of his administration.
The first executive order President Obama issued when taking office was one on
transparency and openness (Obama, 2009) and he went on to establish an Open
Government Initiative. With respect to proactively released information, the Obama
Administration has made great strides in posting an increasing number of government
datasets online. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, a law
promoted by then-Senator Obama, established USASpending.gov. The stated purpose
of the USAspending.gov is:
To provide the public with information about how their tax dollars are
spent. Citizens have a right and a need to understand where tax dollars are
spent. Collecting data about the various types of contracts, grants, loans,
and other types of spending in our government will provide a broader
picture of the Federal spending processes, and will help to meet the need
of greater transparency. The ability to look at contracts, grants, loans, and
other types of spending across many agencies, in greater detail, is a key
ingredient to building public trust in government and credibility in the
professionals who use these agreements. (USASpending.gov, 2010)
The website allows you to search or browse through how money is spent by the U.S.
federal government. In December 2010 subcontractor spending was added to the body
of data that could be searched online (Moore, 2010). In the following section, we analyze
the USASpending.gov initiative by applying the six criteria for ideal information
usability.
16
Accurate--While USASpending.gov was introduced with great fanfare it has received a
fair amount of criticism for the quality of the data it relies upon. ClearSpending, an
initiative of the Sunlight Foundation, has raised questions regarding the accuracy of the
agency data available on USASpending.gov. ClearSpending compared the data available
on USASpending.gov to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and found many
inconsistences between the two, leading to the conclusion that some of the data
provided through USASpending.gov was inaccurate.
ClearSpending and the Sunlight Foundations have themselves been criticized for its harsh
review of USASpending.gov. One technology blogger stated “Sunlight has, I think,
dangerously conflated transparency for reform. You get transparency first and that
compels reform. That‟s the whole point. You don‟t ask for perfection right out of the gate;
it‟s unreasonable (Gunnar Hellekson quoted in Lipowicz, 2010).” The issue of data
accuracy is one which the federal agencies and USASpending.gov are still struggling.
Accessible—If you have access to a computer with the internet, USASpending.gov is
extremely accessible. It is available online with no restrictions. A user can also
download data sets from the website to analyze on their own computer. If you are one of
the millions of Americans without consistent internet access, your ability to use this data
site is limited.
Complete--With the addition of the subcontractor data, USASpending.gov has moved
closer to publishing a complete data set of federal spending. In its review of the
USASpending.gov ClearSpending showed that many of the fields reported on the
17
website were incomplete. OMB has begun to address this problem by having agencies
develop plans to improve the quality of their spending data (OMB Watch, 2010; Struther,
2010). While USASpending.gov does not currently meet the principle of complete
information, there is movement in that direction.
Understandable—With some knowledge about the U.S. government and budgeting, the
USASpending website is clear and comprehensive to an end user. The website has a
FAQs section and provides definitions for the different categories. If the end user did
not have some basic understanding of the missions of the different agencies and the
differences between grants and contract, navigating the website and understanding the
search results would prove more difficult.
Timely--The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act requires federal
spending to be posted within 30 days of its obligation. ClearSpending reports that the
postings were usually late. They found that at least 60% recorded obligations reported
were posted more than 45 days after the obligation was made. Of the data they analyzed,
Clearspending found that the average submission time was 55 days after obligation
(ClearSpending, 2010). While these findings show that there needs to be improvements
to meet the statutory requirements set out in the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act, that the data is currently available mere months after obligation,
which does in many ways embrace the principle of timeliness.
Free or Low Cost—The biggest financial barrier to accessing the data on
USASpending.gov is the need to have access to the internet either at home or through a
18
public computer, such as those available at public libraries. To make good use of the
website, a user would need to have at least a couple of hours of access to the site.
Unlimited computer and internet access is typically limited at public sites and thus
limits a user‟s ability to search the site. But once internet access is obtained, searching
the online and downloading datasets is free.
USASpending.gov is a project that has the potential to have high levels of transparency
and high levels of information usability, falling into quadrant one. At the present time
though, this project does not fall into the ideal category due to problems with data
accuracy and completeness and is relegated to quadrant 2, pseudo.
1-800-MEDICARE Helpline
Medicare is a federal insurance program providing health insurance coverage to
people who are 65 or above. In 1999, a nation-wide toll free Medicare helpline 1-800MEDICARE was launched to answer beneficiaries‟ questions regarding their program
eligibility, enrollment and benefits (GAO, 2004). Since then, overall call volume has
increased dramatically from 1.6 million calls in July 2005 to more than 2 million calls in
July 2008 (GAO, 2008). Specially, the major responsibilities of the Medicare helpline
include:

Provide general information and printed materials on Medicare and the Medicare
Health Plan options as well as plan quality and satisfaction information in
English or Spanish.
19

Find out information about the new Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003.

Provide information on the Medicare-approved drug discount card sponsors.

Find out the names of Medicare providers and suppliers in customers‟ area.

Find out specific Medicare coverage information.

Accept request for various Medicare publications.

Help customers disenroll from Medicare + Choice organizations (managed care
plans)

Obtain phone numbers for SSA, customers‟ local State Health Insurance
Assistance Program (SHIP), State Medicaid Office and more (Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2005).
Due to the importance of health insurance and the complexity of Medicare policy for
43 million senior citizens, it is extremely crucial for customer service representatives to
provide answers correctly and efficiently to beneficiaries. Again, we will use the criteria
of usable public information to assess the 1-800-MEDICARE helpline.
Accurate--Inaccurate answers from the customer service representatives is a major
concern in reviewing the performance of the Medicare helpline (GAO, 2004; GAO,
2008). According to a survey conducted by U.S. Senate in 2007, around 90 percent of
Medicare service representatives could not answer the callers‟ questions or just gave the
wrong answers (De Nies and Weber, 2008). The GAO‟s study (2004) provides a more
favorable, but still not satisfactory outcome, with 29 percent of the callers being
provided with incorrect information. The 1-800-MEDICARE helpline provides customer
20
service representatives with written answers that they could use during a call. Therefore,
the major reason for inaccurate information is that customer service representatives did
not effectively use the scripts (GAO, 2004). Enhanced training and consistent updates of
the scripts need to be conducted to ensure the accuracy of information.
Accessible--Currently, the 1-800-MEDICARE helpline operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week (GAO, 2008). Due to the popularity of telephone and cell phone use, the Medicare
helpline is highly accessible for Medicare beneficiaries and their family members.
Complete---Since the launch of the helpline in 1999, changes in the Medicare program
have resulted in more and more program information available through 1-800MEDICARE. From January 2002 through May 2004, the “Medicare & You” program
assessed the Medicare helpline in terms of whether it could provide fully responsive
answers. They found that the average percentage of calls that received fully responsive
answers--which are complete and accurate--ranged from under 40 percent to over 90
percent, depending on the question and the period of time studied (GAO, 2004). Studies
are needed to identify which kind of questions that the customer service representatives
could answer more completely and how this could be facilitated.
Understandable--In addition to English, the contractor providing the helpline hired
bilingual customer service representatives to provide service to Spanish-speaking callers.
As of 2007, slightly more than 7 percent of customer service representatives are
bilingual (GAO, 2008). Also, the contractor established a telephone interpretation
service to provide services for callers speaking other languages. Statistics show that the
21
number of languages used in Medicare helpline has reached 73 as of March 2008 (GAO,
2008). All these measures have broadened the scope that the helpline could serve and
make the helpline understandable to more callers.
Timely--To provide timely information is another major challenge. Some customer
service representatives could not respond to questions when beneficiaries called. The
GAO (2004) found that around 10 percent of the helpline callers did not receive any
answer to their question. Long wait times are another major complaint of the helpline
users. Some customers complained that the wait time of the helpline could reach to 45
minutes (De Nies and Weber, 2008). Another survey conducted by U.S. Senate Special
Committee on Aging found that callers were put on hold for an average of 16.6 minutes
and only half of the calls got through to a real person (Pope, 2008).
Free or low cost--The 1-800-MEDICARE helpline is toll free. The only financial cost for
callers is to own a telephone or cell phone. In this sense, to acquire information from the
Medicare Helpline service is at very low cost.
In sum, the 1-800-MEDICARE helpline provides millions of Medicare beneficiaries with
opportunities to seek answers for their questions readily. However, based on caller‟s
feedback and the assessment of information usability, this helpline does not fully satisfy
calls‟ demands and still has much room for improvement. Generally, it could be
regarded as an overload model with the characteristics of both easy access and relatively
low information usability.
22
Implications for Participation
The usability of information released through transparency mechanisms is vital for
public participation. If there is a high level of information usability, participation is
facilitated. Accurate information is obviously the ideal. If information is released but
not accurate, public participation may actually be able to play a corrective role. In the
USASpending.gov example, nongovernmental actors identified inaccuracies in the data,
which have led to new government data management policies. If information is not
accessible to individuals, than clearly it is impossible for them react to that information
and approach government officials. When incomplete information is distributed, it may
lead to misinformed and misguide actions by citizens.
Conversely,
complete
information is a tool that individuals can use when looking to participate and interact
with government.
Usable information can bring more citizens affected by a current or proposed
government policy to table. Some groups of citizens may be underrepresented in the
decision-making process because they have fewer skills and resources to identify, locate,
and absorb government information. The release of understandable information could
encourage different groups of citizens to participate.
Usable information can help citizen voices be heard at the right time. The timely
release of government information helps citizens provide inputs earlier in the policymaking process and provide feedback before the final adopted policy. Usable
information that is available at free or low-cost allows more individuals and groups to
access it and use it to inform their participation actions. All six of the criteria for usable
information have an impact on public participation. Simple access to government
23
information is not enough. A high level of information usability is essential to facilitate
public participation.
24
Works Cited
Baker, D. L., 2009. “Advancing E-Government Performance in the United States through
Enhanced Usability Benchmarks”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1:
82-88.
Ballou, D.P., and Pazer, H.L., 1995. “Designing Information Systems to Optimize the
Accuracy-timeliness Tradeoff”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 1: 51-72.
Barnsone, D. A. 2005. The Transparent Sate: Architecture and Politics in Postwar
Germany, London: Routledge.
Bélanger, F. and Carter, L., 2009, “The Impact of the Digital Divide on E-government Use”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 52, No. 4: 132-135
Bok, S. 1982. Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Brudney, J., & Wright, D. 2002. “Revisiting Administrative Reform in the American States,”
Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, No. 3: 353-361.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2005. “Overview: 1-800-MEDICARE Help
Line,” http://www.cms.gov/1800medicare/. [Accessed Dec 25, 2010].
Chesi F., Pallotti M., Signore O. 2005, “E-government challenges and the CiTel experience”, in
Digital Cities: the Augmented Public Space - Workshop in conjunction with: The
Second International Conference on Communities and Technologies Proceedings,: 65 70.
ClearSpending. "Results." Sunlight Foundation,
http://sunlightfoundation.com/clearspending/results/.
Cooper, T.L., Bryer, T. A. and Meek, J.W. 2006. “Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public
25
Management”, Public Administration Review, Special Issue.
Darbishire, H. 2010, “Proactive Transparency: The Future of the Right to Information?”,
World Bank Institute Working Paper.
De Nies, Y. and Weber, V., 2008, “Critics: Medicare Helpline Not So Helpful”,
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=5779840, [Accessed on Dec. 25, 2010].
Dewan, S., and Frederick, J. R., 2005, “The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research
Directions”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 12: 298336.
Ebdon, C. and Franklin, A.,2006. “Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 66, No.3: 437- 47.
Ezz, I., Papazafeiropulou, A., Serrano, A., 2009. “Challenges of Interorganizational
Collaboration for Information Technology Adoption: Insights from a Governmental
Financial Decision-Making Process in Egypt”, Information Technology for
Development, Vol. 15, No. 3: 209-223.
Florini, A. Ed. 2007. The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Fozzard, A. 2002, How, When and Why Does Poverty Get Budget Priority: Poverty Reduction
Strategy and Public Expenditure in Mozambique. ODI Working Paper.
Franklin, A. L., Ho, Al. T., and Ebdon, C. 2009. “Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States:
Democratic Connection or Citizen Disconnection”, Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol.29,
No.3: 52-73.
GAO (Government Accountability Office), 2004, Medicare: Accuracy of Responses from the 1800-Medicare Help Line Should Be Improved, GAO-05-130. Washington, D.C.: Government
Accountability Office.
26
---, 2008, Medicare: Callers Can Access 1-800-MEDICARE Services, but Responsibility within
CMS for Limited English Proficiency Plan Unclear, GAO-09-104. Washington, D.C.:
Government Accountability Office.
Gleitman, L. R., and Gleitman, H. 1970. Phrase and Paraphrase, New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,
Inc.
Goldenberg, S. 2008, “Iraq War My Biggest Regret, Bush Admits,” The Guardian, December 2,
2008. [Accessed Oct 1, 2010].
Heald, D. 2006. “Varieties of Transparency”, in C. Hood ad D. A. Heald ed. Transparency:
The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: British Academy/Oxford University Press.
Hilton, R. W., 1981, “The Determinants of Information Value: Synthesizing Some General
Results,” Management Science, Vol. 27, No. 1: 57-64.
Ho, A. T., 2007, Engaging Citizens in Measuring and Reporting Community Conditions: A
Manager’s Guide, Washington. D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Hood, C. 1994. Explaining Economic Policy Reversals. Buckingham: Open University Press.
----, 2007. “What Happens When Transparency Meets Blame-Avoidance”, Public
Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2: 191-210.
Ingraham, P., & Moynihan, D. 2001. “Beyond Measurement”, in D. Forsyth ed. Quicker,
Better, Cheaper: Managing Performance in American Government. New York:
Rockefeller Institute Press.
Kopits, G. and J. Graig. 1998. “Transparency in Government Operations”, Occasional Paper
158, International Money Fund.
Lewis, C., and Smith, Mark R., 2008, False Pretenses, Center for Public Integrity,
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/. [Accessed on Oct. 1, 2010]
Liner, E. B., Harry P. H., Elisa V., Ryan A., Pat D., Scott B., Ron S. 2001. Making Results27
Based State Government Work. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute.
Lipowicz, Alice. 2010. "Sunlight Foundation Taking Heat for Usaspending.Gov Critique." In
Government 2.0. Falls Church, VA: Washington Technology.
Mathews, A. S., 1978, The Darker Reaches of Government: Access to Information about
Public Administration in the United States, Britain and South Africa. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
Melkers, J.E. and Willoughby, K.G. 2001. “Budgeters‟ Views of State Performance
Budgeting Systems: Distinctions Across Branches, Public Administration Review, Vol.
61: 54-64.
Marks, J. 2001. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Michael Sandel and the Politics of Transparency”,
Polity, Vol. 33, No. 4.
Metzenbaum, S. 2009. “Performance Management Recommendations for the New
Administration”, IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Mossenburg, K., Tolbert, C. and Stansbury, M. 2003, Virtual Inequality: Beyond the
Digital Divide. George Washington University Press, Washington, D.C.
Moore, Jack. 2010. "Usaspending.Gov Offers Subcontract Data for First Time."
ExecutiveGov, December 8 2010.
Obama, Barack. 2009. "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies Subject: Transparency and Open Government." edited by White House.
Washington, D.C.
OMB Watch. "The Teas of Transparency." http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11415.
Piotrowski, S. J. 2009. Transparency and Secrecy: A Reader Linking Literature and
Contemporary Debate. Lanham, Maryland: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing
Group, Inc.
28
Pope, C. 2008. “„Kick in the Backside‟ Urged for Medicare Help Line: Lawmakers, Audits
Find Anemic Service,” Chicago Tribune, August 03, 2008. [Accessed December 25,
2010].
Prat, A. 2006. “The More Closely We Are Watched, the Better We Behave?” in C. Hood ad D.
A. Heald ed. Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: British
Academy/Oxford University Press.
Putterman, E. 2001. “Realism and Reform in Rousseau‟s Constitutional Projects for Poland
and Corsica”, Political Studies. Vol. 49, No. 3: 481-94.
Riedel, R. 2001. Limitations for Interstate E-government and Interdisciplinary Projects. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems
Applications. IEEE, Computer Society, Washington, DC.
Rourke, F. E., and Christoph, J. B., 1975. “A Comparative View: Secrecy in Britain”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 35, No.1: 23-32.
Rousseau, J. 1772. Considerations on the Government of Poland and on Its Proposed
Reformation. http://www.constitution.org/jjr/poland.htm. [Accessed on July 10, 2010]
Schacter, M. 1999, Means…Ends…Indicators: Performance Measurement in the Public
Sector, Policy Brief, No. 3, Institute on Governance, Ottowa, Ontario.
Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., and Strenfert, S. 1967. Human Information Processing. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
van den Haak, M. J., de Jong, M. D. T.; Schellens, P. J., 2009. “Evaluating Municipal
Websites: A Methodological Comparison of Three Think-aloud Variants”. Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1: 193-202.
Struther, Roger. 2010. "Administration Releases Framework for Spending Data Quality." In
The Fine Print: OMB Watch.
29
USASpending.gov. "Learn About Usaspending.Gov."
http://www.usaspending.gov/learn?tab=FAQ#1.
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York:
Bedminster Press.
30
Table 1 Criteria for Ideal Information Usability
1
2
3
Criteria
Accurate
Accessible
Complete
4
5
6
Understandable
Timely
Free or Low Cost
Key Characteristics
precise, factual
anyone, anywhere, anytime
all necessary parts, no intentional
concealment
clear, comprehensive
up-to-date
free of charge or minimal cost
31
32