Blog article: A jurisdictional scan of open data policies

Article text

In our first blog post, we talked about how we’re reviewing other cities’ open data policies and chatting with colleagues in those cities about their programs. In nerdy government parlance, we’re doing a jurisdictional scan.  

We’d like to share what we’ve learned, what we like about other cities’ policies, and how their work informs our work.  

Edmonton 

Our colleagues in Alberta’s capital are leaders in municipal open data. They were the first city in North America to sign the International Open Data Charter and they’ve won numerous awards from the Canadian Open Data Society.  

Edmonton’s policy suite consists of a broader Open City Policy from 2015, and a specific Open Data Strategy from 2017.  

Their policy includes an Open Data Advisory group “with representatives from … privacy advisors, legal advisors, and data stewards.” Meeting requirements for both transparency and data privacy can be challenging, and concerns about publishing sensitive information can be a blocker to opening data. Having dedicated experts on hand to assess whether data is safe to publish can go a long way towards assuaging those concerns.  

Edmonton’s strategy also includes a commitment to “co-create data with interested users through crowdsourcing,” which is something we’re hoping to enable through our policy refresh. 

New York City 

In New York, open data isn’t just a policy, it’s the law. Local Law 11 of 2012 requires municipal agencies (in Toronto, we use the term “divisions”) to submit annual open data plans, including “a summary … of public data sets under the control of each agency.” Agencies must prioritize those datasets for inclusion on the open data portal, set timelines for publication and report on their compliance.   

Even with the force of law behind them, New York’s open data team continues to invest significant resources into building relationships with data owners and supporting them throughout the publication process.  

One way they do that is through the Open Data Coordinators community. The bylaw requires agencies to appoint data-savvy and “well-networked” staff to coordinate open data efforts, and the team provides templates and trainings to help them. Communities of practice can be force multipliers for policy, and we’ll look to emulate NYC’s approach.   

We’re also fans of prioritizing data for publication. Cities collect and create A LOT of data and we ought to focus on releasing the data that that creates the most impact. NYC agencies must rank data based on whether it: 

• can be used to increase accountability and responsiveness;  

• improves public knowledge of the agency and its operations;  

• furthers the mission of the agency;  

• creates economic opportunity;   

• responds to a need or demand identified by public consultation 

Agencies also “must consider public feedback when prioritizing which datasets to release.” That really aligns with our goal of making Toronto’s open data program more user-centred.  

Montréal 

Our neighbours to the east (or nos voisins de l’Est) have one of the most contemporary open data policy suites of any city in our scan. Montreal’s Open Data Policy, Digital Data Charter and Data Governance Directive have all been written or updated since 2020. 

Montreal’s policy is similar to others on this list, but a few provisions stood out to us. 

First, Montreal grants the City Manager “the ultimate authority to decide on the degree of openness of data held in the city’s trust,” meaning they can require data to be opened even if divisions are reluctant to publish it.  

Second, their policy “commits to implementing automation mechanisms to ensure that data is updated at regular intervals.” Creating automated pipelines as part of the open data process is one of the best ways to improve the quality and currency of our data.  

Lastly, Montreal “commits to publishing an inventory of data held in its trust, regardless of their degree of openness.” A data inventory is a powerful tool – it can help the public see what data is available and help prioritize data for publication – but building one can be challenging. Given the pace, volume and complexity of data creation in government, the idea of an inventory – a perfect snapshot of ALL the City’s data – can feel daunting, if not impossible.  

Montreal does something awesome here: they acknowledge their inventory is “constantly evolving” and may be incomplete. Rather than a perfect list, they reframe the inventory as an ongoing dialogue, something to iteratively grow and improve over time. 

This approach really resonates, and we applaud Montreal for not letting perfect be the enemy of good.  

Hamilton 

Like New York, Hamilton grants a single executive the ability to make decisions about data; their Chief Digital and Data Officer (a role that doesn’t exist here in Toronto), has “the authority to make the final decision on the posting of a Dataset.” Their policy also includes an “Open Data Evaluation Group,” whose job is to “review open dataset submissions.” 

What really stands out about Hamilton’s Open Data Policy is how it was created. The city ran an innovative and transparent process to garner public feedback, using the Engage Hamilton platform. They posted drafts of the policy for public input and maintained a change log of updates. Even though the policy was finalized last year, you can still see all the comments they received! 

Hamilton really lived out their principles while developing their policy and we intend to do the same.  

San Francisco 

Despite being one of the older policies in our scan, San Francisco’s has real teeth. Departments must publish a robust inventory of data under their control and a catalogue of data that could be made public, including “both raw data sets and application programming interfaces (API’s)” and “data contained in already-operating information technology systems.” They must then make “reasonable efforts” to open all that data, provided it conforms with technical standards and privacy laws. 

San Francisco also maintains an open data coordinator community and their supporting materials are excellent! They’re hosted on the equally excellent Gitbook tool, which makes them both open and easily adapted by others. 

We really like their guide to prioritizing data. It’s an elegant matrix that compares how sensitive a given dataset is with how in demand it is. Data that’s low risk and high demand jumps to the top of the publishing queue as a result!  

Philadelphia 

Philly’s Open Data policy was established by executive order in 2012. A year later, the City was being hailed as an open government leader in the U.S. They also created one of the first online guides to help municipal staff identify and publish data – a practice that is now commonplace in cities like New York and San Francisco (shoutout to Mark Headd, Philly’s first Chief Data Officer, for pointing the way!).  

Because it started with an executive order, Philadelphia’s policy is very clear on timelines and targets. Departments are tasked with identifying “high impact” datasets and getting “at least three” of them published in “120 days.” Releasing a small number of priority datasets feels like a smart approach and acknowledges the resource constraints data teams face in government. It’s alright to not release ALL the data TOMORROW, but let’s meaningfully commit to releasing data with the highest potential for impact.

Chicago 

Did you know that Chicago is officially a sister city of Toronto? In addition to our similar populations and lakefront statuses, we also share a commitment to open data. 😊 

Like Philly, Chicago’s policy was established by executive order in 2012, and the two documents have a lot in common. Like other cities in our scan, Chicago publishes an annual open data compliance report – which is something Toronto’s Council has asked for. 

Chicago’s policy includes a directive to add “contract provisions to promote open data policies in technology-related procurements.” We’re not sure exactly how this works in practice, but users of Toronto’s open data portal have expressed interest in more information about how the City builds and buys technology, so it’s something we’ll explore.