POPVOX Foundation's Response to OMB's RFI on Public Participation
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently issued a Request for Information (RFI) titled "Methods and Leading Practices for Advancing Public Participation and Community Engagement with the Federal Government." This initiative aims to develop a government-wide framework to enhance how the federal government involves the public in decision-making processes.
Why This Matters
With this RFI OMB is acknowledging that federal agencies often struggle to make public participation feel accessible and meaningful and is taking steps to change this by harnessing the public's knowledge, needs, and experiences to improve how the government works. This RFI is part of a broader effort to ensure that federal decision-making is more inclusive, transparent, and responsive to all Americans, including underserved communities.
What is an RFI?
An RFI is a tool used by the government to gather input from the public on specific topics. It's an opportunity for individuals and organizations to share their experiences, suggestions, and insights, which can help shape future policies and practices.
POPVOX Foundation's Contribution
At POPVOX Foundation, we welcomed the chance to respond to this RFI. Our organization has a long history of facilitating public engagement with the federal government. Since 2010, POPVOX.com has enabled citizens to provide feedback on various policies and deliver millions of comments to congressional offices and federal agencies.
In our response, we emphasized the following points:
Experience and Challenges in Participation: We shared our extensive experience in public engagement and highlighted ongoing challenges such as accessibility, time constraints, and the complexity of understanding legal implications of feedback.
Recommendations for Improvement: We suggested adopting a human-centered design approach to make participation opportunities more user-friendly and accessible. This includes clear guidelines, flexible interpretations of public input processes, and pilot projects to test new methods.
Successful Models: We pointed to the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) and the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) as exemplary models of public engagement that other agencies could emulate.
A Call for Centralized Public Input
We proposed establishing a centralized platform for public input. This would streamline the process of providing feedback, making it more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, we recommended creating a community of practice for Public Participation and Community Engagement (PPCE) to facilitate regular interactions among agencies, practitioners, and the public.
Conclusion
The POPVOX Foundation is committed to supporting efforts that promote a government that values and effectively utilizes public participation. By addressing current challenges and leveraging successful models, we can build a more inclusive, transparent, and responsive government. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with OMB and other stakeholders to achieve these important goals.
For more information on the RFI, you can visit the Federal Register notice here.
Subject: Response to RFI on Methods and Leading Practices for Advancing Public Participation and Community Engagement with the Federal Government
May 15, 2024
Ms. Loren Schulman
Associate Director, Office of Performance and Personnel Management
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Ms. Schulman:
We at POPVOX Foundation greatly appreciate this opportunity to respond to the Office of Management and Budget's Request for Information regarding public participation and community engagement. We note the Biden Administration's innovative use of RFIs — a tool rarely used by previous administrations — to enable public engagement at early stages of policy development on important issues, such as the Equity Executive Order in 2021 and National Priorities for Artificial Intelligence in 2023. We also note the significant steps taken by OMB for this particular RFI to demonstrate openness to new forms of engagement and create a more welcoming “front door” than the typical Regulations.gov interface, including a “Calling All Americans” landing page on Performance.gov. Well done!
Despite these positive developments, significant challenges remain in ensuring equitable and effective public participation and community engagement with the federal government. Issues such as the accessibility of participation opportunities, the constraints of time-limited engagements, and the complexity of understanding legal implications on feedback utilization continue to limit broader involvement. Additionally, agencies are often constrained in how they can acknowledge and “close the feedback loop” with participants, which is crucial for maintaining engagement and trust.
This response outlines our perspectives and recommendations on further refining these efforts, balancing the legal and administrative constraints that federal agencies must navigate, and enhancing the overall effectiveness of government-citizen interactions. We look forward to collaborating with you to advance these important goals.
Sincerely,
Marci Harris
Executive Director
POPVOX Foundation
marci@popvox.org
731-267-7545
1. Experience Participating in Federal Government PPCE Activities
Our experience:
Our team brings vast experience engaging with the federal government and facilitating participation by others. Since 2010, POPVOX.com has helped citizens find out about participation opportunities, received their comments (both those left on the website or transmitted through the POPVOX delivery system by a third party vendor), and delivered millions of public comments to the appropriate endpoint — whether to a congressional office or federal agency.
In 2021, we created the nonprofit POPVOX Foundation (popvox.org) with a mission “to inform and empower people and make government work better for everyone.” This work builds on the lessons of POPVOX.com with a focus in three categories: Capacity, Engagement, and Innovation in both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
One of the first projects of the newly created POPVOX Foundation was to host an information session on the OMB Equity RFI, encouraging diverse groups and individuals to participate, inviting experts to explain and demystify the process of submitting a comment, and submitting our own comment with a summary of input we heard — importantly, including input from Congressional caseworkers on their perspectives and insights from working with the public to resolve challenges with federal services.
In 2022, we hosted a similar virtual event and dedicated website to encourage participation on the Office of the National Cyber Director’s RFI on “Cyber Workforce, Training, and Education,” including an FAQ on topics like: What is an RFI? How do I submit a response? What makes a good submission? What happens next? We have been told that our efforts resulted in a significant increase in the volume and breadth of comments submitted by diverse stakeholder groups.
These early efforts were prompted by a recognition that the Biden administration was making innovative use of the tools available to it — in this case the request for information — to receive public feedback in a way that previous administrations have not. Unlike requests for public comments in processes governed by the Administrative Procedures Act or research and feedback processes often constrained by the Paperwork Reduction Act, the (now numerous) Biden RFIs have allowed for more open-ended engagement at the early stages of policy development, with the potential to better inform agency approaches.
We also understood, however, that despite this innovative use of the RFI, federal policymakers were still limited in their ability to conduct proactive outreach or offer interaction opportunities outside the normal Regulations.gov “submit a comment” format. Agencies were limited to using the existing system to get ideas about how to improve that system. This, ironically, meant that people who were not aware or comfortable with the old system — those with the most relevant input to improving the old system to make it more accessible or easy to use — would likely not provide feedback that the agencies most needed to hear. Our webinars, stakeholder outreach, and simple forms were attempts to address some of these barriers. We are very glad to see that outreach efforts for the current RFI reflect many of those approaches, with a dedicated website, explanatory webinars, and alternative input methods.
Existing opportunities for Engagement
While we understand that the “federal government” as referenced in the RFI intends to reference the federal executive branch, we note that a human centered design approach would acknowledge that individuals and communities are often not familiar with the details of governing and the distinct roles of various branches or departments are not always clear. While there are currently many opportunities for various types of engagement with the federal government (both legislative and executive branches) it can be difficult for those engaging to understand where within the policy process these actions occur.
Current opportunities for PPCE with the federal government include:
Legislative Drafting and Lawmaking (Legislative Branch):
Correspondence: Individuals and organizations can directly contact elected representatives to influence legislative drafting and lawmaking, including meetings, letters, emails, engaging through official social media channels or attending in-person events like town halls. Individual Members of Congress have wide latitude to consider, respond to, or utilize the input received in any way they choose.
Hearing testimony: Individuals and organizations can submit testimony (or respond to invitations to testify) on topics considered in Congressional committee hearings. Testimony delivered in a hearing or submitted to the committee becomes part of the committee’s record and may be referenced in the committee report that accompanies a bill following Markup.
Rulemaking (Executive Branch):
Requests for Information (RFIs): As noted above, during the Biden administration, agencies are making broad use of RFIs (such as this one) to gather informal input that can inform the early stages of policy development. Agencies have wide latitude to consider, respond to, or utilize the input received in any way they choose.
Public Comment Periods: Through the informal rulemaking process mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the public can submit comments on proposed rules (usually through Regulations.gov) during an open public comment period. Agencies must process and read any substantive comment received through public comment process and address any novel issues raised.
Public Meetings: Federal agencies often host or participate in public meetings as a means to engage with the community, gather public input, and discuss agency activities, potential regulations, and other policy issues. These meetings are often mandated by law or agency policy to ensure transparency and public involvement in governmental processes and have become much more accessible with wider adoption of video conference technologies. Information shared in these meetings can help inform agency perspectives or identify issues.
Implementation and Enforcement (Executive Branch):
Advisory Committees and Councils: Agencies use advisory committees composed of external experts and stakeholders to receive detailed advice on specific topics during the implementation phase. Committee and Council input is often documented through meeting minutes and reports and is advisory, though enabling statutes may require formal responses to recommendations.
Formal Partnerships and Collaborations: Government agencies collaborate with NGOs, academia, and the private sector to implement new initiatives and conduct research.
Listening Sessions and Workshops: These are less formal than public hearings but allow for in-depth discussions and are often used to gather nuanced insights into specific community needs or concerns.
Customer Feedback Surveys and User Research: Used to gauge public satisfaction and gather specific feedback on government services and help agencies to refine their offerings and interactions with the public. Agencies’ ability to conduct surveys and user research is often limited by restrictive interpretations of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Crowdsourcing: Engaging the public in problem-solving tasks related to governmental challenges though Challenge.gov.
Casework, Oversight and Enforcement (Legislative and Executive Branch):
Congressional Casework: Individuals can engage with the legislative branch through casework by contacting their congressional representatives for assistance with federal agency services or enforcement issues. This interaction provides lawmakers with insights into how laws and policies are being implemented and the challenges constituents are facing.
Participation in Oversight: The public can participate in oversight by attending oversight hearings, providing information or whistleblowing on government activities, and utilizing platforms like Inspector General websites to report inefficiencies, misconduct, or corruption. Inspector Generals (IGs) have the duty to investigate legitimate submissions.
The breadth of opportunities to engage with the federal government in both the legislative and executive branch often leads to public confusion about where in the process engagement is occurring, with whom, how input is used, and the potential for the input to have impact. For example, many people mistakenly view public comment periods as a process of direct democracy in which the quantity of comments are counted as votes that could sway policy decisions. This misconception can result in frustration when numerous comments do not influence decisions as expected. The public might hold unrealistic expectations about the scope of changes an agency is legally able to implement, irrespective of the volume of feedback received.
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) broadly and large language models (LLMs) specifically present both opportunities and challenges in the realm of public engagement. For public comments in a rulemaking process, AI could help identify novel legal or arguments or previously unconsidered scenarios, enriching the quality of feedback received. However, when vast quantities of LLM-generated comments flood the system, they can overwhelm agency resources, compromise the integrity of the process, and obscure valuable human insights. This is particularly problematic when agencies aim to gather creative ideas or understand the impact on affected populations, where the authenticity of participant identities is crucial.
Enhancements to Increase Participation
Most of the participation or engagement opportunities mentioned above require a high degree of “political efficacy” — a term used in political science to convey people’s personal beliefs in their abilities to take part in civic endeavors and their sense of whether that participation is worthwhile. It is considered one of the driving forces behind civic participation.
In our 2021 “CivX Metrics Toolkit,” we explain that improved political efficacy creates a virtuous circle: the more a person feels empowered to seek help, engage, or participate, the more likely they are to re-engage, seek services, and share their input. A key finding of this work is that recent public sector efforts to improve “customer experience” (treating the “citizen as customer”) can miss key characteristics of engagement by “the People” in a democracy. Individuals engaging with their government are not simply customers — they are partners, stakeholders, citizens, investors, and so much more. Depending on the context, people interact with government to vindicate rights, guide the direction of their communities, and to protect and preserve their livelihoods. These interactions are not just transactional but transformational. A broader “Civic Experience” or “CivX” approach views people not simply as customers who need to be satisfied within the context of a single interaction or service but as contributors with power and agency over institutions that affect their everyday lives and communities.
While the Toolkit emphasizes the need for government entities to adopt more nuanced engagement metrics that account for the complex roles individuals play in democratic processes, we recognize the operational constraints under which agencies operate. Current statutory and regulatory frameworks often limit the scope of innovative practices that agencies might otherwise wish to implement to enhance public engagement. To address these limitations, we encourage policymakers and regulatory bodies to issue guidance enabling experimentation with new approaches to expand the latitude agencies have to design and refine engagement processes that are not only compliant with existing laws but are also deeply rooted in the principles of human-centered design. This could include clearer rules on digital engagement, more flexible interpretations of public input processes, and the use of pilot projects to test new methods of collecting and utilizing public feedback.
Innovative PPCE Example: Two Successful Methods at the IRS
While the IRS may not be top of mind for members of the public thinking fondly of beloved public institutions, the IRS has nonetheless integrated several innovative approaches to structuring and facilitating constituent engagement.
Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS)
The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) is an independent organization within the IRS, established by Congress and reporting directly to the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means.
TAS represents a unique and innovative approach to embedding public engagement and input into the function of an agency. TAS maintains a network of local offices around the country, staffed by expert Local Taxpayer Advocates who are tasked with acting as an “above-and beyond” customer service support team to help constituents who experience bureaucratic difficulties with the IRS that are not resolvable through normal customer service channels or cause the taxpayer undue harm. In the course of this work, TAS maintains meticulous data on the types of problems that its staff handle on behalf of constituents, in addition to conducting its own independent research on the taxpayer experience and best practices for encouraging voluntary compliance with tax law. TAS submits that information in its annual Report to Congress along with recommendations for statutory fixes to structural problems in the tax code that contribute to poor constituent experiences and outcomes.
While TAS was created by Congress, it represents an innovative approach to gathering robust, actionable data in the course of customer service interactions that can provide an excellent model to other agencies. This streamlines the process of soliciting constituent input by capturing constituent experience at the moment when it is most salient to constituents, and makes that input available to the public and directly to the agency and to Congress.
Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC)
Additionally, the IRS encourages public participation by inviting citizens to nominate themselves or others to the Advisory Council. This council plays a crucial role in influencing IRS operations and reform efforts, providing a structured platform for public voices to be heard and integrated into policy-making processes. TAS also amplifies and assists with outreach to ensure a diverse set of annual nominations for the council, providing an additional avenue for constituents who are powerfully motivated to turn their personal experience resolving a customer service complaint into an actionable piece of feedback directly to the IRS.
Together, TAS and the Advisory Council create a powerful mechanism for capturing real-time constituent feedback and enabling active citizen involvement in shaping agency practices and policies. This model not only addresses immediate taxpayer issues but also contributes to long-term improvements in IRS engagement and responsiveness, showcasing a tangible impact on public administration.
Centralizing Public Input for Enhanced Federal Engagement
Despite the innovative strides in fostering public participation under the Biden Administration, one significant obstacle persists: the complexity and fragmentation of engagement opportunities across multiple federal agencies. Individuals wishing to provide feedback often face the daunting task of navigating this dispersed landscape, which can deter meaningful participation. This issue is not just logistical but fundamental, as it does not align with how individuals typically experience or articulate their needs and ideas in relation to government interactions.
The current system's piecemeal approach requires individuals to identify the right agency for their specific issue, a process that is both inefficient and inaccessible for many, especially those from marginalized communities. This could be streamlined into a more cohesive, user-friendly experience through the establishment of a central clearinghouse for public input. This proposed platform would function not just as a repository but as an active facilitator of engagement by categorizing and routing information to the appropriate federal body while maintaining a holistic view of public interactions.
Such a central system could draw inspiration from previous initiatives like the Obama Administration's "We the People" petition platform. However, unlike "We the People," which was primarily geared towards advocacy and policy change, this new platform would focus on gathering broad-based input on government operations and public interactions. By avoiding the "crowdsourcing" elements that often encourage gaming of the system, the platform would instead serve as a serious medium for raising issues directly related to personal and community needs.
Moreover, this system could enhance the effectiveness of current Requests for Information (RFIs) and rulemaking processes by following up with individuals who have previously expressed interest or needs. Engaging these individuals in further discussions or consultations during the planning stages of new policies or programs could ensure that their input is not only heard but actively considered in the policy-making process. This would not only improve the quality of engagement but also build trust and credibility within the community, ensuring that all voices, especially those that are often underrepresented, are heard and valued in the governance process.
2. A Federal Framework for PPCE
Suggested Content for a PPCE Framework
In developing a Federal Framework for PPCE, OMB should clearly explain the goals and rationale for these activities; clarify the authorities under which they can be undertaken, including guidelines to help agency counsel evaluate proposed projects; list technologies or processes that are pre-vetted for use along with suggested practice for their deployment; provide a sample timeline for deployment of these practices; list recommended outreach approaches; create an evaluation rubric and establish standardized metrics allowing approaches to be compared across agencies.
Sample PPCE Framework Outline
Goals of PPCE
Inclusivity, Transparency, Enhanced Policy Outcomes, Building Trust
Supporting Scholarship: References to studies validating PPCE effectiveness
Authorities Enabling PPCE
Statutory and Regulatory Frameworks, Executive Orders
Examples and guidance for leveraging authorities in agency contexts
PPCE Playbook
Description of tools and processes
Use cases for each tool or process
Implementation timelines
Evaluating and Testing New Methods
Criteria for selecting pilot projects
Principles of iterative design and feedback incorporation
Outreach Strategies
Overcoming barriers such as digital divides and language differences
Proactive methods to engage underrepresented groups
Evaluation and Metrics
Engagement metrics: participation rates, diversity of participants, quality of engagement
Impact assessments: How public input influences policy decisions
Shared Lessons
Centralized platform for inter-agency knowledge sharing
Regular inter-agency meetings for strategy exchange
Continuous Learning and Adaptation
Review and update mechanisms for the PPCE framework
Collaborations with academic and nonprofit sectors to innovate PPCE practices
Stakeholder Collaboration
Strategies for engaging with NGOs, private sector, and community groups
Guidelines for equitable and goal-aligned collaborations
3. Collaborative Process to Co-develop a Federal Framework for PPCE
The reactivation of U.S participation in the Open Government Partnership and the recent establishment of the Open Government Secretariat provide a helpful model for what could be a robust community of practice focused on PPCE, possibly coordinated by an external civil society organization with deep expertise in public engagement. We at POPVOX Foundation would enthusiastically welcome the opportunity to join this effort and to take a more active role in coordination, if helpful.
A PPCE community of practice would serve as a central forum for representatives from various agencies to learn about the PPCE framework, pose questions, and receive demonstrations on its implementation. By facilitating regular interactions with practitioners, academics, and experts from different fields, the community would allow for the sharing of innovative approaches to public engagement. These interactions could include learning from successful public engagement models in states or other countries.
Engaging with international partners can provide valuable insights and proven strategies that have been successful in other contexts. A prime example of such an initiative is the OECD’s Innovative Citizen Participation Network. This network collaborates with a diverse group of stakeholders—including practitioners, academics, and civil servants—to co-create solutions and address complex policy issues through innovative participation methods. The network's focus on deliberative and collaborative decision-making processes offers valuable lessons for enhancing transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in government actions, aligning closely with the principles of open government.
Furthermore, this community of practice should not only share its findings and experiences across federal agencies but also communicate these developments to Congress and solicit and integrate insights from legislative branch casework. This would ensure that the lessons learned and the strategies developed are not only widely disseminated but also aligned with the broader goals of enhancing trust, accountability, and efficiency in government operations. By fostering a continuous cycle of feedback and improvement, this community of practice could significantly advance the effectiveness of public engagement in shaping federal policies and programs.
A PPCE community of practice could hold public meetings and workshops to ensure transparency and broader participation in the development of PPCE strategies. Such events would be instrumental in collecting direct feedback from the public, especially from marginalized or underserved communities who are often the most affected by governmental policies but the least heard in traditional engagement platforms.
The Open Government Secretariat, as part of its mandate, has already begun to lead and oversee domestic mandates for open government, including the creation and implementation of national action plans. This body could play a significant role in the community of practice by sharing insights and strategies that align with open government principles such as transparency, accountability, and inclusive participation.
OMB's role in shaping a new federal framework for participation should also include efforts to ensure that agencies have the necessary resources and structures to support effective PPCE. This includes budget requests that include sufficient resources for the talent, technological tools, and potentially a dedicated structure within each agency to handle PPCE initiatives.
Conclusion
We at POPVOX Foundation appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the OMB's Request for Information regarding methods and practices for enhancing public participation and community engagement. We commend the innovative steps already taken to foster a more inclusive and transparent engagement environment, particularly through the use of Requests for Information and the creation of accessible platforms such as the “Calling All Americans” page. Despite these advancements, challenges persist, particularly in ensuring equitable participation and effectively closing the feedback loop with all community members.
In addressing these challenges, we propose exploring the potential of a centralized platform for public input along with the establishment of a community of practice. To ensure these initiatives are grounded in real-world insights, incorporating congressional caseworkers into the community of practice could be invaluable. Their direct experiences with constituent interactions provide critical insights that can enhance the responsiveness and effectiveness of public engagement strategies.
We also recommend incorporating the recommendations of our “CivX Metrics Toolkit,” which focus on enhancing civic efficacy, building trust through transparent actions, and respectfully “closing and reopening the feedback loop” for maintaining an ongoing and adaptive dialogue with the public.
Drawing lessons from successful models like the Taxpayer Advocate Service, and integrating insights from congressional casework, can help embed public participation and community engagement within various agency functions more effectively. This approach would align with federal laws, executive priorities, and mandates, and pinpoint the most effective times for public involvement.
In conclusion, by learning from a broad spectrum of experiences and continuously refining our approaches, we aim to contribute to the development of a government that is inclusive, transparent, accountable, and responsive. At POPVOX Foundation, we are committed to supporting efforts that promote a governance culture which values and effectively utilizes public participation and community engagement in a respectful and equitable manner.
By leveraging successes and modeling new engagement efforts, we can build a government that is not only inclusive and transparent but also highly accountable and responsive. The integration of continuous feedback mechanisms and iterative design in PPCE initiatives will ensure that public engagement is not static but evolves with societal needs and technological advancements. These proposed enhancements, guided by a clear and purpose-driven framework, will equip the federal government to better serve and represent the American people, fostering a governance culture that values, respects, and utilizes public participation in a meaningful way. We at POPVOX Foundation are eager to assist in these efforts, promoting a governance culture that is truly participatory and reflective of American society.
