Anatomy of a Service Request Type: Tree Trimming

The City of Chicago does not yet publish 311 service request data for tree trim requests, although I do expect that to be published soon

Meantime, I took some photos of the process here.

This tree trim operation is in the 2000 block of North Damen.

Tree Trim Service Request Chicago

This guy has the tools of the trade: rake, shovel, ladder, tree pruner, hand pruning saw, clippers, tool belt, safety harness, nylon rope, orange traffic cones, yellow spray can (not sure what that is for)

Tree Trim Service Request Chicago

Tree Trim Chipper Truck from Bartlett

Tree Trim Service Request Chicago

The end result: nice crisp cuts and clear rights of way. All hail the trimmers of trees!

Tree Trimming in Chicago

Tree Trimming in Chicago

Toward Better Tools For Context in Civic Data Using Private Data Sources

Now that civic data is a normal part of the atmosphere in Chicago, it’s time to start mining private data sources to make automated context a natural part of our Web infolives. By that, I mean the addition of information about a subject that is generated without human intervention. My experience as the person responsible for obtaining civic data at EveryBlock has made me deeply aware of the power and limits of data lookup tools. Now that we have much more lookup tools and data to fill them, especially here in the City of Chicago, it’s time to turn our attention to the Web and the tools we use to extract data from it.

The recent dogged work of the Chicago News Cooperative, with help from Medill Watchdog, dovetails well with automated context. They’ve been publishing a great series of articles this week about lobbying in Illinois:

There’s great reporting in here based, in part, on a review of data. Here’s are some snips:

The investigation showed that the filings frequently are inaccurate. Both lobbyists and their clients are required to disclose their lobbyist-client relationships. In 242 instances, records show, lobbyists reported working for a client but there was no corresponding registration by the client.

*

Medill Watchdog examined statements of economic interests of public officials, lobbying registrations filed with the City of Chicago, Cook County and the state, and records of state bills and local ordinances. The investigation found 14 elected officials from Cook County alone who, while not lobbyists themselves, are related to or in business with lobbyists.

It’s time to automate some of that review.

Why civic data is not enough

City of Chicago Lobbyist Data - Lobbyist Data - 2011 Lobbyist Registry

Lobbyist data in Chicago has a great start on automated context. Lobby data was released earlier this year, and then improved when developers asked for better data and the City provided it. Those developers launched an awesome Web site– Chicago Lobbyists– that tracks lobbyists, clients, and projects. Here’s more info on how the Web site works.

Chicago Lobbyists Homepage

This is a great round-trip story: municipality releases data, developers analyze data (for free) and make suggestions, City heeding suggestions and releasing more data, and developers making a great app (again, for free) to view the data.

The next step seems simple– use the site to figure out all the big money relationships inside and outside government. But that didn’t happen. According to the data, $11,422,846 was paid to lobbyists working to influence the City in 2010. While that’s a lot of money, I do not believe that is the sum total of money involved in influencing the actions of a $6 billion operation. That doesn’t pass the sniff test, and the CNC articles this week show the nature of that failed sniff. There’s much, much more to be had.

Reverse-engineered bios

My assumption is that there are dozens of other positions, arrangements, and relationships that are factored into the true picture of lobbying. I am not in any way suggesting that these are nefarious, illegal, or improper. In fact, I find them to be absolutely normal. I just also find them to be hard to find. The CNC/ Medill stories of this week illustrate this very well– they did a ton of shoe-leather reporting to get insights. The thing is that we should be able to piggyback on that work with better tools.

For example this snip from a CNC story:, “the investigation found 14 elected officials from Cook County alone who, while not lobbyists themselves, are related to or in business with lobbyists.”

How did they find that out? Probably by painstakingly reviewing the economic interest disclosure forms and googling the shit out of the businesses listed. In most cases, online biographies of lobbyists played little to no role in pulling these pieces together.

As is typical in an industry where relationships matter, the people who do (and make) the most have to day the least about their work. The firm with the highest billings in 2010, Illinois Governmental Consulting Group LLC., has a one-page Web site with no feature/ benefit text and just emails to the principals. Why? if you don’t know who these people are already, they probably don’t really want to hear from you. To mailto me is to love me.

In situations like this, it’s not impossible to pull together a reverese-engineered bio for the principals, and picking up some noun clauses in the process. For instance, he was appointed to the Western Illinois University Board of Trustees. While we’re at it, here’s a mother-lode of George Ryan appointments to various state boards from 2001, including the Western Illinois appointment for Brunsvold. Someone needs to slurp that up and put it to use.

Automatically-generated entity associations

On the other end of the biographical info spectrum, I found that large law firms— with their sophisticated in-house marketing and PR teams— are much more forthcoming about what noun clauses matter in the world of Chicago lobbying. By doing entity extraction on the biographies of lobbyists, we can be armed with fodder for understanding and connections. With information from these tent-pole sources like law firm Web sites, we can apply that info to the other people in the industry.

Open Calais is one of many tools and companies that are focused on entity extraction and compiling knowledge on a topic.

Here’s an example from the bio of Edward  J. Kus, one of the lobbyists found in the data (with some initial research)

  • Executive Director of the Mayor’s Zoning Reform Commission
  • Zoning Administrator of the City of Chicago
  • First Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development
  • McCormick Place Expansion: the Chicago Tribune has a hundred or so stories about this from the 1980s and early 90s in their archive
  • Navy Pier Redevelopment
  • Central Station
  • Lakefront Millennium Park
  • Chicago Plan Commission: homepage of the Commission has a list of all current members as well as searchable PDFs of all meetings (with members, matters, and outcomes) going back to December 2009. Plethora of info. Includes vote counts, recusals, etc.
  • City of Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals
  • City Council Committee on Zoning
  • City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development
  • City of Chicago Department of Zoning.
  • Group Home Task Force
  • Open Space Committee
  • Landscape Advisory Executive Committee
  • Greater North Michigan Avenue Association
  • Leading Lawyer in Illinois

So even though Kus only received $19,000 in 2010 from lobbying (the top person, Brunsvold, pulled in $978,000), the 17 initial-caps entities can be whacked against all other names in the data to tease out connections. The best thing is that all of this could be automated. I would like to see a computer program that does entity extraction of each of these noun clauses and drill automatically into each of them, slurping up all of the people and putting it into an understandable chart. Again, all of this is fine– it’s nice to make money, it’s nice to have responsible civic voices helping us make decisions, and it’s nice to know everything one needs to know in order to understand.

This info can also be pulled into the Chicago Lobbyists Web site as context in and of itself. These two pages on the Internet: the ChicagoLobbyists page for a registered lobbyist and the Mayer Brown bio for the same person don’t even know about each other. No link, no unique user ID, no way to know that they are the same person, even though the content is in many ways complementary. Here’s an example:

Connections in plain sight, rendered in plain text on the Internet, there for the making.

Marrying databases and the importance of standards

The public data environment is maturing quickly; moving from one in which very little data is available to one in which different units of government publish different datasets about essentially the same thing. For example, the Cook County Clerk has their Lobbyists Online lookup tool which contains lots of information about many of the same people who are in the City data. The Cook County system publishes the contact information (including email and cell phone number) as well as what looks like a copy of the building access ID photo for every registered lobbyist. The City data does not include this info, but since they publish the name and firm, it is possible to marry this info into one record.

We’ve been successful in changing policy when it comes to the publication of data, but there has not been much corresponding thought on standards. Much of this has to do with the vagaries of existing software and the idiosyncrasies of intake forms. Meantime, there is lots of opportunity for private developers to pull together all of this info into a useful (and valuable) repository.

Compiling language about the thing itself

One cool thing about marketing and public relations text is that it allows one to leverage the curation of others. Here’s  a snip from a lobbyist bio on the DLA Piper Web site:

In 2011, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that a zoning deal concerning plans to develop the old Lincoln Park Hospital site in Chicago had won initial approval from the Chicago Plan Commission despite aldermanic opposition. Reporter Dave Roeder noted, “As a historical note, this project is the third example of a zoning deal winning initial approval despite aldermanic opposition. The only other recent case was the proposal, yet unrealized, for a Chicago Children’s Museum in Grant Park. The zoning lawyer for that deal and the Lincoln Park Hospital site is Ted Novak of the firm DLA Piper. Other zoning lawyers probably wish he would bottle his secrets and sell them.”

Telling language. How people describe their actions is almost always telling. That’s probably why the ones with the most work say the fewest things.

Another example is Shoefsky & Froelich’s pretty enlightening definition of lobbyng:

Our firm represents private-sector entities seeking rights, licenses and privileges from government boards, commissions, and legislatures. We develop government relations strategies, draft and engage in hearings on petitions for relief from government regulations, and negotiate public sector/private sector partnerships. In addition, a substantial element of this practice area includes pursuing zoning changes and other relief required for development

Here’s Mayer Brown’s mega-page explaining, in detail, the actions they take on behalf of their government relations clients.

Meanwhile, watching entities from the DLA Piper bio reffed above, I saw “Lambda Alpha International, Ely Chapter (an honorary Land Economics Society)”. Their Web site has a basic info on the field of land economics. They’ve also got 10 years of their newsletter archived. My guess is that contains some good info about tactics and methods for lobbying, written in the congratulatory prose of a trade publication. Good stuff.

If one wants to understand lobbying, one has to have this stuff in front of them. Making tools that finds and monitors these sources would be valuable.

There’s money in this

It’s not hard to think about commercial uses for such a tool. Opposition research for political candidates and competitive intelligence for the lobbyists themselves are just some of the uses that come to mind. There’s lots of great work going on in civic data, especially in Chicago. I’d love to see venture capital follow some of this important work. I think we’d all benefit.

Needed in the Civic Apps World: Less Data, More Love

Last week I helped announce the finalists for the Community Round of the Apps For Metro Chicago contest. Before reading the list of the 10 worthy apps that have moved on to the finals, I shared some thoughts (video here) about the current state of the movement around civic apps. Here they are, written down:

All of us who are involved in Apps For Metro Chicago is a part of something. At a minimum, we are part of a broad movement of developers who have participated in one of the many contests of this kind that have sprung up in the last few years.

But we can decide that we want look back some time in the future and see that we were a part of something bigger— part of a set of companies and projects that helped fundamentally change the way people interact with their cities and each other.

We have focused quite a bit on data in this world of ours, and with good reason. Civic data is at the center of the systems that we create.

But I have seen many glimmers of love in the applications submitted for this contest. And I believe we need a lot less data and a lot more love. Data and the technology that drives it are just delivery mechanisms for human love.

When the City puts asphalt in a hole on the street where my children play, that is love.

When the police help calm a family after a domestic dispute, that is love.

When the park district rolls out the basketballs on a Saturday morning, that is an act of love.

Let’s decide that we want to be a part of this— a sustained, historic drive to build new businesses around data using technology that changes the ways cities work. And let’s make sure we place love at the center.

Incomplete Take on the History of Open Data in Chicago

In light of today’s official open data launch by Cook County, I wanted to do a top-of-the-head post about what I know– and what I’ve heard from people who know more– about the history of open data in Chicago.

Data journalism has long been a main driver of the open data movement. The current (and most sophisticated) incarnation is the excellent News Apps Team at the Chicago Tribune. Stories like those in the Tribune’s 1986 series American Millstone: An Examination of the Nation’s Permanent Underclass used data to back up the narrative. The Sun-Times’ Pulitzer-winning stories about the impact of shootings is partly a result of their dogged efforts to get data.

Government technology workers themselves have been at the center of every open data project I can think of. Complete GIS (geographic information systems) data, including all street segments, applicable address ranges, and shape files for the city limits and other relevant boundaries, have been available for download on the City’s Web site for years. One-off databases like the long-running license lookup tool maintained by the State of Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation is another example of existing data that has whetted appetites.

Chicago has been a leader in the publication and display of crime data going back 15 years. The Chicago Police Department launched their Citizen ICAM (Information Collection for Automated Mapping) database– a mapping program inside police stations to run on PCs running Windows 95 based on MapInfo 2.0 software. Later renamed CLEARMap (CLEAR stands for Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting– my goodness, governments love acronyms that make words and near-words), this is the data that fed the groundbreaking ChicagoCrime.org. Here’s a fascinating 1996 report by the National Institute of Justice lauding the program:

Without the painstaking work of the GIS professionals at the City’s technology department, and the 1993 creation of CAPS (Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy), there would have been no data with which to create any Chicago crime-oriented projects. Which is not to say that CLEARMap was an “open data” project– it just so happened that the data was open.
Open data in Chicago was also driven by nonprofits like the Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC). Here’s them:
Founded in 1990, Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC) was created by members of the Commercial Club of Chicago to collect demographic and baseline data on social policy and human needs on a regular basis in order to create a more complete picture of the 7-county metropolitan Chicago region, thereby empowering the nonprofit sector with critical information to make better strategic development decisions.
  • Society works best when information is generally available
  • Government works best when information is shared across divisions
  • Web technology gives unprecedented opportunities for making data available
  • Ensuring access to public data requires clear guidelines on how, when and with whom data is to be shared
THEREFORE, we seek to advance the coordination of and access to public information.
The County deserves a lot of credit for getting a mitt and getting in the game on open data. Their work is creative and thoughtful. The simple “Make the Tough Choices” tool indicates to me that open data is just one part of an overall commitment to engage with residents on how to solve our problems. Because they have to. Look at Cook– the budget exploration tool from Commissioner John Fritchey– is another example of something created to inform and engage. Now all we need to do is get informed and get engaged. Because we have to.
Slightly stretching the Chicago connection, the Open Data movement got succor when some dude from Chicago was elected President of the United States. On his first full day in office, he published Executive Orders with regard to transparency and open government. This substantive work continues, including this week’s launch of the Open Government Partnership as a major part of our country’s foreign policy.
This is where it’s at– open data as a key component of other, essential policies and modes of interaction among governments and the people they serve. That’s why these efforts by Cook County– all done in the context of other data released by the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois– represent a great step forward. There is a nascent cohesiveness to open data in Chicago. Government policy, markets, consumer needs, and developers need to be in synch for us to go beyond mere data. Groups like OpenGovChicago– started and nurtured by many of the groups and people represented in this history– is one place where we gather to trade ideas. Join us!
Also: what did I miss? Let me know below.
UPDATE, 9/24/11:
Another data-informed series was the Tribune’s “Chicago schools: ‘worst in America’: an examination of the public schools that fail Chicago” from 1988 (h/t@richgor).
UPDATE, 9/25/11:
Data intermediaries like those who are part of the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership have also been there from the beginning. One example from 1987 is a consortium called the Illinois Economic DataBase (reffed here). It included the University of Illinois Chicago Center for Urban Economic Development and corporate partners like the Federal Reserve Bank, People’s Gas, and First National Bank of Chicago. They tried to get data out of the Illinois Department of Employment Security and data on economic activity, that would help local governments understand their economy better. MCIC President Virginia Carlson was a part of the consortium while at UIC, and she reports that the IED published hardcopy data for a year or two in the late 80′s early 90′s, but stopped thereafter.
– via VL_Carlson via her excellent post “Getting the Digital Goods“, wherein she writes of this time period, makes a good case for nonprofit primacy in this sphere, and reminds us that the publication of “statistical data — data that surveyors and researchers collect through observation and experimentation”– lags.

Open Data Product Idea: Severe Weather Community Center

Monday’s short but devastating storm in Chicago reminded me again of a product based on open data that I wish someone would make: a Severe Weather Community Center. I think there would be two parts to this: historical knowledge/ learnings/ upshots and a ready-to-go infrastructure when things go south.

I picture the historical info to be incident-based (“Monday Morning Rush Hour, July 11, 2011″). This info would be pulled from a number of sources:

After a while, I’m guessing some patterns would emerge. We would see that a late Spring storm with winds of 50 miles an hour striking in mid-afternoon knocks down 700 trees, affects the trains for about 45 minutes, and makes suburbanites about an hour and a half late getting home. A winter storm coming from the northwest in early February lays 15 inches of snow and it takes 14 hours after the snow stopped before trucks can get to the side streets. We could use this more granular shorthand when we’re preparing for a storm.

Which brings me to the ready-to-go infrastructure. After a storm strikes, there’s a lot of confusion, lack of essential services, and plethora of people looking to contribute. The way Craigslist was adopted after Hurricane Katrina is the classic example of people using existing technology to meet their needs in an emergency. The problem is that, 6 years after the storm, it doesn’t seem like there is a unified solution to the recurring problem of natural disasters and weather emergencies. (I might be wrong— I haven’t done an exhaustive search. Let me know what’s out there).

The thing that comes closest is Ushahidi, the excellent platform for information collection, visualization and interactive mapping. I got some experience with this system when I helped the Chicago Tribune News Apps Team manage snow reports during the blizzard of February 2011 in Chicago in their Ask for help, lend a hand: Blizzard 2011 project. That system was a pretty good for receiving inbound requests (though the geocoding was fragile), but there was no top-down aspect to the communication (“check when ComEd says the power on your house will be turned back on”). We need both in order to have an effective system.

With the data feeds listed above, especially the power outage info and the times that city service, the system could be a good clearinghouse. This is great for people who have electricity and are able to access the Internet. But we know that the communications infrastructure can perform poorly when it is taxed in an emergency. I saw from my own experience with Twitter on Monday, trying to update CTATweet, that the service was unavailable right when I needed it most.

What I’d love to see is a system of real-world places where this information could be added to and disseminated, regardless of the status of the electrical grid. This could work like the old newspaper offices. Seeing this post about the Boston Globe’s intown system, where they posted updates about current events that were being published in the paper right on their HQ window, made me smile. Papers really are essential, especially in times of need.
Front Page of The Tennessean, May 3, 2010
Update: Shortly after I posted this, I got this notice in my mailbox:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Tree Pruning is Scheduled in Your Area
Definitely would be nice to whack tree trimming schedules against tree down reports to see if there is a correlation between tree maintenance and tree limb falls.

So Apparently I Am A White House Champion of Change for Open Innovation

Whitehouse_logo This morning I am in Washington DC to take part in a White House Champions of Change event focused on open innovation. Instead of trying to characterize this event myself, I'll just copy/paste some text:

You have been selected by United States Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra to be highlighted as a ‘Champion of Change’, which is part of President Obama’s Winning the Future initiative.  As the White House executes President Obama’s plan to “out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world”, entrepreneurs like you are being recognized for the innovative work you have undertaken in your community. 

Each week, we feature a group of Americans who embody the President’s commitment to ‘Innovate, Educate, and Build’.  

CTO Aneesh Chopra and CIO Vivek Kundra as well as other Administration officials will host an Open Innovation / Champions of Change event at the White House on Friday, June 10th , 9am- 11am.

The project being highlighted– and which I'll discuss in a roundtable with about a dozen really smart people with very interesting projects– is Citypayments.org. Here's the blog post I wrote when we launched Citypayments in July 2009. I also wrote extensively earlier this week about Citypayments in the context of the great public data being released by the City of Chicago.

I am honored to be a part of this event. Like others here, I just found out about this late last week, so we're kind of stunned a bit to be a part of this. More to come on all their great projects as they emerge.