Whether Disclosure of the Public Sector Data Is Ensured Read full summary in English
1 No policy
Lack of clear vision and deficiency of top management's commitment
No targeted state policy was created when planning the data disclosure development. As a result, the national data disclosure initiative has been developed without a clear vision and top management commitment regarding disclosure principles and priorities for five years. So far, no data disclosure funding model has been introduced, which would affect the remuneration charged for the provision of data (In original report: subsection 1. 1, p. 16).
2 Too late and too fragmented planning
Need of extra time and money
Although the Open Government Initiatives contributed to the data disclosure, both the Government and other responsible institutions failed to carry out more than half of the planned most important work related to data disclosure (53 percent of measures have not been implemented). The sequence of Lithuania's actions related to the data disclosure planning shows that the data disclosure measures are being planned too late and are too fragmented, so resolving old problems in this field will require extra time and money. There is still no plan of data disclosure measures, which could help distributing these measures among the public sector institutions within a short period of time (Subsection 1.2, p. 17).
3 Ineffective monitoring
Lack of data on impact, progress and direction
The monitoring carried out does not reflect the impact and progress of data disclosure, and indicators used do not reflect the scale and direction of changes in this field (Subsection 1.3, p. 21).
4 Regulations' update delayed and incomplete
No implementation
The updated directive provisions were not added to the legal framework of the Republic. of Lithuania in a timely manner, methodological requirements are incomplete. As a result, institutions are not ready to disclose their data (Subsection 2.1, p. 23).
5 Cost related rules not modified
Pricing practices in discordance with policy
The currently applied regulation and pricing practices allow for exceptions and do not encourage the data disclosure. The absence of breakthrough in the field of data disclosure is also due to the fact that the data provision prices remained unadjusted for 6 to 11 years, and data managers not only recover their costs, but also include unrelated costs in the data provision price (Subsection 2.2, p. 24).
6 Nobody responsible for coordination
Plans not enforced
There are no persons co-ordinating the data disclosure process in the public sector. institutions and nationwide, and the process objectives can not be implemented without a pro-active host. In October 2016, responsibilities for the data disclosure policy shaping and implementation were established by the legislation. These amendments should enter into force in 2017. Also, the limits of responsibilities of participant institutions should be coordinated and the established supervisory mechanisms should be adjusted (ineffective monitoring of calculation of the size of remuneration for provision of data) (Subsection 3.1, p. 28.).
7 Nobody responsible for coordination
No continuity nor impact
Public initiatives brought together data disclosure enthusiasts and attracted experts. However, there was no continuity and impact when shaping the data disclosure policy.
The potential available (i. e. experts' knowledge and experience) remains unused when developing and implementing the data disclosure policy. As a result, the need for and priorities of data disclosure have not been established (Subsection 3.2, p. 30).
8 Lack of training and practice
Methods and benefits not widely-known
Public sector institutions are not prepared to disclose their data. Therefore, the exact scope of data disclosure remains unknown and the progress objectives defined by the State can not be achieved. So far, little is known about the data disclosure methods and benefits. As a result, institutions fear that undisclosed or misleading information may become public. They also lack training. The data disclosure initiatives are carried out inconsistently in the public sector institutions (95 percent of institutions managing the priority data of the public sector data had not conducted their inventory; 74 percent of institutions does not analyse the needs of external users) (Subsection 3.3, p. 32).
9 Lack of quality control
Insufficient quality of information
Tangible (real) results of disclosure of the public sector data shall only be available from 2019 at the earliest, when an open data portal is created, because the List of Information Files that has been active for nine years fails to create conditions for proper use of the data published. As a result, information of insufficient quality (irrelevant, inappropriate links, closed formats) and scope (only 1. 74 percent of institutions submit data to the List of Information Files) reaches the public (Section 4, p. 34).
Background
The Lithuania 2030 strategy aims to promote an open and authorizing management. After joining the Open Government Partnership Initiative, 26 in 2012 Lithuania declared its aim as 'disclosure of public sector data'. Therefore, it had to add the updated directive provisions to the legal framework before July 2015, but the planned work was delayed or suspended. In order to create favourable conditions for locating and obtaining information accumulated by institutions as well as using it for commercial and non-commercial purposes, starting from 2012, the Seimas and the Government submitted proposals regarding the measures that should facilitate the disclosure of data.
In 2015, the OECD experts noted that Lithuania possesses the elements required to disclose data (such as catalogue of e-services, data disclosure plans and IS register), but lacks a strategic approach to co-operation between individual (and most often non- coordinated) elements to create a modern, open, reactive, and data-driven public sector. The majority of institutions of the public sector believe that their data is not really needed or completely uninteresting to the public. The examples of use of the data available according to a new purpose show that such data may improve public services, increase accountability of the public sector's activities, and improve cooperation between the Government and the public.
5. Tangible (real) results of disclosure of the public sector data shall only be available from 2019 at the earliest, when an open data portal is created, because the List of Information Files that has been active for nine years fails to create conditions for proper use of the data published. As a result, information of insufficient quality (irrelevant, inappropriate links, closed formats) and scope (only 1.74 percent of institutions submit data to the List of Information Files) reaches the public (Section 4, p. 34).
Objectives
The purpose of the audit was to assess whether the public sector data has been disclosed to the public and business. The results achieved were assessed by answering the following questions:
- Is legal regulation of data disclosure sufficient?
- Was an appropriate technological environment created for data disclosure?
- Are the public sector institutions ready to disclose their data?
The audit covered the period from 2011 through to the second quarter of 2016.
5. Tangible (real) results of disclosure of the public sector data shall only be available from 2019 at the earliest, when an open data portal is created, because the List of Information Files that has been active for nine years fails to create conditions for proper use of the data published. As a result, information of insufficient quality (irrelevant, inappropriate links, closed formats) and scope (only 1.74 percent of institutions submit data to the List of Information Files) reaches the public (Section 4, p. 34).