U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey (2010-11) ~ An Assessment and Ranking of Municipal Websites Marc Holzer Marc Fudge Robert Shick Genie Stowers Aroon Manoharan The E-Governance Institute National Center for Public Performance School of Public Affairs and Administration Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark And Department of Public Administration San Francisco State University Co-Sponsored by Public Technology Institute
U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey (2010-11) ~ An Assessment and Ranking of Municipal Websites Marc Holzer Marc Fudge Genie Stowers Robert Shick Aroon Manoharan The E-Governance Institute National Center for Public Performance School of Public Affairs and Administration Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark And Department of Public Administration San Francisco State University Co-Sponsored by
U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey (2010-11) ~ An Assessment and Ranking of Municipal Websites Marc Holzer, Ph.D. Dean, School of Public Affairs and Administration Director, The E-Governance Institute, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark Marc Fudge, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration California State University San Bernardino Robert A. Shick, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs and Administration Director, International and Executive Programs Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark Genie L. Stowers, Ph.D. Professor and Chair, Department of Public Administration San Francisco State University-- Downtown Campus Aroon Manoharan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Public Administration, Department of Political Science Kent State University i
U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey (2010-11) An Assessment and Ranking of Municipal Websites 2012 National Center for Public Performance (Permission is granted to quote from this document for purposes of news stories, press releases and the like if copies of such materials are sent to ncpp@andromeda.rutgers.edu at the time of publication.) E-Governance Institute National Center for Public Performance School of Public Affairs and Administration Rutgers University, Campus at Newark 111 Washington Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Tel: 973-353-5093 http://spaa.newark.rutgers.edu/ Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-0-942942-25-5 ii
~ CONTENTS Executive Summary pg 5 Section 1: Introduction pg 9 Section 2: Methodology pg 11 Section 3: Overall Results pg 27 Section 4: Privacy and Security pg 41 Section 5: Usability pg 49 Section 6: Content pg 57 Section 7: Services pg 63 Section 8: Citizen and Social Engagement pg 69 Section 9: Conclusion pg 77 Bibliography pg 81 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 1
2 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This volume, U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11, was made possible through collaboration between the E-Governance Institute at the School of Public Affairs and Administration (SPAA), Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Campus at Newark and the Department of Public Administration at San Francisco State University. The development and refinement of this research would not have been possible without the conceptual and analytical foundation provided by researchers who were key contributors to preceding surveys: Dr. James Melitski, Dr. Tony Carrizales, Dr. Richard Schwester, and Dr. Seung-Yong Rho. We would like to express our deepest thanks to the evaluators who contributed to this research. Their participation made this project a success. On the following page we list the evaluators of websites as an acknowledgement of their efforts. U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 3
2010-11 Digital Governance Evaluators Luis Antilus Sally Howard Lindsey Wakely Hugo Ascencio Julie Huber Judith Welch-Wegner Michela Bedard Cheryl Jackson Richard Wilkie Dan Behrend Royya James Jeremy Wilson Sean Bossinger Cynthia Jewell Xiang Yao Bill Brantley Tae He Kim Michael Young Patrick Brobeck Aziz Klebeyev Lynn Brown Amy Lamping S. David Brown Sheena Lemon Andrew Bruch Claudia Levine Catherine Burke Sarah Lewis Terri Bucarrelli Andrenee Douglas Frank Cardenas Mathhew Mayo Phillip Christian Jacqueline Meeks Juan D Arce Silvia Mendes Nathaniel Davis Abu-Bakr Okoya Althea Degrafinreid Susan Paddock Steve Erb Andrew Powers Eduardo Fabre Yvette Ricotta Debbie Galbraith Phillip Slama Sukumar Ganapati Kenneth Smith Melissa Garrison Marc Snyder Ronald Gialanella Robert Sobie Kris Gould Cooper Strickland Laura Hertzfeld Sherry Ann Sturgeon Ronitia Hodges Michael Thompson 4 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey assessed the practice of digital governance in large municipalities across the United States by evaluating their websites and ranking them on a national scale. Simply stated, digital governance includes both digital government (delivery of public service) and digital democracy (citizen participation in governance). Specifically, we analyzed security, usability, and content of websites; the type of online services currently being offered; and citizen response and participation through websites established by municipal governments (Holzer & Kim, 2007). The methodology of the U.S. survey of municipal websites is similar to our previous research on digital governance in U.S. cities and states in 2008 and worldwide in 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. In this 2010-11 survey, however, the research placed an increased emphasis on citizen engagement using social media. This was done by including additional measures that assess features of social media engagement. This research focuses on the largest and the second largest cities in each of the 50 states based on their population size, along with Washington D.C. Our instrument for evaluating U.S. municipal websites consisted of five components: (1) Privacy/Security; (2) Usability; (3) Content; (4) Services; and (5) Citizen and Social Engagement. For each of those five components, our research applied 18-26 measures, and each measure was coded on a scale of four-points (0, 1, 2, 3) or a dichotomy of two-points (0, 3 or 0, 1). Furthermore, in developing an overall score for each municipality we have equally weighted each of the five categories so as not to skew the research in favor of a particular category (regardless of the number of questions in each category). This reflects the same methods utilized in previous U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 5
surveys. To ensure reliability, each municipal website was assessed by two evaluators, and in cases where a significant variation (+ or 10%) existed on the adjusted score between evaluators, websites were analyzed a third time. Based on the evaluation of 101 U.S. cities, Seattle, St. Paul, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. represent the cities with the highest evaluation scores. Table 1 lists the top 20 municipalities in digital governance in 2010-11 along with their scores in individual categories. Tables 2 to 6 represent the top-ranked five municipalities in each of the five categories. [Table 1] Top 20 Cities in Digital Governance (2010-11) Rank City State Overall Privacy Usability Content Service Participat ion 1 Seattle WA 71.48 13.33 15.63 15.24 13.11 14.17 2 St. Paul MN 69.91 14.81 15.63 15.56 10.16 13.75 3 Milwaukee WI 69.53 8.15 16.25 16.51 17.38 11.25 4 Minneapolis MN 69.23 14.81 15.63 14.92 18.03 5.83 5 Washington D.C. 67.45 14.07 15.63 16.19 11.15 10.42 6 Portland OR 66.16 12.59 14.38 13.97 11.48 13.75 7 St. Louis MO 65.83 14.81 18.13 11.11 13.44 8.33 8 Virginia Beach VA 65.75 11.11 12.50 14.29 14.10 13.75 9 Boston MA 65.71 7.41 14.38 19.05 17.38 7.50 10 Fort Smith AR 64.19 12.59 13.13 17.14 15.08 6.25 11 Colorado Springs CO 63.29 15.56 15.63 15.87 10.82 5.42 12 Columbus OH 62.74 12.59 14.38 13.02 14.43 8.33 13 San Diego CA 62.12 11.85 16.25 16.83 13.44 3.75 14 Los Angeles CA 60.42 12.59 13.75 14.92 15.41 3.75 15 Lincoln NE 60.41 10.37 17.50 12.70 14.43 5.42 16 New York NY 59.20 11.85 15.63 14.92 11.80 5.00 6 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
17 Charlotte NC 59.01 9.63 11.88 14.92 15.08 7.50 18 Louisville KY 57.59 8.15 11.88 15.56 14.10 7.92 19 Henderson NV 57.55 12.59 15.00 11.43 13.11 5.42 20 Chicago IL 57.46 10.37 18.75 6.03 11.48 10.83 [Table 2] Top 5 Cities in Privacy/Security (2010-11) Ranking City State Score 1 Colorado Colorado Springs 15.56 1 Grand Rapids Michigan 15.56 3 St. Paul Minnesota 14.81 3 Minneapolis Minnesota 14.81 3 St. Louis Missouri 14.81 [Table 3] Top 5 Cities in Usability (2010-11) Ranking City State Score 1 Chicago Illinois 18.75 2 Bismarck North Dakota 18.13 2 St. Louis Missouri 18.13 4 Lincoln Nebraska 17.50 4 Salem Oregon 17.50 [Table 4] Top 5 Cities in Content (2010-11) Ranking City State Score 1 Boston Massachusetts 19.05 2 Fort Smith Arkansas 17.14 3 San Diego California 16.83 4 Milwaukee Wisconsin 16.51 5 Washington, D.C. 16.19 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 7
[Table 5] Top 5 Cities in Service Delivery (2010-11) Ranking City State Score 1 Minneapolis Minnesota 18.03 2 Milwaukee Wisconsin 17.38 3 Columbus Ohio 14.43 3 Lincoln Nebraska 14.43 5 St. Louis Missouri 13.44 [Table 6] Top 5 Cities in Citizen and Social Engagement (2010-11) Ranking City State Score 1 Seattle Washington 14.17 2 St. Paul Minnesota 13.75 2 Virginia Beach Virginia 13.75 2 Portland Oregon 13.75 5 Milwaukee Wisconsin 11.25 Our survey results indicate that all the 101 cities selected for the survey have developed official websites, and the average score for digital governance in these municipalities is 45.71. This research represents a longitudinal effort (subsequent to the survey in 2008) to evaluate digital governance in large municipalities in the United States. The continued study of municipalities nationwide, with the next U.S. Survey planned in 2012-13, will provide additional insights into the direction and the performance of e-governance in the United States. 8 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
1 INTRODUCTION This research replicates the U.S. survey completed in 2008 and evaluates the practice of digital governance in large municipalities across the United States. The following chapters represent the overall findings of the research. Chapter 2 outlines the methodology utilized in determining the websites evaluated, as well as the instrument used in the evaluations. Our survey instrument uses 104 measures and applies a rigorous approach for conducting the evaluations. Chapter 3 presents the overall findings for the 2010-11 evaluation. The overall results are also broken down into results by region, and by the largest and secondlargest municipalities. Chapters 4 through 8 take a closer look at the results for each of the five e-governance categories. Chapter 4 focuses on the results of Privacy and Security with regard to municipal websites. Chapter 5 looks at the Usability of municipal websites throughout the United States. Chapter 6 presents the findings for Content, while Chapter 7 looks at Services. Chapter 8 concludes the focus on specific e- governance categories by presenting the findings of Citizen and Social Engagement online. Since 2010-11 is the first survey to assess features of social media engagement, in this chapter we discuss the rationale for including these measures in the analysis, how social media engagement impacts citizen participation, along with its role in government-tocitizen communication, and implications for public administration. Chapter 9 concludes the study and provides recommendations and a discussion of significant findings. U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 9
10 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
2 METHODOLOGY The methodology of the U.S. survey of municipal websites mirrors our previous research on digital governance in the United States conducted in 2008 and worldwide in 2003, 2005 and 2007. The worldwide survey focused on cities throughout the world based on their population size; the 2008 survey and this research focused on the largest and the second largest cities in each of the 50 U.S. states based on their population size, along with Washington, D.C. Our instrument for evaluating city and municipal websites consisted of five components: (1) Privacy/Security; (2) Usability; (3) Content; (4) Services; and (5) Citizen and Social Engagement. For each of those five components, our research applied 18-26 measures, and each measure was coded on a scale of four-points (0, 1, 2, 3) or a dichotomy of two-points (0, 3 or 0, 1). Furthermore, in developing an overall score for each municipality we have equally weighted each of the five categories so as not to skew the research in favor of a particular category (regardless of the number of questions in each category). This reflects the same methods utilized in the Worldwide Surveys. The rationale for selecting the largest municipalities stems from the e-governance literature, which suggests a positive relationship between population and e-governance capacity at the local level (Moon, 2002; Moon and deleon, 2001; Musso, et al., 2000; Weare, et al. 1999). Table 2-1 is a list of the 101 cities selected. U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 11
[Table 2-1] List of 101 Municipalities (2010-11) No State Largest City Largest City 2nd 1 Alabama Birmingham Montgomery 2 Alaska Anchorage Fairbanks 3 Arizona Phoenix Tucson 4 Arkansas Little Rock Fort Smith 5 California Los Angeles San Diego 6 Colorado Denver Colorado Springs 7 Connecticut Bridgeport New Haven 8 Delaware Wilmington Dover 9 Florida Jacksonville Miami 10 Georgia Atlanta Augusta 11 Hawaii Honolulu Hilo 12 Idaho Boise City Nampa 13 Illinois Chicago Aurora 14 Indiana Indianapolis Fort Wayne 15 Iowa Des Moines Cedar Rapids 16 Kansas Wichita Overland Park 17 Kentucky Louisville Lexington 18 Louisiana New Orleans Baton Rouge 19 Maine Portland Lewiston 20 Maryland Baltimore Frederick 21 Massachusetts Boston Worcester 22 Michigan Detroit Grand Rapids 23 Minnesota Minneapolis St. Paul 24 Mississippi Jackson Gulfport 25 Missouri Kansas City St. Louis 26 Montana Billings Helena 27 Nebraska Omaha Lincoln 28 Nevada Las Vegas Henderson 29 New Hampshire Manchester Nashua 30 New Jersey Newark Jersey City 12 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
31 New Mexico Albuquerque Las Cruces 32 New York New York Buffalo 33 North Carolina Charlotte Raleigh 34 North Dakota Fargo Bismarck 35 Ohio Columbus Cleveland 36 Oklahoma Oklahoma City Tulsa 37 Oregon Portland Salem 38 Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pittsburgh 39 Rhode Island Providence Warwick 40 South Carolina Columbia Charleston 41 South Dakota Sioux Falls Rapid City 42 Tennessee Memphis Nashville 43 Texas Houston San Antonio 44 Utah Salt Lake City West Valley City 45 Vermont Burlington Rutland 46 Virginia Virginia Beach Norfolk 47 Washington Seattle Spokane 48 West Virginia Charleston Huntington 49 Wisconsin Milwaukee Madison 50 Wyoming Cheyenne Casper 51 District of Columbia Washington WEBSITE SURVEY In this research, the main city homepage is defined as the official website where information about city administration and online services are provided by the city. Municipalities across the United States are increasingly developing websites to provide their services online; however, e-government is more than simply constructing a website. The emphasis should focus on using such technologies to effectively provide government services. According U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 13
to Pardo (2000), some of the initiatives in this direction are: (1) providing 24/7 access to government information and public meetings; (2) providing mechanisms enabling citizens to comply with state and federal rules regarding drivers licenses, business licenses, etc.; (3) providing access to special benefits like welfare funds and pensions; (4) providing a network across various government agencies to enable collaborative approaches to serving citizens; and (5) providing various channels for digital democracy and citizen participation initiatives. Thus, it is essential that the fundamentals of government service delivery are not altered simply by introducing a website as a new innovation of government (Pardo, 2000). E-government initiatives clearly extend beyond the textual listing of information to a more intentions-based design so that citizens can more effectively utilize web portals (Howard 2001). The city website typically includes information about the city council, mayor and executive branch. If there are separate homepages for agencies, departments or the city council, evaluators examined if these sites were linked to the menu on the main city homepage. If the website was not linked, it was excluded from evaluation. E-GOVERNANCE SURVEY INSTRUMENT The Rutgers E-Governance Survey Instrument is the most comprehensive index for e-governance research today. With 104 measures and five distinct categorical areas of e-governance research, the survey instrument is more comprehensive than any other. Our instrument for evaluating city and municipal websites consists of five components: (1) Privacy/Security; (2) Usability; (3) Content; (4) Services; and (5) Citizen and Social Engagement. Table 2-2, E-Governance Performance Measures, summarizes the 2010-11 survey instrument. Table 2-3 provides a description of our e- governance scale and Table 2-4 presents an overview of the criteria. 14 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
[Table 2-2] E-governance Performance Measures E-governance Category Privacy/ Security Key Concepts Raw Score Weighted Score 19 27 20 Usability 20 32 20 Content 26 63 20 Services 21 61 20 Citizen and Social Engagement 18 48 20 Total 104 231 100 Keywords Privacy policies, authentication, encryption, data management, cookies User-friendly design, branding, length of homepage, targeted audience links or channels, and site search capabilities Access to current accurate information, public documents, reports, publications, and multimedia materials Transactional services - purchase or registration, interaction between citizens, businesses and government Online civic engagement/ policy deliberation, social media applications, citizen-based performance measurement Of the 104 measures, 44 are dichotomous. For each of the five e-governance components, our research applies 18 to 26 measures, and for questions which were not dichotomous, each measure was coded on a four-point scale (0, 1, 2, 3; see Table 2-3 below). Furthermore, in developing an overall score for each municipality, we have equally weighted each of the five categories so as not to skew the research in favor of a particular category (regardless of the number of questions in each category). The U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 15
dichotomous measures in the Services and Citizen and Social Engagement categories correspond with values on our four point scale of 0 or 3; dichotomous measures in Privacy or Usability correspond to ratings of 0 or 1 on the scale. [Table 2-3] E-governance Scale Scale Description 0 1 2 3 Information about a given topic does not exist on the website Information about a given topic exists on the website (including links to other information and e-mail addresses) Downloadable items are available on the website (forms, audio, video, and other one-way transactions, popup boxes) Services, transactions, or interactions can take place completely online (credit card transactions, applications for permits, searchable databases, use of cookies, digital signatures, restricted access) Our instrument placed a higher value on some dichotomous measures, due to the relative value of the different e-government services being evaluated. For example, evaluators using our instrument in the service category were given the option of scoring websites as either 0 or 3 when assessing whether a site allowed users to access private information online (e.g. educational records, medical records, point total of driving violations, lost property). No access equated to a rating of 0. Allowing residents or employees to access private information online was a higher order task that required more technical competence, and was clearly an online service, or 3, as defined in Table 2-3. On the other hand, when assessing a site as to whether or not it had a privacy statement or policy, evaluators were given the 16 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
choice of scoring the site as 0 or 1. The presence or absence of a security policy was clearly a content issue that emphasized placing information online, and corresponded with a value of 1 on the scale outlined in Table 2-3. The differential values assigned to dichotomous categories were useful in comparing the different components of municipal websites with one another. To ensure reliability, each municipal website was assessed by two evaluators, and in cases where there was a variation of plus or minus 10% of the weighted score between the evaluators, websites were analyzed a third time. The evaluators were provided an example of how to score each measure. Evaluators were also given comprehensive written instructions for assessing websites. E-GOVERNANCE CATEGORIES This section details the five e-governance categories and discusses specific measures that were used to evaluate the websites. The discussion of Privacy/Security examines privacy policies and issues related to authentication. Discussion of the Usability category involves traditional web pages, forms and search tools. The Content category is addressed in terms of access to contact information, public documents and disability access, as well as access to multimedia and time sensitive information. The section on Services examines interactions that allow users to purchase or pay for services, and the ability of users to apply or register for municipal events or services online. Finally, the measures for Citizen and Social Engagement involve examining how local governments are engaging citizens and providing mechanisms for citizens to communicate with government using social media. Table 2-4 details the criteria used to assess features of e-governance within each of the five categories. PRIVACY/SECURITY The first part of our analysis examined the security and privacy of municipal websites in two key areas, privacy policies and authentication of users. In examining municipal privacy policies, we U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 17
determined whether such a policy was available on every page that accepted data, and whether or not the word privacy was used in the link to such a statement. In addition, we looked for privacy policies on every page that required or accepted data. We were also interested in determining if privacy policies identified the agencies collecting the information, and whether the policy identified exactly what data was being collected on the site. Our analysis checked to see if the intended use of the data was explicitly stated on the website. The analysis examined whether the privacy policy addressed the use or sale of data collected on the website by outside or third party organizations. Our research also determined if there was an option to decline the disclosure of personal information to third parties. This included other municipal agencies, other state and local government offices, or businesses in the private sector. Furthermore, we examined privacy policies to determine if third party agencies or organizations were governed by the same privacy policies as was the municipal website. We also determined whether users had the ability to review personal data records and contest inaccurate or incomplete information. In examining factors affecting the security and privacy of local government websites, we addressed managerial measures that limit access of data and assure that it is not used for unauthorized purposes. The use of encryption in the transmission of data, as well as the storage of personal information on secure servers, was also examined. We also determined if websites used digital signatures to authenticate users. In assessing how or whether municipalities used their websites to authenticate users, we examined whether public or private information was accessible through a restricted area that required a password and/or registration. A growing e-governance trend at the local level is for municipalities to offer their website users access to public, and in some cases private, information online. Other research has discussed the governance issues associated with sites that choose to charge citizens for access to public information (West, 2001). We add our own concerns about the impact of the digital divide if public records are available only through the Internet or if municipalities insist on 18 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
charging a fee for access to public records. Our analysis specifically addresses online access to public databases by determining if public information such as property tax assessments, or private information such as court documents, is available to users of municipal websites. In addition, there are concerns that public agencies will use their websites to monitor citizens or create profiles based on the information they access online. For example, many websites use cookies or web beacons 1 to customize their websites for users, but that technology can also be used to monitor Internet habits and profile visitors to websites. Our analysis examined municipal privacy policies to determine if they addressed the use of cookies or web beacons. USABILITY This research also examined the usability of municipal websites. Simply stated, we wanted to know if sites were user friendly. To address usability concerns, we adapted several best practices and measures from other public and private sector research (Giga, 2000). Our analysis of usability examined three types of websites: traditional web pages, forms, and search tools. To evaluate traditional web pages written using hypertext 1 The New York City privacy policy (www.nyc.gov/privacy) gives the following definitions of cookies and web bugs or beacons: Persistent cookies are cookie files that remain upon a user's hard drive until affirmatively removed, or until expired as provided for by a pre-set expiration date. Temporary or "Session Cookies" are cookie files that last or are valid only during an active communications connection, measured from beginning to end, between computer or applications (or some combination thereof) over a network. A web bug (or beacon) is a clear, camouflaged or otherwise invisible graphics image format ("GIF") file placed upon a web page or in hyper text markup language ("HTML") e-mail and used to monitor who is reading a web page or the relevant email. Web bugs can also be used for other monitoring purposes such a profiling of the affected party. U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 19
markup language (html), we examined issues such as branding and structure (e.g., consistent color, font, graphics, page length, etc.). For example, we looked to see if all pages used consistent color, formatting, default colors (e.g., blue links and purple visited links) and underlined text to indicate links. Other items examined included whether system hardware and software requirements were clearly stated on the website. In addition, our research examined each municipality s homepage to determine if it was too long (two or more screen lengths) or if alternative versions of long documents, such as.pdf or.doc files, were available. The use of targeted audience links or channels to customize the website for specific groups such as citizens, businesses, or other public agencies was also examined. We looked for the consistent use of navigation bars and links to the homepage on every page. The availability of a sitemap or hyperlinked outline of the entire website was examined. Our assessment also examined whether duplicated link names connect to the same content. Our research examined online forms to determine their usability in submitting data or conducting searches of municipal websites. We looked at issues such as whether field labels aligned appropriately with the field, whether fields were accessible by keystrokes (e.g. tabs), or whether the cursor was automatically placed in the first field. We also examined whether required fields were noted explicitly, and whether the tab order of fields was logical. For example, after a user filled out their first name and pressed the tab key, did the cursor automatically go to the surname field? Or, did the page skip to another field such as zip code, only to return to the surname later? We also checked to see if form pages provided additional information about how to fix errors if they were submitted. For example, did users have to reenter information if errors were submitted, or did the site flag incomplete or erroneous forms before accepting them? Also, did the site give a confirmation page after a form was submitted, or did it return users to the homepage? Our analysis also addressed the use of search tools on 20 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
municipal websites. We examined sites to determine if help was available for searching a municipality s website, or if the scope of searches could be limited to specific areas of the site. Were users able to search only in public works or the mayor s office, or did the search tool always search the entire site? We also looked for advanced search features such as exact phrase searching, the ability to match all/ any words, and Boolean searching capabilities (e.g., the ability to use AND/OR/NOT operators). Our analysis also addressed a site s ability to sort search results by relevance or other criteria. CONTENT Content is a critical component of any website. No matter how technologically advanced a website s features, if its content is not current, if it is difficult to navigate, or if the information provided is not correct, then it is not fulfilling its purpose. When examining website content, our research examined five key areas: access to contact information, public documents, disability access, multimedia materials, and time sensitive information. When addressing contact information, we looked for information about each agency represented on the website. In addition, we also looked for the availability of office hours or a schedule of when agency offices are open. In assessing the availability of public documents, we looked for the availability of the municipal code or charter online. We also looked for content items, such as agency mission statements and minutes of public meetings. Other content items included access to budget information and publications. Our assessment also examined whether websites provided access to disabled users through either bobby compliance (disability access for the blind, http://www.cast.org/bobby) or disability access for deaf users via a TDD phone service. We also checked to see if sites offered content in more than one language. Time sensitive information that was examined included the use of a municipal website for emergency management, and the use of a website as an alert mechanism (e.g. terrorism alert or severe weather alert). We also checked for time sensitive information such as the posting of job vacancies or a calendar of community events. In addressing the U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 21
use of multimedia, we examined each site to determine if audio or video files of public events, speeches, or meetings were available. SERVICES A critical component of e-governance is the provision of municipal services online. Our analysis examined two different types of services: (1) those that allow citizens to interact with the municipality, and (2) services that allow users to register for municipal events or services online. In many cases, municipalities have developed the capacity to accept payment for municipal services and taxes. The first type of service examined, which implies interactivity, can be as basic as forms that allow users to request information or file complaints. Local governments across the world use advanced interactive services to allow users to report crimes or violations, customize municipal homepages based on their needs (e.g., portal customization), and access private information online, such as court records, education records, or medical records. Our analysis examined municipal websites to determine if such interactive services were available. The second type of service examined in this research determined if municipalities have the capacity to allow citizens to register for municipal services online. For example, many jurisdictions now allow citizens to apply for permits and licenses online. Online permitting can be used for services that vary from building permits to dog licenses. In addition, some local governments are using the Internet for procurement, allowing potential contractors to access requests for proposals or even bid for municipal contracts online. In other cases, local governments are chronicling the procurement process by listing the total number of bidders for a contract online, and in some cases listing contact information for bidders. This analysis also examined municipal websites to determine if they developed the capacity to allow users to purchase or pay for municipal services and fees online. Examples of transactional services from across the United States include the payment of public utility bills and parking tickets online. In many jurisdictions, cities 22 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
and municipalities allow online users to file or pay local taxes, or pay fines such as traffic tickets. In some cases, cities around the world are allowing their users to register or purchase tickets to events in city halls or arenas online. CITIZEN AND SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT Finally, online citizen participation in government continues to be the most recent area of e-governance study, and very few public agencies offer online opportunities for civic engagement. Moreover, our analysis looked at several ways public agencies at the local level were involving citizens. For example, do municipal websites allow users to provide online comments or feedback to individual agencies or elected officials? Another method many municipal governments are relying upon to increase information sharing between themselves and citizens is the use of social media. The use of online social networks has increased at a frenetic pace over the past several years. As such, many local governments are beginning to add features of social networks and social media on their websites to announce new initiatives, share ideas and include citizens in the policy making process in an effort to increase government-to-citizen (G2C) communication. In terms of e- governance, social media is therefore being utilized as a means to improve the level of communication between government and the citizens they serve. Our analysis also examined whether local governments offer current information about municipal governance online or through an online newsletter or e-mail listserv. Our analysis also examined the use of internet-based polls about specific local issues. In addition, we examined whether communities allow users to participate and view the results of citizen satisfaction surveys online. For example, some municipalities used their websites to measure performance and published the results of performance measurement activities online. U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 23
[Table 2-4] E-Governance Criteria Privacy/ Security 1-2. A privacy or security statement/policy 3-6. Data collection 7. Option to have personal information used 8. Third party disclosures 9. Ability to review personal data records 10. Managerial measures 11. Use of encryption Usability 20-23. Homepage, page length. 24. Targeted audience 25-26. Navigation Bar 27. Site map Content 42. Information about the location of offices 43. Listing of external links 44. Contact information 45. Newsletter, community updates 46. Subscription for alerts 47. Minutes of public 48. City code and regulations 49. City charter and policy priority 50. Mission statements 51. Budget information 52, 56. Documents, reports, or books (publications) Service 68-70. Pay utilities, taxes, fines 71. Apply for permits 72. Service requests via social media 73. Online tracking system 74-75. Apply for licenses 76. E-procurement 77. Property assessments 78. Searchable databases 79. Complaints 80-81. Bulletin board about civil applications Citizen and Social Engagement 89-90. Comments or feedback 91. Newsletter 92. Online bulletin board or chat capabilities 93-95. Online discussion forum on policy issues 96-97. Scheduled e-meetings for discussion 12. Secure server 13. Use of cookies or Web Beacons 14. Notification of privacy policy 15. Contact or e-mail address for inquiries 16. Public information through a restricted area 17. Access to nonpublic information for employees 18. Social media policy 19. Use of digital signatures 28-30. Font Color 31-34. Forms 35-40. Search tool 41. Update of website 53-55. Performance measurement information 57. GIS capabilities 58. Emergency management or alert mechanism 59-60. Disability access 61-62. Wireless technology 63. Access in more than one language 64-65. Human resources information 66. Calendar of events 67. Downloadable documents 82. FAQ 83. Request information 84. Customize the main city homepage 85. Access private information online 86. Purchase tickets 87. Webmaster response 88. Report violations of administrative laws and regulations 98-99. Online survey/ polls 100. Synchronous video 101-102. Citizen satisfaction survey 103-104. Online decision-making 24 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
Still other municipalities used online bulletin boards or other chat capabilities for gathering input on public issues. Online bulletin boards offer citizens the opportunity to post ideas, comments, or opinions without specific discussion topics. In some cases, agencies attempt to structure online discussions around policy issues or specific agencies. Our research looked for municipal use of the Internet to foster civic engagement and citizen participation in government. In terms of social networks and social media, we felt as though it was extremely important and relevant to the current state of public administration to capture elements of e-governance that facilitate innovative methods of communication not previously assessed in our previous surveys on digital governance in the U.S. or globally. To capture society s increased use of social networks along with the public sector s burgeoning interest to facilitate effective G2C communication, our second U.S. digital governance survey assesses the current manner in which government websites are designed. U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 25
26 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
3 OVERALL RESULTS The following chapter presents the results for all the evaluated municipal websites during 2010-11. Table 3-1 provides the rankings for 101 municipal websites and their overall scores. The overall scores reflect the combined scores of each municipality s score in the five e-governance component categories. The highest possible score for any one city website is 100. Seattle received a score of 71.48, earning the highest ranking of a city website for 2010-11. St. Paul, MN had the second highest ranked municipal website with a score of 69.91 and Milwaukee ranked third with a score of 69.53. Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. complete the top five ranked municipal websites with scores of 69.23 and 67.45, respectively. Table 3-2 compares the 2010-11 and 2008 overall scores and rankings. Gulfport (34.99), Ft. Smith (28.85) and Bismarck (24.95) showed the greatest improvement in overall scores from 2008 to 2010-11. Conversely, Huntington, (-17.10), Las Cruces (-15.20) and Salt Lake City (-14.96) showed the largest decline in overall scores between 2008 and 2010-11. The results of the overall rankings are separated by region in Tables 3-3 through 3-6. Seattle (West), St. Paul (Midwest), Washington, D.C. (South) and Boston (Northeast) emerged as the top ranked cities for each region in the United States. Also included in the rankings by region are the scores for each of the five e- governance component categories. U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 27
[Table 3-1] Overall E-governance Rankings (2010-11) Rank City State Score 1 Seattle Washington 71.48 2 St. Paul Minnesota 69.91 3 Milwaukee Wisconsin 69.53 4 Minneapolis Minnesota 69.23 5 Washington, D.C. 67.45 6 Portland Oregon 66.16 7 St. Louis Missouri 65.83 8 Virginia Beach Virginia 65.75 9 Boston Massachusetts 65.71 10 Fort Smith Arkansas 64.19 11 Colorado Springs Colorado 63.29 12 Columbus Ohio 62.74 13 San Diego California 62.12 14 Los Angeles California 60.42 15 Lincoln Nebraska 60.41 16 New York New York 59.20 17 Charlotte North Carolina 59.01 18 Louisville Kentucky 57.59 19 Henderson Nevada 57.55 20 Chicago Illinois 57.46 21 Nashville Tennessee 57.43 22 Bismarck North Dakota 57.41 23 Overland Park Kansas 56.14 24 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 55.77 25 Anchorage Alaska 54.63 26 Phoenix Arizona 53.87 27 Gulfport Mississippi 53.35 28 New Orleans Louisiana 52.92 28 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
29 Baltimore Maryland 52.55 30 Denver Colorado 52.24 31 Aurora Illinois 51.98 32 Grand Rapids Michigan 51.68 33 Kansas City Missouri 51.02 34 Dover Delaware 50.27 35 Tucson Arizona 50.22 36 Madison Wisconsin 50.09 37 Sioux Falls South Dakota 49.27 38 Manchester New Hampshire 48.83 39 Omaha Nebraska 48.36 40 Spokane Washington 48.17 41 Raleigh North Carolina 48.00 42 Salem Oregon 47.51 43 Cleveland Ohio 47.26 44 Cheyenne Wyoming 47.11 45 Fairbanks Alaska 46.97 46 Norfolk Virginia 46.68 47 Wichita Kansas 46.24 48 Lexington Kentucky 45.94 49 Indianapolis Indiana 45.93 50 Providence Rhode Island 45.72 51 Houston Texas 45.28 52 Cedar Rapids Iowa 44.97 53 Honolulu Hawaii 44.79 54 Jersey City New Jersey 44.56 55 Montgomery Alabama 44.26 56 Birmingham Alabama 43.55 57 Detroit Michigan 43.50 58 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 42.95 59 Worcester Massachusetts 42.82 60 Salt Lake City Utah 42.70 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 29
61 Las Vegas Nevada 42.43 62 San Antonio Texas 42.32 63 Nashua New Hampshire 42.21 64 Fargo North Dakota 41.95 65 Tulsa Oklahoma 41.91 66 Atlanta Georgia 41.83 67 Des Moines Iowa 41.53 68 New Haven Connecticut 41.47 68 Boise Idaho 41.47 70 Memphis Tennessee 41.24 71 Warwick Rhode Island 40.97 72 Fort Wayne Indiana 40.36 73 Miami Florida 40.24 74 Little Rock Arkansas 40.10 75 Frederick Maryland 39.75 76 Buffalo New York 39.62 77 Burlington Vermont 39.40 78 Bridgeport Connecticut 38.89 79 Albuquerque New Mexico 38.06 80 Oklahoma City Oklahoma 37.99 81 Augusta Georgia 37.22 82 Billings Montana 36.91 82 Jacksonville Florida 36.91 84 West Valley 36.54 Utah City 85 Casper Wyoming 34.43 86 Baton Rouge Louisiana 34.27 87 Las Cruces New Mexico 32.62 88 Charleston South Carolina 31.98 89 Huntington West Virginia 29.44 90 Columbia South Carolina 29.09 30 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
91 Portland Maine 28.48 92 Newark New Jersey 28.28 93 Rapid City South Dakota 27.41 94 Jackson Mississippi 26.47 95 Charleston West Virginia 24.78 96 Wilmington Delaware 23.48 97 Nampa Idaho 21.71 98 Helena Montana 18.16 99 Rutland Vermont 16.97 100 Lewiston Maine 13.50 101 Hilo Hawaii 6.57 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 31
[Table 3-2] Overall E-governance Rankings (2010-11 & 2008) 2010-11 2010-11 2008 2008 City State Rank Score Score Rank 1 Seattle Washington 71.48 55.28 10 2 St. Paul Minnesota 69.91 53.65 14 3 Milwaukee Wisconsin 69.53 45.39 41 4 Minneapolis Minnesota 69.23 56.52 7 5 Washington, 67.64 1 67.45 D.C. 6 Portland Oregon 66.16 62.23 2 7 St. Louis Missouri 65.83 53.73 13 8 Virginia Beach Virginia 65.75 53.08 16 9 Boston Massachusetts 65.71 55.81 8 10 Fort Smith Arkansas 64.19 37.34 69 11 Colorado 46.85 33 Colorado 63.29 Springs 12 Columbus Ohio 62.74 55.78 9 13 San Diego California 62.12 50.51 23 14 Los Angeles California 60.42 58.64 5 15 Lincoln Nebraska 60.41 50.15 25 16 New York New York 59.20 61.66 3 17 Charlotte North Carolina 59.01 43.65 47 18 Louisville Kentucky 57.59 54.76 12 19 Henderson Nevada 57.55 42.97 50 20 Chicago Illinois 57.46 49.15 27 21 Nashville Tennessee 57.43 49.23 26 22 Bismarck North Dakota 57.41 32.46 84 23 Overland Park Kansas 56.14 40.57 60 24 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 55.77 54.91 11 25 Anchorage Alaska 54.63 41.01 59 26 Phoenix Arizona 53.87 46.71 34 27 Gulfport Mississippi 53.35 18.36 99 32 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
28 New Orleans Louisiana 52.92 61.15 4 29 Baltimore Maryland 52.55 41.76 55 30 Denver Colorado 52.24 51.87 17 31 Aurora Illinois 51.98 40.31 62 32 Grand Rapids Michigan 51.68 46.04 38 33 Kansas City Missouri 51.02 47.99 30 34 Dover Delaware 50.27 35.25 75 35 Tucson Arizona 50.22 43.25 49 36 Madison Wisconsin 50.09 41.74 56 37 Sioux Falls South Dakota 49.27 51.34 20 38 Manchester New Hampshire 48.83 53.42 15 39 Omaha Nebraska 48.36 38.99 65 40 Spokane Washington 48.17 40.43 61 41 Raleigh North Carolina 48.00 50.18 24 42 Salem Oregon 47.51 41.43 57 43 Cleveland Ohio 47.26 51.8 18 44 Cheyenne Wyoming 47.11 32.69 81 45 Fairbanks Alaska 46.97 24.74 96 46 Norfolk Virginia 46.68 43.29 48 47 Wichita Kansas 46.24 50.66 22 48 Lexington Kentucky 45.94 31.49 87 49 Indianapolis Indiana 45.93 51.63 19 50 Providence Rhode Island 45.72 44.09 45 51 Houston Texas 45.28 48.1 29 52 Cedar Rapids Iowa 44.97 46.35 37 53 Honolulu Hawaii 44.79 41.96 53 54 Jersey City New Jersey 44.56 35.58 73 55 Montgomery Alabama 44.26 41.2 58 56 Birmingham Alabama 43.55 31.02 89 57 Detroit Michigan 43.50 42.44 52 58 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 42.95 43.77 46 59 Worcester Massachusetts 42.82 30.79 90 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 33
60 Salt Lake City Utah 42.70 57.66 6 61 Las Vegas Nevada 42.43 37.78 66 62 San Antonio Texas 42.32 47.41 32 63 Nashua New Hampshire 42.21 32.56 82 64 Fargo North Dakota 41.95 42.76 51 65 Tulsa Oklahoma 41.91 45.56 40 66 Atlanta Georgia 41.83 44.59 43 67 Des Moines Iowa 41.53 51.17 21 68 New Haven Connecticut 41.47 34.24 78 68 Boise Idaho 41.47 32.77 80 70 Memphis Tennessee 41.24 44.45 44 71 Warwick Rhode Island 40.97 35.96 71 72 Fort Wayne Indiana 40.36 34.52 76 73 Miami Florida 40.24 35.89 72 74 Little Rock Arkansas 40.10 31.33 88 75 Frederick Maryland 39.75 39.55 63 76 Buffalo New York 39.62 46.58 35 77 Burlington Vermont 39.40 26.01 94 78 Bridgeport Connecticut 38.89 33.54 79 79 Albuquerque New Mexico 38.06 45.93 39 80 Oklahoma City Oklahoma 37.99 44.84 42 81 Augusta Georgia 37.22 41.83 54 82 Billings Montana 36.91 35.36 74 82 Jacksonville Florida 36.91 32.04 85 84 West Valley 36.54 37.59 67 Utah City 85 Casper Wyoming 34.43 37.32 70 86 Baton Rouge Louisiana 34.27 48.73 28 87 Las Cruces New Mexico 32.62 47.82 31 88 Charleston South Carolina 31.98 31.98 86 89 Huntington West Virginia 29.44 46.54 36 34 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
90 Columbia South Carolina 29.09 27.56 93 91 Portland Maine 28.48 28.62 92 92 Newark New Jersey 28.28 34.25 77 93 Rapid City South Dakota 27.41 25.2 95 94 Jackson Mississippi 26.47 39.2 64 95 Charleston West Virginia 24.78 19.66 98 96 Wilmington Delaware 23.48 37.49 68 97 Nampa Idaho 21.71 21.34 97 98 Helena Montana 18.16 29.47* 91** 99 Rutland Vermont 16.97 18.3 100 100 Lewiston Maine 13.50 32.52 83 101 Hilo Hawaii 6.57 13.23 101 * - Represents the score for Missoula, Montana ** - Represents the ranking for Missoula, Montana The Midwest was the highest ranked region with an average score of 52.10. The West, with a score of 45.04, ranked second, followed closely by the South with an average score of 44.49. Cities in the Northeast ranked fourth with an average score of 40.25. The overall average score for all municipalities is 45.71. The results of the overall rankings are separated by region in Tables 3-2 through 3-5. The results of the evaluation will be discussed in further detail in the following chapters. U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 35
[Table 3-3] Average Score by Region 2010-11 Midwest Average West South Northeast Overall Averages 52.10 45.71 45.04 44.49 40.25 [Fig 3-1] Average Score by Region (2010-11) 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Midwest Average West South Northeast [Table 3-4] Overall Results of Cities in Midwest (2010-11) Rank City Score Privac y Usability Content Service CSE 1 St. Paul 69.91 14.81 15.63 15.56 10.16 13.75 2 Milwauke e 69.53 8.15 16.25 16.51 17.38 11.25 3 Minneapol is 69.23 14.81 15.63 14.92 18.03 5.83 4 St. Louis 65.83 14.81 18.13 11.11 13.44 8.33 36 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11
5 Columbus 62.74 12.59 14.38 13.02 14.43 8.33 6 Lincoln 60.41 10.37 17.50 12.70 14.43 5.42 7 Chicago 57.46 10.37 18.75 6.03 11.48 10.83 8 Bismarck 57.41 8.89 18.13 14.29 8.20 7.92 9 Overland Park 56.14 8.89 16.25 11.43 10.82 8.75 10 Denver 52.24 10.37 11.25 13.33 13.11 4.17 11 Aurora 51.98 11.85 15.00 10.79 10.16 4.17 12 Grand Rapids 51.68 15.56 12.50 11.11 9.18 3.33 13 Kansas City 51.02 11.11 11.88 10.16 12.46 5.42 14 Madison 50.09 12.59 14.38 11.11 9.51 2.50 15 Sioux Falls 49.27 10.37 13.13 12.70 5.57 7.50 16 Omaha 48.36 8.15 14.38 9.84 10.16 5.83 17 Cleveland 47.26 8.89 15.00 8.89 11.15 3.33 18 Wichita 46.24 12.59 10.63 11.43 9.51 2.08 19 Indianapoli s 45.93 13.33 11.88 8.89 10.16 1.67 20 Cedar Rapids 44.97 7.41 11.88 11.75 8.52 5.42 21 Detroit 43.50 10.37 14.38 8.89 8.20 1.67 22 Fargo 41.95 4.00 9.38 12.40 12.54 3.64 23 Des Moines 41.53 10.37 11.88 8.89 6.23 4.17 24 Fort Wayne 40.36 6.67 13.75 6.98 7.54 5.42 25 Rapid City 27.41 0.00 12.50 9.52 1.64 3.75 [Table 3-5] Overall Results of Cities in West (2010-11) Rank City Score Privacy Usability Content Service Participation 1 Seattle 71.48 13.33 15.63 15.24 13.11 14.17 2 Portland (Or) 66.16 12.59 14.38 13.97 11.48 13.75 Colorado 3 Springs 63.29 15.56 15.63 15.87 10.82 5.42 4 San Diego 62.12 11.85 16.25 16.83 13.44 3.75 5 Los Angeles 60.42 12.59 13.75 14.92 15.41 3.75 U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Survey 2010-11 37