Texas and New Jersey are Best States for American E-Government

Similar documents
Matthew Miller, Bureau of Legislative Research

PERMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES. Member Electronic Vote/ . Alabama No No Yes No. Alaska No No No No

2016 Voter Registration Deadlines by State

ACCESS TO STATE GOVERNMENT 1. Web Pages for State Laws, State Rules and State Departments of Health

Rhoads Online State Appointment Rules Handy Guide

National State Law Survey: Statute of Limitations 1

Registered Agents. Question by: Kristyne Tanaka. Date: 27 October 2010

State Trial Courts with Incidental Appellate Jurisdiction, 2010

7-45. Electronic Access to Legislative Documents. Legislative Documents

The Victim Rights Law Center thanks Catherine Cambridge for her research assistance.

American Government. Workbook

The remaining legislative bodies have guides that help determine bill assignments. Table shows the criteria used to refer bills.

STATE LAWS SUMMARY: CHILD LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY STATE

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 4700 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 5

National Latino Peace Officers Association

THE PROCESS TO RENEW A JUDGMENT SHOULD BEGIN 6-8 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE

Campaign Finance E-Filing Systems by State WHAT IS REQUIRED? WHO MUST E-FILE? Candidates (Annually, Monthly, Weekly, Daily).

NOTICE TO MEMBERS No January 2, 2018

State Complaint Information

12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment

Limitations on Contributions to Political Committees

MEMORANDUM JUDGES SERVING AS ARBITRATORS AND MEDIATORS

Notice N HCFB-1. March 25, Subject: FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR (FY) Classification Code

Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? League of Women Voters of MI Education Fund

New Census Estimates Show Slight Changes For Congressional Apportionment Now, But Point to Larger Changes by 2020

2008 Changes to the Constitution of International Union UNITED STEELWORKERS

Democratic Convention *Saturday 1 March 2008 *Monday 25 August - Thursday 28 August District of Columbia Non-binding Primary

Delegates: Understanding the numbers and the rules

ASSOCIATES OF VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, INC. BYLAWS (A Nonprofit Corporation)

Bylaws of the. Student Membership

Federal Rate of Return. FY 2019 Update Texas Department of Transportation - Federal Affairs

Components of Population Change by State

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY Legislative Services Office

Destruction of Paper Files. Date: September 12, [Destruction of Paper Files] [September 12, 2013]

Background Information on Redistricting

TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY THURGOOD MARSHALL SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY LOCATION GUIDE July 2018

Intake 1 Total Requests Received 4

DETAILED CODE DESCRIPTIONS FOR MEMBER DATA

The Electoral College And

Official Voter Information for General Election Statute Titles

28 USC 152. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [NOTICE ] Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and

Intake 1 Total Requests Received 4

If you have questions, please or call

State-by-State Chart of HIV-Specific Laws and Prosecutorial Tools

Branches of Government

Class Actions and the Refund of Unconstitutional Taxes. Revenue Laws Study Committee Trina Griffin, Research Division April 2, 2008

Fiscal Year (September 30, 2018) Requests by Intake and Case Status Intake 1 Case Review 6 Period

Women in Federal and State-level Judgeships

For jurisdictions that reject for punctuation errors, is the rejection based on a policy decision or due to statutory provisions?

Complying with Electric Cooperative State Statutes

ADVANCEMENT, JURISDICTION-BY-JURISDICTION

INSTITUTE of PUBLIC POLICY

Before They Were States. Finding and Using Territorial Records by Jack Butler

Decision Analyst Economic Index United States Census Divisions April 2017

Committee Consideration of Bills

2008 Electoral Vote Preliminary Preview

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. State Voter Registration and Election Day Laws

Election Notice. FINRA Small Firm Advisory Board Election. September 8, Nomination Deadline: October 9, 2017.

TELEPHONE; STATISTICAL INFORMATION; PRISONS AND PRISONERS; LITIGATION; CORRECTIONS; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ISSUES

Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2010 Session

8. Public Information

Red, white, and blue. One for each state. Question 1 What are the colors of our flag? Question 2 What do the stars on the flag mean?

Election Year Restrictions on Mass Mailings by Members of Congress: How H.R Would Change Current Law

Soybean Promotion and Research: Amend the Order to Adjust Representation on the United Soybean Board

Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pertaining to the. Campaign of 1928

Chapter 12: The Math of Democracy 12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment - SOLUTIONS

Apportionment. Seven Roads to Fairness. NCTM Regional Conference. November 13, 2014 Richmond, VA. William L. Bowdish

STATUS OF 2002 REED ACT DISTRIBUTION BY STATE

Electronic Notarization

Records Retention. Date: June 13, [Records Retention] [ ]

Subcommittee on Design Operating Guidelines

Gender, Race, and Dissensus in State Supreme Courts

Bylaws. of the. National American Legion Press Association

Election Notice. FINRA Small Firm Advisory Board Election. September 7, Executive Summary. Suggested Routing

Judicial Selection in the States

December 30, 2008 Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Map of the Foreign Born Population of the United States, 1900

Department of Justice

More State s Apportionment Allocations Impacted by New Census Estimates; New Twist in Supreme Court Case

Nominating Committee Policy

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS POLICY. Table of Contents Page

ACTION: Notice announcing addresses for summons and complaints. SUMMARY: Our Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is responsible for processing

Survey of State Laws on Credit Unions Incidental Powers

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance UPDATED MARCH 30, 2015

additional amount is paid purchase greater amount. coverage with option to State provides $30,000 State pays 15K policy; by legislator. S.P. O.P.

Floor Amendment Procedures

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and the Office of Management

UNIFORM NOTICE OF REGULATION A TIER 2 OFFERING Pursuant to Section 18(b)(3), (b)(4), and/or (c)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933

Alabama 2.5 months 2.5 months N/R N/R 3.5 months 3.5 months 3.5 months 3.5 months No No

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Introduction. Identifying the Importance of ID. Overview. Policy Recommendations. Conclusion. Summary of Findings

Constitution of The National Alumnae Association of Spelman College (NAASC)

DEFINED TIMEFRAMES FOR RATE CASES (i.e., suspension period)

Elder Financial Abuse and State Mandatory Reporting Laws for Financial Institutions Prepared by CUNA s State Government Affairs

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. OUT-OF- STATE DONORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Records on David McIntosh Deputy Director of the Council on Competitiveness

Do you consider FEIN's to be public or private information? Do you consider phone numbers to be private information?

Election Notice. FINRA Small Firm Advisory Board Election. September 2, Nomination Deadline: October 2, 2015.

Results and Criteria of BGA/NFOIC survey

2015 ANNUAL OUTCOME GOAL PLAN (WITH FY 2014 OUTCOMES) Prepared in compliance with Government Performance and Results Act

Transcription:

Seventh Annual State and Federal E-Government Study Texas and New Jersey are Best States for American E-Government A study of digital government in the 50 states and major federal agencies also finds that the national portal FirstGov.gov is the top-rated federal site. PROVIDENCE, R.I. Texas and New Jersey are the best states for e-government in the United States, according to the seventh annual e-government analysis conducted by researchers at Brown University. The federal portal FirstGov.gov and the Agriculture are the most highly rated federal sites. Darrell M. West, director of the Taubman Center for Public Policy at Brown University, and a team of researchers examined 1,564 state and federal sites. The researchers analyzed 1,503 state sites (or an average of 30 sites per state), plus 48 federal government legislative and executive sites and 13 federal court sites. Research was completed during June and July, 2006. Previous e- government studies were released in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Websites are evaluated for the presence of various electronic features, such as online publications, databases, audio clips, video clips, foreign language content or language translation services, advertisements, premium fees, user payments or fees, disability access, several measures of privacy policy, multiple indicators of security policy, presence of online services, the number of online services, digital signatures, credit card payments, email addresses, comment forms, automatic email updates, website personalization, PDA accessibility, and readability level. The results show that progress has been made on several fronts. In terms of online services, 77 percent of state and federal sites have services that are fully executable online, up from 73 percent last year. In addition, a growing number of sites offer privacy and security policy statements. This year, 71 percent have some form of privacy policy on their site, up from 69 percent in 2005. Sixty-three percent now have a visible security policy, up from 54 percent last year. Thirty percent of sites offer some type of foreign language translation, compared to 18 percent last year. Citizens are being asked to shoulder more of the cost of providing online services, the survey found. Twelve percent of sites charge visitors a fee to utilize online services, compared to only 2 percent last year. In terms of disability access for the visually impaired, automated Bobby software available from Watchfire, Inc. found that 54 percent of federal sites and 43 percent of state sites meet the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) disability guidelines. The federal numbers are up from 44 percent in 2005, while the state numbers are up from 40 percent last year. The study also ranks the 50 states and various federal agencies on overall e-government performance. Using measures such as online services, attention to privacy and security, disability access, and foreign language translation, researchers rated the various state sites and compared their performance to last year. The top ranking states include Texas, New Jersey, Oregon, Michigan, Utah, Montana, New York, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. The most poorly performing e-government states are Alaska, Alabama, Wyoming, and Mississippi. The following table shows where each state ranked in 2006, with the previous year s ranking and score in parentheses.

Rank State Rating Out of 100 Pts Rank State Rating Out of 100 Pts 1. (18) Texas 51.7 (45.8) 2. (3) New Jersey 51.5 (59.5) 3. (12) Oregon 49.1 (49.2) 4. (5) Michigan 48.5 (53.0) 5. (1) Utah 48.1 (62.1) 6. (26) Montana 47.8 (41.5) 7. (14) New York 47.3 (49.0) 8. (38) Illinois 46.9 (36.9) 9. (20) Indiana 46.6 (44.0) 10. (22) Pennsylvania 46.4 (43.3) 11. (6) Tennessee 45.7 (52.2) 12. (25) Washington 45.4 (41.9) 13. (16) North Dakota 44.9 (47.7) 14. (34) Minnesota 44.9 (35.5) 15. (7) Delaware 44.8 (51.9) 16. (21) Ohio 44.1 (43.6) 17. (43) South Carolina 44.0 (34.90 18. (2) Maine 43.8 (61.3) 19. (23) Nebraska 43.6 (43.2) 20. (40) Missouri 43.0 (36.5) 21. (34) Kentucky 42.9 (39.0) 22. (8) Massachusetts 42.5 (51.4) 23. (27) Kansas 42.0 (41.1) 24. (32) Iowa 42.0 (39.5) 25. (4) North Carolina 41.9 (59.0) 26. (31) Florida 41.6 (39.7) 27. (19) Connecticut 41.5 (44.1) 28. (24) South Dakota 41.1 (43.0) 29. (35) Virginia 40.8 (37.6) 30. (15) Idaho 40.8 (47.8) 31. (47) California 40.8 (33.8) 32. (39) Rhode Island 40.6 (36.5) 33. (46) Louisiana 40.6 (33.8) New 40.1 (46.8) 34. (17) Hampshire 35. (30) Maryland 39.5 (39.9) 36. (28) Arizona 39.5 (38.8) 37. (41) Vermont 38.6 (36.0) 38. (33) Georgia 38.0 (38.2) 39. (10) Nevada 37.3 (50.5) 40. (44) Oklahoma 37.3 (34.8) 41. (13) Colorado 36.8 (49.1) 42. (29) Wisconsin 36.5 (40.1) 43. (37) Hawaii 35.3 (37.2) 44. (45) New Mexico 34.3 (34.4) 45. (11) Arkansas 33.8 (50.4) 46. (36) West Virginia 33.6 (37.4) 47. (9) Mississippi 33.4 (50.7) 48. (50) Wyoming 29.0 (38.4) 49. (48) Alabama 28.4 (31.9) 50. (49) Alaska 28.3 (29.2) Top-rated federal websites include the FirstGov.gov portal, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Postal Service, Education, Social Security Administration, and State. At the low end of the ratings are the various circuit courts of appeals. The following table lists the ranking of federal agencies in 2006, with last year s rank and score in parentheses. Rank Site Rating Out of 100 Pts. Rank Site Rating Out of 100 Pts. 1. (9) FirstGov Portal 84.0 (72.0) 2. (4) Dept. of Agriculture 80.0 (81.0)

3. (7) Housing/Urban 80.0 (73.0) Development 72.0 (84.0) Treasury Postal Service 64.0 (52.0) 4. (14) 73.0 (68.0) Commerce IRS 71.0 (60.0) 5. (3) 6. (25) 63.0 (58.0) 7. (30) 8. (26) Education Social Security 63.0 (80.0) 62.0 (84.0) 9. (6) Administration 10. (2) State 11. (8) FCC 61.0 (72.0) 12. (31) SEC 60.0 (52.0) 58.0 (61.0) 58.0 (64.0) 13. (22) Interior 14. (19) Transportation Library of 58.0 (53.0) Small Business 58.0 (69.0) 15. (28) Congress 16. (13) Administration 17. (27) NASA 57.0 (58.0) 18. (1) White House 57.0 (88.0) Consumer 54.0 (69.0) General 54.0 (60.0) Products Safety Services 19. (11) Commission 20. (24) Administration 21. (46) Congressional Budget Office House of Representatives 53.0 (36.0) 53.0 (45.0) 22. (34) Defense Transportation Safety Board Labor 53.0 (45.0) 53.0 (40.0) 23. (35) 24. (40) US Trade Rep 50.0 (40.0) 49.0 (69.0) 25. (41) 26. (12) 27. (32) FDIC 48.0 (49.0) 28. (53) Senate 48.0 (28.0) Federal Election 47.0 (48.0) Parks 47.0 (38.0) 29. (33) Commission 30. (43) 46.0 (61.0) EPA 46.0 (80.0) 31. (21) Energy 32. (5) Federal Reserve 46.0 (65.0) Government 46.0 (44.0) 33. (16) 34. (36) Printing Office 46.0 (53.0) Veterans 46.0 (29.0) Science Affairs 35. (29) Foundation 36. (50) 37. (38) 39. (23) 41. (37) 43. (18) Central Intelligence Agency Equal Employment Opportunity Federal Trade Commission Homeland Security 45.0 (41.0) 43.0 (61.0) 42.0 (42.0) 41.0 (65.0) 38. (10) 40. (17) 42. (15) 44. (39) Health and 44.0 (72.0) Human Services FDA 42.0 (65.0) Justice Endowment for the Arts 41.0 (65.0) 41.0 (40.0)

45. (45) Supreme Court 41.0 (37.0) 46. (44) GAO 38.0 (37.0) Federal 37.0 (24.0) 4 th Circuit 33.0 (32.0) 47. (58) 48. (47) 49. (42) 51. (55) 53. (57) 55. (59) 57. (56) 59. (54) 61. (61) Labor Relations 1 st Circuit Court of 8 th Circuit Court of 11 th Circuit 2 nd Circuit Court of 10 th Circuit 7 th Circuit Court of 32.0 (38.0) 29.0 (24.0) 28.0 (24.0) 26.0 (21) 24.0 (24.0) 22.0 (24.0) 20.0 (20.0) 50. (49) 52. (52) 54. (20) 56. (51) 58. (48) 60. (60) Endowment Human 9 th Circuit Office of Management and Budget 6 th Circuit 5 th Circuit 3 rd Circuit 31.0 (29.0) 29.0 (28.0) 28.0 (64.0) 25.0 (28.0) 24.0 (29.0) 21.0 (20.0) In the conclusion of their report, West and his research team suggest several means to improve e- government web sites. One area where improvement is needed is consistency in design, navigation and appearance among the various websites. Many state websites have inconsistent layouts and color schemes, with pages that look very different as users browse from agency site to agency site or even within a single agency site itself. This can be intimidating and overwhelming as users sometimes are not sure if they still are on an official website when and users have to orient themselves for every new website. Some states, such as Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, and Oregon, have remedied this problem by using a consistent template across all state agencies. Other states, such as Maine and Utah, place a consistent navigation bar on the top of every webpage, assuring visitors that they are on an official state website and providing easy access to other state pages. The survey also found that many government websites try to place too many links on the portal or agency homepage, creating a cluttered look this is overwhelming to the visitor. Simplified, streamlined homepage designs are best. Sites that lead users to services by clicking on simple, intuitive menus are better than sites that list every link on the homepage. Many states have inconsistent URL s, or web addresses, for agencies. Consistent web addresses would make it easy for visitors to navigate between state agencies, since they always know they are visiting an official state website. Florida, for example, has some sites that end with

state.fl.us, while others use a.gov ending and some end with.org. Michigan, meanwhile, has a consistent web address naming scheme, with all sites starting with www.michigan.gov followed by the agency, such as http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/ for the Community Health. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania consistently use.us to end their web addresses. Most sites prominently display key features and services on the main page or provide links to online services. Texas, the top-rated site, has a comprehensive listing of over 500 online services contained within state websites. Other states, however, do a poor job presenting their services, often burying the most useful functions of the site. The Wyoming portal page, for instance, has virtually no mention of the e-services offered by the state s website, making navigation difficult. States could make their sites more user friendly by providing quick access to e-services and useful features from the main departmental/portal pages. For more information about the results of this study, please contact Darrell West at (401) 863-1163 or see the full report at www.insidepolitics.org. The appendix of that report provides e- government profiles for each of the 50 states and the federal agencies.