Sixth Annual State and Federal E-Government Study

Utah and Maine are Best States for American E-Government

A study of digital government in the 50 states and major federal agencies also finds that the White House and the Department of the State are the top-rated federal sites.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Utah and Maine are the best states for e-government in the United States, according to the sixth annual e-government analysis conducted by researchers at Brown University. The White House and the Department of the State 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 1,620 state and federal sites. The researchers analyzed 1,559 state sites (or an average of 31 sites per state) plus 48 federal government legislative and executive sites, and 13 federal court sites. Research was completed during June and July, 2005. Previous e-government studies were released in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Websites are evaluated for the presence of various electronic features, such as online publications, online databases, audio clips, video clips, foreign language or language translation, 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, quality control, and readability level.

The results show that progress has been made on several fronts. In terms of online services, 73 percent of state and federal sites have services that are fully executable online, up from 56 percent last year. In addition, a growing number of sites offer privacy and security policy statements. This year, 69 percent have some form of privacy policy on their site, up from 63 percent in 2004. Fifty-four percent now have a visible security policy, up from 46 percent last year. Eighteen percent of sites offer some type of foreign language translation, compared to 21 percent last year.

In terms of disability access for the visually impaired, automated software available from Watchfire, Inc. found that 44 percent of federal sites and 40 percent of state sites meet the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) disability guidelines. The federal numbers are up from 42 percent in 2004, while the state numbers are up from 37 percent last year.

There are also a number of quality control issues on public sites.  To measure these quality problems, we used Watchfire's WebXM to analyze each of 71 federal agency websites. WebXM is an enterprise solution that automates the scanning, analysis, and reporting of online security, privacy, quality, accessibility and compliance issues across websites. For this project, its Quality module was used to scan a random sample of 5,000 pages from each agency and identify online quality issues that affect the user experience, such as broken links and anchors, broken links, missing titles, missing keywords, missing descriptions, warnings and redirects and poor search functionality. Nearly every agency has problems with content, search, and design.

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 Utah, Maine, New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, Tennessee, Delaware, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Nevada. The most poorly performing e-government states are Wyoming, Alaska, and Alabama. The following table shows where each state ranked in 2005, with the previous year's ranking or score in parentheses.

Rank

State

Rating Out of 100 Pts

Rank

State

Rating Out of 100 Pts

1.(3)

Utah

62.1(54.6)

2.(2)

Maine

61.3(55.2)

3.(10)

New Jersey

59.5(41.3)

4.(31)

North Carolina

59.0(34.8)

5.(22)

Michigan

53.0(38.0)

6.(1)

Tennessee

52.2(56.5)

7.(9)

Delaware

51.9(44.2)

8.(6)

Massachusetts

51.4(51.0)

9.(49)

Mississippi

50.7(26.8)

10.(35)

Nevada

50.5(33.7)

11.(16)

Arkansas

50.4(39.2)

12.(19)

Oregon

49.2(38.6)

13.(27)

Colorado

49.1(35.5)

14.(4)

New York

49.0(53.6)

15.(36)

Idaho

47.8(33.7)

16.(30)

North Dakota

47.7(34)

17.(26)

N. Hampshire

46.8(36.0)

18.(8)

Texas

45.8(44.5)

19.(12)

Connecticut

44.1(40.3)

20.(7)

Indiana

44.0(46.0)

21.(20)

Ohio

43.6(38.5)

22.(15)

Pennsylvania

43.3(39.3)

23.(47)

Nebraska

43.2(28.5)

24.(28)

South Dakota

43.0(35.5)

25.(23)

Washington

41.9(37.8)

26.(33)

Montana

41.5(34.1)

27.(14)

Kansas

41.1(39.9)

28.(18)

Arizona

38.8(39.5)

29.(43)

Wisconsin

40.1(30.0)

30.(32)

Maryland

39.9(34.4)

31.(13)

Florida

39.7(39.9)

32.(37)

Iowa

39.5(33.3)

33.(25)

Georgia

38.2(36.9)

34.(17)

Kentucky

39.0(36.8)

35.(24)

Virginia

37.6(37.7)

36.(50)

West Virginia

37.4(26.0)

37.(40)

Hawaii

37.2(32.3)

38.(5)

Illinois

36.9(51.0)

39.(29)

Rhode Island

36.5(35.5)

40.(38)

Missouri

36.5(33.0)

41.(41)

Vermont

36.0(31.3)

42.(34)

Minnesota

35.5(34.0)

43.(42)

South Carolina

34.9(30.6)

44.(45)

Oklahoma

34.8(29.8)

45.(46)

New Mexico

34.4(28.8)

46.(21)

Louisiana

33.8(38.2)

47.(11)

California

33.8(41.2)

48.(44)

Alabama

31.9(29.9)

49.(39)

Alaska

29.2(32.8)

50.(48)

Wyoming

28.4(28.4)

Top-rated federal websites include the White House, Department of State, Department of Treasury, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administration, Housing and Urban Development Department, Federal Communications Commission, FirstGov (the U.S. portal), and Health and the Human Services Department. At the low end of the ratings are the various circuit courts of appeals. The following table lists the ranking of federal agencies in 2005, with last year's rank or score in parentheses.

Rank

Site

Rating Out of 100 Pts.

Rank

Site

Rating Out of 100 Pts.

1.(30)

White House

88(45)

2.(26)

Dept. of State

84(45)

3.(15)

Dept of Treasury

84(50)

4.(5)

Dept. of Agriculture

81(56)

5.(33)

Environmental Protection Agency

80(41)

6.(2)

Social Security Admin

80(65)

7.(12)

Housing/Urban Dev.

73(52)

8.(4)

Fed. Commun. Commission

72(60)

9.(1)

Firstgov portal

72(88)

10.(27)

Health/Human services

72(45)

11.(25)

Cons. Product Safety

69(45)

12.(46)

Dept. of Labor

69(33)

13.(29)

Small Bus Admin

69(45)

14.(37)

Dept of Commerce

68(39)

15.(39)

Dept of Justice

65(37)

16.(7)

Federal Reserve

65(54)

17.(31)

Food and Drug Admin

65(42)

18.(32)

Homeland Security

65(42)

19.(14)

Dept. of Transportation

64(51)

20.(42)

Office Man Budget

64(36)

21.(17)

Dept. of Energy

61(49)

22.(16)

Dept. of Interior

61(50)

23.(39)

Equal Employ Opp

61(37)

24.(8)

Gen Services Admin

60(54)

25.(6)

IRS

60(56)

26.(3)

Dept of Education

58(61)

27.(13)

NASA

58(52)

28.(19)

Library of Congress

53(49)

29.(28)

Natl Science Foundation

53(45)

30.(9)

Postal Service

52(53)

31.(22)

Sec/Exchange Comm

52(46)

32.(38)

Fed. Deposit

49(39)

33.(47)

Fed. Elect. Comm.

48(33)

34.(11)

Dept. of Defense

45(52)

35.(10)

House of Representatives

45(53)

36.(19)

Govt Printing Office

44(49)

37.(34)

Fed. Trade Comm.

42(41)

38.(24)

Central Intelligence Agency

41(45)

39.(21)

Natl Endow Arts

40(46)

40.(36)

Natl Transpt Safety

40(40)

41.(49)

US Trade Rep

40(32)

42.(44)

Natl Labor Relations

38(35)

43.(NA)

Natl Parks

38(NA)

44.(20)

Gen Account Office

37(48)

45.(48)

Supreme Court

37(33)

46.(35)

Cong Budget Office

36(40)

47.(41)

4th Circuit Ct of Appeal

32(36)

48.(45)

5th Circuit Ct of Appeal

29(33)

49.(51)

Natl Endow Humanities

29(30)

50.(23)

Veterans Affairs

29(46)

51.(60)

6th Circuit Ct of Appeal

28(17)

52.(50)

9th Circuit Ct of Appeals

28(30)

53.(43)

Senate

28(36)

54.(59)

10th Circuit Ct Appeals

24(18)

55.(55)

1st Circuit Ct Appeals

24(21)

56.(56)

2nd Circuit Ct Appeals

24(20)

57.(58)

8th Circuit Ct Appeals

24(20)

58.(52)

Fed. Circuit Ct Appeals

24(26)

59.(53)

11th Circuit Ct Appeals

21(25)

60.(54)

3rd Circuit Ct Appeals

20(24)

61.(51)

7th Circuit Ct Appeals

20(20)

 

 

 

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 the ease in which constituents can navigate through information and services on portal websites. The simplest way to solve the problem is to use a tool bar that would be located at the top of each page. This would provide access to all online services at a central location and also give a look of uniformity to the site, making users more comfortable while navigating the site and giving the site a familiar look no matter what page the constituent is using.

Another problem that accompanies the one mentioned above is that of state's providing services on their sites, but then not making the services easily visible or accessible. States could solve this problem by having a current online services page that consolidates all the department's services onto one database. Another solution could be found by taking advantage of the empty borders along the margins of most web pages. By filling these margins with icons, states could highlight useful and related services to the department page being viewed. These icons could be linked to the service they were advertising. This would improve navigation abilities and make it easy to find relevant services.

Another resource that most states did not take advantage is the personalization feature. Few states offer users the chance to customize websites to their particular interests. This option would allow constituents to narrow the large amount of information and services that often feel overwhelming. By using the personalization service, users could find information relevant to them in a more orderly fashion.

Many states could also create better portals by creating a visually pleasing site. While a myriad of sites had services, few portal sites contained a display that was pleasing to the eye. Characteristically, the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of sites often waned when arriving at lesser known and less well funded agencies, such as veteran's affairs, housing, and social services. Tourism sites generally were well designed and colorful, as were economic development sites.

Federal websites tended to be much more complete and informative than states' sites, perhaps due to the money and know-how being put into them. General improvements that can be made from our analysis of these websites are more reliance on forums or interactive features that allow the constituent to become involved with the site.

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.