Service
Delivery Challenges E-Government Can Tackle
By Tasha
Harris
Background
The development of the World Wide Web in the early
1990s created new opportunities for governments to interact with the public,
ranging from rudimentary information dissemination services to sophisticated
case management services. “E-government” refers to the use of web-based
Internet technology to deliver and increase access to government services
and information.
Although the
rapid growth of e-commerce in the private sector has encouraged the public
sector to engage in e-government, government’s use of Internet technology
to deliver services and information is not a recent phenomenon. In the early
1990s, state and local governments used electronic mail, listservs, and the
web to communicate with constituents.
Private-sector innovations have not been the only
force behind the upswing in e-government projects. Several mandates and
initiatives require federal agencies to incorporate electronic measures in
their daily processes and procedures. The Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996, for example, requires the General Services Administration
(GSA) to provide government-wide online access to information about products
and services available under the multiple award schedules program. President
George W. Bush has also advanced e-government as integral to his five-part
management agenda. In line with the president’s management agenda,
Congress passed the E-Government Act
of 2001 (S. 803), which promotes the use of information technology and
the Internet for using, communicating, and disseminating information,
delivering services, and conducting business.
Non-specialized e-government is becoming more common,
but the use of web-based Internet technology in the human services area is
still emerging. This Issue Note
addresses issues that decisionmakers should consider when adopting a
web-based human services delivery framework and identifies funding and
project evaluation mechanisms to aid decisionmaking. For more information,
visit the WIN web page on E-government/E-human services at http://www.welfareinfo.org/egov.asp.
Policy
Issues
Why should
states and localities consider moving human services transactions online?The benefits of adopting a web-based human services
delivery framework include tangibles such as efficiency gains, cost savings,
and service delivery improvements as well as intangibles such as improved
customer satisfaction, enhanced government image and collaboration, and
increased employee morale. States can look to e-government as a way to
streamline internal processes. Automating manual tasks can reduce the number
of person hours spent inputting, verifying, correcting, and processing
information. In California, for example, Medi-Cal, the state Medicaid
program, and Healthy Families, the state children’s health insurance
program, offer online enrollment. The Lewin Group evaluated the first month
of the pilot program and reported a 21-percent decrease in the time between
application submission and eligibility determination. Not only does an
automated workflow reduce response time, but it also enables multiple
individuals to access the data simultaneously and increases the reliability
of the data. The Lewin Group evaluation also found the California online
enrollment process reduced application errors by approximately 40 percent.
Cost containment can be another factor driving a
decision by state or local government to take human services delivery to the
Internet. Online applications decrease the amount of time and money spent on
paper processing and production, because functions are automated and
self-serve. For example, a web-based billing process for child care
providers eliminates paper production, mailing, data entry, and error
correction functions, which results in significant cost savings over time.
In addition, state and local governments can reduce costs by posting
informational materials on the web, rather than printing and disseminating
informational brochures.
Customers also benefit from being served online. In
states where human services delivery is web-based, customers can reduce the
time they spend traveling to interact with the government, waiting to
interact with the government, interacting with the government, and waiting
for the government to respond to their interaction. Moreover, as manual
tasks are automated, staff can be freed up to focus on more value-added
processes, such as providing quality customer service to clients with
special needs or clients who value face-to-face communication. Web-based
technology affords clients instantaneous access to documents and accurate,
up-to-date information, further enhancing service delivery. Moreover,
e-government enables states to collect data that can be used to improve
service delivery and tailor service offerings (e.g., number of occurrences,
processing time, error rates, and customer satisfaction).
Some of the benefits of providing human services
online cannot be measured easily or cannot be measured at all. E-government
has the potential to enhance the government brand name. A government can use
e-government to demonstrate its competency in delivering services on time,
efficiently, and conveniently. More frequent interactions and wider
communication with the public can help improve the government’s image and
increase its visibility. Polling data has captured this trend. According to
a 2002 poll by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 60 percent of
government web site users say such sites improved their interactions with at
least one level of government. In a 2000 Hart-Teeter poll, 68 percent of
Americans said e-government should be a high or medium priority for
government to spend tax dollars.
Furthermore, e-government enables government to take
account of the current environment, change the way it conducts business, and
then take these new processes and procedures to the web. The Internet
“encourages transformation from the traditional bureaucratic paradigm,
which emphasizes standardization, departmentalization, and operational
cost-efficiency, to the ‘e-government’ paradigm, which emphasizes
coordinated network building, external collaboration, and [one-stop]
customer services” (Alfred Tat-Kei Ho, “Reinventing Local Governments
and the E-Government Initiative, Public
Administration Review, vol. 62, no. 4 (July/August 2002).
Finally, automating manual procedures can help boost
employee morale and lessen employee turnover by enabling employees to focus
on more meaningful tasks. Employees feel empowered and more effective when
their managers and customers view them as more valuable.
What kinds of
human services transactions are appropriate for online delivery?E-government services are grouped into three
categories—government-to-citizen, government-to-business, and
government-to-government. Web-based human services delivery applications
tend to fall into the government-to-citizen grouping, though some cases
cater to the government-to-business category. According to a joint survey of
state web-based human service systems by The Finance Project, the National
Governors Association, and the American Public Human Services Association,
most states use the Internet as part of their human services system to
disseminate information and provide links to additional information.
Governments are also developing portals as a way to aggregate information
and services across agencies and present the information by citizen interest
or category. Examples of portals are the federal government’s FirstGov web
site (http://www.Firstgov.gov),
which is the gateway to all government information, and FirstGov for Seniors
(http://seniors.gov), which provides
information senior citizens would find useful. Several states have adopted a
similar framework; for example, Virginia’s enterprise portal is My
Virginia
Other common web-enabled features are job search
assistance and interactive provider search. Job search assistance enables
clients to search a job bank, post their resumes, and apply for a job online
(visit New Hampshire’s NHetwork at http://nhetwork.nhes.state.nh.us/nhjs/).
Interactive provider search is supported by an interactive database that
enables customers to customize content for certain criteria, for example,
for child care providers. The system can also enable customers to send a
request for service directly to the provider. The federal government’s
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers exemplary online training
courses that serve as a model for web-based literacy courses (visit The Gov
Online Learning Center at http://www.golearn.gov/).
Several states are using the web to accept
applications for services, determine eligibility, and communicate with
officials. In some states applications can be downloaded from the state web
site; in other states the web site has interactive forms that mirror the
hard-copy application forms. Some sophisticated systems not only determine
whether an applicant is eligible to receive benefits from a specific
program, but also assess whether the applicant is eligible for multiple
programs and use a single common application for acceptance into multiple
programs (visit www.GovBenefits.gov).
To enhance communication with their citizens, the web sites of some states
provide e-mail addresses for and/or email links to agency officials and case
managers (visit Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services web site at www.okdhs.org).
The human services transactions most appropriate for
online delivery are those that enable self-servicing, automate manual tasks,
eliminate redundancy, and are not dependent on face-to-face contact. For
examples of innovative web applications developed by local governments,
visit Public Technology, Inc.’s Solutions web page at http://www.pti.org/solutions/index.html.
What steps can
be taken to avoid exacerbating the digital divide?The
digital divide is the gap that persists between lower income groups and
higher income groups in terms of the extent to which these populations use
and have access to computers and the Internet. Households with higher
incomes are more likely to use computers and the Internet than are lower
income households. This issue should be considered when deciding whether and
how to implement a web-based human services delivery framework. To minimize
the digital divide, the easiest solution is to bundle various service
delivery modes into a service provision strategy. This would enable a client
to choose to receive services via traditional face-to-face interactions,
through a telephone voice-response system, from an information kiosk, or
through an Internet-based system. Fairfax County, Virginia, used a
“bricks-and-clicks” multifaceted approach when it developed its
e-government initiatives; clients can, for example, visit a welfare office
to receive services or visit the welfare office’s web site to access the
same services. Bundling service delivery modes is a common strategy for
major retailers such as Nordstrom and Barnes and Noble. For more
information, see the Intergovernmental Advisory Board, Citizens’ Expectations for Electronic Government Services
(Washington, D.C.: Intergovernmental Advisory Board, September 2000), at
Another option is to provide Internet access in
public facilities such as libraries and community centers. E-government
designers need to consider the literacy level and native language of the
people targeted for services to ensure their understanding of the services.
People who are not familiar with government agencies or how government
operates may now try to interact with the government via the Internet. Web
sites should also be designed for easy navigation and usability. Users
should be able to quickly access the services they most want. Help menus,
search engines, site maps, FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions), and tutorials
on how to use the site can help visitors learn their way around the web
site.
How can
e-government sites be developed to foster cooperation and collaboration?E-government is capable of eliminating organizational
divides and spawning an integrated approach to service delivery. The
benefits of doing so are creating economies of scale, lessening duplication
of effort, gaining access to pertinent data, reducing incompatibility in
program goals, and directing more resources to customer services. Creating a
seamless government, however, is not without its challenges and barriers.
Security regulations, privacy laws, organizational culture, “stovepipe”
funding, e-architecture standardization, and data integration are all issues
that decisionmakers have to grapple with when developing a comprehensive
e-government platform.
Some strategies to facilitate cooperation and
collaboration are:
·develop
multifunctional teams that consist of customers, end users, agency partners,
and information technology (IT) personnel to ensure all stakeholders have
the opportunity to shape the final product and feel a sense of ownership and
engagement;
·identify
how the partners can benefit from a collaborative process while reassuring
them that their authority will not be usurped;
·continuously
communicate with stakeholders about the progress of the initiative to
develop buy-in and agreement about the project’s goals;
·map
out linkages, work flows, hardware and software needs, users, locations,
etc. necessary to run an interoperable data system;
·invest
in flexible software that accommodates upgrades and expansions;
·post
security and privacy policies on all web sites to inform clients how the
data being collected will be used and protected; and
·invest
in employee training.
How does a state or locality create a balance between enterprise-wide
approaches and agency- specific applications?An enterprise operation cuts across agencies. Several factors will
influence a state or local government’s decision to develop an
enterprise-wide system rather than an agency-specific system. One factor is
the strategic vision. Decisionmakers need to assess whether the fundamental
goals of the project can be achieved with a single-pronged approach or
whether meeting project goals requires a more comprehensive approach. If a
state wants to provide parents with a directory of child care providers, for
example, an agency-specific approach would be the best route. However, if
the state’s goal were to streamline the application and eligibility
determination process for overlapping social service programs, then an
enterprise-wide approach would be more appropriate.
Developing an enterprise architecture model can help
decisionmakers ascertain how large or small the e-government project needs
to be. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development uses a
decision-support software application (ExpertChoice) to help the agency make
decisions about IT investments. Senior managers use the software to weigh
the priorities and objectives of IT projects. For more information, see the
Harvard Policy Group, Eight
Imperatives for Leaders in a Networked World¾Imperative 4:
Improve Budgeting and Financing for Promising IT Initiatives
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
April 2001), at http://www.ieg.ibm.com/thought_leadership/Imp4.pdf.
How can
government evaluate the costs and benefits of investments in the development
of e-government sites?E-government
projects can be intensive endeavors. They can take several years to plan and
millions of dollars to implement. It is important to have a firm grasp on
the trade-offs before undertaking an e-government initiative. One option is
to develop a business case or return on investment (ROI) analysis. A
business case or ROI analysis identifies the costs and benefits associated
with project implementation. The business case/ROI can also be used as a
baseline against which to track costs and benefits during the utilization
phase. Iowa has developed an extensive program that evaluates IT
investments. For more information, visit Iowa’s Return on Investment
program web page at http://www2.info.state.ia.us/roi/index.html.
The National
Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council also suggests that decisionmakers
use an impact analysis to determine the potential of e-government projects.
A sample of the metrics that support these frameworks are:
·“estimated
costs (including development and operational costs);
·analysis
of projected benefits (tangible and intangible);
·potential
customer adoption/usage of application;
·potential
funding methods;
·relative
policy or legislation rules; and
·assumed
marketing [and training] efforts.”
For more
information about all of these approaches, see National Electronic Commerce
Coordinating Council, Developing
Justification and Support for e-Government Projects (Lexington, Ky.:
National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council, December 11, 2001), at
Other states have
performed risk assessments to determine the worthiness of e-government
projects. New Jersey’s Office of Management and Budget developed a
cost/benefit and risk analysis tool to help the state prioritize IT
projects. Costs are calibrated to the system’s lifecycle, and both
tangible and intangible benefits are examined. The risk analysis emphasizes
strategic alignment with overall mission, managerial commitment, operational
impact, project management, technical capacity, and conformity with
standards.
Another strategy
for assessing the risk of a web-based system is to group IT investments in a
portfolio. Washington uses a portfolio framework to ensure all investments
in its portfolio are aligned with the strategic mission of the state.
The portfolio
framework also enables decisionmakers to judge IT investments from a
comprehensive perspective, where less risky investments offset those with a
higher risk level but potentially a higher rate of return. For more
information, visit Washington’s IT Portfolio Management web page at http://www.wa.gov/dis/portfolio/.
How
can government fund the development and/or operation of e-government
applications?In the current fiscal environment in which most state budgets
cannot accommodate the upfront costs of e-government projects, innovative
funding practices are key to making these projects a reality. Application or
managed service providers (A/MSP) models, productivity funds, leasing
options, share-in-savings agreements, private sponsorship, and transaction
fees are funding mechanisms that can support e-government initiatives.
The A/MSP model
is an arrangement that enables an IT company to manage and host an operating
system remotely that another entity can tap into by connecting to the
company’s server. Such an arrangement helps diffuse the upfront
development and implementation costs and steep operational and maintenance
costs. A service provider sometimes also provides employee training.
Virginia uses an application service provider arrangement for its eVA
e-procurement system. AMS delivers and hosts the e-procurement system at no
cost to Virginia, while both parties share collected transaction and
registration fees. For more information, visit Virginia’s eVA
E-procurement web site at http://www.eva.state.va.us/.
Productivity funds are revolving funds, because the
agency that receives financial support is required to pay back the loan with
interest. Only projects that result in savings are considered for this type
of funding. Several states and cities have used this financing scheme to
fund IT projects. Tennessee established a revolving fund for technology
purchases. Agencies that use this fund repay the loans with savings
generated by the technology project. Texas developed a telecommunications
infrastructure fund to provide Internet access to schools, libraries, and
government buildings. Philadelphia has a productivity bank that is funded
with bond proceeds. For more information, see Dall Forsythe, Investing
in Technology: Funding Options and Choices for the IT Champion in State and
Local Government (Albany, N.Y.: New York State Forum for Information
Resource Management, May 10, 1999), at http://www.nysfirm.org/documents/it_investing_5_10_99.doc.
Another funding
option is leasing. Leasing enables an agency to spread out the costs of a
new system over the period of the lease. Once the lease period has expired,
the agency has full ownership of the leased items. Governments sometimes use
leasing to finance the purchase of operating software and consulting
services. Some states have used certificates of participation to allow
investors to purchase shares of leases. For more information, see Dall
Forsythe, Investing in Technology:
Funding Options and Choices for the IT Champion in State and Local
Government (Albany, N.Y.: New York State Forum for Information Resource
Management, May 10,1999), at
http://www.nysfirm.org/documents/it_investing_5-10-99.doc.
Share-in-savings arrangements also give governments
the financial freedom to pursue e-government initiatives. A private-sector
IT company assumes the upfront and maintenance costs for developing and
operating an IT system, while both the IT company and government entity
share the savings that result from this new technology. The U.S. Department
of Education, for example, partnered with Accenture to develop a financial
system to recover payments from defaulted student loans. The new system has
resulted in more than $31 million in savings, while Accenture’s contract
ceiling is $14 million. For more information, see the Harvard Policy Group, Eight Imperatives for Leaders in a Networked World¾Imperative 4: Improve Budgeting and Financing for Promising IT Initiatives
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
April 2001), at http://www.ieg.ibm.com/thought_leadership/Imp4.pdf.
Some states and localities are turning to commercial
advertisement and transaction fees as a way to finance e-government
projects. Honolulu, Hawaii, uses advertising and sponsorship to help finance
the development of its Internet portal. Although transaction fees may not be
a feasible alternative in the human services sector, some agencies are
charging customers convenience or transaction fees to use their web-based
services. For more information, see the Harvard Policy Group, Eight Imperatives for Leaders in a Networked World¾Imperative 4: Improve Budgeting and Financing for Promising IT Initiatives
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
April 2001), at http://www.ieg.ibm.com/thought_leadership/Imp4.pdf.
Research
Findings
Federal agencies
had sponsored 1,371 e-government initiatives as of 2001. For more
information, see David L. McClure, “Electronic Government: Challenges Must
Be Addressed with Effective Leadership and Management,” GAO-01-959T
(testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, on behalf of
the U.S. General Accounting Office, July 11, 2001), at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01959t.pdf.
However, San Francisco State University’s 2002 survey of federal
e-government efforts found that most federal agencies still offer basic
e-government features. Only 12.8 percent offered e-commerce functions and
only 8.8 percent provided direct links to e-government services. For more
information, see Genie Stowers, The State of Federal Websites: The Pursuit
of Excellence (San Francisco, Calif.: San Francisco State University and
PricewaterhouseCoopers, August 2002), at http://www.endowment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/StowersReport0802.pdf.
A 2001 survey
conducted by The Finance Project, the National Governors Association, and
the American Public Human Services Association found that most states use
the Internet to deliver human services. Yet only three states reported they
offer a web-based one-stop shop for human services programs. The most
commonly reported web feature provided by states is information and
electronic referral. For more information, see Tasha Harris et al., Survey
of Web-Based Human Services Applications (Washington, D.C.: The Finance
Project, May 2002), at http://www.financeproject.org/websurvey.pdf.
A 2000 survey by
the International City/County Management Association and Public Technology,
Inc., revealed that 83 percent of local governments had a web site, but few
of these web sites offered interactive services. For more information, see International
City/County Management Association and Public Technology Inc., E-Government:
Web Sites and Web Access (Washington, D.C.: International City/County
Management Association and Public Technology, Inc., 2001), athttp://bookstore.icma.org/obs/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Product_ID=614&CATID=4.
However, a survey conducted by Brown University between 2001 and 2000 found
that of 1,567 city web sites, 49 percent provide “fully executable”
online services, which is up from 25 percent the prior year. For more
information, see Darrell M. West, Urban
E-Government: An Assessment of City Government Websites (Providence,
R.I.: Brown University, September 2001), at http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/polreports/egovt01city.html;
and Darrell M. West, Urban
E-Government, 2002 (Providence, R.I.: Brown University, September 2002),
at http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt02city.html.
Innovative
Practices
The
National League of Cities, in
partnership with IBM and the National Association of Counties, offers cities
and other localities an affordable way to develop e-government services
through its Totally Web Government program. Cities and localities receive
technical assistance and web applications for web site development and
maintenance capability, high-speed satellite Internet connectivity, and
interactive customer and business applications. IBM hosts and manages the
web site from its secure remote server, where the company also handles the
maintenance of the applications. For more information, contact Marc Shapiro,
202/626-3019 or visit http://www.totalwebgov.com/
or http://www.nlc.org/nlc_org/site/programs/e-government/index.cfm.
New
Mexico’s
Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) developed a web-enabled child
support enforcement system. Called eChild Support, the system enables
custodial and noncustodial parents to apply online for assistance; set up
direct deposit and withdrawal for support payments; track new developments
in their cases, such as paternity establishment; use an online calculator to
determine eligibility; and change a support order. CSED has noted
improvements in client services and operations. Clients now have quick
access to case information, especially payment notifications and financial
histories, and can self-manage their own cases. Such features have improved
data quality, increased child support collections, reduced caseworker
workload, limited the number of client phone calls, and eliminated manual
check processing. Accenture, LLP, with help from CSED staff, developed the
$1.7-million system, using state and federal funds. Operational costs are
minimal, with part-time resources providing system support on an as-needed
basis. CSED used a multi-pronged approach to safeguard clients’
information—restricted user access, a secured data transport system
between the mainframe and web-based systems, and a multi-layered physical
and data channel security process at the web hosting site. CSED staff must
also all verify users, and users’ credentials are mailed to their address
before they can gain access to the web site. Overall, the response has been
positive. For example, site usage has increased 170 percent since December
2001. In addition, client feedback is funneled through caseworkers to the
eCSED team, which makes needed system modifications.
New Mexico is nearing completion of a web-based
single sign-on solution for human services applications, enabling service
recipients to access multiple services with a single identification number.
The initiative will also enable clients to provide personal information
once, which will then be available for other human services applications.
The first application to be rolled out will enable employers to manage
company and employee data for noncustodial parents under order to provide
child support. The site will enable employers to automatically submit, via
auto-withdrawal, ordered withholdings from employee pay. For more
information, contact Richard Quillin, 800/585-7631
or visit http://childsupport.hsd.state.nm.us/.
Vermont’s
Agency of Human Services (AHS) has been piloting a comprehensive web-based
enrollment process since July 1999. The common application enables clients,
with the help of trained workers, to complete one application form in order
to gain access to a nutrition program for women, infants, and children, a
child care subsidy, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and
food stamps as well as several other state programs. With support from
agency secretaries and department heads, AHS developed an online enrollment
program that makes applying for social services easier while improving
client services. AHS conserved costs by using donated time from computer
programmers from various departments to develop the new system. New hardware
and software were purchased with funds from the capital budget. The common
application system resides on the government intranet, to which only state
employees and contractors have access. Although only trained workers can
currently enroll an applicant online, AHS is reviewing the federal
regulations governing electronic signatures and plans to expand the system
to allow clients to self-enroll. The online program is being tested in three
rural areas to increase citizens’ access in communities where residents
may not have easy access to human services. For more information, contact
Brenda Hudson, information technology chief systems developer, Vermont
Agency of Human Services, 802/241-3118 or visit http://www.ahs.state.vt.us/commonapp/.
Public
Technology, Inc., call Costis Toregas, 202/626-2411 or visit http://www.pti.org/.
U.S. General
Accounting Office, Information Technology Management Issues, call David
McClure, 202/512-6240 or visit http://www.gao.gov.
Publications
Center for Digital Government and National Electronic
Commerce Coordinating Council. Electronic
Government: A Blueprint for the State. Lexington, Ky.: December 1999.
Available at http://www.ec3.org/InfoCenter/02_WorkGroups/version1.htm.
Center
for Technology in Government. A Cost
Performance Model for Assessing WWW Service Investments. Albany, N.Y.:
State University of New York at Albany, 1997. Available at http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/abstract/abisg04.html.
Center
for Technology in Government. E-Government:
Creating Tools of the Trade¾Report from theE-Government Roundtable.
Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York at Albany, April 2001. Available
at http://www.ctg.albany.edu/egov/roundtable_summary.html.
Cohen,
Steven, and William Eimicke. The Use
of the Internet in Government Service Delivery. New York, N.Y.: Columbia
University and PricewaterhouseCoopers, February 2001. Available at http://www.endowment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/CohenReport.pdf.
Council
for Excellence in Government and Hart-Teeter. E-Government:
The Next American Revolution. Washington, D.C.: Council for Excellence
in Government and Hart-Teeter, September 2000. Available at http://excelgov.xigroup.com/displayContent.asp?Keyword=ppp092800.
Forsythe,
Dall. Investing in Technology: Funding
Options and Choices for the IT Champion in State and Local Government.
Albany, N.Y.: New York State Forum for Information Resource Management, May
10, 1999. Available at http://www.nysfirm.org/documents/it_investing_5-10-99.doc.
Harris, Tasha, Jim Frech, and Evelyn Bandoh. Survey
of Web-Based Human Services Applications. Washington, D.C.: The Finance
Project, May 2002. Available at http://www.financeproject.org/websurvey.pdf.
Harvard Policy Group. Eight Imperatives for Leaders in a Networked World¾Imperative 4: Improve Budgeting and Financing for Promising IT
Initiatives.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
April 2001. Available at http://www.ieg.ibm.com/thought_leadership/Imp4.pdf.
Ho, Alfred Tat-Kei. “Reinventing Local Governments
and the E-Government Initiative.” Public
Administration Review, vol. 62, no. 4 (July/August 2002). Available at http://www.aspanet.org/publications/par/index2.html.
International
City/County Management Association and Public Technology, Inc. E-Government:
Web Sites and Web Access. Washington, D.C.: International City/County
Management Association and Public Technology, Inc., 2001. Available at http://bookstore.icma.org/obs/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Product_ID=614&CATID=4.
Krause, Brendan. Enrollment
Hits the Web: States Maximize Internet Technology in SCHIP and Medicaid.
Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices,
May 2002. Available at http://www.nga.org/cda/files/SCHIPTECH053002.pdf.
McClure,
David L. Electronic Government:
Challenges Must Be Addressed with Effective Leadership and Management.
GAO-01-959T. Testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
on behalf of the U.S. General Accounting Office, July 11, 2001. Available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01959t.pdf.
McClure,
David L. Electronic Government:
Federal Initiatives Are Evolving Rapidly But They Face Significant
Challenges. GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-00-179. Testimony before the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information and Technology, House Committee on
Government Reform, on behalf of the U.S. General Accounting Office, May 22,
2000. Available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/a200179t.pdf.
National
Association of State Chief Information Officers. Enterprise
Architecture Development Tool-Kit v. 2.0. Lexington, Ky.: National
Association of State Chief Information Officers, June 2002. Available at https://www.nascio.org/hotIssues/EA/AEADTool-Kitv2.pdf.
Rainie,
Lee, and Elena Larsen. The Rise of the
E-Citizen: How People Use Government Agencies’ Web Sites. Washington,
D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project, April 3, 2002. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/vf_pew_internet_e-citizens.pdf.
Stowers,
Genie N. L. The State of Federal
Websites: The Pursuit of Excellence. San Francisco, Calif.: San
Francisco State University and PricewaterhouseCoopers, August 2002.
Available at http://www.endowment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/StowersReport0802.pdf.
West,
Darrell M. State and Federal
E-Government in the United States, 2002. Providence, R.I.: Brown
University, September 2002. Available at http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt02us.PDF.
West,
Darrell M. State and Federal
E-Government in the United States, 2001. Providence, R.I.: Brown
University, September 2001. Available at http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt01us.html.
The
Welfare Information Network is supported by grants form the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and
the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
