E-Government
for All: From Concept to Conference
THE NOTION OF A CONFERENCE addressing “E-Government for All”
began in late 2002 during meetings between the Benton Foundation and the NYS
Forum of the Rockefeller Institute of Government. Both organizations were
interested in the progress of e-government deployment, but expressed concern
that a relative lack of policy attention towards bridging the digital divide
was creating a serious dilemma. As more government services and
government-constituent interactions move from the “real world” to cyberspace—whether
for eliminating bureaucracy, cost-cutting or other needs—constituents who lack
Internet access or the ability to use it would be at a serious disadvantage.
Examples were all too common: the visually impaired man who could no longer
read important government documents because they were now published in
inaccessible file formats; the family of immigrants frustrated by the lack of
information translated into their native language; the single mother who never
had the opportunity to learn ICT skills. Millions of people from all walks of
life could potentially see e-government as a barrier, rather than an
opportunity, to improve their lives.
The Benton Foundation’s Digital Divide Network and The NYS
Forum soon began exploring the possibility of hosting a national conference on
ensuring “e-government for all.” Originally conceived as a U.S. domestic
policy conference to be held in Washington DC, the fact that U.S. state and
local policymakers had been forced to slash their travel budgets due to fiscal
crises made it clear that a “real-life” conference would not necessarily bring
together the critical mass of policymakers to make the event a success. Thus
the organizers chose to host a virtual conference instead.
A virtual conference had
many potential strengths; namely, it wouldn’t require participants to travel,
and the global nature of the Internet potentially could attract a large
international audience. On the downside, was the possibility of both
professional and personal distractions preventing participants from getting
involved actively (compared to a real-world conference, where you travel to a
forum to focus on an issue). And then there was the irony that this conference
proposed to address the issue of government services being moved online and
eliminated offline, would in itself be online—possibly preventing attendees
from participating. After considering the number of potential participants in
an online conference versus those who would be able to afford to attend a
real-world conference, a virtual event remained the stronger of the two
options.
The Digital Divide Network and The NYS Forum teamed up with
online conference developer Group Jazz to co-sponsor the event, along with a
coalition of organizational partners that would provide programmatic and
promotional support. The American Library Association Office of Information
Technology Policy, the Association for Community Networking, Athena Alliance,
BytesForAll.org, the Council for Excellence in Government, CTCNet, the
Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center, La Sociedad de
Información de las Américas, One Economy Corporation and Thinkofit.com soon
joined to support the event.
Following a successful pre-conference event among
policymakers and civil society stakeholders at the National Press Club in
Washington, the E-Government for All conference opened its virtual doors on
November 3, 2003 for two weeks of online discussion and debate. Over 800
people from 60 countries pre-registered for the event; when it concluded two
weeks later, approximately 1,300 people from more than 80 countries had
registered online to participate.
The end result was an international gathering of
policymakers, community activists, researchers, civil society representatives
and business leaders tackling the complex issue of promoting e-government while
achieving equitable constituent access and participation.
The Conference
Over the course of the two-week event, participants offered
hundreds of ideas and insights about e-government, ICT literacy, accessibility
and the digital divide. Much of the discussion soon settled around a core
group of themes, outlined below. The summary provided here is by no means
exhaustive; rather, it is an attempt to identify the most relevant concepts,
principles and proposals offered by participants, in the hope of generating
further dialogue and action for achieving e-government for all.
Education, ICT Literacy and
Civic Literacy
One of the biggest barriers to achieving e-government for
all is education. Despite the progress made in bridging the digital divide in
the U.S. and abroad, education disparities remain a significant barrier: if
populations lack the skills to use ICTs effectively, e-government will remain
inaccessible to them.
In the “Connecting Research with Policy and Practice”
virtual forum that occurred during the first week of the conference, Professor
Darrell West of Brown University and John Horrigan of the Pew Internet and
American Life Project noted some of the many challenges faced by individuals
with limited skills. According to Professor West, government website
readability is problematic for millions of Americans lacking advanced literacy
skills. For example, U.S. government websites are often written at an
equivalent of the 11th grade level, despite the fact that much of
the U.S. public reads at the eighth grade level or lower. “Sixty-three percent
of federal sites read at the 12th grade level, while 68 percent of
state sites are at that level, and 70 percent of city sites are legible at the
12th grade level,” Professor West stated. “Only 12 percent of state
and federal sites and eight percent of municipal sites fell at the eighth grade
level or below.” Similar challenges can be expected in any country where
segments of the population struggle with basic literacy.
According to a Pew study
published in July 2003, there is also a correlation between education level and
the likelihood of constituents attempting to interact with government. “The
predilection to contact government using any means tracks closely with
education,” Pew’s John Horrigan explained. “About 56 percent of all Americans
contacted government in the past year. Eighty percent of those with a college
education did this, compared with 44 percent of high school graduates.”
Similarly, the Pew study correlated the relationship between the length of a
user’s Internet experience with their use of government websites. “Those who
have more online experience are the heavy e-gov users,” he continued. “Seventy-eight
percent of online users with six or more years of online experience visited a
government website in the past year, compared with 42 percent of new Internet
users” —those online for a year or less.
“I
doubt if there are five people in the federal government who know how to write
at the level required by law,” commented readability consultant William
DuBay. “Addressing [low-level readers] does not come automatically, but only
with training and method. As Jacques Barzun said, ‘Simple English is no person's
native tongue.’ We cannot blame the problem on the schools, immigration, or
non-Native speakers of English. Most of the literacy problems are of native
English speakers.”
In general, conference
participants felt that basic readability needed to be addressed by the agencies
implementing e-government. Online services and resources that are meant to
better engage constituents with government have to be readable to all
populations if they are truly going to facilitate that engagement.
If communities are to utilize
e-government services equitably and effectively, it is also necessary to
improve strategies for teaching the public a broad set of relevant technical,
cognitive and civic skills—abilities that have been termed as 21st
century skills. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a U.S.
coalition of education institutions and IT corporations supported by the U.S.
Department of Education, has begun to tackle the challenge of how to teach 21st
century skills in primary and secondary education. In its landmark report, Learning
for the 21st Century (http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Report.pdf),
the Partnership outlined the various skill sets required for full participation
in the information society. Other entities in the U.S. and abroad have
invested heavily in identifying these necessary ICT literacy skills. Built
upon a backbone of basic literacy and numeracy, the public must become ICT
literate—possessing the ability to access, utilize, manipulate and create
information, whether via computers, the Internet or other tools. Developing
these skills is vital for achieving e-government for all: if individuals can’t
navigate the Internet or manage information effectively, they will be unable to
use e-government at any level. To succeed, initiatives such as the Partnership
for 21st Century Skills and others around the world must be applied beyond the
halls of primary and secondary schools. Adults must have ICT learning
opportunities in both formal and informal settings, whether through job training
initiatives, libraries, telecenters or other community lifelong learning
programs.
Additionally, if communities
lack the skills to create information and interact through the
Internet and other ICTs, they will be in a weaker position to participate in
the political process, especially as more constituent-to-government
communications occur online. “The point of being a producer in today’s
technology-reliant and media saturated world is to have some voice in ...
political discourse,” explained Tony Wilhelm of the Benton Foundation. In the
U.S., for example, the well-documented campaign of former presidential
candidate Howard Dean has demonstrated how Internet-savvy constituents can
influence campaign politics, whether through online event organizing,
participating in virtual discussions and Internet polling or publishing Web
logs (commonly known as “blogs”). These trends are proving to be a boon for
those people fortunate enough to be well versed in the ways of the Internet.
But as political campaigns, government services and policymaking migrate to the
Internet, individuals and communities lacking 21st century skills
will find it harder and harder to participate in civic discourse.
“If the Internet is going to
fulfill its promise to support and enhance the quality of civil society and
support our efforts to collaborate to make a better outcome, then we need to
focus more on the social computing capacities of the Internet and less on its
information processing capacity,” added Lisa Kimball of Group Jazz.
Beyond the obvious technical and
cognitive skills required to use the Internet effectively, it is also necessary
to address the notion of civic literacy. Too many people are uninformed
about how government actually works and how decisions are made. “Just because
you can have e-rulemaking facilities doesn’t mean everyone understands how a
rule is made, how to submit comments, how to follow up with [government] agency
heads, where to look for background citations, etc,” noted Ryan Turner of OMB Watch.
“It’s becoming quite clear that
21st century skills are an inherent prerequisite to achieving
E-Government for All,” concluded Andy Carvin of the Digital Divide Network, now
program director at the EDC Center for Media & Community. As public sector
institutions develop e-government initiatives to give constituents greater
access to politicians and the policymaking process, they must also educate
constituents about the workings of government—and how they too can play a part.
Website Accessibility Standards
Website accessibility for the disabled reoccurred as
a major discussion theme throughout the virtual conference. E-government for
all depends fundamentally on equitable access to information and services,
without discrimination because of one’s physical abilities. Overall,
participants concluded that providing access to information and services could
be a pivotal step in creating and maintaining effective e-government
initiatives.
U.S. websites that are considered accessible comply with the
“Priority Level One” guidelines recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C), as well as compliance with federal statutory requirements known as
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 mandates that government
websites adhere to all guidelines to make e-government websites accessible for
those with disabilities. Conference participants repeatedly discussed the need
for greater adoption of techniques for achieving accessibility, including
e-government websites that adopt alternative keyboard navigation, comply with
screen-reader compatibility and utilize verbal tagging of graphics and images.
Conference panelist Judy Brewer of the W3C’s Web
Accessibility Initiative presented a case for international accessibility
standards harmonization. “Can adoption of the same
set of Web accessibility guidelines across different countries, states, and
provinces actually accelerate the process of making the Web accessible, by
creating a unified market for Web authoring software developers to respond to?”
she asked participants.
U.S. federal agencies have developed their own style guides
that take general accessibility into account, particularly in the context of
Section 508 compliance. Participants generally felt that recent improvements
in making federal websites more accessible for the disabled show the promise
for e-government to become accessible for all in the future, but that there was
still much work to be done, particularly in the enforcement of accessibility
regulations.
Linguistic Accessibility
In an increasingly globalized world characterized by complex
patterns of immigration and migrant workers, many societies that previously
spoke a single language are becoming multilingual. For many nations around the
world, of course, multiple languages is the historic norm, yet too often
certain linguistic populations do not have their language represented
adequately or officially, particularly in the context of interactions with
government. These populations who do not speak the official languages of a
country are often marginalized and placed at a socioeconomic disadvantage.
E-government that does not acknowledge the need for services and resources in
alternative languages further marginalizes these non-native language speakers.
Darrell West’s research indicates that U.S. governments have been slow to make
their websites accessible in minority languages spoken by large concentrations
of constituents. West found that in 2003, only 13 percent of U.S. federal
websites and 16 percent of city websites offered some type of foreign language
translation.
“The reality of our world today is that there are millions
of people in the U.S. who are here legally, yet haven’t mastered the language
yet,” said session moderator Andy Carvin. “Does that mean they should be expected to access
important government information only in English, in the hopes of them
improving their English through essentially what could be considered ‘tough
love’ assimilation?”
Professor Stephen Coleman of the Oxford Internet Institute
commented that the U.S. could learn strategies from multilingual environments
like Canada or Wales, which by local necessity must operate e-government
services in more than one language. “I advise the
National Assembly for Wales on its e-democracy strategy and there would be no
prospect of this being pursued as a monolingual project,” he said. “Americans
should observe that most of the world’s Internet users do not speak English and
many of the world’s countries do very well by having more than one officially
recognized language.”
“It is important to remember that many non-native
speakers are
citizens,” offered Rosemary Gunn of Information Renaissance. “One reason for
participation is the possibility of more realistic, effective decisions. Then
the important question in thinking about whose participation should be
encouraged is not language or citizenship—it is who will be affected by a
decision and who needs to be involved to get it implemented—and therefore who
decision makers need to hear from before deciding.”
In some cases, e-government linguistic inequity is
the result of political upheaval. Andrei Marusov of Ukraine, moderator of the
first email discussion list in the former Soviet Union focused on e-government,
noted that the fall of the USSR has led to a linguistic backlash against the
use of the Russian language in former Soviet states. “Let’s look into
Ukrainian experience,” he suggested. “One fifth of population is Russian by
ethnic origin. Over 50 percent use Russian at home. The logical/rational step
is to adopt Russian as the second official language (at least in localities
heavily populated by Russians) and to mandate that all governmental websites
have a Russian version. Such logic does not work in Ukraine. Though Ukraine
ratified European Charter on Regional Minority Languages, local decisions about
official status of Russian are fiercely opposed by some political forces, and
often dropped by initiators. And the state keeps silence. The governmental
policy about state websites mandates that they ‘must be in Ukrainian, English
or any other language.’ No hint about Russian. The reason for such
‘irrational’ behavior is simple: the logic of nation-building still overrides
any other considerations.”
Darrell West cited an idea offered during a previous
discussion by Tony Wilhelm of the Benton Foundation, now director of the
Technology Opportunity (TOP) Program at the U.S. Department of Commerce, in
which governments would mandate the deployment of e-government in multiple
languages when the percent of people speaking a particular language in a given
jurisdiction equals 10 percent or more of the overall jurisdictional
population. This would be similar to the policy adopted by some governments in
which voting ballots are translated into multiple languages when there is a
critical mass of minority-language speakers in a given voter area. One
drawback to this concept, though, is that it would place a greater burden on
smaller jurisdictions: a national government, for example, would have more
resources to coordinate the translation of content and services into a second,
third or more languages than would a provincial or local government. This
would mean that smaller jurisdictions with local spikes in linguistic diversity
might have to solicit technical or financial assistance from their national
governments to support the necessary translation.
Website Navigability and
Document Formats
Conference participants noted on several occasions that
e-government services must be governed by standards that ensure public access.
Government officials who oversee the deployment of e-government content face a
difficult task because they have to create content and design sites that
address the varying abilities and needs of the public. For example, the average
person often struggles with website navigation–particularly in the case of
government resources with complex, interlocking layers of content.
“Since there is no uniform look to government websites,
every time someone goes onto to a new government site, he or she must take a
few moments to figure out how this particular site is organized and how to find
the material that is needed,” Darrell West offered. Creating a website that
can be easily navigated by all users is key to maintaining an easily accessible
virtual environment.
The issue of how and how long public documents are stored
was raised in the chat session with Bruce James, Public Printer of the United
States. A group of librarians suggested restoring the role of governmental
document storage and retrieval to public libraries. Another concern with
online documents was file format accessibility. Documents that use Adobe’s
popular PDF format are not always readable by assistive technology devices
utilized by the disabled and low-literate populations. Participants felt that
promoting open formats, in parallel with closer engagement with companies that
promote proprietary file formats, is needed to ensure that e-government
document publishing does not exclude entire groups of users.
Creating Relevant,
Substantive Content
Along with e-government readability and
accessibility, participants felt that the content and substance of e-government resources are crucial to the success
of e-government. For example, some attendees stressed
the importance of creating e-government websites with greater sensitivity to
users’ varying needs. “Much of what is being called e-government is really
about service delivery,” said participant Rosemary Gunn. She called for
governments to think about who needs each particular e-government service and
who should be involved in their deployment. The challenge, of course, is
identifying the needs of different groups of people, especially those who are
generally underserved or disenfranchised.
“There is little evidence of how low-income communities
access online resources, because there is a lack of sources relevant to their
needs,” said conference panelist Jessica Alvarez of the Digital Community of Columbia Heights and Shaw, a Washington DC
neighborhood. Developing need-based services could potentially increase
the diversity of e-government users, she said. “We need to develop self-paced
sites that are designed with consumer’s/end user’s voice as a central point of
development,” she added.
“These people may not harness computers or even want
them because they may see no value in them,” noted Taran Rampersad, a software
developer from Trinidad and Tobago and teacher at the University of the West
Indies School of Continuing Studies. “If they see a way to use them which adds value to them, they will use
them.” Rampersad went on to cite the elderly as a case in point. “Many people
see a divide with the elderly. I perceive a cultural grey area, where the
interests of the elderly vary from those of the younger generations—and this is
nothing new,” he said. “However, if you capture the interest of the elderly on
the new media and allow them to affect policies they are interested in on the
Internet, they would be the first ones there….”
“Everything relates back to the interest of the
citizen in their own governance,” Rampsersad concluded. “Encouraging the
interest is key—through easier use of technology, to assuring that the most is
done to meet primary needs of citizens, to simply making things readable.”
“The major concern that we have with the current
[e-government] system … is that it has been designed without the input of the people that would benefit from it,” stated
Shireen Mitchell of Washington DC’s Digital Sisters initiative. E-government
initiatives that are being developed with the general public in mind should
solicit input from a diversity of potential users, she added.
Gopalakrishnan Devanathan, an e-government consultant
in Chennai, India, emphasized the need for formal input by constituents.
“E-government will not sustain [itself] if it is just the implementation of
technology for the sake of implementation,” he said. “It needs deep
involvement, commitment and buy-in by citizens. Watch-dog groups of senior
citizens and professionals can be set up to disseminate information to the
public at large, which can be debated and accepted. It is easier said than
done. But we should make a beginning to succeed. E-governance of the people,
by the people for the people is the need of the hour. Let’s all work towards
that.”
Karl Hebenstreit, Jr. of the U.S. General Services
Administration noted a conversation at a recent usability workshop in which
speakers suggested that government agencies develop a collection of constituent
case studies, or “personas,” that would help government website developers
think more about the needs and abilities of particular audiences. “The idea is
that we should be able to build some composite ‘personas’ (probably about a
dozen) which could then be shared across government agencies, and that these
personas could help guide user interface design,” he explained.
Public versus At-Home
Internet Access
Attendees debated the contentious issue of whether
ubiquitous public Internet access would suffice for all people to access
e-government services, rather than the harder goal of achieving ubiquitous
at-home access. Some policymakers, for example, have argued that the digital
divide is not a major concern because constituents who don’t have Internet
access at home can always travel to their local library or community technology
center to go online. Indeed, telecenters are one of the driving forces in
combating the digital divide, particularly because they are often seen as
trusted institutions within the community, where residents unfamiliar with ICTs
may interact with fellow community members to learn how to use them.
Carol Barraclough of Durban, South
Africa, shared her experience with an experimental e-government project
utilizing public libraries as Internet access points. Eighteen libraries
initially were set up as telecenters, and now the project is being expanded.
During the project’s implementation, Barraclough discovered that residents
needed to trust library staff if they were going develop ICT skills. “It led
me to believe that in the early stages of e-government, particularly with older
members of the population, a friendly and trusted intermediary is critical to
the process,” she said.
While institutions like these are playing vital roles in
their communities, some participants worried that the sole reliance on public
access in policymaking could be a deterrent for people wishing to use the
Internet to address sensitive personal issues. “If we could only use a
[public] kiosk, how would you make sure the individual who uses it would not
have to worry about their private information being available to others that
should not have access—even as simple as looking over their shoulder?”
questioned Shireen Mitchell. Even if these privacy issues could be addressed
through technical or other means, would undeserved populations who are
suspicious of government or technology feel confident to use public Internet
access?
“It’s unacceptable to expect people to use public
computers for transactions and information collecting that require personal,
sometimes highly embarrassing information,” Andy
Carvin added. “Imagine going to a
computer in a library to look up a sexually transmitted disease you might have,
or the schizophrenia your son’s been diagnosed with. Some people are comfortable
doing this; a lot of others simply aren’t."
Of course, bridging the digital divide is more
realistic if governments adopt policies to promote public Internet access,
given the cost of achieving ubiquitous at-home access. To address these
privacy concerns, therefore, constituents must be able to access ICTs through
familiar, trusted institutions in their community—institutions in which they
can feel confident that their privacy will be respected.
Funding Challenges
Even if a government entity has a plan to deliver
effective and accessible e-government, the dilemma of funding it often remains
the most significant barrier–particularly when achieving e-government for all
requires education solutions as well as technical ones. “If e-government is
going to be successful then they need to include in their implementation
designs of any services at least twice the amount of money spent on the
technology on educating the citizens and community based organization that will
provide the education to citizens,” Shireen Mitchell stated.
Unfortunately, because some government officials
adopt the rhetoric that e-government is primarily a means to cutting the costs
of bureaucracy, the actual costs associated with implementing a holistic
e-government policy may cause some policymakers to balk at making the necessary
appropriations to fund equity-related expenses.
“It seems to be quite clear that many initial and
continuing e-government efforts are being driven by achieving cost reductions
and government efficiency, or even by the perceived need to simply ‘keep up’
and/or ‘be on the Web,’” observed Gregory M. Benson of The NYS Forum. “Those
motives have often resulted in diminished citizen access to information and
services as the migration to the Web has given rise to the faulty assumptions
inherent to the idea that simply being on the Web can supplant traditional
government service delivery channels.”
Whether e-government content is being updated or
created from scratch, there is always a cost associated with it, especially if
the content is to be readable and accessible to all. But much of e-government
remains focused on streamlining bureaucracy and cost-cutting, rather than
achieving accessibility and equity. So while it is true that many government
websites strive to achieve greater accessibility, this process often moves at a
glacial pace, while other standards of equity such as second language access
and low-level readability are rarely addressed due to their perceived cost and
complexity.
Funding also draws attention to the long-term sustainability
of e-government initiatives. Given the best-case scenario, in which
e-government initiatives are long-lasting and successful, it will be essential
to maintain funding streams to keep these services current and relevant. “It
was almost as though there was an assumption [by policymakers] of technology
being a one-time major expense, and the attitude was ‘Hey we gave you the
computers, what more do you want?’” offered Gloria Bobbie, a lecturer at the
State University of New York/Plattsburg and Director
of Research for IntegrateLearning.Org. Technology and content are
constantly evolving, demanding regular upgrades of both equipment and
information, all of which requires ongoing investment.
“In today’s economy and with the huge cuts in government
funding for education, there just is no money to sustain technology and
training needed to use it effectively,” Bobbie continued. “Perhaps it’s time
to say, ‘Stop the tech world: the citizens want to get on,’ and take a more
gradual approach that allows time to think through how technology can match
citizen abilities and needs.”
Participants also expressed concern over a lack of
consistent leadership when it comes to implementing equitable e-government. In
some cases, the problem occurs when innovative civil servants get transferred
from one department to another, stifling ongoing support of e-government
projects. “There seems to be some commitment from
few of the administrators heading the government departments, but in India the
commitment gets nowhere because of frequent transfers of these administrators
from one department to another,” said Piyush Gupta, an ICT consultant for the
Indian state of Punjab. “What happens when the concerned government
administrator or head of department is transferred to another department?”
“Government officials should recognize equity and
accessibility as important principles of government, principles that adhere in
the physical and virtual worlds,” Darrell West concluded. “It is not
sufficient to place information and services online if there are barriers to
their usage among various sectors of society. People who are poor, disabled,
not highly literate, or non-English speakers are entitled to an equal
opportunity to access essential information and services to improve their
lives.”
Fitting E-Democracy into the
Equation
E-democracy emerged early as a conference theme and remained
one of the most popular topics throughout the event. In general, participants
agreed that e-government should be more than the online provision of
information and services. E-democracy is the use of e-government for the
purpose of actively engaging citizens in the process of governance. Rik
Panganiban of the World Federalist Movement described e-democracy as the use of
ICTs “to increase citizen participation, consultation and deliberation on
government policy.” He noted this might be initiated by an official government
agency, a grass-roots organization or an individual activist. Mr. Panganiban
then quoted e-democracy advocate Steven Clift: “E-government is paying your
taxes online; e-democracy is having a say in how those taxes are spent.”
Conference participants uncovered some of the challenges and
opportunities related to e-democracy and civic engagement. There was a general
sense of optimism about the promise of the Internet expanding civic
participation and re-engaging underserved communities in the political
process. However, in the context of achieving e-government for all, Kenan
Jarboe of the Athena Alliance warned participants of what he referred to as
“fig leaf” civic participation. “In some cases e-government will be used to
present the fig leaf of access, notification and participation—without having
to make the extra effort to provide real access, notification and participation
to those who are easily shut out,” he said. As an example he cited a recent
online vote that took place in the U.S. city of Baltimore. The city’s mayor
wanted Baltimore’s Howard Street Bridge painted green, against the original
color scheme of the artist and architects. He said he would abide by the
decision of constituents, who could vote for their preference on the city’s
website. Apparently there were no other avenues for participation, so
constituents without Internet access were unable to have their voice heard on
the issue. This case illustrates the need to build greater awareness among
policymakers so they may understand the need to promote equal opportunities for
civic participation, both offline and online, while embracing strategies to
bridge the digital divide.
Perceptions regarding the state of the digital divide
generated a heated debate in the context of e-democracy. Alan J. Rosenblatt of
e-advocates.com, moderator of the E-Democracy and Civic Participation panel,
suggested that e-democracy activists should not overreact about the digital
divide, citing statistics to indicate that the gap is perhaps not as serious as
some may think. In response, Andy Carvin warned of painting too rosy a
picture, saying complacency about the digital divide will only further
marginalize underserved groups from participating in civic life. “The fact
that the mainstream [U.S. population] is online only exacerbates the
socioeconomic, civic and educational gap that exists between them and America’s
millions of marginalized, low-income, low-skilled and disabled citizens,” he
retorted. “And if these folks remain offline, they certainly are in no
position to benefit from e-government or e-democracy.”
Other participants generally concluded that the digital
divide could not be dismissed, and governments should use all channels
available—both online and offline—to encourage civic participation. “If you think that, in the best case, about four percent of
Mexicans … have access to the Internet, then [it] is easy to understand that
[access] is one of the most important of our problems,” said Martin Levenson,
an ICT advisor to the government of the Mexican state of Michoacán. “Local and
federal government agencies are trying to do something about that, but we have
a long road to go in this way. If you think it’s direct democracy with
four percent of the people who can vote, it doesn’t sound very democratic.”
Levenson added that Michoacán state is focusing on creating a “multi-channel”
relationship with constituents, relaying important government information via
telephone as well as the Internet.
Despite these concerns over the digital divide, the view
emerged that e-democracy efforts should not be cut back simply because the
divide exists. “Just because key groups tend to be offline, we should not
diminish the role of online politics,” Dr. Rosenblatt concluded. “Rather,
we should be sure to use offline methods to engage those not online, as well,
until such time when everyone has Internet access.”
A key question that emerged in the discussion was how to
mobilize diverse civic participation. “Some of the digital divide emphasis
seems to forget that the groups we talk about involving are also not
participating in other ways,” commented Rosemary Gunn. “This only emphasizes
the need to let people know that policymaking is relevant to their lives.” One
possible solution is ongoing, multi-channel outreach to these groups, through
activities such as public media campaigns, community events promoting ICT
literacy and traveling road shows offering access to mobile telecenters.
Greater outreach to underserved communities would help constituents see the
relevance of policy debates and grassroots civic participation, both offline and
online.
“If we can facilitate meaningful (and informed) dialogue
between citizens, they may come to a better understanding of issues … and
hopefully this would lead to useful compromises and governments introducing
policies which have a better chance of success,” commented Ella Smith of the
International Teledemocracy Center in Scotland. Deliberation should involve an
exchange of ideas based on equitable access to government services and
information.
“E-democracy is not a separate process,” said Tim Erickson,
founder of Politalk. “It’s a tool to be used in a wider context.” For
example, Move-On.org and MeetUp.com use online tools to connect individuals who
then meet face-to-face for discussion and action within their communities.
“Let’s be creative and not see e-democracy as an alternative which
excludes some segments of society,” Erickson added. E-democracy, therefore,
should be complementary to real-world civic participation rather than a
way of replacing it.
Returning to the problem of achieving civic participation
representing diverse interests, participants felt there was no “magic bullet”
that would ensure that e-democracy is accessible to all. Reaching people
facing different equity challenges requires a variety of policy strategies and communication
channels. Engaging these constituents in the political process will require
additional efforts and financial resources. Providing information on policy
issues, online/offline opportunities for public dialogue and meaningful
channels for participation accessible to all constituents should be important
concerns of governments at all levels. Further research and collaboration is
needed to identify best practices and strategies for reaching marginalized
populations and involving them in the political process.
Case Studies
from Conference Participants
Problems in Implementing
E-Government for All
Participants discussed core challenges to e-government
implementation, including projects that showed early indication of failure.
Many of the examples discussed suggested that the problem in implementing
e-government for all was often due to bureaucratic or technical problems, the
lack of political will or consensus, and funding limitations.
Tim Erickson of PoliTalk offered the situation in Andhra Pradesh,
India as an example. Erickson recently visited the Andhra Pradesh assembly and
met with government officials. He noticed very few computers in the government
offices. “I had a sense that putting the technology in place is only the first
step, but that a far more important cultural transition will need to accompany
it before it has a real effect,” he added.
In the U.S. state of Ohio, officials announced in 2002 their
intent to terminate its smart-card food stamp system, known as the Ohio Direction
Card. The card has the dubious distinction of being the most costly food stamp
system in the U.S., and faced a variety of equity challenges. During its five
years of operation, the system created numerous problems for low-income clients
who struggled to access their food stamp benefits. Problems were often based
on the limited number of affiliated public access terminals for managing one’s
benefits, as well as persistent technical problems with these terminals. “Many
clients, especially senior citizens and disabled persons, reported they
voluntarily left the food stamp program because of their frustration and the
inconvenience encountered as they attempted to access their modest food stamp
benefits,” said Lisa Hamler-Podolski of the Ohio Association of Second Harvest
Foodbanks. “As more government services are moved to online systems, it’s
important to recognize that not all people have the knowledge base, access to
the internet, equipment and/or ability to read and fully understand how these
systems operate. Thus there will always be a need to operate parallel service
delivery systems to accommodate and provide access to such information,
services, and programs.”
In another case, in the state of Missouri, the state
government stopped the paper publication of a guide for senior citizens on
locally available public health programs. Seniors were now expected to go
online and access a PDF document instead. In an interview with a local
journalist, a senior citizen described how he was holding on to a tattered copy
of the publication, even though some of its information was now obsolete,
because he was unable to access the Internet.
Andy Carvin provided an example from the state of Alabama
that had been documented by the local newspaper, the Birmingham News. In Alabama’s poorest region, where few people have
computers, the state employment agency erected billboards encouraging
job-seekers to surf its website for openings and training. But in an area
where few households have Internet access and libraries have only one computer,
some locals were puzzled that the agency’s billboards didn’t even provide a
phone number as an alternative source of information for job seekers. Doug
Dyer, chief of the Labor Market Information Division of the Industrial Relations
Department, said the department’s intent was to provide assistance to people in
areas where there are no employment centers. While the agency realized that
few residents in this region have computers or home Internet access, Dyer hoped
that they could somehow take advantage of public access to the Internet.
Examples of
Initiatives Tackling E-Government for All
Participants from the U.S. and abroad were given the
opportunity to share examples of projects in which governments were attempting
to achieve equitable public access to e-government services. Among the
initiatives described by participants:
U.S. Federal Communications
Commission (FCC)
Conference presenter David Kitzmiller, webmaster for
the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), described how the FCC strives
to ensure accessibility of its Web pages. A template-based design provides a
uniform look and standard navigation that was developed based on usability
studies, accessibility standards and input from stakeholders, he explained. This
template development involved manual, line-by-line evaluation against each of
Section 508’s accessibility criteria, which were then double-checked with
automated accessibility evaluation tools and screen readers. Section 508
adherence is maintained through the use of published design standards, style
guides, an internal intranet site on accessible-design techniques for FCC
webmasters, updates on accessibility issues through monthly FCC and
government-wide webmasters’ meetings,and direct advice from a citizens access
board. “Our challenge is to make our web site readable, useful, useable,
efficient, effective, interactive and informative for all citizens, including
traditionally underserved communities such as people with disabilities, people
in rural and tribal areas, older adults, people with low-literacy, non-English
speakers and people from a variety of backgrounds and educational levels—from
consumers to telecommunications-industry professionals,” Kitzmiller said.
Minnesota
Tim Erickson of Politalk discussed a weather-related
project in the U.S. state of Minnesota. During snow storm emergencies,
residents must move their cars off designated streets to make way for snow
plows. Individuals who do not get the communication about the snow emergency face
the prospect of having their cars towed and paying a hefty fine. The city of
St. Paul is currently experimenting with ways of using a combination of offline
and online communications to ensure that word of snow emergencies gets out as
effectively as possible. Along with using radio and television, the city has
begun to use email networks to encourage people with Internet access to spread
the word among their offline neighbors by telephone or door-knocking when a
snow emergency is declared. “I think there is real potential for this
combination of traditional media, e-government and grassroots neighborliness,”
Erickson said.
Chicago, Illinois
The city of Chicago presents a different example of
developing greater community Internet access in conjunction with skills
initiatives to accompany e-government initiatives. Conference participant
Andrew Pincon discussed his work with the Illinois eGovernment Working Group.
Chicago’s Technology Council has developed a successful and sustainable program
of recycling and refurbishing computers for deployment to schools and
colleges. The state’s network of 65 Small Business Development Centers has
adopted a progressive technology policy, including online seminars and
workshops reaching the desktops of some of the state’s 678,000 small businesses
at no cost to the small business community. In addition, Illinois has the
“largest private education telecommunication network of its kind in the world
with over 6,000 full wired end points at K-12 schools, colleges and universities,
museums and county offices,” Pincon said. “This network is increasingly being
put to use by state agencies and NGO nonprofits as they adapt to 21st century
technology and the convergence of voice and data networks.” By providing
resources and low-skilled individuals with 21st century skills,
Chicago is creating an environment where constituents will be prepared to
access and take advantage of e-government services.
Delaware
Mark Headd of Delaware’s Department of Technology and
Information encouraged those implementing e-government to experiment with
VoiceXML, the new coding language for creating vocal interactions between
people and computers. The
state of Delaware is starting to use VoiceXML to provide phone-based access to
content and services previously only available on the Web. This technology is
at the core of the Access Delaware project (http://www.state.de.us/dti/access_des.html), which provides a number of important
services for Delaware residents. “As one example, we took an existing visual
Web application that provided information on voter polling places and created a
VoiceXML implementation,” Headd explained. “This voice application received
several thousand phone calls during the statewide general election last year.”
Headd added that VoiceXML can provide a number of
significant advantages for governments by dramatically widening the audience
for government Web content and helping address the wariness that keeps some
people from using the Web as a way of learning about government services and
information. The degree of telephone literacy among constituents far out paces
computer literacy; simply stated, phones are generally a lot easier to use than
computers. “VoiceXML has a huge untapped potential to help bridge the digital
divide by allowing governments to convert Web content and Web-based services
that exist today only on the visual Web into phone-based applications,” he
said.
San Diego County, California
Rebecca Stawiski, Executive Director of the San Diego
Futures Foundation, discussed how San Diego County is developing creative ways
of engaging local underserved populations as the county embraces e-government.
“The county decided in 1999 to outsource all of its information technology work
to private contractors,” she explained. “[T]he county required all competing
contractors to submit an ‘added value’ proposal for how they might support the
community and the county’s e-government vision. The result was that a
nonprofit foundation, called the San Diego Futures Foundation, was formed to
provide computers and technical training and support to San Diego County’s
underserved populations, thus helping to ensure that those constituents who
need access to the county’s new online services would have that access.”
“In less than four years, the San Diego Futures Foundation
has delivered 5,000 computers and 10,000 hours of technical support and
training to San Diego’s underserved populations,” she continued.
“Additionally, the Futures Foundation has built a portal that provides
community members with an interactive capability to get involved in their
communities, provides them with information on local community services, and
supports e-government through direct links to local, state, and federal
government online resources.... The Futures Foundation, in conjunction with
other local organizations, is supporting e-government initiatives that include
installing computer centers to facilitate application for earned income tax
credits for low-income constituents. To bring technology directly to San
Diego’s underserved populations, the County and Union Bank sponsor the eBus, a
20 station mobile computing lab with Internet connectivity.” To support
computer ownership, Stawiski’s organization is working with the Urban League,
the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Operation Homefront, and San Diego State
University Foundation to get computers into the hands of low-income families.
“In the case of San Diego County, the public private
partnership came from the need of the county to update their entire information
technology infrastructure,” Stawiski said. “The solution called for
outsourcing the IT to high technology companies that have IT as their core
competency and it meant that the county would not have to raise the cash needed
for this massive change since the cost could be spread over the life of the
contract. In this case, there were no obstacles. The partnership was brought
together through a public sector need and a private sector solution. In fact,
this partnership exemplifies what makes most successful partnerships work:
mutual need.”
“A very big challenge for San Diego and other communities is
ensuring that all constituents have access to e-government services,” she
concluded. “As you are all well aware, there are a range of issues that
accompany that access: access to computers and the Internet, training, and
language and physical barriers. Through the San Diego Futures Foundation, the
county is addressing some of those issues, specifically in the area of computer
and Internet access and basic computer training.”
Sweden
Gail Watt of Sweden offered several Swedish
e-government initiatives that address issues of at-home Internet access. Five
years ago, he explained, Sweden enacted a program for citizens to deduct the
cost of a PC purchase from their taxes. The initiative has cost the country
nearly USD$1 billion in tax revenue, but Mr. Watt says the program has worked
“like a charm” in increasing Internet access and usage. According to
Nielsen/NetRatings, nearly two-thirds of the households in Sweden currently
have Internet access.
Conclusion & Next Steps
After two
weeks of engaging discussion exploring the concept of E-Government for All,
there was a strong sense among participants that governments are eager to
implement e-government, yet aren’t always aware of how the issue fits into the
broader equation of bridging the digital divide. In many cases, local
governments appeared to be making the connection between the issues better than
national governments; across the board, though, participants felt that much
work could be done to encourage governments to pursue their e-government
strategies while keeping in mind the various equity disparities among their
constituents.
Conference panelists and attendees brainstormed to identify
reoccurring obstacles to ensuring e-government for all, as well as general
principles that might be adopted for achieving it. Based on these online
discussions, we offer the following “Top 10 Lists” of obstacles and
opportunities. These lists are by no means exhaustive; rather, they are
presented to encourage policymakers to examine the issue further while
encouraging the development of creative policies and practice.
10 Obstacles to E-Government for All:
- A Disconnect in
E-Government and Digital Divide Policies. Eagerness to implement
e-government while failing to examine its impact on underserved, marginalized
populations; not connecting existing digital divide initiatives to e-government
deployment strategies.
- Unnecessary Bells
and Whistles. Online government services that are over-designed with
unnecessary multimedia, making them inaccessible to certain populations, either
due to physical disability or limited bandwidth.
- Non-Enforcement (or
Lack) of Accessibility Standards. Policymakers acknowledging the need for
website accessibility but lacking the enforcement mechanisms for implementing
it at all levels of government; publishing government documents in inaccessible
proprietary formats.
- Insensitivity to
Readability Levels. Creating documents and services written in language
above the reading level of their intended target audience.
- Linguistic
barriers. Creating content only in the language(s) of the majority while
failing to provide assistance to minority language speakers.
- E-Government User
Unfriendliness. Online services that are confusing and cumbersome to all
but the most sophisticated Internet user.
- Out with the Old,
In with the New. Shutting down government services that were previously
available offline in exchange for moving them online; lack of long-term
strategy for archiving government documents; charging fees for online
government documents that were once available at no cost
- Funding Challenges.
Inability to cover the costs of making e-government services more equitable, unsustained
funding for digital divide/ ICT literacy initiatives.
- Non-Engagement of
the Private Sector and Civil Society. Failure to seek partnerships with
businesses, NGOs and other entities that are working “in the trenches” to
bridge the digital divide, improve ICT literacy or promote civic engagement.
- Lack of Public
Engagement. Failure to promote e-government programs to the general public,
particularly in the context of encouraging access to relevant digital
divide/ICT literacy programs that would improve equity among marginalized
communities.
10 Opportunities for Achieving E-Government for All
- Educating
Government Officials. Digital divide activists and others seeking ICT
equity should seek out policymakers to help them make the connection between successful
e-government and bridging the digital divide; buy-in from political leaders can
lead to the development and enforcement of e-government policies that address
equity issues.
- Establishing
Cross-Agency E-Government for All Working Groups. Expand interaction
between policymakers and civil servants involved in e-government deployment,
infrastructure, education, ICT literacy and bridging the digital divide, to
help interconnect disparate policies, budgets and technical resources for
achieving e-government for all.
- Employing Public
Input to Improve Understanding of Audience. Government agencies proving
e-government services should integrate panels of constituents representing a
diversity of backgrounds, skills and abilities to review e-government practices
and offer input during the implementation process.
- Enforcing Web
Accessibility and Readability Standards. Governments should mandate a
minimum level of accessibility that addresses the needs of people with
disabilities, working with entities such as the W3C Web Accessibility
Initiative. National governments should seek agreement on technical standards
for achieving accessibility goals. Similarly, governments should develop
readability standards based on the actual reading levels of the
population; agencies should pay particular attention to e-government services
targeting populations in which low literacy levels and other equity challenges
are likely to be a factor.
- Creating
E-Government for All Ombudsmen. Agencies managing e-government services
should task a high-level civil servant to serve as representative for
constituents seeking equity-related improvement of e-government services;
providing constituents merely with an email address of webmaster or other
technical support person is insufficient.
- Know Thy Audience –
Development of User “Personas.” Government agencies, in conjunction with
citizens’ panels, should develop hypothetical profiles of e-government users,
paying particular attention to the diversity of literacy and language skills,
as well as physical ability; profiles can be used during the development
process to assist authors and designers in creating accessible content,
particularly when content targets marginalized populations.
- Engagement with
Private Sector and Civil Society. Government officials should tap into
networks across various sectors of society that work with underserved
populations to maximize opportunities for bridging the digital divide as well
as improving basic and ICT literacy.
- Address the Cost of
E-Government for All Prior to Deployment. Rather than treaty equity goals
as an afterthought to e-government deployment, governments should factor equity
into the appropriations process to ensure that costs related to accessible
website design, readability testing, translation services, long-term archiving,
etc. can be addressed.
- Establish standards
for Digital Divide-Related Research. Governments should work with the
research community at both a national and international level for creating
metrics for measuring the digital divide at the community level, taking into
account data related to public/at-home Internet access, basic and ICT literacy,
content development/availability, civic participation, etc.
- Maintaining
Alternative Channels to Information and Services. The creation of
e-governments services should not be seen as an excuse to eliminate their
offline equivalent; rather, online government information and services should
be complementary to resources and opportunities available via other
media (television, radio, paper, telephone) and at public offices.
E-government for all should be seen as an ongoing process:
there is no bureaucratic light switch that can flipped on to make current and
future e-government services equitable to all populations, particularly when addressing
the many other development challenges faced by less-developed nations. In much
the same way the governments use multi-stage models like Gartner’s Four Stages
of E-Government to map out their e-government goals, they should integrate the
notion of “e-government for all” throughout the entire process of planning and
implementing e-government. One possible example of this process might look
like the following chart.
Four Stages of E-Government
(Gartner Group, 2001)
|
Four
Stages of E-Government for All
(EDC Center for Media & Community, 2004)
|
Presence
Basic government
information made available online; resources available passively, not
actively, e.g. “brochureware”
|
Initiation
Basic online documents made
available in multiple formats to suit all users’ needs; users provided access
to free translation tools; Internet access provided to the public via schools
and libraries, telecenters and other public institutions; promotion of
volunteer programs for addressing ICT literacy; preservation of existing offline
channels for constituents to access government information and services.
|
Interaction
Constituents can manipulate
online services to download documents, data, access other resources.
Interactions are relatively simple and straightforward: user defines basic
request and e-government resource identifies the closest match to that
request.
|
Engagement
Governments engage constituents to develop
user-friendly, accessible interactive government services; promote
opportunities for constituents to gain Internet access, improve literacy and
ICT skills; partner with the private sector, civil society and academia to
coordinate strategies regarding ICT literacy and the digital divide; adopt
technical standards for accessibility, readability, etc; develop policy prototypes
to address equity concerns; partner with the private sector to invest in
advanced translation tools.
|
Transaction
Constituents can complete
entire transactions with government entities (licenses, tax payments,
contracting, etc) virtually. Ability for e-government resource to complete
|
