Moving to a Transformational Government Framework: The Utility of
15
1 | Moving to a Transformational Government Framework Moving to a Transformational Government Framework: The Utility of Electronic Service Delivery in North Carolina Local Governments By CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND KENRICK A paper submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Public Administration April 1, 2013 This paper represents work done by a UNC-Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration student. It is not a formal report of the School of Government, nor is it the work of School of Government faculty. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With the advent of the Internet, came the inevitable move towards electronic service delivery in the public sector. Today, many people can avoid standing in line to pay for their utility bill by visiting their local government’s online bill-pay portal. However, many local governments still question the benefits of moving towards an electronic service delivery system. This study shows how the various payment options public utility systems provide customers affects the revenues they collect. Finally, the study provides recommendations for local governments seeking to improve constituent interaction through electronic service delivery.
Transcript of Moving to a Transformational Government Framework: The Utility of
1 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m
e n t F r a m e w o r k
Moving to a Transformational Government Framework: The Utility of Electronic Service Delivery in North Carolina Local Governments
By
CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND KENRICK
A paper submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Public Administration
April 1, 2013
This paper represents work done by a UNC-Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration student. It is not a formal report of the School of Government, nor is it the work of
School of Government faculty.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the advent of the Internet, came the inevitable move towards electronic service delivery in the public sector. Today, many people can avoid standing in line to pay for their utility bill by visiting their local government’s online bill-pay portal. However, many local governments still question the benefits of moving towards an electronic service delivery system. This study shows how the various payment options public utility systems provide customers affects the revenues they collect. Finally, the study provides recommendations for local governments seeking to improve constituent interaction through electronic service delivery.
2 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
BACKGROUND
Business in the public sector has fundamentally changed since the Internet boom of the
early 1990’s. As we move further into the information era, Millennialsi are calling on
government to embrace technology.ii These digital nativesiii are now entering the job
market and are already transforming the way government interacts with its citizens. In
response to these requests, during his first term in office, President Obama called on
different government departments to accelerate broadband infrastructure deployment,iv
take specific actions to improve transparency,v and to increase access to federally owned
data.vi
In North Carolina, municipal governments have gone through drastic changes over the past
ten years. In a 2001 study on E-Government in Rural North Carolina conducted by the
Center for Public Technology, about 34% of tier 1 and 2 municipalities reported having no
Internet connection at all. Furthermore, only 21% of municipalities in the same tiers
reported having official web sites.vii Today, the entire state has nearly 100% broadband
connectivity.viii
Less than twenty years ago, if a citizen had to pay for a utility bill and their local
government did not accept payments over the phone, the only other options were to either
mail in the payment or risk having to wait in a lengthy line. However, for some, these
options were not viable. As technology became cheaper and more readily accessible,
government had no choice but to join the online world.ix Today, the options to pay a bill,
receive news from your local government, or even interact with them in ways we would
have found unimaginable two decades ago, are growing at an incredible rate.
Still, not everyone has the luxury of accessing the government services that are there to
help them.x Much of the research focusing on the digital divide centers on the idea that
there are two groups of citizens, the “Haves” and the “Have Nots.” Simply put, there are
those who have access to technology and those who do not. xi However, framing the issue as
nothing more than a problem of access is disingenuous at best.
While research on electronic service delivery in the public sector continues to expand,
there is little doubt that the lack of access to e-government has a larger negative effect on
those citizens who do not have the means to acquire the necessary technology for e-service
delivery.xii The digital divide is still very much alive, but its effects on governments at the
local level remain relatively unknown.
RESEARCH QUESTION & INTENDED AUDIENCE
This study’s primary research questions are:
Does the type of electronic services delivery (EDS) a public utility system offers affect the
revenues they collect for charges for service?
Can the tech sophistication of a local government affect their utility system’s revenue stream?
3 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
Due to the broad reach of technology in the public sector, this research may provide key
insights to local governments exploring electronic service delivery opportunities, public
information technology professionals and academics, and members of the public.
METHODOLOGY
This study uses a quantitative research design to determine whether the government-to- citizen (G2C) services employed by a local government can affect the financial condition of their water and sewer utility system. This study focuses on 52 municipally owned water and sewer utility systems. The criteria for utility system selection were those who:
1. Are municipal governments located in the state of North Carolina
2. Serve communities with a population over 10,000
3. Participated in a 2010 University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center
run financial practices surveyxiii
4. Are listed on their local government’s website
5. And whose information on payment methods offered is readily accessible through
their local government’s website
For the purpose of this study, the 52 utility systems are split into rural or urban regions, as designated by the N.C. Rural Economic Development Center Inc.xiv In order to answer the first research question, data was collected from the local government’s websites where each utility system is located. The following payment methods were selected as the primary types offered by N.C. utility systems:
Payment in person during business hours
Mail payment
Pay by automated phone system 24/7
One-time payment with a credit card
One-time payment with a debit card, or by bank draft
Recurring monthly payments with a credit card
Recurring monthly payments with a debit card, or by bank draft
In addition, this study explores the relationship between the financial conditions of each utility system as they relate to the technological sophistication of their local government. To determine the technological sophistication of a local government, information was collected on the types of tools each institution is using currently to interact with their citizens on a day-to-day basis. These tools include interaction through social media services, the offering of mobile applications, the mobile friendliness of a local government’s website, and providing free public Wi-Fi.
4 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
FINDINGS
The initial findings showed noticeable differences in average poverty rate, median household income ranges, payment methods offered, social media offered, and mobile friendly websites offered between utility systems located in rural and urban regions. However, utility systems in both regions are averaging an identical net income of 3% revenues over expenses.
While there were eight payment methods used as variables for this study, only two of the methods had enough variation between utility systems to provide actual insight. Almost all of the utility systems used five of the eight payment methods, while the remaining method was used by almost none of the systems. xv As seen in Table 2, the utility systems choosing to offer one of the two payment methods, “Pay by Phone During Business Hours” and “Pay by Automated 24/7 Phone System” had identical average net incomes, receiving 6% payments for service more than is needed to cover their utility system expenses. So, it appears that it does not make a difference which of the two phone payment methods a utility system offers. However, a perhaps even more interesting finding is the financial implications for utility systems that did not offer either of the two phone payment methods. For those utility systems offering neither of the payment methods, they averaged at a net loss of 5% payments for service over expenses. Simply put, these utility systems are operating at an average loss of 5% due to not receiving enough payments for service.
Finally, while examining the existing relationships between the remaining variables, the study revealed three interesting correlations that help to highlight the differences between
Table 1: Regional Differences
Rural 27 23% 42% $37,000 5.6 +3% 2.1 2
Urban 25 17% 40% $50,000 6.1 +3% 3.6 7
Table 2: Phone During Business Hours vs. Automated 24/7 Phone System
Utility Systems Offering Payment Method
Net Income/Net Loss
Phone During Business Hours & Automated 24/7 Phone System
12 +4%
12 -5%
5 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
services offered to low income and minority populations and those offered to populations with a higher median household income. The first significant finding is poverty rate increases in local governments located in rural regions. While this finding is not significant in itself, it helps provide context to the second point of interest. In areas where the poverty rate increases, there is a decrease in a local government’s technological sophistication. That is, local governments serving low income populations offer less Web 2.0 tools to their citizens. And lastly, in the areas where utility systems are serving a population with a higher poverty rate, payment by an automated 24/7 phone system is offered more frequently.xvi
LIMITATIONS
There are two primary limitations to this study. The first limitation is as technology continues to grow and change at a rapid pace, important research findings become outdated quickly. Additionally, research on e-government services in the United States is a relatively small field. While part of this research focuses on whether a local government’s website is mobile friendly, the research field of technology in government still has not explored mobile government (m-government).
Secondly, most local governments do not currently collect information on their e- government services, and many have not even started offering m-government services. As a result, information such as customers using a web portal service to pay for their utility bills is not readily available. Due to these issues, the majority of information collected for this study came from a combination of searching government websites, relying on relevant surveys, and following the recommendations of related literature.xvii As a result, this process leaves room for possible human error.
RECOMMENDATIONS
While the research findings did show statistically significant relationships between the utility systems located in urban regions, and the increase in technological sophistication of local governments in those areas,xviii future research would benefit from being able to acquire better data from local governments. The following recommendations could benefit local governments seeking to improve constituent interaction, and lead the way to improved research in the field of electronic services delivery in the public sector. Collect Metrics for Future Evaluation
As no two local governments are the same, it is important to establish clear benchmarks and collect appropriate metrics. This process is necessary to understand what services citizens are currently using, and which ones are no longer needed.xix In addition, collecting appropriate data may help identify the demographic makeup of citizens or areas within each municipality that are not accessing specific e-government services.
6 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
First, local governments would benefit from establishing a baseline for their data collection criteria. In order to do this, local governments need to determine who it is they are serving, and how they might be able to reach those who are currently being overlooked. This can be accomplished through the use of existing website analytics based collection softwarexx, or by trying newly developed performance metrics and benchmarking software designed specifically for local governments.xxi Finally, each local government should employ a longitudinal study in order to collect enough data to guide their future decisions. Once they have a better understanding of the effects of their current services, the local governments can look into similar municipalities employing public sector best practices.
Create Mobile Friendly Websites and Offer Mobile Based G2C Applications
While offering e-government services to citizens is important, it is not enough. Those living
under the poverty line do not view broadband as an immediate need, but having a
smartphone to communicate is considered more essential and convenient. According to a
report published on October 21, 2012 by the National Center of Health Statistics, 32.8% of
NC adults over the age of 18 live in wireless-only households.xxii
The demographic makeup of smartphone users is changing drastically.xxiii Recent studies
showed nearly two-thirds of African-American and Latino cellphone owners using their
mobile devices for the Internet, compared to slightly more than half of white cellphone
owners. For African-American and Latino users, this number is up about 20% from studies
conducted three years ago. Compare these numbers to the municipalities in the study who
have a 42% minority population in rural regions and 40% minority population in urban
regions.xxiv Furthermore, smartphone owners of all demographic backgrounds in the
United States are now a majority (55%) of the mobile subscriber market, and are not
showing any signs of slowing.xxv
In their current state, the local government websites that are mobile friendly are nearly
non-existent. Out of the 52 local governments in this study, nine currently offer a mobile
optimized interface for their website. However, when evaluating the mobile-readiness of
each local government’s website, 49 of them received a rating of poor or below, while the
remaining three received a rating of fair.xxvi Creating a mobile friendly version of a website
is not only cheap and easy to do,xxvii but if the research is correct, it has the potential to
reach a lot of citizens who are currently being overlooked.
Throughout the years the public sector has been at the end of the adoption curve of
innovative technology, but it is time to change this habit.xxviii Local governments in North
Carolina could benefit greatly by understanding who it is they serve, in addition to moving
towards a more mobile friendly way of business.
7 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
CITATIONS
xviii Appendix A: “Bivariate Correlation Results.” xix Bélanger, 2012 xx Google. “Google Analytics.” Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/analytics/ xxi Revelstone. “Compass.” Retrieved from: http://www.revelstonelabs.com/?p=compass#pre-defined-measures xxii National Center for Health Statistics. “Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2011.” Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr061.pdf xxiii Yelton, 2012 xxiv U.S. CENSUS BUREAU. “State & County Quick Facts.” Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html xxv comScore. “comScore Reports January 2013 U.S. Smartphone Subscriber Market Share.” Retrieved from: http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/3/comScore_Reports_January_2013_U.S._Smartp hone_Subscriber_Market_Share xxvi MobiReady. “The mobiReady testing tool evaluates mobile-readiness using industry best practices & standards.” Retrieved from: http://ready.mobi/launch.jsp?locale=en_EN xxvii Spryestudio. “10 Great Tools to Create a Mobile Version of Your Site.” Retrieved from: http://spyrestudios.com/10-great-tools-to-create-a-mobile-version-of-your-site/ xxviii Shareef, 2012
BIBLIOGRAPHY Asgarkhani, Mehdi. "The Effectiveness of E-Service in Local Government: A Case Study." The Electronic Journal of E-Government 3, no. 4 (2005): 157-66. Bélanger, France, and Lemuria Carter. "Digitizing Government Interactions with Constituents: An Historical Review of E-Government Research in Information Systems." Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13, no. 5 (May 2012): 363-94. Bélanger, France, and Lemuria Carter. "The Impact of the Digital Divide on E-government Use." Communications of the ACM 52, no. 4 (April 01, 2009): 132-35. doi:10.1145/1498765.1498801. Brown, Phillip. "Mapping the Future with Broadband." Rural Telecommunications 27, no. 2 (March 2008): 30- 36. Brown, Ronald H., David J. Barram, and Larry Irving. "FALLING THROUGH THE NET: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America." National Telecommunications & Information Administration. July 1995. Accessed March 09, 2013. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html. Dixon, Brian E. "Towards E-Government 2.0: An Assessment of Where E-Government 2.0 Is and Where It Is Headed." Public Administration & Management 15, no. 2 (June 2010): 418-54. Elston, Craig, and Randy Wahl. Mobile Shoppers. Report no. Issue 3, 2012. 2012. Accessed January 13, 2013. www.ShopperCulture.com. Eskaf, Shadi, and Chris Nida. "Water and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures in North Carolina." Environmental Finance Center. March 2012. Accessed January 13, 2013. http://www.efc.unc.edu/projects/NCWaterRates.htm. Helbig, Natalie, J. Ramón Gil-García, and Enrico Ferro. "Understanding the Complexity of Electronic Government: Implications from the Digital Divide Literature." Government Information Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2009): 89-97. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2008.05.004. Horrigan, John B. "What Are the Consequences of Being Disconnected in a Broadband-Connected World?" Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 140, no. 4 (Fall 2011): 17-31. doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00112. Howle-Schelin, Shannon. "E-Government in Rural North Carolina." Popular Government 67, no. 2 (Winter 2002): 35-39. Lipsman, Andrew, and Carmela Aquino. "2013 Mobile Future in Focus." ComScore, Inc. February 2013. Accessed February 24, 2013. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2013/2013_Mobile_Future_in_Focus. Lipsman, Andrew, Carmela Aquino, and Stephanie Flosi. "2013 U.S. Digital Future in Focus." ComScore, Inc. February 2013. Accessed February 24, 2013. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2013/2013_US_Digital_Future_in_Foc us. Modarres, Ali. "Beyond the Digital Divide." National Civic Review 100, no. 3 (Autumn 2011): 4-7. doi:10.1002/ncr.20069. Mossberger, Karen, and Benedict Jimenez. "Can E-Government Promote Civic Engagement? A Study of Local Government Websites in Illinois and the U.S." Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement Research Partnership.
10 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
October 6, 2009. Accessed April 9, 2012. http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/ipce/interior/research%20partnership.html. Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Allison Hamilton. "Measuring Digital Citizenship: Mobile Access and Broadband." International Journal of Communication (Online) 6 (2012): 2492-528. Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, Daniel Bowen, and Benedict Jimenez. "Unraveling Different Barriers to Internet Use : Urban Residents and Neighborhood Effects." Urban Affairs Review 48, no. 6 (November 2012): 771-810. doi:10.1177/1078087412453713. Norris, Donald F., and Christopher Reddick. "E-Government 2011 Survey Summary." ICMA: Leaders at the Core of Better Communities. August 21, 2011. Accessed September 26, 2012. http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/302947/EGovernment_2011_Surv ey_Summary. Palfrey, John. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books, 2008. Rainie, Lee. "Two-thirds of Young Adults and Those with Higher Income Are Smartphone Owners." Pew Internet & American Life Project. September 11, 2012. Accessed January 14, 2013. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-Sept-2012/Findings.aspx. Schelin, Shannon Howle. "E-Government in Rural North Carolina." Popular Government, (Winter 2012): 35-39. Shareef, Mahmud A., Norm Archer, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. "EXAMINING ADOPTION BEHAVIOR OF MOBILE GOVERNMENT." Journal of Computer Information Systems 53, no. 2 (Winter 2012): 39-49. Sipior, Janice C., Burke T. Ward, and Regina Connolly. "An Empirical Evaluation of E-Government Inclusion Among the Digitally Disadvantaged in the United States." Information Resources Management Journal 23, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 21-39. doi:10.4018/irmj.2010100102. Smith, Aaron. "17% of Cell Phone Owners Do Most of Their Online Browsing on Their Phone, Rather than a Computer or Other Device." Pew Internet & American Life Project. June 26, 2012. Accessed January 17, 2013. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Cell-Internet-Use-2012/Key-Findings.aspx. Smith, Aaron. "The Best (and Worst) of Mobile Connectivity." Pew Internet & American Life Project. November 30, 2012. Accessed January 14, 2013. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Best-Worst- Mobile.aspx. Tolbert, Caroline J., Karen Mossberger, and Ramona McNeal. "Institutions, Policy Innovation, and E- Government in the American States." Public Administration Review 68, no. 3 (June 2008): 549-63. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00890.x. Yelton, Andromeda. "Who Are Smartphone Users?" Library Technology Reports 48, no. 1 (January 2012): 5-8.
11 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to recognize my committee members: Shannon H. Tufts (chair), Leisha DeHart Davis, and
Michele Hoyman, for their continuous guidance and support throughout what has been an especially
difficult year. I would also like to thank the MPA Class of 2013 and the Carolina MPA Staff for being the
family I could always rely on. And lastly, I would like to thank my better half, Jean C. Abreu, for always
being patient and believing in me even when I had my doubts.
12 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Bivariate Correlation Results
13 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
14 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
15 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
Appendix B: Financial Condition Indicators
Enterprise Funds Financial Indicator Calculation Description
Resource Flow (Statement of Activities)
Total margin ratio Total resource inflow (operating and non- operating revenues plus transfers in) divided by total resource outflow (operating and non- operating expenses plus transfers out)
Addresses whether or not a government lived within its financial means during the fiscal year.
Percent change in net assets
Change in net assets divided by net assets, beginning
Provides the magnitude of how a government’s financial position improved or deteriorated as a result of resource flow.
Charge to expense ratio Charges for services divided by operating and non-operating expenses
Addresses the extent to which service charge revenues covered total expenses.
Debt service ratio Debt service (principal and interest payments on long-term debt) divided by operating and non- operating expenses plus principal
Provides feedback on service flexibility with the amount of expenses committed to annual debt service.
Appendix C: Tech Sophistication Index
Tech Sophistication
Calculation Description Tech Sophistication = Social Media Services Used + Mobile applications Offered + Mobile Friendliness of Local Government’s Website + Providing Free Public Wi-Fi
Moving to a Transformational Government Framework: The Utility of Electronic Service Delivery in North Carolina Local Governments
By
CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND KENRICK
A paper submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Public Administration
April 1, 2013
This paper represents work done by a UNC-Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration student. It is not a formal report of the School of Government, nor is it the work of
School of Government faculty.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the advent of the Internet, came the inevitable move towards electronic service delivery in the public sector. Today, many people can avoid standing in line to pay for their utility bill by visiting their local government’s online bill-pay portal. However, many local governments still question the benefits of moving towards an electronic service delivery system. This study shows how the various payment options public utility systems provide customers affects the revenues they collect. Finally, the study provides recommendations for local governments seeking to improve constituent interaction through electronic service delivery.
2 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
BACKGROUND
Business in the public sector has fundamentally changed since the Internet boom of the
early 1990’s. As we move further into the information era, Millennialsi are calling on
government to embrace technology.ii These digital nativesiii are now entering the job
market and are already transforming the way government interacts with its citizens. In
response to these requests, during his first term in office, President Obama called on
different government departments to accelerate broadband infrastructure deployment,iv
take specific actions to improve transparency,v and to increase access to federally owned
data.vi
In North Carolina, municipal governments have gone through drastic changes over the past
ten years. In a 2001 study on E-Government in Rural North Carolina conducted by the
Center for Public Technology, about 34% of tier 1 and 2 municipalities reported having no
Internet connection at all. Furthermore, only 21% of municipalities in the same tiers
reported having official web sites.vii Today, the entire state has nearly 100% broadband
connectivity.viii
Less than twenty years ago, if a citizen had to pay for a utility bill and their local
government did not accept payments over the phone, the only other options were to either
mail in the payment or risk having to wait in a lengthy line. However, for some, these
options were not viable. As technology became cheaper and more readily accessible,
government had no choice but to join the online world.ix Today, the options to pay a bill,
receive news from your local government, or even interact with them in ways we would
have found unimaginable two decades ago, are growing at an incredible rate.
Still, not everyone has the luxury of accessing the government services that are there to
help them.x Much of the research focusing on the digital divide centers on the idea that
there are two groups of citizens, the “Haves” and the “Have Nots.” Simply put, there are
those who have access to technology and those who do not. xi However, framing the issue as
nothing more than a problem of access is disingenuous at best.
While research on electronic service delivery in the public sector continues to expand,
there is little doubt that the lack of access to e-government has a larger negative effect on
those citizens who do not have the means to acquire the necessary technology for e-service
delivery.xii The digital divide is still very much alive, but its effects on governments at the
local level remain relatively unknown.
RESEARCH QUESTION & INTENDED AUDIENCE
This study’s primary research questions are:
Does the type of electronic services delivery (EDS) a public utility system offers affect the
revenues they collect for charges for service?
Can the tech sophistication of a local government affect their utility system’s revenue stream?
3 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
Due to the broad reach of technology in the public sector, this research may provide key
insights to local governments exploring electronic service delivery opportunities, public
information technology professionals and academics, and members of the public.
METHODOLOGY
This study uses a quantitative research design to determine whether the government-to- citizen (G2C) services employed by a local government can affect the financial condition of their water and sewer utility system. This study focuses on 52 municipally owned water and sewer utility systems. The criteria for utility system selection were those who:
1. Are municipal governments located in the state of North Carolina
2. Serve communities with a population over 10,000
3. Participated in a 2010 University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center
run financial practices surveyxiii
4. Are listed on their local government’s website
5. And whose information on payment methods offered is readily accessible through
their local government’s website
For the purpose of this study, the 52 utility systems are split into rural or urban regions, as designated by the N.C. Rural Economic Development Center Inc.xiv In order to answer the first research question, data was collected from the local government’s websites where each utility system is located. The following payment methods were selected as the primary types offered by N.C. utility systems:
Payment in person during business hours
Mail payment
Pay by automated phone system 24/7
One-time payment with a credit card
One-time payment with a debit card, or by bank draft
Recurring monthly payments with a credit card
Recurring monthly payments with a debit card, or by bank draft
In addition, this study explores the relationship between the financial conditions of each utility system as they relate to the technological sophistication of their local government. To determine the technological sophistication of a local government, information was collected on the types of tools each institution is using currently to interact with their citizens on a day-to-day basis. These tools include interaction through social media services, the offering of mobile applications, the mobile friendliness of a local government’s website, and providing free public Wi-Fi.
4 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
FINDINGS
The initial findings showed noticeable differences in average poverty rate, median household income ranges, payment methods offered, social media offered, and mobile friendly websites offered between utility systems located in rural and urban regions. However, utility systems in both regions are averaging an identical net income of 3% revenues over expenses.
While there were eight payment methods used as variables for this study, only two of the methods had enough variation between utility systems to provide actual insight. Almost all of the utility systems used five of the eight payment methods, while the remaining method was used by almost none of the systems. xv As seen in Table 2, the utility systems choosing to offer one of the two payment methods, “Pay by Phone During Business Hours” and “Pay by Automated 24/7 Phone System” had identical average net incomes, receiving 6% payments for service more than is needed to cover their utility system expenses. So, it appears that it does not make a difference which of the two phone payment methods a utility system offers. However, a perhaps even more interesting finding is the financial implications for utility systems that did not offer either of the two phone payment methods. For those utility systems offering neither of the payment methods, they averaged at a net loss of 5% payments for service over expenses. Simply put, these utility systems are operating at an average loss of 5% due to not receiving enough payments for service.
Finally, while examining the existing relationships between the remaining variables, the study revealed three interesting correlations that help to highlight the differences between
Table 1: Regional Differences
Rural 27 23% 42% $37,000 5.6 +3% 2.1 2
Urban 25 17% 40% $50,000 6.1 +3% 3.6 7
Table 2: Phone During Business Hours vs. Automated 24/7 Phone System
Utility Systems Offering Payment Method
Net Income/Net Loss
Phone During Business Hours & Automated 24/7 Phone System
12 +4%
12 -5%
5 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
services offered to low income and minority populations and those offered to populations with a higher median household income. The first significant finding is poverty rate increases in local governments located in rural regions. While this finding is not significant in itself, it helps provide context to the second point of interest. In areas where the poverty rate increases, there is a decrease in a local government’s technological sophistication. That is, local governments serving low income populations offer less Web 2.0 tools to their citizens. And lastly, in the areas where utility systems are serving a population with a higher poverty rate, payment by an automated 24/7 phone system is offered more frequently.xvi
LIMITATIONS
There are two primary limitations to this study. The first limitation is as technology continues to grow and change at a rapid pace, important research findings become outdated quickly. Additionally, research on e-government services in the United States is a relatively small field. While part of this research focuses on whether a local government’s website is mobile friendly, the research field of technology in government still has not explored mobile government (m-government).
Secondly, most local governments do not currently collect information on their e- government services, and many have not even started offering m-government services. As a result, information such as customers using a web portal service to pay for their utility bills is not readily available. Due to these issues, the majority of information collected for this study came from a combination of searching government websites, relying on relevant surveys, and following the recommendations of related literature.xvii As a result, this process leaves room for possible human error.
RECOMMENDATIONS
While the research findings did show statistically significant relationships between the utility systems located in urban regions, and the increase in technological sophistication of local governments in those areas,xviii future research would benefit from being able to acquire better data from local governments. The following recommendations could benefit local governments seeking to improve constituent interaction, and lead the way to improved research in the field of electronic services delivery in the public sector. Collect Metrics for Future Evaluation
As no two local governments are the same, it is important to establish clear benchmarks and collect appropriate metrics. This process is necessary to understand what services citizens are currently using, and which ones are no longer needed.xix In addition, collecting appropriate data may help identify the demographic makeup of citizens or areas within each municipality that are not accessing specific e-government services.
6 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
First, local governments would benefit from establishing a baseline for their data collection criteria. In order to do this, local governments need to determine who it is they are serving, and how they might be able to reach those who are currently being overlooked. This can be accomplished through the use of existing website analytics based collection softwarexx, or by trying newly developed performance metrics and benchmarking software designed specifically for local governments.xxi Finally, each local government should employ a longitudinal study in order to collect enough data to guide their future decisions. Once they have a better understanding of the effects of their current services, the local governments can look into similar municipalities employing public sector best practices.
Create Mobile Friendly Websites and Offer Mobile Based G2C Applications
While offering e-government services to citizens is important, it is not enough. Those living
under the poverty line do not view broadband as an immediate need, but having a
smartphone to communicate is considered more essential and convenient. According to a
report published on October 21, 2012 by the National Center of Health Statistics, 32.8% of
NC adults over the age of 18 live in wireless-only households.xxii
The demographic makeup of smartphone users is changing drastically.xxiii Recent studies
showed nearly two-thirds of African-American and Latino cellphone owners using their
mobile devices for the Internet, compared to slightly more than half of white cellphone
owners. For African-American and Latino users, this number is up about 20% from studies
conducted three years ago. Compare these numbers to the municipalities in the study who
have a 42% minority population in rural regions and 40% minority population in urban
regions.xxiv Furthermore, smartphone owners of all demographic backgrounds in the
United States are now a majority (55%) of the mobile subscriber market, and are not
showing any signs of slowing.xxv
In their current state, the local government websites that are mobile friendly are nearly
non-existent. Out of the 52 local governments in this study, nine currently offer a mobile
optimized interface for their website. However, when evaluating the mobile-readiness of
each local government’s website, 49 of them received a rating of poor or below, while the
remaining three received a rating of fair.xxvi Creating a mobile friendly version of a website
is not only cheap and easy to do,xxvii but if the research is correct, it has the potential to
reach a lot of citizens who are currently being overlooked.
Throughout the years the public sector has been at the end of the adoption curve of
innovative technology, but it is time to change this habit.xxviii Local governments in North
Carolina could benefit greatly by understanding who it is they serve, in addition to moving
towards a more mobile friendly way of business.
7 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
CITATIONS
xviii Appendix A: “Bivariate Correlation Results.” xix Bélanger, 2012 xx Google. “Google Analytics.” Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/analytics/ xxi Revelstone. “Compass.” Retrieved from: http://www.revelstonelabs.com/?p=compass#pre-defined-measures xxii National Center for Health Statistics. “Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2011.” Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr061.pdf xxiii Yelton, 2012 xxiv U.S. CENSUS BUREAU. “State & County Quick Facts.” Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html xxv comScore. “comScore Reports January 2013 U.S. Smartphone Subscriber Market Share.” Retrieved from: http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/3/comScore_Reports_January_2013_U.S._Smartp hone_Subscriber_Market_Share xxvi MobiReady. “The mobiReady testing tool evaluates mobile-readiness using industry best practices & standards.” Retrieved from: http://ready.mobi/launch.jsp?locale=en_EN xxvii Spryestudio. “10 Great Tools to Create a Mobile Version of Your Site.” Retrieved from: http://spyrestudios.com/10-great-tools-to-create-a-mobile-version-of-your-site/ xxviii Shareef, 2012
BIBLIOGRAPHY Asgarkhani, Mehdi. "The Effectiveness of E-Service in Local Government: A Case Study." The Electronic Journal of E-Government 3, no. 4 (2005): 157-66. Bélanger, France, and Lemuria Carter. "Digitizing Government Interactions with Constituents: An Historical Review of E-Government Research in Information Systems." Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13, no. 5 (May 2012): 363-94. Bélanger, France, and Lemuria Carter. "The Impact of the Digital Divide on E-government Use." Communications of the ACM 52, no. 4 (April 01, 2009): 132-35. doi:10.1145/1498765.1498801. Brown, Phillip. "Mapping the Future with Broadband." Rural Telecommunications 27, no. 2 (March 2008): 30- 36. Brown, Ronald H., David J. Barram, and Larry Irving. "FALLING THROUGH THE NET: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America." National Telecommunications & Information Administration. July 1995. Accessed March 09, 2013. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html. Dixon, Brian E. "Towards E-Government 2.0: An Assessment of Where E-Government 2.0 Is and Where It Is Headed." Public Administration & Management 15, no. 2 (June 2010): 418-54. Elston, Craig, and Randy Wahl. Mobile Shoppers. Report no. Issue 3, 2012. 2012. Accessed January 13, 2013. www.ShopperCulture.com. Eskaf, Shadi, and Chris Nida. "Water and Wastewater Rates and Rate Structures in North Carolina." Environmental Finance Center. March 2012. Accessed January 13, 2013. http://www.efc.unc.edu/projects/NCWaterRates.htm. Helbig, Natalie, J. Ramón Gil-García, and Enrico Ferro. "Understanding the Complexity of Electronic Government: Implications from the Digital Divide Literature." Government Information Quarterly 26, no. 1 (2009): 89-97. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2008.05.004. Horrigan, John B. "What Are the Consequences of Being Disconnected in a Broadband-Connected World?" Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 140, no. 4 (Fall 2011): 17-31. doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00112. Howle-Schelin, Shannon. "E-Government in Rural North Carolina." Popular Government 67, no. 2 (Winter 2002): 35-39. Lipsman, Andrew, and Carmela Aquino. "2013 Mobile Future in Focus." ComScore, Inc. February 2013. Accessed February 24, 2013. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2013/2013_Mobile_Future_in_Focus. Lipsman, Andrew, Carmela Aquino, and Stephanie Flosi. "2013 U.S. Digital Future in Focus." ComScore, Inc. February 2013. Accessed February 24, 2013. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2013/2013_US_Digital_Future_in_Foc us. Modarres, Ali. "Beyond the Digital Divide." National Civic Review 100, no. 3 (Autumn 2011): 4-7. doi:10.1002/ncr.20069. Mossberger, Karen, and Benedict Jimenez. "Can E-Government Promote Civic Engagement? A Study of Local Government Websites in Illinois and the U.S." Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement Research Partnership.
10 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
October 6, 2009. Accessed April 9, 2012. http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/ipce/interior/research%20partnership.html. Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Allison Hamilton. "Measuring Digital Citizenship: Mobile Access and Broadband." International Journal of Communication (Online) 6 (2012): 2492-528. Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert, Daniel Bowen, and Benedict Jimenez. "Unraveling Different Barriers to Internet Use : Urban Residents and Neighborhood Effects." Urban Affairs Review 48, no. 6 (November 2012): 771-810. doi:10.1177/1078087412453713. Norris, Donald F., and Christopher Reddick. "E-Government 2011 Survey Summary." ICMA: Leaders at the Core of Better Communities. August 21, 2011. Accessed September 26, 2012. http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/302947/EGovernment_2011_Surv ey_Summary. Palfrey, John. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books, 2008. Rainie, Lee. "Two-thirds of Young Adults and Those with Higher Income Are Smartphone Owners." Pew Internet & American Life Project. September 11, 2012. Accessed January 14, 2013. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-Sept-2012/Findings.aspx. Schelin, Shannon Howle. "E-Government in Rural North Carolina." Popular Government, (Winter 2012): 35-39. Shareef, Mahmud A., Norm Archer, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. "EXAMINING ADOPTION BEHAVIOR OF MOBILE GOVERNMENT." Journal of Computer Information Systems 53, no. 2 (Winter 2012): 39-49. Sipior, Janice C., Burke T. Ward, and Regina Connolly. "An Empirical Evaluation of E-Government Inclusion Among the Digitally Disadvantaged in the United States." Information Resources Management Journal 23, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 21-39. doi:10.4018/irmj.2010100102. Smith, Aaron. "17% of Cell Phone Owners Do Most of Their Online Browsing on Their Phone, Rather than a Computer or Other Device." Pew Internet & American Life Project. June 26, 2012. Accessed January 17, 2013. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Cell-Internet-Use-2012/Key-Findings.aspx. Smith, Aaron. "The Best (and Worst) of Mobile Connectivity." Pew Internet & American Life Project. November 30, 2012. Accessed January 14, 2013. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Best-Worst- Mobile.aspx. Tolbert, Caroline J., Karen Mossberger, and Ramona McNeal. "Institutions, Policy Innovation, and E- Government in the American States." Public Administration Review 68, no. 3 (June 2008): 549-63. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00890.x. Yelton, Andromeda. "Who Are Smartphone Users?" Library Technology Reports 48, no. 1 (January 2012): 5-8.
11 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to recognize my committee members: Shannon H. Tufts (chair), Leisha DeHart Davis, and
Michele Hoyman, for their continuous guidance and support throughout what has been an especially
difficult year. I would also like to thank the MPA Class of 2013 and the Carolina MPA Staff for being the
family I could always rely on. And lastly, I would like to thank my better half, Jean C. Abreu, for always
being patient and believing in me even when I had my doubts.
12 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Bivariate Correlation Results
13 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
14 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
15 | M o v i n g t o a T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l G o v e r n m e n t F r a m e w o r k
Appendix B: Financial Condition Indicators
Enterprise Funds Financial Indicator Calculation Description
Resource Flow (Statement of Activities)
Total margin ratio Total resource inflow (operating and non- operating revenues plus transfers in) divided by total resource outflow (operating and non- operating expenses plus transfers out)
Addresses whether or not a government lived within its financial means during the fiscal year.
Percent change in net assets
Change in net assets divided by net assets, beginning
Provides the magnitude of how a government’s financial position improved or deteriorated as a result of resource flow.
Charge to expense ratio Charges for services divided by operating and non-operating expenses
Addresses the extent to which service charge revenues covered total expenses.
Debt service ratio Debt service (principal and interest payments on long-term debt) divided by operating and non- operating expenses plus principal
Provides feedback on service flexibility with the amount of expenses committed to annual debt service.
Appendix C: Tech Sophistication Index
Tech Sophistication
Calculation Description Tech Sophistication = Social Media Services Used + Mobile applications Offered + Mobile Friendliness of Local Government’s Website + Providing Free Public Wi-Fi
