Top Cities Transparencies

download Top Cities Transparencies

of 61

Transcript of Top Cities Transparencies

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    1/61

    CAN E-GOVERNMENT PROMOTE

    CIVIC ENGAGEMENT?A study of local government

    websites in Illinois and the U.S.

    University of Illilnois Chicago

    College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs

    Karen Mossberger, Ph.D.

    Benedict Jimenez, Ph.D. Candidate,

    Department of Public Administration

    With assistance from:

    Carly Wobig, Ph.D. candidate

    Martha Whipple, MPA student

    Lauren Bowman, MPA student

    Brandon Chantavy, MPA student

    Department of Public Administration

    Can E-Government Promote

    Civic Engagement? A study of

    local government websites inIllinois and the U.S.

    Research supported by the

    Institute for Policy for Policy and

    Civic Engagement

    October 6, 2009

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    2/61

    2

    EXECUTIVESUMMARY

    Civicengagementconsistsofknowledge,discussion,interestandparticipationinpublicaffairs

    ingovernmentandpolitics,policyissues,andthecommunity.Recenttrendshaveemphasizedgreater

    involvementofbothcitizensandnonprofitorganizationsingovernanceandpublicpolicy.Theinternet

    offersconvenientandflexibleaccesstoinformationaboutgovernmentandcommunityaffairs,aswellasachannelofcommunicationwithpublicofficials.Recognizingthis,theObamaadministrationhas

    prioritizedtheuseoffederalwebsitestoincreasegovernmenttransparencyandcitizeninput.

    Localgovernmentwebsites,however,haveuniqueopportunitiestoconnectcitizenswith both

    governmentandcommunity (neighborhood organizations andnonprofits). Representing thelevelof

    governmentclosesttocitizens,citywebsitesmayalsofacilitateface-to-faceinteractionbetweencitizens

    or betweencitizens andgovernment. Thisstudy examines the websitesof the 20 largest cities in

    Illinoisandthe75largestcitiesintheU.S.,rankingthemaccordingtofeaturesthatcouldbeexpected

    toencouragecivicengagement.

    Previousstudiesconcernedwithcivicengagementandlocale-governmenthaveconcludedthat

    thereisscantevidenceofdemocraticparticipationonlineatthelocallevel.Wearguethatitistimeto

    take another look, however, as many of these studies are several years old and preceded the

    developmentofsocialnetworking,blogs,RSSfeeds,emailalerts,andotherinteractivetools.Moreover,

    manyresearchershavedefinedcivicengagementrathernarrowly,intermsofonlinedeliberation.This

    isoneimportantaspectofcivicengagementontheweb.But,theinformationcapacityoftheinternetis

    alsocriticalforcivicengagement,andwearguethatlocalgovernmentwebsitescanpromoteknowledge

    about government, policy, and the community, including awareness of offline participatory

    opportunities.

    Toward that end, we examine the information on local government websites as well asopportunities forparticipationboth online andoffline. Additionally,we assess thetransparencyand

    accessibilityofthewebsites.Morespecifically,thelistbelowdetailsthetypesofinformationwecoded

    inacontentanalysisofthese95websites.

    INFORMATION

    Governmentofficials,duties,andorganizationalstructure

    Governmentprocesses,laws,andregulations

    Citypoliciesandperformanceinformation,includingbudgetsandauditreports

    Neighborhooddataandresources

    Neighborhoodandnonprofitorganizations

    PARTICIPATORYOPPORTUNITIES

    Contactinformationforpublicofficials

    Offlineeventssponsoredbythecity,suchashearings

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    3/61

    3

    Offline events,volunteering,donating orotheractivities involving neighborhoods and

    localnonprofits

    Online interactive tools such as blogs, comment forms, electronic townmeetings, or

    socialnetworks

    Online customization of information search signing up for email alerts and

    newsletters,RSSfeeds.

    ACCESSIBILITYANDTRANSPARENCY

    Informationthatisup-todate,privateandsecure

    Accesstoinformationthroughonlinesearch,transactions,anddownloading

    Languageanddisabilityaccess

    Basedon the abovecriteria,we ranked the websiteson civic engagement overall. Wealso

    created rankings for the subcategories of: organizational information; processes and regulation;

    neighborhoodinformation; policyandperformanceinformation;information foroffline participation;

    onlineinteractivityandparticipation;andtransparencyandaccessibility.Differencesacrosscategories

    revealsometrends,wherelocalgovernmentsasawholearestrongerorweakerintheirpromotionof

    civicengagement.

    Fortheoverallrankings,the75largestU.S.citiesreceivebetween53percentand96percentof

    possiblepointsonthecivicengagement indexwithanaveragescoreof78percent. Thefivehighest-

    rankedU.S.citiesmeetatleast90percentormoreofthecivicengagementcriteria,andthetop10cities

    achieveatleast85percent.

    The 10 highest-ranked U.S. cities are: Seattle (96%), Phoenix (95%), Louisville (93%), San

    Francisco(92%),NewYork(92%),Boston(88%),VirginiaBeach(87%),Chicago(86%),SanJose(86%),

    andColumbus(85%). Withafewexceptions,mostofthesetopcitiesarefairlylarge,althoughtheyalso

    includeplacesthatareknownforparticipatorycultures,andforthepresenceoftechnologyfirms.

    How doIllinois citywebsitesstackup? The overall average scoreof 66 percent islower for

    Illinoiscitiesthanforthe75largestU.S.cities(78percent).Thispartlyreflectsdifferencesinsize;only

    Chicagoislargeenoughtoappearonbothlists.Yet,therearesomeIllinoiscitiesthatscorequitewell.

    Sizedoesnotcompletelydeterminerankingsoncivicengagement.Napervillesfirst-placewebsiteedges

    slightlypastChicagos,eventhoughChicagoiswell-rankednationally.

    Thetop5Illinoiscitiesexceedthenationalaverage,andtheyare:Naperville(87%),Chicago

    (86%),Aurora(82%),Champaign(79%)andElgin(78%). Thetopfivecitiesincludethestateslargest

    localgovernment,satellitecitieswithintheChicagoregion,andauniversitytown.

    Acomparisonofthe75U.S.and20IllinoiscitiesshowsthatIllinoiscitiesonaveragescorealittle

    lower in most areas, other than organizational information. The summary table below shows

    differencesacrossthecategorieswetracked.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    4/61

    4

    CIVICENGAGEMENTINDEX

    COMPARISONBETWEEN75LARGESTU.S.CITIESAND20LARGESTILLINOISCITIES

    CATEGORY 75U.S.CITIES 20ILLINOISCITIES #OFITEMS

    (Average) (Average) INCATEGORY

    OverallScore 78% 66% 74,78*

    ContactInformation 95% 89% 12,16*

    OrganizationalInformation 63% 65% 3

    ProcessesandRegulations 75% 64% 11

    NeighborhoodInformation 99% 85% 2

    PolicyandPerformanceDocuments 95% 66% 8

    OfflineParticipationInformation 86% 78% 12

    OnlineInteractivity&Participation 55% 46% 13

    TransparencyandAccessibility 67% 52% 13

    *Nocitymanager74pointspossibleratherthan78

    ThelargestgapsbetweentheIllinoisandU.S.scoresareinpolicyandperformancedocuments.Online

    interactivityandparticipationwasthecategorywiththelowestaveragescores,forbothU.S.andIllinois

    cities.

    Localgovernmentwebsitesprovideafairamountofbasicinformationaboutgovernmentthatis

    importantforengagement(aswellasaccountability).

    The most common information on government allows citizens to contact officials, find city

    departmentsandagencies,attendorfollowtheresultsofcouncilmeetingsandpublichearings,

    andexaminemunicipalcodes,budgetdocuments,financialaudits,andpressreleasesormajor

    speeches.

    Videopresentationsofcouncilmeetings,whicharewidespread,havetheadvantageofallowing

    citizenstomorefullyexperiencethediscussionsanddebateswithinmeetings.

    Whilethepostingofgovernmentinformationisone-waydisseminationfromgovernmentsto

    citizens, most localwebsites, including the smaller cities in Illinois have advancedbeyond a

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    5/61

    5

    simple phone directory approach to e-government to include substantive documents and

    recordsofcouncilmeetings.

    Local government sites almostuniversally includeboth descriptiveandpolicy informationon

    theirneighborhoods.Between40-60percentoflocalgovernmentwebsiteshavevarioustypes

    of information on nonprofits and charities, including appeals to participate in events or

    fundraising.

    Informationabouthowtoparticipateinpoliticalprocessesisalsopresentonlocalgovernment

    websites,includinglinksforelectionsandvoting,andannouncementsforcouncilsessionsand

    publichearings.

    Thereareopportunitiesforcitizeninput,althoughthisisgenerallybetweenindividualcitizens

    and government officials through complaint forms or surveys rather than through collective

    deliberation.

    Online interactivity has improved since earlier studies. For large U.S. and Illinois cities,

    downloadableinformationandonlinetransactionsarenearlyuniversal.

    Customization of information throughemail alerts,online newsletter subscriptions and (toa

    lesserextent)RSSfeedsisalsocommon.

    Web2.0is generally underutilized for interaction,witha smallminorityof citiesusing social

    media such as Facebook, Twitter,and YouTube.Thismay bea temporary phenomenon, forcitieswilllikelyneedtimetoexperimentwiththesenewmediaandtodecidehoworwhether

    theycontributetocitizenknowledgeandparticipation.

    There is almost no trace of deliberative democracy online, however, as measured through

    discussionboardsorelectronictownhallmeetings.Seattleprovidesvideoofmanyofflinetown

    hallmeetings,andbothSeattleandBloomington,Illinoisusediscussionboardsforcitizeninput.

    Councilmembersandmayorsinmanycitieshaveblogs,buttheseresembleonlinediariesrather

    thanservingasplatformsforcommentsfromresidents.

    Localgovernmentsingeneralcoulddobetteronaccessibilityforindividualswithdisabilitiesandfornon-Englishspeakers.ThisisparticularlytrueforIllinoiscities,althoughthis isanarea for

    improvementnationallyaswell.

    Overall,thereissomeprogressintheuseofwebsitesforinformation,onlinetransactions,andfor

    communityinformation,incomparisonwithearlierstudies.Thisresearchdemonstratesagreatvariety

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    6/61

    6

    ofinformationprovidedbylocalgovernmentwebsites,andlessdevelopmentintermsofnewerWeb2.0

    toolsandonlinedeliberation.

    Anumberofquestionsforfurtherresearchemergefromthisstudy.Whilethisresearchexamines

    thecategoriesofinformationprovidedonlocalwebsites,moreneedstobeknownaboutthequalityof

    thatinformationforexample,whetherpolicyanalysesareprovidedonmajorissues,andwhetherthey

    are made available before decisions are made by governmentofficials. Governmentwebsites can

    facilitate but not create citizen engagement,and so itwouldbeuseful tounderstandthe extent to

    whichcitizensusethesefeatureson localgovernmentwebsites,andwhethertheyaffect knowledge,

    discussion, interest andparticipation. Finally, these rankings raise questions about why somecities

    outperformtheothers,andfurtheranalysisisneededtounderstandthefactorsassociatedwithhigher

    rankingsonthecivicengagementindex.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    7/61

    7

    INTRODUCTION

    Thepastfewdecadeshavewitnessedsubstantialshiftsintherelationshipbetweencitizensand

    government,towardwhathasoftenbeendescribedasgovernance. Theideaembraces interaction

    betweenthestateandcivilsocietythatis,moreinvolvementofcitizensindecisionmaking,aswellas

    a largerroleforvoluntarismandorganizationssuchas nonprofits inthedeliveryofservicesorpublicpolicy(PierreandPeters2005;John2001;DentersandRose2005;Stoker2000;Peters2001). Atthe

    sametime,thedevelopmentofinformationtechnologyhasaffectedthewaythatgovernmentinteracts

    withcitizens.E-governmentisthedeliveryof[government]informationandservicesonlineviathe

    Internetorotherdigitalmeans,(West2000,2)andmayalsoincludeopportunitiesforonlinepolitical

    participation.Technologyhasthe potential for increasinggovernmentopenness andtransparency,as

    theObamaadministrationhasemphasized. Itcanalsopromotegreatercitizenaccess toinformation

    andservices online,andenhancedcommunicationbetweencitizens andgovernment throughe-mail

    andWeb2.0applicationssuchasblogs.Digitalgovernmenthasthepotentialtosupportcollaborative

    governance,includingthedisseminationofinformationaboutvolunteerefforts,neighborhoodgroups,

    orothercivicinitiatives.Inaneraofnetworkedgovernance,informationtechnologycanprovidecriticallinkagesto connect governmentwith citizens andcivicpartners. This study examines theextentto

    whichtheinformationandcommunicationopportunitiesonlocalgovernmentwebsitesfacilitatecivic

    engagement.

    Civicengagementreferstoinvolvementinthepublicsphere,broadlyconstrued(Bennett2008),

    and it is particularly important toexaminetherole of local governmentwebsites in facilitatingsuch

    citizen engagement. Local government is the level closest to citizens, and arguably the site where

    multisectoralgovernancehashadthemostimpact.Nonprofitorganizationsandvolunteereffortshave

    longsupportedlocalservicedelivery,andresidentsareoftenorganizedinblockclubs,districtcouncils,

    and community-based development organizations (Provan and Milward 1995; Berry, Portney andThomson1993).Localgovernmentwebsitesmayfacilitatecivicengagementthroughinformationand

    opportunitiesforparticipation,including:

    INFORMATION

    Governmentofficials,duties,andorganizationalstructure

    Governmentprocesses,laws,andregulations

    Citypoliciesandperformanceinformation,includingbudgetsandauditreports

    Neighborhooddataandresources

    Neighborhoodandnonprofitorganizations

    PARTICIPATORYOPPORTUNITIES

    Contactinformationforpublicofficials

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    8/61

    8

    Offlineeventssponsoredbythecity,suchashearings

    Offline events,volunteering,donatingor otheractivities involving neighborhoods and

    localnonprofits

    Online interactive tools such as blogs, comment forms, electronic townmeetings, or

    socialnetworks

    Online customization of information search signing up for email alerts and

    newsletters,RSSfeeds.

    ACCESSIBILITYANDTRANSPARENCY

    Informationthatisup-todate,privateandsecure

    Accesstoinformationthroughonlinesearch,transactions,anddownloading

    Languageanddisabilityaccess

    This report explores the extent to which local government websites offer information and

    participatoryopportunitiesonline,basedon anexaminationofthewebsitesof the20largestcitiesin

    thestateofIllinois,andthe75largestcitiesintheU.S.Thereportpresentsrankingsandrawscoresfor

    both sets of cities in the following categories: overall civic engagement; contact information;

    organizational information; processes and regulation; neighborhood information; policy and

    performance information; information foroffline participation; online interactivity and participation;

    andtransparencyandaccessibility.

    While researchershavestudiedvariousaspectsofgovernmentwebsites (West2004a;Musso,

    Weare and Hale 2000; Ho 2002; Moon 2002), conclusions about the use of e-government for

    participation have been relatively bleak. There arepersuasive reasons fora currentreassessment of

    localgovernmentpractice.

    First,previousstudieshaveoftendefinedparticipationintermsofcollectivedeliberationonline,

    throughdevicessuchasdiscussionboardsorelectronictownhallmeetings(Ho2002;Moon2002).Such

    formsofdeliberativedemocracyhavebeenadvocatedasameanstoengagecitizensandimprovepublic

    policy (Dryzek 1980; Barber 1984; Fishkin 1993). Information technology can potentiallywiden the

    networksofindividualsinvolvedinsuchdeliberationbyreducingthecostsofparticipation,suchastime

    and effort. But, it is important to acknowledge broader issues in civic engagement, including the

    significanceofinformationforknowledgeandinterestregardingpublicaffairs.Informationonlinemay

    alsobeprovidedtomobilizeindividualsforparticipationoffline.Thecriteriausedinthisstudyinclude

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    9/61

    9

    moreinformationmeasuresthaninpreviousresearchandalsoencompassneighborhoodandvoluntary

    engagementaswellascitizenparticipationingovernment.1

    Second,somescholarshavepredictedthatparticipatoryopportunitiesonlinewouldgrowwith

    thefurtherdevelopmentofe-government(Ho2002;Moon2002;LayneandLee2001). Thissuggests

    that local governmentswill gain experience in theuse of technologyandfind newways topromoteonlinedemocracy. Still anotherfactormay be theprogressof technology itself. Anotableadvance

    withinthepastfewyearsistheemergenceofweb2.0,ortheinteractiveweb,whichallowsfor:1)the

    customization andsharingof information throughRSS feeds, tagging, real-time audio chats, Twitter,

    email alerts and social networks; and 2) the creationof content through blogs, podcasts, wikis and

    onlinevideos.Towhatextenthavethesenewonlinetoolsaffectedthepossibilitiesforpromotionof

    civicengagementthrough localgovernmentwebsites? Mostoftheresearch thathasevaluatedlocal

    governmentwebsiteswas conducted nearly a decade ago (Musso,Weare and Hale 2000; Ho2002;

    Moon 2002). Wests (2004)work onthe70largest U.S. cities isthemost recent available, but still

    precededmanyrecenttools.

    Beforepresentingtheresultsfromthecitywebsites,wediscusstheaspectsofcivicengagement

    thatareapplicabletoe-governmentandpriorresearchonthetopic,particularlyforlocalgovernment.

    We then explain the methodology used in this study and present the results. We include some

    examplesofnoteworthypracticesdrawnfromcitywebsites,aswellasthescoresandrankingsforU.S.

    and Illinoiscities. Finally, wediscuss the findings by characterizing trends among thecities,gaps in

    practice(especiallyforIllinoiscities),anddirectionsforfurtherresearch.

    FACETSOFCIVICENGAGEMENTFORE-GOVERNMENT

    What, exactly, constitutes civic engagement in particular,whatismeantby civic? Civic

    engagement is focusedon public concerns(Bennett,2008)and includesbothpolitical involvement(ingovernment policy orpolitical institutions) andcommunity involvement (inassociational or voluntary

    activities or institutions). Somepolitical scientists differentiate cooperative and public-spirited civic

    engagementfrompoliticalandpolicy-orientedactivities,whichareconflict-laden(VerbaandNie1972;

    Uslaner and Brown 2005). Yet, many observers have referred to civic engagement as primarily

    concernedwithpolitics,policyor thelegal statusof citizenship(Norris2001,chapter11;Mossberger,

    TolbertandMcNeal2008,chapter3;Pattie,SeydandWhiteley2003;BrintandLevy1999),orasrelated

    tobothpoliticsandcommunity(Mettler2002; JenningsandZeitner2003;Keeteretal.2002;Bennett

    2008;Putnam2000).Otherscholarsrejectadichotomybetweenpoliticsandcommunityorconflict

    andcooperation,fortheyviewdeliberationandcollectiveproblem-solvingastheabilitytolistentothe

    positionsofothersandtobuildconsensusaroundconflictualpolicyissues(Dryzek1980;Barber1984).

    Whileelectionsandneighborhoodwatchesundeniablyhavedifferentdynamics,forthepurposesofthis

    study,botharepublicintheiraims.Wedefinetheobjectsofcivicengagementaspoliticalinstitutions

    (suchasgovernmentsandelections),policy,andcommunityassociation.

    1Musso,WeareandHale(2000)alsoincludedsomeinformationonneighborhood,nonprofit,andpolitical

    organizationsintheiranalysisofCalifornialocalgovernmentwebsites.Theirstudy,whichcomparedthe

    prevalenceofservicesandcivicengagement,providedagoodmodeltoadaptforourpurposes.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    10/61

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    11/61

    11

    WHYSTUDYCIVICENGAGEMENTTHROUGH LOCALE-GOVERNMENT?

    Therearecontradictorytrendsin locale-governmentthatcouldeitherpromoteor inhibituse

    forcivicengagement.First,theemphasisonlocalismintheoriesofcivicengagementsuggestsshared

    interests between citizens and closeness betweengovernment and citizens. On the otherhand, e-

    governmentis less technicallysophisticatedat thelocallevel,andlocalgovernmentwebsitesareless

    frequentlyvisitedthanstateandfederalsites.

    Civicengagementisoftendescribedasalocalphenomenon(Bennett2008). JohnStuartMill

    referredtolocalgovernmentsasschoolsfordemocracy,andtheAmericanidealofcivicrepublicanismis

    embedded in the town hallmeeting of colonialNew England. Inpractice, city government ismore

    accessibletocitizensthanstateorlocalgovernment,duetobothproximityandscale.Inrecentyears,

    participatory budgeting andplanning processes have been encouragedby professionalorganizations

    suchastheNationalLeagueofCities.2Experimentswithcivicengagementincommunitypolicingand

    schoolreformhaveemphasizedneighborhoodinvolvementinChicagoandmanyothercitiesacrossthe

    country(Fung2004;Briggs2008).Likewise,theCityofSeattlehaspromotedinclusiveandparticipatory

    neighborhoodplanningwithtechnical supportandgrants(Sirianni2009),andtheCityofMinneapolis

    hashada neighborhoodengagementprocess for 20years (see descriptionofNRPunder results forNeighborhoodInformation).

    Althoughthe internet does not feature thesame face-to-face interactionafforded byoffline

    formsoflocalparticipation,theinternetmaystillsupportcivicengagementindifferentways,including

    bymobilizingorsupportinglocalface-to-faceinteraction.WhileskepticslikePutnamhavewarnedthat

    theinternetmayin factdiminishthetrustandsocialcapital thatarenecessaryforcivicengagement,

    there islittlerigorousempiricalwork that supportssucha conclusion. Earlystudiesportray frequent

    Internetusersassociallyisolated(NieandErbring2000)orlesslikelytovolunteer,trust,orspendtime

    withoneanother(Putnam2000,479).YetPutnamsargumentswerebasedonamarketsurveywitha

    nonprobabilitysample,andtheNieandErbringstudydidnotusemultivariateanalysis toprobeother

    possibleexplanations for their results. Some subsequentmultivariate research concludes that online

    participationthroughbulletinboardsandchat roomsdoesnotbuildsocialtrust(Uslaner2004). But,someformercriticslaterarguethatchangesintechnologyanditsmorewidespreadusehaveproduced

    positiveoutcomesforparticipation(Krautetal.1998;Krautetal.2002).Overall,morerecentstudies

    have revealed some positive effects of the internet for social trust or volunteering. Experiments

    conductedbyPriceandCapella(2001)demonstratethatonlinediscussionscanenhancesocialtrust,as

    wellaspoliticalknowledgeandinterest.Oneanalysisofnationalsurveydataindicatesthatthosewho

    spend time interacting frequently with people whom they know only online do in fact develop

    generalizedsocial trust (BestandKrueger 2006). Shah etal. (2005)discover that online information

    seekingandmessagingaboutpoliticalandcivicissuesleadstogreatercommunityvoluntarism.Further,

    there issomeevidence that e-government increasespositiveattitudestowardgovernment,including

    trust andconfidence in government (Welch,HinnantandMoon2005),particularlyat the local level

    (TolbertandMossberger2006).3

    2SeeDemocraticGovernanceprojectsattheNationalLeagueofCities(NLC)websiteat

    http://www.nlc.org/resources_for_cities/programs___services/697.aspx3Someresearchhassuggestedanassociationbetweene-governmentuseandattitudestowardgovernment,includingtrust.E-governmenthasbeenproposedasareformthatcanincreasecitizentrustandconfidencein

    governmentthroughgreatertransparencyandbetterservices,inpartreversingthedeclineofthepastfew

    decades(Norris2001,113).Theevidenceonwhethere-governmentpromotestrustismixed,asmanyfactors

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    12/61

    12

    Justascitieshavepromotedcivicengagementoffline,therearesomenoteworthyforaysinto

    civicengagementonlineatthelocallevel.PerhapsthemostfamousisSantaMonicasPublicElectronic

    Network (PEN) during the 1990s. In 2000,Moveon.org collaborated with Berkeley, Californias city

    governmenttohostelectronictownmeetingsonthecomprehensiveplan(seeMossberger,Tolbert,and

    Stansbury 2003). As detailed later in this study, Seattles website provides support for offline

    participationintheneighborhoods,andMinneapolisisusingtheinternetforcitywidetransparencyand

    neighborhoodinvolvement.Yet,theseexamplestelluslittleaboutmoregeneralpatterns.

    LOCALE-GOVERNENT:USEANDPRACTICE

    E-governmentisacommonactivityonline,andlocale-governmentusedifferssomewhatfrom

    theuseofothergovernmentwebsites.About59percentofinternetusershavelookedupinformation

    fromafederal,state,orlocalgovernmentwebsite,accordingtoaDecember2008surveyconductedby

    thePewInternetandAmericanLifeProject.4InChicagoin2008,49percentofresidentsand65percent

    ofinternetusershadvisitedtheCityofChicagowebsite.Thisisslightlylowerthanthe57percentofcity

    residents (76 percent of Chicago internet users) who have used any e-government website, and is

    consistentwithpriornationalsurveysthatshowedthatlocale-governmentusewaslowerthantraffic

    onfederalandstatewebsites.

    5

    NationalsurveysshowthatAfrican-Americansandwomenaremorelikelytouselocalgovernmentwebsites(LarsenandRainie2002),althoughe-governmentusersoverall

    aremore likely tobewhite,male, young,andbetter-educated(LarsenandRainie2002;Hart-Teeter

    2003). In Chicago, there are no statistically significant differences in local governmentwebsite use

    based on race or ethnicity;women, parents, andyoungerandmore educated Chicago residents are

    morelikelytousethelocalgovernmentwebsite.Thisismoreinclusivethanthegeneralpatternsfore-

    governmentuseinChicago,whichfitpriornationaltrends(MossbergerandTolbert2009).

    Themajorityoflocalgovernmentshavesometypeofwebpresence(around87percentevenin

    2002,accordingtoNorrisandMoon2005). Localgovernmentswithlargerpopulationstended tobe

    thefirstadoptersofe-government(Musso,WeareandHale2000;Ho2002;Moon2002)andcitieswith

    council-managergovernmentswerealsoamongearlieradopters(Moon2002).Inhisstudyofwebsites

    in the55 largestU.S. cities,Ho found that citieswithwebsites thatwere primarily administrative incontenthad less experiencewith e-government andhadhigherminority populations (incontrast to

    citieswith information-oriented or user-oriented approaches). The sophistication of local web sites

    tendstolagbehindotherlevelsofgovernment,intermsofonlinetransactionsandtheuseofasingle

    portal(NorrisandMoon2005).West(2008)recentlycriticizedstateandfederalagenciesforbeing

    slowtoadoptinteractiveWeb2.0featuresontheirwebsites,solocalgovernmentsmaybeexpectedto

    utilizethesenewtoolsatanevenlowerrate.

    influencetrustingovernment(seeNye1997).Technologyusemayaffectcitizenperceptionsbecauseof

    increasedtransparency,opportunitiesfordemocraticparticipation,efficiencyandeffectiveness,responsiveness,

    responsibility(forprivacyandsecurity),andgovernmentaccessibility(TolbertandMossberger2006).Welch,

    HinnantandMoon(2005)foundsupportforimprovedtrustandconfidenceingovernment;Tolbertand

    Mossberger(2006)forimprovedtrustatthelocallevelonly;andWest(2004b),McNeal,HaleandDotterweich

    (2008)foundnorelationshipbetweene-governmentuseandtrust.Moreconsistently,however,studieshave

    revealedotherpositiveattitudestowardgovernmentasaresultofe-governmentuse(West2004b;Tolbertand

    Mossberger2006;McNeal,HaleandDotterweich2008).4Seetrenddataatwww.pewinternet.org

    5AccordingtoHart-Teeter(2003),thepercentageofU.S.internetuserswhohadvisitedgovernmentwebsiteswas

    59percentforfederalgovernment,54percentforstategovernments,and43percentforlocalgovernments.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    13/61

    13

    Whilemostresearchersacknowledgedemocraticparticipationasagoalofe-government,they

    have not foundwidespread support for this goal in content analyses of local government websites

    (Musso,Weare andHale2000;West 2004a;Ho2002). There aremultiple goals fore-government,

    includingmoreefficientservicedeliveryaswellascommunicationwithcitizens.Musso,WeareandHale

    (2000) compared thecontentof 270 local websites inCalifornia, askingwhetherthey hadeither an

    entrepreneurial (efficiency) or participatory approach. To measure participatory orientation, they

    examinedcontactinformationforelectedandadministrativeofficials,andlinkstoothergovernmental,

    nongovernmental, neighborhood, and interest group organizations. They found that themajority of

    theseearlylocalwebsiteshadnoclearorientationofanytype,butwhereoneexisted,itwasmorelikely

    tobeentrepreneurial. Less than 20percentof thecitieshad links toneighborhoodgroupsorother

    organizations in the community. In their sample of 35 exemplary websites, 7 facilitated online

    discussionthroughchatroomsorelectronicbulletinboards(Musso,WeareandHale2000).Amore

    recentstudyofthe70largestU.S.citiesmeasuredvariousformsofpublicoutreachonlineandfound

    that78percentofcitieshademailcontactinformationforadministratorsorelectedofficials,20percent

    allowed the posting of comments, and 10 percent allowed users to register for email updates.

    Interestinglyenough,thepostingofcommentsonlinewasdownfrompreviousyears.In2002and2003,

    36percentand35percentofcitieshadacommentareaonthewebsite.Otherthantheuseofemail

    contactinformation,thereislittletosuggestwidespreadattentiontocivicengagement.Inhisstudyofthe55largestU.S.cities,Hoconcluded:

    . . . only a few cities engage citizens in online policy dialogues or partner with

    communityorganizationstostrengthencitizenparticipationattheneighborhoodlevel.

    Some basic features of public accountability and citizen empowerment, such as

    performance measures of public services, online discussion groups, or information

    aboutgrassrootsorganizationactivities,areseldomfoundincityWebsites.Hence,the

    questionofhowtomovebeyondthefocusoncustomerserviceisanotherchallengefor

    cities'efforttoreinventgovernmentthroughinformationtechnology.(Ho2002,441)

    Localgovernmentwebsitesarenotuniqueinthisrespect.Alllevelsofgovernmenthaveutilizedtheinternetmoreforservicedeliverythanforonlineparticipation(ChadwickandMay2003).Inpart,

    thismaybebecausetheparticipatorymodelchallengesexistingadministrativepracticesandinstitutions

    toagreaterextent.Thisisnota technicalissuealone,butalsoamatterofinstitutionalchange.There

    aremanydemandsforimplementingamoreparticipatorymodelofgovernmentwell,bothonlineand

    offline. Localgovernmentswithparticipatorytraditionsworryabouttheextent towhichtheycanor

    should monitor and censor online discussions because of libel (Mossberger, Tolbert and Stansbury

    2003). Apart from this, effective interaction requires speedy and frequent responses from local

    government. A participatory approachentails information, feedback, and response in a meaningful

    dialogueonline(WelchandFulla2005).Thisplacesnewdemandsongovernment,withmorecomplex

    and long-term requirements beyond traditional citizen engagement throughpublic hearings. Moon

    (2002) has argued that local governments are likely to increase online participation with more

    experience. Hehas posited five stages for e-government, with the participatory stage as the most

    demanding.Inarelatedvein,WelchandWong(2004)findthatnationalgovernmentwebsitesbecome

    more transparent and interactive over time. The features wemeasure in this studyare related to

    transparency,offlineparticipation,andonlineinteractivity,soitispossiblethatsomeimprovementwill

    haveoccurredincomparisonwithpreviousstudies.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    14/61

    14

    METHODS

    Thisreportexaminesthepotentialforlocale-governmenttofacilitatecivicengagementthrough

    acontentanalysisoftheofficialwebsitesofthe20largestIllinoiscitiesand75largestU.S.cities(as

    measuredby population). AppendicesAand Bcontaina listoftheU.S. and Illinoiscitiesrankedby

    population. Prior studies have identified large cities as the leaders in local e-government, so an

    assessmentofthelargestcitiesmaybemorelikelytorevealcutting-edgepracticesincivicengagement.

    ContentanalysiswasconductedfromMarchthroughMay2009,assessingcities on 74 to 78

    differentvariables,dependingonwhetherornot theyhada citymanager.Adetailedcodingmanual

    withwebsiteexamplesandinstructionswasusedtotrainthe5 codersandto assurereliability.6Pre-

    tests of the website-assessment instrument were conducted for both the U.S. and Illinois cities.

    Intercoderreliabilityrangedbetween66and75percent,whichparallelstheresultsforotherwebsite

    coding(seeMusso,WeareandHale2000). Thegreatestchallenge isthecomplexityofwebsitesand

    layoutthatoftenmakesitdifficulttofindfeatures.Toinsuregreaterreliability,eachwebsitewascoded

    carefully and independently by two coders, and differences were reconciled by a third coder.

    Measurementsthataredichotomoussuchasthepresenceorabsenceofbackgroundinformationon

    anissuearemoreappropriateforthismethodthanajudgmentaboutthequalityoftheinformation.Themeasuresshowtheavailabilityofsomeinformation,butnottheeaseoffindingit,theprevalenceof

    theinformation,oritsutility.Thetrade-offistocoverawiderrangeofcitiesandtodepicttrendswith

    greater generalizability. A further step couldbeamore in-depth studyof cities that have relevant

    featuresorthatrankhighoverall.

    Oneissueinwebsitecontentanalysisishowtodefinethewebsite,especiallyforgovernments

    thathaveavarietyofdepartmentsandmultiplelinks(WeareandLin2000).Inmostcaseswerestricted

    ouranalysistothemainwebsiteandavoidedexaminingseparatedepartments.Conceptually,wewere

    most concerned with the policies of the city leadership, especially the mayor, city council, and city

    manager(whereapplicable).Werecordedlinksfromthemainwebsitetotheelectioninformationorto

    communityorganizations.Codersdidgotothecommunityorneighborhoodpage(whereitexisted)to

    find descriptiveor policy information or participatory opportunities. Forcertain documents, such asbudgetorauditinformation,coderswereallowedtogotoaseparatefinancepage,ifnecessary.Itis

    possiblethatthisresearchunderstatessomeparticipatoryopportunitiesorinformationlocatedonlyon

    departmentwebsites.Forthatreason,weemphasizethatweareresearchingthemaincitywebpage,

    thecityleadership,andmajorcity-widepolicydocuments.This isconsistentwithMusso,Weare,and

    Hale(2000),whoconcentratedonthemainwebsiteforthelocalgovernmentstheystudied;itcontrasts

    withWest (2004),who examined thousands ofweb pages related to the 70 largest cities, but ona

    narrowerrangeofvariables.

    RESULTS:U.S.ANDILLINOISCITIES

    Sincecitysizehasbeengenerallyassociatedwithmoresophisticateduseoftechnologybylocal

    governments,largercitiescouldbeexpectedtosetthepaceintermsofcivicengagementonline.The75 largest U.S. cities receive between 53 percent and 96 percent of possible points on the civic

    engagementindexwithanaveragescoreof78percent.Thefivehighest-rankedU.S.citiesmeetatleast

    90percentormoreofthecivicengagementcriteria,andthetop10citiesachieveatleast85percent.

    Seattleisthetop-rankedcityoverall,withascoreofnearly96percent.Ofthetop10,mostarefairly

    largecities,withtheexceptionofVirginiaBeach,whichranksonly41stinpopulation,butfareswellon

    6Availablefromtheauthorsuponrequest.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    15/61

    15

    thecivicengagementindexatnumber7.Chicagoranks8thonthenationallist,withover86percent.

    The10U.S.citieswiththelowestscoresmetlessthan70percentofthecivicengagementcriteria.The

    lowest-rankedcitywas Newark,at 53 percent (witha rankof 41 becauseof anumber ofties). See

    AppendixAforthecompleterankingforthe75U.S.cities.

    What separates the top-performing city websites from the rest? Each of the top five city

    websites has its own strength. The City of Seattle is number one because its website is designed

    specificallyto promotecommunityengagementand citizenparticipation.TheNewYorkCity portal is

    one of the top performers thanks to the Citys formal policy mandating increased government

    transparencythroughthepublicationofofficialdocumentsintheCityswebsite.Phoenix,Louisville,and

    SanFranciscoarethreeofonlysixcitieswhichusebothYouTubeandsocial-networkingsitessuchas

    Facebook to expand local residents access to government and community-related information. But

    whatreallyseparatesthefivecitiesfromtheremaining70citiesisconsistency.Ineverycategoryfrom

    facilitating access to organizational, policy, and community-related information, to promoting online

    and offline civic engagement, and finally in terms of websites user friendliness, accessibility, and

    security features Seattle, Phoenix, Louisville, San Francisco, and New York are among the top

    performers.

    How do Illinois city websites stack up against the nations largest cities, in terms of their

    potentialforfacilitatingcivicengagement?Theoverallaveragescoreof66percentislowerforIllinois

    citiesthanforthe75largestU.S.cities(78percent).Thispartlyreflectsdifferencesinsize;onlyChicago

    islargeenoughtoappearonbothlists.Yet,therearesomeIllinoiscitiesthatscorequitewell.Sizedoes

    notcompletelydeterminerankingsoncivicengagement.Napervillesfirst-placewebsiteedgesslightly

    pastChicagoswith87ratherthan86percentofourcriteria.AllofthetopfiveIllinoiscitiesexceedthe

    nationalaverage(with78percentofthepossiblecriteriaseeTable3).

    Naperville,ILCustomizationandCitizenOrientation

    Among the 20 most populous Illinois cities, Naperville employs technology in creative ways for

    promoting local civic engagement. The Napervillewebsite enables users to sign up for e-news, andprovidesresidentson-demand access tovideosofcity councilmeetings.Among the20 Illinoiscities,

    NapervilleisoneofthreecitieswhichuseTwittertoprovideinformationupdatestoresidents,andonly

    oneoftwocitieswitha Facebookaccount.TheNapervillewebsitealsohasa CitizenSupportCenter

    whichcanbecustomizedthroughthecreationofuseraccounts.Throughthis link, local residentscan

    find answers to frequentlyasked questions,providefeedback to local governmentofficials,view the

    communityeventscalendar,andrequestservices.Anonline-surveyisalsounderconstruction.Another

    onlineservice YourPlaceisofferedexclusivelytoNaperville residents.Usersneedtoenter their

    streetaddressorParcelIdentificationNumbertofinddetailedinformationabouttheirproperty,school

    district,pollingplace,zoningpolicies,andotherinformation.

    Table1displaystheoverallrankingforthetop10U.S.cities.Table2showstheoverallranking

    forall20Illinoiscities,witha shadedlinemarkingthetop10Illinoiscities.Thefullrankingsforall75

    U.S.and20Illinoiscities,acrossallcategories,arelistedinAppendixA.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    16/61

    16

    Table1.OVERALLRANKINGFOR75LARGESTU.S.CITIES

    City State Population City rankbypopulation

    RawScore

    Highestpossiblescore

    Rawscoreweightedby totalpossiblescore

    Rank byweightedscore

    Seattle* Washington 594210 24 71 74 95.95 1

    Phoenix Arizona 1552259 5 74 78 94.87 2

    Louisville* Kentucky 557789 29 69 74 93.24 3

    San Francisco California 799183 13 72 78 92.31 4

    New York* New York 8274527 1 68 74 91.89 5

    Boston* Massachusetts 608352 21 65 74 87.84 6

    Virginia Beach Virginia 434743 41 68 78 87.18 7

    Chicago* Illinois 2836658 3 64 74 86.49 8

    San Jose California 939899 10 67 78 85.90 9

    Columbus* Ohio 747755 15 63 74 85.14 10

    *Nocitymanager74pointspossibleratherthan78

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    17/61

    17

    Table 2. OVERALL RANKING FOR 20 LARGEST ILLINOIS CITIES

    City RawScore

    Highestpossiblescore

    Raw scoreweighted bytotal

    possiblescore

    Rank byweightedscore

    Naperville 68 78 87.18 1

    Chicago* 63 74 86.49 2

    Aurora* 61 74 82.43 3

    Champaign 62 78 79.49 4

    Elgin 61 78 78.21 5

    Peoria 59 78 75.64 6

    Des Plaines 59 78 75.64 6

    Evanston 58 78 74.36 7

    Rockford* 55 74 74.32 8

    Palatine 51 78 65.38 9

    Schaumburg 47 78 60.26 10Springfield* 44 74 59.46 11

    Bloomington 46 78 58.97 12

    Skokie 45 78 57.69 13

    ArlingtonHeights

    43 78 55.13 14

    Bolingbrook* 40 74 54.05 15

    Cicero* 39 74 52.70 16

    Joliet 40 78 51.28 17

    Decatur 40 78 51.28 17

    Waukegan* 36 74 48.65 18

    *Nocitymanager74pointspossibleratherthan78

    Thecitieswerealsorankedinanumberofcategories,shownbelow.Thetablebelowcompares

    averagescoreswithineachofthesecategoriesforthelargeU.S.citiesandtheIllinoiscities,andtherest

    ofthissectiondiscussestheresultsinmoredetail.

    Table3.CIVICENGAGEMENTINDEX

    COMPARISONBETWEEN75LARGESTU.S.CITIESAND20LARGESTILLINOISCITIES

    CATEGORY 75U.S.CITIES 20ILLINOISCITIES #OFITEMS

    (Average) (Average) INCATEGORY

    OverallScore 78% 66% 74,78*

    ContactInformation 95% 89% 12,16*

    OrganizationalInformation 63% 65% 3ProcessesandRegulations 75% 64% 11

    NeighborhoodInformation 99% 85% 2

    PolicyandPerformanceDocuments 95% 66% 8

    OfflineParticipationInformation 86% 78% 12

    OnlineInteractivity&Participation 55% 46% 13

    TransparencyandAccessibility 67% 52% 13

    *Nocitymanager74pointspossibleratherthan78

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    18/61

    18

    Thefollowingsectiondiscussesthewaythesecategoriesweremeasuredandthepatterns

    withinthesecategories,forboththeU.S.andIllinoiscities.

    ContactInformation

    Contactingofficialshaslongbeentrackedasaformofpoliticalparticipation,andtheavailability

    of email and contact information online has improved the convenience of citizen-initiated contacts

    (Thomas and Streib 2003). Contact information was measured for mayors, council members,

    departments,andcitymanagers(ifapplicable).

    U.S.Cities. Thisiscommononmostwebsites.Thereismodestvariationinthiscategory,as53ofthe75

    U.S.citiesscore100percent.Allofthecitieshaveatleast75percentofthecontactinformationwe

    counted, with the exception of two cities: FortWorth (63 percent)and Newark (50 percent). The

    averagescoreforcontactinformationis95percent.

    IllinoisCities.Mostcitiesinthestatealsoscoredwelloncontactinformation,astheaveragescorefor

    Illinoiscities89percent- isonlyslightlylowerthanthenationalaverage.Allbutthree Illinoiscities

    haveatleast80percentofthecontact informationitems.Joliet(69%),Skokie(50%)andSchaumburg

    (44%)aretheexceptions.

    OrganizationalInformation

    Civic engagement does not automatically occur. A number of conditions must be satisfied

    beforecitizenscanactuallyengagetheirgovernmentsandbe involvedin communityaffairs(Gaventa

    2004;Brady,Verba,Schlozman1995).Two of themost importantpreconditions for engagementare

    citizenawarenessandknowledgeofvariousaspectsofgovernmentwhatgovernmentdoesandwho

    does what. This enables citizens to request services, complain, and share their views regarding

    community issues and city policies. We measured three aspects of organizational information on

    websites: detailson thedutiesand functionsofelectedofficials;organizationalstructure (eitherasa

    graphicoracentrallistofdepartments);andadescriptionoftheactivitiesofmunicipaldepartmentson

    themainwebpage.

    U.S. Cities. Fifteencitieshave 100percent (all 3types ofinformation), 36have 2of these, and the

    remaining 24 haveone. The descriptionof citydepartments istheleast likely of the three typesof

    organizationalinformationtobepresentonthewebsites,andthecentrallistingofdepartmentsand

    agenciesmost common (at 91 percent). On average, cities have 63 percent of the organizational

    criteria.

    Illinois Cities. The Illinois cities in the study have a slightly higher average score (65 percent) for

    organizational information than the largestU.S. cities. Six cities have all threeof these items (100percent).DescriptionsofcitydepartmentsonthemainwebpageareleastcommonforIllinoiscitiesas

    wellasU.S.cities.But,35percentofIllinoiscitieshavesuchadescriptionincomparisonwithonly27

    percentofthelargestU.S.cities.

    ProcessesandRegulation

    Knowledgeaboutgovernmentprocessesisalsonecessaryforparticipation.Ouritemsinclude:

    informationonhowbudgets,capitalplans,andlawsaremade,aswellasinformationonhowcitizen

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    19/61

    19

    initiativesor referendawork;municipal codes;informationonothercurrentgovernmentpoliciesand

    regulations;informationoncouncilmeetings(agendas,minutes,onlinevideos,podcasts,backgroundon

    issues);andinformationonvotingandelections.

    U.S.Cities.Threecitiesscore100percentSanFrancisco,Seattle,andSanJoseand11morehave

    over 90 percent. Two cities Buffalo and Toledo have only 45 percent of the information on

    governmentprocesses. Towhatextenthave citiesusedmultimedia todocument councilmeetings?

    Onlinevideosarecommon,with84percentofcitiesusingthose.Podcastsofcouncilmeetingsarefairly

    rare,offeredbyjustover17percentofcities.Electioninformationisoftenprovidedthroughlinks,as

    counties or election commissions are generally responsible for conducting elections. But, over 90

    percentofcitieshavetheselinksorotherelectioninformation.Onaverage,citywebsitesdisplay75

    percentofthepossibletypesofinformationongovernmentprocesses.

    IllinoisCities.TheIllinoiscitieshavesomewhatlessinformationongovernmentprocessesthantheU.S.

    cities,withanaveragescoreof64percentfortheprocessandregulationitems.Only40percentofthe

    Illinoiswebsites discuss processes for legislation or planning, comparedwith61 percentof theU.S.

    cities. Thepostingof informationon city councilmeetings is ubiquitousonboth state andnational

    websites.Backgroundinformationon issuesis slightlymorecommonin Illinois,as75percentofstatewebsitesincludethis,comparedto70percentoftheU.S.cities.Podcastsofcouncilmeetingsareeven

    lesslikelytobeavailableforIllinoiscities.ThecityofDecaturhadcouncilpodcastsonitswebsite.

    NeighborhoodInformation

    Theneighborhoodorcommunityisasignificantsitefortheoristsofdemocraticparticipationor

    civic engagement (Putnam 2000). Neighborhood interaction can promote the discussion and

    deliberationneeded forstrongdemocracy (Barber1984) andcollectiveproblem-solving (Yankelovich

    1991;Briggs2008).Oftencivicengagementoccursattheneighborhoodlevel,withresidentsbecoming

    involved in block clubs, district councils, local schools, or in volunteer efforts in their immediate

    surroundings.Citiesmayencourageresidentstobecomeknowledgeableabouttheirneighborhoodsby

    providing information on neighborhood characteristics (such as demographic information, localeconomiccondition,businessinformation,ormaps).Further,citywebsitesmayfeatureinformationon

    neighborhood-relatedissues(suchasaffordablehousing,safety,etc.)

    U.S.Cities. Thiswasnearlyuniversal. AlloftheU.S.citiesprovidedbothdescriptiveand issue-based

    neighborhoodinformationonline,withtheexceptionofFortWorth,whichdidnthaveanythingposted

    onneighborhoodissues.Neighborhoodinformationisclearlyanimportantfeatureoflocalgovernment

    websites,astheaveragescoreforthiscategorywas99percent.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    20/61

    20

    Minneapolis,MNNeighborhoodRevitalizationProgram

    TheCitywebsiteprovides informationon theNeighborhoodRevitalizationProgram(NRP),whichhas

    been inexistencefortwodecadesnow. Residentsparticipateinapriority-settingprocesstodevelop

    neighborhood investment plans. The NRP is a systematic citizen participation process in whichneighborhoods organize and coordinate a planningprocess, gatherandanalyze informationon local

    communityproblems,draftaconcreteinvestmentprogramwithassistancefromcitystaff,distributethe

    plan for approval by neighborhood stakeholders, submit the plan to the NRP Policy Board and the

    Minneapolis City Council for approval and funding, and finally, implement the program. In 2000,

    MinneapolisNRPreceivedtheUnitedNationsCentreforHumanSettlementsGlobal100BestPractices

    award.(SeetheNeighborhoodRevitalizationProgramat http://www.nrp.org/).

    Illinois Cities. All Illinois cities exceptDecaturhave someneighborhood informationonline, but the

    averagescore forthiscategoryislowerin Illinois,at85percent.ThedifferencebetweenIllinoiscities

    andU.S.citiesisthatinformationaboutneighborhoodissuesislesscommon.Only75percentofIllinois

    citiesincludethisinformation.Still,localgovernmentsoverallusethewebsitestoconnectresidentsto

    theirneighborhoodsinsomeway.

    PolicyandPerformanceInformation

    Transparencyisanimportantfeatureofgovernmentonline.Totheextentthatcitizenscanfind

    information on policies and track government performance, they are better prepared to hold

    government accountable for its actions. We counted the presence of a number of policy and

    performancedocumentsonline:budgets;background informationon budgets; press releases; text or

    video of major speeches of the mayor, manager or council leadership; capital improvement plans;

    explanationsoftheplan;financialauditreports;andagencyannualperformancereports.

    U.S.Cities.Fifty-twoofthecitieshavealleightofthesedocumentsonline,andonlytwocitieshaveless

    than75percent(Buffaloat63percentandIndianapolisat50percent).Budgetdocumentsareavailable

    onallofthesites,andfinancialauditsareaccessiblethrough99percentofthem.Citiesaremaking

    good use of the web for posting basic policy and performance documents online. Cities score an

    averageof95percentforthepolicyandperformancedocumentsthatwecounted.Thisisanareathat

    meritsfurtherinvestigation,however.Althoughtransparencyonpoliciesandperformanceispotentially

    asignificantbenefitofe-government,there islikelytobewidevariationin thequalityof information

    online.Anassessmentofqualityiscomplex,requiringacarefulexaminationofthedocumentsagainsta

    varietyofcriteria.Suchaprojectisbeyondthemethodsandgoalsofthisstudy;atbestwecansaythat

    most of these large cities do post information on budgets, audits, and some other basic policy

    documents.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    21/61

    21

    Minneapolis,MNResultsMinneapolis

    Minneapolis, Minnesota, is one of the few cities combining two powerful tools results-based

    managementandinformationtechnologytopromotecitizenengagementwithgovernment.Results

    Minneapolis is a results-based management system that uses information about outcomes ofgovernment activities to shape policy, budgetary, and programmatic decisions. Some of the main

    objectivesofresults-basedgovernmentaretoensureefficientuseofscarcepublicresources,effectively

    produce results that local residents value, and increase government transparency. Results-based

    management practices permeate all aspects of government from strategic planning and goal

    prioritization, to departmental planning, budgeting, performancemeasurement and evaluation, and

    processimprovement.

    Citizensplayakeyrolein results-basedgovernment.Residents informtheirlocalgovernmentoftheir

    demandsandpreferencesregardingservicelevels,resourceallocation,andtaxbills,whichthenshape

    the long-term strategic plan of the city. Additionally, city residents also assess the performance of

    departments and the city government as a whole, and provide feedback for improving government

    programs.

    Clearly,acrucialcomponentofresults-basedgovernmentishowtogatherinformationfromresidents,

    andatthesametime,raisecitizenawarenessandunderstandingofgovernmentprocesses,programs,

    andactivities.ForMinneapolis,informationtechnologyinparticular,theCitywebsiteistheanswer.

    Through theCityswebsite, the local government carefully describes the results-based management

    process, andmakes available keydocuments at each step of theprocess. For instance,Minneapolis

    residentslearnoftheresultsofmulti-yearscientificcitizensurveys.Thesurveysrevealinformationon

    resident satisfaction with city services and perceptions about key quality of life indicators, citizen

    prioritiesandexpectations,andresidentsinformationneeds.Next,residentscanaccessMinneapolis

    2020Visionwhich is theCitysfive-year strategicplan, andseehow theCityslong-termgoals are

    linked with citizen priorities. Local taxpayers can then view the specific departmental plans tounderstand how these plans are aligned with the Citys overall goals, how departments budget

    allocationsarelinkedtotheachievementofspecificobjectives,andhowdepartmentsplantomeasure

    their progress. City officials regularly track the performance of each department. Up-to-date

    performancereportscanbedownloadedfromthecitywebsite,enablingresidentstounderstandhow

    effectively thegovernment isusing their taxes toproducetheoutcomesthey have prioritized. (Visit

    ResultsMinneapolisat http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/results/.)

    IllinoisCities. TheaveragescoreforIllinoiscitiesisonly66percent forbasicpolicyandperformance

    informationonline.Onecity,Waukegan,hasnoneofthe12items,although5citieshaveallofthem.

    Themostcommonitemsarethebudget,backgroundinformationonthebudget,pressreleases,and

    financialaudits;70-80%ofthecitiesdisplaytheseonthewebsites.Thisissomewhatreassuring,asthe

    budgetandfinancialauditsarecriticalfortransparencyandaccountability. Citieswithoutthesebasic

    documentsavailableinelectronicformatshouldpostthemforpublicview.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    22/61

    22

    NewYork,NYRequiredPublicationofDocuments

    Localgovernmentwebsitescanfacilitatecivicengagementbyincreasingaccesstorelevantandtimely

    information.NewYorkCitymandatesthepublicationofgovernmentdocumentsinthecitywebsite.In

    2003,theCityCouncilofNewYorkenactedanordinancerequiringallcityagenciestosubmittothe

    Department of Records and Information Services all documents requiredby law tobepublished or

    transmittedtotheMayororCouncilwithintenbusinessdaysafterthedateoftransmittal.Withinthe

    sametimeperiod,theDepartmentisresponsibleforpostingthedocumentsonthecitywebsite.The

    statedgoalsofthispolicyaretoincreaseefficiencyandaccessibilityofmunicipalgovernment,aswellas

    to promote good environmental practices such as reducing governments use of paper. (See

    http://www.nyccouncil.info/pdf_files/bills/law03011.pdf .)

    InformationforOfflineParticipation

    Whilepriorresearchhasfaultedlocalgovernmentwebsitesforthelackofparticipationonline,

    thisisnottheonlywaythatcitywebsitescanencouragecivicengagement.Itisimportanttoexamine

    theextent towhich citiesuse theweb todisseminate informationabout eventsor organizations to

    encourage participation offline as well. Within the category of offline participation, we track

    information about the time and place of official events such as council sessions or hearings or

    administrative hearings. Local governments can also encourage voluntarism by publicizing charity

    events,volunteeropportunities,ortheneedfordonationstocharitiesornonprofits.Finally,theycan

    highlightlocalgroupsthrougheitherinformationorlinkstocity-sponsoredcitizenorganizations(suchas

    communitycouncilsordistrictcouncils),otherneighborhood-orientedorganizations,andnonprofitsor

    charities. They can directly assist such organizations through funding or technical assistance, and

    advertisesuchassistanceonline.

    U.S. Cities. Twenty-seven cities display all ofthis informationon theirwebsites; fivecities have 50

    percentor less. Forty-six percentof cities advertise theactivities of charities or nonprofits, and52percenthavesomementionofsuchorganizationsonthewebsite.Similarly,52percentofcitiesoffer

    grants,trainingor technical assistance tononprofitorneighborhoodorganizations. Onaverage,U.S.

    citiesmeet86percentofthesecriteriaforthepromotionofofflineparticipation.

    IllinoisCities. AveragescoresforofflineparticipationareabitlowerforIllinoiscities,at78percent.

    Yet,5citiesstillhaveall12oftheitemsthatwerecountedforofflineparticipation.AswiththeU.S.

    websites, information on charities is less common than information about city activities. Only 40

    percentof cities provide informationon charityevents,60percentask for donations to charities or

    nonprofits,and65percenthavelinksorinformationaboutlocalgroupsthatarenonprofitsorcharities.

    IllinoiscitiesactuallylistlocalnonprofitgroupssomewhatmorefrequentlythantheU.S.cities.

    OnlineInteractivityandParticipation

    The internet has also become an important tool throughwhich citizens express their views

    about politics, policy, and community (Eggers 2005; Bimber 2003; Jensen, Danziger, and Venkatesh

    2007).Forinstance,anumberoflocalgovernmentsuseonlinesurveystogatherinformationoncitizen

    perception of local government performance, and even citizen fiscal policy preferences (Robbins,

    Simonsen,andFeldman2008).Somecitiesalsoallowlocalresidentstopostcommentsintheirwebsites.

    Amoreadvanceduseofwebsitesis tofacilitatevirtual townhallmeetings (ThomasandStreib2003).

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    23/61

    23

    More recently, local governments have also exploited new developments in information and

    communication technology such Twitterto facilitateresidentsaccess toup-to-date information.City

    governmentsarealsousingsocialnetworkingsitessuchasFacebooktoexpandtheiroutreachtoyouth

    andyoungprofessionals(seeRaynes-GoldieandWalker2008onothercivicengagementtools).

    Forthepurposesofmeasuringonlineengagement,weaggregateaspectsofinteractivitywithin

    the index, including online transactions for services along with customized information and

    opportunitiesfordiscussionorfeedback.Thisincludesdownloadableforms,onlinetransactions,citizen

    surveys,onlinenewslettersoremailupdates,downloadableinformation,searchabledatabases,online

    commentformsormessageboxes,RSS feeds,Twitter, discussionboards,virtualtownhallmeetings,

    Facebooklinks,andYouTubelinks.Whiletheseareaggregatedinanindexofonlineparticipationinthe

    appendix,itisusefultoseparatetheseelementsfordiscussion.

    OnlineTransactionsforU.S.Cities.Downloadableformsandonlinetransactionsarelikelymoreservice-

    oriented,andpriorstudieshaveshownthatthesearemuchmorecommonthanopportunitiestovoice

    opinions. Downloadable forms are available in 100 percent of the U.S. cities, and some type of

    transactioncanbecompletedonlinein93percent.

    OnlineTransactionsforIllinoisCities. Illinoiscitiescompare favorablywiththeU.S.onthesecriteria.

    AlloftheIllinoiscitiesthatwerecodedmakeformsavailableonline,andtransactionscanbecompleted

    onlinein95percent.Onlyoneofthe20citiesCicerodidnothaveonlinetransactions.Ciceroisthe

    smallestofthe20cities.

    CustomizationandWeb 2.0forU.S.Cities. Interactivityallowscitizenstoobtaintheinformationthat

    matters to them inwaysthat areconvenient. Customization of information ismore prevalent than

    socialmedia(sitesforsharinginformation)suchasFacebook,YouTubeandTwitter.Between56and80

    percent of cities offer online newsletter subscriptions or e-mail updates, downloadable information

    materials,andRSSfeeds,whileallcitieshavesearchabledatabases.Twitteristhemostpopularofthe

    new media (25 percent of cities), with Facebook and YouTube still relatively modest at 16 and 13

    percentrespectively.Seattlehasanextensiveonlinevideochannelofitsown,withanumberofpublichearingsandtownhallmeetingsthatcanbeviewed,aswellasinformationaboutthecommunity.

    CustomizationandWeb2.0forIllinoisCities.Themostcommonformsofcustomizedinformationused

    by Illinois cities are online newsletter subscriptions oremail updates (at 75 percent), and about45

    percent use RSS feeds. All have downloadable information materials, but only 55 percent have

    searchabledatabases. Search capabilitiesandRSS feeds for Illinoiscities area little lower than the

    averagesforthelargeU.S.cities.NewmediauseisalsoabitlowerforIllinois,particularlyforTwitter.

    Only15percentofIllinoiscitiesuseTwitter,andonly10percenthavelinkstoFacebookorYouTube.

    Thecitiesthatusethesesocialmediatendtobeamongthehigher-rankedoverall.Twitterisusedby

    Naperville,Champaign,andElgin. NapervilleandElginhaveFacebookpages. Chicagohasa YouTube

    channelforthemayor.Cicero,whichisalower-rankedcityoverall,hasalinktoYouTube.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    24/61

    24

    Seattle,WASeattleChannel

    TheCityofSeattle'sDepartmentofInformationTechnologyoperatestheSeattleChannel,whichisboth

    a government television channel and a website. The TV Channel and its website are the core

    componentsoftheCityselectronicdemocracyprogram.AmongtheobjectivesoftheSeattleChannelis

    to create two-way communication between city government and its citizens. The channel-cum-

    websitedoesthis,forinstance,byhostingneighborhoodblogsinwhichresidentscreateafreewikidot

    accounttostartanewtopicorparticipateinanon-goingonlinediscussion.Thechannelalsohoststhe

    monthlyAsktheMayorprograminwhichresidentscaneithercallinoremailquestionstothemayor

    regardingissuesranging fromyouth violence,pedestriansafety,andthebudget,amongothers.(Visit

    theSeattleChannelathttp://www.seattlechannel.org/.)

    Online Participation for U.S. Cities. The most critical use of the web for advocates of deliberative

    democracy is collective problem-solving throughdiscussion. While local governmentwebsites show

    littleevidenceofthis,theydoprovidesomeimportantmechanismsforfeedback.Discussionboardsand

    virtualtownhallmeetingsarerare.Nocityhasavirtualtownmeetingthatcouldbefoundbyexaminingthepageswefocusedonandusingthesearchengine.OnlyonecitySeattlehasadiscussionboard.

    Itisworthnotingthattherearenumerousvideosof offline townhallmeetingsinSeattle.Collective

    deliberation over policy issues is clearly encouraged, but more commonly through face-to-face

    communitymeetingsratherthanthroughtheinternet.Therearenoonlinetownmeetingsthatcould

    befoundatofficialwebsites,althoughtherearesomeexamplesoutsidethisstudy.Forexample,St.

    Paul,MNparticipatesinanonlineforumthat ishostedonthewebsiteofE-democracy.org.Websites

    alsoofferaconvenienttoolforcitizencontactingandforsurveys,andthesearequitecommononline.

    Eightypercentof citieshavecommentor messageboxes,and60percentof citieshaveinformation

    postedonacitizensurvey(takenonlineoroffline)withinthepast3years.Thisallowsforcitizeninput,

    butnotforanexchangeofviewsbetweencitizens.Thesurveys,however,havesomeadvantagesover

    thecommentboxes,becausethepostingofresults,eveniftheyarenotbasedonscientificsamples,

    allowsforsomesenseofcollectiveopiniontobeairedonline.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    25/61

    25

    Seattle,WACommunityEngagementWebsite

    TheCityofSeattlestandsoutamongthe75largestcitiesinitsemphasisontheuseofitsofficialwebsite

    asatooltopromotecivicawareness,understanding,andparticipationingovernmentalandcommunity

    affairs.Withinasinglewebpage,thecityprovidesvariouslinkstoinformationneededbyresidentstobecivicallyengaged.Forinstance,thewebsitecontainsacitizenguideonlocalgovernmentprocesses,as

    wellasthedutiesandresponsibilitiesofcityofficials.Anotherlinkprovidessubstantiveinformationon

    various local issues includingpolice accountability,the local publicschool system,and transportation

    andinfrastructure.Inordertoallowcitizenstoexpresstheirviews,thewebsitehasadiscussionboard

    whichallowsresidentstopost theiropinionsonline.TheCityswebsiteis theonlyportalfromamong

    the 75 largest cities which has this feature. For residents more interested in offline participation

    opportunities, thewebsitealsocontains informationabout donatingand volunteering opportunities,

    servingoncityboardsandcommissions,andattendingcitycouncilhearingsandneighborhoodevents.

    (SeeGetInvolvedlink- http://www.seattle.gov/html/CITIZEN/participation.htm )

    OnlineParticipationforIllinoisCities.Asmightbeexpected,directparticipationonlineisrareinIllinois

    websitesaswell.OnecityBloomingtonhasadiscussionboardonline,andthereareopportunities

    forfeedbackthroughcommentormessageboxesin55percentofthecities.Thirtypercentofthecities

    havesurveyinformationpostedonline.Thisincludesallthreecitieswiththehighestoverallranking

    (Naperville,ChicagoandAurora)andthreelower-rankedcities(Schaumburg,SkokieandDecatur).The

    large U.S. cities have significantlymore comment boxes and surveys available. City size apparently

    makes more of a difference for online feedback and survey feedback than for some of the other

    categoriesintheindex.

    U.S.citywebsitesarenotparticularlyinteractive,foronaveragetheyfeatureonly55percentof

    thecustomizationandparticipationfeatures.Overall,Illinoiscitiesscore46percentforthiscategory.

    Online services arenearlyuniversal,whereasmore civically-oriented interactivity isnot. Deliberative

    democracydoesnotexistonlinein thesecities, ifthatisconceptualizedasdialoguebetweencitizens.Theinternet facilitatessomecitizenvoice, however,throughmechanismssuch assurveysand online

    commentboxesthatallowindividualstocontactofficials.Searchableandcustomizableinformationis

    availableinmostcities,butnewsocialmediaarejustemergingoncitywebsites.Nationally,Phoenix,

    Mesa,OklahomaCityandSeattletieforfirstplaceinthisonlineinteractivitycategorywith85percentof

    these interactivefeatures,and17more cities tiefor secondandthirdplacewith77 percentand 69

    percent of these features (Chicago is in third place). Within Illinois, Naperville ranks first for this

    categorywith76percentofthesefeatures,andElgintieswithChicagoforsecondplace.

    TransparencyandAccessibility

    Howawebsiteisdesignedcontributestoitspotentialtopromotebothonlineandofflinecivic

    engagement. For instance, even if a government websitemakes available a volume of information,residentsbenefitonlyifsuchinformationcanbeeasilyfound.Additionally,informationgiventocitizens

    mustalsobeup-to-date.Toberelevanttothewidestrangeofcitizens,websitesshouldbeaccessibleto

    non-Englishspeakersandindividualswithdisabilities.Finally,residentscanbedissuadedfromusingcity

    websitesifthereisnoclearpolicyonhowlocalgovernmentsprotectcitizensonlineprivacyandsecurity

    (seeLaPorte,Demchak,anddeJong2002ontheimportanceofwebsiteopenness,transparency,and

    interactivity).

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    26/61

    26

    We assessed how much local websites prioritized being up-to-date, open, accessible, and

    secure. Two criteria measured freshness of information: whether the main page features a

    publicationdate, andwhether thereis evidence of updates (suchas news itemsornewdocuments

    posted)within the past 30 days. Openness ismeasured by: the presence of a searchable indexfor

    archived newsletters, laws, regulations, and requirements; whether or not there is a charge for

    downloadedor printedpublications;andwhether thewebsiteprovideseithera linkortextforpublic

    informationlaws or regulations, such as theFreedom of InformationAct (FOIA). User-friendliness is

    measuredthroughinclusionofasearchbaranduniformtemplateswithtoolbarsormenusinthesame

    placeoneachpage. Thismakes iteasierto findinformationandprovidessomeindicatorofusability.

    We coded for the presence of language translation and also icons (such as flags) that indicate the

    availability of translation. Sites were examined for accessibility statements and audio or visual

    enhancements intended for individuals with disabilities. Security and privacy of information were

    assessedbyprivacystatementsandtheuseofpasswordsorsecureserversforonlinetransactions.(The

    items that examine these areas were adapted fromWebsite Attribute Evaluation System (WAES),

    CyberspacePolicyResearchGrouphttp://www.cyprg.arizona.edu/.)

    U.S.Cities.Nationally,citiesscoreanaverageofonly66percentonthesecriteria.Fifteencitieshave80

    percentormoreofthesefeatures,andsevencitieshavelessthanhalf(seeAppendixAforfullresults).Most websites between 88 and 100 percent - have been updated within the past 30 days, have

    searchcapabilities,freeinformation,andprivacystatementsandsecurityfortransactions.Accessibility

    islessprevalent,asonly45percentofsitesoffer foreign languagetranslationandonly55percentof

    sitesdisplayastatementonaccessibilityforuserswithdisabilities.Comparingtheresultswithprevious

    studies,localgovernmentwebsitesshowmorecognizanceofissuessuchasprivacyandsecuritythanin

    pastyears,andarefairlyopen,up-to-date,andsearchable,althoughmoreprogresscouldbemadeon

    accessibility.

    Sacramento,CA101ThingsYouCanDoontheCityWeb

    Citywebsitesmaycontainanabundanceofinformationthatcanpotentiallypromotecivicengagement,

    but whether or not that possibility is realized ultimately depends on how easy it is to find theinformationinthecityportal.OfficialsoftheCityofSacramento,Californiaclearlyunderstandthisneed.

    TheCityswebsiteprovidesan importantservice that cuts thetimespentbyusersnavigatingthecity

    webpageinsearchofinformationthattheyneed.Aptlytitled101ThingsYouCanDoontheCityWeb,

    the service lists in one webpage various types of information that enable residents to be civically

    engaged.Theserviceallowsresidentsto view thelatest informationon thecitybudget,readthecity

    charter,seethecityorganizationandlistofdepartments,receivee-mailalerts,fileacrimereport,find

    volunteeropportunities,attendmeetingswithcityofficials,searchforneighborhoodassociations,and

    findoutwhatcityofficeswillbeupforreelection,amongothertopics.

    (Seehttp://www.cityofsacramento.org/101_Things_You_Can_Do_on_the_City_Web/ )

    IllinoisCities. Illinoiscities scoredlower,at 52percent,buttheyfollowsimilarpatterns. Ninety-five

    percentof theIllinois citieshavewebsitesthathavebeenupdated in thepast 30days andallcities

    provide downloadable publications for free. Eighty percent have search engines and uniform site

    templates,makinginformationsearcheasier.WhereIllinoiscitiesfallmeasurablybehindisinthearea

    of accessibility, both for individualswith disabilitiesand for foreign language translation. The three

    citieswithtranslationcapabilitiesareRockford,PeoriaandCicero.Thesecitieshavehighproportionsof

    Latinos,butsodoanumberofothercitiesonthelist,includingChicago.Only20percentofcitieshave

    accessibilitystatementsNaperville,Chicago,Rockford,andDesPlaines.Illinoiscitiesscorebetteron

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    27/61

    27

    security. Fifty-five percent have a privacy or security statement, and 80 percent have security for

    financialtransactionsorpersonalinformation.

    Oneaspectofusabilitythatwedidnotmeasurewastheeaseoffindinginformation.Coders

    commented frequently that it was difficult to find information because of clutter, inconsistencies,

    confusingindices,andinefficientsearchengines.Usabilityandaccessibilitywillcontinuetobeimportant

    areasforlocalgovernmentstoaddressinordertofacilitatecivicengagement.

    SUMMINGUP:E-GOVERNMENTANDCIVICENGAGEMENTTODAY

    Citiesprovidean importantwealthof information that hasevolvedover time. Comparedto

    Hos assessment in 2002, there is greater transparency and interactivity. In contrast with the early

    efforts of the 1990s, cities use their websites without exception to connect citizens to their

    neighborhoods.Nearlyhalfincludesomeinformationaboutvoluntarysectororganizationsoractivities

    aswell. Customization of information is common.But, there is little that resembles e-democracy as

    collectiveproblem-solvingordeliberationthroughtechnology.Accessibilityisanareaforimprovement

    bothinIllinoisandnationally,asmanylocalwebsitesarenotuser-friendlyforpeoplewithdisabilitiesor

    withlimitedEnglish.Althoughprivacyandsecurityhaveimproved,notallcitieshavethis,particularly

    thesmallercitiesthatwereexaminedinIllinois. Table4showsfeaturesthatarepresent innearlyall

    localgovernmentwebsitesintheU.S.andIllinois,andTable5liststhosethatarefoundinlessthan20

    percentofwebsites.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    28/61

    28

    Table4.WHATDOESATYPICALLOCALGOVERNMENTWEBSITELOOKLIKE?

    Thefollowingcharacteristicsarepresentonall(orallbutone)ofthe75U.S.or20Illinoiswebsites

    ITEM US ILLINOIS

    Contactinformation

    Mayor,departments,agencies X

    Citycouncil X

    GovernmentProcesses

    Informationoncurrentgovernmentpoliciesorregulations X X

    Textorlinksforthemunicipalcode X

    CityCouncilagendas X X

    NeighborhoodOrientations

    Informationonneighborhoodcharacteristics X X

    Informationoncommunityorneighborhoodissues X

    Policiesandperformance Pressreleases X

    Citybudget X

    Financialauditreports X

    Participatoryopportunitiesoffline

    Informationonofflineeventsoropportunitiesforparticipation X X

    Timeandplaceofcouncilsessionsorhearings X X

    Convenientinformationaccess

    Downloadableforms X X

    Downloadableinformationmaterials X X

    Nochargefordownloadableinformationorprintedmaterials X

    Searchableindexforarchivednewsletters,laws,andregulations X Searchengine X

    Webpageupdatesinpast30days X

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    29/61

    29

    Table5.UNCOMMONFEATURESONLOCALGOVERNMENTWEBSITES

    Thefollowingfeaturesarepresentonlessthan20percentofthe75U.S.or20Illinoiswebsites

    ITEMS U.S. ILLINOIS

    Podcastsoncouncilmeetings X X

    Highlightsorsummariesratherthanfullcouncilminutes X

    Foreignlanguagetranslation X

    Iconstoindicateavailabilityforforeignlanguagetranslation X X

    Audioorvisualenhancementforpeoplewithdisabilities X

    Twitter X

    YouTubelink X X

    Facebooklink X X

    Discussionboards X X

    Virtualtownhallmeetings X X

    Basedon thetablesabove,it isclearthatlocalgovernmentwebsitesprovideafairamountof

    basicinformationaboutgovernmentthatisimportantforengagement(aswellasaccountability).The

    mostcommoninformationongovernmentallowscitizenstocontactofficials,findcitydepartmentsand

    agencies,attendorfollowtheresultsofcouncilmeetingsandpublichearings,andexaminemunicipal

    codes,budgetdocuments,financialaudits,andpressreleasesormajorspeeches.Videopresentations

    of council meetings, which are widespread, have the advantage of allowing citizens to more fully

    experiencethediscussionsanddebateswithinmeetings.Whilethepostingofgovernmentinformation

    is one-way disseminationfrom governmentsto citizens,most local websites, including the smaller

    citiesinIllinoishaveadvancedbeyonda simplephonedirectoryapproachtoe-governmenttoinclude

    substantive documents and records of council meetings. Information about how to participate in

    politicalprocessesisalsopresentonlocalgovernmentwebsites,includinglinksforelectionsandvoting,

    andannouncementsforcouncilsessionsandpublichearings.Theavailabilityofsuchinformationclearly

    differentiatedhigh and low-information cities online,but there are some limits towhat canbe said

    aboutthequalityoftheinformationbasedonasimplecount.Forexample,tobetterunderstandhow

    information might encourage civic engagement, it would be useful to assess whether cities post

    backgroundinformationoranalysisbeforedecisionsaremade.

    Local government websites have an opportunity to involve citizens close to home and to

    cooperatewith locally-organizedcivic groups such as charities andnonprofits. It appears that local

    governments recognize this opportunity by displaying information on neighborhoods and charities,

    publicizingeventsandtheneedforvolunteersanddonations.Localgovernmentsitesalmostuniversallyincludebothdescriptiveandpolicyinformationontheirneighborhoods.Between40-60percentoflocal

    governmentwebsiteshavevarioustypesofinformationonnonprofitsandcharities,includingappealsto

    participateineventsorfundraising.

    Interactivity is improving in comparison with early studies that cited of a lack of online

    transactions or other interactive uses (Musso, Weare and Hale 2000; Moon 2002). There are

    opportunities for citizeninput,although this isgenerallybetweenindividualcitizens andgovernment

    officials throughcomplaint formsorsurveysrather than throughcollectivediscussion. ForlargeU.S.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    30/61

    30

    andIllinoiscities,downloadableinformationandonlinetransactionsarenearlyuniversal.Customization

    ofinformationthroughemailalerts,onlinenewslettersubscriptionsand(toalesserextent)RSSfeedsis

    alsocommon.Web2.0isgenerallyunderutilizedforinteraction,withasmallminorityofcitiesusing

    socialmediasuchasFacebook,Twitter,andYouTube.Thismaybeatemporaryphenomenon,forcities

    willlikelyneedtimetoexperimentwiththesenewmediaandtodecidehoworwhethertheycontribute

    tocitizenknowledgeandparticipation.

    There is almost no trace of deliberative democracy online, however, as measured through

    discussionboardsorelectronictownhallmeetings.Seattleprovidesvideoofmanyofflinetownhall

    meetings,andboth Seattleand Bloomington, Illinoisuse discussionboards for citizeninput. Council

    members andmayors inmany cities have blogs (see for example, Seattle councilmembers and the

    mayorofLosAngeles).Buttheseresembleonlinediariesratherthanservingasplatformsforcomments

    fromresidents. IncontrasttosocialnetworkslikeFacebook,thetechnology foronlinediscussionhas

    beenaroundforawhile.Thebarriersforcitiesarelikelypolitical,legal,andadministrativeratherthan

    technical. Organizations such as E-democracy.organdMoveOn.orghave hostedelectronic town hall

    meetingstoalleviateworriesthatcitiesmayhaveaboutthepotentialforlegalissues.But,suchefforts

    remaintheexception,eveninanerawhennewspapershostblogsbrimmingwithreadercomments.

    There are many avenues for further study suggested by this research. While we provide

    rankings,wedonotexplainwhysomecitiesareaheadofothers.Doessizealoneexplainmuchofthe

    variation?TheexampleofNapervilleinIllinoissuggeststhisisnotso.WhataccountsforSeattlesfirst-

    place ranking? Perhaps cities with higher civic engagement potential online have more educated

    populations,andmoretechnology-savvyculturesbecauseofthepresenceofhigh-techfirms.Thenext

    stepinthisstudyistoexaminethecharacteristicsthatexplaingreaterattentiontocivicengagementon

    localgovernmentwebsites.Amorein-depthexaminationoftheinformationthatisavailableonlinein

    thehighest-ranked cities could alsoanswer important questions about howwell that information is

    positionedtofacilitatecivicengagement.Aredocumentsmadeavailablebeforedecisionsaremade,or

    onlyafter?Istherein-depthinformationorpolicyanalysismadeavailabletothepublic?Towhatextent

    docitizensusethesefeatures,andhowdotheyaffectknowledge,interest,discussionandparticipation?

    Thesearesomeofthequestionsthatemergefromthisresearchandmeritfurtherinvestigation.

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    31/61

    31

    APPENDIXA.RANKINGFORU.S.ANDCITIES

    OVERALLRANKINGFOR75LARGESTU.S.CITIES

    City State PopulationCity rank

    bypopulation

    RawScore

    Highestpossible

    score

    Raw

    scoreweightedby totalpossible

    score

    Rank byweighted

    score

    Seattle Washington 594210 24 71 74 95.95 1

    Phoenix Arizona 1552259 5 74 78 94.87 2

    San Francisco California 799183 13 73 78 93.59 3

    Louisville Kentucky 557789 29 69 74 93.24 4

    New York New York 8274527 1 68 74 91.89 5

    Boston Massachusetts 608352 21 65 74 87.84 6

    Virginia Beach Virginia 434743 41 68 78 87.18 7

    Chicago Illinois 2836658 3 64 74 86.49 8San Jose California 939899 10 67 78 85.90 9

    Columbus Ohio 747755 15 63 74 85.14 10

    Mesa Arizona 452933 38 66 78 84.62 11

    Nashville Tennessee 590807 25 62 74 83.78 12

    St Louis Missouri 350759 52 62 74 83.78 12

    Austin Texas 743074 16 65 78 83.33

    Plano Texas 260796 69 65 78 83.33 13

    Los Angeles California 3834340 2 61 74 82.43 14

    San Diego California 1266731 8 61 74 82.43 14

    Baltimore Maryland 637455 20 61 74 82.43 14

    Washington DC N/A 588292 27 61 74 82.43 14

    Tampa Florida 336823 54 61 74 82.43 14

    San Antonio Texas 1328984 7 64 78 82.05 15

    El Paso Texas 606913 22 64 78 82.05 15

    Oklahoma City Oklahoma 547274 31 64 78 82.05 15

    Greensboro North Carolina 247183 74 64 78 82.05 15

    Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1449634 6 60 74 81.08 16

    Long Beach California 466520 36 63 78 80.77 17

    Wichita Kansas 361420 51 63 78 80.77 17

    St Petersburg Florida 246407 75 63 78 80.77 16

    Houston Texas 2208180 4 59 74 79.73 18

    Memphis Tennessee 674028 18 59 74 79.73 18

    Albuquerque New Mexico 518271 34 59 74 79.73 St Paul Minnesota 277251 67 59 74 79.73 18

    Dallas Texas 1240499 9 62 78 79.49 19

    Sacramento California 460242 37 62 78 79.49 19

    Minneapolis Minnesota 377392 46 63 78 80.77 19

    Glendale Arizona 253152 70 62 78 79.49 19

    Denver Colorado 588349 26 58 74 78.38 20

    Tulsa Oklahoma 384037 45 58 74 78.38 20

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    32/61

    32

    Las Vegas Nevada 558880 28 61 78 78.21 21

    Fresno California 470508 35 61 78 78.21 21

    Aurora Colorado 311794 58 61 78 78.21

    Henderson Nevada 249386 72 61 78 78.21 21

    Portland Oregon 550396 30 57 74 77.03 22

    Charlotte North Carolina 671588 19 60 78 76.92 23

    Kansas City Missouri 450375 39 60 78 76.92 23

    Arlington Texas 371038 50 60 78 76.92

    Jacksonville Florida 805605 12 56 74 75.68 24

    Milwaukee Wisconsin 602191 23 56 74 75.68 24

    Atlanta Georgia 519145 33 56 74 75.68

    Fort Wayne Indiana 251247 71 56 74 75.68 24

    Colorado Springs Colorado 376427 47 59 78 75.64 25

    Anaheim California 333249 55 59 78 75.64

    Cincinnati Ohio 332458 56 59 78 75.64 25

    Riverside California 294437 61 59 78 75.64 25

    Miami Florida 409719 43 58 78 74.36 26

    Corpus Christi Texas 285507 63 58 78 74.36 26Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 311218 59 55 74 74.32 27

    Honolulu Hawaii 375571 49 57 78 73.08 28

    Fort Worth Texas 681818 17 56 78 71.79 29

    Oakland California 401489 44 56 78 71.79 29

    Anchorage Arkansas 279671 65 56 78 71.79

    Detroit Michigan 916952 11 53 74 71.62 30

    Lexington Kentucky 279044 66 53 74 71.62 30

    Tucson Arizona 525529 32 55 78 70.51 31

    Cleveland Ohio 438042 40 52 74 70.27 32

    Omaha Nebraska 424482 42 52 74 70.27 32

    Indianapolis Indiana 795458 14 51 74 68.92 33

    Stockton California 287245 62 53 78 67.95 34

    Buffalo New York 272632 68 50 74 67.57 35

    Santa Ana California 339555 53 52 78 66.67 36

    Lincoln Nebraska 248744 73 49 74 66.22 37

    Toledo Ohio 295029 60 48 74 64.86 38

    Bakersfield California 315837 57 50 78 64.10 39

    Raleigh North Carolina 375806 48 48 78 61.54 40

    Newark New Jersey 280135 64 39 74 52.70 41

    AVG. SCORE

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    33/61

    33

    CONTACTINFORMATION,75LARGESTU.S.CITIES

    City State PopulationCity rank

    by

    population

    Raw

    Score

    Highestpossible

    score

    Rawscore

    weighted

    by totalpossiblescore

    Rank byweighted

    score

    New York New York 8274527 1 12 12 100.00 1

    Los Angeles California 3834340 2 12 12 100.00 1

    Houston Texas 2208180 4 12 12 100.00 1

    Phoenix Arizona 1552259 5 16 16 100.00 1

    Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1449634 6 12 12 100.00 1

    San Antonio Texas 1328984 7 16 16 100.00 1

    San Diego California 1266731 8 12 12 100.00 1

    Dallas Texas 1240499 9 16 16 100.00 1

    San Jose California 939899 10 16 16 100.00 1

    Jacksonville Florida 805605 12 12 12 100.00 1San Francisco California 799183 13 16 16 100.00 1

    Columbus Ohio 747755 15 12 12 100.00 1

    Austin Texas 743074 16 16 16 100.00

    Memphis Tennessee 674028 18 12 12 100.00 1

    Baltimore Maryland 637455 20 12 12 100.00 1

    Boston Massachusetts 608352 21 12 12 100.00 1

    El Paso Texas 606913 22 16 16 100.00 1

    Seattle Washington 594210 24 12 12 100.00 1

    Nashville Tennessee 590807 25 12 12 100.00 1

    Denver Colorado 588349 26 12 12 100.00 1

    Washington DC N/A 588292 27 12 12 100.00 1

    Las Vegas Nevada 558880 28 16 16 100.00 1

    Louisville Kentucky 557789 29 12 12 100.00 1

    Portland Oregon 550396 30 12 12 100.00 1

    Tucson Arizona 525529 32 16 16 100.00 1

    Atlanta Georgia 519145 33 12 12 100.00

    Albuquerque New Mexico 518271 34 12 12 100.00

    Fresno California 470508 35 16 16 100.00 1

    Long Beach California 466520 36 16 16 100.00 1

    Mesa Arizona 452933 38 16 16 100.00 1

    Kansas City Missouri 450375 39 16 16 100.00 1

    Cleveland Ohio 438042 40 12 12 100.00 1

    Virginia Beach Virginia 434743 41 16 16 100.00 1Omaha Nebraska 424482 42 12 12 100.00 1

    Miami Florida 409719 43 16 16 100.00 1

    Oakland California 401489 44 16 16 100.00 1

    ColoradoSprings Colorado 376427 47 16 16 100.00 1

    Wichita Kansas 361420 51 16 16 100.00 1

    St Louis Missouri 350759 52 12 12 100.00 1

    Tampa Florida 336823 54 12 12 100.00 1

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    34/61

    34

    Cincinnati Ohio 332458 56 16 16 100.00 1

    Bakersfield California 315837 57 16 16 100.00 1

    Aurora Colorado 311794 58 16 16 100.00

    Toledo Ohio 295029 60 12 12 100.00 1

    Corpus Christi Texas 285507 63 16 16 100.00 1

    St Paul Minnesota 277251 67 12 12 100.00 1

    Buffalo New York 272632 68 12 12 100.00 1

    Plano Texas 260796 69 16 16 100.00 1

    Glendale Arizona 253152 70 16 16 100.00 1

    Fort Wayne Indiana 251247 71 12 12 100.00 1

    Henderson Nevada 249386 72 16 16 100.00 1

    Lincoln Nebraska 248744 73 12 12 100.00 1

    Greensboro North Carolina 247183 74 16 16 100.00 1

    St Petersburg Florida 246407 75 16 16 100.00 1

    Charlotte North Carolina 671588 19 15 16 93.75 2

    Oklahoma City Oklahoma 547274 31 15 16 93.75 2

    Sacramento California 460242 37 15 16 93.75 2

    Arlington Texas 371038 50 15 16 93.75 Anchorage Arkansas 279671 65 15 16 93.75

    Chicago Illinois 2836658 3 11 12 91.67 3

    Tulsa Oklahoma 384037 45 11 12 91.67 3

    Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 311218 59 11 12 91.67 3

    Minneapolis Minnesota 377392 46 14 16 87.50 4

    Honolulu Hawaii 375571 49 14 16 87.50 4

    Detroit Michigan 916952 11 10 12 83.33 5

    Indianapolis Indiana 795458 14 10 12 83.33 5

    Lexington Kentucky 279044 66 10 12 83.33 5

    Santa Ana California 339555 53 13 16 81.25 6

    Anaheim California 333249 55 13 16 81.25

    Riverside California 294437 61 13 16 81.25 6

    Milwaukee Wisconsin 602191 23 9 12 75.00 7

    Raleigh North Carolina 375806 48 12 16 75.00 7

    Stockton California 287245 62 12 16 75.00 7

    Fort Worth Texas 681818 17 10 16 62.50 8

    Newark New Jersey 280135 64 6 12 50.00 9

    AVG. SCORE

  • 8/2/2019 Top Cities Transparencies

    35/61

    35

    ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION, 75 LARGEST U.S. CITIES

    City State PopulationCity rank

    by

    population

    Raw

    Score

    Highestpossible

    score

    Rawscore

    weighted

    by totalpossible

    score

    Rank byweighted

    score

    New York New York 8274527 1 3 3 100.00 1

    Chicago Illinois 2836658 3 3 3 100.00 1

    Phoenix Arizona 1552259 5 3 3 100.00 1

    San Antonio Texas 1328984 7 3 3 100.00 1

    San Diego California 1266731 8 3 3 100.00 1

    San Francisco California 799183 13 3 3 100.00 1

    Baltimore Maryland 637455 20 3 3 100.00 1

    El Paso Texas 606913 22 3 3 100.00 1

    Seattle Washington 594210 24 3 3 100.00 1