Post on 19-Dec-2015
transcript
Evaluation of E-Government and Social Services
Public Affairs 598
Kristen, Marie, Timothy, and Miryam
February 2, 2006
Evaluation of e-Government with a Social Service Emphasis
Comparison of an east coast and west coast State government website with a focus on the following social services: housing assistance, employment assistance, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, TANF and drug rehabilitation
Evaluation Criteria
• Search• Readability• Interactive• Contact Info• Disability Access• Eligibility standards for programs posted• Online applications for services
• # of Online Services• Integrated with other
Social Service websites• Foreign language access• Accessibility• Ease of navigation• Content centered• Intuitive• FAQ
How Did They Compare?
Evaluation of WA and MD Social Service Websites
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
# of
Onl
ine S
ervic
es
Inte
grate
d with
oth
er S
ocia
l Ser
vice
websit
es
Foreig
n la
ngua
ge a
cces
s
Acces
sibilit
y
Ease
of n
avig
ation
Conte
nt cen
tere
d
Intu
itive
FAQ
Searc
h
Reada
bility
Inte
ract
ive
Conta
ct In
fo
Disabi
lity A
ccess
Elig
ibilit
y sta
ndar
ds fo
r pro
gram
s po
sted
Onli
ne a
pplic
ation
s for
ser
vices
WA avg score
MD avg score
Washington State Website:http://access.wa.gov/
Washington State Website
Strengths Very integrated with other departments
and services Forms were available online and could
be submitted online Prominent foreign language content Great interactive chat session to access
help
Weaknesses No disability access Occasionally had to navigate multiple
links to get to relevant content Dead links (e.g., Contacts link) Misleading to translate top navigation
tabs into foreign languages if linked content is in English
Contacts???
State of Maryland: http://www.maryland.gov
State of Maryland Website
Strengths Easily accessible contact information Consistent design and navigation across
department sites (e.g., How To tools) Overall design not cluttered More direct links to relevant content
Weaknesses Dead links Info provided by search function not
helpful for average citizen Forms available to download from the
web but required citizen to physically go to office to turn them in
No disability access or privacy statement Multilingual content buried in site – not
easily accessible
Applications Available in Multiple Languages
Conclusions
Overall, the Washington site scored higher than the Maryland site. This was largely due to the higher number of online services available through the site and its more effective integration into other department sites.
Both sites could provide more regionally relevant services that are available through nonprofit organizations that would better assist low income citizens.