Evaluation of E-Government and Social Services Public Affairs 598 Kristen, Marie, Timothy, and Miryam February 2, 2006.

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.