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