Switzer Seminar Series Remarks

Switzer Seminar Series Remarks
Michigan State University
Thursday, October 4, 2001

Good afternoon.

I am Martin Gould, Research Specialist for the National Council on Disability.

The National Council on Disability is an independent federal agency consisting of fifteen members. The Council's members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate of the United States and are all individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities. The Council has a significant history in the area of technology, beginning with its first report on financing assistive technology in 1988.

I am delighted to be here this week with all of you. I am grateful to Dr. McConnell and the Switzer Seminar Series Committee, as well as the National Council on Disability, for the opportunity to be here.

Opportunities from the possibilities of the new age of electronic and information technology seem to be everywhere. Most of us have had multiple interactions with the World Wide Web during the course of our daily working lives, with information kiosks during our trips to financial institutions to conduct community business as citizens, and more recently with government agencies. These opportunities allow us as students, as citizens, and as workers to think about and benefit from uninterrupted access to educational information, about economically transacting business from our ATM of choice, about registering for goods and services effortlessly from our office, and about participating efficiently in elections. Such opportunities are part and parcel of what Americans have long required of our business sector, and most recently have begun to expect from our developing electronic government (e-government or e-gov). The rhetorical promise versus the reality of e-government, as it relates and affects people with disabilities in America, is a matter of significant concern.

What do we mean by e-government? Why is it important in the context of the Switzer seminar discussion? How do we ensure that it fulfills its promise within the context of systems change and service delivery for Americans with disabilities?

What Do We Mean By E-Government?

Electronic government is a relatively new policy concept. Typically, new concepts, like electronic government or e-gov as it will be referred to henceforth, are not clearly defined early in their evolution. Different sectors of society (e.g., business, academia, government) are typically involved in crafting definitions and at some point in time they tend to converge and a generally accepted definition becomes apparent. Here is a sample of some differing definitions. In a seminal piece of research, Professor Darrell West offers a fairly expansive definition of e-gov.

"E-government refers to the delivery of information and services online through the Internet or other digital means ... Since e-government is still in its infancy, it is a perfect time to measure the extent of web service delivery and compare differences that exist across the 50 states and between the state and federal governments." ¹

Sally Katzen, a former Clinton Administration leader in the area of information technology, offers the following:

"E-government involves access to government information and services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in a way that is focused on the needs of our citizens and businesses. E-government relies heavily on agency use of the Internet and other emerging technologies to receive and deliver information and services easily, quickly, efficiently, and inexpensively." ²

President Bush and his Administration suggest a somewhat broader definition of e-gov in its recent strategic budget document, A Blueprint For New Beginnings-A Responsible Budget For America's Priorities:

"By enabling individuals to penetrate the Federal bureaucracy to access information and transact business, the Internet promises to shift power from a handful of leaders in Washington to individual citizens…The President believes that providing access to information and services is only the first step in e-Government. In order to make Government truly "citizen-centered," agencies will have to work together to consolidate similar functions around the needs of citizens and businesses." ³

Finally, Senator Joseph Lieberman offers his own broad definition, to e-gov, on May 1, 2001 upon the introduction of a bill (Senate Bill 803) that he sponsored:

"E-government currently is a loose-knit mix of ideas, projects, and affiliations often not well coordinated, sometimes overlapping in its goals and redundant in its expenditures. Though there are some remarkable innovations championed by visionary government employees, many other efforts are hampered by traditional models of government management, and ``stove-pipe'' conceptions of agency jurisdiction. We are in essence taking the often confusing, overlapping and inefficient maze of government programs as they now exist and simply transferring them onto the Internet. This is not the best way forward. We can and must take full advantage of information technologies to overcome the often arbitrary boundaries that exist between agencies, and to provide the public with seamless, secure online services. A functional approach focuses on delivering services to the citizen, organized according to the citizens' needs, and without regard to where the jurisdiction of one agency stops and another begins. The greatest challenge in many cases is realizing how the new technologies have created new opportunities, and reconfiguring government processes accordingly." ⁴

In the paper I submitted for this Seminar series, I also offer a broad definition of e-gov, namely:

"What is e-government? E-government is a way for government to use new technologies to provide people with more convenient access to public sector information and services, to improve the quality of the services and to provide greater opportunities to participate in our democratic institutions and processes. E-government presents America with some tremendous opportunities to move forward in the 21st Century with higher quality, cost-effective, government services and a better relationship between citizens and their government. It is a way to leverage private sector energies, resources and partnerships to work on social and economic goals that are critical to an Administration." ⁵

From all of these definitions we see that e-gov will adhere to a set of five basic principles: (a) building services around citizens' choices; (b) making government and its services more accessible; (c) social inclusion; (d) using information better; and (e) transforming government. The vision of e-gov created by these principles is powerful and compelling. We will need to keep our eyes on the vision, and pay attention to the complex realities of implementing that vision.

Why Is E-Government Important In the Context Of Our Seminar Discussion?

Increasingly, our ability to realize the promise of e-gov raises issues that cut to the core of what it means to be an educated and productive citizen, and what it means to be a just and fair society. The significance of e-gov, however, has not been addressed in a systematic way by public policymakers in the United States, particularly in relation to Americans with disabilities. A report from the U.S. Department of Commerce indicates that Internet access by people with disabilities is one-half that of people without disabilities, 21.6% compared to 42.1 % respectively (Figure III-1); and personal computer use by people with disabilities is less than one-half that of people without disabilities, 20.9% compared to 51.0% respectively (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000; pp. 61-83).⁶ In terms of preparing youth with disabilities for the employment and to fulfill roles in the digital economy, according to a nationally representative survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2000) of 1,000 school administrators about the use of telecommunications in their school: (a) 35% of public schools did not have internet access; (b) 27% of these schools indicated that students did not have access to the internet either through e-mail, newsgroups or the web; (c) 47% of schools indicated that the major barrier to student use of telecommunications was that special education teachers were not being sufficiently trained in the technology; (d) 34% of schools cited not having enough computers available to students with disabilities; (e) 38% of schools reported not having enough computers with alternative input/output devices for students with disabilities; and (f) 39% of schools indicated that there were inadequate evaluation and support services to meet the special technology needs of students with disabilities. ⁷

For people with disabilities, such data suggests that at the beginning of the new Information Age they are disproportionately disadvantaged in their ability to conduct their affairs electronically as citizens, as students, and in a multitude of other roles. At a time when the national employment rate for Americans with disabilities ranges between 47% and 75%, when the high school diploma graduation rate ranges between 27% and 56%, and when access to the tools and electronic and information technologies that are at the core of a 'job that pays a decent wage' and an 'education that counts' are out of the reach of many Americans with disabilities a fully functioning e-gov (at all levels) is desperately needed to help bridge the gap.

There is no time to waste. E-gov is off and running hard. A January 2001 inventory documenting the status of e-gov implementation was prepared by the General Service Administration's (GSA) Office of Intergovernmental Solutions and the Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council.⁸ The report presents findings that include:

over 1,370 e-gov initiatives of various sorts are being implemented by 37 federal agencies;
more than 35 percent of the initiatives serve citizens -- providing services to students, information on food safety, virtual libraries, digital maps, and the ability to pay taxes and fees on line;
81% of the initiatives implement e-gov through the web, 5% through the telephone, 1% through kiosks, and 13% through other technological means; and
20% of e-gov initiatives are government-to-business, 36% serve citizens, 22% serve government employees, and 22% serve governments (other Federal agencies, other levels of government such as state and local).

At the same time, the recent study conducted at Brown University ⁹ presents a review of the current condition of e-gov as it relates to the World Wide Web. A review of 1,813 Federal and state web (1,716 state government, 36 federal government executive and legislative, 61 federal court) sites found, for example, that only 15% of web sites had some form of disability access. According to the September, 2000 report, to be recorded as accessible to people with disabilities, the site had to have either a TTY (Text Telephone) or TDD (Telephonic device for the Deaf) phone number, or be "Bobby Approved."

And the race to implement e-gov is attracting significantly more resources as time goes by. According to recent numbers from the General Accounting Office:

"Investments in information technology are expected to account for more than 40% of all capital investment in the United States in 2004 ... total federal, state, and local e-government spending on e-business-related- hardware, software, and internal and external services is estimated to grow from nearly $2 billion in 2001 to more than $6 billion by 2005." ¹⁰

It is clear that if used effectively, e-gov can help reshape government, making it more innovative, efficient, responsive, accessible, and accountable to the public. Successful e-gov, however, must still grapple with some of the same basic challenges that have plagued federal information and technology systems for decades - - inadequate attention to technical and business architecture, adherence to standards and quality, security, and people issues including issues around accessibility that have been articulated above.

How Do We Ensure That It Fulfills Its Promise For All Americans, Including Those With Disabilities?

One model that could be considered is a small office headed by an official who reports to the President with support from a permanent interdepartmental committee representing the agencies most concerned. This could include White House staff; the departments of Commerce, Justice, Education, and Labor; and, the National Science Foundation, to name some vitally important agencies. The agency representatives to the interdepartmental committee should be individuals with decision-making authority, or those who by the very nature of their title (e.g., Chief Information Officer) can speak with some sense of agency commitment on a matter before the committee. The office would also work with Congress (e.g., through congressional representation on the advisory board for the office) independent agencies such as the National Council on Disability, and other relevant interagency entities such as the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council.

The U.S. Congress would also need to examine its own committee structure and susceptibility to the nation's civil rights laws to determine if, and where, they need improvements. For one example, the commerce committees may need a new subcommittee with a specific charter to examine E&IT issues rather than just "telecommunications" issues. Such subcommittees would have to be wary of jurisdictional boundaries, but they would also provide a powerful bully pulpit to allow for the emergence of congressional spokespersons on this subject. A new subcommittee would also supplant the more informal and unofficial Internet Caucus that has begun to give visibility to some E&IT issues in Congress.

As a second example, In 1995, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) (Public Law 104-1), which extended the rights and protections of eleven employment and civil rights laws. One of those 11 is the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The CAA also created the Office of Compliance, which is responsible for reviewing on a biannual basis which provisions of these eleven laws should be made applicable to Congress. Evidently, the CAA does not apply to all instrumentalities of Congress. Specifically, it does not apply to the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office, or the Library of Congress. To date, the Congressional office that monitors the CAA, the Office of Compliance, has not been able to offer a recommendation to extend the all-important civil rights coverage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 508 to all instrumentalities of Congress. It seems obvious that if the current Administration wants to increase employment among people with disabilities - e.g., in the federal workforce - the U.S. Congress and its Office of Compliance must ensure that full coverage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, including Section 508, is extended to all instrumentalities of Congress, including the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress.

Individual federal government departments also need to look at their objectives, strategies, and organization in light of e-government challenges and citizen demands. For example, the Departments of Education and Labor, should be asking a number of questions:

Do we really understand the challenges that E&IT poses and are our objectives and in line with the new realities?
Is the correct research and evaluation structure in place for our grant programs?
As we seek to provide greater access to education and training opportunities to children, youth and adults with disabilities around the country, are we taking full advantage of the possibilities of E&IT?
Are we ensuring the inclusion and integration of input by people with disabilities into the E&IT policy and decision making processes?

In addition, all branches and components of the government invested in developing a national e-gov policy framework, should determine that their relevant activities ensure the provision of:

funding for universal service through improvements to the communications infrastructure of schools, colleges, training academies, libraries, vocational programs;
accessibility at all levels to the wealth and diversity of data, information and knowledge maintained by the public sector;
adequate and reliable hardware and software;
incorporation into E&IT grant programs and contract initiatives (e.g., dealing with assistive technology, information technology, telecommunications);
effective technical assistance and support for integrating E&IT into the practices of publicly funded education and training programs;
research into the development and application of methods and measurements to allow for continuous improvements in the (federal) government's reorganization effort;
outreach and training about new requirements (e.g., Section 508 standards for accessibility) for government operations; and
consistent consumer input (e.g., customer satisfaction with government services and programs).

In the near-term, departments and agencies could begin to accomplish this through the development and use of templates - like checklists - that they would use to assess their existing: infrastructure; personnel development; outreach and technical assistance; discretionary program activities; research and development efforts; community and customer relations; and, management and accountability systems. For the long haul, the newly created e-gov office could work with its advisory board, and relevant independent and/or interagency agencies to help manage the transformation of the current bureaucracy to e-gov.

Conclusions

There have been many e-gov initiatives undertaken at all levels of government. The federal government is certainly trying to lead the way. Governments have provided increased information access and services to some citizens. An increasing number of government web sites have tried to present online transactions and interactive services for their citizens. The realization of the full potential of e-gov, rests in the same goals that government agencies have been pursuing for many years: true horizontal and vertical integration of programs and services. With the advent of new federal regulations (i.e., Section 508) that require federal agencies to adhere to accessibility guidelines in E&IT procurement and purchasing, and E&IT implementation, the number and quality of e-gov initiatives for Americans with disabilities can only continue to increase. We have come far in the earliest stages of e-gov. We remain optimistic as we recognize the full complexities of the transformation required to make e-gov a reality for all Americans.