WASHINGTON, June 12 (UPI) -- Long waits in line and inefficient state government bureaucracies may not be around much longer thanks to the unexpectedly rapid digitization of state government records and services, says a new think tank report.
The annual Digital State Survey by The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank devoted to technology issues, indicates that many states are embracing new technologies to improve their timeliness and effectiveness at delivering services. The survey ranks the states and awards those that have made the most progress in this area.
Produced every year since 1996, the survey questions states about their progress in digitizing records and services, and asks whether security and privacy are satisfactorily maintained. PFF recently released the first installment of the three-part report, which focuses on social services, law enforcement and the courts.
Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Virginia, and Washington received the top award in the social service category. Colorado, Kansas and Wisconsin won first place for their work in law enforcement and the courts.
Kent Lassman, the author of the report and director of PFF's Digital Policy Network, says the survey becomes more difficult every year, as governments progressively adopt more technology. Seen in that context, the strides states have made in digitizing become more impressive, he says.
"Every state has made dramatic and tremendous strides over the last several years," he says. "If we look at the scores and do not account for the fact that it has become more difficult, the average score has risen from the mid-40s to the mid-70s. The highest-ranking scores have risen as much. Judged by that fact, the original benchmarks are now kind of silly."
Digitization is a good thing and benefits not only the citizens served by the state government, but also the government workers because it makes it easier for them to share information, according to Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Streamlining processes through technology also benefits taxpayers by cutting costs, especially since new technologies are often less expensive than old computer systems and mainframes, Schwartz says.
The fact that government's job can be made easier and its services improved through digitization is an unpleasant thought for Adam Thierer, director of telecommunications studies at the libertarian Cato
Institute.
"I'm not necessarily interested in improving the efficiency of big government whether at the federal, state or local level," he says. "I don't want to see the digitization of big government if it just ends up making tax collection and regulatory enforcement more efficient. What I want to see is the scaling back of the government leviathan that has been created in modern America."
Robert Atkinson, vice president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute, argues that digitization actually makes for a more enjoyable experience for citizens since they have more alternatives to choose from. He disagrees with the notion that digitizing government processes may actually create a more distant or sterile government.
"I don't think most people view it as a privilege to go in and talk to their government. They actually view it as a burden to actually go down, find a parking spot, stand in line and then deal with surly clerks," Atkinson says. "So I don't see that there is a lot of civic help we get from dealing with paper-based government. If anything, this will actually improve people's relationship with government because they will be empowered to do more things on their own, and to get more information."
One potential problem, at least from the citizen's side, is that there are still large portions of the population, particularly in the poorest states that, simply do not have Internet access. Lassman, however, discounts any speculation about whether poor citizens will be left out of the benefits of digital government.
"There will always be people who choose to use certain technologies, and people who don't," he says. "The real leaders in these fields are not doing it to the exclusion of other things, they are either doing it in addition to, or as a means of augmenting, what they're already doing."
Lassman gives the example of law enforcement records and says that police are the ones who benefit from digitization, not citizens, since the databases queried by police are blind to indicators of class or wealth.
"When you get pulled over by a police officer, he doesn't ask to see your bank account, he just cares whether or not you are in his criminal database and whether you have outstanding warrants and all of those types of things -- whether you are a good guy or a bad guy," he says.
As states continue to embrace digitization they will have to keep a watchful eye on the security and privacy of records and possibly adopt new laws that will be relevant to a digital changed environment, Schwartz says.
"There are going to be more and more privacy concerns about using these technologies," he says. "Many states have rules in place about what happens to information when it goes up online. So some states have strong protections, some states have no protections. States that don't have rules are going to have to be much more careful about how they deal with online services, but without overwriting their tradition of open government. It is a really delicate situation for a lot of the states."
If states are failing to protect privacy rights or are just not digitizing fast enough, Schwartz says a survey like PFF's is the best method to effect change.
"Governments react to sunlight better than they do to other means(of correcting poor practices)," he says. "Sometimes the best way to do this is with grading and by highlighting the best actors and worst actors. (The states don't) want fall on the worst actor list and want to show off being on the best actor list, so they try and live up to the standards. It gives something for the elected officials to tout. So it does move the issues faster have this kind of study."
