Making Government Work: Electronic

Delivery of Federal Services

September 1993

OTA-TCT-578

NTIS order #PB94-107067

GPO stock #052-003-01346-1
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Making Government Work:

Electronic Delivery of Federal Services, OTA-TCT-578 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1993).

t(M \JIC h} (hL 1 s ( h)\L.ll][]lLVl[ t’1111(111~ oitl L’C

$upcl lll[([lklll (It [)(M UlllL’ll[\, \l.111 f[{~[l \Sol’. \}’,ldll[l~[(lll, [)[’ ?()~()?-[)?~~

ISBN 0-16 -042080-6
Foreword

F

ederal, State, and local governments face the challenge of delivering

better services faster and at less cost at a time when demand is growing

and budgets are tighter. Computer and telecommunication technologies

offer a number of near-term opportunities for delivering Federal services

electronically in partnership with State/local agencies and the private sector. To

assure that these technologies benefit all citizens—not just the affluent and

highly educated—will require Congress to pay special attention to policy and

oversight. It will also require agencies to be innovative and skillful in

introducing new electronic delivery systems.

OTA’s assessment of electronic service delivery was requested by Senator

John Glenn, Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. This report

provides Congress with alternative strategies for improving the performance of

government by using modern information technologies. The report offers new

perspectives to Congress as it considers reauthorizing the Paperwork Reduction

Act and responds to the administration’s “National Performance Review’ and

‘‘National Information Infrastructure’ initiatives. More broadly, the report will

contribute to the public debate over the role of information technology in

reinventing government.

OTA appreciates the assistance of the project advisory panelists and the

interested Federal and State/local government, consumer, public advocacy,

library, business, and other private sector groups and individuals who

participated in the study. OTA values their perspectives and comments; the

report is, however, solely the responsibility of OTA.

c+- -

Roger C. Herdman, Director

. . .

Ill
Advisory Panel

Donald A. Marchand

Chairperson

Dean, School of Information Studies

Syracuse University

Raza A. Babar

Director, Global Research and Intelligence

Detroit Edison Co.

Thomas B. Beard

Chairman

Florida Public Utilities Commission

Ying-Chung Annie Chen

Director, Strategic Analysis

Pacific Telesis

William H. Dutton

Professor, Annenberg School for Communication

University of Southern California

Francis Dummer Fisher

Research Fellow, LBJ School of Public Affairs

University of Texas at Austin

Carol Fukunaga

Member

Hawaii State Senate

Charles H. Geisler

formerly Director, Technical Computing

3M Co.

Thomas H. Grundner

President

National Public Telecomputing Network

Glenn P. Haney

formerly Director

Office of Information Resources Management

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Alexander H. Hills

Distinguished Service Professor

Carnegie Mellon University

Edwin A. Levine

formerly Regional Director, Government Affairs

EDS Corp.

Alvin E. Nashman

formerly President, Systems Group

Computer Science Corp.

Diana Roose

Research Director

9 to 5, National Association of Working Women

Jorge Reina Schement

Professor, School of Communication, Information,

and Library Studies

Rutgers University

Alan F. Westin

Professor of Public Law and Government

Columbia University

Joseph Terrence Williams

Manager, Women, Infants, and Children program

Wyoming Department of Public Health

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is gnwful for the valuable assistance and thoughtjid critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel

does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy

of its contents.

iv
Peter Blairl

Assistant Director

OTA Science, Information, and

Natural Resources Division

John Andelin2

Assistant Director

OTA Science, Information, and

Natural Resources Division

James W. Curl in

Program Manager

OTA Telecommunication and

Information Technologies

Program

CONTRACTORS

Steve Arnold

Consultant

Richard Civille

Computer Professionals for Social

Responsibility

William H. Dutton and

K. Kendall Guthrie

University of Southern California

Stephen Frantzich

Congressional Data Associates

John C. Gale

Information Workstation Group

Gary L. Glickman

Phoenix Planning & Evaluation,

Ltd.

PRINCIPAL STAFF

FRED B. WOOD

Project Director

Emilio Gonzalez

Analyst

Tom Hausken

Analyst

Jean E. Smith

Analyst

Thomas M. Grundner

National Public Telecomputing

Network

Preject Staff

Susan G. Hadden and

W. James Hadden, Jr.

Intelligent Advisors, Ltd.

John Harris, Alan F. West in,

and Anne L. Finger

Reference Point Foundation

J. Scott Hauger

Virginia Technology Associates, Ltd.

Charles R. McClure,

Rolf T. Wigand, et al.

School of Information Studies,

Syracuse University

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Liz Emanuel

Office Administrator

Karolyn St. Clair

PC Specialist

Michelle Smith

Secretary

Jack M. Nines

Consultant

Frank Odasz

Big Sky Telegraph

Alan Porter and

Scott Cunningham

Georgia Institute of Technology

Priscilla Regan

George Mason University

I Since July 1993,

2Until July 1993.
contents

1 Summary of Findings and Options 1

Introduction 1

Findings on Electronic Delivery Opportunities and Issues 4

Options for Managing the Transition to Electronic Service

Delivery 1 7

2 Information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 29

Summary 29

Visions of Electronic Delivery 31

Points of Access for Service Delivery 36

Need for an Electronic Delivery Technology Strategy 53

3 Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic

Delivery 5 7

Summary 57

The Role of Telecommunications in Electronic Delivery:

An Overview 58

Using FTS2000 for Electronic Service Delivery 61

Using Computer Networks for Electronic Service Delivery 70

Other Telecommunications Infrastructure Issues 76

4 Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service

Delivery 8 3

Summary 83

The Potential of Electronic Benefits Transfer 84

Alternatives for Implementing a National EBT System 90

EBT Policy Issues and Options 98

5 Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 105

Summary 105

Grassroots Citizen Involvement in Electronic Delivery 106

Meeting Diverse Citizen Needs 110

Strategic Partnering for Electronic Service Delivery 115
6

7

Revitalizing Information Resources Management for

Electronic Delivery 123

Summary 123

Introduction 124

New IRM Planning and Budgeting Process 125

Refocused IRM Organization 134

Information Policies for Electronic Service

Delivery 141

Summary 141

Protecting Privacy and Security 143

Open Government 148

Access to Congressional Information 150

Archiving Electronic Records 152

Directories of Electronic Services 153

Pricing and Public Access 156

Contracting (M/Procurement 159

Technical Standards 162

Revising Statutes on Service Delivery 163

APPENDIXES

A List of Boxes, Figures, and Tables 165

B List of Acronyms and Terms 167

C Reviewers and Contributors 169

D OTA Field Trip Participants 1 7 1

E Contractor Reports and OTA Trip Reports Prepared

for This Assessment 174

INDEX 176
Summary of

Findings and

Options 1

INTRODUCTION

Information technology-computers, advanced telecommunications, optical disks, and the like—can be used by the Federal

Government to deliver services to citizens. Most Americans, if

they think about it, can identify at least a few Federal services that

affect their lives. These include the: 1

46 million recipients of social security benefits,

27 million recipients of food stamps,

31 million Medicaid recipients,

14 million recipients of aid to families with dependent children,

15,000 scientists who receive National Science Foundation

research grants each year,

20,000 small businesses that receive business loans,

600,000 persons participating in job-training programs, 2

people and organizations that annually place about 1.6 million

orders for a total of 110 million publications from the U.S.

Government Printing Office,

citizens who annually receive a total of 10 million pamphlets

from the Consumer Information Center,

1 U.S. Social Security Administration, “People Served Since 1980,” chart, August

1993, klcl~ Ina Ford. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, “Medicaid:

F}’ 1994 Budget,’” June 30, 1993; Vee Burke, Library of Congress, Congressional Research

Ser\lce, “Welf.ire,” Jar] 6, 1993; Kennelh Jest, “Welfare Reform,” CQ Researc/ler, vol 2,

No 14, Apr. 10, 1992, p. 327: Ann Lordeman, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Servlcc, “Training for D]sloca[cd Workers Under the Job Training Partnership

Act,” Dec. 3, 1992; U S, Government Printing Office, “Annual Report: FY 199 1,“ 1992;

U.S. National Technical Information Service, “Catalog of Product\ and Services,” 1992;

U.S. Small Bu\iness Administration, “Annual Rep-t: FY 199 1,“ 1992; John Harris, Alan

F. We\tin, and Anne L, F]nger, “Innovations for Federal Service: A Study of Innovative

Technologies for Federal Government Services to Older Americans and Consumer-s,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, February 1993.

1
2 I Making Government Work

30,000 or so academic and business researchers

who receive research results and technical information each week from the National Technical Information Service, and

170,000 citizens who use Federal depository

libraries each week.

Services are not limited, however, to monetary

benefits, grants and contracts, training and education, or information. Services are defined in this

study to include the “service” of making it easier

and cheaper for individuals and organizations to:

a) find out what Federal services are available and

where; b) file documents or pay taxes; and c) participate in the governmental process—including

agency and congressional hearings and related

administrative, regulatory, and legislative deliberations. 2 Electronic delivery may lead not only to

improvements in current services, but to new ways

of thinking about and organizing government programs and delivery mechanisms.

Interest in the electronic delivery of Federal

Government services (and related State/local services) has mushroomed. Some Federal agencies

now use electronic delivery for direct deposit of

payments, access to documents and data via computer bulletin boards, and distribution of publications on compact optical disks. Other agencies are

conducting pilot tests of: 1 ) magnetic stripe or

smart cards for electronic benefits transfer; 2)

videoconferencing for meetings, hearings, and

training sessions; and 3) computer networking for

“virtual” conferences and the electronic receipt,

exchange, and distribution of diverse materials

such as schedules, announcements, and reports.

Electronic service delivery is closely linked to

the “reinventing government” and “service to the

citizen” movements that started at the State and

local levels and have spread to the Federal Government. The use of information technology to

improve the delivery of Federal services is a major

focus of the “National Performance Review” currently being implemented under the direction of

the Vice President, and is a key component of the

President’s “Technology Policy for Economic

Growth” and related “National Information Infrastructure” initiatives.3 Delivering services electronically is now seen as directly linked to

improving the Federal Government’s service to

the citizens of America.

This report focuses on key topics and issues that

are central to the successful use of electronic deli very

by government. Briefly, the report concludes that:

1.

2.

Powerful forces at Federal, State, and local

levels are accelerating the movement toward

electronic delivery of government services.

While information technology offers considerable potential to improve Federal service

delivery, there is no assurance that its use will

improve access for citizens or result in creative, cost-effective applications unless other

factors are considered and dealt with.

The greatest risks of electronic delivery are:

a) overlooking the human element and the

need for affordable, user-friendly applications; b) further widening the gap between

the information technology “haves” and

“have-nets,” and the advantages that educated, technically proficient citizens have

over those less so; and c) failing to capitalize

on the opportunities for innovation and for

economies of scale and scope that would

result from partnerships among Federal

agencies, their State/local counterparts, and

2 For general discussion of government services, see Priscilla Regan, “Typology of Federal Government Services Relevant [o Electronic

Deli very,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, January 1992.

3 Vice President Al Gore, Creuting A Government Thut Works Better & Costs Less: Report of the Nutiwud Performance Review

(Wmhington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 7, 1993); Presiden[ William J. Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.,

“Technology for America’s Economic Growth: A New Direction to Build Economic Strength,” Feb. 22, 1993; and Information Infrastructure

Task Force, “The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action,” NationaJ Telecommunications and Information Administration,

Washington, DC, Sept. 15, 1993.
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 3

the private sector in deploying electronic delivery.

3. The management structure for Federal information technology applications is outdated

and needs to be redesigned, as some of the

States have already begun to do. This will be

a difficult, trying process. Keys to effective

management of electronic service delivery

Top left: Before automation, the State of Washington

maintained paper records on about 5 million licensed

drivers. The paper-based system was slow, expensive,

and cumbersome to use, and required hundreds of

feet of shelf space.

Top right: After automation, the State of Washington

maintained electronic records on licensed drivers using an optical disk system the size of a large closet.

The optical system resulted in significant productivity

and service improvements.

Bottom left: Using the optical disk system, the State

of Washington is able to respond to a wide range of

telephone inquiries in minutes or even seconds.

include: a) incentives and support for innovation; b) creative thinking in developing

“visions” of what electronic delivery could

do; c) involvement of both service recipients

and agency operational staff at all stages of

the project cycle; d) an emphasis on forging

strategic partnerships in service delivery; and

e) a deliberate, phased program for testing
4 I Making Government Work

and evaluating electronic delivery applications prior to full-scale deployment.

4. The telecommunications infrastructure is an

essential part of the electronic delivery equation. The Federal Government has not, as yet,

clearly linked electronic service delivery

needs and opportunities with the capabilities

offered by a wide range of private sector

telecommunications vendors. For electronic

delivery to achieve its full potential, citizens

need universal, affordable access to continually advancing telecommunications and

computer networking.

5. As the trend toward electronic delivery accelerates, many Federal information policies

will become further outdated, increasing the

need to update statutes on privacy, security,

records management and archiving, procurement, open government, and freedom of information, among others.

FINDINGS ON ELECTRONIC DELlVERY

OPPORTUNITIES AND ISSUES

I Transition to Electronic Service

Delivery Inevitable

The automation of Federal agencies and programs has been under way for three decades. Automation has focused primarily on computerizing

internal functions of agencies through the use of

mainframe and minicomputers, and, most recently, networked personal computers (PCs). The

growth in Federal mainframe computers appears

to have leveled off, while the number of PCs

exploded from a handful in the early 1980s to

about 1 million by 1990, to well over 2 million

today.4 Federal use of new storage technologies

also has increased with the proliferation of advanced magnetic and optical disk systems. Use of

advanced telecommunications technology has

lagged in comparison. Until the mid-1980s, most

agencies predominantly used basic telephone

service, with more advanced telecommunications

limited to the specialized, primarily scientific or

technical, agencies. Agency use of telecommunications is now expanding to include facsimile,

voice mail, automated telephone response, data

communications, computer conferencing, videoconferencing, and the like. Almost all Federal

agencies use electronic mail inhouse, and many

have some kind of external electronic mail connections.

Congress and the executive branch—regardless

of party—have made a commitment, even during

tight budget years, to investing in the Federal

information technology infrastructure. The Federal information technology budget has grown

from roughly $9 billion in fiscal year 1982 to about

$25 billion (in current dollars) in fiscal year 1993

for equipment (hardware and software), personnel, and services.5 The total Federal expenditure

since 1980 now exceeds, conservatively, $200

billion. The Federal information technology

budget was, until the last few years, split about half

and half between civilian and military agencies.

The downsizing of the military has shifted the split

to about 60 percent civilian and 40 percent military

as of fiscal year 1993.6

What have the taxpayers received in return?

Most Federal agencies now perform many key

activities—financial, administrative, technical,

and service in nature—that could not be accomplished with paper systems. The sheer volume of

applications, filings, programs, and clients would

require much larger staffing, if it could be manually handled at all. Agencies such as the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS), Social Security Administration (SSA), Bureau of the Census, and National

4 Based on GSA and private sector estimates.

s office ~,f Mtin:igenlen[ and Budget, us, General Services Admini strat ion, tind U.S. Department of Commerce, Currelll lrlfurl?~fl(i~)ll

Teclutolog) Resource Requirements of the Federal Go\ernmetu: FIscd Ye(Jr /993 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

August 1992), see esp. pp. I -3,

6 Ibid.
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 5

Aeronautics and Space Administration would literally collapse without information technology.7

Some agencies, in recent years, have moved

beyond internal automation to the application of

computers and telecommunications for delivering

services and interacting with clients. Electronic

deposit of Federal payments, for example, is now

commonplace for Federal employees, contractors,

and annuitants. The IRS electronic filing program

has moved from the pilot to small-scale operational stage. Several major agency automation

programs (e.g., at the Patent and Trademark Office

and the Securities and Exchange Commission)

combine internal automation with electronic service delivery, although frequently with difficulty.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)

Food and Nutrition Service is conducting a series

of p i lot tests of electronic benefits transfer for food

stamp and WIC (women, infants, and children)

recipients. 8 The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA) and SSA have pilot projects using electronic

kiosks for service delivery. The National Science

Foundation (NSF) is experimenting with electronic submission and review of grant proposals.

And numerous agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Defense

Technical Information Center (DTIC), National

Library of Medicine (NLM), National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), and U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), are disseminating

Federal information in electronic formats—via

bulletin boards, computer networks, and magnetic

and optical disks.9

The movement toward electronic delivery at

Federal, State, and local levels has been accelerated by powerful forces:

intensified demands for a more responsive,

more productive, and less costly government;

relentless fiscal pressures at all levels of government;

increasing recognition that service delivery is a

core business of government;

declining cost-performance ratios and growing

user-friendliness of information technology;

and

increasing use and acceptance of information

technology.

These forces are so strong that the transition

toward ever greater use of electronic delivery is

inevitable.

~ Information Technology Opportunities

Abound

Recent advances in information technology—

especially computers, terminal equipment, telecommunications, and networks--offer new

opportunities to implement electronic delivery.

Information technologies could support electronic delivery via: a) personal computers or

interactive televisions or terminals in the home,

office, or school; b) electronic commerce and electronic exchange of documents with businesses and

individuals; c) electronic transfer of Federal benefit payments using magnetic stripe, “smart,” or

hybrid cards (the latter combine a magnetic stripe

and computer chip on a single card); d) electronic

7 See, for example, John [larrls, Alan F Wes[ln, and Anne L, Finger, “Innovations for Federal Serwce,” op. cit., footnote I; U.S. Congress,

Of f~ce of Technology Assessment, Helping America Compete: The Role of Federal Scientific and Technicai lnfornration, OTA-CIT-454

( W~i\hlngton, DC U S Government Pnntlng Office, July 1990); Charles M. McClure, Rolf T. Wigand, John Carlo Bertot, Mary McKenn&

W’lll]am E, Moen, Joe Ryan, and Stacy B. Vceder, Syracuse University School of Information Studies, “Federal Information Policy and

Nliiniigcrncn[ for Electronic Services Del]\ ery, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 21, 1992.

H See ch. 4 for detailed discussion.

9 See, for example, Richard Civil le, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, “Broadening the Research Community: Delivering

[;edcr~l Scrvlces l.lslng Information Technology,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Dcwemlxr 1992; U.S.

Ctmgre\s, Office of Technology Assessment, f{tdpitlg America Compefe, op. cit., footnote 7; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

fnforwfng rhe Afaffon: Federal I)ij)r-mafton Dissen]/~m(ion in ~n E/ectrorric Age, OTA-CIT-396 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, October 1988),
6 I Making Government Work

Figure 1-1—Role of Telecommunications Infrastructure in Delivering

Federal Services Via Six Points of Access

.

Federal Government Services

Monetary and inkind benefits

Information dissemination/collection

Citizen participation in government

Grants and contracts

Job training

Telecommunications Infrastructure

FTS2000

[E)e

Computer networks (Internet, etc.)

Commercial networks

NOTE: The Federal services and infrastructure components shown are illustrate, not comprehenswe

KEY: EBT=Electronic Benefits Transfer; EDl=Electronlc Data Interchange; FTS2000=the Federal Iongdistance telecommumcatlons program.

SOURCE: OffIce of Technology Assessment, 1993.

kiosks located at shopping malls or community technologies that can be implemented on a decencenters; e) one-stop service centers in suburbs and tralized basis, but people must have access to a fax

inner cities as well as small towns; f) mobile machine or a personal computer with a modem to

service centers in remote or distressed areas; and use them. ’” Kiosks, on the other hand, are still in

g) mobile service delivery to field locations using the developmental stage and require further pilot

portable terminals—in neighborhoods, on the tests and demonstrations. Electronic benefits

streets, on farms, and on parklands. Many of these transfer (EBT), in contrast, already has been exare being pilot-tested today, and some already are tensively tested in the United States and abroad,

in widespread use (see figure 1-1 and table 1-1). and is ready for scaled-up, pre-operational testing.

Technologies vary in their state of readiness for

use in electronic delivery. Even if technically 1 Need for Federal Government Strategy

proven, some technologies may face user, cost, or and Vision

infrastructure barriers that limit their widespread The Federal Government lacks an overall stratimplementation (see table 1-2). Telefacsimile and egy or vision of electronic service delivery. As

computer bulletin boards, for example, are proven defined here, a strategy contains neither general,

lo A ~~em js ~ device that conve~s (he digi[a] data from a computer into analog data that can be transmitted over StLWkMIf telephone I ine$.
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 17

Table 1-1—lllustrative Electronic Service Delivery Activities

Delivery alternative/technology Illustrative activities

Home/office (status--widespread testing and operations)

1-800 numbers IRS Teletax, ’ INS “Ask Immigration”

Facsimile NIH “Cancerfax, CA State Taxfax’

Electronic bulletin board SBA “SBA On-line NTIS “FedWorld”

Computer networks NASA and NOAA scientific databases

Floppy disk NLM “Grateful Meal, USDA ‘Asian Trade”

CD-ROM USGS ‘Gloria, ” EPA “Toxic Inventory” GPO

“Congressional Record”

Electronic kiosk (status--still in small-scale testing)

Off-line Phoenix, AZ “At Your Fingertips, ’

Mercer Island, WA “Island Access”

On-line Tulare County, CA “Tulare Touch, ” Long Beach,

CA ‘Auto Clerk CA State “InfoCal’

One-stop service center (status--still at the conceptual stage):

Audio- and videoconferencing, electronic mail, Individual technology applications widely tested,

computer-based services, etc. but not colocated at Identified one-stop centers

Multimedia DHHS Community Services Network

Mobile delivery (status--widespread but Incoherent use)

Cellular, portable computers, very small aperture Individual technology applications widely tested

earth stations and heavily used, but not as part of an overall

strategy

Electronic benefits transfer (status--many tests, Iimited operations)

Magnetic stripe card and readers Reading, PA; Albuquerque, NM, and Ramsey

County MN tests for AFDC and/or food stamp

delivery, State of MD operational

Smart (integrated circuit) card readers Dayton, OH test for food stamp delivery,

Casper, WY test for WIC

Hybrid (magnetic + chip) card and readers No U S testing foreign operational use (e g.,

Germany)

Electronic commerce (status--many tests, extensive operations)

Electronic data interchange (EDI) Use by Federal agencies for invoices delivery

reports, tariff filings tax forms, etc.

Electronic funds transfer Widespread use by Federal agencies for direct

deposit, funds receipt and disbursement, etc.

Electronic filing or archiving Pilot tests, growing use by Federal agencies

KEY AFDC=Aid to Families With Dependent Children, DHHS=Department of Healfh and Human Services, EPA= Envlronmenlal

Protection Agency, GPO= Government Prmhng Off Ice, INS=lmmlgratlon and Naturallzatlon Service, IRS=lnternal Revenue

Service, NASA= National Aeronautics and Space Admmistratlon, NIH=Natmnal Institutes of Health, NLM=Nat]onal Library of

Medicine, NOAA= National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admmlstratton, NT IS= National Technical Information Service, S13A=Small

Business Admmlstraflon, USDA=U S Department 01 Agncuffure USGS=LJ S Geological Survey, WIC=Speclal Supplemental

Food Program for Women, Infants and Children

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment 1993
8 I Making Government Work

Table 1-2—Technology Readiness for Electronic Delivery

Delivery alternative/technology Readiness status

lnhome/inoffice:

1-800, voice mail Proven, but must be user-friendly

Facsimile Proven, but user must have fax machine and touch-tone

phone

Electronic bulletin board services (BBS) Proven, but user must have personal computer and modem,

budget for on-line charges, and expertise

Computer networks Proven, but see above for BBS, plus require network access

(possibly at additional cost)

Floppy disk Proven, inexpensive, but has limited capacity and requires

computer

CD-ROM Proven, price varies widely, high capacity, but requires

computer, CD-ROM reader, and expertise

Electronic kiosk:

Off-line, stand-alone or polled Proven, cost a function of volume, ready for pre-operational

tests

On-line, informational and/or Developmental, needs further pilot tests

transactional

One-stop service center

Audio conferencing Proven, inexpensive, simple to use

Full motion videoconferencing Proven, but still rather expensive

Compressed videoconferencing Developmental, costs dropping, ready for pre-operational

tests

Desktop videoconferencing Developmental, needs further pilot tests

Interactive multimedia Developmental, needs pilot tests

Computer-based services Colocated, see home/office above

Electronic kiosks Colocated, see kiosks above

Mobile delivery:

Cellular Proven, but still expensive and service areas limited

Portable computers, laptops proven, ready for pre-operational tests

Very small aperture terminals Proven, ready for pre-operational tests

Transportable earth stations Proven, needs further pilot tests

Transportable kiosks Developmental, needs pilot tests

Personal communication networks Developmental, needs pilot tests

Electronic benefits transfer:

Magnetic stripe cards and readers Proven, inexpensive, ready for pre-operational tests, large

existing commercial infrastructure

Memory cards and readers Proven, needs pilot tests

Smart (integrated circuit) cards and Proven, but no infrastructure in the United States, still more

readers expensive than magnetic stripe, ready for limited preoperational tests (plus further pilots)

Hybrid (magnetic + chip) cards and Proven overseas but untested in the United States, needs

readers pilot and pre-operational tests

Optical cards and readers Developmental, needs pilot tests

Electronic transactions and commerce:

Electronic data Interchange (EDI) Proven cost effective, users need computer, software,

network access} and expertise

Electronic mail Proven, cost effective, but see above

Digital facsimile Proven, still expensive but costs dropping, and see above

Electronic Imaging Proven, still somewhat expensive, and see above

Electronic filing or archiving Proven, cost effective, and see above

Electronic funds transfer Proven, cost effective, but requires special equipment (e.g.,

automated teller machines, point-of-sale terminals, wire

transfer network access--can be via banks, etc. )

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1993
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 9

vague statements of intent nor overly detailed,

inflexible technical or procurement plans. An effective strategy would link goals with technical

options and opportunities for service delivery;

identify key factors that need attention; and address such issues as user-friendliness, standards,

cost, and interagency cooperation as suggested in

this report. The strategy would, ideally, describe

pictures of what electronic delivery could mean

for Americans. The administration’s “Technology

Policy” and “National Performance Review” initiatives recognize the importance of information

technology. 11 The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has asked executive agencies to

submit information on technology projects geared

to “service to the citizen,” and has supported the

General Services Administration’s (GSA’s) fledgling “service to the citizen” program that involves

small-scale educational, outreach, and training activities with some Federal agencies.12 An overall

strategy may emerge from these efforts, but this

remains to be seen (as does the quality and completeness of such a strategy).

Without a strategy, many opportunities for

technology and program integration, common

technical standards and delivery platforms, partnering with State/local governments, and use of

off-the-shelf commercial technology may be lost.

EBT is a case in point. Pilot-testing and operational use in the United States and abroad have

established the feasibility and utility of EBT. But

EBT is not likely to be cost effective for delivery

of Federal benefit programs if each agency or State

goes its separate way. The key to EBT success

appears to be a multiprogram, multiagency, Federal/State/private sector collaborative approach.

Using EBT to deliver food stamps, for example,

involves the USDA; State and local government

health or agriculture agencies; food retailers; the

banking and electronic funds transfer systems;

equipment providers; food stamp recipients; and,

in some locales, voluntary community organizations that assist low-income families.

Without a strategy, Federal leadership in

electronic service delivery will be in jeopardy,

Since the 1950s, the Federal Government has

played a major role in the application of information technology for governmental and public sector purposes, Federal contracting for computer

systems, whatever its problems, has provided a

stimulus to the private sector. In recent years,

however, many State and local governments have,

in effect, challenged the Federal Government for

leadership in the management and application of

information technology. Several States—California, South Carolina, and Washington, for example—are developing strategies for electronic

service delivery, and the States as a whole are

approaching electronic delivery from a more integrated, innovative perspective with a clear priority

on improving citizen access than is the Federal

Government. 13 Innovation at the local government

I I see vi~~ ~r~\l&n[ Gore, Op. ci( , foo(note 3, and Notional Fkrformir.mx Review Accomp~nying Report, Reen~ineerirrg Through

/@)rmctiI{In Te~ hn{)~oh’.v ( Wa\hlngton, [X U S Government Printing Office, Scpternbcr 1993) The National Performance Review rcccived

]nput frxml numcr[ws go vcrnrl}cnt und private wctor wurces See, for example, National Academy of Public Administration, Center for

Informallon Management, “The lnft)rrl~a[ion Go\ernmcnt Na[lonal Agenda for Improving Government Through lnforrntition Technology,”

July 1993, and Servrce [O [he Citiwn [n[crgm crnn~cn[al Taik Force, “We the People: Service to the Crtizcn Conference Results,” June 1993.

1 ~ $Cc offi~~ of ~~~n~gcrl]~nt and }~ lld~~t, “lnftmnati~)n Resources Nfanagement(lRh4) Plans Bulletin, Ohl B 13ulletin 93-12, Apr. 28, 1993,

eip. app l); U ,S General Scr vlcci AdII) in istration, Information Resources Nlanagcment Service, Set~ite rf) rhe L-irizerrs. Pr{jetr Rep(wt,

KAP-93- 1 (Wu\hlngt(m, IX GSA, February 1993), Francis A McDonough and Thomas J Buckhol[z, “Providing Better Service to Citizens

Wrth In fom]ation Technology,’” ./~Ju~ nid ~fl .S}.f{tnr.r hlilnu~enrent, April 1992, pp. 32–40; and Jerry Mcchling, Jane E Fountain, and Steven

Kelmim, Cu~I~mIer .Serkr[ e Li( ellen( e U.\InAJ l~]fi~rm[~li~m 7’e[ hn{~/{~~j f~) ln~pr~)ve Senite Del[IIeo (Cwnhridge, MA: Harvard University, John

F Kennedy School of Governrnent, June 1993)

1 ~ see Office of Techno](~gy’ Aswwmmt, “CalI forni~ Trtp Report,” and ‘“Olympia&attle, Washington Trrp Report,” Nov. 10, 1992. Also

SW, for example, Sharon L Cmrdle and Donald A, Marchund, MwuI~in~ lnf(mn[iti[)n Re.w)urc es; Ne}i Dlre( [ion.r in .Slule (;[n’emmerrt ( Syracuse,

NY, Syracuw Uniwrwty School of lnforn~ation Studies, August 1989); State Information Policy Consortium, “National Information and Service

Dellvcry Sy\tcm: A Vi\ion for Restructuring Go\ernmtmt r n [k lnfrmnation Age,” 1992, available from the National Governors’ AssMia[ion,

National Conference of State Lcgiiltiturw, and Council of SIMC Government\; and Council of Governors Policy Advisor$, New Allimu es in

Inrl(n UIIOI1 A Guide to En< out~t<~’itl<~” itur(nw{l~ e Ap/dI( uti(mr c{Neu C{)trrttri~rri<t~tiot~ Te~hn~)/[)(~7ier T{) AddIe.rv .’i[~]te frohl~rn,r (Washington,

DC: National Governors’ A\wclution, 1992).
10 I Making Government Work

level is also increasing rapidly .14 The continuing

lack of a Federal strategy could frustrate the ability

of the Federal Government to maintain leadership

while forming strategic partnerships with State

and local governments. This, in turn, could hinder

efforts to improve government services since so

many Federal programs depend on State/local

involvement for implementation. The net result

likely would be the failure to capture the full

benefits of using information technology to

improve the productivity and responsiveness of

government service delivery at all levels.

1 Risk of Losing the Human Element

Like any new technological application, electronic service delivery will not work if people find

the technology confusing, threatening, cumbersome, generally unfriendly, or too costly to use.

Electronic delivery runs the risk of losing the

human element if it focuses excessively on cost

savings, automation, or the technology as an end

in itself—rather than on applications that are

accessible, user-friendly, private, and secure, as

well as cost effective.

OTA site visits found that the grassroots involvement of users—from the pilot-test to full

operational stages—helps to assure userfriendly15 electronic delivery that meets citizen

needs. Local schools, libraries, community

centers, small-business entrepreneurs, and voluntary organizations help by directly engaging the

end-users in the process. The involvement of the

local community generally leads to more user-

-friendly solutions, and gives people a greater sense

of commitment and empowerment in harnessing

information technology for improved government

performance.

The Federal Government can learn from the

grassroots experience and reduce the tendency to

design unnecessarily large, complex, and expenLocal schools and colleges can play a key role in

delivering services electronically. Here, students at

the Benito Juarez Elementary School in El Cerritos,

California, participate in a video -on-demand project

using fiber optic and coaxial cable networks. Teachers have full remote control and flexibility in using

videos to support classroom instruction.

sive technical solutions. Local people and organizations want to be involved and can help keep this

tendency in check, When scaling up, high complexity may sometimes be inevitable. But Federal

agencies, overall, do not adequately use the local

community infrastructure—including schools,

libraries, senior centers, and town halls—in developing electronic delivery strategies and systems

that are user-friendly and customer-oriented.

I Enhanced Citizen Access Not Assured

Americans have different needs and abilities

when it comes to government services and the use

of technology. Electronic delivery could result in

less equitable access to Federal services for some,

despite the promise of the technology to improve

access. Pilot tests show, on the one hand, that a

broad range of citizens can easily adapt to electronic delivery. Citizens of all ages, races, and

14 see for ~xample patrlcla T, Fletcher, SILMH I. Bre[schneider, and Donald A. Marchand, Matmgitlg l)lform~lioll Techrlolotn: Tr~t~fOr)ning C’ounf)’ Go\ Iernmtwfs 1)1 lhe ) 990s (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University School of information Studies, August 1992); and Information

Technology Pol]cy and hlan;igement DI\IIsIon, Stute of Sou[h Carolina, Focus 1990s: Direct Cilizett Access Using Modert~ Techtwlogies

\COIUmbIa, SC South Carollna State Bu@et and Control Board, May 199 1).

I $ ujer.trlerl(j]) ~~~hllo](~g~ d(~e~ 1101 recll]lre j~ICI:~I [raining or knowledge of complex keyboard or software procedures.
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 11

income and educational levels are successfully

using touch screens, keyboards, or smart cards

today—albeit sometimes on a small scale.16 Computer novices as well as hackers, non-Englishspeaking as well as English-speaking people, and

persons with sight or mobility disabilities as well

as the able-bodied all can participate in electronic

service delivery programs.

On the other hand, such participation may be

hampered by a major barrier-e. g., the lack of

training, equipment, facilitators, and institutional

support. Computer networking, for example,

could help deliver services to small businesses in

the inner city or to Native American craftsmen in

rural Montana or Alaska. 1 7 These business communities could use the technology to their competitive advantage, but to do this, they need access

to equipment and networks, a minimal amount of

training, and a supportive environment. Support in

this case means persons and institutions who can

encourage technology innovation, transfer understanding about “how to use the system, ” and provide some transitional assistance until these

entrepreneurs can go it alone. Failure to attend to

these needs and opportunities runs the risk that

benefits from electronic service delivery would

flow more to the suburban, more affluent, and

educated segments of society. This would widen

the gap between the information technology

“haves” and “have-nots.”18

9 Cost Effectiveness Not Assured

Electronic delivery could save money for Federal (and State/local) agencies and improve service to recipients, but this is not guaranteed, OTA’s

review of available cost data and feasibility studies

indicates that:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Many small-scale decentralized technology

applications can be cost effective, meaning

that government agencies can provide the

same level of service at less cost or more

service at the same cost—automated telephone response systems, electronic filing,

compact optical disks, and computer bulletin

boards are cases in point.

Larger scale technology applications require

considerably greater levels of interprogram

and interagency cooperation and coordination

to be cost effective-electronic benefits transfer and electronic kiosks are examples (numerous Federal/State health and welfare

agencies issuing their own cards and installing

their own networks of kiosks is unlikely to be

cost effective).

While difficult to quantify (and not counted in

official budget figures), electronic delivery

offers the prospect of considerable savings to

service recipients and intermediaries, especially when the value of their time is included—this has been demonstrated for EBT,

computer bulletin boards, and kiosks.

If electronic delivery makes services easier to

access, it is likely to increase the demand for

services that Americans are entitled to. For

some services, this could increase the cost to

the government. Use of EBT, for example,

might stimulate demand by eligible citizens

who are not currently enrolled in some Federal

programs. The increased cost of these new

users might more than offset savings from

electronic delivery. Increased use could also

lead to longer term savings by reducing the

need for government expenditures on underlying health and social conditions (e.g., as

with the Women, Infants, and Children

Program19). Use of electronic bulletin boards

If, see ~xd,,l[)]c$ ~l[c~ 11) ch\. z, ~, ~Jl~ 5,

I 1 qce office of “re~h]lo]ogy’” AJs.3\nRnL “Alti$ha Tnp Report,” and “Montana/Wyonllng Trip Report,” Nov. 10, 1992,

lh see, fur Cxalllp!e, Richard Cilfi!]e, “The Spirit of Access: Equity, NREN, and the NII,” Apr. 15, 1993, available from the Center for Civic

NC(W (mhlng, P () II(J1 65272, Wa\hlngton. DC 20035;” and U S. Congress, Office of Technology Asses\ men[, ,4d1i/( l.iterac> atld N&)t

I’c[/]/l,d,)y[e\ /’,),)/\ fi)r f{ [.~jeft)rte, OTA-S[,T-55f) ( Wa\hlngton$ DC: U.S. Government Pr]nting Office, July 1993),

1‘/ [. ~ ~r} d~)l I,ir ~IX,ll[ ~)11 ~t)e ~~1(- pro~ra[l) ,, ~~tl ,Il:i[cd t. ~a~e (he Fe&ral Go\ernnlent ab~ut $5 [O $ ] (1 in Ia[er expenditures or) Chl]d and

L

]11.i[e rl~.il hc<i 1 (h [II {Jhlc Ins
12 I Making Government Work

5+

6.

and computer networking, on the other hand,

could significantly increase Federal information dissemination at little if any increased

cost, and possibly a savings, to Federal agencies.

Electronic delivery, even if wildly successful,

would have only a modest direct impact on the

Federal deficit, since the costs of administering programs and delivering services are generally small compared to the costs of the

benefits provided.

The largest potential financial benefits of electronic delivery (impossible at this time to estimate) could come indirectly through: a) the

restructuring and streamlining of Federal programs and agencies made possible in part by

information technology; and b) creatively applying electronic delivery to improve fundamental social, economic, educational, and

health conditions in the United States.20

Federal expenditures for information technology account for about 1.7 percent of the total

Federal budget (5.7 percent of the operating

budget).21 Spending for information technology

has been increasing faster over the last decade than

the rate of inflation and the rate of increase in the

overall Federal operating budget, but is slowing

somewhat due to downsizing of the defense

budget. Evidence available to OTA suggests that

the expectations for information technology to

improve cost effectiveness (and service quality)

are rational, but not easy to measure or fully

realize. This intensifies the pressure to show a

demonstrable return on investment, however difficult this might be. Prior U.S. General Accounting

Office (GAO) and OTA reports, among others,

have highlighted the Federal Government’s struggle to keep pace with and understand the effects of

technology—given the huge installed base of information technology and systems (estimated at

about $50 billion).22 Despite the best efforts of

OMB and various interagency coordinating

groups, most agencies proceed with electronic

delivery applications largely on their own with

little systematic accounting of direct and indirect

costs .*3

M Telecommunications Infrastructure

Underutilized

The telecommunications infrastructure is an

important part of the electronic delivery system.

Whether services are delivered to people in their

homes, offices, schools, libraries, or shopping

malls, most services will depend on the Nation’s

telecommunications networks to make the connection between Federal agencies and service reZo OTA ~s initiated an ~sessmen[ of information technology and the health care system, at the request of the senate Committee on Labor

and Human Resources. See OTA, Hefping America Conpefe, op. cit., footnote 7, for discussion of the role of information technology in

strengthening the U.S. scientific and technical enterprise; OTA, Adult h“reracy and New Techtwlogies, op. cit,, footnote 18, and U, S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment, Linking for Learning.’ A New Course for Educarion. OTA-SET-430 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, November 1989) for discussion of the role of information technology in educating children and adults,

21 q-he F~er~ Operating budget excludes transfer payments, mandatory spending programs, and debt service. See Office of Management

and Budget, U.S. General Services Administration, and U.S. Department of Commerce, Currenr Information Techrwlogy Resource Requirements

of rhe Federal Government: Fiscal Year 1993 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1992), see esp. pp. 1–3.

22 Capital I“nvestmen(s account for about one-fourth of the annual Federal information technology budget, or about $50 billion of the $200

billion total cumulative budget over the last decade. GAO has issued hundreds of reports documenting Federal information technology

management problems. For a summary, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Resources: S14mmaOI of Federal Age)lcies Informariun

Resources Management Problems, GAO/IMTEC-92- 13FS (Washington, DC: GAO, February 1992), and Pertei}ed Barriers to Effecfi\’e

lnformution Resources Management: Results of GAO Panel Discussions, GAO/IMTEC-92-67 (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting

Office, September 1992). Also see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federal Goternmenf Injor-tnnrlon Tec}wolog]’: Alanagetnerrt, .$ecuri~’, (Jnd Congressional O\’er.s/gh/, OTA-CIT-297 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. February 1986).

23 See OMB, “information Resources Management Plans Bulletin,” op. cit., footnote 12. Recently enacted legislation will require Federal

agencies to establish clear goals against which performance can be measured, See the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public

Law 103-62. OTA has initiated a study of the Social Security Administration’s information technology tiutomation program, at the request of

the House Committee on Appropriations. The Committee request was based in part on GAO’s concerns that the SSA had not adequately

documented its technology program or developed performance evaluation and electronic delivery plans.
cipients. The infrastructure includes the public

switched telephone network, various private telecommunication and computer networks, cable and

broadcast television, satellite-based and mobile

communication systems, and a wide variety of

value-added networks that lease time on another

owner’s system. The potential use of the telecommunications infrastructure for electronic delivery

of Federal services has received only limited and

unfocused attention.

FTS2000

FTS2000 is the Federal program for the bulk

purchase of basic long-distance telephone and

some advanced telecommunication services from

the private sector. All services packaged in

FTS2000 are available in the commercial marketplace. The Federal FTS2000 contracts were

awarded to two commercial long-distance telecommunications companies. To the degree that

FTS2000 becomes a key part of electronic service

delivery, then the overall health and future direction of FTS2000 are important.

The transition to electronic service delivery

suggests the need to rethink the role of FTS2000.

When first conceived, FTS2000 was intended to

produce both cost efficiencies and management

improvements for Federal telecommunications,

compared to the earlier FTS operation. FTS2000

appears to have succeeded against that standard.

But over the last decade, telecommunications

technology has advanced markedly, and commerChapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 13

cial telecommunications companies and services

have proliferated. The trend is toward increasingly

decentralized applications, which is counter to the

centralized decisionmaking and procurement on

which FTS2000 is based. Now the Federal Government is on the verge of rethinking its use of

information technology, placing much greater emphasis on meeting external customer or citizen

needs as contrasted with internal agency requirements. OMB and GSA are taking steps to better

understand future agency telecommunication

needs.24 But the role FTS2000 or its successor

might play in delivering services to citizens is still

largely unknown and unstudied.

Computer Networking

Computer networks are telecommunication

systems specially equipped and programmed to

link computers and computer terminals at distant

geographic locations. Participants in two OTAsponsored on-line computer conferences confirmed the importance of computer networking,25

as did OTA contractor research.26 FTS2000 includes some computer networking services, but

these services represent a small percentage of total

FTS2000 use. Numerous commercial vendors and

some not-for-profit organizations offer computer

networking services. The Federal Government has

supported the development and operation of computer networks for 25 years, starting with ARPANET for the defense research community and

evolving to NSFNET (and its associated networks) for the university research community.27

~J ONIB is surveying agency needs for telecommunication services and technologies currently available, and agency needs for future

telcco]l~l~~un]catlon services and technologies. The survey results will be used by the Future Teltiorl~ll~unic:~tior]s Services Working Group,

chartered by the Interagency Management Council to assess and define the future direction of FTS2000. See OMB, “Information Resources

hlanagement Plan~ Bulletin,” op. cit., footnote 12, app. E.

‘f See Frank Odasz, Big Sky Telegraph, “Computer Conference on Electronic Service Delivery to Rural/Small Town America,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 8, 1993; and T.M. Grundner, National Public Telecomputi ng Network, “The

O“I”A/NPTN Teleforum Project: An Experiment With a Multi-City Electronic Town Hall,” contractor report prepared for the Office of

Techno]og) Ajwjsment, January 1993,

‘b See Rlchwd CI\ IIIc, op CI[., footnote 9; Harms et al., op. cit., footnote 1; McClure et al , op. cit., footnote 7; Susan G. Hadden and W.

Jamc\ t ladden. Jr , “Government Electronic Services and the Environment,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,

Noi ember 1992

~’ See US Congrc\s, Office of Technology Assessment, Ad\anced Nemwrk Tech) Io/ogJ, OTA-BP-TCT-101 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, June 1993); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, High Performance Conrpufing & Networking for

Scleme, OTA-BP-CIT-S9 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1989); Charles R. McClure, Ann Bishop, Philip

Doty, et al,, The National Research and Educntion Netuork (NREN): Rese{lrch and Polic> Per~pect/\v.s (Nor-v ood, NJ: Ablex Publishing

Corp., 1991 ), Charles R. McClure, Joe Ryan, and William E, Moen, Public L/brm-/es (?wJ /}/e /J? Ie)?Jel\NREN. New Challenges, Ne}~’

Oppor/ut]l/ie\ (S) racuse, NY Syracuse University School of Information Studies, 1992).
14 I Making Government Work

Top: Computer networking can improve citizen access to Federal Government services. But users must

have access to the necessary computer equipment,

training, and financial resources. Big Sky Telegraph,

headquartered in Dillon, Montana, has pioneered

computer networking for rural America.

Bottom: This map of the United States depicts the

computer connections between Big Sky Telegraph in

Dillon, Montana, and the rest of the continental

United States plus Alaska and Hawaii. Computer networking can help rural areas like Western Montana

benefit from electronic delivery of Federal and other

government services.

Much of the federally supported networking community now uses the Internet family of computer

networks (actually many separate networks that

use common standards for transmitting data

among computers).

Computer networking appears to be a viable

way to deliver many Federal services electronically if it is accessible and affordable. For citizens

who can afford and know how to use computers at

home or work, computer networking can open new

“electronic doors” to Federal services. But the

distribution of computer accessibility is heavily

skewed toward the more educated, affluent

citizens. Even among the academic research community, computer networking use at present is in

transition because the National Science Foundation (NSF) is ending its direct support for

Internet---except for high-end use by supercomputing centers—although indirect support through

research and institutional grants is likely to continue in some form. The functional equivalent of

the National Research and Education Network

(NREN) will, in essence, be provided by private

vendors, not through a federally supported computer network.

Many Internet users who are federally subsidized are concerned about how this transition will

play out. Internet access is not yet part of basic

public switched telephone service (nor is it readily

available via FTS2000), but is increasingly available from other private computer net working services. From the perspective of electronic service

delivery, the key is the provision of widely accessible and affordable computer networking to citizens as part of the Nation’s private sector

telecommunications and computer infrastructure.

Enhanced Universal Service

For electronic delivery of government services

to work on a large scale, all geographic areas of

the Nation need to have access to advanced digital

telecommunication services, whether these are

used to access agency FTS2000 systems, dial-up

Internet services, or otherwise connect electronically with Federal agencies. These telecommunication services must be interoperable from one

part of the country to another, and among various
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 15

telecommunication companies, in order to ensure

end-to-end electronic connectivity between Federal agencies and their clientele.28

Virtually all telecommunication carriers—

from the largest Bell operating companies and

alternative long-distance providers to the smallest

rural telephone companies—are upgrading their

plant and equipment. Most are committed to providing all-digital trunk networks with advanced

digital switches and high-capacity fiber optic

trunk lines by the mid-1990s, if not before. These

upgrades reflect, in part, declining equipment

costs and increasing competitive pressures.

The larger companies are conducting research

and development on advanced digital switching

and networking that will ultimately allow interconnectivity among a wide range of end-user

equipment for an ever-expanding portfolio of

voice, data, image, and video telecommunication

services. At the same time, technical advances

continue to provide ways to squeeze more sophisticated applications through the old standby—

copper wire—that goes into most homes and

offices today. Many Federal services could be

delivered electronically over the existing public

telephone network, and many more could be delivered using integrated digital technologies (e.g.,

Integrated Services Digital Network—ISDN).

The eventual widespread deployment of high-capacity transmission links, such as fiber to the

office and curb (and homes, perhaps in conjunction with cable television and other video services), would support more advanced service delivery applications. These might include multipoint

videoconferencing, extensive telecommuting,

digital libraries, and remote interactive multimedia (e.g., for telemedicine and distance learning).

Electronic delivery of Federal services should

evolve to take advantage of new transmission

technologies as they become available. At present,

however, the Federal Government is not defining—in any coherent or focused way—the telecommunications capabilities needed to support

such services. Nor is the Federal Government

updating the definition of universal telephone

service to reflect advancing telecommunication

technologies. Universal, interoperable service is a

hallmark of the public telephone system today, and

will need to remain so in the future if electronic

government service delivery is to be accessible

and affordable. These same standards presumably

would be applied to any other vendors that become

a de facto part of the public switched network,

such as cable, satellite, mobile, or computer communication carriers.29

I Policy and Management Structure

Outdated

The Federal policy and management structure

for electronic activities includes governmentwide

statutes (e.g., the Paperwork Reduction Act and

Privacy Act), regulations and guidance (e.g., those

issued by OMB and GSA), and the 100,000 or so

Federal employees engaged in information policy,

‘8 See generally U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, CriIica/ Connecfiom: Communicafim for fhe Fu/ure, OTA-CIT-407

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Prlntlng Office, January 1990); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Teleconltnunica-

[ions .$en~ces in European Mnrkefs, OTA-TCT-548 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Pnntlng Office, August 1993); National Telecommu -

nlcatlons and Information Admlni$trat]on. U.S. Department of Commerce, NT/A Te/eco~n 2W0: Charting rhe C’[wr.$e~br a NeM Cenlu~, NTIA

Special Pub] icatton 88-21 ( W’ashlngton, DC. U S Government Printing Office, October 1988), Natronal Telecorllr~l L]rllc:~[ic~rl\ and information

Admlnrstra[]on. U.S Department of (’ommercc, The NT/A Ilrfrmfrucrure Repot-r: Te/e(~~~trttrr{ tl/~-ar~{]~~ 1)1 the Age (f//rft~r~~ff~({c~~r, NTIA Special

Publrcatlon 91-26 (Wa~hrngton, DC NTIA, U S Department of Commerce, October 199 l).

29 See US Congref\, OffIce of Technology Assewrnent, Cri[ica/ Connections, op. cit., footnote 28; NTIA, Itrfrftstructure, op. cit.,

footnote 28; Arthur Melmed and [;rancl~ Dummer Fisher, To\\ardx a National Itrfortnation Infrastructure: Ilnpllca[lons for Selecled Social

Secfors ~JndEducatfon (New Yorh, NY New York University, Center for Educational Technology and Economic Productivity, December 1991);

K. Kendall Guthrre, “Comrnunrcatlon Inforrnatlon Sys[ems: Lef\ons for a Redefinition of Universal Service, “ Working Paper, Universal Service

for [he Twenty -Fir~[ Century Project, Umverslty of Texm at Austin, Winter 1991; Richard Ci\ille, “A Vision of Change: Civic Promise of the

National Inforrnatlon Infrastructure,” Center for CI\]c Networking, draft publlc interest agenda, July 1993; and Ronald D, Doctor, “The National

Information Infr&~tructure SM-Ial Equ]ty Considerations, ” School of Library and lnformatron Stud] es, Umvers]ty of Alabama at Tuscaloosa,

Apr. 13, 1993,
16 Making Government Work

management, and operational activities. The

structure is increasingly outdated, with a growing

mismatch between policy goals and operational

realities. Most policies either predate the electronic era or reflect the time when centralized

mainframe computers dominated and telecommunications meant “plain old telephone service”

(POTS). During the 1980s, Congress modestly

updated some of the basic information policy statutes (on privacy, security, electronic surveillance,

and information management, for example30) to

reflect early to mid-1980s technology and applications. The ongoing transition to ever greater

levels of agency automation and, most recently,

electronic service delivery will create tensions

between new applications and the old policy

framework.

Management of Federal information technology and applications is organized around the Information Resources Management (IRM)

concept. IRM is relatively new (little more than a

decade old), and was intended to provide an integrated approach to managing the hardware, software, personnel, services, and other components

of the government’s information technology activities. IRM was not well defined when the Paperwork Reduction Act of 198031 was enacted.

While IRM was modestly refined by Congress in

1986, 32 it is still unevenly understood and accepted by government agencies. At least at the

Federal level, the rapid rate of advance in information technology and applications has made it difficult for IRM to fulfill its original promise.33 The

transition to electronic service delivery will further stress the existing IRM structure and staff,

absent significant changes.

The OTA study found:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

a governmentwide IRM and information management bureaucracy that, despite the best

intentions of dedicated individuals, seems

trapped in paperwork, minutia, and procedural

red tape—with the odds stacked against innovators and visionaries;

a governmentwide IRM and information technology planning and budgeting process that,

despite recent efforts to accommodate service

to the citizen, is still not keeping pace with

changes in technology and applications;

a massive challenge in retraining many IRM

staff to think more creatively about electronic

delivery opportunities, better understand and

stay abreast of breaking technology developments, and reach out more aggressively to

State/local, grassroots, and private sector partners in electronic delivery;

continuing confusion or conflict over the roles

of agency IRM and program staff, and Washington DC headquarters and field staff, in

electronic delivery initiatives;

a strong tendency among national agency

managers in Washington, DC to develop plans

and make decisions without adequate involvement of the field managers responsible for

implementing technology and delivering

services;

lack of technology integration across agency,

program, and service lines;

lack of integration of Federal services across

agency and technology lines;

a continuing lack of adequate consultation

with end-users-despite an improving

trend—when designing and testing electronic

delivery systems; and

JO see the computer Matching and privacy protection Act of 1988, Public Law 100-503; Computer Secuity Ac( of 1987, public Law

100-235; Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Public Law 99-508; and Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986, Public

Law 99-500.

31 public Law 96-311.

Jlpaprwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986, public Law 99-500.

33 see McC]ure et al,, op. Clt,, footnote 7; U.S. General Accounting Office, l@orvwim Resources, Op. Cit., fOOlnOte 22; Caudle and

Marchand, op. cit., footnote 13; and OTA, Federal Go\’erntnenl I)$ortnaliot] Teclvlolog?, op. cit., footnote 22,
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 17

9. lack of adequate time and incentives for local

agency managers and staff to do strategic

planning and “brainstorming” on how to deliver services better—in part using information technology.

OPTIONS FOR MANAGING THE

TRANSITION TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE

DELlVERY

Congress can affect the rate, nature, and consequences of the transition to greater use of electronic service delivery. The fundamental

challenge is to develop a clear Federal strategy that

assures that services are delivered equitably, cost

effective y, and in keeping with policy objectives.

The executive branch will be largely responsible for implementing electronic delivery at the

agency level. Agency activities, in turn, will be

guided by the White House, OMB, and other governmentwide policy and management agencies.

Congress will review and consider the plans and

proposals that result from the ongoing “National

Performance Review” and “National Information

Infrastructure” initiatives, as well as OMB’s continuing information policy activities.

The administration’s proposals may include

elements that, if acceptable to Congress, would

require only continuing oversight rather than explicit legislative or budgetary action. OTA has

identified several areas, however, that are likely to

need congressional action regardless of executive

branch proposals, and other areas that may require

action depending on the specifics of executive

branch proposals.

9 Implementing Strategies for Successful

Electronic Delivery

OTA identified seven key strategic elements of

successful electronic delivery. Collectively, these

strategies would constitute the backbone of a governmentwide electronic service delivery initiative.

They would, if implemented, represent a considerable shift in emphasis towards a creative, innovative, citizen- or client-centered approach to

service delivery. These include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

grassroots involvement of local citizens and

recipients of Federal services;

community infrastructure development involving schools, libraries, community centers,

town halls, and other local agencies that can

help facilitate electronic delivery through

training, education, and implementation (see

box l-A);

encouraging innovation by Federal agency

employees, clients, and other participants in

trying new ways of delivering services electronically;

creating directories to agency services (including information services and information

about other services);

creating alternative futures for electronic delivery by generating new ideas for the use of

information technology and matching electronic opportunities with agency missions;

strategic partnering between Federal and

State/local government agencies; voluntary,

not-for-profit, or philanthropic organizations;

and commercial companies engaged or interested in electronic delivery; and

pre-operational testing of electronic delivery

systems on a regional or national scale prior

to full deployment, including explicit early

attention to performance evaluation and policy development.

Congress and the administration could require

that these strategic elements be included in all

Federal agency plans and budgets for electronic

service delivery, and provide agencies with guidance or directives on implementation. Congress

could, at a minimum, reinforce the importance of

these strategies through general statutory language, and perhaps more specific report language,

to accompany the reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and through annual

appropriations. The PRA is one of the key governmentwide statutes that provides congressional

guidance on Federal use of information technology for agency automation and service delivery.

The PRA authorization expired in 1989; sub-
18 I Making Government Work

Box 1-A–Using the Community Infrastructure for High Leverage Electronic Delivery

The involvement of the local community infrastructure can greatly facilitate electronic service delivery.

The infrastructure, as defined here, includes people and organizations experienced in helping meet the needs

of local citizens and/or in training and assisting citizens in using information technology:

● Schools, libraries, community centers, town halls, and hospitals offer some of the most highly leveraged

opportunities because these locations are typically heavily used and well respected, and provide a

multiplier effect for technology investments.

● At the local level, technologies and locations suitable for multiple users offer the greatest return on

investment. The concept of the community communications center has considerable potential to

aggregate demand for and uses of electronic delivery at a central, accessible location.

● Local high schools frequently serve this purpose in small towns and rural areas.

● Educational institutions in general--whether high schools, community colleges, or universities-am

very interested in using information technology, tend to be more familiar with the technology than the

community-at-large, and are well suited to the training needs likely to be associated with major electronic

delivery initiatives.

● Schools and hospitals already benefit from ongoing Federal and State computer, distance learning, and

telemedicine programs.

● Various voluntary, self-help, and information response and referral organizations are already plugged

into the local community, and some receive funding from Federal and State social service programs.

● Small business innovation centers and economic development councils play similar roles for the local

business community, typically with partial Federal and State funding.

● The key is to find synergies between these and the many other government programs that collectively

can provide the building blocks for electronic service delivery.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

sequent reauthorization efforts have not yet mation needed to make decisions on whether and

reached fruition but are continuing.34

Congress could work with, and monitor, OMB

to develop detailed guidance for agency information technology planning and budgeting on electronic delivery. One possible set of directives is

illustrated in table 1-3. This example includes

specific budget set-asides (as a percentage of

agency information technology budgets) for

grassroots involvement, community infrastructure

development, and innovation—activities that otherwise are likely to be underfunded. This table also

includes set-asides for performance evaluation

and policy development for pre-operational testing activities---essential for providing the inforwhen to commence full deployment.

The congressional committees with governmentwide oversight (Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and House Committee on

Government Operations) may find it helpful to

hold annual oversight hearings on electronic delivery activities of Federal agencies. Should Congress determine that OMB and the line agencies

are unable or unwilling to adequately fund and

implement the electronic delivery strategies, then

the oversight committees could work with the

appropriate authorizing and appropriations subcommittees to include specific guidance in annual agency

funding bills and accompanying report language.

~ see s 68], the pawrwork Reduc[ion Reauthorization Act of 1993, Mar. 31, 1993, S. 560, the Paperwork Rduction Act of 1993,

Mar, 10, 1993, and H.R. 2995, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993, Aug. 6, 1993.
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 19

Table 1-3—lllustrative Guidance to Federal Agencies on Electronic Service Delivery

Possible congressional or Office of

Success factor Management and Budget guidance

Grassroots citizen Involvement

Community infrastructure

development

Encouraging innovation

Creating directories

Creating alternative futures

Strategic partnering

Pre-operational (pre-op)

testing

Pre-op evaluation

Policy development

Required component of all electronic delivery project plans

0.25% minimum set-aside from agency information

technology (IT) budget

Optional component of project plans; but 0.250/. minimum setaside from agencywide IT budget allocated to infrastructure

development

Required agencywide program: 0.5% minimum set-aside from

agency IT budget; required participation in innovation

clearinghouse

Required; each agency to plan and Implement directory (or

directories) to agency services and information: required

participation in governmentwide directory

Required component of agency annual and 5-year Information

Resource Management (IRM) plans

Required component of agency annual and 5-year IRM plans;

optional component of project plans, but must be considered

Prerequisite for all medium- to large-scale regional or

nationwide electronic delivery systems

Required component Of pre-op testing plans; 5% minimum

set-aside from pre-op testing budget

Required component; 5% minimum set-aside from pre-op

budget

SOLJRCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1993

I Assuring Equitable Access to Electronic

Services

To have effective access, citizens need to know

that services exist and how to obtain them, and be

able to make the electronic connections necessary

to receive the services on an affordable basis.

Assuring equitable access is important to reduce,

not widen, the substantial gap between the information “haves” and “have-nets. ” The distribution

of computer resources, for example, is heavily

skewed toward the more affluent, educated segments of U.S. society (see table 1-4). Rural and

inner city residents, persons with disabilities, and

senior citizens are among those who have a lot to

gain—or lose—from electronic delivery. Citizens

with special needs can be “winners,” but only if

they are active participants with sufficient technical and financial support.

No single action by Congress or the executive

branch will ensure equitable access. Rather, it will

come from the combined effects of several actions—starting with a new agency planning and

budgeting process that incorporates the strategies

discussed above, and emphasizes grassroots involvement, community infrastructure development, and directories.

Congress could affirm its intent that the executive branch develop directories or “electronic road

maps” to help citizens identify and locate relevant

services. A Federal Information Locator System

(FILS) was mandated by the PRA 13 years ago,

but is far from fully implemented. Congress could

add statutory and report language, when

reauthorizing the PRA, that further defines the

need for a directory or family of directories to

Federal services and information. Federal directo-
20 I Making Government Work

Table 1-4–Illustrative Distribution of Citizen Access

to Computer Resources

Percentage of respondents that:

Use a computer Have a computer

at work at home

Educational level

Less than high school 10 13

High school graduate 26 19

Some college 43 32

College graduate 58 38

Postgraduate 68 60

Income level

$ 7,500 or less 10 13

$ 7,501-$15,000 20 12

$15,001-$25,000 29 21

$25,001-$35,000 33 22

$35,001-$50,000 43 34

$50,001 and over 55 47

SOURCE. Based on a 1990 national survey of 2,254 library patrons conducted by Louis

Harris and Associates. For resufk and anatysls, see Alan F Westin and Anne L

Finger, “Using the Public Library in the Computer Age: Present Patterns, Future

Possibilities,” American Library Association, 1991.

ries can be implemented using wide-area search

and retrieval technologies, as well as electronic

bulletin boards and gateways, that allow individual agency directories to function collectively as a

“virtual” governmentwide directory.

The cost of electronic delivery can be a major

barrier to access. OMB recently issued a revised

Circular A-130 on “Management of Federal Information Resources”35 that prohibits agencies from

charging more than the marginal cost of electronic

information dissemination, unless explicitly

authorized by statute, and permits agency heads to

reduce or waive fees if necessary to carry out

agency missions or meet the needs of agency

clients. Congress could include this provision in a

reauthorized PRA, and make clear that the pricing

policy applies to electronic delivery of all Federal

services—not just information.

Congress also could direct OMB to review all

agency activities that might be included in an

“electronic public access safety net” to assure

access for those citizens who might otherwise fall

through the cracks of electronic delivery. The review should cover, at a minimum, the:

Federal Information Center operated by GSA;

Consumer Information Center operated by the

Government Printing Office (GPO) for GSA;

Depository Library Program operated by

GPO’s Superintendent of Documents (SupDocs) in cooperation with about 1,400 participating libraries;

GPO/SupDocs' “Federal Bulletin Board” and

other electronic directory and dissemination initiatives;

National Technical Information Services’

(NTIS’) “FedWorld Bulletin Board” and other

electronic service activities;

USDA’s “Electronic” Extension Service initiative;

3$ office of Management and Budge[, Circu]w A- 130 Revised, “Management of Fderal Information Resources,” Federal Re~i.$(er, vol. 58,

No. 126, hdy 2, 1993, pp. 36068-36086.
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 21

9

■

other individual agency clearinghouse and information center programs; and

federally funded information and referral centers or agencies.

Based on the results of this OMB review and

the grassroots and community infrastructure involvement, Congress could determine whether

other, stronger measures are needed to assure equitable access to electronic delivery. These could

include reorganization of existing agency activities and/or the establishment of a partially federally funded, not-for-profit “Corporation for

Electronic Service Delivery” or the equivalent.

9 Reinvigorating Federal Information

Resources Management

Significant change is needed to jump-start the

Federal IRM bureaucracy to move in new directions that emphasize service to the citizen and

electronic delivery. Congress could use amendments to the PRA, or equivalent legislation (e.g.,

a new “Federal Information Management Act” or

“Electronic Service Delivery Act”) and accompanying report language, to provide a clear sense of

legislative intent by:

■

■

✘

9

redefining information resources management

and training to emphasize electronic service delivery with an end-user or customer orientation;

strengthening IRM leadership in the agencies

(e.g., requiring a full-time senior IRM official

or “chief information officer” who participates

in top-level agency decision making on service

delivery initiatives);

strengthening the involvement of IRM and

agency program staff responsible for service

delivery in all stages of electronic delivery initiatives;

refocusing the Federal IRM organization (e.g.,

by reorganizing to create new organizational

units on electronic delivery within OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

GSA’s Information Resources Management

Service, and the National Institute of Standards

and Technologys (NIST’s) Computer System

Laboratory);

■

■

■

■

refocusing the IRM advisory committee structure to help assure that OMB, GSA, NIST, and

individual agencies get sufficient input from

service recipients, community groups, State/local governments, researchers, and private companies;

redefining agency annual and 5-year IRM planning to emphasize electronic service delivery

(e.g., with specific attention to the electronic

delivery success factors—see table 1-3);

requiring OMB to establish a new, publicly

accessible electronic clearinghouse on electronic delivery innovations (possibly as a service of FILS);

requiring OMB to develop and apply a checklist

for successful partnering of Federal and

State/local agencies at the exploratory/planning, pre-operational, and operational stages of

electronic delivery (see table 1-5 for an outline);

Table l-5–illustrative Checklist for Successful

Partnering in Electronic Service Delivery

Exploratory/planning stage

● Project planning task force

● Community workshop or retreat

● Technology demonstration or sharing center

● Local advisory committee

Pre-operational stage

● Cooperative development of operating rules (e.g.,

assignment of technical and programmatic

responsibilities)

● Early resolution of key issues (e.g., cost- and risksharing)

● Creative use of requests for information (RFIs)

and proposals (RFPs)

● Pilot projects and demonstrations

Operational stage

● Scaling up roles and resources

● Incorporating pilot-test results

● Selecting lead agencies and participants

● Firming up the commitments (and

responsibilities) of all partners

● Providing training and user support

● Building in a periodic evaluation component

SOURCE” Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1993
22 I Making Government Work

requiring OMB and the Department of the

Treasury to develop an electronic benefits transfer plan; and

requiring NIST to develop an electronic delivery technology plan (e.g., that addresses technical options, user-friendliness, interoperability,

standards, and security).

Updating Federal Procurement Practices

As with other Federal information technology

activities, some electronically delivered services

will be contracted to the private sector, others will

be implemented by the agencies, and still others

will proceed as part of partnership agreements

between Federal agencies, their State/local counterparts, and/or the private sector.

Major procurements for electronic service delivery could further strain a Federal procurement

process that is already overly complicated,

lengthy, rigid, and unnecessarily expensive. Federal technology managers frequently find themselves locked in by cumbersome procurement

practices that leave little room to adapt to technology changes and result in guaranteed early obsolescence of Federal automation programs. Major

agency automation initiatives have, in the past,

typically taken several years to a decade or more.

Procurement strategies that may have worked reasonably well in the 1970s and 1980s are likely to

result in automated systems for the 1990s that will

be two or three generations of technology behind

on the day they become operational. 36 To improve

procurement practices, Federal agencies need to:

■ take advantage of new breakthroughs in less

expensive, off-the-shelf commercial equipment, software, and services;

use systems that are interoperable with each

other and with the private commercial telecommunications and computer infrastructure;

seek creative opportunities for intra- and interagency procurement partnerships that take advantage of the economies of scale and scope

made possible through electronic delivery;

use procurement strategies that are flexible and

evolutionary rather than rigid and static; and

use information technology to open up competition and cut procurement overhead and red

tape.

Congress could direct OMB and GSA to review

and revise procurement procedures accordingly.

Congress could hold periodic oversight hearings

on information technology procurement strategies

and practices, and if necessary consider statutory

changes and accompanying report language to

provide further, stronger guidance.

Congress also needs to monitor the administration’s ongoing review of OMB Circular A-76,

“Performance of Commercial Activities,” to ensure that any change will better balance the sometimes competing considerations of electronic

delivery: public accountability, equity of access,

government efficiency, public/private sector cooperation, and equity of competition (a “level

competitive playing field”).

OMB’s revised Circular A- 130 prohibits agencies from placing copyright or copyright-like restrictions on the use or reuse of Federal

information, whether it is provided directly by

Federal agencies or by private contractors.37 The

intent is to help assure fair access for both the

value-added information industry and the general

public. Congress could include this provision in a

reauthorized PRA.

36 see ~o,na$ G1ulnmo, M<ln~ged E\,~/14~iot~n D~,e/Oprnenl Ci!.JIL)HIOOK: Process Description and Application (Arlington, VA: U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office, February 1993); Steven Kelman, Jerry Mechling, and John Sprin.gett, Infornmtion Technolog~’ and Government

Procuretnenl; S~ra~egic Issues for [he /nfortnalion Age (Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,

June 1992); Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, “Evolutionwy Acquisition Draft Report,” Mar. 12, 1993. For a general

dlscuss]on 01 electronic nuirhcl~ and procurement, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Electronic Ettrerprise:

op~x>rtultl{[e~ for At?tericful IIm[tw.rs (Jnd /)u/ust~, forthcoming.

~’ Ohl B, “Management of Federal Informti[lon Resources,” op. cit., footnote 35.
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 23

1 Updating Other Federal Information

Policy Statutes

The information policymaking process generally has lagged technological advances and new

applications by several or more years. Electronic

service delivery provides a framework for balancing the reality of decentralized, dispersed, useroriented agency automation with the need for

some measure of centralized, yet flexible, policy

direction and oversight.

The transition to electronic delivery of many

Federal services will require a review, and in many

cases the eventual updating, of other Federal information policies, including those already discussed above. First priority should be placed on

updating the Privacy Act, since electronic delivery

that involves personal or financial information

will increase the risks to personal privacy. Congress should consider: a) extending the Act to

cover non-Federal systems that participate in electronic delivery of Federal services; and b) establishing an independent Privacy Protection

Commission or Board to serve informational, ombudsman, advocacy, investigative, and oversight

functions concerning the privacy aspects of electronic delivery.

Electronic delivery should provide new opportunities for promoting open government and public access to Federal meetings. records, and

archives (while still tightly controlling access to

private, proprietary, national security, and other

exempted material,). Congress could ask OMB and

the National Archives and Records Administration to conduct a detailed review of any statutory

changes needed to assure that the Freedom of

Information Act, Government in the Sunshine Act,

Federal Advisory Committee Act, and Federal

Records Act are fully applicable to electronic delivery. Congress could likewise ask OMB and

NIST to conduct a review of any changes needed

in the Computer Security Act, Computer Fraud

and Abuse Act, and related statutes to help assure

the security of electronic delivery systems.38

1 Using the Telecommunications

Infrastructure Better

The telecommunications infrastructure is critical to the success of electronic service delivery,

but the infrastructure will be provided largely by

the private sector—not by the government. The

government and the private sector have a synergistic relationship: greater focus and priority on

electronic delivery of Federal (and State/local)

services will speed up infrastructure development

by the private sector, and vice versa.

m

This microwave relay station transmits telephone

calls and computer data between Anchorage and

Fairbanks, Alaska, and is part of the telecommunica -

tions infrastructure needed to electronically deliver 

Federal services to all parts of the Nation.

78 OTA h;t~ ImII:i[ed A \[Ldy On Informa[im ~ecur]t) and privac! In network enilronrnents, aI [he reque~[ of the Senate Cornmi[tce on

Gc)vcrnmenta] Affalr~ AIjo \ce [1 S Congre\\, Office of Technology Assessment, Prltwc} Riglus [t! Cottlputen:ed Medlc{ll It(forrnatiotr,

forthc(mlng
24 I Making Government Work

OMB and GSA are conducting studies on the

future of FTS2000 (the current contract expires in

1998). Congress could redirect this effort so that

OMB and GSA: 1 ) use more creativity in visualizing the potential future role for telecommunications in electronic delivery, and 2) develop more

complete and authoritative information for deciding whether and in what form FTS2000 should be

extended. Price and service comparisons between

FTS2000 and commercial offerings are still incomplete and inconclusive. Congress could direct

OMB and GSA to develop a program of agency

experiments to conduct more complete and realistic price and service comparisons of electronic

delivery using advanced telecommunications.

These experiments could be based on technology,

agency, program, service, or geography, or some

combination thereof.

Congress also could direct that FTS2000 planners specifically address partnering and access

questions. For example, if several Federal agencies partnered with the State of California’s InfoCal kiosk project, could FTS2000 be used to

provide the long-distance link between users in

California and agencies in Washington, DC (or

elsewhere around the country)? Or if USDA and

the Department of Health and Human Services

partnered with their State agency counterparts on

a nationwide EBT network, could FTS2000 be

used as part of the telecommunications backbone?

Or if FTS2000 is brought to Federal agency outposts in rural or remote areas with limited or no

telecommunication alternatives, could rural hospitals and schools that receive partial Federal

funding use FTS2000?

Whatever the future of FTS2000, Congress

should insist on interoperability between

FTS2000, agency local area networks, and commercial telecommunication networks. To achieve

economies of scale and scope, many electronic

delivery scenarios are predicated on interoperability of telecommunication systems across agency,

programmatic, and even public/private lines. The

more problems encountered with incompatible

technical standards when interconnecting

FTS2000 systems to each other and the public

switched network, the costlier the service and the

greater the frustration to providers and users at all

levels. The current FTS2000, and all future versions, need to strive for maximum interoperability

in order to forestall difficult and costly problems

with electronic service delivery deployments.

Otherwise, Federal telecommunications will go

the way of Federal computer systems—more than

two decades worth of computers were installed

with widely varying and frequently incompatible

software and technical specifications. Intensive

Federal and private sector efforts to standardize

computer connections will, hopefully, result in

interoperable Federal computers, but this will

come at great difficulty and expense.

Congress also could ask OMB and GSA, in

collaboration with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),

and perhaps the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to:

review the role of Internet, ISDN, and broadband/fiber to the home/curb in electronic service delivery;

develop possible revisions to the concept of

universal telephone service to include advanced

telecommunications and computer networking

needed to support electronic delivery; and

review the administration’s computer network

and National Information infrastructure (NII)

plans to assure that electronic delivery needs are

fully addressed.

Assuring Accessible, Affordable

Computer Networking

Access to computer networks could become an

addition to the modern version of universal telephone service, whether it be Federal agencies delivering services over the Internet family of

computer networks via FTS2000 and other commercial carriers. or citizens receiving Federal

services over computer networks via their local

telephone company or some other specialized
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 25

computer network. This approach appears consistent with the President’s technology policy, which

looks to the private sector for implementation of

national computer networks. The emerging consensus suggests that NREN properly refers not to

a federally funded computer network like

NSFNET, but to a program that relies primarily on

the Nation’s private sector telecommunications

and computer infrastructure-encompassed by

the NII concept—for the provision of widely accessible computer networking .39

The President’s technology plan recognizes the

potential links between the NII and government

service delivery. Congress could refine and define

these links as part of specific proposals for which

congressional approval is sought or required. Congress also could explicitly address the links between electronic service delivery and legislation

on computer networking and the NII.40

Congress traditionally has a special responsibility for assuring equitable telecommunication

service to rural and remote areas of the Nation.

This responsibility logically would extend to the

use of computer networking for the electronic

delivery of Federal services to rural America.

Rural telephone companies and cooperatives are

doing remarkably well in upgrading their plant and

equipment. However, while most rural areas now

have single-line telephone service, many areas are

not yet served by the digital switches and higher

capacity trunk lines needed to support advanced

telecommunication capabilities. These improvements are being made, but will take at least several

more years to complete.41

Rural areas can benefit from “rural area networks,” or “RANs,” set up to achieve the critical

mass of users and resources needed to support

advanced rural telecommunications—including

computer networking. Congress could direct the

Rural Electrification Administration and FCC,

and possibly OMB, NTIA, and other executive

agencies, to ensure that rural and remote areas are

included in governmentwide strategies for computer networking and electronic service delivery.

Rural communities must have affordable access to

a modern telecommunications and information infrastructure if they are to share in the benefits of

electronic service delivery, continue to be economically viable, and maintain their role in

American life.42

~ Assuring Cost-Effective Electronic

Benefits Transfer

After a decade of testing and pilot projects,

electronic benefits transfer (EBT) appears ready

to take off as a viable alternative to the current

paper-based system for delivering many Federal

services.

EBT tests and evaluations, using magnetic

stripe or “smart” (computer chip) cards, indicate

that:

3’J See us, Congre$$, C) fflce of Techno]ogJ, Assessment, AdIYJnced Netn’ork Technology}, op. cit., footnote 27; U.S. Congress, Office of

Technology Assessment, “National Information Infrastructure Initiative: Context for the Future,” Telecommunication and Computing Technologies Program Plannlng Paper, Afml 1993.

w see s, 4 the Natlorlal Competitlyeness Act of 1993, Jan. 21, 1993, Title VI—the Information Technology Applications Act of 1993. as

reported out on JMay 25, 1993, by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and H.R. 1757, the National Information

Infrastructure Act of 1993, as approved by the House on July 26, 1993. H.R. 1757, for example, includes the following provisions that are

directly relekant to electronic dell very of government services: Connections Program-to foster the creation and connection of local community

networlcs to the lnternet, includlng educational institutions, libraries, and local governments; Training—of teachers, students, librarians, and

State and local go~ernrnent personnel in use of computer networks and Internet; Network Security and Privacy-research needed to assure

security and privacy of networked transmissions; Ease of Internet Use-research needed to simplify access to and use of Internet by

nonspecialists and persons with disabilities; Appl ications—including networked access to distance learning, telemedicine, digital libraries, and

government informat Ion; Networked Depository Libraries—to facilitate access to Federal, State, and local government information via Internet;

and Federal Information Locator-to lx accessible by the pub] ic via Internet.

~ I See (_I s Corlgres$, ~fflce of Technology Asjejsmen[, Rliral America (II /htJ crossroads, /vefl\’ork~/~g for [he Fl(ture, OTA-TCT-47 I

(Washington, DC U S Government Printing Office, April 1991).

‘~ lbld
26 I Making Government Work

EBT technology is proven, reliable, easy to use,

and decreasing in cost.

Recipients, retailers, financial institutions, and

local program administrators who have tried

EBT prefer it to paper.

EBT can reduce costs to government agencies,

retailers, financial institutions, and recipients.

Recipients using EBT experience an added

sense of dignity and security.

EBT can improve the integrated delivery of

several social service benefit payments and simplify the process of issuing and redeeming benefits.

EBT can reduce fraud and abuse, e.g., for unauthorized or illegal purchases.

EBT is most likely to be cost effective if it can

be used for multiple services and programs and

is based on a standardized commercial technology and infrastructure.

Despite these optimistic findings, sufficient information is not available to assure that EBT is

cost effective or to make sound technical decisions

on nationwide implementation—such as a national rollout of EBT for food stamps using a

magnetic stripe card43 or a nationwide “health

passport” using a computer chip card.44 Federally

supported pilot tests have assessed the use of magnetic stripe cards thoroughly, but have given only

limited attention to smart cards and have entirely

overlooked hybrid cards (that combine features of

both magnetic and smart cards).

The next logical step toward nationwide EBT

deployment is a scaled-up, multitechnology, multiple-program, and regionally based EBT feasibility test that would help to determine:

■ the total cost of developing and implementing a

national EBT system;

the optimal system design (e.g., on-line, offline, or integrated system; magnetic, smart, or

hybrid card);

the most appropriate deployment strategy;

the level of Federal/State and public/private

cooperation needed to develop and implement

EBT cost-sharing and standardized EBT operating rules and procedures;

the most effective mechanisms for Federal/State leadership and interagency coordination on EBT; and

the revisions to Federal and State laws and

regulations needed to facilitate a transition to

EBT.

Congress could direct OMB, the Department of

the Treasury, and responsible agencies to design

and implement a program of scaled-up feasibility

tests. Congress could, if necessary, reinforce this

direction through amendments and/or report language to authorization and appropriations bills.

1 Increasing Congressional Use of

Electronic Delivery

In addition to oversight and policy actions,

Congress can participate in electronic delivery

through its own use of information technology.

Several applications are technically feasible and

have been pilot-tested, at least on a small scale.

These include videoconferencing for committee

hearings; electronic bulletin boards for hearing

and legislative materials, schedules, etc.; and computer conferences for public input and dialogue.

Members of Congress and staff, for example, can

now access the Internet computer network; and the

House of Representatives has wired several hearing rooms for videoconferencing .45

Congress gradually is building the information

infrastructure on Capitol Hill that could support

electronic service delivery. Ultimately, in addition

43 AS ~rOpS~ by the Food and Nu[ri(km Service, U.S. Department Of A@culture.

~ AS is being ~ollsidered by t~ White House Health Care Refo~ Task Force.

.ts several ~ongre~$ion:i] offices are ~x~rlmenting ~l[h In[eMet for pub]ic access [0 ~ongres~lona] in fornl~[ion, For ti general discussion,

see Stephen Frantzlch, “Electronic Service Delivery and Congress,” contractor report prep;ued for the Office of Technology Assessment,

January 1993.
Chapter 1–Summary of Findings and Options 27

Box B-Illustrative Electronic Connections to the Federal Government

Send electronic mail to the White House:

President Clinton-president @whitehouse.gov via Internet

Vice President Gore-vice.president@whitehouse.gov via Internet

Also available on CompuServe, GEnie, America On-Line, and MCI Mail, among others

Obtain Library of Congress on-line news and event information:

Dial into the LOC News Service Bulletin Board

202-707-3854 dial-up computer number

202-707-9217 bulletin board operator assistance

Browse the Library of Congress electronic card catalog with 25 million entries--locis.loc.gov via Internet

(Men-Fri 6:30am-9:30pm, Sat 8am-5pm, Sun 1-5pm EST), Includes 15 million entries on books and serials,

and 10 million entries on other types of material such as music, software, maps, legislation, copyright

registrations, braille, and recorded items.

Check the National Technical Information Service’s “FedWorld” Electronic Bulletin Board listing over 3,000

files and providing gateway access to over 100 individual Federal agency databases.

703-321-8020 dial-up computer number

703-487-4608 bulletin board operator assistance

Check the Government Printing Office’s “Federal Bulletin Board” for a listing of documents and databases

that can be downloaded (free directory access, fees charged for displaying or downloading documents).

202-512-1387 dial-up computer number

202-512-1530 bulletin board operator assistance

Browse the General Service Administration’s Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodation Bulletin Board

for information on electronic access by persons with disabilities.

202-219-0132 dial-up computer number

202-501-4906 bulletin board operator assistance

Send electronic mail about this report to the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress—

fwood@ota.gov, thausken@ota.gov, egonzalez@ota.gov, or elecdelivery@ota.gov via Internet.

NOTE: As of press time, the Internet and bulletin boards listed above do not charge for access; fws may apply for

downloading; users are responsible for their own iongdistance teiacommunicstion charges, if applicable. Ali buiietin board

settings are 1,200 or 2,400 bits per second, 8 bit, no parity, 1 stop bit (8N1).

SOURCE: White House, Library of Congress, National Technical Information Service, Government Printing Office, General

Services Administration, Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.
28 I Making Government Work

to scheduling and status information, complete

congressional reports and documents also could be

made available electronically, These could

include committee reports and hearings, as well as

public documents issued by the congressional

support agencies—the Congressional Research

Service (CRS), Congressional Budget Office

(CBO), GAO, and GPO, in addition to OTA.

Several of these congressional agencies (e.g.,

GPO,46 GAO, and OTA) already are experimenting with electronic dissemination. Taken together,

electronic service delivery applications could further open Congress to the people, strengthen the

role of Congress as the people’s branch of government, and, in the process, set an example for the

executive branch and the Nation.

Information technologies offer, in sum, almost

limitless near-term opportunities for electronic

delivery of Federal services by the government

directly or in partnership with State/local agencies

and the private sector (see box 1-B for some

current Federal electronic connections). New

technologies allow electronic delivery to accommodate the diversity of citizens’ needs. However,

assuring that electronic delivery benefits all citizens—not just the affluent and computer literate—and makes best use of scarce taxpayer dollars

will require an extraordinary level of congressional policy attention and oversight and agency

execution.

46 me Governmnt finting office E]~[ronic Information Access Act of 1993, Public Law 103-40, authorizes or mandates a varietY of

GPO electronic dissemination activities.
Information

Technologies

for Electronic

Delivery 2

SUMMARY

Information technologies will offer almost limitless opportunities

for electronic delivery of Federal Government services in the near

future. OTA identified six electronic delivery “points of access”

that are now or will soon be technical y feasible using a wide range

of technologies. These categories are not exclusive; in fact, several overlapping approaches are often preferable to a single

method of delivery, and some technologies can be used in several

categories.

1.

2.

Homes and offices. Services can be delivered direct] y to the

citizen in the home, office, school, library, clinic, and elsewhere via telephones and computers. This direct access may

be the most effective in the long term, but only if the services

are user-friendly and include helpful directories. Computerbased delivery favors the still relatively small but growing

number of homes with personal computers. The Federal Government might therefore need to take steps to assure access

to computer-based services in local libraries, schools, and

community centers, or via telephones and future interactive

television services.

Neighborhood electronic kiosks. An electronic kiosk is a

computer station that combines sound, video, and graphics to

provide services in a shopping mall or other central location.

Kiosks are accessible after working hours and on weekends.

To be effective, a kiosk must offer a valuable service to the

public and provide information that is updated regularly. The

Federal Government could help promote the standards-setting process for kiosks so that Federal, State, and local agencies could coordinate their efforts and realize economies of

scale. The long-term value of kiosks is unclear, however;

29
30 I Making Government Work

many kiosk-based services eventually may be

delivered more simply and inexpensively directly to the home, or may be more effective

via a one-stop service center.

3. Community one-stop service centers. The

Federal Government could colocate agency

offices that deliver related services so that

citizens can go to one location to meet many

or all of their service needs. By sharing facilities, agencies could save money and increase

their effectiveness. If the logistics of physical

collocation are too difficult, agencies could use

desktop videoconferencing, for example, to

establish a “virtual” one-stop center. An extraordinary level of cooperation among Federal, State, and local governments would be

required to make one-stop centers effective.

4. Mobile access. To reach citizens who are

traveling, in remote or distressed areas, or

otherwise isolated, a “mobile service center”

could use technologies such as cellular telephones, laptop computers, and satellite receivers to provide services. The Federal

Government could fund a pilot project on

mobile service delivery in rural or distressed

areas where mobile services could be most

valuable.

5. Stores and banks—Electronic benefits

transfer (EBT). EBT includes the use of card

technologies to deliver public assistance or

other benefits electronically to citizens using

automated teller machines (ATMs) and pointof-sale (POS) terminals in stores. EBT promises to reduce theft and fraud in benefit

programs, as well as reduce errors, paperwork,

delays, and the stigma attached to paper

checks and coupons issued by the government

for social assistance. Of the many card technologies available, magnetic stripe cards are

inexpensive and standardized, and can be used

with existing ATMs and POS terminals.

Smart cards, with an embedded microprocessor, are more secure and can store much more

data than magnetic stripe cards. (EBT implementation issues are discussed in ch. 4.)

6. Businesses and health care providersElectronic commerce and electronic data

interchange (EDI). Overlapping with other

points of access, electronic commerce

includes technologies intended to reduce paperwork and delays, mainly for governmentbusiness transactions such as billings,

procurements, or regulatory filings. EDI already is saving money for the Federal Government and has well-developed international

standards, but agencies are slow to adopt EDI

methods.

Federal agencies collectively lack a technology strategy for delivering services electronically. Various Federal agencies, and many State

and local governments, are already engaged in

electronic delivery, but generally on a piecemeal

basis. Congress and the President could oversee

the development of a technology strategy to coordinate service delivery among providers. Participants could include, for example, the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),

General Services Administration (GSA), National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and agency representatives, perhaps working through an interagency committee.

This technology strategy could be part of a larger

strategy for service delivery discussed in chs. 1, 5,

6, and 7. A technology strategy could both identify

technical trends and opportunities and help Federal employees better understand how to conceptualize the use of these technologies for delivering

services. It also could facilitate communication

through user groups, workshops, conferences, and

publications.

A technology strategy emphasizing open systems would encourage procurement of off-theshelf technologies to benefit from innovation in

the marketplace, allow easier upgrades to existing

systems, and improve interoperability. Open systems would allow agencies to have greater flexibility in selecting equipment and software, but

within an overall governmentwide technical

framework. The technology strategy also could
Chapter 2–information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 31

coordinate and promote the development of technical standards to help assure that rapidly developing technologies are compatible and cost

effective.

To meet citizen needs, a technology strategy

should emphasize user-friendly interfaces and directories. Government services can be easily degraded and depersonalized if cutting costs takes

priority over assuring meaningful citizen access.

Also, electronic delivery intensifies the need to

ensure security of the electronic documents and

transmissions to make certain that private and

proprietary information is protected. Finally, a

technology strategy must assure affordable access

to advanced telephone and computer-based services so that some citizens are not bypassed by

changing technologies (telecommunications infrastructure issues are discussed inch. 3).

VISIONS OF ELECTRONIC DELlVERY

The following fictional scenarios portray three

perspectives of what Federal Government service

delivery could be like in the not-so-distant future.

The stories are about different people in different

situations and how they might actually react to

well-designed systems. They also offer a glimpse

of how the government “starts over” in its approach to citizen needs, how it forms partnerships

with the public and private sectors, how it assures

equity of access for disadvantaged and rural citizens, and how it applies different technologies as

appropriate.

I Starting Over

The first story is about a low-income urban

couple in which the husband has recently become

disabled. They visit a “one-stop service center”

where a social worker uses desktop videoconferencing and expert system software to coordinate

their benefits. They later use a card at a local

grocery store to receive benefits electronically, It

is also a story about a change in the way the

government delivers services: starting over.

“I don’t know whereto begin-everything happened so fast,” Jim said to the social worker. After

the accident disabled him, Jim and Suzanne had to

think about helping him recover, getting her a job,

arranging his benefits, and getting help with the

children. He had been a self-employed painter, and

she took care of the children. He can’t work as a

painter again, they have no savings, and they don’t

know what to do. Suzanne remembered hearing

about a “one-stop” service center at the hospital

that offered all community services in one office.

They decided to try it.

After listening to their story, the social worker

entered some information into the computer. He

doublechecked definitions, asked questions, and

let the computer do its own processing to see if he

has thought of all the possible options. The benefits range over many agencies, from local and

nonprofit groups to Federal providers of social

security benefits, tax benefits, veterans’ benefits,

and food stamps.

This is a new kind of government worker—an

information and referral specialist who is crosstrained over many levels of government and outside agencies. While the computer program helps

the worker provide correct and consistent answers,

it can’ t think for him, Even the latest software only

recites rules and examples or checks logic; it cannot understand the intent or nuances of the regulations. “What is ‘training’ in this context and what

kind of training does Jim qualify for?” the worker

wondered. He called a colleague at another service

center in the State who knows all about training,

This was not a telephone call Suzanne and Jim

were familiar with; the worker called by computer.

By pointing the electronic “mouse” to icons on the

screen and clicking, an image of the other social

worker appeared on the computer screen ready to

speak with him.

Distributed Services

The social worker explained to Suzanne and

Jim that government services—and computers—

are more “distributed” today than they were a few

years ago. Social workers work more closely with

citizens, and they communicate with each other by

computer or telephone. They even receive training
32 I Making Government Work

through these or larger videoconferences, eliminating the need for everyone to be in one place.

When the one-stop pilot project began back in the

1990s, the computer and videoconferencing

equipment weren’t compatible among different

agencies, but now all the local information and

referral workers are connected. Suzanne and Jim

didn’t really care what “distributed” meant-but

the services did seem much more human.

Getting people from different agencies and

governments to work together was the real challenge, however. In fact, the pilot project wasn’t

successful in every State that tried it-every State

is different. It required top-level Federal leadership—both congressional and executive—and

similar leadership at State and local levels, too.

The local leaders were more aware of the specific

needs of the community. Innovators were allowed

to test their ideas within the basic framework

Left: The Info California pilot kiosk located in the

main library on the campus of California State

University at Sacramento. Other kiosks are located

in grocery stores, shopping malls, and government

offices.

Right: InfoCal kiosks use touchscreen technology

to facilitate citizen access to information (in both

English and Spanish) on a wide range of California

government services-including education, family,

health, housing, and employment.

(what the “techies” call an “open system”), The

Governor had called the whole process “starting

over with government services.”

Getting a Benefits Card

The social worker gave Suzanne and Jim a card

for getting interim food stamp benefits at the grocery store. The “food card” looks like a credit card.

They watched a videotape about it and also tried

it a few times in the office. Jim felt somewhat

discouraged about depending on others for support. The benefit card looked like just another

credit card, though, and Jim felt better knowing

that he doesn’t need to use paper checks or coupons. The card system is also quicker and easier

for the retailer, and the Federal Government benefits because the password cuts down on fraud and

stolen benefits.

At the store, the clerk treated them like any

other customers. Suzanne put the card through the
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 33

“point-of-sale terminal.” She typed in the password and got a receipt. Suzanne remembered

vaguely that the social worker said the card could

access different benefits within the same transaction. Today she used a Federal-State program for

baby food, cereal, and milk, and a different Statelocal program for diapers. The card made the

determination automatically, debited the accounts, and showed the remaining balances.

Going home, Suzanne and Jim didn’t have any

forms to fill out, and they didn’t have to visit any

other offices. They had some information to read,

and occasionally Jim will call one of the national

800 or local telephone numbers to clarify a question about his benefits. They may use a kiosk in

the neighborhood library-it is accessible for the

disabled—that provides information on special

needs and local jobs. Suzanne also has heard of

interactive television that uses the home television

to provide the same information as local kiosks.

People also can take classes through such interactive TV services.

The social workers at the one-stop office believe that their services really help people like

Suzanne and Jim to work through their difficulties.

They also feel that the Federal Government saves

money for everyone by helping people where it

makes the most difference, avoiding higher costs

later, and reducing waste and fraud. The change

was not easy, however; “it’s like starting over.”

1 Working Together

The next story is about a suburban minority

businessman who is using a computer in his tool

design shop to do business with the Federal Government. He is using electronic data interchange

(EDI) to exchange important information and network with fellow minority businesspeople around

the Nation, He hopes to send designs to his clients

using the so-called broadband capacity that he can

access from his shop,

Daniel has never met most of his colleagues—

at least not in the traditional sense. They have

helped make his minority business profitable by

doing business and exchanging ideas purely

through a computer network. His network partners

and colleagues live and work all over the country.

He initially bought the computer to do business

electronically. All the invoices, bills, and payments are now handled by either the main computer or the backup. Daniel was reluctant at

first-he didn’t know anything about “electronic

data interchange,” and he thought it would be

expensive. Once he got the contract with the Federal Government, however, he found he could

write off much of the cost of the computer and the

soft ware. Now he can use it with his other customers too, since it uses the international standard

format. Because it is an open system, he can purchase or upgrade whatever equipment and software he chooses, provided it supports the standard

format.

“It works like this,” he says. “The government

keeps its inventory records on its computer. When

the inventory of an item is too low, its computer

automatically sends my computer a message.

When the order is ready to ship, my computer

sends a bill back on a toll-free number. After a

pre-arranged period, the government computer

automatically transfers a payment to my business

bank account, and my computer gets a message

from them and my bank.”

More Efficient Government

The government saves money too because there

are fewer errors and inventory is better controlled.

The government doesn’t only use computers; the

computers are actually integrated with its business

partners, public assistance programs, and health

care providers. Now Daniel can send in his regulatory, tax, minority business, and other Federal

forms using the same system he uses for electronic

commerce at no extra cost.

Daniel also sends many of his questions by

e-mail directly to the agency: “Who has the time

or money to call, only to get a busy signal, be put

on hold, or find no one is there because of the

difference in time zones?” he asks. “With this

e-mail system, when I have a question, I put it out
34 I Making Government Work

to the agency contact. The contact responds when

he or she has a chance to.”

Today, it’s the only way he can run his business,

since his competitors—many of them big companies—are also using this “electronic commerce.”

“I didn’t learn any of this in technical school,

except for some basics in computers, and that was

a long time ago,” he continues. Computers have

come a long way since he was in school. Now he

does everything just by using an electronic pen—

point and click. Well, almost everything. The government requires tight security on many of the

transactions; many require his smart card, which

he keeps with him, and he has to type in a password

and use encryption. For every transaction, his

computer also receives a confirmation that the

message was received without any errors.

Networking With Colleagues

The electronic commerce application led

Daniel to the minority business network, organized by individuals but with on-line assistance

from Federal agencies and financial assistance

from the Corporation for Public Networking.

Other businessmen and women send electronic

mail and post to an electronic bulletin board to help

each other. For example, when Daniel started

plans for a new product, he didn’t know how to

deal with the forms and regulations for the Department of Labor. He put out an e-mail message

asking for help, and someone suggested that he

order a CD-ROM on toxic chemicals, which he

did. He received names of people in his area who

could help him with legal matters. Now he is one

of the more experienced contributors, and he helps

the newcomers to the system.

Using Broadband Services

Daniel also purchased software to do tool designs on the computer, and sent the designs to the

customer’s computer over the telephone system.

He hopes to expand his business across the country, even overseas, With the new design business,

Daniel can use some of the “broadband” telecommunications capacity that he can access from his

business. The broadband system sends video and

data back and forth between computers very

quickly over fiber, copper, or coaxial cable, or via

radio.

His daughter also uses broadband. Her teacher

can arrange collaborative projects with other

classes all over the world, or call up interactive

programs from Federal agencies such as NASA.

Daniel is more excited about the software that his

daughter is using in her design class, however.

“The software is now inexpensive enough that my

daughter can use this stuff in school,” he says. “At

least the software companies are finally writing

creative software for schools. They realized that

there is a big market there if the price is right—and

of course there were some government partnerships along the way.”

1 Rural but Not Remote

The final story is about a retired woman who

uses on-line systems and CD-ROMs to keep her

rural community involved with government. She

also has been a patient at the local health clinic

where she was treated in part by means of telemedicine. These systems, and another delivering

distance education at a local Native American

tribal college, all use a technology called narrowband ISDN.

Evelyn says she’s always been active, but it

used to be with her family or work. Now that she’s

retired, she’s active in her rural community.

“Those of us out here far from the majorities need

to listen and be listened to-if it’s really a democracy, that is,” she says. Washington, DC is far

away—the local wags say it should be as far away

as possible—but even the State capital seems to

forget them. As Evelyn says, “If you take all the

rural citizens in this country, we add up, and we

can help with a lot of the Nation’s problems. But

rural citizens are not centralized, we’re distributed, and that’s why distributed communications

and government services allow us to participate.”

Today she is on-line, scanning recent legislation introduced in Congress and in the State legislature. She calls up the bill on rural schools. She

points to an icon, and the full text of the bill
Chapter 2–information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 35

n

i!

u

Compact optical disk reader at the Elmer R. Rasmuson Library on the campus of the University of

Alaska at Fairbanks. CD-ROM technology is widely

used in university libraries across the country.

appears on the screen. “They amended it,” she says

to herself, and makes a note to call some of her

neighbors. She opens a government directory to

search for grants on rural development and information from the Consumer Information Center.

She learned to use the networks mostly on her

own, since they are now much more user-friendly.

She also got help from the librarians in town and

from other people on the network, including network assistants at all levels of government. Now

she often helps the others.

Evelyn also relies on the newspaper and the

television, especially the public television channels that broadcast some of the hearings in Congress and in the State Government. She has a fax

machine and occasionally sends faxes to the State

capital. Yesterday she went into town to the library, and used a CD-ROM from the Department

of Education that provides statistics on rural

schools. She’s used those CD-ROMs at the library

a lot to support the community’s position. “Some

of the CD-ROM information is also on-line on the

Internet, a vast computer network,” she says, “but

the CD-ROM is cheaper and simpler for me if I’m

just looking for statistic s.”

Using Telemedicine

Evelyn is recovering from a joint ailment that

flared up several months ago. Some tests were

performed in the local clinic, but one test had to be

analyzed by a specialist upstate. Using telemedicine, the clinic sent the data by computer to

the upstate hospital, and later the specialist talked

to Evelyn and the clinic doctor via a video link.

For today’s visit, Evelyn will describe how the

joint is recovering to both the local doctor and to

the specialist upstate watching the live video.

The telemedicine system uses the same ISDN

communication that Evelyn uses at home to get her

on-line information about Congress. The nurse

explains that ISDN is digital and can mix video,

data, and voice—something they couldn’t do with

a single analog telephone line, even though ISDN

uses the same pair of wires. “There are a lot of

other fancy services out there,” the nurse says, “but

we can’t wait for fiber optics. When we had the

opportunity for the pilot project in the mid- 1990s,

ISDN became affordable and available, and we

took advantage of it.”

The clinic is the Native American Health Clinic

on the reservation. Evelyn doesn’t actually live on

the reservation, but the clinic is open to residents

in the county, including non-Native Americans.

Keeping the benefits straight was a chore at first.

There are Native Americans from different tribes,

other county residents, and all kinds of benefit

plans. Now each individual uses a smart card that

incorporates all of the plans, The people at the

clinic got the idea, and everyone—the Federal,

State, and county governments and the tribal leaders-cooperated to initiate a pilot project. They
36 I Making Government Work

have since modified the system a bit to meet the

national technical standards that started to form.

Distance Education

Telemedicine is not the only such partnership

on the reservation. The Tribal College has a videoconference room that also uses ISDN transmission

for all sorts of training sessions. Students attend

classes that the college televises from the other

side of the State, and students from high schools

on and off the reservation occasional] y come in for

special programs. Federal, State, and county

workers also gather for training sessions from the

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. Evelyn goes there occasionally with others for audioconference meetings with her Congresswoman.

Although equipment is much cheaper today

than it was in the 1990s, the cost nevertheless adds

up, and any way that they can leverage their tight

budget is better for everyone. One big advantage

was that the Tribal College could get discount

rates for the long-distance teleconferencing using

the Federal Government’s long-distance contract.

It’s not a subsidy or free service; they simply pay

for long-distance service at the Federal Government rate, which is much better than they could

bargain for on their own. “I like the way the

Federal Government is doing this,” one professor

says, “and I don’ t usually say that. They coordinate

and they are partners, but they don’ t mandate from

Washington how we should run things here.”

Many in the county feel that the new distributed

networks, and the new distributed form of government services, are ideal for their rural community;

they help them keep up with urban areas and high

technology States. “The change was inevitable,”

Evelyn says, “but getting government to think in

terms of a big, open, distributed system was the

hard part-that took leadership. We citizens can

do the rest.”

POINTS OF ACCESS FOR SERVICE

DELlVERY

The previous section speculates about what

government service delivery could be like in the

future. This section describes six “points of access” where citizens might obtain these and other

electronic government services. It also discusses

the technologies, trends, and issues related to these

access points. The six categories outlined here

offer many choices: citizens can receive services

at home by telephone or computer, in a local

library or service center, or perhaps via a local

kiosk in a shopping mall, to name a few possibilities. The points of access also reach different types

of citizens-individuals, businesses, the disadvantaged, students and teachers, librarians and

researchers, community public interest groups,

and others. These categories are not intended to be

exclusive; in fact, overlapping approaches are

often preferable to one single approach, and often

can be sponsored through partnerships. Also,

some of the specific technologies apply to more

than one category.

1 Homes and Offices

The most convenient and equitable point of

access for electronic service delivery would be the

home, workplace, school, or local library using

technologies such as the telephone or computer

(see table 2-1 ). Home delivery often allows access

24 hours a day and on weekends, and particularly

helps Americans who are less mobile due to disabilities, the need to care for dependents, or long

distances required to travel to a government office.

Distributed service delivery also might help to

reduce pollution and traffic, and could encourage

telecommuting from home or a neighborhood telecommuting center. ] Rural electronic networks

could provide on-line government information

and distance learning for students, and teachers in

1 For telework examples and issues, see Jack M. Nines, “Energy/Environmental Impacts of Electronic Service Delivery: Trends and

Innovations,” contractor repott prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1991. See also Alan Porter and Scott Cunningham,

“Appendix A: A Forecast and Assessment of Telework,” in “Private Sector Innovations in Electronic Service Delivery,” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, January 1992.
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 37

Table 2-1—Home and Office Technologies or Services: Key Characteristics

and Selected Applications

Technology or

service Key characteristics Selected applications

1-800 and 1-900 User-friendly if well designed; very accessible and IRS’s "Teletax” services, SSA’s

numbers; voice convenient; some require a touch-tone telephone, others teleservice centers, INS’s” Ask

mail; audiotext; respond to voice inputs; can save money, but often in Immigration”

automatic call place of service; expert systems require extensive

management; etc. development; many are not TDD-compatible

Facsimile (fax) Can submit or receive forms 24 hours a day, but DOC’s EBB/FAX, NIH’s

requires access to fax machine; more user-friendly and "CancerFax,” Californians

common than computers; ISDN can speed "Taxfax”

transmission; fax/modems allow computers to directly

send to and receive from fax machines

Dial-up services: Can send and retrieve information 24 hours a day, but NTIS’s "FedWorld”; SBA’s "SBA

Electronic bulletin citizen must have access to computer or terminal with a

board services,

on-line”; White House’s e-mail

modem; good for timely information if properly address; IRS’S electronic tax filing

electronic mail updated; information limited to text; cannot be

(e-mail) searched; cost depends on distance and registration

fees: user interfaces are not standardized

Internet and other Similar to above, but require Internet access; cost FDA’s BBS, NASA and NOAA

network services: depends on distance to Internet node and channel databases, Project Hermes

BBSs, e-mail, capacity Supreme Court decisions

databases

Interactive Still in development; demand greatest in offices, USGS’s Joint Education Initiative

multimedia schools, etc. (JEI)

CD-ROM Optical storage; lightweight and easier to search than National Trade Data Bank and

paper; good for information that does not change census data, GPO’s U.S. Code

frequently; dimensions and format fully standard; and Congressional Record, EPA’s

requires CD-ROM drive and personal computer; stores Toxic Chemical Release Inventory,

680 Mbytes journals, and newspapers

Floppy disk Magnetic storage; lightweight and inexpensive like CD- USDA’S Asian trade information,

(diskette) ROMs, but are rewritable, contain less data (2 Mbytes), NLM’s - Grateful MED software,

and the drives are more common; disks can be GPO’s Medicare pricing table

damaged by dust or magnetic fields

Television, Timely; far-reaching; serve many languages; Emergency services, C-SPAN,

videotape, radio, widespread use; closed captions exist for hearing- education channels, talk shows,

print, postal impaired: videotape allows citizen to view when newspapers

convenient; interactive TV may provide on-line or kiosk

features without a personal computer

These technologies are also available m some schools, libraries, and other similar locations

KEY BBS= bulletln board system; CD-ROM= compact disc, read-only memory: DOC=Department of Commerce, EBB/FAX= Electronic

Bulletin BoardTax, EPA= Environmental Protection Agency; FDA=Food and Drug Administration; GPO=U S Government Prmtmg

Off Ice INS=lmmigratlon and Naturahzatlon Service; IRS= Internal Revenue Service; I. SDN=Integrated Services Digital Network,

Mbytes= megabytes, NASA= National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NIH=National Institutes of Health, NLM=Natlonal Library

of Medlcme, NOAA= National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NTIS= National Techmcal Information Service, SBA=Small

Business Admmlstratlon, SSA=Soclal Security Admmlstration; TDD=Telecommunications Dewce for the Deaf, USDA= U S

Department of Agrlcuffure, USGS=U S Geological Survey

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1993
38 I Making Government Work

different towns could share information on electronic bulletin boards.2 Telephone, facsimile,

electronic mail, and postal services also can be

used to inform government decisionmakers of citizens’ interests.3 Likewise, television, radio, press,

and on-line services inform citizens about government decisions.4

Even simple on-line computer services and CDROMS favor owners of personal computers, however, compared to convenient and equitable

toll-free telephone services, mass media, and postal services. Only 17 percent of households own

personal computers; only a fraction of those have

modems for on-line services, although these numbers should grows On-line services could bypass

those who are not computer literate or who cannot

afford computers; the government might therefore

need to provide similar services via government

offices, electronic kiosks, mobile outreach, or

community gatekeepers who, in turn, directly help

individuals.

Telephone and Fax Services

Telephone services offer great convenience,

flexibility, and cost savings if properly implemented. They include a variety of services provided by attendants and recordings, such as using

touchtone input to call up information on the attendant’s computer screen before he or she comes

on the line, or facsimile (fax) services integrated

with computers. If poorly designed or if undue

emphasis is placed on cost savings only, however,

telephone services can produce long waiting

times, inaccurate responses, unwanted voice mail

recordings, and other frustrations, Toll (1-800)

charges can also be very expensive for the government; 1-900 numbers can recover these costs for

certain transactions, but put higher costs on the

citizen. Government agencies have only recently

enhanced some services to make them accessible

to users of TDD (Telecommunications Devices for

the Deaf). About 94 percent of U.S. households

have telephone service, but not all have touchtone

service (although most have touchtone service

available).

Mass Media

Mass media services are particularly important

because they are already in widespread use: televisions are present in over 96 percent of U.S.

households, and videotape players in 72 percent.6

Cable services promise to be more interactive in

the future, possibly allowing on-line computer

services through the television set. About 61 percent of households subscribe to basic cable television service and 97 percent can choose to.7

Citizens who do not have televisions, however,

may be particularly isolated, disenfranchised, or

disadvantaged and in need of government services.

The mass media can also “legitimate” government services for citizens—particularly isolated

2 See U.S. Congres.., Office of Technology Assessment, Rurul America at the Crossroads: Networking jiw the Future, OTA-TCT-472

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1991); and Linkingfhr Learning: A New C(mrsejw Educwi(m, OTA-SET-430

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1989).

3 Telep~W line5 and real] we heavily used to register opinions at the White House and in congress. In the first eight days of the lo~rd

Congress, the congressional switchboard received over 1.6 million calls. In January 1993, the White House announced a public e-mail address

in addition to the existing public telephone number and postal address. The computer memory was soon filled to capacity M citizens sent e-mail

from all over the country. As of March 1993, the computer was receiving an average of 700 messages per day.

4 T~ Libr~ of Congres5 ~ent]y made Wme congre~io~ information available on-line, although full text Of l~@kUiOII Or hearing

schedules are not available. See Stephen Frantzich, Congressional Data Associates, “Electronic Service Delivery and Congress,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1992. The Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access

Enhancement Act of 1993, Public Law 103-40, directs GPO to set up an on-line system for distributing the C[tngre.r.ri(mul Re({vd and the

Fe&ra/ Register to the public.

s U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Adult Literacy and New Technologies: T(xdsflv u Lifetime, OTA-SET-550 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993).

6 Ibid.

7 Dr. Richard R. Green, Cable Television Laboratories, Inc., written testimony at a hearing before the House Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology, Subcommitt& on Technology, Environment, and Aviation, Mar. 23, 1993. The data are from AC, Nielson Co. and Paul Kagan

Associates, Inc.
Chapter 2–information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 39

KOTZ-TV in Kotzebue, Alaska, 30 miles above the

Arctic Circle. Broadcast and cable television stations

in remote areas heavily depend on satellite transmissions to receive programming.

or ethnic populations—in ways that kiosks or service centers cannot. These media act as local partners in delivering information about government

services to community leaders. For example, a

Native American television station in rural Montana or a Korean newspaper in downtown Los

Angeles is often more effective in delivering information about services than the government acting alone.

Bulletin Boards and Computer Networks

Electronic bulletin board systems allow citizens to browse computer menus, files, electronic

mail, on-line conferences, or complete on-line

forms and transactions via a dial-up telephone call

or a nationwide computer network, such as the

Internet. Bulletin boards are easy to set up with

personal computer equipment and telephone lines,

but their contents must be kept current to maintain

interest. Bulletin board systems also do not use

standard user interfaces.

The 175 or more publicly available Federal

bulletin boards8 often are hard to find. Since early

1993, the National Technical Information Service

(NTIS) has operated FedWorld, a bulletin board

that, in turn, provides access to over 100 other

government bulletin boards. The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) maintains the Federal

Bulletin Board—a central source for publications

and notices from several government agencies.

Government bulletin boards are either free or

charge nominal fees;9 some require registration

and a password. Files can be large, however, and

the user may have to pay for an expensive longdistance call while the file is transferred (unless

the information is provided to a local bulletin

board). These long-distance charges can be prohibitive for man y citizens. The government could

provide toll-free access to government dial-up and

Internet services, similar to 1-800 telephone services, to reduce these “metered” communications

charges for citizens.

The Internet is a giant computer network woven

together from many smaller networks and accessible through commercial and noncommercial

providers (see ch. 3). Growth in the number of

users has been phenomenal; it currently includes

over 100 Federal Government networks of varying

sizes, but there is no directory for the government

services provided on these networks. More user-

-friendly applications and interfaces are needed to

make the Internet more personal and accessible to

those who lack sophisticated computer skills. The

government could even provide e-mail attendants

or librarians on-line, similar to the attendants used

for voice calls. The attendants could respond to

questions by e-mail, or by telephone if necessary,

to direct the citizen through the network; help with

difficult computer instructions; or simply answer

questions that bulletin boards and other services

do not. E-mail systems could quickly overload the

8 Charles R. McClure, Rolf T, Wigand, John Carlo Bertot, Mary McKenna, William E. Moen, Joe Ryan, and Stacy B. Veeder, “Federal

Information Policy and Management for Elcc(ronic Service Delivery,” contractor report prepared for the Officx of Technology Assessment,

December 1992, p. 38, There were an cstima[ed 30,000 public bulletin boards in the United States in 1990, and perhaps over 60,000 in 1993.

9 For example, the Department of Commerce’s Economic Bulletin Board costs users $35 per year plus per-minute charges, and receives over

10,000 calls per month.
40 I Making Government Work

government, however, if installed without thought

to the implications for agency workloads.10

Compact Optical Disks

CD-ROMs 11 are particularly effective for reference materials and searchable databases that can

be updated monthly or over longer periods. They

are lightweight compared to an equivalent paper

document, can be delivered by mail, and often cost

$30 per disk or less--over 150 times less per byte

than paper. One CD-ROM contains, and can

search in seconds, over 5 billion bits of data, the

equivalent of an encyclopedia;12 over 100 full

screens of high definition digital images; or a full

movie if compressed and shown on a small part of

the screen. The CD-ROM industry is highly standardized for physical dimensions and formatting.

Table 2-2 shows the time required to transmit the

amount of data that can be stored on a CD-ROM

using several transmission services.

The government should continue to use CDROMs to reduce costs.13 Agencies can publish

CD-ROMs for as low as $800 per master and $2

to $3 per disk, although the full cost is more

typically $15 to $100 per disk when development,

processing, software, and other production costs

are included. In the United States, of approximately 70 million personal computers in homes

and offices, over 1 million have CD-ROM drives.

The price of these drives has dropped to about

$300 from over $1,000. Although there are many

more floppy disk drives, penetration of CD-ROM

drives is increasing rapidly, and the CD-ROM

drives store much more memory (but are not rewritable). WORM (write-once read-many times)

and magneto-optic disks use nonstandard formats

and therefore are not suitable for publishing. Many

techniques, such as animation, exist to implement

multimedia using CD-ROMs; no standards have

Table 2-2—Time Required To Transmit Data on CD-ROM

Type of telecommunication Rate Approximate time

service (bits per second) required

1,200 bps modem 1,200 2 months

9,600 bps modem 9,600 1 week

ISDN 64,000 1 day

T1 1.544 million 1 hour

T3 45 million 2 minutes

SONET OC-48 2.488 billion 2 seconds

Time required to transmit the amount of data that can be stored on a CD-ROM using various

telecommunication services. The times are rounded to simplify understanding. One CD-ROM per

month is equivalent to a “data rate” of about 1,540 bits per second, or roughly the amount of data

that can be transmitted over a 1,200 bps modem running 24 hours per day for 2 months ISDN,

OC-48, T1, and T3 are commercial transmission services.

KEY: bps=bits per second; ISDN=lntegrated Services Digital Network: SONET=Synchronous

Optical Network.

SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

10 The Smta Monjca pEN system j~]U&S e]wtronjc mail and has increased the workload of city staff. The city, nevertheless, feels that

electronic mail and on-line discussions atlow the city government to hear from a greater diversity of citizens, and have improved city

management.

11 CD-ROM sta~s for comPct djsk with read-only memory. Musical compact disks, or simply CDs, are also read-only, but the ROM

designation implies that the CD-ROM is used with a personal computer. To further complicate terminology, WORM (Write-once read-many

times memory) refers to similar technology, but is formatted differently.

12 The fJ#ord Eng/i$h Dictio~~ is available in 20 paper volumes weighing 137 pounds and costing $2,750, or on one CD-ROM for $875.

The CD-ROM can search any of the 615,500 words and 2.4 million quotations in seconds.

IS A~ncjes she jnfomatlon through the (j,soo-mem~r” Special Interest Group on CD-ROM Applications and Technology (SIGCA’O\

sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey until 1993.
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 41

emerged, however, and the government should

take a cautious approach to these new developments.

Interactive Multimedia

Advances in personal computers and broadband communications promise more ’’interactive

multimedia’’ applications in homes, schools, and

particularly offices. The main technological barriers—the need for audio and video processing in

personal computers, development of new applications, and standards to help the industry move

ahead smoothly—appear to be surmountable.

While these multimedia workstations may have

great potential for work, education, audio-visual

retrieval in libraries, and so forth, it is unlikely that

most citizens will need or be able to afford such

advanced services in the home in the near future.

Demand will likely grow considerably in the midto long-term, however.

~ Neighborhood Electronic Kiosks

Electronic kiosks are interactive multimedia

computer stations placed in central locations, particularly shopping malls or one-stop service centers, libraries, post offices, senior citizens’ centers,

campuses, public housing complexes, and clinics

(see table 2-3), Kiosks can substitute for a trip to

a government office, several investigative telephone calls, or transactions by mail, and can be

accessed after hours and on weekends. They have

preprogrammed video and sound like a television;

they are user-friendly and may have a printer like

an automated teller machine (ATM); and they

have graphics and expert system software like a

computer. Usually, the monitor is “interactive”; by

touching the TV screen, the user can respond

directly and simply to the questions posed by the

computer. Some kiosks have a slot that accepts

credit cards for fee-based services.

Citizens who have difficulty communicating,

or are simply curious, may find that requesting

information from a kiosk is friendlier than over the

telephone or in person. People can browse at any

pace or several times if necessary. Many citizens

have said they are more comfortable providing

personal information to a computer than to a public employee, and feel that the computer treats

them more fairly and consistently. Kiosks often

provide information in several languages; in Hawaii, for example, the Hawaii Access project operates in English, Samoan, and Ilocano. People

also can avoid long waits in line for government

services; almost 60 percent of 60,000 queries in

the initial State of California InfoCalifornia kiosk

pilot program were made after normal working

hours or on weekends.

Table 2-3—Types of Electronic Kiosks: Key Characteristics and Selected Applications

Type of kiosk Key characteristics Selected applications

Off-line, For information that does not need updating; GSA’s Central Office Building

Stand-alone no telecommunications costs directory

Off-line. Polled Can update Information, and retrieve queries USPS’s "Postal Buddy”;

and survey results over a telephone line and "24-Hour City Hall”

modem at night

On-line Can process information immediately; can Tulare County, CA’s "Tulare

update rules and software in central Touch”; State of California’s

computer; requires dedicated telephone line "Info California”

and central computer capacity.

On-line On-line, but can also collect money via credit Long Beach, CA’s "Auto Clerk";

Transactional or debit cards for bills and services State of California’s

“InfoCalifornia"

KEY GSA= General Services Admimstratlon, USPS=U S Postal Serwce

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993
42 I Making Government Work

An important inhibitor is the initial cost required for kiosks. Kiosks used in pilot projects

typically cost from $15,000 to $25,000, including

hardware, software, and a vandal-proof enclosure.

Application development for a kiosk project could

cost an additional $50,000 to $200,000 or more.

This cost includes customizing the software for the

specific application and making video segments

for a laser disk. Different agencies and levels of

government should share kiosks, therefore, to reduce costs, for the convenience of the citizens, and

to avoid competing for space in central areas.

Sometimes costs can be recovered through reduced demands on government staff, however.

The Long Beach, CA Auto Clerk system cost

about $500,000 and is expected to pay for itself in

2 to 5 years. The U.S. Postal Service estimates that

10,000 proposed “Postal Buddy” kiosks could

save $35 million to $50 million on its 42 million

address changes each year. The Tulare County,

CA “Tulare Touch” cost $3.2 million for 30 kiosks

in 6 welfare offices (the kiosks themselves are

$15,000 each, plus development costs), and is

expected to save at least $1 million per year.14

Besides reducing staff costs, savings also accrue

through reduced errors and improved employee

productivity. 15 Reducing routine tasks for agency

staff also frees up time to address problems that

require special attention.

Critics claim that kiosks often do not fill a

significant demand and that frequently the information they provide is not kept current. Some feel

that kiosk applications that do not clearly reduce

government expenses are not justifiable. Kiosk

designs may also exclude visually impaired or

deaf citizens, or those who use wheelchairs; thorough planning and standards are needed to ensure

that kiosks are designed to meet the needs of most

potential users.

Another inhibitor is that kiosks are not standardized, making it difficult for Federal agencies to

share kiosks. State and local governments increasingly are using kiosks to combine services,16 but

use different designs and do not all accept information in the same format. The Federal Government could provide information to these State and

local kiosks in a common or standard format,

similar to providing CD-ROMs in a standard format suitable for libraries. Federal agencies could

distribute these standard packages at cost through

NTIS, GPO, or another agency. Commercial vendors may be in the best position to standardize the

kiosk operating systems, since the industry is developing quickly. The government could collaborate with industry in developing a standard format

through the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) or an interagency committee.

Instead of multipurpose kiosks, businesses and

the Federal Government are testing kiosks for

specific niche applications. The U.S. Postal Service’s “Postal Buddy” makes address changes, dispenses stamps, and provides other postal services.

The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social

Security Administration are pilot-testing kiosks

for service delivery, and are collaborating with the

Postal Service on a multiagency kiosk. The success of such Federal kiosk programs is unclear.

1 Community One-Stop Service Centers

The One-Stop Concept

In many cases, the Federal Government could

consolidate its service delivery into centers shared

14 The savjn& in st~f tim we comiderable. The kiosks current] y process 83 percent of their 45,000 Aid to Families with ~pendent Children

(AFDC) cases and 16,000 food stamp cases, and the county intends to add 30,000 MediCal cases to the system. The county receives 250 to 350

applications per day, with each application requiring from 15 minutes to 2 hours of staff time.

15 For exmp]e, ~though emor rates we di fficu][ to quanti fy, the Tulare Touch staff found that the error rate from Staff processing On we]fMe

submissions dropped from 38 percent before using kiosks to zero after kiosks, based on 200 cases tested with each system. Tuhre Touch is also

credited with reducing staff turnover from 37 percent to 12 percent.

16 ~~ic Tec~oloH, Inc. hm helped t. implement ~ver~ “zA-Hour City Hall” projects in partnership with IBM. Examples incluk the

Phoenix, AZ “Phoenix at Your Fingertips,” and the Kansas City, MO “City Hall in the Mall .“ Public Technology, Inc. is a nonprofit arm of the

National League of Cities, the International City-County Management Association, and the National Association of Counties.
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 43

by related agencies, including State and local government agencies.17 In this way, agencies could

share expensive technology not otherwise affordable, and gain synergy from improved cooperation

(see table 2-4). For the recipient, such centers save

effort, reduce the “run-around,” and provide more

complete, better quality services. The service center could be in a Federal building, city hall, or other

convenient location as space and budget allow.

Agencies can fully colocate their offices, simply

send representatives to an appropriate location to

help the public directly, or have a “virtual” onestop center using desktop conferencing.

The main concept behind the one-stop service

center is not technological, but one of public

administration—it makes government more human and personal. Considerate, human contact

between agency representatives and citizens is

very important. If one agency cannot help a citizen, the employee can direct the citizen to the

appropriate agency “down the hall.” Agencies

working together can avoid traps that catch unwary citizens who do not receive appropriate assistance. Hillsborough County, FL; Boston, MA;

and the State of Delaware have established onestop shopping methods for medical care.18 Similar

coordination is the aim of the Department of

Agriculture’s “Infoshare” program. The City of

Everett, WA, placed an office in a shopping mall

(“City Hall at the Mall”) for citizens to pay bills

Table 2-4—One-Stop Service Centera Technologies: Key Characteristics

Technology Key characteristics

Audio conferencing Simple: relatively inexpensive; sufficient when no data or graphics are presented

Room-scale Full-motion analog (6 MHz) one-way or two-way transmission best for one-to-many

videoconferencing applications like distance education: two-way transmission cost is decreasing, but is

wideband still expensive for small groups due to setup cost

Room-scale Uses compression algorithms to reduce video bandwidth to 64 to 768 kbps

videoconferencing depending on application; transmission is one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many,

compressed audio may not be synchronous; good for distance education or meetings, users

include Congress, EPA, GSA, DoD; equipment costs about $30,000 to $60,000 per

Iocation, and cost is decreasing

Desktop text- and Combine personal computers and video compression; bandwidth can be reduced to

videoconferencing and 64 or 128 kbps using ISDN or LANs; excellent for text-conferencing, video image IS

multimedia small and jerky; equipment costs about $5000 per location and is decreasing

GIS telephone Agencies can consolidate and share equipment such as GIS, PBX telephonesystems, etc. switching equipment, or FTS2000 capacity

Kiosks Can process citizen inquiries

CD-ROMs on-line Provide access for those who do not have personal computers; may require

services, etc. attendant to help users

d 1 he one stop center here IS not synonymous with a kiosk, the center may or may not Include a kiosk

KEY CD ROh!= compact disk, read only memory DoD=Deparlmenl of Defense, EPA= Environmental ProtectIon Agency,

F T SXK~rl=the Federal Iong-distance telecommunications program; GIS=Geographlcal Information Systems, GSA= General

Services Adrnlnlstratmn, ISDN=lntegrated Services Dlgrtal Network, kbps=klloblts per second, LANs=local area networks,

MHz=megaherlz, PBX=publlc branch exchange

S[)LJHCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1993

IT Som ~ople refer t. electronic kiosk.. as one-stop centers, but a distinction is made in this report. Here, a one-stop ser~’ice center might

include a kiosk as parl of its services.

IS Na(low] Commlsslon t. preven[ [nf~{ Mortality, “One-Stop Shopping for infants and pregnant ‘omen! “ Puh[i~ Wel@re, vol. 50, No. 1,

winter 1992, p. 26.
44 I Making Government Work

and carry out other transactions.19 Several other

countries have various degrees of one-stop centers

in place, including Canada’s InfoCentres and

Business Service Centres, Denmark’s “electronic

cottages,” and France’s “single window” project.20

In addition to office expenses and videoconferencing costs, agencies also could share costs for

upgrades to local telecommunications equipment

such as PBX switches, or geographic information

systems (GIS) for resource management and other

uses. Agencies also could consolidate or upgrade

telecommunications channels to reduce total

costs.

Room-Scale Videoconferencing

Room-scale videoconferencing favors sites

where there are many people or many different

agencies or functions, as opposed to a small office

with a single function. For example, a conferencing room could be used for military reserve training on weekends, distance education for local

citizens during weekday evenings, and employee

training or meetings during working hours. Public

health clinics could use it for telemedicine, or law

enforcement officers for remote arraignment procedures. Congress has used videoconferencing in

some pilot hearings and town hall meetings.21,22,23

The conferencing industry is growing at the rate

of several thousand new installations per year;

some corporations have dozens of sites. At the end

of 1991, over 5,000 videoconferencing rooms

were in active use in North America.

Videoconferencing saves direct travel expenses, improves productivity, and eliminates

traveling time. Travel is often still important,

however, to truly understand another’s environment and to get out of one’s own. Videoconferencing also requires new communication skills and

has some drawbacks. For example, automatic

camera operation can be distracting for the viewer,

hearing can be difficult, first-time participants are

often uncomfortable, and groups can appear disorganized.

Desktop Conferencing and interactive Multimedia

Desktop conferencing is the less expensive personal computing version of text- and videoconferencing limited to two or three people at a

time—more or less “one-t o-one.” More important

and less expensive than the video are its text- and

audio-conferencing features, That is, two people

in different offices can work on the same text or

graphics simultaneously using computers linked

together through local area networks (LANs).

Store-and-forward technology may even one day

allow people to exchange videoconferences and

text files like electronic mail. Similar to electronic

kiosks but more flexible, desktop videoconferencing is part of “interactive multimedia"24—the integration of sound, text, compressed video, and

graphics in one terminal, using inputs from the

user. This technology is advancing quickly, and is

only limited by the development of standards and

new applications.

19 The city noted that v~er regis~ation ra(es were almost four times higher after the field office was opened. See Eben Shapiro, “Even CitY

Hall Has Moved to the Mall,” New York Times, July 30, 1992, p. D1.

ZO s= “A~inis&ation ~ Semlce: T~ public as client,” OECD Observer, June 1987, p. 10, ~d other studies by the Organization of

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

21 The us, HOU~ of Rep~sent~ives has equipped six hearing rooms with cable for videoconferencing, and hm conducted several hetuings

using videoconferencing. Its real value may be to receive more testimony from individuals “outside the Beltway.” U.S. Congress, House

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, “Video Teleconferencing, A Congressional Demonstration Project,” forthcoming. Also see

Fred B, Wood, Vary T. Coates, Robert L. Chartrand, and Richard F. Ericson, “Videoconferencing Via Satellite: Opening Congress to the

People,” the George Washington University Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology, April 1979.

22 Awncitishe infmation and prom~e standardization of equipment through the Video Conferencing Working Group under the

Interagency Information Resources Management Infrastructure Task Group.

23 The Geneml ACCO~[ing office found, in a (j-month pilot test, that videoconferencing was very effective, and saved $31,000 in travel

expenses alone by eliminating 39 trips between Seattle, WA and Washington, DC. See U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Vi&o

Teleconferencing-GAO’s Pilot Test, GAO/OIMC-92-l (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office, December 1991).

x Sw the March ]993 iss~ of ]EEE .$pectr~ and the May 1992 issue of IEEE Communicuti(m~ Muguzine for a discussion of multimedia.
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 45

Doctors already use such multimedia workstations with large high-definition monitors to diagnose patients in distant hospitals or to receive

medical records. Employees and citizens could

use multimedia desktop conferencing for distance

education and training, or for viewing library

documents. 25 Government employees could use

conferencing for small meetings between regional

offices instead of traveling, telephoning, or using

electronic mail. In the future, government and

other telecommuters could use desktop conferencing to create a “virtual office” at home; that is, they

can contact co-workers and work together as if

they were in the same office.

Agencies could use desktop conferencing to

form a “virtual one-stop service center” if they

cannot physically colocate. That is, when a citizen

visits one office, the agency representative could

contact other Federal, State, or local workers

through a desktop conference to consult or save

the person a trip. A telephone conference call

could also be used, but the desktop conference

would be more personal and engaging because the

participants actually see one another. In addition,

text or forms can be exchanged electronically, as

can be done using the U.S. Public Health Service’s

“Community Services Network” pilot project.

Coordination and Logistics

The primary inhibitor of the one-stop service

center is the cooperation it requires among traditionally competing agencies; it is a striking example of the importance of Federal-State-local

partnerships. A one-stop center requires careful

planning, teamwork, cross-training, and joint

management. 26 Planners must assess the needs of

the particular community. One-stop shopping will

not always work for many rural Americans, nonEnglish speakers, the homeless, illiterate Americans, children in need, and so forth because they

are unaware of the services provided, disenfranchised, too remote, or too busy to participate.27

Another inhibitor is simply logistics. Centralized office space is a good idea, but often is not

available or affordable. Long-term leases expire at

irregular intervals; moving costs can be high.

While many citizens may find the new service

center simpler and more convenient, others may

have to travel further for a particular service. As

an intermediate step, agencies could send representatives periodically or full-time to a central

point to help the public and work with other agencies, or create the “virtual one-stop centers” described above.

1 Mobile Access

A number of technologies could provide mobile

access to government services (see table 2-5). For

example, Federal workers could be contacted by

telephone or computer while out of the office;

satellites could deliver distance education to

agency staff; and new mobile computer technology could allow workers to process forms and

retrieve data without returning to the office. Mobile services are used by emergency and law enforcement officials, but also might be beneficial to

human services caseworkers.

A new mobile application might involve a

“Service Center on Wheels” or “Mobile One-Stop

Service Center” that combines many functions in

a truck or van and uses satellite or land-based

receiving equipment. Such a mobile service center

might include portable or laptop computers with

CD-ROM drives, or wireless modem or ISDN

communications. Portable electronic kiosks could

be installed quickly in emergency situations. The

one-stop service center, in partnership with State

and local governments, might manage such mobile services.

2S me Librwy of congress in Washington, DC, has a Na[ion~ Demonstration Laboratory that showcases such new t~hnologies. Inclu~d

is the American Memory Project for electronically disseminating all types of media-first in CD-ROM and liner disks, and later on-line.

26 For exmp]e, see Marilee C. ‘istI “One-Stop Shopping for Student Social Services,” The Educuti(m Digest, vol. 58, No. 1, Sep(ember

1992, p. ] 2,

27 Gmdm Lan&s, ‘*A state view of Om.stop Shopping,” Pub/lc We/fU~e, VO]. 50, No. ] , winter 1992, p. 35.
46 I Making Government Work

Table 2-5—Mobile Service Delivery Technologies: Key Characteristics

and Selected Applications

Technology Key characteristics Selected applications

Cellular telephony Operates in 1-to 50-mile diameter” cells”; currently Case- and field-workers,

and data analog but converting to digital: limited to areas that mobile service centers

have transmitters

Personal In trial stage; include technologies using microcells Office buildings, hospitals,

communication and personal communication networks (PCNs) etc., where user density is

services (PCSs) lame

Portable computers, Allow office to be mobile; new features include Case- and field-workers,

laptops, electronic modems and CD-ROM readers; some have limited mobile service centers

notebooks pen-based input: "personal communicators”

promise to combine computing with wireless

telephone, fax, and data’

Portable electronic Could be deployed in distressed areas to provide Emergency services

kiosks information or process applications for services

Transportable earth Satellite dishes for all types of telecommunications Emergency services,

stations, very small (voice, data, and video) in remote or mobile mobile service center,

aperture terminals locations where cables or land-based antennas are distance education,

(VSAT) not effective; very useful for broadcast videoconferencing

LEO satellite service Proposes national or global data and telephone Case- and field-workers,

coverage beyond range of terrestrial systems; under emergency services, GPS

development services

GPS receivers New compact receivers allow placement in small Navigation, positioning,

aircraft, boats, cars, and trains; over 1 million traffic control

commercial users estimated by the year 2000

KEY GPS=Global Positioning Satellite; LEO= Low-Earth Orbit

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993

The major strength of mobile service delivery

is its outreach capability. A service center on

wheels can help those isolated by distance, disabilities, language, education, illness, age, economic level, the need to care for others, or other

limitations. As with the fixed service centers, the

most important mobile service is a human one, and

the technology only helps the worker to perform

tasks and extend the office to the field.

Mobile communication28 includes radio telephones, pagers, cordless telephones for the home,

CB radios, private dispatch networks, cellular telephones, air-to-ground telephone services, oneway and two-way satellite services, and the

proposed personal communication services

(PCS) .29 The Federal Government obtains its mobile communications through both the National

Telecommunications and Information AdminiZ8 For ~ ~udy of ~Fctm allocations, including mobile communications, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The 1992

WorldAdministrative Rudio Cor$erence: Issuesf(m U.S. Internutionul Spectrum Policy, OTA-BP-TCT-76 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, Noveml?er 1991). See also U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference:

Technology and Po/icy Implications, OTA-TCT-S49 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1993).

m The fmi]y of ~rsom] mobi]e communications is sometimes called Personal Communication Services (PCS), but PCS alSO refers to a

specific frequency allocation for cettain new and evolving technologies, including what is sometimes referred to as Personal Communications

N~works (PCNS). PCNS would use microcells and digitaJ signaling. The combination of mobile communications, fixed telephones, and

intelligent networks suggests a proposed service that assigns an identifier to each user, rather than to each piece of equipment. In principle, one
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 47

stration’s (NTIA’s) allocations (air traffic control,

law enforcement, maritime, military, etc.) and

through the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) allocations to private enterprise.30

An agency can purchase commercial cellular telephone service in the same way it purchases a fixed

telephone line for an office--directly from commercial vendors,

The wider use of cellular telephones for delivering government services is inhibited by

uneven and expensive access. Over 90 percent of

the U.S. population can access cellular service, but

on] y 60 percent of the land area, excluding Alaska,

is covered.31 Many small rural markets with the

greatest need for mobile service delivery cannot

access cellular service. The proposed low earth

orbit (LEO) satellites promise to supplement these

holes in land-based cellular service by directly

transmitting to and receiving from small handsets.

The proposed systems would be very expensive to

build, however, and would have to compete with

existing cellular systems or generate profits in

regions currently considered unprofitable for

land-based cellular telephony.32

H Stores and Banks—Electronic Benefits

Transfer (EBT)

What Is EBT?

Electronic benefits transfer (EBT) is defined

here as monetary (or in-kind) government benefits

delivered electronically directly to the citizen, or

on behalf of the citizen, through the use of an

electronic funds transfer network, point-of-sale

(POS) technology, and automated teller machines

(ATMs). EBT includes electronic funds transfer

(EFT) between banks for direct deposit of Social

Security checks. Direct deposit is the least expensive form of benefits transfer,33 but many recipients do not have bank accounts. EBT also includes

cards, similar to bank money cards, which can be

used to debit government benefits accounts and

therefore can be used to replace paper checks or

food stamp coupons. The benefits and costs of

EBT are discussed more fully in chapter 4.

The use of cards to deliver benefits reduces

human errors, paperwork, and delays. Recipients

are identified through the use of passwords and

transactions are encrypted, reducing fraud and

counterfeiting. Portable and secure off-line cards

can also reduce the need for large central on-line

databases, such as those containing medical records or benefits.34 Perhaps most important, servwould call a unique number to locate someone, and the network would automatically track (he person. This proposed integration is known as

Universal Personal Telecommunications (UPT), or the personal numbering system, For a review of glohd and national activity in PCN and

PCS, see Bennett A. Kobb, “Personal Wireless,” IEEE Spectrum, June 1993, and the June and December 1992 issues of IEEE Communications

Magazine. SIX also George Brody and Jack Wasserman, “Evolving Voice Technologies for PCS,” B~rine.w C[)mn~uni(~i[m.v Ret’ie~’, April

1992, p. 34.

30 me Cellulw R~lo Working Group of [he lnteravncy Information Resource Management Infrastructure Task Group acts to sh~

information artd evaluate government needs for member agencies.

31 U$S. Cm=ss, office of Technology Assessment, The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference: Technolo~Fy and poli[>t Impiicatiorw op. cit., footnote 28, p. 12S,

32 Since cellulW telepho~ Conversa[iom wme[im~s can be overheard by other users, the government’s use of commercial celhdw telephones

requires added security. See Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., ‘The Implication.. of Digital Cellular Communications for NS/EP [National Security

and Emergency Preparedness] Telecommunicate ens,” contractor report prepared for the Office of the Manager, National Communications

System, May 14, 1992.

33 For examp]e, Fmsm Cmnty, CA, rep~~ dir~t costs of 12 cents per transaction versus 49 Cents Per check. Fifiy-fow Percent of soci~

security recipients current] y receive benefits by direct deposit, See John Harris, Alan F. Westin, and Anne L. Finger, Reference Point Foundation,

“Innovations for Federal Service,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, February 1993,

~ A he~th cm cWd might have sever~ applications —l[ might direc([y pay for ceflain services, such as prescription (hgS; it might act a..

a common front-end to many incompatible systems to improve processing, but without completely eliminating paper or on-line verification; or

it might contain medical information immediately accessible in case of emergency or as a check against errors when prescribing medications.

A primary issue regarding health care applications concerm the privacy of centralized medical records. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment, Privacy Rights in Computerized Med”cal Information, forthcoming, See also U.S. Congress, Offim of Technology Assessment,

Electronic I?ecord Systems arrdlndividual Privacy, OTA-CJT-296 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1986).
48 I Making Government Work

ice recipients like benefit cards because they

eliminate the stigma associated with food stamp

coupons or public assistance checks, and they save

time.

Types of EBT Cards

Table 2-6 displays basic characteristics of the

card technologies; hybrid cards that combine the

characteristics of magnetic stripe cards and either

integrated circuit or optical cards are also possible.

35,36 In this report, microprocessor/smart

cards (or simply smart cards) are those using

integrated circuits with microprocessing capabilTable 2-6-Types of Card Technologies: Key

ity and some memory. A smart card has an actual

computer chip embedded in it, allowing the card

itself to make independent calculations. It is literally a portable computer, but the POS terminal

provides the power supply, keyboard, and display.

Even if an unauthorized user could read the data

in the smart-card memory, the data are encrypted

and the computer chip itself is virtually impossible

to duplicate.

The smart card can be designed so that only the

issuer can access some data in its memory (for

recordkeeping), only the user for other data (acCharacteristics and Selected Applications

Card type Key characteristics Selected applications

Magnetic stripe Inexpensive ($0,20 to $1 per card); ubiquitous On-line: bank cards, credit

terminals-- good for on-line systems; some are cards, CA driver’s license,

rewritable; small data storage (1 to 7 kbits); AR’s Medicare card, several

easily copied or altered food stamp pilots, Off-line:

subway farecards

Memory-only Functions like magnetic stripe card but has Off-line: telephone debit

(integrated circuit) more memory (100 bits to 64 kbits), is more cards; Arlington County, VA’s

expensive ($1 to $6 per card), and is more "Parkulator" parking card

difficult to copy; some are rewritable

Smart (integrated Includes computing and encryption-- good for Off-line: WY’s WyoCard for

circuit) off-line systems; more storage than magnetic WIC benefits; Montgomery

stripe card (2 to 8 kbits); is more expensive ($5 County, OH’s food stamp

to $25 per card): more difficult to copy; card

rewritable

Optical Large data storage (30 Mbits); not rewritable; $5 Reference materials in

to $20 per card, but readers are expensive portable computers, medical

($1,500 to $4,000 apiece) and require precise records, biometrics

and frequent calibration; uses technology similar

to CD-ROMs

PCMCIA Memory Not practical for EBT; large data storage (20 to Backup, add-ens for personal

(integrated circuit 40 Mbits); rewritable; $100 to $650 per card computers

with connector)

Hybrid cards that combine magnetic stripes with integraled circuit or optical cards are also possible,

KEY AR= Arkansas; CA= California; CD-ROM= compact disc, read-only memory; EBT=electronic benefits transfer;

kbits=kilobits; Mbits= megabits; OH= Ohio; PCMCIA= Personal Computer Memory Card Industry Association,

VA= Virginia; WIC=Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WY= Wyommg

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment, 1993

35 For mm inf~ation on card technologies and their applications, see Jerome Svigals, Smart Caruk: The New Bank Cards (New York,

NY: Macmillan, 1987).

~ EBT is promoted within the l+&r~ Government by the Interagency EBT Steering Committee, co-chaired by the ~partment of the

Treasury and the Department of Agriculture. The Smart Card Users Group is a larger group for sharing information about all types of card

technologies.
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 49

count balances), only store personnel for other

information (transaction data), and perhaps only

fourth parties for yet other information (e.g., allergies or drug prescriptions).

The physical layout and many other features of

the smart card are standardized. The operating

systems and application programs currently are

not standardized, but could be soon (or the POS

terminals could be designed to read different systems). Then only the smart cards themselves

would need to be upgraded whenever new services

are added to an existing card,

An integrated circuit (IC) memory card (or

simply memory-only card37) has an integratedcircuit chip with more or less memory than a smart

card, but without microprocessor capability. This

card operates in an on-line system similar to a

magnetic stripe card, but it looks exactly like a

smart card (and is sometimes called a smart card

by vendors). It does not offer the security features

of the smart card, nor the low cost or the ubiquitous

readers associated with the magnetic stripe card.

The familiar magnetic stripe cards used in

ATMs and POS terminals are standardized, although more advanced proprietary versions also

exist. The terminals are becoming widely available in stores where citizens use their government

benefits. Magnetic stripe cards require a password; the stored data are not encrypted, however,

and the card is easily duplicated with inexpensive

($50) parts, making it less secure,

Implementation Issues

Besides the different cards, there are also different configurations of EBT systems—fully offline, polled off-line, on-line to a central computer,

selective on-line, on-line to many diverse systems

(a common front-end), or selective on-line (see

table 2-7). All the cards can function in any of

these configurations, but each card has certain

strengths and weaknesses depending on the application. The common front-end approach allows art

intermediate solution in applications where there

are many noninteroperable systems, such as in the

health care industry.

Other EBT issues concern overall implementation, rather than selection of a specific card or

system (see ch. 4). For example, paper food stamp

coupons are costly for States to distribute, stores

and banks to handle, and for recipients who must

go to the government office and wait in line. EBT

may shift more of the relative cost from recipients,

stores, and banks to the Federal and State Governments, which in turn affects the overall cost determination. Some of this cost could be shared among

these partners, or an EBT system might “piggyback” with the existing banking network of ATMs

and POS terminals.

I Electronic Commerce and Electronic

Data Interchange (EDI)

What Is Electronic Commerce and EDI?

Both electronic commerce and electronic benefits transfer remove the paper from transactions.38

The difference is that electronic commerce applies

to government trade with businesses—perhaps

health care providers, contractors, or regulators—

whereas EBT applies to monetary public assistance transactions provided to citizens using cards,

POS terminals, or ATMs. Electronic commerce

and EBT may overlap in many cases; for example,

if they are used for both recipients and health care

providers in the Medicare program. Electronic

commerce may also overlap with other points of

access, particularly homes and offices. Table 2-8

shows the components of electronic commerce

and their characteristics.

37 ~eSe ~emw ~ti~ shw]d not ~ confused with PCMCIA memory cards used M add-on hardware or memory backup f~ person~

computers. SuctI cards correspond to standards devised by the Personal Computer Memory Card Industry Association (PCMCIA) and are ncx

appropriate for EBT.

38 S= Benjamin Wright, The LUW of Hec(ronic Commerce: EDI, Far, and E-ma’/ (Boston, MA: Little, Brown md CO., 199 1), and B@~in

Wright, “Contracts Without Paper,” Technology Review, vol. 95, No. 5, July 1992, p. 57. See also Enc Arnum, “New Specs, Broader Boundaries

for EDI,” Business Communicu/i{m.f Review, February 1993, p. 40; and Michael S. Baum and Henry H. Perntt, Jr., Electronic Comructing,

Publishing, and EDI Luw (New York, NY: Wiley Law Publications, 1991).
50 I Making Government Work

Table 2-7—Types of EBT System Configurations: Key Characteristics

and Selected Applications

Configuration Key characteristics Selected applications

Full off-line No connections to other computers; no Subway farecards and hotel keys

communication or transaction costs (magnetic stripe), telephone debit

cards (memory-only card),

biometrics (optical card)

Off-l in- polled Off-line, but terminal collects transactions for later Wyoming’s WyoCard for WIC

transmission to central computer; no verification benefits (smart card); Dayton,

delays; low transmission and transaction costs Ohio’s food stamps (smart card)

On-line central Decisions made at a central computer; requires Bank cards, Maryland’s benefits

computer continuous or dial-up connection to verify card, Arkansas’ Medicare card

passwords and complete transactions; changes

can be up to the minute; favors inexpensive

magnetic stripe cards since memory or secure

storage is not a factor

On-line- selective Routine decisions made off-line, but some French bank cards

decisions made on-line

On-line- The "common front end”; allows many diverse Health care providers, interagency

independent systems to read one simplified card to avoid or interprogram card-- the card

computers overhauling many systems; added security since used depends on memory, cost,

there is no central computer or interoperability and security needed

between systems

Any of the cards can be used in any of the configurations, but some applications favor certain cards

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

EDI refers to the electronic transfer of business

information in a standardized electronic form between parties. EDI includes a body of standards

and applies to nonmonetary transactions. The

transfer can involve trading personal computer

diskettes by mail, dial-up of a central computer by

modem, or direct personal or mainframe computer-to-computer links. EDI is not simply a way

of transmitting a paper document via computer.

Documents are customized to take advantage of

the strengths of the computer and might never be

seen by human eyes, although electronic mail or

facsimile is often used in lieu of fully computerized transactions.

EDI Costs and Savings

The main strengths of electronic commerce and

EDI are improved management and service, and

reduced costs and errors for data entry, mailing,

and handling and storage of paper. Agencies and

vendors can streamline and standardize forms and

improve inventory control. Electronic commerce

includes “just-in-time” delivery; computers may

approve bids and make orders, bills, and payments, all automatically. Cost savings add up; in

1990, EFT cost 4.5 cents per transaction, versus

30.2 cents per paper check.39 Direct Federal payments of 360 million benefits in 1989 using EFT

saved $94 million. The Department of Housing

and Urban Development expects to save up to

$12 million annually using EDI to process

$4.7 billion in mortgage claims.40 The U.S. Customs Service uses electronic declarations for

92 percent of all declarations, 29 percent of which

are totally paperless. Forty percent of its $20 billion annual collections are electronic, saving over

$500 million annually in transaction and person39 office of M~gement and Budget, A Five-yeur Plan fwhfeetin~ the Automatic Data Processing and Telecommunication Needs of the

Fe&raf Government, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1990), p. 11-21.

@ J&n MWE, “HUD P]amq EDI pilot TO Process Mortgages,” Fe&raf Computer Week, Aug. 24, 1992, p. 1.
Chapter 2--information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 151

Table 2-8—Electronic Commerce Technologies: Key Characteristics

and Selected Applications

Technology Key characteristics Selected applications

Electronic data Non monetary electronic document transfers using Invoices, delivery reports,

interchange (EDI) the Xl 2 or UN/EDIFACT standards: some wider tariff filings, customs

definitions include nonstandard or proprietary declarations, tax forms,

formats, monetary transactions, or text-based insurance claims

systems such as electronic mail or fax

Electronic funds Monetary electronic transactions using standards Direct deposits, interbank

transfer (EFT) developed in the banking industry transfers, ATM

transactions

Electronic mail and E-mail can transport EDI documents, and internal SEC’s EDGAR system

other ASCII text-based and business correspondence; text-based systems

systems in general are not designed for computer processing

Computer-aided Similar to EDI, but used for engineering information Technical drawings,

acquisition and that uses computer-aided design manuals, engineering

logistics systems data

Universal product Reduce keystrokes and errors: new "portable data Inventory control, delivery

codes (bar codes) files’” store 100 times the bar-code information in a documents

two-dimensional block of dots

Imaging Digitizes paper documents: advanced imagers can Conversion of mail fax

Interpret typewritten and sometimes handwritten documents, tax forms,

messages, relatively expensive and letters

Electronic archiving Includes storage of all documents in electronic form All documents and

messages

Facsimile (fax) Does not eliminate paper, but IS widely used; high- Same as for EDI

speed fax requires digital telephone service

Some of fhese fechnologles overlap, for example Imaging can be used to store fax documents m electronic archwes

KEY ATM= Automated Teller Machtne, EDGAR= Electronic Data Gathering, Analysls, and Retrieval, SEC= Securities and

Exchange Comml$slon

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1993

nel costs.41 The Environmental Protection Agency may save several bill ion dollars annually in annual

expects to speed up the processing of hazardous health insurance administration costs.43

waste reports and save $10 million to $15 million EDI is most useful for repetitive and standard

per year, with a setup cost of $1 million and oper- transactions; the government will benefit by larger

ating costs of $5 million to $10 million per year.42 penetration of EDI into its daily business.44 In

Widespread use of EDI in the health care industry practice, EDI is often just another interface to

41 R&~ W, Ehl inger, “U.S. Customs Service and ED1,” EDI World, vol. 2, No. 8, August 1992, p. 27,

42 Shawn p, McC~hy, “EDI speeds Up Transfer of Environmntd Dm “ Government Computer News, Feb. 1, 1993, p. 54.

43 wOrk~rmp fw Electronic ~ata ]n(~~~h~n~e (WED]), re~rf to [he secret~y Of the US, Depmmertt Of Health and HUITlalt SetVICeS, J(lly

1992, Another study cosponsored by telephone industry companies found that electronic claims-processing alone could save $6 billion in the

health care industry. Mark K. Schneider, Nancy Mann, and Arthur Schiller, Arthur D. Little, “Can Telecommunications Help Solve America’s

Health Care Problems?” July 1992.

44 over 2~,)00 ~overnment ~on[ractors and vendors make 2 ] ml]]lon transactions ~nud]y that we e]igible for EDI, Of these, ne~]y a]]

(over 98 percent) are for amounts less than $25,000.
52 I Making Government Work

existing systems-the government (or a large corporation) moves the manual-electronic interface

to the businesses with whom it trades. This added

interface can be a particular burden for the operators of many small businesses. To help ease this

burden, the government could use some of its

savings from the use of EDI to subsidize businesses that have no obvious economic incentives

to participate in EDI. Businesses also could be

encouraged through software discounts, toll-free

lines, or special training and assistance.

EDI Integrity and Security

Due to the sensitive nature of business documents, parties sometimes must make agreements

in advance regarding the legal validity of electronic documents, what constitutes a “written signature,” the length of time required to store

documents, and other details traditionally contained in the “fine print.”45 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) claims that, for

government operations, an electronic signature or

password is an acceptable substitute for a written

signature, provided agencies follow proper administrative procedures.46-47

Risk assessment needs to be given a higher

priority in EDI systems.48 The Computer Security

Act encourages Federal agencies to conduct risk

assessments to help assure that the security is

commensurate with the potential harm resulting

from the loss, misuse, modification, or unauthorized access to government information.49 Based

on content, documents such as questionnaires may

carry a low risk, whereas high-value purchase

orders, bids, and tax returns carry a greater risk.

Agencies or Federal budget managers too often

under-budget for risk assessment, placing electronic documents at risk through loss or leaks of

private or proprietary information.

EDI Standards and Telecommunications

The Federal Government has mandated the use

of X 12 and UN/EDIFACT standards50 whenever

possible for all EDI transactions, or conversion to

them in the near future.51 Despite some momentum to use these standards, the government uses

many proprietary or text-based systems that often

require government suppliers or contractors to

purchase proprietary software and equipment and

use private communication networks. With standard EDI formats, however, suppliers can use the

same open systems for other government and nongovernment transactions, to everyone’s benefit.

Most EDI transactions require a communications link through a leased or dial-up telephone

line or a value-added packet-switching network.

The Federal Government’s private long-distance

services program (ITS 2000) can support some

EDI transmission through electronic mail or dialup and leased lines, but it does not provide full

45 we, fw ~xmp~e, us. ~~ment of Justice, Justice Management DjVjSjOm “Admissibility of Electronically Filed Federal Records as

Evidence,” Governmeti lnff~rmation Quarrerly, vol. 9, No. 2, 1992, p. 155; or Office of Management and Budget, lnf~wmation Resources

Munugement Pkzn of the U.S. Government (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1991), p. 36,

46 ~,forexmple, ~ter Weiss, ~~secu~ty Requjre~nts and Evidentiary Issues in the Interchange of Electronic Documents: steps TOWard

Developing a Security Policy,” paper presented at the Workshop on Security Procedures for the Interchange of Electronic Documents, National

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, Nov. 12-13, 1992.

47 OMB ~W c~m t~ E]~tronic signa~re and Messaging Authentication Task Force on electronic SigMtUE ksUes.

~ J~je A. Srnjth, LO@jCS Mana&rnent ]nstjtute, “Risk Assessment and Electronic Data Interchange”; and Robert V. Jacobson, “The N&d

for Risk Analysis”; papers presented at the Workshop on Security Procedures for the Interchange of Electronic Documents, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, Nov. 12–13, 1992.

@ us ~p~mnt of Commrce, National Jnstitute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Computer Systems Laboratory Bulletin,

. .

“Security Issues in the Use of Electronic Data Interchange,” June 1991. See also Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 100-235,

40 Usc 759.

~ x 12 is a stan&rds Committm accr~ited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). UN/EDIFACT is the United Nations EDI

for Administration, Commerce, and Transpcxt standard. The X12 standards committee voted that fufiher development of X 12 standards will

discontinue in 1997, and new standards will suppti the international UN/EDIFACT formats.

51 F~er~ Infomtion Processing standard Publication 161, Electronic Data Interchange, 56 Federal Re,gisler 13123 (Mar. 29, 1991).
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 53

value-added services (see ch. 3).52 Value-added

carriers can store and forward messages to other

participants, and provide audit trails, postmarking,

archiving, retransmission, compliance checking,

and other services. Value-added network services

are currently procured as a separate contract

through the General Services Administration

(GSA).

NEED FOR AN ELECTRONIC DELlVERY

TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY

OTA found, from its review of the electronic

delivery technologies discussed above, that the

technologies themselves generally do not limit

service delivery. At this time, however, the Federal Government lacks an interagency or national strategy to implement electronic delivery

technologies, and needs to develop one to leverage its efforts and to assure that important

issues, such as access and privacy, are addressed. Federal, State, and local governments are

applying man y of these technologies but are doing

so independently, and missing opportunities as a

result. Congress and the President could oversee

the development of a governmentwide technology

strategy for electronic service delivery, with active

participation by NIST, GSA, NTIA, and agency

representatives, perhaps working through an interagency committee, Such a strategy could be part

of the larger service delivery strategy discussed in

chapters 1, 5, 6, and 7, and more comprehensive

than current Information Resource Management

(IRM) or standards-setting efforts.

A technology strategy as discussed here should

not be interpreted to mean an overall central plan

for all electronic delivery, and is not intended to

focus only on the technologies per se. It should

instead be a framework that allows innovation and

partnerships both within and outside government,

avoids “reinventing the wheel,” and properly

applies the technologies to citizen needs, The strategy could include ongoing workshops, conferences, and publications to provide a clearinghouse

for Federal agencies and State and local governments to share information and keep up with technology. Users’ groups are particularly important

to enable agencies to share their experiences.

1 Leadership

An effective technology strategy would encourage leadership at all levels. In the cases OTA

studied, effective leadership was critical to every

project-even low-cost and user-friendly technology and the hard work of many dedicated parties

were not enough. Leadership includes having a

clear vision and commitment; supporting innovation; taking risks where appropriate; understanding citizens’ needs; outlining a clear mission

and objectives; and fostering teamwork with different agencies, governments, industry, and citizens. Strong, effective leadership helps to

overcome inertia to change and encourages innovation at all levels.

I Pilot Tests

An effective technology strategy would emphasize pilot tests and partnerships. Pilot projects

allow agencies and local governments to innovate,

experiment, gain experience, and then apply the

appropriate technology. Such experimentation

produces more diversity and presents a smaller

risk than selecting a single “winning” technology.

Systems that work well in one situation may not

work in another or may not scale to the Federal

level or across agency boundaries. The technologies and standards are also moving and risky targets, and the demand for electronic services is not

well known.

I Open Systems

An effective government technology strategy

would seek to use open systems as the common

delivery platform through consensus or by encouraging industry to develop standards, Open systems

52 x 400 e]ectronlc mail i~ used for some EDI transactions over FI’S2000. X.435 will eventually replace X.400 for that Pur~se ~d will

help to standardize some ED1 transactions inside the government, but will not provide full value-added services,
54 I Making Government Work

are those that use commercially available equipment and software that conform to common interoperable standards, as opposed to proprietary or

custom-built systems. Open systems are like open

markets; new players can innovate and sell their

products, and buyers can use them in existing

systems. The common standard could be a de facto

standard derived from market preferences or a de

jure standard established by a standards committee, although changing and competing standards

often make open systems difficult to achieve in

practice. If State and local kiosks used common

operating systems, the Federal Government could

provide standard packages to State and local governments, saving money for all. If the government

uses compatible videoconferencing equipment,

different agencies could share equipment. Agencies also could share information using common

electronic bulletin boards, CD-ROMs, or the Internet instead of creating redundant systems. Future smart cards may also have open operating

systems so that developers can sell new applications that operate on the same card, even if the

microprocessor is upgraded.

I Emphasize the User

An effective technology strategy should also

emphasize the human element—the citizen—that

is present in every aspect of service delivery.

Success is defined by how well a new delivery

system meets the needs of users, not by how well

the technology functions or meets cost projections. Food stamp recipients like using benefit

cards because they remove the stigma of paper

coupons. Welfare applicants like the Tulare Touch

electronic kiosk because it treats them consistent y

and without bias. Teachers in rural schools like

computer networks because they can collaborate

with other teachers and overcome their isolation,

The one-stop service center and mobile services

address citizens’ needs directly.

People using computer networks at home could

benefit from government on-line assistants who

answer questions by electronic mail. These assistants could help the citizen find an agency or

another on-line service. In this way, on-line services would be friendly to all citizens, not only

those who are already computer literate.

User-friendly interfaces are critical to the success of electronic service delivery. Citizens will

compare new ways of delivering government services with current commercial services using stateof-the-art interfaces. Therefore, government

electronic services must be user-friendly, up to

date, and high in quality to assure success. Active

“information filters” will be necessary to help the

user manage the massive amounts of information

appearing on the Internet and other computer networks.

Agencies should develop directories or participate in governmentwide directories or gateways,

such as FedWorld, that facilitate citizen access. An

electronic kiosk presentation must anticipate a

diverse set of queries and be kept up to date, since

the kiosk allows the user to respond only to what

is already in the computer. The information on

electronic bulletin boards or other on-line services

also must be kept current. Even the telephone

voice response system, one of the easiest systems

to use, can frustrate users if they receive too many

recordings, lines are busy, or they are put on

“hold.”

Another important aspect of the “human factor”

is protecting the privacy and security of personal

information (see also ch. 7). Unless adequate precautions are taken, citizens could perceive that

new electronic services will be used to store data

that could later be used to exclude them from

medical benefits or jobs. Business transactions,

tax refunds, and public assistance benefits are all

subject to abuse. On the other hand, the technology—if properly implemented—can provide

more privacy protection. Security can actually be

improved through the use of technologies such as

encryption, passwords, caller identification, and
Chapter 2-information Technologies for Electronic Delivery 55

use of tokens

identifiers. 53

B User Cost

such as smart cards or biometric

and Access

An effective technology strategy should also

address the recipient’s costs for electronic delivery, which directly affect access. On-line services,

facsimile, CD-ROMs and other home services

require equipment that many people currently do

not have. Telephone-based services typically require touchtone telephones, which some citizens

do not have. Many automated telephone response

systems have not been upgraded to be TDD-compatible for the hearing- or speech-impaired. A

small percentage of citizens—some of the

Nation’s neediest—still do not have basic telephone service. EDI costs can be a barrier for small

businesses. Internet-based services require access

to an Internet provider, which may be expensive

in some areas. Many costs may be acceptable for

businesses, but may deny access for individuals.

(Access issues related to the telecommunications

infrastructure are discussed in ch. 3; also see

chs. 5,6, and 7.)

1 Provider Cost

Government agencies have implemented many

electronic delivery technologies with limited

budgets. In many cases, the technologies can save

the government money and recover the cost of

implementation. Benefits often are difficult to

estimate, however, and should be calculated over

the life of the program. Service delivery includes

intangibles that are hard to quantify. How valuable

is a new toll-free service for Americans confined

to the home? What is the value of a complicated

expert system that improves the quality of information on preventive medicine? Improving the

quality of services may also increase demand, thus

increasing overall costs. The technology strategy

could examine these and related questions from a

governmentwide and long-term perspective,

rather than from an individual program viewpoint.

53 SW U.S. Congress, Offim of Technology Assessment, Privucy Rights in Computerized Medical Inf(mnurim, forthcoming. $X ~So U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ele{ tr(mi[ Record Systems und Individuuf Privacy, OTA-CIT-296 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, June 1986), and Defending Secrets, Sharing Data, OTA-CIT-310 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, October 1987).
Telecommunications

Infrastructure

for Electronic

Delivery 3

SUMMARY

The telecommunications infrastructure is vitally important to

electronic delivery of Federal services because most of these

services must, at some point, traverse the infrastructure. This

infrastructure includes, among other components, the Federal

Government’s long-distance telecommunications program

(known as FTS2000 and operated under contract with commercial

vendors), and computer networks such as the Internet. The telecommunications infrastructure can facilitate or inhibit many opportunities in electronic service delivery. The role of the

telecommunications infrastructure in electronic service delivery

has not been defined, however. OTA identified four areas that

warrant attention in clarifying the role of telecommunications.

First, Congress and the administration could review and

update the mission of FTS2000 and its follow-on contract in

the context of electronic service delivery. The overall performance of FTS2000 shows significant improvement over the previous system, at least for basic telephone service. FTS2000

warrants continual review and monitoring, however, to assure that

it is the best program to manage Federal telecommunications into

the next century when electronic delivery of Federal services

likely will be commonplace. Further studies and experiments are

needed to properly evaluate the benefits and costs of FTS2000

follow-on options from the perspective of different sized agencies

(small to large), diverse Federal programs and recipients, and the

government as a whole.

Planning for the follow-on contract to FTS2000 could consider

new or revised contracting arrangements that were not feasible

when FTS2000 was conceived. An “overlapping vendor” approach to contracting, as one example, may provide a “win-win”

57
58 I Making Government Work

situation for all parties and eliminate future debates about mandatory use and service upgrades.

The General Services Administration (GSA)

could conduct or sponsor experiments with agencies and vendors to test alternative contracting

arrangements. Such experiments could help demonstrate and evaluate the ability of FTS2000

follow-on options to meet agency and governmentwide needs, and help assure equitable,

innovative, and cost-effective use of telecommunications for electronic delivery of Federal services.

Second, Congress could review its overall

intent for the National Research and Education

Network (NREN) program regarding electronic service delivery. Current congressional

efforts to support Internet applications using

NREN, for health care and education for example,

serve to promote widespread electronic service

delivery, The Federal Government does not have

to wait to resolve all NREN issues before using

computer networking for electronic delivery. The

government could deliver many more electronic

services through the Internet, as some agencies are

already doing for a few services. Under any scenario, the Internet needs to be more user-friendly

by providing on-line directories or “on-line librarians” to help users find the government information

and services they need. Agency applications need

to be creative and relevant, yet require little training, to assure broad use.

Third, Congress could review the commercial telecommunications infrastructure in light

of electronic delivery. The “last mile” is particularly important for electronic delivery to the home;

electronic information usually must traverse the

lines of the local exchange carrier or other local

provider at both ends, even for FTS2000 and Internet transmissions. This last mile can be a bottleneck for delivering affordable services in some

areas of the United States, however. Access to

Internet or other computer networking services

can be expensive, and in many areas digital services needed for electronic service delivery are not

available over the public switched network. The

national infrastructure will be much stronger if

users in all areas can electronically connect to

compatible telecommunication systems in other

areas of the Nation—the whole is greater than the

sum of its parts. Congress could revise the concept

of universal service to include nationwide affordable access to modem telecommunication services, such as the Internet, ISDN (Integrated

Services Digital Network), and emerging broadband (high-transmission-rate) services. Vendors

are testing fiber optics, coaxial cables, very-smallaperture satellite receivers, and digital mobile

services for electronic delivery as alternatives to

the copper wire pairs that still dominate the last

mile.

Fourth, Congress could encourage Federal

agencies not to wait for widespread implementation of fiber and broadband technologies to

improve government services through electronic delivery. Many electronic services—Federal or otherwise---can be delivered affordably

with the copper wires that deliver traditional telephone service; for example, using modems or

ISDN services, ISDN in particular offers a significant improvement in the rate at which a user can

send or receive data, and it can transport voice,

data, or video messages. Switched broadband

technologies, on the other hand, face many technical, standards-setting, financial, and regulatory

issues that must be resolved before affordable

nationwide access becomes a reality.

THE ROLE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN

ELECTRONIC DELlVERY: AN OVERVIEW

The six points of access in chapter 2 describe

technologies that bring services directly to the

recipient. These technologies frequently use telecommunications to deliver those services (see figure 3-1). This chapter discusses the role of the

telecommunications infrastructure in electronic

delivery, especially two components that are particularly important in delivering Federal services:

1) the Federal long-distance telecommunications

program (known as FTS2000), and 2) the Internet

and the evolving NREN program. These and other
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 159

Figure 3-1—Role of Telecommunications infrastructure in Delivering

Federal Services Via Six Points of Access

Federal Government Services

Monetary and inkind benefits

Information dissemination/collection

Citizen participation in government

Grants and contracts

Job training

“=.\

/ Telecommunications Infrastructure \

[-d FTS2000

Computer networks (Internet, etc.)

Commercial networks

~)

Neighborhood

@>

electronic

NOTE: The Federal services and infrastructure components shown are illustrative, not comprehensive.

“osks s

KEY: EBT=Electronic Benefits Transfer; EDl=Electronic Data Interchange; FTS2000=the Federal long-distance telecommunications program.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

components of the infrastructure are also important economic catalysts, and enhance the longterm competitive position of the United States.1

The telecommunications industry is very different today from what it was when Congress enacted

the Communications Act of 1934,2 or even

10 years ago. The industry was once dominated by

one telephone company (AT&T), but is now diversified with many different types of providers.

Some providers are like wholesale stores, some

like department stores, others like boutiques, and

a single transmission often involves several vendors. Telecommunication services also have

changed considerably due to advances in fiber

optics, microelectronics, and software used for

switching systems. Digital transmission is replacing analog even to the home and office. As a result,

voice, text, and video all become simply data that

1 See U.S. Congres, Office of Technology Assessment, Critical Clmnecti(m$: C{Jmmunituti~m for fhe Furure, OTA-CIT-407 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assesfrncnt, U.S. 7k/e~ //n~t?/z///i[ti~n~r.r .krlice.r

und Eur~~peun A4urkel.~, OTA-TCT-548 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1993), and Inst itute for Information Studies,

A Nu/ionul Injfjrmuti(m Network-Chunging Our Lives in the 21.71 Centu~ (Queen ftown, MD: Aspen lnstltute, 1992). For a review of

point-topoint two-way telecommunications in the United States, see U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and

Information Administration, The NTIA lrrfru.!truc(ure Re/x~rf. Telec(jmmunlt[ltlor~s in (he Axe {~ lr~ivmmt~(~n, NTIA Special Publication 91-26

(Washington, DC: NTIA, October 1991).

2 Communications Act of 1934, 47 USC. 151, ef seq.
60 I Making Government Work

computers can process and transmit more efficiently. Telephone, video, and computer transmissions become more alike—personal computers

send data and video over telephone lines, and new

telephones contain computer chips and video

screens. The intelligence in the system also is

becoming less centralized-the end-user has more

direct control over functions.

The commercial telecommunications industry

has many strengths that can facilitate electronic

service delivery. These include its diversity of

vendors, new and specialized services, and lower

prices. Services can be delivered over copper wire

for telephones; coaxial cable for cable television;

and airwaves for cellular telephony, radio, and

television, This fragmentation also can be a weakness, however. Before its divestiture, for example,

AT&T could efficiently adopt a single standard

nationwide; today, it is more difficult to achieve a

nationwide standard, and users lack experience

dealing with diverse providers and new services.

Boundaries between these different modes of delivery have led to technical and market inefficiencies. Cable companies, for example, have installed

broadband (high capacity) services to the home via

coaxial cable, but without switching. Telephone

companies have full switching capabilities, but

offer much less capacity to the home.

The commercial infrastructure generally can

provide telecommunication services better than

the government or a single corporation can do

directly. Thus, the Federal Government generally

purchases telecommunication services from commercial vendors, rather than purchasing equipment and leasing lines itself. Likewise, the

government supports commercial or nonprofit

networks for computer networking, rather than

building or managing a network itself. The “information superhighways of the future” are, in large

part, already constructed or being developed by

commercial vendors, The Federal Government’s

role is that of customer, collaborator, and regulator, rather than that of direct provider.

Technology developments—such as packet

switching—also enhance electronic delivery.

With packet switching, data are collected into

packets that in turn are sent one at a time as needed,

rather than tying up transmission lines continuously. This allows the telephone and other network

operators to squeeze transmissions together more

efficiently. Packet-switching is currently used for

automated teller machines, computer-to-computer

messages, and electronic mail, all useful for electronic service delivery.

Other significant technology developments,

such as high-speed modems and ISDN, allow

homes to receive larger capacity digital services

over existing copper telephone lines. These technologies could expand access to on-line Federal

Government services to homes, offices, schools,

and libraries at affordable prices. Broadband

(high-transmission-rate) services could be delivered via fiber optic cable for telecommuting, interactive multimedia presentations, or telemedicine

applications, for example. While this technology

could deliver even more advanced Federal services to the home, many formidable issues remain

to be resolved.

Cost-effective electronic delivery depends on

systems being interoperable and compatible—

thus the need for technical standards. The government could play a greater role in encouraging

standards, 3 and standards should be given a higher

profile in the community-at-large as well.4 (See

also ch. 7.)

Security is an ongoing concern with any large

telecommunications network, especially for networks used to electronically deliver Federal serv3 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Clobul Stundaruk: Build”ng Blocksf~w the Fu~ure, OTA-TCT-512 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1992).

4 Engineering and business schools generally do not teach standards-setting or its importance to business and production. Corporations and

users alike lack a commitment to standards-setting, See Carl F. Cargill, Infbrmulion Technology Stunhrdizution: Them-y, Process, and

Orgunizutims (Bedford, MA: Digital Press, 1989).
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 61

ices.5 Absolute security is impossible, but various

degrees of security can be obtained at correspond8

3

m0

f

Top: Satellite, radio, and microwave communications center at the Denali National Park airport,

Alaska.

Bottom: Satellite earth station at the Salish Kootenai

College on the Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana. The college downloads video programming via

satellite to increase the diversity of educational materials used in the classrooms.

ing costs. Many adequate security measures—

such as encryption, complex passwords, and smart

card keys-already exist and can be easily implemented.6 However, individual users typically underestimate security needs, and additional

oversight by network management is usually necessary.

7 (Ch. 7 discusses security and privacy issues in more detail.)

USING FTS2000 FOR ELECTRONIC

SERVICE DELlVERY

9 The Rationale and Role for FTS2000

Federal, nonmilitary long-distance telecommunications are purchased largely through two contracts for services known as the FTS2000 program,

split 40/40 between AT&T and Sprint according

to agency.8 The Federal Government spends over

$2.5 billion annually on telecommunications of all

kinds (including local telephone service and special applications such as air traffic control and

military command and control), of which about

$500 million per year is on FTS2000.9

FTS2000 was designed to improve the internal

and external communications of the Federal Government. A major strength of FTS2000 is that the

government buys services, not equipment.

FTS2000 is not intended to be technologically

different from other large private or commercial

networks. The contract was split between two

vendors to promote a degree of ongoing competition and help to maintain equilibrium with the

commercial sector. FTS2000 also is intended to

provide the Federal Government with a universal

and seamless telecommunications infrastructure:

5 See the August 1992 issue of Ctmw~unic~i{m.r {.If the ACM, vol. 35, No. 8. See also John Adam, “Cryptography =Privacy?” IEEE Spectrum,

VO], 29, No. 8, August 1992, p. 29,

6 See the August 1992 issue of IEEE Spectrum Mugu.iine, vol. 29, No. 8. See also U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

f)efendin~ Secrets, Shuring Dutu, OTA-CIT-355 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1987).

7 Foreign “hackers” once penetrated many sensitive military and intelligence networks using very simple techniques, such m using the

default password supplied with off-the-shelf computers, See Clifford Stoll, The Cucko~~’.$ Egg (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1989).

x F132000 vendors also lease lines from other long-distance carriers and satellite providers to obtain connectivity, and for primary and

backup capacity. For example, in Alaska neither of the FTS2000 vendors provides direct commercial long-distance service, and they must

therefore lease service from a regional carrier.

Y office of Ma~gerncflt and Budget (OM B), current lnf{~rmati(m Techn{)[ogy Resource Requirement.r of the Federui Glj~ternment: Fi.~~>ul

Yeur /993 (Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992).
62 I Making Government Work

a common denominator to allow government

agencies and computers to be more interconnected

and compatible. FTS2000 consolidates considerable telecommunications procurement costs for

agencies. Finally, FTS2000 is intended to save

money when compared with the previous system

(FTS) and the commercial market, since the government can buy services at a bulk rate.

FTS2000 was initially designed without electronic service delivery specifically in mind, It is,

however, being used increasingly for electronic

delivery, such as on-line bulletin boards and tollfree telephone lines. The FTS2000-based toll-free

telephone services of the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, for example, are considered the largest in the world,

The General Services Administration (GSA)

manages the two FTS2000 contracts, The contracts are for 10 years, expiring in 1998, with

renegotiations in 1992 (now completed) and

1995.

10 GSA levies a surcharge on users of

FTS2000 for its overhead services, which include

performing system tests, overseeing billing, managing consulting services, and conducting planning, among other tasks. GSA and the agencies

obtain local telephone service through smaller

non-FTS2000 contracts with local exchange carriers, and through the leasing or ownership of

switching equipment. Agencies can purchase international voice service through a separate nonmandatory and governmentwide contract, but can

also make their own international service arrangements. Agencies purchase end-user equipment,

cellular service, and encryption on their own or

through GSA. Table 3-1 compares telecommunication services provided by FTS2000 and the commercial market.

1 FTS2000 Issues

FTS2000 provides more opportunities than barriers to the electronic delivery of Federal services.

Despite criticism regarding its early implementation, it is widely accepted that FTS2000 is a great

improvement over the previous system (known as

FTS).11 With the earlier FTS, GSA managed longdistance services through contracts for equipment

and leased lines, but had difficulty keeping up with

changes in telecommunications equipment and

services and agencies’ needs. GSA estimates that

in its first 4 years, FTS2000 saved $500 million

over FTS. Early FTS2000 problems can be attributed, in part, to lack of experience on the part of

the government and the telecommunications industry in managing contracts of this size, complicated by major changes in the industry following

the divestiture of AT&T.

Need for Creativity Using FTS2000

About 85 percent of FTS2000 use is plain voice

or low-speed data transmission for computers and

faxes. Most current electronic delivery needs can

be met with these or other FTS2000 services such

as compressed video or packet switching, The

main inhibitor to using FTS2000 for delivering

services is not FTS2000 itself, but the lack of

creativity by agencies in applying the potential

that FTS2000 and other telecommunications already offer. Separate and traditional telephone and

computer cultures still exist within the government; many agencies are not thinking or planning

in terms of what FTS2000, or modern telecommunications in general, has to offer.

Need to Upgrade Non-FTS2000 Equipment

Government agencies still own considerable

obsolete PBX switching equipment. ISDN and

other digital services, as well as many digital

10 At t~ ~go[la(ions, GSA can ~jus[ each vendor’s percentage of the total contract, to reflect comparative prices and services. SlnCe each

vendor is awar&d entire agencies to achieve its percentage of total revenue, with each agency changing its usage each month, the revenue split

is never exactly as projected.

1 I For a history of ~S200() and related congressional action, see U.S. Congress, House COmmlttfX On Govf.mment @3rNiOrIs, FT.$20@:

Managemeti Refhrms und Intensive Congressional Oversight Ensure Suvin,gs of $500 Million ft~r the Tarp>ers (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1992). For a history of the events leading up to the final ITS2000 awards, see Bernard Bennington, “Beyond

FTS2000: A Program for Change,” app, A, “FTS2000 Case Study,” 1989, reporl available from GSA.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 63

Table 3-l—Comparison of Services Available: FTS2000

and the Commercial Market

Service FTS2000 Commercial marketa

Basic voice Available Available

Switched data 96, 56, and 64 kbps 9.6, 56, and 64 kbps

1544 Mbps 384, 512, and 768 kbps:

1.544 and 45 Mbps

Dedicated data Up to 1.544 Mbps; Up to 1.544 Mbps;

45 Mbps

45 Mbps

Packet-switching X 25 X,25, frame relay TCP/lP

(Internet), SMDS, ATM, and

others

Compressed and Available Available

wideband video

ISDN Available Available

EDI value-added Not availableb Available

services

International voice Not availableb Available

Cellular Not available Available

aNC,~ all ~ewlce~ are Commercially available across the entire ~Jnlte~ Stateq

bAvallable thr~u~h a g~vernrnentwl~e contract other than FTS2000

KEY ATF,l=Asynchronous Transfer Mode, EDl=Electronlc Data Interchange, ISDN=lntegrate(i

Services Dlgltal Network, kbps=klloblts per second, Mbps=megablts per second,

TCF’ IP=Transmlsslon Control Protocol Internet Protocol, SMDS=Swltchecj Multl Megabit

Data Ser/lce X 25=protocol from the X 25 Accredited Standards Committee (ASC)

a~rredlte[j by the American National Standards Inst[tute (ANSI)

S()(JF{CE Office of Technology Assessment, 1993

security features, are not possible with such equipment. The government should, in most cases, lease

digital PBX equipment or centrex switching to

avoid risky equipment purchases, since telecommunications equipment becomes obsolete well before it wears out.

Service Quality, Billing, and Interoperability

Problems

Agency users have filed various complaints

about FTS2000, including incomplete or delayed

billing information, poor response to service calls,

and slow processing of procurement requests.

Many complaints stemmed from confusion during

the initial stages of the conversion to FTS2000,12

and from the inevitable technical problems of converting to a sophisticated digital system.13 The

vendors did implement FTS2000 ahead of schedule, and FTS2000 service reportedly continues to

improve.

Agencies also have complained that some

FTS2000 services (e.g., compressed video) are not

interoperable between the two vendor networks.

1 z some ~ge Wles had t. switch IO an Frs2000 vendor from their preferred non-lTS2000 vendor 10 comply with [he mand~ory use POliCY.

Others had to change FTS2000 vendors to mest quotas for the overall usage and revenue split between the two vendors.

I I perf~~~e, ~fiC~, and in[eroPer~bi]l[Y we ~~ ~~l]y comp~ed, user demands are very unpre(iictahle, making system design difficult.

Each vendor packages its services differently. Also, laboratories cannot truly simulate red-world conditions because telephone networlcs are

extremely complex,
64 I Making Government Work

In fairness, the video compression industry itself

has lacked standards for interoperability. GSA

may lack the motivation or negotiating power to

entice or force the vendors to adopt interoperability more quickly. In order to deliver services to

citizens more effectively, agencies will have to

work together more closely, and interoperability

will be essential in future contracts. As one agency

official noted, interoperability is the “light at the

end of the tunnel” for delivering services to the

citizen.

A study commissioned by the FTS2000 Interagency Management Council determined that

GSA could adopt a more customer-oriented approach, including streamlining or transferring

some FTS2000 management tasks to the vendors. 14 However, the study also concluded that

“GSA staff are very effective in executing their

assigned responsibilities and mission. Their performance is at the root of a high level of satisfaction with the telecommunications services

delivered.” The study found that many agency

reservations about GSA’s role are due to a lack of

understanding of GSA’s oversight activities and

its low-key approach.

Pricing Complaints

A major criticism of FTS2000 concerns pricing.

One intent of the FTS2000 contract is to obtain

services at a discount. Some agencies and outside

parties have claimed that parts (or all) of FTS2000

cost more than equivalent services purchased on

the open market, and that GSA did not exercise

enough control to drive the vendors’ prices

down. 15-16 GSA acknowledges that prices were

overly high for some specific services. GSA

claims, however, that as of the 1992 price redetermination, FTS2000 prices were “at least as good

as” the “best equivalent” commercial prices.

FTS2000 prices were actually about 3 percent

higher than commercial prices, however, if inconclusive comparisons are not included in the total. 17

GSA notes that commercial prices have fallen

since the price redetermination, and FTS2000

prices fell after the first 1993 price cap evaluation.

The related FTS2000 Interagency Management

Council’s contractor study on which GSA based

its conclusions notes that the new price cap mechanism “represents a significant improvement over

its predecessors,” but that it “is not a complete

guarantee of the lowest prices, however. Specifi-

‘

4 Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., “Management Review of the GSA FTS2000 Program,” Washington, DC, Nov. 20, 1992, Also see U.S.

General Accmmting Office, FTS20(XI Overhead: GSA Should Reassess Contract Requiremerus andlmprove Eficiency, repofl to the Chairman,

House Committee on Government Operations, GAO-lMTEC-92-59 (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, August 1992). GSA

has reorganized its FZS2000 program office since these reports were issued.

IS An eW]y c~plaint WaI that the bidding process initially allowed the second lowest bidder (Sprint) to charge its agencies higher Pfices

for equivalent services provided by the lowest bidder (AT&T). This resulted in higher prices for agencies forced to use the second lowest bidder.

Later negotiations “levelized” or otherwise eliminated these differences.

IS JWk Brock, Gener~ Accounting Office, FT,S2(X90: GSA Must Resolve Cri/icaf pn’cing ]ssues, report to the Chairman, Semte Committu

on Governmental Affairs, GAO-IMTEC-91 -79 (Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. GeneraI Accounting Office, September, 1991). A study by Putnam,

Hayes, and Bartlett, commissioned by MCI, also found prices to be excessive. Putnam, Hayes, and Bartlett, Inc., “Money and Myth:

Misconceptions That Shape Federal Telecommunications Procurement Policy,” Cambridge, MA, Apr. 6, 1992.

1? The bre~down is m follows: FIIS2000 switched-voice prices, which constitute 78.1 percent of ~S2000 revenue, were Wd to “~st

equivalent” commercial prices. For dedicated transmission and videoconferencing (about 16.7 percent of revenue), the FTS2000 prices were

higher than commercial. ~S2000 packet-switching prices were less than commercial (4.7 percent), although the comparison cannot be

considered conclusive since it “does not address the custom-designed packet systems. . . that dominate the market for large, sophisticated users.

Further study may be required to determine the competitiveness of this service.” Finally, the low volume of switched-data traffic (0.5 percent

of revenue) “precludes a firm conclusion with respect to this service.” U.S. General Services Administration, “The GSA Report to Congress

on the Cost Effectiveness of the FTS20(K) Program,” February 1993; and Snavely, King & Associates, “FTS2000: Cost Effectiveness

Comparison Acquisition Price Analysis,” prepared for the Cost Effectiveness Subcommittee of the Interagency Management Council, January

1993. GAO concurs with GSA’s conclusions. See Jack Brock, General Acccnmting Office, “GSA’s Prict Redetermination Yields a Reasonable

Decision and Lower Prices,” report to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, March 1993.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery I 65

cally, it cannot ensure the lowest FTS2000 price

when most of the corresponding commercial services are purchased under individually negotiated,

custom-designed contracts...”18

The contractor report estimated that the overall

FTS2000 price is $17 million to $52 million (4 to

13 percent) lower than commercial prices when

expected costs for “unique government requirements” are included in the commercial prices.19

The value of these unique requirements is, in many

cases, subject to debate, difficult to quantify, and

varies as the contract ages. Does a vendor recover

certain costs in the first years of the contract, for

example, or over the life of the contract? To reduce

the risk to the government, vendors accept greater

risk, which increases prices. How great is that risk,

and how does it differ from commercial contracts?

Finally, the study only addressed prices for

purchasing equivalent telecommunication services, and did not include the overhead costs for

GSA to award and administer the contracts. Large

private buyers or single agencies also would have

overhead costs if services were procured outside

of the FTS2000 program, but no comparison has

been made between agency and GSA costs. The

study “therefore does not purport to evaluate the

total cost effectiveness of FTS2000 to the government.” Another Interagency y Management Council

study determined that GSA could make changes

to reduce its overhead operating charge, but that

the overall effectiveness of FTS2000, not just a

specific dollar number, is most important.20

Definition of Service Upgrade and Procurement

Uncertainty

One objective of FTS2000 is that agencies

should be able to choose from an up-to-date list of

features and services. FTS2000 currently does not

include many advanced telecommunication services. To obtain these services, GSA may add features to existing FTS2000 services, but the

government is expected to issue separate competitive procurements for any new services unspecified in the original FTS2000 contracts. The result

is ambiguity about what constitutes a typical upgraded “feature” to existing services, and what is

an altogether new service outside the domain of

FTS2000 that must be procured separately. Some

new services are, as a consequence, disputed by

FTS2000 competitors, and the provision of these

services is delayed while the disputes are resolved.21 These delays also increase uncertainty

about FTS2000 within the agencies, and add to the

existing overall uncertainty about rapidly changing telecommunications technologies.22

Optimum Contract Size

Customers who would otherwise negotiate very

small contracts may gain the most from the economies of scale and scope of a larger contract; such

economies result from reduced engineering costs

per unit of service as more telecommunications

traffic is aggregated.23 Customers who are able to

negotiate very large contracts, on the other hand,

offer substantially more business to the winning

vendor and therefore have greater negotiating

power to obtain favorable prices and other contract

18 snavely, King & Amxiatm, op. Cl[., fo~note 17> P 70

1~ Wi(hout the unique government require~nts, FrS2000 prices were found to be $6.7 million per year (2 ~rcent) 1ess than the “hst

equivalent” commercial prices. These requirements include assured and prioritized emergency service; billing arrangements; absorption of local

access charges; and the government’s options to terminate the contract at any time without liability, to reallocate more or less service, impose

or change price-cap restrictions, etc. Ibid,, p. 3.

Z(J BOOZ, Allen & Hamilton, ]nc., op. Cit., fOOtnOte 14.

21 None of the 23 FI-SZOOO pr@est5 (from over zoo Contrwt modifications) has been decided against GSA. however. The GSA Bo~d of

Contract Appeals ruled against GSA in one case involving the addition of T3 services to FTS2000, but that case wm recent] y overruled by the

U.S. Court of Appeals,

22 For ~xmp]e, an agency rnlght prefer a new packet service from Vendor X (outside of FrS2MO), but suspects that the FTS2000 vendor

(Vendor Y) might soon provide the same packet service. In th~t event, GSA might Iafer require the agency to purchase the packet service from

Vendor Y, and the time spent on the procurement with Vendor X is wasted,

23 Kal~ Bowen Associates, Inc. and Economics & Technology, Inc., “Cost/Benefit Analysis of Alternatives for the Replacement of the

Federal Telecommunications System Intercity Network,” report prepared for GSA, Apr. 21, 1986.
66 I Making Government Work

considerations. Such large contracts, however,

also carry greater risk and higher costs associated

with moving the customer’s business to another

vendor, if necessary, in order to “carry out a threat”

of selecting a lower priced competitor. Very large

contracts can also influence the overall telecommunications market and therefore may have

broader social and economic costs if competition

is restricted as a result. The optimum contract size

for procuring telecommunication services is unclear, and merits reconsideration given the substantial changes in the telecommunications

industry.

FTS2000, in particular, may be much larger

than the optimum size for a telecommunications

contract. In any case, FTS2000 does not provide

opportunities for agencies to experiment with

smaller, competitive contracts. Some large agencies may be able to match their needs better outside

of FTS2000, and maybe large enough to negotiate

contracts at lower prices and with terms more

favorable to the government. In its February 1993

report to Congress, GSA noted that “better commercial prices can sometimes be obtained for geographically limited contracts or contracts which

define very specifically the items to be bought.”24

Shopping for prices in this way currently is not

possible with FTS2000.

The Mandatory Use Provision

FTS2000 use is mandatory for all agencies,

unless GSA or Congress grants a specific exemption.25 Mandatory use makes the total FTS2000

procurement “sweeter” for potential contractors;

the larger market should

bids. During the initial

result in lower contract

FTS2000 procurement,

mandatory use was intended to attract enough

bidders to provide at least some competition

against the dominant carrier, AT&T.26 Today, the

telecommunications industry is more competitive,

and mandatory use may not be necessary to assure

a competitive procurement. Relaxing the mandatory use provision, on the other hand, may complicate oversight of FTS2000 and agency

telecommunications generally, may increase costs

especially for smaller agencies with limited negotiating power, and may or may not increase government procurement costs overall. GSA has not

analyzed the effects of alternative contracting arrangements on costs or oversight.

GSA could experiment with contracting alternatives for some services and agencies in order to

compare procurement and operational costs

within and outside of FTS2000, and to evaluate

how well possible FTS2000 follow-on options

might meet agency needs. A key issue that maybe

illuminated is balancing the needs of smaller agencies and those with generic requirements that

should benefit most from a full FTS2000 package,

versus the needs of the larger agencies that maybe

able to negotiate more favorable terms through

non-FTS2000 procurement of advanced telecommunication services. Contracting experiments

could help identify ways to put more pressure on

the FTS2000 follow-on vendors to keep prices of

advanced as well as basic services competitive. If

FTS2000 follow-on prices and services were truly

competitive in meeting a wide range of agency

24 U.S. Gener~ Services Administration, op. cit., fOOtnote 17, P. 3.

25 The ~a~atW ~W provision rwuires agencies to use IWS2000 for all long-distance telecommunications, with exemptions allowed by

GSA for certain mission-critical operation-s. Notable exemptions currently include much of the Department of Defense’s traffic, the Federal

Aviation Administration’s air traffic control network, the National Science Foundation’s NSFNET backbone, the Department of Treasury’s

Treasury Communication System, and Congress. On the other hand, the quasi-governmental U.S. Postal Service is not required to use FTS2000,

but opted to use it anyway. The provision is included in the request for proposals and in Federal regulation m FIRMA Interim Rule 1, “Mandatory

Federal Telecommunications System Network,” July 29, 1988, 53 Federal Register 28638. Congress also has included the provision in annual

appropriations legislation (Public Law 102-393, Sec. 622; Public Law 102-141, Sec. 622; Public Law 101-509, Sec. 620; Public Law 1OI-136,

Sec. 621; and Public Law 100-440, Sec. 621). H.R. 3161, the “Federal Property and Administrative Services Authorization Act of 1991 ,“

included a provision to make mandatory use permanent, but the bill was not enacted,

z~ The first ~s2000 plan intend~ OM vendor and voluntary use in order to keep prices low and make the trWMjtkMI to mszooo easier.

This plan was revised to allow for two vendors, with mandatory use and price caps required for bmic voice service, but not advanced services.

The final FTS2000 plan included all services within the scope of the mandatory use provision. Price caps were extended to all services in 1990.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 67

needs, then user agencies would presumably opt

to stay with FTS2000, even in the absence of

mandatory use, unless there were other compelling reasons to go outside.

Relationship to Other Networks and Users

FTS2000 could connect to other government

networks in the same way that it currently connects to commercial networks. That is, the vendors

providing FTS2000 services could arrange to have

equipment installed that would allow a seamless

connection between FTS2000 and the individual

State and local government networks, Commercial networks charge access fees to use their networks, however, and access arrangements would

be needed with State and local government networks as well. Federal, State, and local regulations27 might have to be revised to allow such

arrangements. Also, the FTS2000 mandatory use

provision requires that Federal users make all

long-distance (inter-LATA) calls over FTS2000,

thereby bypassing any internal State network.

Thus, GSA or Congress may need to amend or

authorize exemptions to the mandatory use provision for these cases.28

FTS2000 has no direct relationship with the

NREN program, but it does serve as a vehicle for

delivering some computer networking services,

Agencies most likely will continue to obtain local

Internet access without the need for long-distance

services. If necessary, however, agencies can use

FTS2000 to obtain Internet services indirectly

from Internet providers, or perhaps directly at

some future time.

9 The Follow-onto FTS2000

Even its strongest critics agree that FTS2000 is

an improvement over the previous system. As the

FTS2000 contracts pass mid-term, GSA will add

features to its existing six basic services. GSA also

will use the remaining time before contract expiration to plan, prepare, and finalize procurement

requests for a follow-on to FTS2000, whatever

form that will take. Competitors for a FTS2000

follow-on might include not only long-distance

companies, but possibly computer network

providers, manufacturers, and system integrators,

among others. Changes in the telecommunications

industry suggest the need for a fresh look at the

overall objectives of a centralized program such

as FTS2000.

Clarifying the Purpose of FTS2000

Congress could ask GSA and the administration

to address basic questions about the purpose of

FTS2000 in planning the mission of an FTS2000

follow-on.

g Is a direct follow-on to FTS2000 desirable? The

centralized approach is not necessarily appropriate for modern telecommunications. Different agencies have different missions and needs

for telecommunications to support electronic

delivery; are these compatible with a single

centralized contract?

■ Should the principal mission of FTS2000 be to

reduce the internal telecommunications costs

for the government, or should it also focus on a

more active role in delivering electronic services to citizens? Should GSA extend FTS2000

beyond traditional users (agencies and certain

agency contractors) to, for example, federally

funded groups that work in the public interest,

such as schools, libraries, or local governments?

If libraries found FTS2000 to be less expensive

than commercial offerings, for example, or if

the needed commercial services were unavailable, then they could participate in FTS2000

and be billed accordingly, as is each agency.

27 ]n~]udjng Fe&r~ pr~cWenlcn[ ~[atutcs such as [he Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, Public Law 98-369, Sections 2701 et ~eq.,

98 Stat. I 175.

‘x The State of Iowa, for example, has installed fiber optic cables for its private network. A Federal agency calling from one county to a State

office in another county might be required to use FTS2000 m[her than the State system due to the mandatory use provision. See Iowa

Communicant ions Network Working Group, Interagency Information Resources Management Infrastructure Task Group, “Iowa Communications

Net work Study,” reporl to the House Subcommittee on Tremury, Postal Service, and General Government, House Committee on Appropriations,

US House of Representalikes, Apr 1, 199.3, p. 49,
68 I Making Government Work

The current conditions under which FTS2000

services can be extended beyond Federal agencies are not clear, however, and would need to

be reviewed.

Should the FTS2000 follow-on emphasize basic

low-cost telephone service; an interoperable,

advanced telecommunications infrastructure;

or something in between? In other words, how

is universal service defined for the Federal Government as customer? The first option implies a

program with only basic voice, perhaps including ISDN service. The second implies a program with a full range of advanced services

common to all government agencies. While

both of these may be achievable in principle, in

practice priorities must be set, and not all goals

may be met by the vendors. Requiring many

features in a contract can also limit competition,

since fewer companies can manage such large

systems. A set of several governmentwide specialized contracts may provide the same interoperable infrastructure without the

difficulties encountered in maintaining a single

large contract.

Should FTS2000 and its follow-on save money

overall, or should it save money on a serviceby-service and agency-by-agency comparative

basis? If the latter, should GSA continue t.

require agencies to purchase through FTS2000

to attract better rates from vendors, or should

agencies have the option to go outside if they

can get a better deal? In other words, should

Congress and GSA retain the mandatory use

provision? If so, should the provision be retained for all the services or only for some, such

as basic voice and ISDN?

New Contracting Arrangements

Congress could ask GSA to review different

contracting arrangements for an FTS2000 followon that are now possible given changes in the

telecommunications industry.

1

1

How many vendors are desirable for the followon contract? Advances in technology now allow

contracting arrangements that were impractical

during the planning of the present program

10 years ago. Any number of vendors could be

allowed access to the agency switching centers-an “overlapping vendor” approach. Vendors could be selected on a real-time basis

according to quality, service, or price, Or,

agency traffic could be divided equally among

pre-selected vendors qualified for specific services.

The concept of switched competitive vendors

has worked for other purposes. A Federal

agency can currently switch its own calls dynamically to many different vendors; for example, to local, FTS2000, international,

value-added, and advanced packet-switching

vendors (see figure 3-2). Residential customers

also can change long-distance carriers regularly, often with only an access code. The overlapping vendor approach described here would

simply take these modem arrangements one

step further, A diversity of vendors would be

more competitive, and make Federal telecommunications more flexible and, in principle,

more responsive to changing requirements.

How should the contract be split among vendors? The present FTS2000 awards entire agencies to one of the two vendors. If one vendor

provides better prices or service, however, GSA

may or may not increase its share of the contract

at the following renegotiation. Other arrangements are possible; the contract could be overlapping (as described above) or split by

geographic region.29 The FTS2000 follow-on

planning merits a full review of these options,

including their economies of scale and scope.

Should a mandatory use provision be included

in the follow-on to FTS2000? Mandatory use

and FTS2000 reflect a centralized or “mainframe” approach to telecommunications that

may not necessarily be appropriate for the late

29 Ka]ba Bowen Associates, Inc. and Economics & Technology, Inc., Op. Cit., footnote 23.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 69

Figure 3-2—Existing Routes for Long-Distance Government Telecommunications

[

Agency/l

computer ,

\-

\

Agency B

computer

Agency switching \l_,c:;3\v

f

\/

-G~~

carrier

-

~ ‘&vaue-add&~ \

‘wNOTE: The routes shown are illustrative. In this example, the sending agency (Agency A) switches the data directly to the appropriate telecommunications provider. At the receiving end, the local exchange carrier switches the data to the receiving agency (Agency B).

KEY: EDl=Eiectronic Data Interchange; FTS2000=Federat long-distance telecommunications program.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993

1990s and beyond. The overlapping vendor arrangement, for example, represents a more

open, dynamic contracting system that rewards

vendors for low prices and good service and

allows for innovation among agencies. Prior to

expiration of the current FTS2000 contract,

GSA could conduct or sponsor contracting experiments to see if other options would better

meet agency needs. Such experiments could be

used to “pilot-test” possible contracting modifications or alternatives for the FTS2000 follow-on, and to compare the costs and benefits

of agency procurements under a comparable set

of contracting options.

How long should the follow-on contract be? A

10-year contract may be too long and risky to

plan modern telecommunication services, and it

is longer than most large private-sector telecommunications contracts.

Adding FTS2000 Services

The overlapping vendor approach could also be

used to obtain new telecommunication services as

necessary through separate competitive contracts,

eliminating debate over whether the services

should be part of FTS2000 or not. If the overlapping vendor approach is not used for the followon, and if the FTS2000 follow-on includes a full

range of services, should the contract be dynamic

or static? What should constitute a new service

requiring a separate procurement, and what is an

acceptable modification to an existing contract?

GSA could procure other advanced services either

as part of the follow-on to FTS2000 or as separate

governmentwide packages in order to realize discounts, simplify procurement, and encourage use.

Separate procurements for telecommunication

services outside the scope of FTS2000 may be

more manageable in the short term, and perhaps
70 I Making Government Work

could be implemented well before the follow-on

to FTS2000. For the follow-on, including many or

all services in a single FTS2000 package could

strain the ability of the vendors to deliver the

services well, and could limit competition. A large

number of separate contracts, on the other hand,

could significantly increase overall procurement

and management costs.

Either the follow-on or the current FTS2000

could include Internet access to simplify procurement and to encourage agencies to think

more in terms of networking as part of normal

operations. Internet access typically can be obtained through a local connection to a specialized Internet provider without the need for

long-distance service. 30 Providing access to Internet services within FTS2000 could be

straightforward, however. One of the two

FTS2000 vendors (Sprint) already provides its

own TCP/IP packet-switched network for Internet access. Adding TCP/IP capability to

FTS2000 could be an additional feature to the

present packet service, perhaps within the terms

of the present contract. GSA could also procure

a nonmandatory governmentwide Internet contract, or agencies could continue to procure

Internet services independently.

Similar options apply to value-added services.

FTS2000 does not directly provide full value-

-added network (VAN)31 services. An agency

might transport data over FTS2000 to the nearest value-added net work gateway, but the traffic

most likely travels to a local gateway and not

over FTS2000 at all. Including value-added

services that provide storing and forwarding of

messages in the follow-on contract could encourage agencies to use electronic data interchange (EDI) and electronic benefits transfer

(EBT). Value-added services maybe provided

best by different specialty vendors that are experienced with electronic commerce, however.

The nonmandatory, governmentwide, value-

-added service contract is currently held by

Sprint.

Agencies also can purchase cellular telephone

equipment and services much like they purchase local telephone service. Since cellular

service is significantly different from long-distance service, it may be managed better independently of the FTS2000 follow-on.

International service also could be included in

the follow-on to FTS2000, but with no clear

advantages. The government’s nonmandatory

international switched voice service contract is

currently held by MCI,

USING COMPUTER NETWORKS FOR

ELECTRONIC SERVICE DELlVERY

I The Role of Computer Networking

A large computer network such as the Internet32

is actually a network of smaller networks that

interconnects all types of computers, from mainframes to personal computers.33 Users around the

30 Cmently, ~s2000 dws n~ djrcct]y prOvi& full Internet services, but an agency might use the FTS2000 network to transPort data to

the nearest Internet gateway. An agency wishing to access Internet services must first arrange for the switching through a regional or commercial

provider. Then it must separately arrange dial-up or dedicated access to the provider through the local carrier or FTS2000,

31 A va]ue.ad&d network provides s~~ia] services such m storing and forwarding data packets for ektronic data interchange. It maY

include special features for postmarking, archiving, retransmission, compliance checking, and interconnecting to other providers, FTS2000

users can send electronic documents using X.400 format electronic mail (called ITSMAIL), but without full value-added services.

32 T~ InterMt is sometimes defined as all the interconnected smaller networks that use the TCP/IP format to send data. In practice, the

degree to which a network is part of the lntcrnet varies, and other formats are sent over the Internet or used within subnetworks. This section

focwses mainly on the Internet and the related NREN, See Ed Krol, The Whole /n~eme~ Users Guide and Cutulog (Sebmtopcd, CA: O’Reilly

and Associates, 1992), For a discussion of other networks such as Bitnet, Usenet, or Fidonet, see John S, Quarterman, The Matrix: Compu[er

Nerwork.~ and Conferencirrg S}sfems W(lrldwide (Bedford, MA: Digital Press, 1990), For a review of computer networks and their applications

and iswes, ~ the September 1991 issue of S~ien(ific Americun.

33 Bmks and b~~inesses have tong used computer network for electronic funds transfer, automatic deposit Of chwks, dtXtrOniC dam

interchange, and so forth. However, these networks are managed privately or by commercial value-added providers, and are not discussed here.

Commercial dial-up database services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, GEnie, or America Online are different yet, but have access to the Internet

through electronic mail.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 71

Nation can send messages, share computer memory and soft ware, and access files and programs as

if the network were one large computer. This

decentralized computing has been likened to the

Nation’s roads; houses (computers) form communities (local area networks—LANs—and other

networks) linked through streets (local telephone

access lines) and highways (telecommunication

backbones). 34,35

Net working provides a complete] y new form of

communication. It is two-way, like telephones; it

provides broad access to information at any time,

like television weather or news channels or

audiotext; it allows for community input, like a

newspaper’s letter page; and it can transport large

documents, like the postal service. The full impact

of the Internet and computer networks is not yet

fully understood, as users continually find new

ways to use them.

As of July 1993, over 100 Federal Government

networks were attached to the Internet. Some Federal services on the Internet include the Department of Agriculture’s commodity market reports,

Food and Drug Administration’s electronic bulletin board, U.S. Geological Survey’s geological

fault maps, State Department’s travel advisories,

U.S. Postal Service’s zip code directory, Project

Hermes Supreme Court decisions available over

Cleveland’s Freenet, Library of Congress’ card

catalogs and congressional information, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s

weather and climate information.

The National Research and Education Network

(NREN) is a program to develop and extend networking applications in research and education

and is part of the High Performance Computing

and Communications Program (HPCC).36,37,38

One goal for the NREN program is to advance

supercomputer networking, pushing transmission

speeds between large users beyond 45 Mbps rates:

the so-called “information superhighway s.” Another NREN goal is to encourage new networking

applications for educators, librarians, and others

to provide much greater access to networked information. Pending legislation in Congress provides funding for computing and networking

applications in manufacturing, education, libraries, health care, and government information.39 

NREN is intended to advance the overall national

“information infrastructure” by helping to create

new applications that will drive further private

sector development of the collective telecommunications links, computer equipment, and other

information technology needed to support computer networking.

M Unfoflunatcly the ~aIogy 1$ ~ftcn ~lisun~r$to~, and ignores the fact that large computer networks are ~’itiu~l network-~. That is!

telephone companies already have high capacity fiber and microwave transmission in place throughout the United States. The fiber and

microwave transmission is used for both voice and data. In fact, 95 percent of the customer traffic flowing over the collective AT&T, MCI, and

Sprint backbone net work is over fiber, as is about 75 percent of the backbone traffic of the Bell operating companies. Some of this transmission

capacity is then partitioned for the computer networks. Also, the analogy ignores the importance of developing new switching equipment and

net work management techniques to manage data traffic, Finally, such “data highways” could bypass some rural and inner city “back roads’ ’—the

Route 66 syndrome,

35 T~ government role in Compu(er networks w~ld be different. Vice President Alkrt Gore, Jr. notes) “TIw idea of the Federal Government

constructing, owning, and operating a nationwide fiber network to the home is a straw man. . . . h is a phony choice that some people see between

a Federal public network, and no Federal invol~’ement at all. In truth everyone agrees that there is an important role [for the government]. ”

Graeme Browning, “Search for Tomorrow,” Nutifjrwl J{wrnul, vol. 25, No. 12, Mar. 20, 1993, p. 67.

lri High - perf omanw Computing Act Of ] 99 j, whllc ~w

 ] 02- ’94

S7 For ~ ~xp]ana[ ion of glgahlt re$ear~h ne[wor~$, sw U,S, congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ad~’M~ed Nefn’~jrk Te~’~~~~@Y,

OTA-BP-TCT-101 (Wmhington, DC U S. Government Printing Office, June 1993). See also Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Grand

Challenges 1993: High Performance Computing and Communications,” report by the Committee on Physical, Mathematical, and Engineering

Sciences, Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, n d,

JH For a history of NREN and re]a(e~ policy ~~ions, see Charles R, McClure, Ann P. Bishop, Philip IJoty, and How~d Rosenbaum. The

Nuti{mul Reseur( h und Edu{dilm Netuv~rk (NREN) Re.reur~ h und P(di<> Per.rpe(t[\e.r (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1991 ), See also

Brian Kahin (cd,), lluildin~ lnfi~rmtdifm Infr~l.rrructure (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1992).

391ntroduc~ in 1993 ~~ Tlt]e VI, the information ]nfrastmcture and Technology Act of 1993 (renamed the information T~hnologY

Applications Act of 1993) included in S, 4, The National Competitiveness Act; and HR. 1757, the High Performance Computing and High

Speed Networking Applications Act of 1993 (renamed the National Information Infrastructure Act of 1993).
72 I Making Government Work

9 Computer Networking Issues

NREN and Electronic Service Delivery

Regardless of how the NREN program develops, Federal agencies can use the Internet for much

of their computer networking and electronic service delivery. Relatively few government services

are available on the Internet at present, however.

Current use is mainly confined to electronic mail

and file transfers, although the Internet has the

potential to provide more powerful applications

through such tools as Gopher software, Wide Area

Information Servers (WAIS), searchable databases, graphics applications, information dissemination to subscriber lists, and so forth. Some

agencies see the Internet as an important tool for

reaching their client communities, while others

perceive little value in the Internet and have no

current plans to actively pursue its use. Many in

government do not fully understand networking

technologies and their potential applications.

Congress could clarify the purpose and intended beneficiaries of the NREN with respect to

the delivery of government services.40 Should

government funding be provided to develop networking applications specifically for the delivery

of services? Alternatively, should Federal funds

directly subsidize recipients of networked Federal

services?

Growing Pains

One strength of the Internet is its sheer connectivity— it is the largest computer network in the

world. The Internet includes over 12,000 participating networks. It serves about 1.3 million computers and an estimated 10 to 15 million users in

127 countries.41 Participation

10 percent per month.42

is growing by over

The number of Internet users is growing so fast

that the Internet is running out of available addresses, which necessitates changing the format of

the packets used to send information. 43 The

switches used to route the packets also are becoming overloaded. Higher network capacity requires

new switches that are currently being tested in the

HPCC testbed programs. The NREN progress is

limited more by management and cost performance issues, however, than technology per se.

44

That is, participants have significant experience

with the hardware, but a great deal remains to be

learned about putting together and managing the

system, Use of the Internet for electronic service

delivery could place further stress on the system,

and accentuate the need for upgrades.

Internet Pricing

An advantage for Internet users has been the flat

fee structure and institutional support of portions

of the Internet. Switching services and high-capacity dedicated links typically are provided at flat

rates rather than based on direct usage. These fees

are often offset by Federal and State grants to

universities and other institutions, directly or indirectly. Institutions also pay for equipment and

wiring, which often can be a substantial amount.

Many individuals pay flat rates, or their costs are

fully paid by an institution. The total Federal Government expenditures for Internet access are unknown, but may be less than 10 percent of total

financing from governments, institutions, and corporate and individual users.

40 T~ NRENAISSANCE Study Committw of the National Research Council (NRC) has begun a study to develop a 5-yeW vision for the

NREN program, including its relationship to the evolving national information infrastructure. NRC issued an earlier report on the issues of the

NREN program, Towardu Nutionui Research Nerwm-k (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, July 1988).

41 ~5e d~a ~as of June 1993, and We impossible to know exactly since each address may have many users and each is managed sepately

from the overall network. The Internet management structure is historically academic and decentralized, With no central management, no single

person or organization can list all Internet users, Each Internet provider is centrally managed, however, resulting in an arrangement much like

States that agree on traffic laws and connect their roads at borders.

42 ~~r netw~ks ~~.W growing rapidly. For example, Digital Equipment Corp. ’s internal network includes over 80,000 computers in

37 countries. See Larry Press, “The Net: Progress and Oppoflunity,” Comrnunicafiom of fhe ACM, vol. 35, No. 12, December 1992, p. 21.

43 This i5 ~~ogw5 t. ~nning out ofav~l~]e te]ephone numbers in the telephone numbering system. See Daniel P. Dem, “Internet Running

Out of 1P Address Space? Yes, No, and Maybe,” Internet World, vol. 3, No, 7, September 1992, p. 13.

44 us CmmSS, Office of Technology Assessment, Advanced Network Technology, op. cit., footnote 37.

. .
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 73

Prices for Internet access vary according to the

application and the organization. If the connection

is local, an individual might pay $9 per month for

electronic mail access, or $19 per hour and up for

full access. A rural school might spend $50 to $200

per month for dial-up or dedicated Internet access

via modem; and a large corporation or university

might pay $1,000 to $5,000 per month for 56 kbps

to full 1.544 Mbps access. These Internet subscribers also must pay initial setup charges and the

cost of leasing the necessary lines to get to the

regional Internet provider. Dial-up 1-800 services

are also available that bill the user according to

minutes of service.

The Internet’s rate structure likely will change

in the future. New billing arrangements may make

system management more complicated or expensive. 45-46 It is not clear how pricing may evolve

and how changes might affect individual users.

How will equity of access be assured? Will there

be a tendency to serve wealthier commercial users,

thereby pricing individuals, schools, and libraries

out of the market? Will electronic advertising be

allowed in order to support network providers?

How will junk (unsolicited) electronic mail be

defined and controlled, if at all? The utility of the

Internet for government service delivery will be

affected by decisions on how the Internet is priced.

Privatization of the NSFNET47

One of the participating Internet networks is the

National Science Foundation’s NSFNET. The

NSFNET consists of three levels—the participating institutional networks, linked to regional notfor-profit and commercial network providers,

which are, in turn, linked together through the

high-capacity NSFNET backbone (see figure 3-

3). The National Science Foundation partially sup

ports the NSFNET backbone .48,49

The NSFNET is already essentially privatized,

with the exception of the government support to

some providers and many users described above.

Privatization is expected to be complete in 1994,

when NSF plans to award a new contract for

very-high-speed-backbone network services

(VBNS) limited to supercomputing applications.

NSF will then end its support for the existing

NSFNET backbone, and networks currently using

it will have to make new arrangements, at some

cost to each. These arrangements include leasing

lines between networks and managing switching

equipment. Several major network providers have

formed a corporation—the Corporation for Regional and Enterprise Networking (CoREN)—to

provide such backbone and other advanced computer networking services. The impacts of privatization on electronic delivery via the Internet are

still unclear, and warrant close monitoring.

Local Access to the Internet

As with FTS2000, many Internet users depend

on the local telephone carrier to enter the network

and reach a user on the other end. This connection

can be expensive for a rural user if the nearest

Internet gateway requires a long-distance telephone call.50 Internet access is therefore not equal

for all citizens. If electronic service delivery over

Internet becomes significant, the concept of uni45 Om ~rwwl for pricing ]ntermt Uw, for example, has users bidding their maximum willingness tO pay for access, with the PrioritY given

to the highest bidders on down until the network capacity is filled. At any given moment, however, all users on the network pay the same price,

that of the last lowest priority user allowed on the network. See Jeffrey K. Mac Kie-Mason and Hal R. Varian, “Some Economics of the Internet,”

University of Michigan, Apr. 2S, 1993.

.% Eric Arnm, ~~he Inlermt I)llemma: Freeway or To]]w~y?” llu.~ine.~.r C~jmmuni~uti(jnf Re\iew’, vO1. 22, No. 12, December 1992, P 28

47 The NSFNET Operatlon$ me reviewed in office of the Inspector General, National Science Foundation, “Review of NSFNET,” rePort to

the Subcommittee on Science, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Mar. 23, 1993.

48 Noncommercial networks and users we exwcted t. use the federa]ly subsidized portions of the ]nterne( only for nonprofit research Or

education purposes-the Acceptable Use Policy. Commercial networks are not subject to this restriction, and often sell services over their

networks.

@ The NSFNET backbone itself has been supported by contributions from MCI and IBM ($60 million) and the State of Michigan

($S million). M well ~$ NSF (about $10 million per year). Regional and campus networks may have invested over 10 times this total amount.

so T~ cost is smtlms reduc~ by using the ]ong.distan~ call only to download or upload information, and rding this information off-line.
74 I Making Government Work

Level 1:

NSFNET

Backbone

Level 2:

Not-for-profit

or commercial

provider

Level 3:

Users

Figure 3-3-The Three Levels of the NSFNET

To other Internet backbones

[

—

(ESNET, NSI, etc.)

To other backbones

and providers

University

campus-wide

network \ (s3 (23

NOTE: The NSFNET backbone will be phased over to commercially provided backbones.

KEY: ESNET=Department of Energy’s Energy Science Network; NSFNET=National Science Foundation Network; NSl=National Aeronautics and

Space Administration’s Science Internet.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

versal service, usually referring to telephone serv- and sell the Internet access itself, in competition

ice, could be redefined to include affordable ac- with other Internet providers, The local carrier

cess to Internet services.51 would be acting much as it does with telephone

Local exchange carriers, FTS2000, long-dis- service; that is, it provides connectivity to the

tance carriers, or other providers could provide outside world, but in this case through computer

direct Internet access.52 The local carrier could mail and file transfers rather than through voice

simply market or pass through the Internet access communications.

from a regional or commercial provider, for exam- Applications and User-Friendliness

pie, much as the local carrier currently connects As with the personal computer, the full potenand bills long-distance service to the home. Alter- tial of the Internet for citizens—whether for elecnatively, the carrier could install its own gateways tronic service delivery or other purposes-will

51 The Communications Act of 1934 creates the Federal Communications Commission to regulate commerce in communication “by wire

and radio so as to make available, so far m possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire

and radio communications service with adequate facilities and reasonable charges, . . “ Communications Act of 19.34, 47 U,S.C. 151, el seq.

See also U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Critical Connec(icmr: Communicutionfor /he Fumre, op. cit., footnote 1; and U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, The NTIA Infru.rtructure Report: Telec{/mmunicutions in the Age of Informuti(m, op. cit., fcmtnote 1.

52 For example, sprint already h~~ its own commercial TCP/l P packet-switching se~ice.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 75

only be realized when applications are creative,

easy to use, and relevant to their needs. If the

government wishes to expand Internet use to

schools, libraries, small businesses, or citizens-atlarge through the NREN program, network applications and “information filters” must also help

users manage the massive amounts of information

appearing on the Internet. Otherwise, Internet use

may continue to be concentrated primarily within

the scientific, academic, and industrial research

communities.

Novice users may also require some human

interaction on the network, such as on-line assistants to help with a service or to find an electronic

address. These “on-line librarians” or “network

assistants” could be provided by the network

providers (like telephone operators), by each service contributor (like 1-800 help lines), by libraries,

or by new commercial companies. The assistants

might respond over the network interactively via

electronic mail or by telephone.

A locator to government services available via

Internet would be particular y useful. It could be a

simple index for finding services and other directories, and could be managed by each individual

agency, a single governmentwide agency such as

the National Technical Information Service

(NTIS) or the U.S. Government Printing Office

(GPO),53 and/or a private company. Federal agencies already operate more than 50 electronic locators, but not all are accessible on-line, much less

via the Internet.54 NSF has cooperative agreements that promise to develop “first and last resort” information services (InterNIC) and a

directory of directories (including types of directories equivalent to “white” and “yellow” pages).

These arrangements may not be sufficient for citizens looking for government services, however.

New types of network locators, such as Gopher,

WAIS, Archie, and World Wide Web use software

that directs users automatically to file or database

servers, Locators to government Internet services

would also be useful via telephone, dial-up electronic bulletin board, CD-ROM, magnetic diskette, and print, at least until the general public is

fully acclimated to computer networking.

Network Privacy, Ownership, and Control

Computer networks raise new issues of privacy

and confidentiality y, ownership and authentication,

and information control and censorship-many of

which are relevant to networked electronic service

delivery. Regarding privacy,55 what information

can be gathered about users of computer networks

such as the Internet? Should users be notified of

all information gathered on them? Can the network provider sell that information? Should network users be able to obtain additional privacy?

Who will enforce protection of network privacy?

Commercial users often insist that their data traffic

not travel over a competitor’s network on the way

to a destination. Some government applications

may need to restrict network traffic to protect

national security or the privacy of an individual’s

records. How will networks accommodate this?

(Also see ch. 7.)

Regarding ownership, who owns the information on computer networks, and what can be copied legally?56 Should the Internet be like a library,

where one can borrow books and journals without

a fee attached to the item? Should it be like the

s? see the Govcrnmen[ printing {) ffice Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, pUblic Law 103-40.

54 Chmles R, McClure, JW Rym, ~d wi[li~ E, Moen, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, “ldcntifying and Describing

Federal Information Inventory/Locator Systems: Design for Network-Based Locators,” report prepared for the Office of Management and

Budget, the National Archives and Records Administration, and GSA, August 1992.

55 C+e James E, Katz and ~ ichw~ F ~ravelnan, “privacy Jssues of a National Research and Education Net work,” ~e~~~~Jli~”.~ unff(n~orffl~i~ Lr~

vol. 8, Nos. 1 and 2, 1991, p 71,

% copyright is~ue~ of ~]ectr(>nlc inforlnation are discussed in U, S Congress, Office of Technology Awxsment, ~“i~~ing ~ ~UIU~’e:

Computer SC$tnure, Intelle(tuul Property und (he Challenge (f Techrujlogi( al Chunge, OTA-TCT-527 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, May 1992), See also Clifford A. Lynch, “The Accessibility and Integrity of Networked Information Collections,” contractor

reporl prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-BP-TCT- 109, March 1993; and Bruce Hartford and Jonathan Tasi ni, “Electronic

Publishing Issues A Working Paper,” Na[ional Writers Union, New York, NY, June 30, 1993,
76 I Making Government Work

broadcast music industry, which pays songwriters

a fee for every playing of a recording? Should it

be like a bookstore, where one must pay in full for

the book or journal? Current information gatekeepers maintain authenticity by producing recognizable publications or programs and through

established reputations. Computer networks allow

data to be easily manipulated or lifted from documents, however, and network data and document

security is minimal at present. Who is responsible

for maintaining the authenticity of documents

transmitted over the network—authors/publishers, intermediaries, or users? Who should be liable

for damage from, for example, a faulty software

program obtained through the network—the user,

the owner of a computer on which it was stored or

distributed, or the author/publisher?

Who can or should control the information

flowing over computer networks? Computer networks radically change the established methods

and rules of free speech since the traditional gatekeepers—media owners and publishers--do not

review the opinions. What rights and responsibilities do the new providers and users have? The

government has a special responsibility to ensure

fairness and protect free speech. If a statement is

offensive or threatening, can a mediator edit or

censor the discussion?57 Widespread use of networking for electronic service delivery will intensify the need to address and resolve these issues.

(Also see ch. 7.)

OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES

1 Importance of the Local Carrier—"The

Last Mile”

Beyond FTS2000 and the Internet/NREN, several other telecommunications infrastructure issues are relevant to electronic delivery of Federal

services. “The last mile”58 is key for delivery of

digital or high bandwidth government electronic

services to citizens at home, If aging analog equipment is not replaced by more powerful digital

equipment, regions with newer equipment may

leave other regions behind. Booming regions with

new fiber “superhighways” could leave behind

many rural and inner city wire “back roads.” Opportunities will be missed if sufficient telecommunication services are not available or affordable in

the so-called “last mile” to disadvantaged Americans, telecommuters, librarians, and many others.

The local exchange carrier (LEC) has traditionally delivered telephone service the last mile to the

home or office. Most switched transmissions must

cross the LEC network at some point whether from

the telephone, fax, modem, electronic kiosk, or

automated teller machine, Even FTS2000 vendors

must subcontract services from LECs, and Internet

access requires transport through the LEC to reach

the provider’s switch.

There are some exceptions to using the LEC for

electronic delivery of services over the last mile.

New unregulated competitive access providers offer all-fiber digital telephone service in competition with LECs in some regions. Cellular and other

wireless services can bypass the wire to the home,

but cellular service is not available in many rural

areas and is still quite expensive. Satellite 1 inks are

effective for broadcasting or reaching remote or

mobile locations, but currently are not practical for

basic telephone services to the home. Cable television is available to about 97 percent of U.S.

households; about 61 percent of all households

subscribe. 59 Cable television, in theory, could be

used for large-bandwidth switched services, but

experiments with such switching are only in the

earliest stages. Table 3-2 shows some telecommus7T~ City of Smta Monica, CA, found that such “electronic town hall meetings” using their Public Electronic Network (PEN) system have

been at times very useful, and allow the city to hear from a greater diversity of voices. The quality of a discussion sometimes degenerates,

however, Although every user mwst register, the anonymity of a text-based discussion allows some users to dominate or intimidate others. See

Pamela Vadey, “Electronic Democracy,“ Technology Review, vol. 94, No. 8, November-December 1991, p. 43.

sg’~~ lmt mile” ~fers t. the part of the system between the customer and the nearest telecommunications switch.

59 Dr. Ric~d Green, Cable Television Laboratories, Inc., written testimony at a hearing before the House Commltte On ScienCe, sPac%

and Technology, Subcommittee on Technology, Environment, and Aviation, Mar. 23, 1993. The data are from AC. Nielson Co. and Paul Kagan

Associates, Inc.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 77

nications providers and the services they can deliver in the last mile.

For digital or high bandwidth transmission to

work, the carrier at each end of the line must have

the necessary technical capability. New digital

services such as ISDN are less useful if they are

not universally available. Some high schools in

Eastern Montana, for example, receive interactive

two-way distance education via fiber optic lines,

while the Little Big Horn College at a nearby Crow

Indian Reservation still depends on analog telephone lines, and many of its residents have no

telephone service at all. Despite the efforts of

LECs to upgrade their physical plant, residents of

rural areas, distressed inner cities, and other disadvantaged areas often receive upgrades last,

since the LECs usually install new equipment first

where their demand and revenues are greatest.

Federal and State policies on local carriers vary.

Some State regulatory commissions perceive their

role as keeping consumer prices low for basic

telephone service, while others work proactively

to implement advanced applications. This results

in service variations across the Nation.

The Rural Electrification Administration

(REA) has been successful in financing small private and cooperative LECs to deliver telephone

service in rural regions, but the national standard

of telephone service has been changing.60 Almost

12 percent of rural households still do not have

telephone service at all, and 12 percent of those

that have service do not meet REA minimum

specifications. Many who have standard service

do not have access to ISDN or other digital services. Nearly all can access the Internet only

through an expensive long-distance telephone

call. The REA is still needed to finance existing

and upgraded services, and it could redefine its

minimum specifications to include more advanced

services such as ISDN or local Internet access.

1 Traditional Copper, Modems, and ISDN

An alternative to installing new fiber optic cable and switched broadband to deliver information

Table 3-2—Providers and Technologies Delivering Services in the “Last Mile” to the Home

Cable Terrestrial

Service or Telephone television Mobile broadcast Satellite

technology companies companies providers stations providers

Basic voice Yes Pilot/demo Yes Yes Proposed

(one-way)

Slow data Yes Pilot/demo Some Proposed Yes

(one-way)

Fast data Proposed Proposed Proposed No Proposed

One-way Pilot,’demo Yes No Yes Yes

broadband

Two-way Proposed Proposed No No No

broadband

Packet- Some Proposed Some No Yes

switching

Some categorles overlap for example, two-way broadband will likely be delivered using packet-switching. Some services are

available for large customers, but are not publicly available or available to the home

SO LJF{C[ otflce ot Technology Assessment, 1993

~) See dw U,S, Congress, office of Technology Assessment, Rurul Americu at the Crossroad!: Nefw’orking fhr the Future, OTA-TCT-472

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1991 ).
78 I Making Government Work

to homes, schools, libraries, and offices is to make

better use of the present substantial investment in

copper-wire cables. Fast modems can transmit

data up to 28.8 kbps on analog lines, much taster

than many of the current modems that operate at

1.2 or 2.4 kbps. Plain copper wires using ISDN

services 61 or other digital technologies can

achieve a tenfold improvement in data rate over

most modems. Using high-bit-rate digital subscriber line (HDSL) and asynchronous digital subscriber line (ADSL) technology,62 copper wires

can reach one-half T1 (768 kbps) and full T1

(1.544 Mbps) rates at distances over 2 miles. Using local area net work protocols, copper can reach

100 Mbps over short distances. Whereas digital

video once required 90 Mbps transmission, even

56 kbps is now sometimes acceptable for video

due to advances in data compression. Put simply,

ISDN, HDSL, and ADSL terminals serve as

highly advanced transceivers—modems, in a

sense—that correct for the limitations of the cop

per wires. These advanced technologies may meet

the needs of most users for years, and without the

cost of new cable installation.63

ISDN essentially moves much of the control

features of the central switch to the user’s telephone or switch. ISDN is well suited for telephone

and on-line services and videoconferencing for

Digital switching center at the OTZ Telephone Cooperative in Kotzebue, Alaska Rural and urban

areas alike depend on modern digital switching and

transmission technologies to provide high-quality,

low-cost telephone service.

users of all kinds, including small businesses, tele-

-. commuters, students, and health care workers.

ISDN can send switched voice, fax, electronic

mail, video, and packets over a single pair of

copper wires that previously carried only voice or

data-and more than one type of transmission at

the same time. This is possible because ISDN is

digital and uses “out-of-band signaling,” which

fJI ISDN (]nteva[ed Services Digi[~ Network) is so~times called nurrowbund ISDN to differentiate it from br~~tihti ISDN (B ISDN).

BISDN integrates digital voice, data, and video signals like ISDN, but is otherwise very different (see discussion of switched broadband in the

following section).

bz HDSL ~~ ADSL we ~w services tkt aISO obtain more bandwidth out of the existing copper wires, but ISDN provides more control and

functionality. Using the same copper wires needed for ordinary telephone service, but new technology at each end, one can obtain two-way

786 kbps transmission (HDSL), or one-way full 1.544 Mbps transmission with a 64 kbps voice channel in the other direction (ADSL). HDSL

and ADSL may eventually provide video-on-&mand entertainment, distance education, telemedicine, and videoconferencing to homes, schools,

clinics, and businesses. See, for example, Gerald A. Greenen and William R. Murphy, “HDSL: Increasing the Utility of Copper-Bmxl

Tran..mission Networks,” Tele{fmmunicufi{~n~, vol. 26, No. 8, August 1992, p. 55. See also T. Russell Hsing, Cheng-Tie Chen, and Jules A.

Bellisio, “Video Communications and Services in the Copper Loop,” IEEE Communicdions Muguzine, vol. 31, No. 1, January 1993, p. 62.

~s Data~se servers also can ~usd to rtxjuce the amount of information transmitted. The remote computer (the server) does the titab~se

queries quickly and sends only the results over a slow wire. The user’s local computer (the client) receives the results and can display them

off-1 ine, without tying up the wire with the entire database information.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 79

allows for special control functions and variable

bandwidths.

ISDN requires ISDN-compatible and independently powered equipment at each end,

whether it be a telephone, fax, or computer interface. ISDN also requires that the long-distance and

local telephone companies install software using

the Common Channel Signaling System 7 (SS7)

format in digital central office switches. The major

long-distance companies have installed SS7, but

the local telephone companies are moving more

slowly. Only when SS7 is available is ISDN even

an option for the consumer, who can then purchase

ISDN terminal equipment and order the service.

The first end-to-end long-distance ISDN call was

made in summer 1992.

Like many services, ISDN is an example of the

chicken-and-egg problem. New services often are

not useful unless the y are ubiquitous, but they will

not be ubiquitous unless users or providers perceive that the services are useful. Consequently,

LECs vary in their marketing strategies and schedules to deploy ISDN.64 Europe and Japan are

ahead of the United States in percentage of telephone lines with ISDN accessibility, but the

United States is ahead in lines actually used for

ISDN. 65 Tariffs for private lines in Europe are

relatively more expensive, however, making comparison of services difficult.

ISDN standards also vary nationally and internationally, but only to a small degree. The 25 or

so different versions of ISDN standards are expected eventually to be interoperable, and will

likely converge as companies upgrade their ISDN

offerings.

Confusion over standards and high prices, and

market ignorance about what ISDN real] y is, have

resulted in delays and an image problem for ISDN

implementation, Much of this delay is due to inexperience in planning and marketing on the part

of the Bell operating companies after the divestiture of AT&T. Before divestiture, AT&T could

more easily implement and market a single standard and compatible user equipment nationwide.66

Europe also has had difficulties in planning and

marketing ISDN, however, due to the transition

from public monopolies to a competitive private

sector.67

Recently, ISDN has received support on the

basis of its lower overall cost to the consumer

compared to a broadband fiber network,68 although prices are still quite high (about $800) for

an ISDN telephone. The cost of implementing

ISDN has been placed at about $45 billion, excluding user equipment.69 In comparison, local

telephone companies spend about $20 billion per

year for upgrades.70 These upgrades include converting to the SS7 format, which is necessary for

rapidly expanding 1-800 services as well as

ISDN. 71 This $45 billion figure compares to over

64 Bell At]antic, for example, had 49 ~rcent of its network ISDN-capable in 1992, and expects to reach 87 Percent in 1994; Southwestern

Bell had 16 percent deployment in 1992, and plans 21 percent in 1994. Daniel Bnere and Mark Langner, “Users Wonder If JSDN Can Endure,”

Network World, vol. 9, No. 38, Sept. 21, 1992, p. 29.

~S Fr~~ ad SingaPre had 100” ~rcent ISDN-c~ability in 1990, and the former West Germany and Japan expect 100 WrCent capability

by 1994. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 185. Dan Stokesberry

and Shukri Wakid, “ISDN in North America,” IEEE Communicuti{rns Ma~azine, vol. 31, No. 5, May 1993, p. 93.

66 For ~ Ovewiew of ISDN implemntatlon, see Kath]~n M. Gregg, “The Status of ISDN in the USA,” Telec(jmrnu~liCdi(lns P(jlic)’. VO1. 16,

July 1992, p. 425.

67 Gertid FuchS, $$lsDN—T~ Telecommmic~ions Highway for Europe After 1992?” Telecommunicdions poli<’}’, vol. 16, Novem&r

1992, p. 635. See also John Early, “Opening the Channels of ISDN,” Telec{~mmwitdi(~n.~, vol. 27, No. 3, March 1993, p. 44,

w SW MWk N. CmWr, “~veloping the Information Age in the 1990s: A pragmatic Consumer view?” Consumer Fe&ration of Americ%

Washington, DC, June 8, 1992. See also ‘The Open Platform” and “Innovative Services Delivered Now,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation,

Washington, DC, n.d.

* Bruce L. Egan, “Benefits and Costs of Public Information Networks: The Case for Narrowband ISDN,” Columbia Institute for

Tele-Information, Columbia University, New York, NY, February 1992.

To Abut om.fo~h of this amount is for new centra] office quipment,one.f~flh for new copper insta]]ation, and 7 to 9 ~rcent fOr neW

fiber cable installation. See Carol Wilson, “LECS Gear Up for Competition,” Teleph(my, vol. 224, No. 4, Jan, 25, 1993, p, 33.

71 K~en Archer perry, “The Race to Deploy SS7,” Telephjny, vol. 223, No. 3, July 20, 1992, p. 25, See also Dave Powell, “Signaling

System 7: The Brains Behind ISDN,” Networking Munugemen$, vol. 10, No. 4, March 1992, p. 36.
80 I Making Government Work

$200 billion for fiber installation and switched

broadband, also excluding the user equipment.

1 Fiber and Switched Broadband Services

Another “last mile” issue is the replacement of

copper wires with glass fibers to homes or neighborhoods. Fiberoptic transmission has been hailed

as a means to revolutionize the delivery of government services, education, home entertainment,

and the workplace. This “fiber-in-the-loop”72

technology could ultimately deliver gigabits of

information per second-equivalent to many

channels of video information or tens of thousands

of telephone calls. Telephone companies already

use these fiber cables for telephone traffic between

central offices. Many organizations use fiber for

interoffice computer networks, and some telephone and cable companies have pilot programs

using fiber in the last mile.

An important distinction in this discussion is

between one-way broadband and two-way broadband services, or between unstitched and

switched broadband. Fiber-in-the-loop currently

is only capable of carrying mostly one-way, relatively unstitched transmissions, such as on-demand cable television. Two-way, fully switched

services of all kinds may be possible in the future

as the technology becomes available and affordable. 73 Such fully switched broadband services

would integrate voice, data, and video, and would

therefore require new end-user equipment.

Many experts and advocates agree on the eventual need for an improved telecommunications

infrastructure using fiber and switched broadband

services. 74 The question is how and when it should

be implemented. Faster implementation would

Broadband network laboratory at the Pacific Bell facility in San Ramon, California. Many commercial

companies are developing and testing systems for the

transmission and switching of wide bandwidth signals.

presumably put the United States at a competitive

advantage compared to other countries, much as it

would give one State an advantage over others.

But this investment has several risks:

1. Services delivered by fiber must compete with

other technical and market alternatives. Cable

television already supplies great bandwidth in

one direction over coaxial cables or wireless

technology. Cellular and other wireless technologies promise large bandwidths—some as

high as one gigabit per second—and more

flexibility. 75 With data compression technology, traditional copper wires can transport

larger amounts of information more efficiently. Direct broadcast and other satellite

providers could be strong competitors for data

and video, and allow the customer to move

locations easily. Compact video disks, videTZ The fj~r might g. t. the home (fiber-to-the-home), to a neighborhood box (fiber-to-the-curb), or to the nearest neighborhood switch

(fiber-to-the-neighborhood). In the latter two cases, existing coaxial cable and copper wires would carry the transmissions the final distance to

the home. Unless otherwise specified, fiber-in-the-loop here refers to any of these three architectures.

73 The tec~o]oa t. switch bro~bnd for this and other applications (such as for supercomputers) is the focus of the High performance

Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program, which includes the NREN.

74 See Institute for ]nfmation studies, op. cit., footnote 1. See also Marlin C. J. Elton (cd,), Inte~rated Broadband ~ew’or~.’ ~he public

Policy Issues (New York, NY: Elsevier Science Pub. Co., 1991).

75 GE Corp. rment]y ma~ Quitaque, Tex~\ the first wireless city when it converted the 700 residents from a wired to a wireless telephone

system. SW Telecommunicu!ions Reports, vol. 58, No, 49, Dec. 7, 1992, p. 15.
Chapter 3–Telecommunications Infrastructure for Electronic Delivery 81

2,

otapes, and CD-ROMs are strong competitors

to provide entertainment and database information. Broadband to the home is more likely

to redistribute revenues among these different

providers than to drastically y increase net revenues and change consumer lifestyles. The redistributed revenues will come primarily from

those citizens with more disposable income.

Switched broadband could be overkill for

most consumers for man y years. FTS2000 and

the commercial telephone systems are used

main] y for voice calls or low-speed data transmission, even though many more services are

possible. Previous experience with videophones failed, but not because of technology

(which used existing analog switching and

copper wires). Videophones failed because of

the lack of customer interest and lack of connectivity (the chicken-and-egg problem of

needing a minimum number of users to provide value).76

Twenty years ago, interactive two-way service over coaxial cable also was heralded, much

as fiber-to-the-home is today. The two-way

cable movement failed because the switching

technology was more costly than expected,

consumers had little interest in two-way services, the cable industry was not interested or

prepared to provide such systems, and the

telephone industry was not interested in oneway television.77

3.

Today, the telephone industry is interested in

providing one- and two-way video information and entertainment services if they can

deliver advanced features such as video-ondemand, more channels, or better quality

through high-definition television.78 Such interest could drive fiber installation, and other

equipment could be converted to switched

broadband much later depending on cost and

demand.

The cost of fiber-in-the-loop is high; the cost

of switched broadband is even higher. Estimates of the total costs of implementing fiberto-the-home by the telephone companies vary

from $200 billion to over $1 trillion,79-80

while fiber-to-the-curb or neighborhood

would be much less. Cable television providers might provide nonswitched broadband using fiber and existing coaxial cables for about

$20 billion. Costs include laying fiber cables

to the user, and installing switching and other

equipment. To fund the investment, regulatory agencies could allow telephone companies to shorten depreciation schedules to

match true equipment lifetimes. Overall

prices could be allowed to rise, or providers

could finance the investment from sales of

new services. Alternatively, a usage tax

placed on all providers could subsidize the

high-cost subscribers in order to guarantee

universal service.81

76 Mmy consumers have indicated tha{ Vldeophows Seemed useful to others, but were not perceived ~ Personally useful. In o~ studY,

consumers indicated they would actually pay n{jt to be seen on a videophone, A. Michael Nell, “Anatomy of a Failure: Picturephone Revisited,”

Telecommunicati[m P{}licy,. vol. 16, May/June 1992, p, 307.

77 A Mjch~l Nell, “The Br~dbandwagon! A Person~ View of optical Fibre to the Home,” Telecommunications policy, vol. 1 ~, September

1989, p,’ 197,

T~ TWO telephone Companies recent]y ~nounced plans to supply broadband services to the home using fikr-to-tk-neighborhood

technology. US West plans to have 30 percent of its switches connected by the year 2000, with the rest connected by the year 2025. Pacific Bell

plans to connect 50 percent of its lines by the year 2003, and 100 percent by the year 2015, A cable provider, Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI),

recently announced a $2 billion fiber-to-the-neighborhood plan (using existing coaxial cable to the home) for 90 percent of its customers by

19%. The TCI system promises to carry the equivalent information of 500 compressed television channels compared to the present 50,

79 This js ~wt $2,000 ~r hollseho]cj averaged over 100 million households. Bruce L. Egm, “The Case for Residential Broadband

Telecommunications Networks,” Columbia Institute for Tele-information, Columbia University, New York, NY, February 1992, See also

Bruce L. Egan, Inf{wmation Superhighwa],s: The Eclmomics of Advanced Public Communication Netuw-ks (Norwood, MA: Artech House,

1991); and David P. Reed, Resi&ntiul Fiber Optic Networks: An Engineering and Ecorujmic Analysis (Norwood, MA: Artech House, 1992).

~ Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Corp. (NTT) recently abandoned its goal of installing fiber optics throughout JaPm by the Yew 2015,

and then reinstated it again. N~ estimates the investment at $400 billion. Telecommunications Reports, vol. 59, No. 16, Apr. 19, 1993, p. 8.

81 Bmce L, Egan and Steven S. Wildman$ “Investing in Telecommunications Infrastructure: Economics and Policy Considerations,” in

Imtitute for Information Studies, op. cit., footnote 1.
82 I Making Government Work

4.

5.

Switched broadband must overcome significant technical problems.82-83 Experts are concerned that packet delays and bandwidth

management may be overly complex, adding

to costs. Providing main and battery backup

power to electronic transceivers is not a trivial

engineering or regulatory problem and involves cost, safety, and maintenance tradeoffs. Present analog (nondigital) video

entertainment may be transmitted more cost

effectively over coaxial cable due to the extreme requirements of analog transmission.

Without standards, switched broadband could

develop with many noninteroperable formats

and types of equipment, and the full opportunity would be missed. That is, users would

face greater risks when choosing service and

equipment, and participation would be much

less inviting. The experience of narrowband

ISDN proved that the divested Bell companies

were less than successful in resolving such

issues and marketing ISDN. The industry may

have learned from that experience, however.

The ATM Forum, for example, has over 150

members dedicated to standards for broadband packet-switching technology. The

government also could act to promote stand6.

ards--not to choose them, but rather to motivate industry to develop and adopt them.

One solution to the problem of noninteroperable formats and equipment might be to require all local carriers-telephone companies,

cable companies, etc.—to serve as common

carriers for all types of content providers.

They would then have a strong incentive to

maximize connectivity and operability for all

subscribers; at the same time, first amendment

guarantees of free speech would be strengthened. 84 This might also lessen conflict between the interests of content providers versus

connectivity providers.

While switched broadband and a fiber infrastructure are worthwhile long-term goals, intermediate solutions such as ISDN and fast

modems will coexist, and should not be overlooked when forecasting future telecommunications needs. Even if switched broadband

appears soon, it will develop in parallel with

other services for the foreseeable future. 85,86,87 Federal agencies, in sum, need not

wait for widespread implementation of fiber

and broadband technologies to improve government services through electronic delivery.

. J

82s= (jWrw T Hawley, “Bre& on Through to the @her si&,” Telephmy, vol. 220, No. 2, Jan. 14, 1991, p. 38; and Dustin J. B~ker,

“Power Problems in the Fiber Loop,” Telephony, vol. 218, No. 3, Jan. 15, 1990, p. 46.

83DM~d EA. Clwke ~d Te[suya Ka~& “Broadbmd: The Last Mile,” IEEE Telecommunications Magazine, vol. 31, No. 3, M~ch 1993,

p. 94.

~HenW Geller, “Fi& optics: An Opwtiunity for a New Policy’?” Annenberg Washington progr~, Northwestern University, w~hin~on)

DC, 1991.

85Vice presiknt AI~~ Gore, Jr,, said that “there is nothing inconsistent between pursuing ISDN m a useful stePPing-stone, while at the

same time encouraging more-rapid development of fiber and wireless networks capable of carrying full, uncompressed video and other

applications . . . “ “In fact, it’s unlikely that the backbone network will involve a great deal of new fiber at all. It’ll involve some, but most of

the fiber we need is already there. What we need is new switches, new software, new standards that vastly upgrade the capacity of existing fiber

to accommodate the extremely large data flows that a gigabyte network will feature.” Graeme Browning, op. cit., footnote 35.

86John sCu]ley, fo~r ch~rrn~ of Apple computer, Inc. and an advocate of broadband twhnology, stid that the collection of

interconnected networks could use a variety of technologies including ISDN as a starting point, and that it would be a mistake to be “locked

into a single technology.” Sculley also said that fiber to the home is not current.ly a justifiable investment for the private sector, since it is not

clear what services and products will sell. Testimony by John Sculley before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee

on Telecommunications and Finance, Jan. 19, 1993.

gT~wmnce Ga\man, ‘“r~ Bro~~nd Jigsaw Puzzle,” Business Communications Review, VO1. 23, No. *, February 1993, p. 35.
Electronic

Benefits Transfer

for Social

Service Delivery 4

SUMMARY

Electronic benefits transfer (EBT) is a feasible alternative to

paper-based systems for delivering government benefits and services. The Federal Government can lead the way in implementing

a nationwide EBT system. Congress and the President need to act

quickly on EBT, however, if opportunities for integrating services

and capturing economies of scale are to be realized; otherwise

Federal agencies and States will continue to move in their own

directions creating potentially incompatible

EBT systems.

EBT tests and evaluations indicate that it

easy to use, and decreasing in cost. Recipients, retailers, financial

institutions, and local program administrators who have tried EBT

prefer it to paper checks or coupons. It can yield significant cost

savings to retailers, recipients, financial institutions, and government agencies. Recipients using EBT experience an added sense

of dignity and security. EBT can help to integrate the delivery of

several social services benefit payments and simplify the process

of issuing and redeeming benefits. It also reduces fraud and abuse,

such as diversion of benefits for unauthorized or illegal purchases

(although new forms of electronic fraud may arise). EBT is most

likely to be cost effective if it includes multiple social service

programs and uses a standardized commercial infrastructure.

and uncoordinated

is proven, reliable,

Despite these optimistic findings, sufficient information is not

available to assure cost-effective EBT or to make technical decisions on nationwide implementation—such as a national roll-out

of EBT for food stamps using a magnetic stripe card. Federally

supported pilot tests have assessed the use of magnetic stripe cards

fairly thoroughly, but have given only limited attention to smart

83
84 I Making Government Work

cards and have entirely overlooked hybrid cards

(that combine features of both magnetic stripe and

smart cards).

The next logical step toward nationwide EBT

deployment is a scaled-up, multiple-program, and

regionally based EBT feasibility test. If properly

designed and evaluated, the test would determine

the total cost to the Federal Government, States,

and the private sector of developing, implementing, and operating a national EBT system. In order

to determine the optimal design of a national system, the test should include on-line and off-line

approaches, as well as magnetic stripe card, smart

card, and hybrid card technologies. The test should

explore different levels of cooperation between

Federal/State and public/private sectors, and develop EBT cost-sharing and standardized EBT

operating rules and procedures. The test also

should identify the most effective mechanisms for

Federal/State leadership and interagency coordination on EBT.

Various Federal laws and regulations will need

to be reviewed and possibly revised to facilitate a

transition to EBT. These include the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990; the

Privacy Act of 1974; the Computer Security Act

of 1987; Federal financial laws; banking legislation and regulations; and the enabling laws and

regulations of each government program participating in EBT.

The transition to a national EBT system will be

difficult and complex, but it is now possible.

Strong Federal leadership and coordination, combined with meaningful State Government and private sector participation, will help to assure

success. In the end, EBT offers the potential to

improve the quality, integrity, and cost effectiveness of many Federal and State social service

benefit programs.

THE POTENTIAL OF ELECTRONIC

BENEFITS TRANSFER

I EBT Scenarios

The following two fictional scenarios illustrate

the development and usefulness of EBT. The first

scenario assumes that the Federal Government

establishes a strategic long-term plan for a national

EBT system. Federal and State agencies work

cooperatively with the private sector to develop an

integrated national EBT system that serves multiple programs and accommodates both on-line and

off-line applications. The second scenario assumes that Federal and State agencies develop

their own EBT systems with little or no coordination or policy guidance from the Federal Government.

One-Card EBT

Mary Citizen is a 37-year-old, single mother of

two who recently was laid off from a computer

assembly plant in southern New Hampshire. She

is on her way to Lowell, Massachusetts, where she

attends a federally sponsored job-training program. Upon arrival, Mary presents her Federal

Social Service (FSS) card to a job counselor, who

inserts the card into a computer and debits Mary’s

job-training benefits account.

On the way home, Mary stops at a supermarket

10 miles south of the New Hampshire border to

purchase groceries. Inside, she suddenly remembers that she has not obtained her benefit allowance from the Women, Infants, and Children’s

Program. Instead of driving all the way to the WIC

clinic, Mary simply inserts her FSS card into a

reader at the customer-service counter where her

benefits are automatically added to the card. She

purchases some food items and infant formula.

At the checkout counter, Mary inserts her FSS

card into a point-of-sale terminal that accepts

smart cards and magnetic stripe cards for both

commercial and government programs. Once all

the items are scanned, the card-reader automatically deducts the appropriate amounts from her

WIC and food stamp accounts.

Back in New Hampshire, Mary realizes that she

needs cash to pay the babysitter. Stopping at her

local ATM machine, she inserts her FSS card and

how policy decisions being made today will affect obtains cash from her Aid to Families with De-
Chapter 4–Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 85

pendent Children account. Mary has conducted

transactions in two States, and accessed several

different benefit programs, with only one card that

can be used in any ATM or POS device nationwide.

Multiple-Card EBT

Mark Public is 67 years old, retired, and living

in Jacksonville, Florida. He is partially disabled as

a result of a back injury sustained during his career

as a Captain in the U.S. Navy. Mark receives

physical therapy once a week on the naval base.

He must show proof of identity before entering the

naval compound. Today, Mark is in a hurry. At the

base gate, he pulls out his wallet and realizes that

he left his other wallet at home—the second one

he must now carry to accommodate the increasing

number of identification and benefit cards. Mark

has to drive all the way home to get his cards.

Back on base, at the physical therapist’s office,

Mark must present his Military Benefits Card.

Here he learns that his benefits for the year have

been consumed, and he must drive to the other side

of the base get additional benefits added to the card

before he can get his therapy.

Later in the day, Mark decides to visit his

daughter and grandchildren who live in a small

town in Georgia, just over the Florida State line.

He discovers that he’s short of cash needed to treat

his grandchildren to a movie, so he stops at a local

ATM in Georgia. Here Mark needs to use two

cards: one to withdraw funds from his Social Security account and another to access his Disability

Income account. Mark discovers, to his dismay,

that the Georgia system is incompatible with the

Florida system, and that he cannot access his benefits. Mark has to borrow cash from his daughter.

On the way home, Mark stops at his local pharmacy to refill a prescription. He rummages again

through his wallet full of benefit cards and finds

the Medicare Card that he needs to obtain and pay

for medical and pharmaceutical services. However, Mark forgets his Medicare Personal Identification Number (PIN) and tells the clerk that

“having to carry so many different cards with

different PINs makes keeping track of your PINs

very confusing.” He is unable to have his prescription filled. Tired and frustrated, Mark wonders

why the government has made it so difficult for

him to obtain the services to which he is entitled.

1 What Is Electronic Benefits Transfer?

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) uses automated financial transaction processing and card

access technologies to electronically deliver Federal and State benefits to recipients. Recipients can

access their benefits by using a card to transact

with Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) operated by banks and Point of Sale (POS) terminals

at retail locations. EBT systems issue and redeem

benefits by using electronic networks to transfer

benefits from a public assistance account to a

retailer’s account (see figure 4-1 ). An EBT system

can be designed to accept magnetic stripe cards

and/or “smart cards”--a card the size of a credit

card with an embedded integrated circuit that contains memory and performs processing functions

(see ch. 2 for discussion of EBT technologies).

EBT eliminates the use of paper coupons and

checks, together with the distribution, processing,

collecting, sorting, and much of the accounting

work. EBT is piggybacking, to the extent possible,

on the existing commercial infrastructure for

banking and credit-card servicing. EBT is intended to streamline the process by which government benefits are issued, spent, and redeemed.

EBT systems eventually will include eligibility

determination and certification, as well as benefits

transfer.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA’s) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the

U.S. Treasury’s Financial Management Service

(FMS), and other agencies are exploring the feasibility of a regional or nation wide EBT system for

delivering food stamp and other benefits. FNS is

sponsoring several pilot and operational tests of

EBT for food stamps and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Chil-
86 I Making Government Work

A’

l-a

H=-G

Retailer

,’7

k’

in Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)

A00000 1111 00000

State/Local

Admin. ~gency

❑ ❑ ❑ E

I 1 1 -J

EBT Processor

/

t

r

I I t ,

I

I!!!!!u

Federal Program

Agency

A

IIm■ ■ ■

Treasury

Bank Federal Reserve

KEY: ATM=Automated Teller Machine

SOURCE: Phoenix Planning & Evaluation, Ltd., “Multi-Program Cards for the Delivery of Social Services,” contractor repori prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, Jan. 19, 1993.

dren (WIC).1 Some current EBT projects provide General Assistance; job training assistance; edubenefits for multiple programs. Today, 37 of the cational grants or loans; and others. Pilot tests and

50 States are involved in or planning an EBT evaluations indicate that EBT: 1 ) is well received

project (see table 4-1). and actually preferred by recipients, retailers, and

The opportunity to use card technology, com- providers at all levels; 2) speeds up the settlement

puters, and telecommunications for EBT is here. of accounts for participating financial institutions

Numerous Federal and State Government pro- and retailers (and can yield significant monetary

grams are suitable for EBT: food stamps; WIC; savings to large-volume retailers);2 3) holds

Aid to Families with Dependent Children promise for reducing the levels of waste, fraud,

(AFDC); Supplemental Security Income (SSI); and abuse associated with the coupon-based sysMedicare/Medicaid; child support payments; tern (EBT, however, is not a panacea for the

‘ For evaluations of completed pilot projects, see John A Kirlin, Christopher Logan, Mark Menne, Elizabeth Davis, Alicia Distler, and

Stephanie Andrews, “The Impacts of State-Initiated EBT Demonstrations on the Food Stamp Program,” Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA, June

1993; and Michele Ciurea, Christopher Logan, Mark Menne, and John Kirlin, “The State-Initiated Demonstrations: Their Design, Development,

and Implementation,” Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA, June 1993. Also see National Performance Review Accompanying Report, Reengineering Through lnf<wmuti{m Technology (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993).

2 For a complete discussion of the impact of commercial POS systems on food retailers, see Phoenix Planning & Evaluation, Ltd., “The

Business Case for Retail POS,” contractor report prepared for the Electronic Funds Transfer Association, December 1991. Also see Phoenix

Planning & Evaluation, Ltd., “Report on the Development of EBT Financial Infrastructure Models,” contractor report prepared for the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, December 1992. Speeding up settlements, however, would reduce the Federal Government’s float. According to

FNS, “float” is a measure of earning power gained or lost through the ability of funds to earn interest in a bank account. See U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, “Electronic Benefit Transfer in the Food Stamp Program: The

First Decade,” March 1992, p. 13.
Chapter 4–Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 87

Box 4-A—Food Stamps Today: A Paper-Based System

The Food Stamp Program (FSP), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition

Service (FNS) in cooperation with the States, spends roughly $25 billion annually, and serves about 11 million

households (perhaps 27 million individuals). FSP prints more than 375 million food stamp booklets per year,

including 2.5 billion paper coupons. Participating retailers accept these coupons in lieu of cash for the purchase

of groceries. Retailers deposit the coupons at their local banks for credit to retailer accounts.

The use of paper coupons and other paper documents makes issuance and redemption of food stamp

benefits a cumbersome process for all involved. A typical food stamp transaction using paper coupons includes

the following steps:

. coupons are printed, stored, and shipped under tight (cash equivalent) security;

. recipients use the coupons to purchase eligible food items;

. cashiers determine whether the items meet program criteria;

● after accepting the coupons for purchased food, the retailers store, count, and endorse the coupons;

. retailers then fill out redemption certificates and deposit them and the coupons at their financial

institutions;

● the financial institution then counts the coupons, verifies the totals against the amounts listed on the

redemption certificates, fills out Food Coupon Deposit Documents, credits the merchant, and submits

the coupons and paperwork to the Federal Reserve Bank;

● the Federal Reserve Bank, in turn, confirms the totals, checks for counterfeit coupons, destroys the

coupons, credits the sending institution’s account, and debits the US. Treasury account; and

. FNS monitors and reconciles the flow of paper and benefits through numerous reports provided by

participating retailers, State agencies, and the Federal Reserve Bank.

FSP is expensive and difficult to administer, and generates an immense volume of paperwork. The

paper-based system requires complex procedures intended to prevent coupon losses and to track and reconcile

the flow of food stamp benefits through the system. Waste, fraud, overpayments, and participant misuse are

considered to be major problems in FSP. Food stamp fraud and overpayments are estimated to be more than

$1 billion per year. Improving the integrity of FSP was one of the major motivations in early exploration of

electronic benefits transfer (EBT) for food stamp delivery.

The present system for authorizing, issuing, and redeeming food stamps imposes other costs on program

recipients, retailers, and financial institutions. Recipients frequently must make a special trip each month to

obtain their coupons. If a recipient loses his or her coupons after issuance, the benefits are not replaced.

Retailers and financial institutions need to use special procedures to handle and process the coupons as an

alternative form of currency.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993; and the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“elimination” of fraud and abuse);3 and 4) pro- description of an EBT pilot project to deliver WIC

vides services to recipients in a more convenient benefits.

and cost-effective manner. Electronic service delivery using EBT may ulSee box 4-A for an example of paper-based timately yield significant cost savings in program

benefit transfer of food stamps and box 4-B for a administration by streamlining the enrollment and

J See ch. 7 and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electrtjm”c Deli~e~’ of Publi< Assi.rtwlce Benefits: Techn[dcjgy Options

and Polify Issues, OTA-BP-CIT-47 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1988). Electronic identification methods, such

a$ computerized fingerprint identification combined with card technology, could provide enhanced securit y. See, for example, U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment The FBI FingeIprin: Identifil at\[mA ut[mtufi[m Pr{jgrum ~ l.~.sue.rund Op(i~m.s, OTA-BP-TCT-84 ( Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 199 I).
88 I Making Government Work

Table 4-1—EBT Project Status for the Food Stamp Program by State

State EBT Project Status

Alabama Preparing a Planning APD to seek approval to begin planning.

Arkansas Passed legislation (1/93) mandating a pilot system.

California San Bernardino Co.--FNS and ACF provided comments on Planning APD and RFP. County

may withdraw proposal because of FSP regulation on cost neutrality.

Colorado Internal State exploration of EBT.

Delaware Preparing concept paper incorporating a proposal to pilot off-line EBT for FSP, WIC, and

other programs.

Florida FNS provided comments on Planning APD for joint FSP/AFDC system. State response

pending.

Georgia Submitted Planning APD for an integrated FSP/AFDC project in two counties. Legislature

passed resolution in support of EBT.

Hawaii Internal State exploration of EBT.

Illinois Planning APD contingently approved by FNS and ACF. Planning a pilot project in a rural site

and an urban site.

Iowa Operating a voluntary EBT system in Linn County issuing AFDC benefits. Plan approved to

add 4,100 FSP households.

Kansas Given conditional approval of Planning APD to begin activities for a multi-benefit EBT system

for FSP, AFDC, and Medicaid benefits.

Maine Received approval in 1992 for a tri-state EBT system with New Hampshire and Vermont.

Maryland EBT system now statewide for FSP, AFDC, GA, and CSE. Will serve over 138,000 FSP

households and include about 3,400 food retailers.

Massachusetts Expected to submit Planning APD for a project in the near future.

Michigan Contingent approval from ACF in 1992 to develop a multi-benefit EBT system for FSP, AFDC

Medicaid, WIC, and other assistance programs.

Minnesota Ramsey County has on-line EBT for FSP and assistance programs. Looking into expanding

to neighboring county.

Mississippi Legislated on-line and off-line EBT pilot projects. Submitted Planning APD to FNS to begin

an FSP pilot project.

Missouri Submitted a revised Planning APD for an EBT system for FSP, AFDC, WIC, and Medicaid.

disbursement processes. The projected startup

costs could be an obstacle to a nationwide EBT

system. But the decreasing cost of technology,

combined with cost-sharing strategies among government agencies and the private sector and cost

savings from administrative streamlining, could

make a national EBT system cost effective. EBT

offers, in addition, the potential to improve the

quality and integrity of many Federal and State

benefit programs.

I How EBT Works

EBT could be implemented as an on-line, offline, or hybrid system. In an on-line EBT system,

the recipient is issued a plastic magnetic stripe

EBT access card similar to a retail debit card. The

recipient uses the card to access cash benefits at

an ATM, and purchases items paid for electronically at a POS terminal. The recipient inserts the

card into or swipes it through the POS terminal and

keys in his or her Personal Identification Number

(PIN). The amount of the benefits to be drawn is

keyed into the terminal, and an electronic message

is sent to an EBT processor. The EBT processor

verifies that sufficient funds exist in the account

and returns an on-line authorization message to the

inquirer.

The authorization data travel from the POS

system to the central database or EBT processor

and back over the public switched network. Once
Chapter 4–Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 89

State EBT Project Status

New Hampshire Received approval in 1992 for a tri-state EBT system with Vermont and Maine.

New Jersey Demonstration project under way, Proposed a pilot site to serve FSP and AFDC cases in

three counties.

New Mexico Implemented EBT in 1990 in Bernalillo County for FSP and AFDC. Submitted proposal to

FNS to expand statewide

New York Internal State exploration of EBT

North Carolina Conducting early planning activities.

North Dakota/ Jointly submitted a Planning APD for a two-State EBT project for FSP

South Dakota States plan to release an RFP by December 1993.

Ohio Off-line FSP pilot project under way in the Day-ton area. Legislation passed by the State and

funding authorized for a statewide multiple-benefit EBT program.

Oklahoma Submitted a Planning APD to develop and operate an EBT system for FSP. Plans to add

AFDC and child support payments later.

Oregon EBT task force formed Planning APD submitted and approved, contingent on satisfactory

response to a number of concerns.

Pennsylvania Reading now serving 8,000 FSP households. Other counties and AFDC will be added. PA

Department of Public Welfare developing APD proposing procurement of a new multi-benefit

EBT system.

South Carolina Plan approved for large on-line system for FSP. Will eventually serve approximately 120.000

FSP households

Tennessee Internal State exploration of EBT.

Texas Submitted a preliminary Planning APD to FNS for a multi-benefit EBT system

Utah Submitted a Planning APD for FNS approval.

Vermont Received approval in 1992 for a tri-state EBT system with Maine and New Hampshire.

Virginia Internal State exploration of EBT.

Wisconsin Internal State exploration of EBT

Wyoming Off-line operations for WIC begin in Casper area 5/91. Will expand for WIC and add other

programs, including FSP

KEY ACF=Admmistratlon for Children and Families, AFDC=Ald to Famines With Dependent Children, APD=Advanced Planning

Document, CSE=Chlld Support Enforcement, EBT=Electronlc Benefits Transfer, FNS=Food and Nutrition Service, FSP=Food

Stamp Program, GA= General Assistance, RFP=Request for Proposals; WIC=Speclal Supplemental Food Program for Women

Infants and Children

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1993, based on Information provided by the Food and Nutnfion Service

the purchase is authorized, the purchase amount is

debited from the recipient’s account and credited

to the retailer’s system account. At the end of the

day, a financial settlement takes place. Funds are

then transferred electronically from the U.S.

Treasury’s bank account to retailers’ depository

accounts via the Automated Clearing House

(ACH). When benefits are issued and redeemed

through an EBT system, the need to print, store,

issue, and redeem paper records or coupons is

eliminated. Also, the transaction is for an exact

amount, eliminating the need for cash change and

minimizing the diversion of program benefits.

The United States already has a commercial

infrastructure in place for supporting on-line transactions. And retailers are investing in on-line POS

terminals for commercial debit/credit transactions. These systems, with minor modifications,

also can accommodate EBT transactions.

In an off-line or smart card system, the recipient’s account balance is maintained on the card

itself. The card has an integrated circuit with a

microprocessor that stores the information necessary for verification, uploading benefits, monitoring benefits remaining on an account, and

deducting the purchase amount from the card itself.4

A typical off-line transaction at a retail store

works as follows. The recipient inserts the card

into a POS device that is customized for smart card

4 For an in-depth discussion of smart card technology and applications, see Jerome Svigals, Smut-r Cards: The New Bank Cards (New York,

NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987).
90 I Making Government Work

applications (smart cards, unlike magnetic stripe

cards, cannot be used with the existing base of

on-line POS terminals).5 The recipient enters a

PIN. The amount of the purchase is keyed into the

terminal. If sufficient funds remain on the card to

cover the purchase, the transaction is processed

and the purchase amount is deducted from the

balance carried on the card. The off-line transaction requires no immediate telecommunications

link to a host computer for verifying the account

and checking the balance. The completed transactions are captured on smart card-compatible POS

terminals and transmitted in batches to the host

computer of the EBT processor or government

agency. A backup copy of each recipient’s account

is maintained and updated at the host computer. A

telecommunications link is only needed for a periodic, scheduled call between the retailer and the

host computer database, which electronically

gathers the transactions and transfers the total

transaction amount directly to the retailer’s bank

account through the ACH.

Drawbacks to using smart cards for EBT include the:

1. high cost of the smart cards-the cost will

drop with time and when purchased in bulk,

but is still considerably higher than magnetic

stripe cards;6

2. lack of compatibility between off-line technology and the existing commercial infrastructure, and the resultant need to retrofit

ATM and POS terminals to accept smart

cards;

3. lack of uniform technical standards for programming card-based computer chips (the

memory and processor within the smart

card);7 and

4. continued, although reduced, need for some

form of on-line communication with the EBT

processor.

A Dayton, Ohio pilot project is testing the feasibility of using an off-line EBT system for food

stamp delivery. The project started in 1992 and is

being evaluated, with results expected in late

1993. 8 A Wyoming pilot project tested off-line

EBT for WIC delivery (see box 4-B); this project

is being expanded to include food stamps.

A hybrid EBT system would use POS terminals

that accept both smart cards and magnetic stripe

cards, and would use smart cards that have a

magnetic stripe on the back. A hybrid system

would, for example, allow food stamp and WIC

applications to be processed off-line and the cash

programs (e.g., AFDC) to be provided on-line.

Hybrid POS terminals that accept magnetic

stripe and smart cards are already on the market.

Hybrid terminal manufacturers expect the cost of

hybrid terminals to be in the $500 range when

purchased in batches of 10,000 units. Existing

on-line POS terminals can be retrofitted (also at

$500 each); however, it maybe prudent to replace

older POS magnetic stripe terminals with new

hybrid terminals. ATMs can be retrofitted to handle both smart and magnetic stripe cards at a cost

of $2,500 per terminal. The entire ATM infrastructure in the United States could be retrofitted at a

cost of roughly $225 million (90,000 ATM terminals at $2,500 each).

ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTING A

NATIONAL EBT SYSTEM

1 Technical and Administrative Issues

Decisions on EBT system design and development will affect the integration of EBT with the

5 POS terminals can be retrofitted to accep( smtul cards. See later discussion.

6 Industry sources note that the cost of smart cards has been dropping at a rate of 15 percent per year. The cost of purchasing a smart card

with three kilobits of memory (sufficient to handle food stamps and WIC applications) is in the range of $3.50 to $6 per card in large batches

of several million cards. Prices will drop further as the technology continues to evolve and when two proprietary patents expire in 1995-%.

7 Governmn(/private sector committees are working to kvelop appropriate s@nd~ds,

g T~ Ohio Shte Legislature (with the SUppOrt of the Governor) passed legislation that authorizes funding for expanding the EBT pilot in

selected major metropolitan areas by July 1995. The State of Ohio is awaiting approval from USDA.
Chapter 4-Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 91

Box 4-B-The Case of WyoCard: A Smart Card Success

Early in 1990, the State of Wyoming began to consider using EBT to deliver WIC, AFDC, food stamp, and

Medicaid benefits. The State subsequently designed and developed a pilot program to test EBT--initially for

the delivery of WIC benefits.

WIC is a grant program administered by the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Its goal is to provide

supplemental food and nutritional education to: 1) low-income pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding

women; 2) infants; and 3) young children up to 5 years of age who are considered to be at nutritional risk. WIC

is a cost-effective Federal program. For every dollar spent on prenatal WIC, the estimated cost savings to

Medicaid is roughly $3 to $4 for every newborn child in just the first 60 days.a

In the WIC test, the WyoCard--a smart card-was used as a substitute for paper vouchers. WyoCard

users visited a nutrition counseling center every 2 months, per usual procedures. But instead of receiving paper

checks with dollar amounts and approved food items printed on the checks, the dollar and product information

was electronically encoded on the smart card. WIC recipients could then use the cards in lieu of checks when

shopping at participating food retailers.

Wyoming’s WyoCard pilot began operations in May 1991 in Natrona County (Casper area). WyoCard

used off-line smart card technology, in part because of the sparsely populated and large geographic area and

high telecommunications costs.

An OTA site visit and an independent evaluation of the Wyoming WIC pilot test found that:

1. W IC clients using the WyoCard reported that the card provides greater flexibility in shopping and is more

convenient.

2. Clients believe that the WyoCard gives them a stronger sense of dignity.

3. Clients feel that their benefits are protected in the case of loss or theft.

4. Clients find that the card is more durable and easier to carry than coupons.

5. Participating retailers feel that substantial cost savings could be achieved using the WyoCard by

reducing banking fees associated with coupons and account settlements.

6. Retailers found that the WyoCard frees cashiers from the responsibility of having to remember what

items are WIC-eligible and what items are not.

7. Retailers think that, with some modification to the scanning mechanism, they can provide faster

transactions for WIC clients and for the general public as well.

8. WIC staff responsible for the WyoCard program view the card as enhancing the counseling, enrollment,

and benefit issuance aspects of the WIC program.

9. WIC staff expect that the WyoCard will result in a reduction in waste, fraud, and abuse that is typical in

the paper coupon system.

The widely recognized success of the WyoCard pilot has led to other initiatives. Wyoming-with the

support of the retailing, banking, and telecommunications industries-is expanding on the WyoCard initiative

to include other social programs, like food stamps, on WyoCard. WyoCard is serving as a possible prototype

for a regional EBT system and, potentially, a smart card “health passport.”

aea~~ on USDA contractor estimates. See the Library of congress, congressional Research %rvi~, “Sp=iai SUP@ementai Food Program for Women, Infants, and Chiidren (WC): A Fact Sheet,” CRS Report 93-279 EPW, Mar. 4.1993.

KEY: AFDC=Aid to Families With Dependent Children; EBT=electronic benefits transfer; USDA=U.S. Department of

Agriculture; WIC=Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, infants, and Chiidren.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993; and Aian D. Moore, “Final Evaluation Report, The Electronic Benefits

Transfer Smartcard Piiot Demonstration in Casper, Wyoming,” December 1991.
92 I Making Government Work

existing commercial ATM/POS networks. Startup

and operating costs can be reduced by using the

existing on-line commercial infrastructure (i.e.,

networks, terminals, and processing protocols) as

much as possible. EBT telecommunications costs

will be higher with on-line systems, but the government may be able to negotiate a discounted

bulk rate from EBT processors and telecommunications vendors. Retailers and banks will be more

supportive of EBT if it uses a standardized infrastructure. 9 Retailers may be more inclined to pay

for advanced POS technology (e.g., hybrid terminals) towards the end of the life cycle of the

presently installed base of POS equipment (the life

cycle for POS terminals is between 5 to 7 years).

The integration of EBT with commercial POS

and ATM networks is, thus, an important goal. An

integrated system offers lower system development and implementation costs, lower system operating costs through processing efficiencies, the

potential for providing better service to program

recipients, and greater marketability of the system

with in the retail sector. In order to facilitate system

integration, an EBT system would have to adopt

design standards that are compatible with standards established in the private sector. This argues

in favor of on-line magnetic stripe card-based

EBT, or retrofitting the existing ATM/POS infrastructure to permit use of hybrid cards, at least

until such time as commercial networks provide

reasonable support for separate off-line smart card

systems.

Four basic alternatives for implementing a national/regional EBT system include:10

1. State-Initiated Model,

2. State-Initiated Model With Federal Operating

Rules,

3. Federal/State Partnerships, and

4. Federally Initiated Model.

State-Initiated Model

The States would initiate EBT implementation,

with the Federal role limited to policy guidance on

such matters as: a) the exchange of information

and services across State lines; b) use of the system to access multiple-benefit programs through

a single card; and c) allocation of funds and fees

by program and State. In this model, all of the

responsibility for designing, developing, and implementing EBT systems would rest with the

States.

State-initiated Model With Federal Operating

Rules

The Federal Government would promulgate

operating rules for the participating States. These

rules could address: a) interstate processing and

interchange; b) retailer/ATM liabilities and rights;

c) pricing structures (not exact prices); d) methodologies for allocating funding and fees; e) recipient rights and responsibilities; and f) settlement

procedures.

Federal/State Partnerships

The States would join with the Federal Government to create multiagency, multiprogram, and

multi-State partnerships for selecting and implementing a national EBT system. The national system would service Federal direct benefit programs

and State-administered benefit programs in each

participating State. The operating rules and procedures (e.g., account settlement and allocation

methodologies) could be negotiated and established by the partnerships. This approach likely

would lead to regionally based EBT systems.

Federally initiated Model

Here the Federal Government (in consultation

with the States) would select a limited number of

9A 1992 USDA st~y Conc]uded that EBT system costs would be much higher if EBT does not use commercial ATM/POS network, and

that retailers would probably resist a new food stamp system that could not use the existing POS system. .See U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Food and Nutrition Service, op. cit., footnote 2.

1~~ conce~u~ fr~ework for this discussion is breed in part on Phoenix Planning & Evaluation, Ltd., “Multi-Program Cwd~ for the

Delivery of Social Services,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1992, p. 48. See also John A.

Kirlin, Charles R. King, Elizabeth E. Davis, Christopher Jones, and Gary P. Silverstein, “The Feasibility y of a Nationwide EBT System for the

Food Stamp Program,” Abt Associates Inc., April 1990.
Chapter 4–Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 93

EBT processors from across the country in a competitive procurement. These processors would

have the technical and financial capabilities to

operate a large-scale EBT system, servicing both

federally and State-administered benefit programs

for participating States. States could elect to become members of this federally initiated EBT

network.

The federally initiated model or Federal/State

partnerships hold the most promise for reducing

administrative expenses incurred by States in EBT

development and implementation. They eliminate

the need for States to develop their own unique

systems and allow for a greater degree of standardization of the EBT infrastructure—an important element in achieving a cost-effective

operation.11 

In all four alternatives, the EBT system ideally

should be designed to incorporate cash assistance

programs (e.g., AFDC), as well as cash equivalent

programs (e.g., food stamps and WIC), third-party

payer programs (e.g., Medicare/Medicaid), and

eligibility determination. All the alternatives will

require extensive cooperation between State and

Federal agencies. The Federal Government, State

agencies, and commercial vendors could become

partners in EBT, similar to the involvement of

financial institutions, network operators, and retailers in Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).

If current policy continues, States would have

the right to decide whether or not to participate in

an EBT system. Policy makers ultimately may,

however, have to decide whether EBT participation should be mandatory, not voluntary, in order

to make EBT cost effective and to realize other

goals (e.g., reduction of fraud).

1 Cost Issues

Cost effectiveness is not assured with EBT. It

depends on what costs and benefits are included

and/or what development and implementation

strategies are pursued. Cost effectiveness is crucial if EBT is to be a viable alternative to paper for

delivery of benefits.

Despite numerous EBT feasibility studies and

evaluations conducted to date, many important

cost-related questions remain unanswered due to

a lack of authoritative data and other uncertainties

(e.g., what cost-sharing arrangements will be in

place, if any) that affect cost projections. The issue

of “who pays” is a complex policy question. New

opportunities for cost-sharing and partnering between the Federal and State Governments and the

private sector can help offset and defray some of

the startup costs associated with EBT. The Federal

and State Governments can leverage the rapid

growth of commercial POS terminals in retail

locations. POS systems used for commercial

debit/credit transactions, as well as for EBT, tend

to yield higher profit margins and a competitive

advantage for retailers.

Most prior cost analyses have assumed that all

costs associated with EBT system design, development, installation, and implementation would

be borne by the Federal and State Governments.

This need not be the case. Federal/State Governments could use, to the maximum extent possible,

the private sector’s POS/ATM infrastructure and

provide supplemental equipment and EBT access

only for geographic areas and recipients not otherwise served. Federal and State Governments

could duplicate the model used by the State of

Maryland to establish a statewide, multiple-program EBT system that combines a contractual and

partnership relationship with the private sector

(see box 4-C).

EBT costs include: 1) system design and development costs, 2) system implementation costs,

and 3) operating costs.

System Design and Development Costs

In a State-initiated alternative, the State would

be responsible for preparing planning documents

and submitting them to each of the relevant Fed-

] I s[m~dlz.lon ~llow~ EBT ~eclplcn[s in OW state tO Shop at stores in another State. It also promotes integration of multiPle-State EBT

systems with commercial interstate POS systems and ATM networks.
94 I Making Government Work

Box 4-C-The Case of Maryland: Statewide Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)

The original Maryland EBT pilot test began in November 1989 in Baltimore. Today, Maryland has the first

statewide, operational EBT system in the Nation. The Maryland EBT system, using a magnetic stripe

‘Independence Card,” provides electronic delivery of food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children

(AFDC), General Assistance, and Child Support payments. The State of Maryland incurred no startup cost in

implementing the statewide EBT system, other than the expense of administering the procurement process.

The State contracted on a competitive basis with a private vendor that is responsible for purchasing and

installing terminals in all authorized retail outlets, purchasing and issuing cards, establishing and running a

24-hour customer service center, providing network and financial transaction services, and maintaining and

updating client accounts. implementation and operating costs are included in the contract price--currently

$3.13 per month/per case for providing food stamp benefits electronically, and $1.00 per case/per month for

AFDC.

SOURCE: OffIce of Technology Assessment, 1993.

eral program agencies for approval. This process

usually takes many months and typically costs

from $200,000 to $400,000 per State on average.

To reduce costs, the Federal Government could

design an EBT prototype(s) and procure the services of several EBT vendors (i.e., the federally

initiated model). The vendors would then offer

“core” EBT systems to States that, in turn, could

purchase EBT services at, hopefully, competitive

prices. This might reduce the cost of system design

by 50 percent or more at both the State and Federal

levels. 13 

States still could require some modifications to

the “core” EBT systems to meet unique State

needs. Even so, the approach could significantly

reduce the vendor’s costs of bidding for each

State’s business. Streamlining the process would

not only cut direct procurement costs for vendors,

States, and the Federal Government, but also could

provide added impetus for vendors to offer discounted prices for the systems procured. The selection of system vendors and processors should,

of course, be conducted through competitive bidding, with an emphasis on standardized and flexible EBT systems.

System implementation Costs

POS-terminal installation (including equipment and site preparation) is the largest single

expense item. At $300 per terminal installation,

plus $500 for the terminal itself, cost estimates

range from $120 million for 150,000 terminals to

$480 million for 600,000 terminals. These estimates assume that EBT system vendors will be

able to modify existing POS software rather than

develop new software. The estimates assume that

PINs are assigned by the vendors, which is less

expensive, rather than selected by the recipients.

As of June 1991,70,000 commercial POS systems were deployed in stores nationally. 14 Today,

roughly 93,000 POS terminals are deployed, with

about 41,000 in food stores and supermarkets.15 

Earlier EBT cost projections for food assistance

programs assumed that terminals would be deployed in all checkout lanes of all participating

stores, thereby requiring about 600,000 terminals.

Recent estimates suggest that far fewer additional

12 Kirlin et ~., ~p. ~it,, fwtn~e 10. me COSt for all 50 States would total $10 million to $20 million

13 Phanix PjmNng & Evaluation, Ltd., “Multi-Program Cards for the Delivery of Social Services,” op. cit., footnote 10, p. 38.

14 us. ~~ment of Agricu][ure, Food and Nutrition SerViCe, Op. Cit., fOCXnOte z, p. z.

15 p~ul F. cwnen, pre~i~n[, Electronic str~egy Association, per~nd communication, May ] ~~.
Chapter 4–Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 95

terminals may be needed, Reference Point Foundation concluded that FNS can still meet food

stamp regulation requirements and provide EBT

service nationwide with a deployment of about

300,000 POS terminals-a reduction of 300,000

terminals. 16 FNS officials now believe that even

these numbers are outdated since commercial POS

terminal deployment is growing rapidly.

Each 10 percent reduction in additional terminals would reduce implementation costs by another $24 million. Also, EBT vendors may be

willing to assume a share of implementation costs,

since vendors can amortize the purchase of POS

terminals over several years and treat this as a

monthly operating expense. For estimating purposes, OTA assumed that 150,000 additional terminals would be needed to meet the 300,000 level

(90,000 existing terminals plus 60,000 expected

through further private sector deployment, plus

150,000 additional terminals).

Another major cost element is the purchase of

cards for eligible and participating recipients. The

number of cards will depend on the number of

programs included and the number of recipients

per card. For estimating purposes, OTA assumed

a multi program EBT card that covers food stamps,

WIC, AFDC, general assistance, and SSI. These

programs serve roughly 55 million persons,17 but

many participate in more than one benefit program. Adjusting for overlap (see table 4-2), about

45 million different persons receive food stamps,

WIC, AFDC/general assistance, and/or SSI benefits. OTA assumed that cards would be issued only

to adults, not children; thus OTA estimated the

number of cards to be issued at 30 million (this

allows some margin for replacement cards and

growth in the number of recipients).

The card cost, therefore, would be about

$15 million for magnetic stripe cards (assuming a

cost of $0,50 per card) and roughly $105 million

for smart or hybrid cards (assuming a cost of $3.50

per card). Use of hybrid or smart cards also would

necessitate conversion or retrofitting of the existing POS and ATM infrastructure, at a cost of

$45 million for the POS terminals ($500 per unit)

and $225 million for the ATMs ($2,500 per unit

for complete retrofit).

Another cost element is the initial training of

recipients and personnel from participating retailers and banks, estimated at about $25 million. The

total estimated implementation costs for a nationwide EBT system for the selected social services

(assuming 30 million cards issued) are shown in

table 4-3—$ 160 mill ion for a magnetic stripe card

system and $520 mill ion for a hybrid or smart card

system.

Table 4-2—Estimated Overlap in Government Benefits

Estimated percentage

Households receiving And also receiving of overlap

AFDC and General Assistance Food Stamps 85

SSI Food Stamps 44

Food Stamps AFDC and General Assistance 50

Food Stamps SSI 23

K[ Y AFDC=Aid to Famllles With Dependent Children, SSl=Supplemental Security Income

SO IJRCF LJ S Congress, House of Representatwes, CommIftee on Ways and Means, Overview of

Entlf/ement Programs 7992 Green Book, Committee Print 102-44, May 15, 1992, p. 1611

16 Referen@ point Foundation, “[nnova[ions for Federal Service: A Study of Innovative Technologies for Federal Government Services to

Older Americans and Consumers,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, February 1993, p. 73.

17 A~\umes that 28 ,Ill]]lon ~rsons receive food st~ps, 6 million receive WIC, 16 million receive AFN ~d general assistance, and

5 million receive SS1.
96 I Making Government Work

Table 4-3—Estimated Implementation Costs

for a Nationwide EBT System

Estimated

implementation costs

Type of EBT system ($ millions)

Magnetic Stripe Card System

POS terminal deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $120

Magnetic stripe cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................,........25

Total . . . . . . . . .

Hybrid or Smart Card System

POS terminal deployment ...,.........................,.$120

Hybrid or smart cards . ..............................105

POS conversion ........ .................,.........,..,...45

ATM retrofit . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................225

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Total ........,.........,...$520

NOTE. Assumes 45 million participants in an EBTprogramthat covers

food stamps, WIC, AFDC, general assistance, and SSLand30 million

cards issued See text for further discussion.

KEY AFDC=Aid toFamilies With Dependent Children; ATM=Automated

Teller Machine; EBT=Electronic Benefits Transfer; POS=Point-ofSale, SSl=Supplemental Securiiy Income Program; WIC=Special

Supplemental Food ProgramforWomen, infants and Children.

SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Early FNS cost projections of a joint food

Stamp/AFDC EBT system using magnetic stripe

cards ranged from $233 million to $291 million.18

Today, FNS cost projections for a multiprogram

(i.e., food stamps, AFDC, WIC, SSI, and other

benefits) national EBT system are still within the

$200 million to $300 million range. However,

these projections do not factor in an aggressive

Federal Government pursuit of cost sharing/cost

reduction strategies, nor do they account for the

continued growth of POS terminal deployment by

commercial retailers irrespective of EBT.

Operating Costs

The two largest operating costs are terminal

amortization and transaction fees. These costs can

be negotiated into a contract with an EBT processor who will bear the up-front capitalization of

purchasing and installing terminals (see box 4-C).

The processor includes the costs of transactions

and the necessary hardware/software investments

in the monthly case fees charged to the government.

Assuming a POS terminal replacement cost of

$500 per unit and that a national EBT system

requires 300,000 terminals, a$150 million investment would be necessary every 5 to 7 years (the

life of a typical terminal). Amortized over 5 years,

the annual terminal cost would be about $30 million. These estimates are at the high end and do not

account for accelerated private sector terminal

deployment for commercial purposes and/or costsharing by participating retailers and banks. For

estimating costs, OTA assumed that the government would pay one-half, or $15 million per year.

18 Kir]ln et ~., op. cit., footnote 1 Q P. ‘ii
Chapter 4--Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 97

Also, in a fee-based EBT system, these operating

costs would be covered in the monthly case fees.

Transaction fees are incurred when a recipient

uses an EBT card at an ATM or POS terminal.

OTA assumed typical transaction fees of about

$0.10 for an on-line debit (or credit) transaction,

$0.02 for an off-line debit transaction (since no

telecommunications or central computer verification are required), and $0.50 for a cash transaction.

For a multiprogram EBT system with 30 million

active cards, and assuming 12 transactions per

recipient per month, the estimated annual transaction costs are shown in table 4-4.

The illustrative transaction costs for a magnetic

stripe card EBT system are roughly $1 billion per

year, or about $2.75 per case per month—roughly

equivalent or perhaps slightly lower than the average paper-based costs for the food stamp program

alone. Transaction costs could be further reduced

if the Federal Government negotiates fees lower

than current commercial averages or if the number

of allowable “free” monthly recipient transactions-especially cash transactions-were to be

reduced.

The comparable estimated costs for a hybrid

card system are about $200 million less per year.

This suggests that the additional up-front cost of a

hybrid card system would be recovered in about

2 years’ worth of savings in transaction costs.

Note that card replacement costs could be a significant offset.

The comparable costs of a “no cash” system—

for any type of card—would be dramatically y lower

due to the elimination of cash transaction fees. The

Table 4-4—Estimated Annual Transaction Costs for a Multi-Program EBT System

Estimated annual transaction costs

Type of EBT system ($ millions)

Magnetic Stripe Card System

On-line

Debit transactions 8/month @ $0.10,, ,..,,,,,..,,,,.,,.,,,,....,,,$288

Cash transactions 4/month @ $0.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720

Total ,,.,,,,,,.. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,008

Hybrid Card System

On-line

Debit transactions I/month @ $0.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $36

Off-line

Debit transactions 7/month @ $0.02,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,..... .50

Cash transactions 4/month @ $0.50 ..................................720

Total . . . . . . . . . . ......,.....,,,.,,.,,,,,....,.,.......,.......,...........,.....,.,.$8O6

Magnetic Stripe (No Cash) System

On-line debit transactions 12/month @ $0.10 ................. $432

Smart or Hybrid Card (No Cash) System

On-line debit transactions I/month @ $0.10 ....,,..,,,,,,,...,.. $36

Off-line debit transactions 1 I/month @ $0.02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...80

Total ,,,,,,,. ,.,,.,,..,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,.,.,............., .,,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$116

NOTE: Assumes 45 million participants in an EBT program that covers food stamps, WIC,

AFDC, general assistance, and SSI; and 30 million cards issued See text for further

discussion

KEY AFDC=Ald to Farnhes With Dependent Children, EBT=Electronlc Benefits Transfer,

SSl=Supplemental Security Income Program; WiC=Speclal Supplemental Food Program for

Women, Infants and Children

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1993
98 I Making Government Work

estimated net additional annual savings would be

over $500 million. A “no cash” system would

necessitate widespread terminal deployment so

recipients could make debit purchases at virtually

all retail outlets. But most important, a “no cash”

system would require recipients to adjust to a truly

“cash-less, check-less” benefits program. This

could be difficult.19 The savings from a “no cash”

system are so great, however, that substantial additional terminals could be deployed and a small

paper-based system could be retained during a

transition period and still show significant net cost

advantages.

Another operating cost is training of new recipients and staff, and periodic refresher training for

current recipients and staff, estimated at about

$10 million per year.

Any EBT system is likely to reduce fraud and

abuse. A national EBT system would, for example,

reduce losses that take place through diversion of

benefits when paper checks or coupons are used.

Reduction in the levels of benefit diversion could

offset some of the costs of a national EBT system,

and, perhaps more importantly, improve the public’s perception of the integrity of government

programs. By eliminating cash change and reducing the opportunity for trafficking in benefits, a

national EBT system might reduce levels of food

stamp benefit diversion by as much as 80 percent.

While this would not translate directly into savings

in food stamp program costs, it would mean that

more benefits are directed toward authorized food

purchases. A national EBT system is likely to have

some effect on net levels of food stamp benefit

loss--currently about $0.09 per case month.20

Elimination of these losses would reduce costs by

more than $10 million per year, enough to, for

example, offset a part of the annual amortization

charge for POS-terminal deployment.

A national EBT system also could reduce overpayments to eligible recipients or payments to

ineligible recipients-estimated at about 6 percent

of total food stamp and AFDC benefit payments

(roughly $2 billion to $3 billion per year) and

about 4 percent of total SSI benefit payments

(roughly $1 billion per year). The actual reduction

would depend on whether and how EBT includes

improved initial and continuing eligibility determinations. Even a partial reduction in overpayments would offset a significant part of the costs

of EBT implementation and operations and/or

some increase in the number of eligible benefit

recipients.

EBT is very likely to be cost effective for participating retailers and financial institutions.21 In

order for EBT to be cost effective for the Federal

Government, however, the cost of the current paper-based system would have to be reduced by an

amount greater than the EBT cost—all factors

considered. This could necessitate significant reductions in the current Federal/State staffing and

bureaucracy that administers these benefit programs.

EBT POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS

A national EBT system is technically feasible

and offers significant potential advantages to recipients, providers, funding agencies, and, ultimately, the U.S. taxpayers, EBT pilot projects,

demonstrations, and evaluation studies lay the

groundwork for making decisions on the transition

to a national EBT system.

Key policy issues include: 1) selecting a program mix for EBT delivery, 2) revising Federal

policies relevant to a national EBT system, 3) selecting a national EBT system alternative, 4) mandating a nationwide EBT feasibility test, and

19A Iw% ~rcentage of food stamp, WIC, and AFDC recipients do not have bank accounts, and may not have an)’ otkr way to readily

obtain cash,

2~John A. Kir]in, Christopher W. Logan, Mark G, Menne, Elizabeth E. Davis, and Kit R. Van Stelle, “The ImpaCtS of the Smte-@rated

Electronic Benefit Transfer System in Reading, Pennsylvania,” Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA, February 1990, p. v.

Z I EBT pil~-test results suggest that retailers can cut their costs by 25 percent or more, and banks by 95 percent or more. SW Kirlin et al.,

op. cit., footnote 1, p. v; Ciurea et al., op. cit., footnote 1.
5) providing

leadership on

9 Selecting

Delivery

Chapter 4–Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 99

coordinated legislative/executive

EBT.

a Program Mix for EBT

EBT pilot tests and evaluation studies indicate

that implementing a national EBT system for a

single benefit program would not be as cost effective as a multiple-program strategy. Decisions are

needed on what benefit programs should be combined for electronic delivery using the same card,

terminals, and networks. Food stamps and AFDC,

for example, are good candidates for combined

delivery, given the significant overlap among recipients of these benefits and since both programs

are State administered (see table 4-2). Pilot tests

suggest that combining AFDC and food stamps on

one EBT card reduces operating and delivery costs

for both programs.

Selecting the optimal program mix would require negotiation between (and among) Federal

and State agencies. A Federal/State partnership

could be used to build a consensus on program mix

and system integration. Alternatively, a lead Federal agency or an interagency “Electronic Payments Board” could act on behalf of the Federal

Government in negotiations with States.

A multiple-program EBT approach is more

likely to gain the support of State governments

since this would spread costs over more programs,

improving the cost effectiveness for each individual program. But multiple-program EBT presents

challenges that would need to be addressed in the

system design and in related legislation. Operating

rules and regulations for a national EBT system

would need to include procedures for account

funding, the pooling of administrative costs, and

governmentwide cost-sharing.

Once an appropriate program mix is identified,

Congress could enact legislation that mandates the

creation and use of a multi program Federal Social

Service Card or the equivalent. Legislation and/or

regulations would need to cover a variety of specific needs; for example, how to ensure that

authorized retail outlets will provide benefits to

recipients living in areas that are underserved by

the existing ATM/POS infrastructure. A multipleprogram EBT system may require some reorganization of Federal agencies responsible for

administering social services, or the designation

of an authorized Federal official or lead Federal

agency with governmentwide jurisdiction over

EBT. Multiple-program EBT can help Federal

agencies rethink how they are delivering services.

Top: The WyoCard project uses a smart card-a

debit card with a computer chip-for issuing and redeeming Supplemental Program for Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC) benefits. Recipients use the

smart card instead of paper coupons when purchasing pre-approved food at participating grocery

stores in Casper, Wyoming.

Bottom: The WyoCard and a typical card scanner,

printer, and display terminal--similar in appearance

to those used for standard credit and debit cards.
100 I Making Government Work

1 Revising Federal Policies Relevant to a

National EBT System

In order to accelerate the development and implementation of a nationwide EBT system, Congress and the President could start now to identify

policies and regulations that may need revision.

Ideally, a package of needed policy changes would

be ready for consideration at the time further preoperational feasibility studies are complete. First,

program-specific rules and regulations should be

evaluated and revised to streamline the delivery

process.

22 Second, Federal laws that protect the

privacy and security of information about participants should be reviewed and revised as needed.

Third, Federal and State banking laws should be

re-examined in the context of EBT. A national

EBT system must operate within the existing or

revised Federal and State banking and financial

policy framework.

To facilitate a national EBT system, Federal

policy makers could:

1. Revise the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,

and Trade Act of 199023—The Act states that

EBT is an acceptable operational alternative

to paper-based food stamp coupons, and

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct demonstration projects, such as EBT pilot tests. The Food Act and the Omnibus

Budget and Reconciliation Act require that

food retailers incur no cost when purchasing

and installing an EBT system for food stamp

delivery. 24 This language serves as a disincentive for private sector participation in EBT.

The language could be revised to permit or

require private sector cost-sharing for EBT, or

perhaps the provision could be deleted entirely. The Federal Government could be defined as a POS terminal-deployer of last resort

rather than first resort.25 The Food Act also

mandates that the EBT system be cost neutral

for the FSP and State agencies. This provision

could be modified to permit or require Federal

and State agency cost-sharing.

2. Develop interagency EBT regulations—The

Secretaries of the Federal departments participating in EBT would need to develop a single

set of regulations on technical standards, cost

effectiveness, financial accountability y, recipient protection, and system operations and performance, among other topics. This task could

be assigned to an Electronic Payments Board,

or some other interagency entity with highlevel representation from participating Federal agencies.26

3. Review the applicability of the Privacy Act of

197427 to EBT—the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB), participating Federal

agencies, and EBT system developers and

processors would need to review the Privacy

Act, and identify revisions needed to ensure

the confidentiality of personal information in

EBT systems.

4. Review the applicability of the Computer Security Act of 198728 to EBT--OMB, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

participating agencies, and EBT providers

likewise would need to review the Computer

Security Act, and identify revisions to help

assure the integrity and security of a national

EBT system.

22 u s. ~p~mnt . of Agricu]t~e, Food and Nutrition Service, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 23. According to FNS, “streamlined procedures we

needed for large-scale implementation,”

23 The Fo~ A@cultum, Conservation, and Tr~e Act of 1990, Public Law 101-624, Title XVII—Food Stamp ~d Relti~ provisions

,

(cited as the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act, sec. 1729).

24 me OmibW Budget ad Reconciliation Act, Public ~w’ 97-253

25 Ow Pasib]e exce~on is for SMI reui] stores that cannot justify investing in ~ EBT sYstem.

26 In A~l 1992, t~ USDA iss~d a ~t of rq~mments [o ~ met by s~[es wishing to participate in EBT for the FSP.

m me pflvxy Act of 1974, pub]ic ~w 93.579. AlSO see ch. 7 and Office of Technology Assessment, Electronic DellVeV of publl~.

Assisrunce Benefits, op. cit., footn~e 3.

z~ The CmPter Saurity Act of 1987, Public Law 100-235. AISO see ch. 7.
Chapter 4-Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery I 101

5.

6.

Revise Federal and State banking laws—

OMB, the Department of the Treasury, and

Federal and State bank regulators would need

to review the banking laws for possible

revisions. The Federal Reserve Board, for example, is reviewing and likely will extend

Regulation E (which establishes debit card

and EFT liabilities, and grievance procedures

when a card is misused, lost, or stolen) to

cover EBT as well.29

Review the applicability of the Cash Management Improvement Act of 199030 to EBT—

OMB and the Department of the Treasury

would need to review the act when considering EBT operating rules and procedures that

affect the transfer of Federal payments and the

“float” of Federal program funds.

9 Selecting a National EBT System

Alternative

A basic issue is whether Federal agencies

should take the lead in designing an EBT system,

presumably still working with the States, or should

essentially leave system design up to individual

States. A federally initiated system may prove to

be the most advantageous approach for two reasons. First, most States are pressed for financial

resources, and a Federal lead on EBT design

should reduce EBT planning and design costs for

the States individually and the Nation as a whole.

A Federal design approach offers cost savings to

States and to EBT system developers by reducing

the paperwork and labor involved in preparing and

submitting multiple planning, design, and procurement documents to the numerous Federal and

State agencies. Second, a federal] y initiated design

presumably would place a premium on a standardized and interoperable system that maximizes

opportunities for economies of scale and scope in

EBT procurement and service delivery. A key to

success, though, would be meaningful State participation in the Federal design process.

Tulare Touch is a touchscreen kiosk used for processing applications for general assistance in Tulare

County, California. EBT systems eventually will

include the use of kiosks for eligibility determination.

EBT pilot programs at present are using multiple, decentralized designs. This is entirely appropriate at the pilot test and demonstration stage. But

if continued into the pre-operational and operational stages, the effect of a multiple, decentralized

design strategy would be to create several separate

and segregated EBT systems. If the U.S. Government decided to implement a nationwide multi program EBT system, then a decentralized approach

with Federal design standards would be better

suited. This approach would:

1. encourage EBT system developers to standardize their equipment and networks,

2. accommodate those States that prefer regional

EBT systems,

3. build on the commercial infrastructure for

POS and ATM transactions, and

29T~ Bored of Governors of t~ Fe&ral Rese~e System is ex~ted [O re]ease (heir position on Re~]at]~n E in mlOkr ] %~,

~~T~ Cash Managemen( [mprovenlent Ac( of 1990, Public Law 10I -453.
102 I Making Government Work

4. still provide the necessary economies of scale

to make EBT cost effective.

A Federal/State partnership could be formalized to design, develop, and implement a “virtual”

national EBT system that builds on State and

regional EBT systems and the commercial

POS/ATM infrastructure—all operating within

Federal design and operating parameters developed with Federal, State, and private sector participation.

9 Mandating a Nationwide EBT Feasibility

Test

To more fully evaluate specific EBT system

alternatives, a multiple- program, scaled-up, regionally based, and nationally coordinated feasibility test should be designed and implemented.

The test should be designed to take advantage of

existing pilot tests and programs, and to test all

three viable technological options (i.e., on-line,

off-line, and hybrid) for multiple-program delivery.

31 The test should use a well-defined evaluation framework.

Tulare Touch is available in English or Spanish. Instructions are straightforward; on-site training and

assistance are provided as needed.

Congress could conduct oversight and direct

OMB, the Department of the Treasury, and relevant agencies to develop plans for such a test. At

present, there are no Federal plans to conduct a

feasibility test of a hybrid system. Congress could,

if necessary, reprogram the funding of the Department of Health and Human Services and FNS to

ensure that both agencies include hybrid technology in further EBT testing. A well-designed test

would provide results that could be available

within 12 to 18 months. A feasibility test should

address:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

the advantages and disadvantages of a centralized v. decentralized, on-line v. off-line,

standardized (conforming to a predetermined

design and operating rules) v. free-form EBT

system;

the organizational changes that would be required at the Federal, State, and local levels in

order to develop and operate a nationwide

EBT system, including the optimal program

and agency mix;

the cost of developing and operating a nationwide EBT system and possible cost-sharing

strategies;

the degree to which a nationwide EBT system

could be integrated with existing commercial

POS/ATM networks;

the likely impact of a nationwide EBT system

on recipients and providers;

the likely impact of a nationwide EBT system

on the banking, retail, and financial industries;

and

legislative and regulatory issues that must be

addressed to implement a nationwide EBT

system.

A multiprogram national EBT feasibility test

should include an evaluation plan that covers:

1) technical performance, 2) operational performance, 3) quantitative benefits and costs of a nations! The FNs-spnsored M~land project is naewonhy in that statewide roll-out of EBT was completed in April 1993. According to FNS,

the total number of FSP households receiving their benefits electronically will increase from about 60,000 to 200,000 statewide. The Maryland

project is also notable because it combines food stamps, AFDC, a part of Child Support Enforcement, and General Assistance into a single

delivery system.
Chapter 4-Electronic Benefits Transfer for Social Service Delivery 103

wide EBT system, and 4) qualitative benefits and

costs of a nationwide EBT system.

1 Providing Coordinated Legislative/

Executive Leadership on EBT

Leadership from Congress and the President is

key to EBT success. Leadership actions could

include:

1.

2.

3.

holding coordinated congressional oversight

hearings on EBT (e.g., by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Senate and

House Committees on Banking, Senate and

House Committees on Agriculture, House

Committee on Government Operations) to develop a consolidated Federal position on EBT;

establishing a Federal/State Benefits Payment

or Electronic Payment Board and/or Interagency Policy Committee to develop strategies for, and seek consensus on, designing and

operating a national EBT system.

designating and empowering a lead executive

agency or agencies with sufficient stature and

authority to direct interagency EBT efforts

and enforce decisions (e.g., the Office of the

Vice President, the Financial Management

Service in the Department of the Treasury,

and/or the Office of Federal Financial Man4.

5.

6.

7.

agement or the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs in OMB);

designating and empowering a Federal interagency committee on EBT (e.g., drawing from

the Departments of Agriculture, Health and

Human Services, Education, Labor, and the

Treasury, among others);32

encouraging States to participate and provide

leadership through organizations that represent State governments, such as the National

Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors Association;

encouraging nonprofit consumer advocacy

groups to organize a “National EBT Committee” to assure that the rights and needs of

recipients are accounted for; and

encouraging private sector EBT vendors to

participate in the development of strategies for

EBT cost-sharing between the public and private sectors.33

In the final analysis, a nationwide EBT system

will depend, in large part, on the collective involvement of Federal agencies, States, small and

large retailers, recipients, banks, and EBT

vendors. Including all these groups in the policy

formulation process should lead to greater coordination, cooperation, and consensus.

~JAn interagency S(wrlng Committee on EBT, ~~or(jin~(ed by (he Depanment of [he Treasury, has commissioned m assessmen( of the

financial and infrastmcturc requirements for a nationwide EBT sys(em, but (he timeframe and the outcome are uncertain,

3~For ~ diwussion of ~ubllc/prl\a[e cost-sharing strategies, see Reference Point Foundation, op. cit., f~tn~e 16, PP. 7~71.
Grassroots

Partnering

in Electronic

Delivery 5

SUMMARY

The primary goal of electronic delivery is to improve the quality,

accessibility, and cost effectiveness of Federal services for

Americans. This goal is not likely to be realized unless service

recipients are involved at all stages—from planning and pilot-testing to implementation and evaluation of electronic delivery.

OTA site visits found that citizens are interested—in principle—in helping to improve service delivery and receiving at least

some services electronically. But most find it difficult to learn

about opportunities to participate and many lack the necessary

time, training, and/or equipment. These barriers can be overcome

through outreach, education, and adequate funding. If “electronic

service to the citizens” is to succeed, grassroots citizen involvement will be needed and must be part of Federal electronic

delivery projects. A mandatory set-aside from projector agency

budgets may be needed to assure adequate resources for citizen

participation.

Grassroots involvement in electronic delivery also is important

to assure that the substantial gap between the information “haves”

and “have-nets” is reduced, not widened. The distribution of

computer resources, for example, is heavily skewed toward the

more affluent, educated segments of U.S. society. Rural and inner

city residents, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens are

among those who might gain—or lose—from electronic delivery.

Citizens with special needs can be “winners,” but only if they are

active participants with sufficient technical and financial support.

The local community infrastructure—schools, libraries, senior

centers, town halls-can play a highly leveraged role in electronic

delivery, especially in rural and small-town America, inner cities,

and for citizens with special needs. The local community can

105
106 I Making Government Work

provide leadership and training for its residents,

and can assure “points of access” for those citizens

who do not want or cannot afford home delivery.

Such community involvement also is a necessary

component of all Federal electronic delivery projects.

Another key to successful electronic service

delivery is forging strategic partnerships among

Federal, State, and local governments; user

groups; and, where appropriate, the private sector-commercial, not-for-profit, philanthropic,

and voluntary organizations. Effective partnering

requires a true commitment from Federal agencies

and a good match between program objectives,

service providers, users, technologies, and expertise. Stronger incentives for partnering are needed,

including performance awards and matching

grants, The establishment of a Corporation for

Electronic Service Delivery, modeled after the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, would foster

strategic partnerships.

The private commercial sector is an essential

partner in electronic service delivery. Private vendors supply the telecommunications equipment

and services, computers, and vast array of peripheral equipment and software needed for electronic

delivery. Private companies also can serve as systems integrators for electronic delivery systems,

add further value to government services, and

independently market enhanced services. Private

firms, on occasion, underwrite joint development

projects and pilot tests with government agencies

and user groups, or provide discounted or donated

equipment and services. And private companies

are themselves recipients of many Federal services; electronic delivery should present companies

with opportunities for cost savings and innovation,

as well as for research, market development, and

direct sales.

GRASSROOTS CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN

ELECTRONIC DELlVERY

To be effective, any Federal electronic service

delivery program—whether demonstration, preoperational, or operational-must emphasize accessible, user-friendly, affordable delivery. Pilot

tests suggest that appropriately scaled, off-theshelf, proven technology geared to the needs of the

users general] y will work best. Grassroots innovators have been remarkably successful in providing

electronic delivery on shoestring budgets, with

minimal costs to agencies or recipients. ] The Federal Government can learn from the grassroots

experience, and avoid the tendency to design unnecessarily large, complex, and expensive technical solutions.

High complexity sometimes may be inevitable

when expanding systems to a regional or national

scale; but grassroots involvement will help ensure

an appropriate and workable solution. Local people and organizations wish to be involved. This

sentiment is widely expressed across the land,

from small business entrepreneurs and community

activists, to American Indians and Native Alaskans,

to inner city leaders and students, to State and local

government officials.2 Their involvement likely

would lead not only to better solutions, but to a

greater sense of commitment and self-ownership

in harnessing information technology to improve

government at all levels of society.

To further ensure equitable access to electronic

service delivery for rural, inner city, and local

community residents, as well as disabled persons,

Congress could require both a governmentwide

review of current agency programs that provide

funding for grassroots use of information technology, and a budget set-aside for “grass roots involvement.” A fractional percentage of total

agency budgets for information technology could

] For two examples of successful grassroots innovation in electronic delivery, see Frank Odmz, Big Sky Telegraph, “Computer Conference

on Electronic Service Delivery to Rural/Small Town America,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Jan. 8,

1993; and T.M. Grundner, National Public Telecomputing Network, “The OTA/NPTN Teleforum Project: An Experiment with a Multi-City

‘Electronic Town Hall,’” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, January 1993.

2 See Oftict of Technology Assessment, “MontantiWyoming Trip Report, “ “Almka Trip Report,” and “California Trip Report,” Nov. 10,

1992; and results oft wo computer conferences sponsored by OTA reported in Odmz, i bid,, and Grundner, ibid.
Chapter 5-Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 107

be reserved for use by agency clients and service

recipients at the local, grassroots level. Set-asides

also could be allocated from agency programmatic

budgets, or from some combination of both technology and programmatic budgets. An appropriate

Federal agency3 could be designated to conduct a

governmentwide survey, and then funded from

set-asides to administer a grassroots grants program. A portion of the Federal grants could be

matched with contributions from State/local government or private sector funding sources—including commercial companies, educational

institutions, and philanthropies.4

The key is to provide at least a base level of

funding for electronic delivery activities, As a

percentage of the governmentwide information

technology budget, even just one-quarter of 1 percent—about $65 million—would make a big difference when used by local community, volunteer,

consumer, and self-help groups, However it might

be accomplished, the objective would be to empower grassroots users as active participants in the

demonstrations and tests leading up to operational

decisions—before it is too late to assure that user

needs are accounted for and met. The need for a

grassroots program was strongly supported by the

results of OTA's field visits, computer conferences, contract research, and community forums.5

Information technology can facilitate citizen

access to government. Two OTA-sponsored

computer conferences (conducted by Big Sky

Telegraph (BST) headquartered in Dillon, Montana, and the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN) headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio6

)

confirmed that the citizens who participated view

electronic delivery as potentially empowering.

But they expressed concern that many people

might be denied effective access because they

lacked the necessary equipment, training, and/or

financial resources. Participants were skeptical of

centralized, national solutions to citizen access,

and preferred decentralized, locally controlled use

of information technology.

The Big Sky Telegraph conference concluded

that:

. . . [C]itizens need opportunities to acquire

the skills and concepts relating to how they

might benefit from a national information

infrastructure. Direct, individual citizen participation is potentially available through

scalable low-end systems . . . Citizens want

to have more of a feeling of understanding,

connectivity, and control of events in Washington that affect their lives . . . Federal

promotion of the creation of community systems and advocacy of their use should steer

clear of mandating how they will and will not

be used, Maximum national benefit is most

likely to result if citizens are given the tools

and training and tasked to demonstrate what

innovations best meet their local needs.

Involving citizens in information sharing

and citizen teleliteracy training programs

3 “Service to the citimn” or “grmsrcmts community involvement” offices could be located at the Office of Management and Budget and

General Services Administration, perhaps with comparable offices at the National Science Foundation, National Telecommunications and

Information Administration, and various mission agencies. These offices could help coordinate electronic delivery initiatives with other Federal

programs that include grassroots involvement in some form. For example, H.R. 1757, the National Information Infrastructure Act of 1993,

approved by Ihe House on July 26, 1993, and S. 2 Title VI, the Information Technology Applications Act of 1993, reported out of committee

on May 25, 1993, include funding for the involvement of local schools, libraries, arrd governments, among others, in computer networking

projects. Also see Information Infrastructure Task Force, “The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action,” National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Washington, DC, Sept. 15, 1993.

4 See later discussion of strategic partnering.

5 ~cc ew]ler discm$sion and office of Technology Assewment, Montana/Wyoming; Alaska; Olympia/Seattle, Washi ngton; and Cali fomia .

Trip Reports, Nov. 10, 1992. See also Odasz, op. cit., footnote I; Grundner, op. cit., footnote 1; and William H, Dutton, “Electronic Service

Delivery and the Inner City: Community Workshop Summary,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technolog y Assessment, December

1992, Also we Steve Cisler, “Community Computer Networks: Building Electronic Greenbelts,” Howard Rheingold (cd,), Vir~ua/ Communities

(New York, NY: Addison-Wesley, forthcoming).

b See Odasz, op. cit., footnote 1, and Grundner, op. cit., footnote 1. About 35 persons participated in the Big Sky computer conference;

about 250 persons participated in the NFTN conference.
108 I Making Government Work

would create local experts, versed in the

local culture, to mentor local citizens

through their introduction to the new electronic systems . . . Opportunities for leveraging local innovation in service delivery . . .

should be aggressively encouraged, rewarded, and publicized . . . Facilitating bottom-up innovations will create the diversity,

and attention to local differences that centralized planning cannot provide. 7

The BST and NPTN experience to date has

resulted in important knowledge and insights

about grassroots computer networking with direct

implications for electronic service delivery (see

box 5-A). These findings are generally consistent

with the results of other OTA-commissioned research.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA’s) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is illustrative. Congress included a “community right to

know” provision in the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act of 1986 that required

facilities that manufacture, store, or use certain

hazardous materials to report information on such

activities to EPA. Congress required that EPA

maintain this information in a database known as

the TRI, and make this information available to the

public in electronic form. The TRI experience to

date indicates that:

The Federal Government is often the only

source from which grassroots groups with limited resources can obtain the information they

need to effectively participate in policymaking.

The right to know is meaningless without easy

and affordable access—$25 per hour for on-line

access or $50 per computer diskette is too expensive for many citizens.

Not-for-profit community and philanthropic

groups can play a key role in facilitating lowcost, user-friendly grassroots access (see box 5-

Bon RTK Net).

Information needs to be available in flexible,

easy-to-manipulate electronic formats that can

meet a wide range of needs---citizens may use

the same information in quite different ways

from Federal and State regulatory officials or

industry.

Electronic formats make possible a wide range

of analyses that provide new insights into program implementation and impacts—for example by cross-correlating TRI data with health

and census data.

Electronic access to regulatory information can

help further the overall objectives of Federal

programs—monitoring and reducing public exposure to hazardous substances in the case of

TRI.8

Without grassroots initiatives such as BST,

NPTN, and RTK Net—multiplied many times

over—the gap between the information “haves”

and “have-nets” likely will widen, and Federal

electronic service delivery probably will fall well

short of its potential. The gap is illustrated by the

disparity in ownership of home computers—ranging from less than 5 percent of senior citizens or

inner city residents, to 20 to 30 percent of middleclass homes, to upwards of 40 to 50 percent of

homes in more affluent, high tech, or university

communities. 9

7 Odasz, op. cit., footnote 1, pp. 1, 24, 25, 36.

8 For further discussion, see Susan G, Hadden and W. James Hadden, Jr., “Government Electronic Services and the Environ merit,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1992.

9 Senior citizens and inner-city residents frequently have at least one thing in common when it comes to computers—limited financial

resources to buy PCs and pay for software and on-line time. The experience of SeniorNet (a computer conferencing network geared to senior

citizen issues and programs) and the results of OTA’S Los Angeles inner-city conference suggest that both senior and inner-city citizens can

use computers much more than at present-given adequate facilitators and training, access to PCs, and free or very low-cost on-line time. For

general discussion of equity considerations, see Ronald D. Doctor, “The National Information Infrastructure Social Equity Considerations,”

School of Library and Information Studies, University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, Apr. 13, 1993; Richard Civille, “A Vision for Change: Civic

Promise of the National Information Infrastructure,” Center for Civic Networking, Washington, DC, draft policy agenda paper, July 1993; and

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Adult ~“terucy and New Techtudogie.y: Tooisfhr u Lfetime, OTA-SET-550 (Wmhington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1993).
Chapter 5-Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 109

Box 5-A-Grassroots Computer Networking: Lessons Learned

OTA commissioned two grassroots computer networks to conduct computer conferences on the topic of

electronic service delivery. Big Sky Telegraph (BST), headquartered in Dillon, MT, and the National Public

Telecomputing Network (NPTN), headquartered in Cleveland, OH, conducted the conferences during late

summer and fall 1992. Lessons learned include:

1. The costs to users of grassroots computer networking can be minimized. Almost any personal computer

(PC) and modem will suffice; high-end, high-speed equipment is not necessary. On-line telecommunication charges can be reduced by copying messages to a PC and preparing responses with the

telecommunications line turned off, and by using fractional rates and bulk purchase discounts. Use of

equipment that transmits messages faster will reduce on-line charges further.

2. Any local community can have a community computer bulletin board. BST has, in effect, created six

“Little Skys” where people can dial in with a local call--further reducing on-line costs. BST is a rural

equivalent of the NPTN of “FreeNets.” BST is a rural FreeNet. All you need is a PC, modem, telephone

line, and inexpensive bulletin board software. And to further reduce costs, the “Little Sky or “FreeNet”

can dial up a host computer once a night at off-peak rates to copy or add bulletin board items,

3. Community computer bulletin boards really extend a sense of community. BST and NPTN, like

CompuServe and Minitel, found that users participate as much for sociability as for content. Users seek

a comfort level and degree of intimacy that is not always prevalent in the community-at-large. Computer

conferencing also greatly reduces any biases due to sex, physique, disabilities, speaking ability, etc. It

is a leveling technology in this sense.

4. Community computer networks usually get only limited support from the established government and

business community. The BST and NPTN approach is low-cost and decentralized; the State and

Federal bureaucracies tend to favor higher cost, more centralized, or at least more controllable,

approaches. Plus the “not invented here” syndrome is evident. Each organization has a tendency to

invent its own solution or approach.

5. Grassroots computer network utilities like BST and NPTN can facilitate local access to national

computer networks that might not be otherwise technically feasible or affordable. If local residents find

computer networks such as Internet expensive or difficult to access directly, computer utilities can

provide low-cost, user-friendly connections.

6. Grassroots computer conferencing works for children. Children as young as the third grade can use

computer conferencing to learn keyboarding, e-mail, and the concept of communicating among a group

electronically (some first-graders can handle it).

7. Grassroots computer conferencing has significant potential for government service delivery. For

example: a) agricultural extension services, b) small business assistance, c) international trade--

global trade networks offer tremendous potential for locally based global entrepreneurial networking,

d) Indian reservation services, especially for the Indian schools and hospitals, e) vocational education

for displaced homemakers, f) job opportunities-potential for computerized catalogs of jobs and skill

requirements, and g) public access to the legislative process.

8. Training is essential to computer conferencing success. It is important for first experiences to be positive

in order to develop self-confidence. Help lines work, rather than forcing users to struggle through

manuals, As confidence builds, users can do more themselves and handle more complex functions.

Initially many people are not ready for searching databases; but eventually users will want to and can

do searches.

9. Federal programs largely miss the potential of grassroots computing. The government does not have

good mechanisms to support small, local innovators lacking a major institutional affiliation. Suggestions:

mini-grants of up to $5,000 or so to local innovators; more flexibility in the National Science Foundation

and other Federal grant programs to support individuals and small, grassroots organizations; inclusion

of grassroots representatives on Federal advisory and peer review panels; technology showcases and

demonstrations (e.g., fiber-to-the-school demonstrations in rural, economically disadvantaged areas).

SOURCE: Big Sky Telegraph, National Public Telecomputing Network, and Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.
110 I Making Government Work

Box 5-B-The RTK NET: Grassroots Access to the Toxic Release Inventory

The RTK Net (“Right To Know” Network) is operated by the Unison Institute and OMB Watch, and funded

largely by foundation grants. RTK Net is intended to provide a less costly, more user-friendly way for citizens

and others to electronically access the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxic Release Inventory

(TRI) database. It also offers derivative databases, computer conferences, and bulletin boards on hazardous

waste and related topics.

TRI data also are available on-line from the National Library of Medicine and on computer diskette from

the National Technical information Service. But grassroots users typically found these sources too expensive

and/or too cumbersome, which led to creation of RTK Net.

During fiscal year 1992, RTK Net users included:

● 230 public interest group members,

● 87 business or industrial officials,

● 67 governmental staff (including 25 from EPA),

. 43 researchers,

. 34 members of the press, and

. 29 other individuals.

SOURCE: Susan G. Hadden and W. James Hadden, Jr., “Government Electronic Setvices and the Environment,n contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1992.

MEETING DIVERSE CITIZEN NEEDS OTA sponsored a community workshop at the

D Inner City Residents

Local involvement in planning for electronic

delivery also would help ensure that the needs of

minority groups in inner cities are met, Information technology is highly leveraged because computers have become very user-friendly, and

special technical or software skills are no longer

needed for many applications. Computers and

software are increasingly available in multiple

languages, thus opening up access to the millions

of Americans who speak English as a second

language. Several of the pilot kiosk programs, for

example in California and Hawaii, have demonUniversity of Southern California to discuss electronic service delivery and the inner city.11 Workshop participants included a cross-section of

community activists, innovators, researchers, entrepreneurs, and government officials concerned

with revitalization of distressed inner city areas

such as South Central Los Angeles. Participants

emphasized that the key to energizing inner city

use of electronic technology is to find ways for the

technology to be part of and controlled by inner

city residents and organizations. The inner city

needs to develop its own applications and a sense

of ownership in the technology.

strated that multilingual electronic service deliv- The inner city is generally perceived as techniery works.10 cally deficient and consumer-oriented, not techniIo SW Wfillim H. Dutton ad K. Ken~] Guthrie, “S~[e and Local Government Innovations in Electronic Services: The Case In the Western

and Noflheastem United States,” contractor report prepared for the Officx of Technology Assessment, Dec. 12, 1991; and Office of Technology

A&sessment, “California Trip Report,” op. cit., footnote 2.

I I me Sep ]5. 1992, , Workshop WaS organized and conducted by the Annenberg School for Communication and the School of public

Administration at the University of Southern California. Professor William H. Dutton served m principal investigator. For further details on

the workshop results, see Dutton, “Electronic Service Delivery and the Inner City,” op. cit., footnote 5; and Office of Technology Assessment,

“California Trip Report,” op. cit., footnote 2.
Chapter 5-Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 111

cally skilled and producer-oriented. The emphasis

of Federal (and State/local) programs, grants, and

loans, etc., needs to be shifted to developing local

inner city expertise, innovation, and infrastructure. Otherwise the disparity between inner cities

and more affluent suburbs will continue to widen

because of the slower diffusion of information

technology into distressed areas. Participants concluded that the inner city cannot afford not to have

information technology, lest it fall further behind

in education, social services, and economic development.

The workshop results suggest that an inner city

information technology development strategy to

support electronic delivery needs to:

1. Reinforce inner city community values about

computers. Some inner city communities currently may not place much value on information technology. Community “gatekeepers”

are critical to community acceptance of the

technology. Gatekeepers—formal and informal—provide links between the inner city and

the broader outside community. Technology

Community workshop members discuss how information technology and electronic service delivery can

help the inner city. The workshop was held at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University

of Southern California, and included participants

with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

and service providers need to work with the

community gatekeepers to legitimize the technology. Most of the ethnic and cultural groups

in the Los Angeles area (e.g., Hispanic, African-American, American Indian, Korean, and

Chinese, among others, participating in this

workshop) have gatekeepers ready to help in

this process.

2. Identify and support inner city innovators,

especially small businesses and community

activists. Innovators need to be mobilized to

work on information technology applications

for the inner city. Many minority-owned small

businesses are not technically proficient; they

need help in getting up to speed to compete for

high-tech work—work that inevitably depends on the skilled use of telecommunications and computer tools. Innovators among

minority-owned small businesses should have

a large role in controlling the development and

deployment of information technology in the

inner city, as should local community organizations. Several Los Angeles area community

groups are trying a variety of technology-enhanced innovations for meeting inner city

needs, but they too need help with training and

funding,

3. Focus on information technologies that are

affordable and usable by the inner city community. Videoconferencing, for example, may

not be affordable or really needed right now,

but bulletin boards and computer networking

cost less, are easier to implement, and have a

higher payoff. Experience to date suggests

that community electronic bulletin boards are

cheap, cost effective, readily available, and

usable. Bulletin boards can provide interoperability among systems, since virtually anyone

with a personal computer and modem using

Ascii text can access bulletin boards.

4. Learn how to use inner city community resources more effectively to support information technology. The public schools, for

example, typically have space available evenings and weekends that could be used for
112 I Making Government Work

computer-based adult education and training.

Public computer terminals or kiosks could be

located in churches, libraries, homeless shelters, and community centers, as well as

schools. The barriers to locating technology

are primarily cultural not technical; the ideal

institutional locations are well respected in the

community, provide some level of user support and encouragement, and are easily accessible by local residents. Community colleges,

universities, and high-tech companies located

in or near inner cities provide other sources of

support— including equipment access, education, and training, not necessarily direct dollars—for inner city computing projects.

5. Encourage development of computer software

applications for minority users. Inner cities

need software and applications that are user-

-friendly for minority users and for those with

English as a second language. Pacific Bell

estimates, for example, that it has about

6.5 million customers statewide in California

who speak English as a second language.

Workshop participants stressed the need for

more active government support of inner c it y electronic delivery initiatives. Local governments can

bring legitimacy to these initiatives, and can help

involve local community groups that are essential

to success. This would require that: 1) local governments take a much broader view of their role in

electronic initiatives—a proactive rather than reactive role; 2) the Federal and State Governments

support a more active local government role; and

3) funding mechanisms be established to pay for

local government initiatives.

Participants concluded that the Federal Government needs more flexibility in supporting innovations in electronic service delivery, Not all

innovations will succeed. Making progress means

taking risks and accepting some failures. The government needs a much more robust mix of partnerships with local public and private organizations

involved with information technology for the inner city. The government needs to be sensitive to:

1) the widespread skepticism of centralized or national solutions to local problems; 2) the desirability of a bottoms-up perspective to better ensure

local involvement and success; and 3) the importance of technical flexibility, since no single technology is likely to address all needs (e.g.,

computer networking may be effective for inner

city specialists and advocates, but kiosks may be

better suited for inner city residents-at-large).

1 Citizens With Disabilities

Electronic service delivery should offer substantial advantages to persons with disabilities

who now find it difficult or impossible to deal with

delivery mechanisms that involve a lot of paper

documents and/or physical travel. Computer and

telephone attachments are now available that permit persons with sight, hearing, speech, or mobility impairments to use these technologies, and the

costs are declining.12

OTA identified several opportunities and challenges that need attention to assure equitable

access to electronic delivery for persons with disabilities:

■ kiosks or multimedia work stations—need

wheelchair accessibility for persons with lower

limb mobility impairments, a standard interface

that can communicate with customized computers and specialized input devices for persons

with upper limb mobility impairments, redundant input and output modes (e.g., touchscreen,

braille or symbol keyboard, voice synthesis) for

persons with vision or hearing impairments, and

directional and locational cues (to help users

identify input and output devices and capabilities);

12 For &tAl~ discussion, see U.S. Ge~ra] Servi&s Administration, Information Resources Management SerViCe, MUnUging Inf(wmafion

Resourcesfor Accessibility (Washington, DC: GSA/IRMS, December 1991); Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns

Hopki~r National Searchfi/r Computing Applications To Assist Persons With Disabilities, Proceedings (Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer

Society Press, February 1992); Carl Brown, “Assistive Technology Compoters and Persons with Disabilities,” Communications o~the ACM,

vol. 35, No. 5, May 1992, pp. 36-45.
Chapter 5-Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 113

computers with telecommunications interfaces—wheelchair accessibility is usually not a

problem, and specialized input devices and

redundant input and output modes are well developed; the major challenge is adapting specialized equipment to handle rapidly advancing

software, graphics, and net working options, and

including standard interfaces and functions in

the design and manufacture of information technology to accommodate persons with disabilities;

magnetic stripe or smart cards—terminals must

be accessible to persons with wheelchairs or

other mobility aids; the major challenge will be

accommodating persons with upper limb mobility or vision impairments through the use of

visual and aural cues, directional and locational

cues, redundant instructions, and specialized

cards or input devices (e.g., cards with physical

markers and encoded instructions);

Low-vision reading equipment for users with vision

impairments, located at the high-tech laboratory for

students with disabilities, California State University

at Sacramento.

videoconferencing--conference rooms must be

accessible to persons with mobility aids; the

major challenge is accommodating persons

with severe vision or hearing impairments

through screen augmentation and sound amplification systems, and using visual and aural cues

or interpretations.13

In most cases, electronic delivery should be

accessible to persons with disabilities if the technology is developed and applied appropriately.

This presumes continued progress in developing

open systems and technical standards that support

a variety of hardware, software, and input/output

devices, and further development of the market for

assistive technology so that opportunities for

economies of scale can be realized. It is much

cheaper to build assistive capabilities into the electronic delivery systems and equipment (including

software) up front than to retrofit at a later time.

The participation of persons with disabilities and

their advocates is essential to assure that such

systems and equipment are user-friendly and affordable. Some persons have disabilities that prevent meaningful access, even with the best

available technology (e.g., persons who cannot

hold or manipulate a magnetic stripe or smart

card). In these cases, alternative access options

will be needed, including the use of technical

substitutes and human attendants .14

Current Federal law can reasonably be interpreted to require that Federal services be accessible to persons with disabilities—regardless of the

format in which the services are delivered. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act states that:

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States . . . shall, solely

by reason of his handicap, be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or

be subjected to discrimination under any

program or activity receiving Federal

financial assistance or under any program

13 For [he complete discussion, we J, Scott Hauger, Virginia Technology Associates, Ltd., “Ensuring the Accessibility of New T~hnologies

for the Electronic Delivery of Federal Services for Persons with Disabilities,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, Jan. 20, 1993.

‘d Ibid.
114 I Making Government Work

or activity conducted by any executive

agency. . . .

15

The Federal commitment to accessible Federal

programs and services, and to accessible State/local and private sector activities as well, is reflected

in several other statutes.16 OTA field visits and

interviews found a growing awareness of the possible implications of electronic delivery for persons with disabilities, but as yet no coherent

strategy or program for addressing this topic. Congress and the administration could reaffirm existing law and regulations17 and require that, in

developing electronic delivery strategies, agencies

address the needs of employees and citizens with

disabilities, Existing Federal technical assistance

centers could assist in this process.18

1 Senior Citizens

Senior citizens comprise one of the fastest

growing groups in the United States, but one with

relatively little exposure to computers. Most senior citizens do not own a personal computer (PC)

and have limited, if any, experience with PCs.

Computers as we know them today did not exist

when the current generation of senior citizens

went to school. Most retired before the advent of

PCs in the office. Many must live on fixed incomes

with limited funds for discretionary expenditures

such as computers, software, and on-line time. Yet

most need or could benefit from a variety of government services, and could, in principle, take

advantage of electronic delivery.

SeniorNet is a good example of what it takes to

effectively reach senior citizens.19 SeniorNet is a

not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing

accessible, affordable computer services to senior

citizens. It currently has about 8,000 members

who pay $25 per year for educational materials,

discounted computer equipment and services, and

the opportunity to take computer classes (at no

additional cost) at the 55 SeniorNet learning centers located at senior centers in 23 States. Its

computer classes are geared to the needs of many

senior citizens for a modestly paced curriculum

with ample time for hands-on practice and personalized instruction.

About 2,000 members use the SeniorNet

on-line computer conferencing and bulletin board

service available over a commercial value-added

telecommunications vendor, at the discounted rate

of $9.95 per month for unlimited use during nonpeak hours. SeniorNet has negotiated deep discounts not only with the telecommunications

vendor for computer conferencing, but with variIS Re~bi]i[ation Act of ]973, public Law 93-112, as amended by Public Law 99-506 and Public Law 102-569 (sm footnote 16).

lb Sm Sec. 508, Electronic Equipment Accessibility, of public Law 99-506, An Act to extend and improve the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

the Technology Related Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, Public Law 100-407; the Telecommunications Accessibility

Enhancement Act of 1988, Public Law 100-542; the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101 -336; and the Rehabilitation Act

Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102-569. Also, H.R. 1757, the National Information Infrastructure Act of 1993, approved by the House on

July 26, 1993, requires that computer networking applications “be accessible and usable by . . . historically underserved populations and

individuals with disabilities.”

IT 41 CFR 20 I of the Fcder~ Information Resouces Management Regulations (FIRMR) specifies that agency acquisition of info~atiOnprocessing resources must be conducted in a manner that ensures access by persons with disabilities,

18 ~=centers inc]u& the CiSA’S cle~ngho~e on Computer Accommodation, Department of Veterans Affairs’ ComlXIter Trtiting

Program for Persons with Disabilities, and Department of Defense’s Computer/Electronics Accommodations Program. Also, the Architectural

and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, is responsible for promoting

accessibility for individuals with disabilities, The Board is tasked by the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 to help assure accessibility

to buildings and facil ities covered by the Act. The Board’s mandate inclu&s automakxi teller and fare vending machines, for example, that are

directly relevant to electronic service delivery. See, for example, Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board and Department of

Transportation, “Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines: Accessible Automated Teller Machines and Fare Vending

Machines,” Fe&ruf Register, vol. 58, No. 134, July 15, 1993, pp. 38204-38211.

19 See M~ Fur]ong and Greg Ke~rs]ey, Computer,sfor Kids Over 60 (San Francisco, CA: SeniorNet, 1993); Mwcie Schwwz and Jmnne

Taeuffer (eds.), The SeniorNet Sourcebuok: A Collection ofCreative Computing Projects (San Francisco, CA: SeniorNet, 1993); and Marcie

Schwarz and Jamie Sullivan (eds,), Portruits of Contputer-Using Seniors (San Francisco, CA: SeniorNet, 1991 ). Also see Susan Koch, Realizing

the Benefits of New Computer and Telecommunication Technologies fur Older Americwu (Washington, DC: National Association of Area

Agencies on Aging, 1993).
Chapter 5-Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 115

ous equipment and software suppliers, SeniorNet

computer classes are free, after the annual fee, due

to private foundation and corporate funding.

SeniorNet has found that both mobile and homebound senior citizens can benefit from computerbased services, and that many participating senior

citizens use computer conferencing for social as

well as educational or informational purposes. It

also is encouraging the use of computer conferencing for intergenerational activities, for example

between senior citizens and elementary and secondary students. SeniorNet has demonstrated,

overall, that user-friendly, low-cost training and

access make it possible for senior citizens to benefit from computer-based services.

The SeniorNet concept could be expanded to

many more senior citizen centers in areas with

high concentrations of older Americans, and to

community centers, libraries, and information and

referral (I&R) offices. Few community centers at

present offer computer-based services, but the potential is great, Community centers are prime locations for electronic kiosks. The majority of

public libraries now provide at least some microcomputer and compact optical disk services for

patrons. Libraries generally do not charge for inhouse computer activities, but do assess fees to

recover costs of searching on-line databases. University and public libraries that are members of the

Federal Depository Library Program have additional responsibilities to make Federal information (including information on Federal services)

available to all citizens who walk in the door—including senior citizens.

Many communities also have I&R offices or

1-800 numbers that help citizens in need locate

government or private sector services, and refer

citizens to the appropriate service. Many I&R

offices are jointly funded by local voluntary organizations and Federal or State/local governments. Most I&R offices already serve senior

citizens, and some are beginning to explore greater

use of information technology—including search

and retrieval software and computer conferencing

or networking among providers,

The key to meeting senior citizen computing

needs is effective partnering among: 1 ) government agencies that provide or fund services for

senior citizens; 2) voluntary and not-for-profit organizations that help senior citizens locate and use

these services; and 3) commercial vendors of

equipment and services that are willing to offer

senior citizens, and organizations that serve them,

deeply discounted rates.

STRATEGIC PARTNERING FOR

ELECTRONIC SERVICE DELlVERY

Another potential component of electronic

service delivery with high leverage is the forging

of strategic partnerships among Federal, State, and

local governments; user groups; and, where appropriate, the private sector (including not-for-profit,

philanthropic, and voluntary as well as commercial organizations). Many State and local governments are beginning to view and use information

technology as a catalyst for rethinking their own

mechanisms for service delivery.20 And a wide

array of Federal services already involve significant State/local participation.21 Partnerships in

z~ qce Davld @~rm and Ted Gaeb]er, Rein~e~in~ Gtj\ernment: H(m fhe Entrepreneur’u[ Spirit IS Trunsf(mning the public’ se~’tljr .

(Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1992); David Osborne, Lub[wutories of Demlx’ruc)l: A NewI Breed(fG(werru)r.r Creute$ Mf)delsfor E< oru)mic

Growth (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1990). Also see State Information Policy Consortium, “National Information and Service

Delivery System: A Vision for Restructuring Government in the Information Age,” 1992, available from the National Governors’ Association,

National Conference of State Legislatures, and Council of State Governments; and Patricia T. Fletcher, Stuart 1. Ilretwhncider, and Donald A,

Marchand, MunuhJlrlhJ ]n~tvnu~!i[m Te( hnf~[(~~t?, Trumrftwming C{wnty G[nern.ments in the 1990s (Syracuse, NY: Syr-acuw University School

of Information Studies, August 1992).

z] s= Coucl] of Governors po]lcy Advisors, NeN Alllujue.r in Jnn(wuti[m, A Guide t{) E!u {)uru~’in~’ lnW)Wl~’e AppllCu\i(lnV of Ne~3

C{nnmunicuti(~n Tec hn[d(~,qie.~ T(I Address Stute Pr(~blem.~ (Washington, DC: National Governors Association, 1992). Also see Charles M.

McClure, Rolf T. Wigand, John Carlo 13erlot, Mary McKenna, William E. Moen, Jce Ryan, and Stacy B. Veeder, Syracuse University School

of Information Studies, “Federal lnforrnation Policy and Management for Electronic Services Delivery,” contractor report prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 21, 1992.
116 I Making Government Work

electronic delivery, however, are only in the formative stages.

Effective partnering likely will require a true

commitment from agencies to aggressively seek

partnering opportunities and to make them work.

A systematic exploration of partnering possibilities

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

should include:

other Federal agencies delivering similar or

related services;

State/local agencies that participate in delivering these or related Federal services;

private not-for-profit organizations such as

colleges, hospitals, and community development groups that do or could participate;

voluntary consumer, community, youth, senior citizen, and related groups that could assist

with service delivery;22

foundations and other philanthropic organizations that could provide seed money or matching grants; and

private commercial companies that make or

sell the electronic equipment, systems, and

Sei-vices needed for electronic delivery, or that

deliver substantive services similar to those

provided by the government.

While Federal agencies could be required to at

least explore these possibilities, the specific partnering arrangements will vary widely from case to

case. Partnering may not be appropriate in some

situations, and indeed can be harmful if the match

between partners and services is not comfortable

(i.e., a “forced fit”). Successful partnering requires

a good match between program objectives, service

providers, users, and appropriate technologies and

expertise.

Partnering could offer several benefits. It

should provide a way for Federal and State/local

agencies to share the costs and risks of innovation

in electronic delivery. The fiscal crises facing the

Federal and most State Governments provide further impetus for partnering. At the same time,

partnering should increase the chances of success

by encouraging better understanding of the needs

of users and providers, and stimulating creative

thinking about new or improved service delivery

strategies. It also could be a constructive catalyst

for change that leads to more productive, efficient,

and responsive service delivery. Strategic partnerships flourish and succeed when the partners realize that by working together, they can accomplish

what they could not do alone. Partnerships could

help agencies break through or work around the

bureaucratic and political inertia that often confronts new ideas for service delivery.

Electronic delivery partnerships examined by

OTA (e.g., WyoCard and InfoCal23) typically began with an exploration of project feasibility, followed by a pre-operational or demonstration

activity, and then moved to full implementation

(see box 5-C for keys to the WyoCard success).

The results of OTA’s field visits and contractor

research suggest that successful partnerships are

likely to include many of the steps or activities

shown in table 5-1.

Congress or the administration could assign a

lead Federal agency (or agencies) the task of fleshing out the table 5-1 framework and preparing a

“Guidelines or Checklist for Successful Electronic

Partnering,” perhaps as one of a series of papers

on general strategies for electronic delivery. The

partnering checklist could readily build on similar

State/local government initiatives.24 The Federal

Government also could establish an incentive program for partnering, including:

1$

2.

3.

recognition and performance awards,

an annual conference,

partnership set-asides (as a percentage of program budgets or agency information technology budgets, e.g., one-half of one percent),

22 S= John H~s and A]an F. Wes[in, “Non-Refit and Academic Applications of Computer and Telecommunication Technologies,”

contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1991.

23 wy~~d is evolving into ~ multiprovm, mul[iagency electronic benefit transfer card, See ch. 4 for discussion. Infocal is evolving into

a multi program, multiagency information and service kiosk. See ch. 2.

24 See COWCI] of Governors Policy Advisors, op. cit., footnote 21.
. Chapter 5-Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 117

Box 5-C--WyoCard: Keys to Success

The State of Wyoming’s WyoCard project tested the use of off-line smart cards for delivering Women,

Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits to recipients in Natrona County (Casper area), A smart card called the

WyoCard was used as a substitute for the traditional paper voucher system for delivering benefits. Here are

some of the reasons the test worked well:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

The Wyoming State WIC director articulated a clear vision of WyoCard, and provided strong Ieadership

and guidance.

The WIC director helped change the State government’s mindset regarding service delivery and the

role of information technology.

The WyoCard project staff reached out to recipients, retailers, banks, local voluntary organizations, and

technology vendors-as well as Federal/State agency officials-from start to finish.

The WyoCard staff held a planning retreat with participants early in the project.

The WyoCard staff developed project plans that described how technology could deliver WIC services

more cost effectively, and that outlined the key issues and options.

WyoCard staff built technology flexibility into the plan and sought nonproprietary technical solutions to

the extent possible, in order to reduce costs and simplify procurement and operations.

WyoCard staff setup an advisory panel of participants and experts to help ensure effective communication during the life of the project.

Staff developed training materials-including a short, inexpensive videotape for use at the nutrition

clinics where the WIC program is locally administered-and made sure that local retailers, clinic staff

and volunteers, and recipients received adequate training.

Staff set up a technology demonstration in a local clinic to test participant understanding and help assure

a user-friendly system.

Staff tested the technology both on- and off-site to validate the system design prior to procurement.

Recipients, retailers, banks, and government staff were uniformly pleased with the WyoCard project

results (see box 4-B, ch. 4 for details).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

Table 5-1—illustrative Checklist for Successful Partnering

In Electronic Service Delivery

Exploratory/planning stage

● project planning task force

● community workshop or retreat

● technology demonstration or sharing center

● local advisory committee

Pre-operational stage

● cooperative development of operating rules (e. g., assignment of

technical and programmatic responsibilities)

● early resolution of key issues (e.g., cost- and risk-sharing)

● creative use of requests for information (RFIs) and proposals (RFPs)

● pilot projects and demonstrations

Operational stage

● sealing up roles and resources

● Incorporating pilot-test results

● selecting lead agencies and participants

● firming up the commitments (and responsibilities) of all partners

● providing training and user support

● building in a periodic evaluation component

<()1 Jf{( f of fI( t; ( ,f [ t?rhn(il(xjy Assessment, 1 W3
118 I Making Government Work

4. innovative ways to share lessons learned, and

5. streamlining of Federal guidelines and procedures for cost reimbursement for the Federal

share of strategic partnering.

I Local Community Infrastructure

The involvement of the local community infrastructure in strategic partnerships can greatly facilitate electronic service delivery. Schools,

libraries, community centers, town halls, and hospitals offer some of the most highly leveraged

opportunities because these locations are typically

heavily used and well respected, and provide a

multiplier effect for technology investments. At

the local level, technologies and locations suitable

for multiple users offer the greatest return on investment. 25 The concept of the community communications center has considerable merit. Local

high schools frequent] y serve this purpose in small

towns and rural areas. Educational institutions in

general—whether high schools, community colleges, or universities—are very interested in using

information technology, tend to be more familiar

with the technology than the community-at-large,

and are well suited to the training needs likely to

be associated with major electronic delivery initiatives. 26 Schools and hospitals already benefit from

ongoing Federal and State computer, distance

learning, and telemedicine programs. The key is

to find synergies between these and the many other

government programs that collectively can provide the building blocks for electronic service

delivery.

Kotzebue, Alaska, is a case in point. Located

just above the Arctic Circle with a population of

about 3,000, this Native Alaskan village is accessible year round only by air, with no land access

and sea access only during the ice-free months, In

a small village like Kotzebue, the high school,

hospital, and community center might collectively

justify the installation of multimedia workstations

7- ,-. ,

Chukchi College of the University of Alaska is home

for the Kotzebue Public Library and provides microcomputer access for Kotzebue residents of all ages.

and videoconferencing facilities at a village communication center, but not individually. The hospital needs the ability to have video interaction

with medical specialists in Fairbanks, Anchorage,

and sometimes even Seattle, Washington. The

hospital cannot afford to have specialists on staff,

and few specialists will fly to Kotzebue. The only

option in serious cases is flying the patients out at

great expense and family dislocation. The local

schools could likewise benefit from distance education. And the community, including the village

~ SW office of T~hnology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Rural America at the Crossroads: Networking ft~r the Future, OTA-TCT-471

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1991).

M SW ge~ra]]y office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Linking for Leurning: A New C~~ur.fe@ Ed~-u(im OTA-SET-4~0

(Washington, DC: U.S. Goverment Printing Office, November 1989).
Chapter 5-Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 119

government, could benefit from enhanced teleconferencing with State and Federal officials in Anchorage and Juneau, and potentially even in

Washington, DC. Villages and towns like Kotzebue are ideally suited for implementation of "rural

area networks” to share computer and telecommunications resources .27

OTA field trips identified numerous other

examples of opportunities to develop the community information infrastructure that could support

electronic service delivery. Community colleges

and universities are particularly well suited (see

box 5-D).

Partnering can help assure equitable access to

electronic service delivery. Combining the grassroots involvement program discussed earlier with

a local community infrastructure initiative, if

backed up with funds (whether by set-asides or

otherwise), would go a long way towards building

up (and on) local expertise and access. A community infrastructure initiative for electronic delivery

could be supported with funding from both

mission agency demonstration and operational

programs (e.g., Department of Agriculture for

electronic benefit transfer) and Federal grant programs (e.g., National Science Foundation for campus computer networking, Department of

Education for public school networking). The National Public Telecomputing Network, Big Sky

Telegraph, and Institute for Global CommunicaBox 5-D-The Community Information Infrastructure: A Key Role for Colleges and Universities

. Laramie Community College, Laramie, WY-With about 2,500 students, the college has over 550

personal computers in 12 computer labs. The college keeps one lab open to any resident of the

Cheyenne community at very nominal charges (e.g., $45/year, $1 5/semester, $2/hour). This appears

to be a great asset for those who cannot afford or do not need their own computer. The college offers

an extensive distance-learning program-using a public access cable TV channel and/or two-way

audioconferencing--for homebound persons, farmers, ranchers, and others who find it difficult to come

to the campus. The college has a videoconferencing facility-with one-way satellite video and two-way

compressed video-that is also available for local community and State government use.

. Rasmuson Library, University of Alaska, Fairbanks-The library is strongly committed to open access.

Anybody can use the on-site library resources; a student ID card is not required. Local high school

students are among the heaviest users. The library’s government documents collection, the largest in

the State, gets extensive use. The library is philosophically oriented to the broader mission of

information provider to the public-at-large, especially including public libraries and schools in rural

Alaska, not just the university community. The library is addressing a range of cost, pricing, copyright,

training, and networking issues to help provide affordable remote electronic access.

. Little Big Horn Tribal College, Crow Agency, MT—The college has made a major commitment to the

use of computers in its educational program. The two fully equipped computer labs and one smaller

lab-with a combined total of about 40 personal computers-are open 12 hours a day, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.,

and available for use by any registered student on a virtually unlimited basis (except when computer

lab classes are in progress). Student interest is high. The college has to scramble to find money for

computers, relying largely on foundation and government grants, and makes only limited use of

computer conferencing and distance learning-although the potential is great. The college’s primary

mission is to build up the local community; about 90 percent of the graduates stay in the Crow

Reservation area.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

— 27 For dl$cu~slon of ~ra] ~rca nc[w,or~s, XC u,s congress, C)ffice of Technology Assessment, Rurul Americu U( (he cr(~$$rf~~$, ~P cit~ ,.

footnote 25.
120 I Making Government Work

tion28 are among those not-for-profit private organizations that provide grassroots computer networking services. These and similar organizations

could be used for electronic delivery of Federal

services, and this model could be tested with other

technologies (e.g., kiosks).

On a national scale, Congress and the President

could establish a Corporation for Public Telecomputing or, perhaps more broadly, a Corporation for

Electronic Service Delivery, as a parallel to the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).29

This Corporation could provide grants, exchange

innovative ideas, and sponsor demonstrations of

grassroots public involvement in electronic delivery. CPB itself has embarked on a partnership with

local public television stations and schools to provide a nationwide satellite-based videoconferencing and interactive data network. This network

will be used for electronic delivery of educational

services and could, in principle, serve as another

vehicle for Federal service delivery.

Federal funding for local initiatives could be

provided in part through the diverse array of

existing or proposed Federal agency programs

relevant to electronic delivery. These include:

1) the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

[NTIA]); 2) the proposed computer networking

pilot project program (also to be administered by

NTIA); 3) the U.S. Public Health Service’s Community Services Network Project to develop user-

-friendly multimedia terminals for citizens and

health care workers to access a wide range of

health-related services and information; and 4) the

Department of Agriculture’s plan to use information technology to help county extension offices

become part of the local electronic services and

information infrastructure.30 Whether through

existing or new mechanisms, congressional and

executive actions to support the grassroots community infrastructure would be highly leveraged

in assuring the success of Federal electronic service delivery.31

B Private Commercial Sector

The private commercial sector is another essential partner in electronic service delivery. Private

vendors are the suppliers of the telecommunications equipment, computers, and vast array of

peripheral equipment and software needed for

electronic delivery, The Federal Government

should use, to the maximum extent possible, the

latest off-the-shelf technology obtained through

standard competitive procurement procedures.

Some private firms may, on occasion, wish to

underwrite joint development projects and pilot

tests, or provide discounted or donated equipment,

as is done routinely with schools and colleges.

This practice, if extended more vigorously to

grassroots not-for-profit groups, could help assure

equity of access to electronic service delivery.

28 l-he Instjtute fw clob~ cmmunic~ions, headquartered in San Francisco, CA, operates the EcoNet and PeaceNet familY of computer

bulletin boards and conferences, and provides gateway access to numerous other public interest computer networks.

29 The Cmpwation for public Tel~OrnpUting conce~ originated with Thomas Grundner, President, National Public Telecomputing

Network. See T.M. Grundner, “The Fourth Scenario: On the Federal Development of Public Access Computerized Information and

Communicaticm Services,” January 1993, and “Toward the Formation of a Corporation for Public Cybercasting,” April 1993. Copies available

from T.M. Grundner, Internet tmg@nptn.erg, phone 216-247-5800, fax 216247-3328. The State of Oregon has proposed creating a private,

not-for-profit “Oregon Telecommunications Foundation” to serve M a catal yst and support pilot projects with matching funds to be raised from

private and philanthropic sources. See State of Oregon, Department of Economic Development, “Oregon Connects: A Telecommunications

Vision and Plan for the 21st Century,” Salem, OR, September 1992.

30 S* us ~ptiwnt of Agriculture,Extension servia, Cm-munimtim and Information Technology Division, “Future Applications of

Communication Technology: With Implementation Recommendations,” July 1991, and “Future Applications of Communication Technology:

Strategic Implementation Plan for the Cooperative Extension Service,” November 1992.

31 For o~er idaS on Cmmunity infmation infrmtmcture development, see Richard Civi]le, COmpUter Professionals for soci~ Responsibility, “Broadening the Research Community: Delivering Federal Services Using Information Technology,” contractor report prepared for

the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1992; John Harris, Alan F. Westin, and Anne L. Finger, “Innovations for Federal Service: A

Study of Imovative Technologies for Federal Government Services to Older Americans and Consumers,” contractor repotl prepared for the

Office of Technology Assessment, February 1993; and Dutton, “Electronic Service Delivery and the Inner City,” op. cit., footnote 5.
Chapter 5-Grassroots Partnering in Electronic Delivery 121

Private vendors also are the primary providers

of the telecommunications and computer networks needed for electronic delivery. The Federal

Government has opted to use private commercial

networks, rather than build its own (except in rare

cases of national security). FTS2000, for example,

is not a physically separate telecommunications

network built for the Federal Government, but is

essentially a bulk purchase agreement for Federal

use of commercially available telecommunications networks and services. A few States and

educational systems, and many more private

businesses, have opted to build their own private

telecommunication networks.32 But Federal electronic service delivery will be most cost effective

for the largest number of recipients by using commercial offerings, including the public switched

telephone network and other publicly available

telecommunication and value-added networks. As

with equipment, some private firms provide telecommunication and network services to schools

and libraries at discounted rates, especially during

off-peak hours of use. Other local community and

grassroots organizations likewise would benefit

from this discount program.

Private companies also can serve as systems

integrators for electronic delivery systems, as has

been the case for many large Federal (and State/local) agency automation programs over the last

decade. They also add further value to government

services and independent] y market these enhanced

services. Direct involvement of the private commercial sector in the delivery of Federal services,

beyond providing the equipment and networks,

requires attention to issues that have proven to be

sensitive and controversial in the past. These include providing for fair competition, avoiding

conflicts of interest, assuring an appropriate level

of Federal control over taxpayer-supported services, and guaranteeing equity of citizen and taxpayer access to services. Congress would need to

review and update the relevant policy framework

as needed, in order to have a smooth transition to

electronic delivery (see ch. 7 discussion of contracting out/procurement).

Private sector motivations for partnering can

extend beyond research, market development, and

direct sales. Private companies are themselves

recipients of many Federal services; electronic

delivery should present companies with opportunities for cost savings and innovation. Technologies such as electronic data interchange and

automated voice/fax/computer response could

drastically reduce the Federal paperwork burden

and accelerate electronic collection of information

from businesses. Entrepreneurs large and small

could access valuable trade, market, and technical

leads faster and at lower costs. Government electronic delivery initiatives could help stimulate development of commercial market opportunities

and strengthen the overall competitive posture of

the U.S. financial industry.33 Private companies

increasingly recognize that, when it comes to electronic service delivery, what is good for government is also good for business.34

~z me State of 1owa has pur~h~sed its own fiber optic network for educational, governmental, Iibmry, emergencY, ad ~~r ~~ic ‘=s,

See Iowa Department of General Services, Communications Division, “ICN-Iowa Communications Network: Information Highway of the

Future,” rr,d. Also see Interagency Information Resources Management Infrastructure Task Group, Iowa Communications Network Working

Group, “Iowa Communications Network Study,” General Services Administration, Washington, DC, Apr. 1, 1993, for discussion of Federal/

State opportunities and issues.

3’ See chs. 2 and 3.

~ For fufiher discu~~ion ,. ,we office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, The Electroru”c Eruerprise: OpP)flmities f~~r ArneriC~

Bu~iness und Industry, in progress.
Revitalizing

Information Resources

Management for

Electronic Delivery 6

SUMMARY

How can the Federal Government get the highest return on the

$25 billion of taxpayer money spent each year on information

technology? Enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

in 1980 was based in part on the belief that an integrated, systematic approach to managing information technology—under the

rubric of “information resources management” or IRM—would

pay off in the long run. Congress amended and reauthorized the

PRA for 3 years in 1986; since then efforts to further extend and

update the PRA have not yet succeeded. 1

Although the IRM concept still is sound, IRM at the Federal

level has not kept up with changes in technology and the growing

trend for State and local governments to use computers and

telecommunications to serve their residents. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), General Services Administration

(GSA), and various individual Federal agencies have joined the

“service to the citizen” movement. But the pace and creativity of

Federal IRM changes are falling short of the levels needed to

manage the transition to electronic service delivery.

A new IRM planning and budgeting process is needed. OTA

identified seven key electronic delivery “success factors” that

should be reflected in all Federal agency IRM plans and budgets:

1. grassroots involvement,

2. community infrastructure development,

1 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-S1 1, was amended once by the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986,

Public Law 99-500. Subsequent reauthorization proposals included S. 1742, the Federal Information Resources Management Act of 1989, Oct.

6, 1989; H.R. ~695, the Paperwork Reduction and Federal Information Resources Management Act of 1989, Nov. 17, 1989; S. 1044, the Federal

Information Resources Management Act of 1991, May 14, 1991; and S, I 139, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1991, May 22, 1991. Proposals

to reauthorize the PRA are before the 103rd Congress. See S. 681, the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1993, Mar, 31, 1993; S. 560,

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993, Mar, 10, 1993; and HR. 2995, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993, Aug. 6, 1993.

123
124 I Making Government Work

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

innovation (including separate funding and a

clearinghouse for sharing results),

directories (to services and information),

consideration of future service delivery alternatives,

strategic partnering, and

pre-operational testing (including evaluation

and policy development components).

Congress and the administration could require

that these factors be adequately addressed in project-level, annual, and 5-year plans developed by

the line agencies, and that some factors be funded

through percentage set-asides from agency information technology budgets.

The IRM leadership and training should be

strengthened and refocused. Each Federal agency

needs an experienced, senior official who can

bridge the gap between information technology

and service delivery—whether called the senior

IRM official, an assistant secretary-level Chief

Information Officer, or the equivalent. The Federal IRM training program should be revamped,

placing emphasis on strategic thinking, technology and policy integration, flexible planning and

procurement, and customer service—along with

the “success factors” noted above. Knowledgeable

and committed Federal employees are essential to

successful electronic delivery of services, and

should be involved at every stage of electronic

delivery initiatives.

Congress and the President could take the opportunities presented by electronic service delivery and PRA reauthorization to update Federal

IRM, and also to rethink the Federal IRM organizational structure. OMB’s Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, GSA’s Information Resources Management Service, and the National

Institute of Standards and Technology’s Computer Systems Laboratory, among others, could

benefit from a large dose of creativity in how to

best leverage scarce human, technical, and financial resources for electronic delivery. Electronic

service delivery could play a key role in re-engineering the Federal Government, but significant

IRM changes are a prerequisite to making this

vision a reality.

INTRODUCTION

The IRM concept is relatively new (little more

than a decade old) and was intended to provide an

integrated approach to managing the hardware,

software, personnel, services, and other components of the government’s information technology

activities. The IRM concept was not well defined

when the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 was

enacted, and is still very unevenly understood and

accepted in government agencies. At the Federal

level, the rapid advancement of information technology and its applications has made it difficult for

IRM to fulfill its original promise.2 The transition

to electronic service delivery will further strain the

IRM structure and staff, absent needed changes.

Information and information technology are

central to the functions of a modern organization.

Information technology unequivocally is evolving

in the direction of multilevel, networked systems

that integrate computers, telecommunications,

2 See Charles R. McClure, Rolf T. Wigand, John Carlo Bertot, Mary McKenna William E. Moen, Joe Ryan, and Stacy B. Veeder, Syracuse

University School of Information Studies, “Federal Information Policy and Management for Electronic Service Delivery,” contractor paper

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 21, 1992; U.S. General Accounting Office, lnf~~rmation Management and Technology

Issues, GAO/OCG-93-5TR (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, December 1992); U.S. General Accounting Office, Perceived

Burriers to Effective lnforrnution Resources Management: Results ofGAO Panel Di.w-mionY, GAOIIMTEC-92-67 (Washington, DC: U.S.

General Accounting Office, September 1992); U.S. General Accounting Office, lnfhrmation Resources: Summary of Fe&ral Agencies’

lr@rmation Resources Management Problems, GAO/lMTEC-92-13FS (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, February 1992);

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Fe&raf Government Infcmnation Technology: Management, Security, and Congressional

Oversight, OTA-CIT-297 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986); and Fred B. Wood, “Office of Technology

Assessment Perspectives on Current U.S. Federal Information Issues,” Government pub/icationf Review, vol. 17, 1990, pp. 281-300. For the

original legislative history of the PRA, see U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Paperwoti Reduction Act of 1980,

Senate Report No. %-930, Sept. 8, 1980.
Chapter 6-Revitalizing Information Resources Management for Electronic Delivery 125

and peripheral equipment with multiformat capabilities (e.g., voice, data, graphics, print, video,

and optical). This trend alone argues for an integrative management approach. The new imperative for re-engineering or rethinking government

inevitably will lead to viewing government services in relation to each other and to larger public

goals, rather than in isolation. It also will encourage the development of common technical and

organizational platforms for service delivery.

These trends will, in turn, demand greater consistency and cooperation in the management of information resources. The greatest need and

challenge, in this new environment, is not providing telecommunications and computer services to

Federal agencies, but getting the agencies to think

creatively about how information technology can

best meet their needs.

Congress and the President could rethink IRM

goals, planning, budgeting, training, and organization in the Federal Government, and then revise

and update the PRA accordingly. The trend at the

State level is to redefine IRM as a tool for achieving broader government and public objectives,

rather than an end in itself. Significant changes

will be needed to jump-start the Federal IRM

bureaucracy to move in new directions. The Federal Government could learn from State and even

local government experience in developing an innovative Federal IRM strategy. Part of the Federal

strategy might include a strong emphasis on

meeting citizen needs for services, grassroots

community involvement, and strategic partnering—perhaps as explicit goals of Federal IRM.

The Federal strategy also could adopt themes and

goals that are emerging from State government

efforts to improve IRM (see boxes 6-A and 6-B).3

NEW IRM PLANNING AND BUDGETING

PROCESS

Both the Office of Management and Budget and

General Services Administration have embraced

the concept of electronic service delivery. OMB is

on record that:

. . . the IRM community should work to build

a Federal service delivery infrastructure—

using information technology better to

perform its missions. At root this requires

new partnerships within and across agencies.

Specifically, these partnerships could support: improving interagency coordination in

service delivery; testing new citizen-service

technologies such as kiosks; increasing the

active dissemination of government information; reducing administrative burden and

paperwork through the use of information

technologies; and creating policies and incentive structures that encourage innovation.4

GSA’S fledgling “service to the citizen” program also has begun to bear fruit. Recent reports

have highlighted the need for Federal agencies to

become more customer-oriented, with an emphasis on the use of information technology to im3 Many States have strategic information technology plans that encompass at lemt some key aspects of electronic delivery. See, for example,

Jnforrnation Resources Commission, State of Florid& “Annual Report on Information Resources Management Fiscal Year 1991 -92,” February

1993; Information Technology Policy and Management Division, State of South Carolina Budget and Control Board, “Focus 1990s-Direct

Citizen Access Using Modern Technologies—Strategic Information Technology Directions for the State of South Carol ina,” Columbia, SC,

May 1991; and the references cited in boxes 6-A and 6-B. Also see Sharon L. Caudle and Donald A. Marchand, Managing Inff)rmafi{m

Resources: New Directiom in Wute Government (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University School of Information Studies, August 1989); Nancy

Ginn Helrne, New Alliunces in lnnovafion: A Guide to Encouraging Innovative Applications of NeHt Cmnmunicufi(nr Technology T() Aaliress

Ware Problems (Washington, DC: Council of Governors Policy Advisors, 1993); State Information Policy Consortium, “National Information

and Service Delivery System: A Vision for Restructuring Government in the Information Age,” 1992, prepared for the National Governors’

Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, and Council of State Governments; Alabama Information Age Tmk Force, “Founding

a First World Alabama: Summary,” n,d.; and Eliot Levinson, “Using Information Technology Effectively in Government Organizations,”

l~or~ization and!he Public Sector, vol. 1, 1991, pp. 143-154.

4 Office of Management and Budget, Inf{wrnation Resources Management Plun of the Federul Govemmeti (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, November 1992), p, HI-IO.
126 I Making Government Work

Box 6-A--Learning From the States: California Strategic Directions

The California State Office of Information Technology (OIT), headquartered in Sacramento, is part of the

Department of Finance, and is roughly equivalent in function to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

(minus the regulatory side) in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The California OIT carries out

technology advocacy, policy development and oversight, and review and approval of agency information

technology budgets. The OIT has a staff of 28 persons who oversee the activities of the more than 7,000

information technology-related employees in State agencies with a combined information technology budget

of about $1.2 billion.

The OIT is refining and implementing a California 2000 plan reflecting fundamental changes in the State’s

information technology philosophy and direction:

1. Shift from agency automation to electronic service delivery--During the 1980s, the challenge was to

educate agencies about the basic benefits of information technology for automating the internal agency

functions. Now the focus is shifting to automation of external relationships between mission agencies

and their clients, customers, and citizens.

2. Shift from implementing agency-specific automation projects to developing a common information

technology infrastructure. The old model was to identify an agency-specific problem, define the needs,

and develop and apply information technology to meet those needs. The new model is to invest in generic

technologies that will meet a wide range of needs, not necessarily related to a specific agency or problem,

in order to develop the common infrastructure and heavy volume of use needed to realize low-cost

electronic service delivery.

3. Shift from information technology as separate from government structure to technology as an integral

part of government structure. Fiscal constraints make it imperative to restructure and re-engineer

California State government. Information technology can help cut across agency and program lines and

provide opportunities for integrated service delivery, at first within the existing organizational structure

but eventually leading to a re-engineered, streamlined structure. The hope is that information technology

changes will lead naturally to organizational changes, with a lesser degree of political and personnel

trauma than usually accompanies structural change. Information technology should result, over a few

years time, in fewer mid-level managers, fewer computer programmers, more applications specialists

and strategic thinkers, and a decentralized, democratized information technology infrastructure.

4. Shift from information technology or automated data-processing staff as relatively narrow technical

specialists to mom innovative, broadly gauged application generalists. Career paths need to be based

not just on the size and complexity of technology managed, but on the impact and leverage of the

technology to improve service delivery and government functioning.

Specific OIT initiatives include:

1. requiring agencies to have an explicit information technology strategic infrastructure plan, against which

OIT will evaluate specific agency proposals;

2. providing training to help agency information technology staff gain new, broader perspectives, including

a Data Processing Academy (about 4 to 5 weeks total class time spread over 1 year) and Executive

Institute (a few days in duration);

3. supporting an advanced technology program that permits agencies to develop and test technologies

outside of the normal procurement process;

4. supporting InfoCal as a kiosk-based component of the State information technology infrastructure; and

5.supporting the State Department of Motor Vehicles magnetic stripe card as a service delivery and

identification card.

SOURCE: Based on OTA Intewiews with senior Caiifomia State officials. For further dieoussion, see State of California,

Department of Finance, Office of information Technology, Managhg /nkvrneUon In CWornk State Government An

Executive Perspective, Sacramento, CA, December 1991, and Office of Mmnation Technobgy. . . Putting /nfotmation To

Work Progmms and Orgadzatlon, Sacramento, CA, March 1992.
Chapter 6–Revitalizing Information Resources Management for Electronic Delivery I 127

Box 6-B—Learning From the States: Washington State Strategic Directions

The State of Washington has an aggressive strategy to harness information technology to change and

improve State government. The State government leadership believes that information technology is a key

resource that can be used to increase government productivity and improve service delivery. However,

information technology is not an end in itself; it is a resource to be used to accomplish broader government

objectives.

The State Office of Financial Management (equivalent in part to the Federal OMB) chairs an interagency

subcabinet (Deputy Director level) group that meets about twice a month; the State Department of Information

Services is responsible for policy development and implementation. Key statewide information technology

issues and initiatives include:

1. use of the State government’s personal computer infrastructure-the 50,000 installed personal computers (for 85,000 employees) offer substantial opportunities for local and wide-area network interconnectivity, electronic mail, document transfer, and the like;

2. the paperless government-how can the State government take advantage of the telecommunications

and computer infrastructure to drastically reduce government paperwork;

3. citizen access to government-the State is looking at the full range of options, from kiosks to bulletin

boards to videoconferencing, to improve access, reduce citizen trips to agencies, etc.;

4. horizontal services integration-how can information technology be used to combine service delivery

across agency boundaries, such as consolidated business reporting forms and a master business

license (that combines previously disparate licensing documents), or consolidated State information

dissemination; and

5. capacity building-the intent is to use continuing education and training to help senior managers better

understand the vital role of information technology and resources in transforming State government.

Leadership is key to the State of Washington’s success. State information resources management must

strike the right balance between providing centralized guidance and principles while encouraging innovation

and allowing enough room for individual agency/program variability. The State is emphasizing the need for:

1. multiple focal points of expertise (e.g., agency IRM offices, statewide IRM support offices);

2. more public-private (e.g., with private firms) and public-public partnerships (e.g., using distance

education facilities for State agency hearings, working with Federal agency counterparts); and

3. leveraging opportunities for economies of scale (e.g., creating single points of presence where State

and Federal services would be available over the same terminal facilities).

SOURCE: E&xxI on OTA interviews with senior Washington State officials. For further discussion, see Washington State

Department of Information Services, /formation Techno/ogyin Washlrtgton State Governrnenf: A Biennial Report, Olympia,

WA, June 1992; New Directions in Information Resources MWwgemant: Information TechnobgyAct of 1992, Ofympia, WA,

June 1992; and /reproving the Management of Information Systems /n Washington State: A Report to the Legislature,

Olympia, WA, Jan. 15, 1992.

prove the quality, accessibility y, and cost effective- of thinking more strategically about their use of

ness of service to citizens, s

information technology. OMB asks agencies to

Current OMB planning guidance, issued pursu- supply information on “service to the citizen”

ant to the PRA, is moving agencies in the direction projects, including:6

5 See U.S. General Services Administration, Information Resources Management Service, Service lf~the Cilizens: Project Report, KAP-93- 1

(Washington, DC: U.S. GeneraI Services Administration, February 1993); Jerry Mechling, Jane E, Fountain, Linda Kaboolian, and Steven

Kelman, Cusl[wner .’$en’i<e E.rt ellerue,” U.~inhr Inf[jrmuIi[Jn Te{hn{Jc)gy to Improve Service Delive~’ in Goverwnen! (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University John F. Kennedy School of Government, Program on Strategic Computing and Telecommunications in the Public Sector, June 1993),

prepared with financial support from GSA and several other Fe&ral agencies; and Vice President Al Gore, Creuting a G~nemmenf Thut Works

Better und Costs Less; Report lfthe Nu(i{]nul Pe~~)rrnunce Review (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 7, 1993),

f Office of Management and Budget, “Information Resources Management Plans Bullet in,” OMB Bulletin 93- I 2, Apr. 28, 1993.
128 I Making Government Work

impetus for the project;

how the project works;

level of citizen effort required to participate;

phase of the project life cycle;

agency coordination;

legal, regulatory, or technical impediments;

project evaluation (planned or completed); and

project benefits.

OMB intends to use this information to create

an inventory of projects and identify needed policy

changes, and as input to next year’s governmentwide information resources management

plan. 7 And OMB further acknowledged the role of

electronic delivery in its recently revised information resources management circular.8

The results of these OMB and GSA initiatives,

while likely to be useful, fall short of adequately

focusing agency attention and resources on keys

to successful electronic delivery.

In addition to grassroots citizen involvement

and strategic partnering, ingredients of successful

electronic service delivery projects are likely to

include: vision—a clear idea of where the project

is going and what needs or goals are to be met;

innovation--creative application of technology

and/or rethinking of how services can be delivered; and pre-operational testing—an opportunity

to checkout the design concept before committing

to large-scale development and deployment, including explicit evaluation and policy development components. Many Federal and State/local

government agencies, as well as private sector

organizations, have learned through experience

that the absence of one or more of these elements

can spell trouble.9

The challenge is building vision, innovation,

and pre-operational testing, as well as grassroots

involvement and partnering, into the overall planning and budgeting process-without simply adding more layers of bureaucratic procedures and red

tape. Congress and the administration could require that the annual and 5-year information technology plans currently prepared by Federal

agencies explicitly address these and other key

elements,10 but give the agencies considerable

discretion about how to carry out this requirement.

Agency planning has matured considerably since

enactment of the PRA in 1980, but still leaves

room for improvement as a forward-looking, creative process. Congress could further amend the

PRA to provide more direct guidance on agency

planning and budgeting for electronic delivery.

OMB could revise its various bulletins and circulars to do likewise, as could GSA with regard to

its Federal IRM regulations and manuals.

Fostering a clear vision is partly a function of a

government leadership that encourages creative

thinking about using information technology to

help improve service delivery. Vision is also

strengthened by hiring and training in-house futurists and entrepreneurs who will push agencies to

fresh insights; by organizing workshops, retreats,

and seminars for agency staff and outside innovators to think openly about re-engineering agency

functions; and by providing incentives and rewards for those who produce insightful, useful

applications of electronic service delivery. OMB

is taking initial steps in this direction by requiring

linkages between agency strategic goals and the

use of information technology to improve service

delivery,11 but, at this point, the OMB guidance is

not sufficiently refined or focused. OMB could

redirect existing advisory mechanisms, or create

new ones, to generate more creative ideas on electronic delivery both from within and outside the

7 Issued amually by OMB.

8 Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular A-130 Revised, “Management of Federal Information Resources,” Fe&ruf Register,

vol. 58, No. 126, July 2, 1993, pp. 36068-36086; see sec. 7(l): “Modern information technology presents opportunities to improve the

management of government programs to provide better service to the public . . . “

9 See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “MontandWyoming Trip Report,” “Alaska Trip Report,” “California Trip Report,”

Nov. 10, 1992; Caudle and Marchand, Munuging Infbrmution Resources, op. cit., footnote 3.

10 see key infwation ~d Communication policy concerns discussed in ch. 7

11 Sw OMB Bu]letin 93-12, op. cit., footnote 6.
Chapter 6-Revitalizing Information Resources Management for Electronic Delivery 129

The State of California's Franchise Tax Board has

invested heavily in automated voice response technologies to provide faster, more accurate answers to

inquiries from California taxpayers.

Federal Government.12 Advisory groups should

be encouraged to use electronic technology, such

as computer and videoconferencing, to facilitate

their work.

Some States and private companies have experimented with innovation funds—i.e., a small

amount of risk money (not so small for some

companies) set aside for innovative projects and

applications where success is not guaranteed. Private companies have learned to invest in multiple

projects and approaches, knowing that not all will

succeed but that the greater failure is not to try.

Taking risks is harder to politically justify when

taxpayer dollars are involved. But in the long run,

the public is likely to be well served by encouraging agency innovation in electronic service delivery. Congress and the administration could encourage or mandate that a percentage of every

agency’s information technology budget be reserved for small-scale innovation, Just one-half of

1 percent would create a governmentwide electronic delivery innovation fund of about $125 million.

An innovation fund (or separate agency funds)

could and probably should be disconnected from

operational or pre-operational electronic delivery

programs in order to avoid competition for funds

and excessive red tape, Once a specific electronic

delivery application reaches the pre-operational

stage, then more explicit and rigorous guidelines

usually are needed.

Deciding on specific technical systems for service delivery will still be complicated because, as

yet, most options have been tested on a relatively

small-scale basis and without the benefit of fully

competitive technology development. Numerous

Federal, State, and local-level pilot tests or limited

operational deployments of kiosks, dial-up computer access, and smart cards demonstrate that

these technologies can work for electronic service

delivery. But there are many unanswered questions about scaling up to regional or nationwide

applications that are fully operational and cover

multiple programs.13

Indeed, it is premature to make detailed technical and operational decisions on large-scale nationwide electronic delivery systems. Congress

and the administration could, however, authorize

a coordinated, governmentwide, scaled-up preIZ OMB cWld ~gin by t~lng an inventov of existing advisory bodies, starting with its own Federal IRM Council (.Senior agency IRM

officials), and including various official and ad hoc interagency advisory and coordinating committees. OMB could review the experience and

suggestions of outside advisory groups, including the Center for Information Management opera(ed by the National Academy of Public

Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Computer Systems Security and Privacy Advisory Board, the National

Research Council’s Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, and the Project Advisory Panels for this and other related Office of

Technology Assessment studies. OTA’S experience hm been that outside advisory groups-properly selected, prepared, and chaired—can be

quite helpful. For an example oft ypical advisory input, w Center for Information Management, National Academy of Public Administration,

“The Information Government: National Agenda for Improving Government Through Information Technology,” recommendations from a

forum of senior government and private sector officials held Apr. 23-24, 1993, and submitted July 15, 1993, to Vice President Gore and the

National Performance Review,

Is EBT hz~ ken the mos[ extensively pilot-tested and evaluated electronic delivery alternative; yet even here, many questions remain when

moving up to a nationwide scope of operations, See ch. 4 for further discussion.
130 I Making Government Work

operational testing program designed to mix and

match different technical delivery alternatives,

Federal services, and agency partners. Such a program could be funded by reprogramming existing

monies. An effective testing program would need

top-level support from OMB and the Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), among

others, and involvement of some kind of interagency committee to assure agency cooperation.

The testing program would, ideally, preserve

ample opportunity for creativity and innovation

while looking for opportunities to realize economies of scale and scope. For completeness, the

testing program would include: 1 ) a competitive

technology development program (to ensure that

the government has the benefit of state-of-the-art

technical approaches); 2) an evaluation component (so that the testing results will provide the

information needed for decisionmaking); and 3) a

policy analysis component (to anticipate policy

issues that would need resolution prior to fullscale operational deployment—also see ch. 7 issues discussion). The testing program could begin

to show results in a 12- to 18-month timeframe,

and perhaps as soon as 6 months for technical

applications that have already been well tested.

To get the maximum return on current and new

investments in electronic delivery innovation and

testing, agencies should share results among themselves and their State/local counterparts. Current] y

this is a hit or miss process. OTA found that many

Federal agency information technology officials

are only vaguely aware of what other Federal or

State/local agencies are doing with electronic delivery, let alone knowing the results of these efforts. State/local government awareness is,

likewise, generally quite limited. The trade and

specialty press play a helpful role in sharing

results, as do professional associations and conferences focused on government information technology. Federal interagency working groups have

proven effective at sharing experience in specific

application areas. And some universities have information management or public administration

programs that attempt to track Federal and

State/local electronic delivery projects. All of

these efforts are worthwhile, but leave many gaps

in coverage and, more importantly, still fail to

reach numerous Federal and State/local information technology personnel.

Congress and the administration could, as part

of a broader electronic service delivery innovation

initiative, encourage more effective sharing of

innovations by:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

asking one or more appropriate Federal agencies 14 to establish or coordinate, directly or

under contract, a clearinghouse for information on electronic delivery innovations and

results that is accessible and disseminated to

the public electronically (this could include

the results of OMB’s survey of agency “service to the citizen” projects); 15

requiring electronic service innovators in Federal agencies to provide input to the clearinghouse (reporting on results should be included

in all project budgets);

encouraging State/local and private sector innovators to provide input to the clearinghouse;

asking the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS) and Government Printing Office (GPO) to collaborate on how they might

provide special directories or bibliographic

indices to federally funded electronic delivery

projects; and/or

providing funding through a designated Federal agency16 to qualified universities or private sector researchers to conduct periodic

14 ca~i~es might inc]uk the Geneml Services Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Technical

Information Service, Government Printing Office, and U.S. Geological Survey, among others.

15 OMB is nd at present we]] situated or staffed to operate a clearinghouse or directory. OMB’S troubled efforts to implement the Federal

Information Locator System are instructive,

16 Such ~ GSA, NIST, ~d/or the National Science Foundation.
Chapter 6–Revitalizing Information Resources Management for Electronic Delivery 131

surveys and syntheses of electronic service

delivery projects.17

In each of the above, information technology,

such as electronic bulletin boards and computer

networking, can be used to facilitate exchange of

information about innovations. An innovation

clearinghouse also should be viewed more broadly

as part of the Federal Information Locator System

(FILS) concept, mandated by the PRA but as yet

not fully implemented. A directory (or family of

directories) to Federal services and information,

whether called FILS or something else, is essential

to effective electronic delivery.18 Federal directories now can be structured by using wide-area

search and retrieval technologies that allow individual agency directories to function collectively

as a “virtual” governmentwide directory (see ch. 7

discussion). 19

An IRM planning and budgeting process re-oriented to electronic delivery needs to integrate all

key success factors: grassroots citizen involvement; community infrastructure; innovation; directories; visioning; strategic partnering; and

pre-operational testing (with evaluation and policy development components). Collective] y, these

would constitute the backbone of a governmentwide electronic service delivery initiative.

Congress and the administration could provide

agencies with guidance or directives on each of the

success factors. One possible approach is illustrated in table 6-1. The amount of funds set aside

for grassroots involvement, community infrastructure development, and innovation would

need to be evaluated periodically; the percentages

shown in table 6-1 represent OTA’s best judgment

of the amount required to make a significant difference.

1 Strengthened IRM Leadership

Experience indicates that IRM works only if the

top-level decisionmakers understand the role of

IRM and information technology, and include

IRM in the decisionmaking process. In the Federal

Government, each agency is required to designate

a senior IRM official—typically an assistant or

deputy assistant secretary for administration, or

equivalent. If information technology and electronic delivery are to be key components of a

re-engineered government, then these positions

need to be revised as well.

Senior IRM officials provide some high-level

visibility for IRM and information technology, but

typically have major administrative responsibilities beyond IRM. The senior IRM officials frequently delegate many IRM responsibilities to

lower level staff. The problem is compounded if

the senior designated official is not “in the loop”

on major agency programmatic decisions. Agencies could be required to have a senior official at

the level of assistant secretary or assistant bureau

chief with full-time IRM responsibilities, and to

include that person in top-level planning and decisionmaking on agency programs and service

delivery strategies. In private industry, this official

is frequently known as the “chief information officer” or CIO and also may serve as a corporate

vice president and member of the executive coml? OTA hm fu~~ ad hoc surveys, in the absence of a continuous, su.tained survey program funded by the executive branch. For OTA

survey results, see, for example, John Harris, Alan F. Westin, and Anne L. Finger, “Innovations for Federal Service: A Study of Innovative

Technologies for Federal Government Services to Older Americans and Consumers,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, February 1993; Richard Civille, “Broadening the Research Community: Delivering Federal Services Using Information Technology,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, December 1992; Susan G. Had&n and W. James Hadden, Jr.,

“Government Electronic Services and the Environment,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Novemker 1992;

William H. Dutton and K. Kendall Guthrie, “State and Local Government Imovations in Electronic Services: The Case in the Western and

Northeastern United States,” contractor repcm prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 12, 1991.

18 Also ~ G~ D. Bass and David Plocher, “Finding Government Information: The Federal Information Locator System (FILS),”

Govemmerr! Infi]rmution Quurtedy, vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, pp. 11-32.

19 Wide Area Infomatlon sewers and Gopher software are two examples of new ways to effectively and quickly SeMch and re~eve

information from geographically remote directories, Gopher is capable of finding and accessing databases at participating locations within a

second or two anywhere in the Unitd States, and within a few seconds globally (assuming available telecommunication lines and proper

technical setup at both ends),
132 I Making Government Work

Table 6-1—illustrative Guidance to Federal Agencies on Electronic Service Delivery

Possible congressional or Office of

Success factor Management and Budget guidance

Grassroots citizen involvement Required component of all electronic delivery project plans,

0.25% minimum set-aside from agency information

technology (IT) budget

Community infrastructure optional component of project plans; but 0,25% minimum setdevelopment aside from agencywide IT budget allocated to infrastructure

development

Encouraging innovation Required agencywide program; 0.5% minimum set-aside from

agency IT budget; required participation in innovation

clearinghouse

Creating directories Required; each agency to plan and implement directory (or

directories) to agency services and information; required

participation in governmentwide directory

Creating alternative futures Required component of agency annual and 5-year Information

Resource Management (IRM) plans

Strategic partnering Required component of agency annual and 5-year IRM plans;

optional component of project plans, but must be considered

Pre-operational (pre-op) Prerequisite for all medium- to large-scale regional or

testing: nationwide electronic delivery systems

Pre-op evaluation Required component of pre-op testing plans: 5% minimum

set-aside from pre-op testing budget

Policy development Required component; 5% minimum set-aside from pre-op budget

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1993.

mittee. This reflects the dominant corporate view

of information technology as a strategic resource.

The private sector experience has demonstrated,

however, that an effective CIO has strong working

relationships with the persons responsible for

product development and sales—the “bottom

line” activities equivalent to program or service

delivery in the government context. Otherwise, the

CIO will not be effective.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has

established, in part at the urging of Congress, an

intra-agency Council of Chief IRM Officers

drawn from the various major VA bureaus. This

concept could be replicated at other cabinet departments. Some proposals for elevating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cabinet

status include an assistant secretary-level CIO.

Congress could amend the PRA to require that all

departments, or perhaps all agencies, have CIOs

and that all cabinet departments have “Councils of

CIOs or Chief IRM Officers.” For the CIO concept

to work, each CIO must have the authority and

responsibility (and the requisite qualifications and

experience) to bridge the all-too-frequent gap between the world of information technology and the

world of service delivery. The results of OTA

research and site visits, and extensive State/local

government experience and academic studies, are

clear: successful electronic service delivery requires leadership from persons who understand

the technology being applied, the programs being

delivered, and the customers or clients.20

ZO SW Jo~ ~s]ie King and Kenneth L. Kr~~r, “patterns of Success in Municipal Information Systems: LCssons From U.S. Experience,”

]n@mufi@ionund(he Pub/ic Sector, vol. 1, 1991, pp. 21 -39; and James L. Perry, Kenneth L. Kraemer, John Leslie King, and Deborah Dunkle,

‘The lns(i(utionalization of Computing in Complex Organizations,” lnf{wmaiizu/ion undthe Public Sector, vol. 2, 1992, pp. 47-73.
Chapter 6–Revitalizing Information Resources Management for Electronic Delivery 133

The Federal Government also needs a new IRM

training program. State/local and private sector

experience with electronic delivery points to the

need for a revamped training program as part of

successful electronic delivery. Training has come

a long way from the days when IRM staff were,

quite accurately, equated with automatic dataprocessing personnel. Only a decade ago, few

in-house or outside IRM training programs existed, Now the GSA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Graduate School, and numerous

academic and commercial education programs offer IRM-related courses. The GSA’s “Trail Boss”

program to train agency procurement staff and

“1,000 by 2000” program to train 1,000 IRM staff

by the year 2000 are commendable in spirit. But

electronic service delivery is not yet a central

focus, and these training programs would need

considerable revision to support a new Federal

IRM strategy. A conventional IRM approach will

no longer suffice.

The Federal IRM leadership could collaborate

with its State/local counterparts and academic experts on the development of new training materials

and courses. The State of California, for example,

has initiated a multi year plan to retrain and re-educate many of its 7,000 IRM employees, with the

objective of redirecting t he IRM bureaucracy y from

an internal to an external electronic service-oriented mission. The training challenge facing the

Federal Government is about an order of magnitude greater. Roughly 70,000 Federal employees

have primarily computer or communications

responsibilities; the total approaches 100,000 if

librarians, audio-visual and public affairs specialists, archivists, technical writers, printers, and the

like are included. Many of these jobs are going to

change in content and responsibilities as the government moves further into electronic delivery

activities. Good training can help make the transition as painless and stress-free as possible, and can

help improve both productivity and cooperation in

IRM operations.

Concepts that warrant emphasis in IRM training

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

programs include:

assessing customer or client needs,

integrating customer perspectives and needs

into electronic service delivery planning from

the outset,

developing electronic delivery scenarios,

revising agency automation and information

technology programs to support electronic

service delivery,

designing electronic service as part of integrated (intra- and interagency) delivery strategies, and

managing electronic delivery projects under

conditions of rapidly changing technologies

and needs.

Information technology managers in the government, as in the private sector, must learn more

flexible, adaptable methods to keep projects on

track in the face of rapid change. And the training

process itself needs to be flexible with use of a

wide range of techniques—including small-group

seminars, off-site technical training, customer

awareness or sensitivity training, hands-on demonstrations, personal computer-based interactive

training, distance learning, and training videos.21

A new training program is one way to involve

the affected Federal labor force in planning and

implementation of electronic delivery. Even with

the best laid plans and adequate funding, Federal

employees will make or break the success of electronic delivery. Knowledgeable and committed

employees are essential. The history of government and corporate automation is replete with

failures due in part to poorly trained, uninvolved,

and sometimes even alienated or hostile employees. OTA commissioned, for example, a case

study on integrating information technology and

z] For disc~.sion of IWaI government training experiences, see Patricia T. Fletcher, Stuart 1. Bret.schneider, and Donald A. Mmch~d,

Munuging Inftwmuti(m Techrrt~i[)gy: Trunsjwming C~JutiJ’ Government (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University School of Information Studies,

August 1992).
Top: Automated railroad signaling system, Union

Pacific Station, Billings, Montana. Modern telecommunication systems are vital to the safe and efficient

operation of the Nation railroads.

Right: Microwave relay station in Billings, Montana.

The Nation telecommunications and information

infrastructure will be as important to 21st century

America as the railroads and highways in the 20th

century.

service delivery at the Social Security Administration. This review of one of the largest and oldest

Federal agency automation programs concluded

that impacts on the agency labor force must be

addressed from the outset; labor must be included

as a full partner at all stages of agency automation.

Neglect or deferral of labor implications and concerns-especially about job changes or losses—

easily can result in much greater costs and

problems over the longer term.22 This will be no

less true for electronic service delivery initiatives.

REFOCUSED IRM ORGANIZATION

Congress and the President could use the opportunities presented by electronic service delivery to

rethink and possibly reorganize the Federal IRM

organization. At present, the executive branch

‘IuAil A

IRM leadership is shared, per the PRA, among the

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), GSA’s Information Resources Management Service (IRMS), and the National

Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s)

National Computer Systems Laboratory (CSL).

Other Federal agencies, while outside the formal

IRM umbrella, are or could become key policy

players in electronic delivery of Federal services.

These include the National Telecommunications

and Information Administration (NTIA) and the

22 H~ris, Westin, ~~ Finger, /nWv~ions jior Fe&ral Service, op. cit., footnote 17. AlSO SIX U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment, Aut{~ma./ion of Ameri~u’s Offices, OTA-CIT-287 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985); U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Social Security Administration and Information Technology, OTA-CIT-311 (Wmhington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1986); and Diana Roose, High Per@-mance Office Work: Improving Jobs and Pr{xiuctivity

(Cleveland, OH: 9 to 5 Working Women Educational Fund, 1992). Also, OTA has initiated a review of the Social Security Administration’s

current automation program, at the request of the House Committee on Appropriations; OTA is examining the implications of automation for

customer satisfaction, service delivery, and labor force involvement and productivity, among other topics.
Chapter 6–Revitalizing Information Resources Management for Electronic Delivery

White House Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP).

OIRA is the lead information policy and budget

office for the executive branch; OIRA also has

responsibility for reviewing agency information

collection requirements, including those associated with proposed regulations. Some IRM experts believe OIRA allocates too many staff to

budget and regulatory review at the expense of

information policy. Consumer, environmental,

and public interest advocates believe OIRA overstepped its mandate when conducting substantive

review of agency regulatory proposals, well beyond the information collection implications, and

violated due process and open government requirements in doing so. OIRA has, in the past,

argued:

1. that its staff gains additional clout by combining the policy analyst and budget examiner

roles, which promotes stronger information

policy;

2. that the substantive and information requirements of regulatory proposals are frequently

inextricably related;

3. that, in any event, OIRA has the authority to

conduct substantive regulatory reviews on behalf of the President—whether authorized by

the PRA or not; and

4. that such reviews are subject to executive

privilege.

The prior administration transferred the more

controversial OIRA regulatory activities to a then

newly created Council on Competitiveness reporting to the Vice President. The current administration terminated the Council on January 20, 1993.

When reauthorizing the PRA, Congress could

clarify OIRA’s role regarding substantive regulatory review, and the need for adherence to principles of open government to the maximum extent

possible, Congress could further focus OIRA by

statutorily defining and limiting substantive regulatory review, possibly even dropping the “R”

from OIRA. Congress could refocus the “new”

OIRA on information policy, management, and

135

budgetary matters, and more broadly on electronic

service delivery initiatives.

Also, Congress could redefine the OIRA role in

approving agency information collection requirements to emphasize fundamental reform in agency

practices, using electronic delivery to drastically

reduce bureaucratic red tape and paperwork, improve productivity, and increase customer satisfaction. The objective could be to orient OIRA

much more towards creative, innovative use of

electronic technology to meet traditional and new

goals. Setting up an “Electronic Service Delivery”

branch within OIRA might help. OIRA has not had

sufficient staffing and resources to adequately do

its information policy job, let alone address electronic delivery, partly because attention has been

diverted to regulatory activities and resultant

political issues.

GSA’s IRMS provides detailed management

support and guidance to the agency IRM activities,

including assistance with agency planning, management, training, and procurement of computer

and telecommunications technologies and systems (including administration of FTS2000).

GSA/IRMS issues the delegations of authority for

agency procurement and numerous regulations

and guidelines on agency IRM activities. GSA/

IRMS has sponsored some small electronic service delivery initiatives (e.g., the “Service to the

Citizen” program, and the Center for Information

Management at the National Academy of Public

Administration), but in general has found it difficult to take a leadership role on electronic delivery—even though some GSA/IRMS officials

recognize the potential.

The organization and role of GSA in information technology—and, potentially, electronic

service delivery—warrant congressional and executive branch review. GSA/IRMS could be split

from the rest of GSA (that which deals primarily

with the acquisition and management of Federal

buildings and supplies) and set up as a separate

“Information Resources Agency” or “Electronic

Services Agency,” or possibly combined with

some other existing agency. This might give the
136 I Making Government Work

IRM function more visibility and leverage. Alternatively, a new “Assistant Commissioner for

Electronic Delivery” or some other high-level organizational unit focused on electronic delivery

could be established within IRMS. But whatever

the organizational locale, a rethinking of GSA/

IRMS is in order. GSA/IRMS needs to create a

new vision of its role in electronic service delivery,

and critically review its priorities and resource

allocation against that vision. Staff may need to

shift their focus from what many agency IRM staff

believe is an excessive involvement with the

minutia of IRM to greater attention to strategic

thinking, visioning, planning, and training for

electronic service delivery.

The GSA/IRMS field structure around the Nation is a potentially valuable asset for Federal/

State/local information-sharing and collaboration

on electronic service delivery. But the field structure needs to be re-energized—and probably reorganized and retrained—both to work with the

Washington headquarters around a common

vision, and to reach out more effectively to State/

local government and private sector electronic

delivery innovators and activists. Each GSA/

IRMS regional and State office could be required

to have an electronic service delivery coordinator.

A revitalized OMB/OIRA and GSA/IRMS

could, in addition to current responsibilities, take

more aggressive action on:

■ Intelligent buildings—by adopting “smart

office” or “intelligent office” prototypes that

support a wide range of computer and telecommunications applications, including electronic

delivery, without having to endlessly rewire at

substantial cost;

■ Telecommuting—by building on current

“flexiplace” and “telework” programs that are

demonstrating the energy, environmental, and

quality of work and family life benefits when

carefully planned and implemented;

■ Energy efficient electronic delivery-by building on current efforts to reduce the energy consumption of computers, peripheral equipment,

and networks used by the Federal Government;

H Electronic commerce—by extending the Department of Commerce’s “Electronic Commerce 2000” program--designed to automate

all business transactions (filings, billings,

applications, data reporting, etc.) with the

department by the year 2000-to all Federal

departments and agencies with the goal of drastically reducing paperwork;

n Electronic government--by extending OMB's

recent requirement that agencies use electronic

mail for exchange of internal memos, documents, drafts, testimony, and the like to all

internal government information, using appropriate technology and making provision for full

compliance with open government, public access, and record archiving requirements (see

ch. 7); and

~ Re-engineering government-by developing

“InfoFED,” “FedServe,“ “Federal Buddy,” and

other prototypes based on agency efforts to

fundamentally rethink how they deliver services, such as the USDA’s “Easy Access” and

“InfoShare” programs to deliver multiagency

services over a common set of technology platforms or points of access (kiosks, smart cards,

computer networks, Cooperative Extension

Service offices, etc.) (see table 6-2 for other

examples).

NIST also has a significant role in governmentwide IRM leadership, and potentially in electronic service delivery. The NIST Computer

Systems Laboratory (CSL) is responsible for:

1) policy development and oversight of computer

and communications security in the civilian agencies; 2) promulgation of technical standards on a

wide range of information technology and systems

used by Federal agencies (as part of public-private

standards-setting processes); and 3) management

of technology laboratories, demonstrations, and

conferences related to Federal information systems.

NIST/CSL could establish a new “electronic

service delivery laboratory” that focuses on technology and standards development relevant to

electronic delivery. A new NIST “electronic de-
Chapter 6-Revitalizing Information Resources Management for Electronic Delivery 137

&+------ - -

.—

Bi. . ,.

Top: The Telecommuting Work Center in Riverside,

California, provides employees from participating

organizations with complete office facilities, including telephone, facsimile, computer, and duplication

services.

Bottom: The Telecommuting Work Center is intended to significantly reduce the time, money,

congestion, and pollution associated with the long

commute distances typical of Southern California.

livery lab” could be colocated with GSA/IRMS or

with a newly established “Information Resources

or Electronic Delivery Agency.” This would improve integration of policy, management, and

technical perspectives, but, on the other hand,

would remove the lab from the otherwise compatible standards and technology environment at the

main NIST facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Alternatively, NIST could setup the lab in Gaithersburg, but also operate a satellite mini-lab at the

downtown GSA building (or at the Department of

Commerce headquarters building), readily accessible to staff from OMB/OIRA, GSA/IRMS, and

other agencies. This could be supplemented by

computer conferencing and videoconferencing

between Gaithersburg and Washington, DC.

OSTP has statutory responsibilities for scientific and technical information dissemination, unaddressed until recently,23 and in the last few years

has provided coordination for the Federal highperformance computing and net working initiative.

OSTP has a lead role in carrying out the President’s technology policy. The policy gives high

priority to development of the national information infrastructure for economic stimulus, jobs

creation, education and training, international

competitiveness, science and engineering leadership, and a more productive and responsive government. Thus OSTP has a logical role in

governmentwide electronic delivery initiatives,

both because the information infrastructure is a

primary vehicle for Federal electronic delivery

across the board, and because the Federal science

and technology agencies will be heavily involved

in electronic delivery of their own services.

NTIA, located in the Department of Commerce

as is NIST/CSL, has statutory responsibilities for

23 pnOr tO [his ~ministr~[ion, OsTp has been remiss in c~ing ox its statutory responsibilities for scientific and technical information.

See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Helping America Compete. The Role qfFederul Sciennyic and Technicul lnfhmationj

OTA-CIT-4.54 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1990); and Fred B. Wood, “Helping America Compete Through More

Effective Use of Scientific and Technical Information: An Opportunity for Office of Science and Technology Policy Leadership,” Government

/nforma/i{~n Quar/er/y, vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, pp. 105–1 12. HR. 1757, the National Information Infrastructure Act of 1993, approved by the House

on July 20, 1993, and S, 2 Title VI, the Information Technology Applications Act of 1993, reported out of committee on May 25, 1993, would

strenghen and broaden the OSTP role in electronic delivery of educational, health care, library, and infonna[ion services over computer

networks. Also see Jnforma[ion Infrastructure Task Force, “The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action,” National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Washington, DC, Sept. 15, 1993.
138 I Making Government Work

Table 6-2—lllustrative Prototypes of Re-Engineering Government

Through Information Technology

Federal agency Prototype applications

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Internal Revenue Service

Securities and Exchange Commission

Environmental Protection Agency (with

U.S. Army)

Environmental Protection Agency

Census Bureau

Food and Drug Administration

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Food and Nutrition Service

White House Health Care Reform Task

Force

Plans to use electronic data interchange (EDI) for

processing client histories, purchase orders, claims

and payments for health care providers and insurers,

mortgage applications for lenders, etc.; expected to

cut processing costs in half

Plans one-stop electronic shopping for services from

multiple USDA agencies, e.g., Rural Development

Administration, Soil Conservation Service, Farmers

Home Administration, Extension Service

Plans all-out push for widespread electronic filing to

reduce paperwork, errors, and cost through

telephone filing (touchtone plus voice or identifier

recognition), PC filing, joint Federal/State electronic

filing, and third-party filing

Under pressure to provide computer network

(including Internet) access to EDGAR, a public

database of corporate financial and business

information

Provides on-line computer access to the EnviroText

database of Federal/State environmental laws and

regulations

Plans extensive use of EDI for monitoring hazardous

waste shipments, water discharges, and smokestack

emissions

Plans use of pen computers, by year 2000, for

census-takers

Could include filing by computer as well as by mail.

fax, or phone for physician reporting of drug and

medical device side-effects to the MEDwatch

database

Plans extensive use of EDI for processing mortgage

Insurance claims from over 13,000 lenders

Plans nationwide implementation of magnetic stripe

card for Issuing food stamp benefits

Plans to recommend nationwide implementation of

a “Health Passport” card as part of the health care

reform package

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993,

technical and policy analyses on Federal spectrum the former White House Office of Telecommunimanagement, national information and telecom- cations Policy with the Commerce Department’s

munications issues, government communications, pre-existing Office of Telecommunications. With

and a public telecommunications grant program. few exceptions, NTIA has focused primarily on

NTIA was created in 1978 by combining most of telecommunications policy and has done little on
Chapter 6–Revitalizing Information Resources Management for Electronic Delivery 1139

national information policy.24 This will change,

however, since NTIA is to administer information

networking pilot projects (matching grants to

States, schools, and libraries) called for in the

President’s technology policy, and is participating

in national information infrastructure activities.

The networking pilot projects certainly could involve electronic delivery of services, and NTIA’s

general charter would suggest a broader role in

electronic service de] i very initiatives.

Strengthening the “I” in NTIA would require

top-level management support (both within the

Department of Commerce and at the White

House), increased resources (perhaps in part

through reallocation of existing NTIA funds and

staff), strong NTIA leadership on the importance

of information policy, and probably some degree

of organizational and staff changes or restructuring within NTIA.

In sum, there is a need to rethink traditional

IRM and the relationships between IRM, electronic service delivery, and the national information infrastructure. This could include a review of

how the traditional IRM organizations at OMB,

GSA, and NIST--and their counterparts in the

mission agencies-can work better together and

with others, like OSTP and NTIA. The review

could extend to other Federal agencies that have a

role in electronic service delivery, such as the

National Archives and Records Administration,

Consumer Information Center, and Depository Library Program (see ch. 7). The Office of the Vice

President could provide a focal point for rethinking IRM, since information technology and electronic service delivery are central to both the

administration’s “National Information Infrastructure” (NH) and “National Performance Review” (NPR) initiatives. Electronic service

delivery is also germane to various proposals for

outside study commissions on reinventing or rethinking the Federal Government’s organization

for the 21st century.25

24 me two majorN1-lA ~n~ytica] con[ri~tions over thelast decade were NTIA Telecom 2@O: Cr’ed;ng the c(~ur.$eff)r u Ne~’ Cenfuryj

NTIA Special Publication 88-21 (Wmhington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, October 1988), and The NTIA Infrus(mcture Repro:

Tele{~mmum”cutiom~ in the Age of lnf~}rmution, NTIA Special Publication 91-26 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, October

1991 ). These NTIA reports gave some attention to information issues, but the primary focus was on telecommunications infrastructure trends

and issues. For contrasting approaches, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Crilind Cfmnection.r: Communication for [he

Future, OTA-CIT-407 (Wmhington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990) and lnf~wming the Nu[ion: Federal Inj)rmution

Di.weminati(m in un E/ectr(~nic Age, OTA-CIT-3% (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1988).

25 see H,R, 1091, a bill to estabjish the Commission on Information Technology and Paperwork Reduction, Feb. 24, 1 Wf; S. 15, the

Reinventing Government Act, Jan. 21, 1993; and S, 101, the Executive Organization Reform Act of 1993, introduced Jan, 21, 1993, and reported

out by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on Aug. 5, 1993. Also see Vice President Gore, op. cit., footnote 5; and Information

Infrastructure Task Force, op. cit., footnote 23.
Information

Policies

for Electronic

Service Delivery

SUMMARY

Most Federal information policies either predate the electronic era

or reflect, at best, the period when expensive mainframe computers dominated agency automation and telecommunications meant

“plain old telephone service.” The policymaking process has

lagged technological advances and new applications by several or

more years. Electronic service delivery provides a framework for

balancing the reality of decentralized, dispersed, user-oriented

agency automation with the need for some measure of centralized,

yet flexible, policy direction and oversight.

7

The transition to electronic delivery of many Federal services

will require the review and updating of most Federal information

policies. Congress can play a central policymaking role in assuring that electronic delivery develops in ways that maintain or

enhance: equity of access to Federal services; open government;

confidentiality and integrity of service delivery; and fair and

effective competitive procurement.

Perhaps the greatest challenge will be assuring equitable access

to Federal services in an electronic environment. This will require

both the kinds of management, planning, partnering, and budgeting actions discussed in chapter 6 and the various policy actions

discussed here. To have meaningful electronic access, citizens

need to know what services exist and how to obtain them, and

they must be able to make the electronic connections necessary

to receive the services at an affordable price. The Office of

Management and Budget’s (OMB) recently revised Circular

141
142 I Making Government Work

A-1 30 on “Management of Federal Information

Resources” provides new guidance on many policies relevant to equitable access, such as directories, pricing, and use of depository libraries. ]

Congress could review the revised A-130 and

determine which provisions warrant statutory

treatment or fine-tuning to reinforce and clarify

legislative intent.

Electronic delivery should provide many opportunities to improve citizen access not only to

agency-specific mission-oriented services, but to

the processes of government (e.g., hearings and

rulemakings). The long-standing congressional

commitment to open government is reflected in

several statutes, such as the Freedom of Information Act, Federal Records Act, Government in the

Sunshine Act, and Federal Advisory Committee

Act. Congress could review and update open government statutes to clarify their applicability to

electronic services and activities, and emphasize

the appropriate use of information technology.

Congress could require that governmental process

information—for example, information on hearing schedules or opportunities for public comment

or input—for both the executive and legislative

branches be provided via electronic as well as

conventional means.

Widespread electronic delivery of services that

involve personal or financial information will create new privacy and security risks and accentuate

the need for stronger safeguards. Congress could

review and update the Privacy Act, Computer

Security Act, and related statutes to help ensure

the confidentiality and integrity of electronic delivery. Congress also could direct OMB and the

National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) to conduct a privacy/security review of

electronic delivery initiatives. Congress could extend the scope of the Privacy Act to include private

sector systems used in electronic delivery, and

establish a permanent, independent Privacy Protection Commission or Board to help assure protection of personal information used in electronic

delivery.

Electronic delivery also will intensify the need

to clarify Federal policy on contracting for information technologies and services. Congress could

review the revised OMB Circular A- 130, any proposed revisions to OMB Circular A-76 on “Performance of Commercial Activities,” and Federal

procurement statutes to help assure an appropriate

balancing of the sometimes competing considerations related to electronic delivery: public accountability; equity of access; government efficiency; public/private sector cooperation; and

equity of competition (a “level playing field”).

Absent improvements in procurement practices,

major contracting for electronic service delivery

could further strain a Federal procurement process

that is already overly complicated, lengthy, rigid,

expensive, and inefficient.

Congress could review and update information

policies individually, in groups, or as part of a

comprehensive package. The reauthorization of

the Paperwork Reduction Act2 (PRA) could be

used as a vehicle, as could new legislation such as

a “Federal Information Management Act” or

“Electronic Service Delivery Act” that might supplement or supersede the PRA. Congress could

encourage or require that OMB and individual

agencies explicitly address these policy areas early

in the demonstration and pre-operational stages of

electronic delivery projects, and when considering

information technology as a part of agency reorganization. Implementation of electronic delivery

would, in many cases, require revision of public

1 See Office of Management and Budget, Circular A- 130 Revised, “Management of Federal Information Resources,” Federal Regisfer,

VO]. 58, No, 126, Jdy 2, ] 993, pp. 36068-36086,

z The pa~~ork Reduction Act of 1980, mblic Law 96-511, was amended once by the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act Of 1986

Public Law 99-500. The reauthorization was for 3 years. Subsequent effotts to reauthorize and further amend the Act have not, as yet, reached

fruition, but are continuing in the 10M Congress. See S. 681, the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1993, Mar. 31, 1993; S. 560,

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993, Mar. 10, 1993; and H.R. 2995, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993, Aug. 6, 1993.
Chapter 7–information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 143

laws that establish and define the services being

delivered. 3

Congress could consider policy revisions in the

context of proposals from the administration’s

technology policy, performance review, and information infrastructure initiatives. The administration’s technology policy asserts that, to make

government work better through information technology, “[m]any of the government’s policies in

such areas as privacy, information security,

records management, information dissemination,

and procurement will be updated to take into account the rapid pace of technological change.”4

PROTECTING PRIVACY AND SECURITY

The Federal Privacy Act is intended to protect

personal information maintained by the government from inappropriate or unauthorized disclosure and uses The original Privacy Act was passed

in the early days of agency automation, before

microcomputers or widespread electronic networking. Congress has modestly updated the Act

to address applications such as computer matching

(the electronic comparison of lists of persons receiving different benefit programs to help detect

fraud, waste, and abuse).6

The pressure to match computer lists of government aid recipients against computerized tax, social security, medical, veterans, and other files

seems relentless. The social security number has

become a de facto national identifier, although this

The use of optical disks makes gigabytes of driver’s

license information available in seconds to State of

Washington officials. The technology permits improved service to the citizens of Washington State,

but also increases the need for protection of the privacy and security of personal information stored in

State data banks.

3 For a broad overview, see Charles R, McClure, Rolf T, Wigand, John Carlo Bertot, Mary McKenna, William E, Moen, Joe Ryan, and

Stacy B. Veeder, Syracuse University School of information Studies, “Federal Information Policy and Management for Electronic Services

Delivery,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Dec. 21, 1992,

4 President William J. Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., “Technology for America’s Economic Growth: A New Direction To

Build Economic Strength,” Feb. 22, 1993. Also see Vice President Al Gore, Creating u Government Thuf Wc~rk.r Bef(er and Cfjsts l,ess: Re~Jri

cf the Nuti(muf Perf(~rmun~e Ret’iew (Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office, Sept. 7, 1993). One of the National Performance

Review’s crosscutting task forces focused on re-engineering the Federal Government through information technology. See National Performance

Review Accompanying Report, Reengineering Through Informdion Technology (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

September 1993), and the closely related Information Infrastmcture Task Force, “The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action,”

National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Washington, DC, Sept. 15, 1993. Also, improving the delivery of Federal

services is within the scope of the proposed National Commission on Executive Organizational Reform. See S. 101, the Executive Organim(ion

Reform Act of 1993, introduced Jan, 21, 1993, and reported out by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on Aug. 5, 1993. Recently

enacted legislation will require Federal agencies to establish clear goals against which performance of agency activities-including service

delivery-can be measured. See the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62.

5 Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579,

b Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, pub] ic Law 100-503; Computer Matching and Privacy Protections Amendments

of 1990, Public Law 100-503.
144 I Making Government Work

use is technically prohibited by law.7 And extensive computer matching can lead to a “virtual”

national data bank, even if computer records are

not physically centralized in one location.8 Widespread use of 1-800 and 1-900 telephone numbers,

combined with caller ID, has created new avenues

for unintentional disclosure of personal information. By combining information from computerized credit, census, marketing, change-of-address,

and mailing-list files, private companies can construct de facto personal profiles on individuals that

are amazingly accurate.9

Privacy advocates believe that stronger privacy

safeguards are needed to deal with current computer applications, and with new electronic service

delivery applications. Electronic delivery of services that involve personal information will create

new privacy risks and require stronger protections.

Widespread electronic benefits transfer could

mean that eligibility and payments information

moves over a variety of electronic networks involving banks, retailers, clearinghouses, and the

like, in addition to the government agencies already involved.10 “Smart” cards could include a

wide range of personal information. Use of kiosks

or electronic filing to determine eligibility for

Federal benefits could cut red tape and costs, but

would create new opportunities for third-party

abuse of personal information.

Computer networking, electronic kiosks, or interactive television, if used to request government

services or information, create the potential to

monitor citizen preferences. Profiles of citizens’

interests compiled from information provided to a

kiosk could be valuable for marketing purposes,

for example, just as retail purchasing patterns are

used to generate commercial mailing lists. Electronic delivery could increase opportunities for

commercial “information brokers” to obtain personal information through legal and illegal

means.11 It also could further weaken the ability

of individuals to control the use of personal information, and could violate principles of fair information practice. 12

Fortunately, electronic technology could also

be used to protect privacy. Electronic delivery

could, for example, allow individuals to access

personal information maintained in government

record systems, check its accuracy, request corrections, and monitor their records to make sure the

corrections are made. Electronic mail or electronic

data interchange could provide the opportunity for

individuals to give informed consent prior to secondary use of personal information. Today, few

people know how to exercise their legal rights to

request copies of personal information stored in

government or private sector record systems. Few

even know where such personal information is

stored or what uses are being made of the information. Existing or new technological applications

rarely focus on protection of personal privacy.

Intentionally or not, government and commercial

7 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently voided the Commonwealth of Virginia’s requirement that voters’ social security

numbers (SSNS) be recorded and ma& publicly available, noting concern over the potential use of SSNS for unauthorized access to personal

information. See Marc A. Greidinger v. Bobby Ray Davis, et al., USCA-4, No. 92-1571, Mar. 22, 1993.

g See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electronic Record Sysfems and Individual Privacy, OTA-CIT-2% (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1986); and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Privacy Rights in Computerized

Medical Injiwmation, forthcoming, 1993.

9 See ~so u s Congress, . . How, Cmmittee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information, Jwtice, and

Agriculture, Give consurnersa Choice, H.Rep. 102-1067, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December

1992).

10 See Ch 4 ad U.S. Congress, office of Technology Assessment, Electrom’c Delivery of Public Assistance Benefits: Tec~olo~y OPtio~

and Poli~y ls&es, OTA-BP-CIT-47 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1988).

1 I SW U,S. congress, HWW, Cmmittee on t~ J~ici~, Subcommittee on Constitutional and Civil Rights, tile 0? crjrnj~ ~jstory

Recordr, Hearing, I02d Cong., 2d Sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 30, 1992), that discusses how private

companies can obtain credit, social security, employment, driver’s license, criminaJ history, and other personal information on most U.S.

citizens-sometimes using illegal melhods.

12 Sw u s Congrex, office of Technology Assessment, lnd’vidud Privacy, op. cit., ftinote *.

. .
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 145

interests usually take precedence over the privacy

rights of individuals.

Public opinion surveys continue to indicate that

Americans place high value on privacy of personal

information, and have little confidence in the privacy of computerized records.13 To prevent further erosion of individual privacy, new privacy

rules would be needed to define appropriate use of

personal information associated with electronic

service delivery. Key principles could include the

right of individuals to:

know about electronic delivery systems that

include personal information and how these

systems and information will be used;

have the opportunity to give prior informed

consent regarding all uses and disclosures of

personal information in electronic delivery systems;

have access to and review personal information

in such systems;

correct erroneous information; and

seek redress before an ombudsman or citizen

advocate in the event of any alleged abuse,

misuse, or uncorrected error.

To the extent that electronic delivery involves

public-private partnerships, the Federal Privacy

Act may need to be extended to cover related

private sector activities. When electronic delivery

involves State or local government participation,

then applicable State privacy laws also may need

to be amended and strengthened. The magnitude

of the potential privacy threat may be great enough

to warrant consideration of stronger privacy oversight than exists today. Privacy advocates have

long argued for establishment of an independent

Federal Privacy Protection Commission or the

equivalent. 14 The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act did require each Federal

agency to set up a so-called Data Protection Board

to review and monitor agency computer matching

projects, but these Boards are comprised of current

agency officials just wearing another hat, and are

not truly independent. Congress could strengthen

these Boards and provide them with more independence and separate staff, along the lines of the

agency inspectors’ general offices.

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs provides privacy oversight that is independent of the line agencies, but it is still subject

to the value judgments and policies of the administration in power. The same is true for the Office

of Information and Privacy in the U.S. Department

of Justice. As an alternative, a Federal Privacy

Protection Commission could serve as:

IS Ibid, and office of Technology Assessment, Privuq Rights, op. cit., footnote 8. Several earlier OTA studies ~SO highlighted the

importance of privacy issues, See U.S. Congress, Offim of Technology Assessment, C~~mpufer-Bu.wd Nufic/rwl ]nff~rnwli~~n S~,~rem,r:

Technology and Public P~dic}’ Issues, OTA-CIT-146 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, September 1981); U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Selected Ele[tr[mic Funds Trunsfer l.wues: Prilu<j, .Securi/}, and Equit), OTA-BP-CIT- 12

(Springfield, VA: Na[ional Technical Information Service, March 1982); U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, lmplitllfi,)m~{!f

Electr(mic Mail and Mes.w#e Sysfems f~~r fhe U.S. P{)sttd Service, OTA-CIT- 183 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service,

August 1982); and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Alternutites for u Nutionul Computerized Criminul Hi,rttu;v .~?~tem,

OTA-CJT- 161 (Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, October 1982). Also see discussion of privacy issues in U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment, Aut(jmutedRec(jrd Checks tfFireunn Purchasers: [ssue,y and Optitm.~, OTA-TCT-497 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1991 ); and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 7-he FBI Flngetprln[ lden[~flt uti{m

Au(~)muti(m Progrunr: issues und Opti(mr, OTA-BP-TCT-84 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 199 I ). Numerous

public and private groups involved in the development of a national information infrastmcture have identified privacy as a pnorit y concern.

HR. 1757, the National Information Infrastructure Act of 1993, approved by the House on July 26, 1993, identifies privacy and security of

networked transmissions as one of several priorities. Also see Information Infrastructure Task Force, op. cit., footnote 4,

14 Cam& Au\trdia, ~d several western E~opean nations have privacy commissions or boards. proposals for a U.S. PrivacY or data

,.

protection board date to 1974, when Senator Sam Ervin proposed a Federal Privacy Board to complement the Privacy Act of 1974, Legislation

to establish a privacy board or commission has been introduced in the last six U.S. Congrewes, See H.R, 3743, the Privacy Protection Act of

1984, Aug. 2, 1983; H.R. 296, the Consumer Privacy Protection Ac(. Jan, 3, 1985; H R, 1721, the Data Protection Act of 1985, Mar, 26, 1985;

H.R. 638, the Data Protection Act of 1987, Jan, 21, 1987; HR. 1549, the Individual Privacy Projection Act of 1987, Mar, 11, 1987; H.R, 126,

the Individual Privacy Protection Act of 1989, Jan. 3, 1989; H,R, 3669, the Data Protection Act of 1989, Nov. 15, 1989; HR. 280, the individual

Privacy Protection Act of 1991, Jan. 3, 1991; HR. 685, the Data Protection Act of 1991, Jan. 29, 1991; and H.R, 135, the Individual Privacy

Protection Act of 1993, Jan. 3, 1993.
146 I Making Government Work

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

a focal point for citizen input and views on

privacy matters (using electronic technology

where appropriate, such as 1-800 numbers,

electronic mail, and computer networking);

an ombudsman for citizens with privacy concerns;

an overseer of agency (and, prospectively,

private sector) compliance with existing laws

and regulations;

an investigator of alleged violations; and

an advocate for new or stronger laws when

needed.

Congress could establish a Privacy Protection

Commission or Board as an independent agency

of the executive branch, or as a component of any

Federal Information Management or Electronic

Service Delivery agency that might be created.

Since privacy and security are closely linked, Congress could include security within the mission of

any Commission or Board—for example, a Federal Privacy and Security Protection Board.

Whether under the current or new institutional

arrangements, Congress and the administration

could require:

1.

2.

3.

explicit early consideration of privacy threats

and protection by each agency planning electronic delivery;

afresh round of up-to-date training for agency

privacy specialists;

advance public notice of any privacy implications to clients of electronic delivery programs; and

4. agency workshops, forums, and communication with privacy advocates on the topic of

electronic delivery and individual privacy.

Congress also could enact or update privacy

statutes in specific programmatic areas where

electronic delivery is likely, such as welfare, education, and health care.15

The 1980s were marked by growing public and

congressional concern about the security of computer and communication systems.16 Congress

enacted the Computer Security Act in 1987 to

improve security oversight and safeguards for

Federal computer systems.17 Paperwork Reduction Act amendments strengthened computer

security management. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 tightened legal

protections against unauthorized interception of

telecommunications and electronic mail.18 The

Computer Security Act assigns NIST the lead role

for the technical aspects of computer security in

Federal civilian agencies (the National Security

Agency (NSA) has a comparable role for defense

agencies). The PRA assigns OMB and the General

Services Administration oversight responsibility

for Federal civilian agency computer security, including technical and management actions, training, and audits to enhance security. The PRA also

requires that computer security be addressed in

agency information technology plans.19 

Widespread electronic service delivery will

increase the security risks. Valuable personal,

financial, and government data will flow over a

complex web of telecommunication networks

technically accessible via an ever-growing number of computers, kiosks, and other terminals atIS For ~ uPto.~e gemra] discussion, see Office of Technology Assessment, Privacy Rights in Computerized Medical Information,

forthcoming, 1993.

16 Sa U.S. CmWss, office of Technology Assessment, Ektrom’c Surveillance and Civil Liberties, OTA-CIT-293 (Washington, ~:us ~ Government Printing Office, October 1985); Federal Government Information Technology: Management, Security, and Congressional

Oversigh[, OTA-CIT-297 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986); Defending Secrets, Sharing Data: New Locks

and Keysfor Electronic Inf[mnution OTA-CIT-3 10 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Octoher 1987); Critical Connections:

Communicatiunfor fhe Future, OTA-CIT-407 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990).

17 Cmptier Security Act of 1987, Public Law loO-2~5.

1~ Elec~onic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Public ~w 99-508.

19 As swcified in ~e~ments inc]~ed in t~ p~rwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986, public Law 99-500.
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 147

tached to the networks. Stand-alone units—such

as kiosks located in malls—will represent new

targets of opportunity for vandalism and robbery,

along with automated teller machines (ATMs) and

point-of-sale (POS) terminals. Electronic benefit

transfers will be vulnerable to sophisticated whitecollar computer crime, just as electronic funds

transfer (EFT) is today. The information flow in

an electronic world is, in general, more vulnerable

to deliberate or accidental alteration and interception. The risks are further compounded because erroneous information can be rapidly disseminated over electronic networks and become

accessible to large numbers of persons and organizations. Security in a networked environment

poses very real and substantial challenges.20

It may be possible to keep computer security

problems at an acceptable level, as is the case with

commercial EFT and ATM and POS terminals.

But this will require that Federal agencies and

others participating in electronic delivery of Federal services give as much attention to security as

do banks and financial institutions, especially

where money or personal information are involved,

Congress and the administration could review

the applicability of the Computer Security Act,

Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to electronic service delivery, and make whatever changes are

needed to help ensure secure electronic delivery.21

This might include extending some legal protections and security requirements from Federal

agencies and users to all organizations that participate in electronic delivery, Also, electronic delivery inevitably will be affected by the ongoing

debates over: 1) the roles of NIST and NSA in

oversight of computer and communication systems in Federal civilian agencies; 2) selection of

encryption technologies;22 and 3) tensions between privacy, personal or organizational security, national security, and law enforcement

interests.23 Legal disputes over the applicability of

privacy and security statutes to electronic mail

only foreshadow the debates likely to ensue with

growth of electronic delivery.24

A security risk analysis should be an integral

part of electronic delivery planning. The analysis

should examine the technical, physical, human,

and organizational threats and protections to electronic services. Electronic delivery will only be as

secure as its weakest link; if security is lax at

end-user terminals, for example, tight security at

the sending agency will be meaningless. OMB

Circular A-130 could be further revised to focus

attention on the security of electronic delivery

systems. 25 In the 1993 Information Resources

Management (IRM) planning bulletin, OMB asks

agencies to report on improvements in systems

security, security awareness and training programs for personnel, and agency-wide security

upgrades resulting from internal or external audits

z{) A NW Office of Technology AssesSmen[ study will focus on privacy and security in a networked computer environment. AISO see U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ac( e.wibilit)l und Integrity of Networked lnform~i(m C(dlectilms, BP-TCT- 109 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, July 1993),

z] ~c U,S, Dcpa~lnen( of Justice, for exanlp]e, is considering possible revisions to the Computer Fraud Act, including forfeiture of

computers used in criminal activities, criminal ization of intentionally planting computer viruses, and stiffer penalties for computer crimes that

invade personal privacy or threaten national security,

22 The de~te over t~ propmed key eWrow Chip, known as the “clipper chip,” for encryption has heightened concerns among civil libertY

and privacy advocates, and some in private industry, about potential government abuse. Law enforcement and national security agencies seek

to maintain their technical ability to intercept even encrypted systems when necessary to carry out their agency missions.

z? For historical b~kground, See Office of Technology Assessment, Electronic Survei/funce, op. cit., footnote 16; offi~ of Technology

Assessment, Electr[mic Record Systems und lndividuul Privu<y, op. cit., footnote 8; and Office of Technology Assessment, Defending Secrets,

SharinS Dutu, op. cit., footnote 16. By presidential order, an interagency task force is reviewing the current Federal system for classifying,

safeguarding, and declassifying information, See Information Security Oversight Office, U.S, General Services Administration, “Hearing:

Changes to the Security Classification System,” Federul Re~i.~ter, vol. 58, No, 96, May 20, 1993, p, 29480.

M see for example, the controversy s~rounding U.S. secret Service efforts to monitor electronic mail and bulletin b~rds used by computer

hackers.

25 Office of Ma~gernent ~rrd Budget, Circular No. A- 130 Revised, op. cit., footnote 1.
148 I Making Government Work

or reviews.26 OMB could, in the future, direct

agency attention to the linkages between agency

security activities and electronic service delivery

initiatives, and require more complete monitoring

and reporting of security breaches.

OPEN GOVERNMENT

The longstanding congressional commitment

to open government is reflected in the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA), Government in the Sunshine Act, and Federal Advisory Committee Act.27

The intent of these statutes is to ensure that the

processes and substance of the Federal Government are open and accessible to the American

people. Electronic technology can substantially

improve public access and reduce the cost of access, under the general rubric of electronic service

delivery. But there is no guarantee that this will

happen. The governmentwide access statutes do

not explicitly address electronic applications, thus

Top left: Island Epicenter touchscreen kiosk located

in the Mercer Island Public Library, Washington

State.

Top right: Mercer Island Public Library, a place for

community access to electronic information services.

Bottom left: Microcomputers available for public

use in the Mercer Island Public Library, Washington

State.

26 OffiW of Management and Budget, “Information Resources Management (lRM) Plans Bulletin,” OMB Bulletin No. 93-12, Apr. 28,

1993.

m Fr~dom of In fmma[ion Act of 1966, Rblic Law 89-487; Government in the Sunshine Act of 1974, Public Law 94-409; Federal AdviSofy

Committm Act of 1972, Public Law 92-463.
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 149

leaving agencies considerable discretion, Congress could review and revise each of these statutes to reflect advances in technology.

The pros and cons of updating FOIA have been

debated for several years. Opponents emphasize

that FOIA applies to Federal information regardless of format, and that judicial and administrative

interpretations are clearly moving in this direction—thereby lessening the need to amend the

Act. Opponents also are concerned that opening

FOIA up to amendment might lead to unintended,

regressive provisions. Proponents believe that the

law leaves too much discretion to executive agencies, leads to unnecessary disagreements over

what should be accepted as basic principles (e.g.,

over the FOIA status of agency electronic mail),

and results in many lost opportunities to use technology to improve access to information.

OTA’s prior work concluded that new electronic applications were likely to overtake

FOIA.28 The transition to electronic service delivery will surely exacerbate problems and increase

lost opportunities if FOIA is not updated. Kiosks

and home or office computer terminals offer great

potential for remote electronic access to FOIA

material kept in Federal agencies, as do off-line

digital formats like compact optical disks. Electronic technology offers the potential to greatly

reduce the costs of FOIA access for both citizens

and Federal agencies. Copying paper documents

is costly and cumbersome by comparison. Agencies need to design their automation programs to

both facilitate FOIA access and tightly control

access to private, proprietary, national security,

and other exempted information.

Various researchers and advocacy groups alike

have reaffirmed the applicability of FOIA to electronic information. Most support the following

principles, and their enactment into law if necessary to assure agency compliance:29

w Federal agencies should provide information in

any format in which it exists;

■ information maintained in electronic format is

fully covered by FOIA;

■ when providing information in electronic formats, Federal agencies should include any

manuals or software necessary for the retrieval

and use of the information; and

■ when responding to FOIA requests for electronic formats, Federal agencies should use the

format requested if it already exists or can be

generated with reasonable effort using existing

software and equipment.

To complement an updated FOIA, or as an

alternative, Congress could replicate the statutory

approach used in the “community right-to-know”

provisions of the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986. Title III mandated

public access to toxic waste information, known

as the “Toxic Release Inventory,” in several formats— including electronic.30 The basic premise

is that electronic technology can improve public

access to information collected or developed by

Federal agencies—if agencies plan for and include

these capabilities in their electronic delivery and

automation programs, Congress could develop a

28 s= us, Congress, office of Tcchno]ogy” Asse\\m~n[, Inft)rtnlnx t)re Nu/ifm: Federal lnff)tnluticjn Dls.veminution in un Electr(mic Age,

OTA-CIT-3% (Washington, DC: U S. Government Printing Office, October 1988), and He/pinR Americu Compete: The Role of Federul

Scientific und Teduricul lnff~rmuii(m, OTA-CIT-454 (Washington, DC. U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1990). See also Jamie A.

Grodsky, “The Freedom of Information Act in the Electronic Age: The Statute 1s No( Llser Friendly, ” ./ur/metri{.r, vol. 31, No. 1, fall 1990,

pp. 17-51.

N S&, for example, Henry H. Perrilt, Jr, “Federal Electronic lnforrnation Policy,” Temple IZJH Re\ie}t, vol. 63, No. 2, 1990, pp. 202–2S0;

and American Bar Association, Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, Report to the House of Delegates, “Public Access to

Government Electronic Inforrna[ion Under the Frecdorn of Information Act,” February 1990 L.cgl$la[ion to clarify the applicability of FOJA

to electronic formats has been introduced in the prior two Congre\w\ See H. I?. 2773, the Freedom of Information Public Improvements Act

of 1989, June 28, 1989; H.R, 1423, the Freedom of Information Public Access Improvernerrt Act of 1991, Mar. 13, 1991; and S, 1940, the

Electronic Freedom of Information Improvement Act of 1991, NOY. 7, 1991.

30 For backgound, See Susan G Hadden and W Jame\ Haddent Jr . “Govcrnmen[ Electronic Service~ and the Environment,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1992.
150 I Making Government Work

standard “community or public right to know”

provision that could be added to agency or

program-specific statutes as they come up for

reauthorization.

The Government in the Sunshine and Federal

Advisory Committee Acts are in some ways even

more outdated than FOIA, because there is not yet

a body of judicial and administrative interpretations that clearly establish their applicability to

electronic formats and activities, The Sunshine

Act requires, for example, that agencies provide

adequate public notice of meetings and administrative or regulatory proceedings. The Advisory

Committee Act requires that working papers, reports, and other documents be accessible to the

public at or before the meeting for which they were

prepared. Citizens could use electronic technology

to remotely access agendas, schedules, and documents prepared in support of agency rulemaking

proceedings or advisory committee meetings.

Citizens could provide input electronically via

computer conferences and networks, or participate

in agency or advisory committee videoconferences.

Congress could revise these and related statutes

to clarify the role of electronic technology, and the

rights of citizens to use these technologies to

participate in governance. Electronic technology

also could help citizens provide feedback on what

is perceived as right or wrong with government

programs and services, including alleged fraud,

waste, and abuse. Congressional and executive

oversight bodies, including inspectors’ general

offices, could accept "whistleblower” input via

computer bulletin boards and electronic mail, as

well as 1-800 telephone numbers. Advocates believe that the “service” of helping the public know

about and access government activities is really an

obligation and, indeed, a requirement of democracy.

Electronic access could, on the other hand, raise

new legal and constitutional issues about the limits

of such citizen participation. The first amendment

of the U.S. Constitution affirms the rights of citizens to free speech and to petition the government

for redress of grievances. “Electronic” speech and

petitioning, for example via computer bulletin

boards, should be no different in principle than

using mail, telephone calls, or face-to-face meetings. But some local governments and private

vendors have been faced with difficult decisions

about restricting the content of bulletin boards or

computer conferences when electronic speech becomes abusive, obscene, or associated with criminal activity (e.g., drug sales or child pornography).

Private vendors can and do enforce reasonable

restrictions. Operators of taxpayer-supported bulletin boards, on the other hand, may be more

reluctant to infringe on first amendment protections.

Only one of the many government bulletin

boards reviewed by OTA has experienced significant problems—the City of Santa Monica, CA,

“Public Electronic Network” (PEN). PEN is free

to all residents via public terminals in libraries.

Some of the computer conferences have included

electronic discussion found to be offensive (although not illegal) by various participants and city

officials. Inappropriate electronic behavior can be

minimized, if not prevented, through education on

electronic etiquette, adherence to reasonable rules

of electronic exchange, and sanctions for flagrant

abuse (e.g., revocation of passwords and limitations on use).

ACCESS TO CONGRESSIONAL

INFORMATION

Congress could look for further opportunities to

use information technology to improve citizen

access to congressional activities. Fair] y extensive

pilot testing suggests, for example, that videoconferencing can be cost effective for congressional

hearings when witnesses have access to videoconferencing facilities and would otherwise have to
Chapter 7--information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 151

travel to Washington, DC, either at their own or

congressional expense.31 The House of Representatives’ leadership has established a task force

to move videoconferencing from experimental to

operational status; several House committee

rooms now are wired for videoconferencing.32 

Videoconferencing also has proven useful for

electronic town meetings between Members of

Congress in Washington, DC, and citizens back

home.

Electronic dissemination of legislative information also has been studied and debated for

several years.33 Local governments have demonstrated that schedules and agendas of city council

meetings, and related staff reports, can be provided via simple, low-cost dial-up computer bulletin boards.34 Several private commercial

companies and not-for-profit organizations already disseminate some congressional information via on-line services, computer networks, and

compact optical disks. Participants in OTA-sponsored computer conferences expressed considerable interest in electronic access to Congress.35

Congress could set up a family of computer

bulletin boards that would provide schedules for

committee hearings and floor debates, bill status,

and witness lists. These could be accessible via

both dial-up and networked computers using a

wide range of public and private systems. House

and Senate computer systems also could be used

by interested Members and staff to participate in

computer conferences with citizens around the

Nation, and to exchange comments on current

issues with constituents and others via dial-up

remote computer access. Several congressional

offices are experimenting with computer net working and bulletin boards.

Videoconferencing and computer bulletin

boards for Congress should be technically

straightforward and relatively inexpensive to implement. But several specific questions would

need attention, including:

1. staffing and training needs;

2. procedures and responsibilities for scheduling

videoconferences, and creating and updating

the databases;

3. cost sharing and cost recovery;

.

4. rules to assure open, equitable access; and

5. public/private sector roles and partnerships

(including the involvement of the Senate

Computer Center, House Information Systems Office, Government Printing Office, and

various commercial telecommunication,

value-added, and information service providers).

36

Electronic connections to the public will require changes in the ways individual members of

Congress and their staffs, and Congress as an

institution, manage and respond to constituent information. This might not require more resources

and staff, however. It might even cut costs, given

the very large amount of staff time and money

already spent on handling constituent mail, telephone calls, and meetings.

31 Sw stc~en Frm(zich, “Electronic Service Delivery and Congress, “ contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,

January 1993. Also see Fred B. Wood, Vary T. Coates, Robert L, Chartrand, and Richard F. Ericson, “Videoconferencing Via Satellite: Opening

Congress (o the People,” The George Washington University Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology, April 1979.

N ]nc]udlng the House Com[lllttees on Agriculture; Armed services; Energy and Commerce; Education and Labor; Foreign Aff~rs; and

Science, Space, and Technology.

33 see Frm[zlch, Op, Ci[,, f~no[e ~ 1; OTA, ]nforming /he Null~u4 op. cit., foanote 2~

w SW, fw example, the Pasadena, CAJ “Public Access Library System,” and the Oakland, CA, “Community Access Project,” discussed in

OTA, “California Trip Report,” Nov. 10, 1992,

M see Fra~ Odasz, Big Sky Te]~graph, “Com~(er Conference on Electronic Delivery to Rural/S ma]] Town America,” contractor rePofi

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Jan, 8, 1993; T.M, Grundner, National Publ]c Telecomputing Network, “The OTA/NITN

Teleforum Project: An Experiment With a Multi-City Electronic Town Hall,” contractor report prepared for (he Office of Technology

Assessment, January 1993,

36 Sm relevant discussion in later ~c[lons of the chapter on “pricing and Public Access” and “Contracting Ou@rocurement”; ~$o see

Fran(zich, op. cit., footnote 31; OTA, lr~(~rming (he Nufi[m, op. c]t , footnote 28; and OTA, He/ping Amerr’{ti C{nnpe(e, op. cit.. footnote 28.
152 I Making Government Work

Congress, or the Senate and House individually, could establish a legislative branch task force

on congressional computer bulletin boards or,

more broadly, on congressional electronic service

delivery. Given their jurisdiction over congressional computer and telecommunications systems,

the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and House Committee on House Administration could hold hearings, separately or jointly with

the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

and House Committee on Government Operations. These topics might also be addressed by the

Joint Committee on the Operations of Congress.

Congress gradually is building the information

infrastructure on Capitol Hill that would support

electronic service delivery.37 Ultimately, in addition to scheduling and status information, congressional reports and documents also could be made

available electronically. These could include committee reports and hearings, as well as public

documents issued by the congressional support

agencies—the Congressional Research Service

(CRS), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), General Accounting Office (GAO), and Government

Printing Office (GPO),38 in addition to the Office

of Technology Assessment (OTA). Several of

these congressional agencies (e.g., GPO, GAO,

OTA) already are experimenting with electronic

dissemination. GPO now has a statutory mandate

to provide on-line public access to the Congressional Record;39 this could logically extend to

other congressional documents. Taken together,

electronic service delivery applications could further open Congress to the people, help Congress

better manage its own information, strengthen the

role of Congress as the “people’s branch of government,” and, in the process, set an example for

the executive branch and the Nation.

ARCHIVING ELECTRONIC RECORDS

Another important aspect of access is the ability

of the public to retrieve historical records and

information developed by or for the government.

Access to decisionmaking documents is especially

important. These materials typically offer one of

the few avenues for researchers, historians, and

concerned citizens to more fully understand the

“whys” and “hews” of Federal actions. The Federal Records Act and related statutes set out requirements for archiving agency documents. Once

again, however, these statutes predate the modern

electronic era. The Act was amended in 1976 to

cover “machine-readable materials,” but has not

been updated to address the complex challenges

and opportunities presented by personal computers, electronic mail, compact optical disks, and

computer networking .40

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) oversees agency archiving and

the operation of various Federal archival centers

and activities. NARA is aware of the opportunities

and problems presented by electronic technology,

and has taken some noteworthy initiatives-establishing a Center for Electronic Records, sponsoring interagency conferences and agreements, and

developing manuals and other guidance for agencies on how to archive electronic materials.

NARA is working with selected mission agencies

in developing procedures for appropriate archiving via optical disk, electronic mail, and computer

networking—including Internet. NARA provides

37 c~gress is inst~ling ~ Iw-aI area fi~r optic network that will serve the House, Senate, and congressional suppofl ag~ncies, with gatewaYs

to private-sector computer and telecommunication networks.

38 See the Governmen( Prln(ing office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, public Law 103-40.

~Y Ibid,

~) me [em “machine readable materials” was added by the Federal Records Management Amendments of 1976, ScC. A (Oct. z], 1976, 90

Stat. 2723-2727). 44 USC 33 now defines “records” to include “all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other

documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the U.S. Government under Federal

law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate

successor m evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because

of the informational value of data in them.”
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 153

guidance to agencies on both (a) retaining electronic materials so that they are accessible, readable, etc., whenever the agency needs them (in

months or years); and (b) preserving electronic

records for future generations under NARA’s legal and physical custody.

Some scholars and historians believe that

NARA’s efforts are still too little, too late. hey

feel that the Federal Government is in danger of

losing its history because it is failing to capture the

rapidly increasing portion of Federal records and

decision documents that are created, stored, and

sometimes destroyed electronically. 41 Scientists

share a related concern that large volumes of scientific data, for example from earth-observing

satellites, are stored on obsolete and deteriorating

electronic media (i.e., magnetic tapes).42 Fortunately, newer technologies like optical disks provide viable options for long-term archiving of

Federal records and data. NARA has been cautious

in its adoption of new technologies due, in part, to

concern over rapid technical change and lack of

hardware and software standards needed to assure

future access. Archival technologies should conform to international technical standards to assure

long-term accessibility.

Congress could review and update the Federal

Records Act and the role of NARA to ensure that

modern information technology is applied and that

archiving needs and records management are explicitly addressed in the development of electronic

delivery systems.43 Current NARA guidance calls

for an integrated approach.44 But agency compliance is spotty at best; stronger enforcement appears necessary. NARA cannot be expected to do

this alone; cooperation from OMB and the General

Services Administration (GSA), among others, is

essential. 45 It would help if Congress included

NARA in any review of executive branch agencies

responsible for governmentwide management,

policy, and oversight of electronic service delivery-broadly defined.

DIRECTORIES OF ELECTRONIC SERVICES

If citizens are going to use and benefit from

electronic service delivery, they need to first know

what services are available and where. OTA research reaffirms the need for directories or, in this

case, “electronic road maps” to help citizens identify and locate relevant services. Congress has

long recognized this need in mandating a variety

of directory services, ranging from the catalog of

domestic assistance programs and a Federal information center (run by GSA), to a catalog of Federal research in progress and bibliographic index

of technical reports (maintained by the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS)), to the

catalog of government publications (prepared by

GPO). Numerous agencies operate clearinghouses

and 1-800 telephone numbers that help direct citizens to a wide variety of services—from grant and

loan programs; to education and training; to dissemination of reports and databases.

The mission agencies are adapting to electronic

technology by setting up computer bulletin

boards, placing directory information on both

computer networks and compact optical disks, and

participating in interagency efforts to develop

.t[ see for ~xamplc, Na[lona] A~~~my or ~bllc Administration, The Effects (#Electronic Reci~rdkeeplng on the H1.~tl)ric~jl Re(ord of the

U.! Gljvernnlenf (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, January 1989). NARA gave increased attention to

electronic recordkeeping in the 1990s, and has further intensified its electronic initiatives during 1993—but still lags the technology pace being

,set by many mission agencws and private companies.

w See OTA, He/l)f I1g Anlerlt u C{mpete, oP cit. ! ‘otinde 28”

~~ ~or gener~ dl~cu~~lon,we, for example, Henry H. Perntt, Jr., “Electronic Records Management and Archives,” Uni\ers~r~ ~~ff’1([.$lxfrgh

LJWI Retie~, vol. 53, 1992, pp 96> 1024; Administrative Conference of the United States, Recommendation 90-5, “Federal Agency Electronic

Records Management and Archi vcs,” Federul Register, vol. 55, No. 250, Dec. 28, 1990, pp. 5327&53271.

u Sce for ~Xa,ljPle~, NllR}4 regu]ationq in 36 CFR ] 234, 10(d) “[the agency head shall estal-dish] proccdwes for addressing records

management requirements hcfore approving new electronic records systems or enhancements to existing fystems”; and 36 CFR 1234.22(a)

“Electronic records syftcrns that mointain the official file copy of text documents on electronic media shall provide for the disposition of

documents including, when rwcmsary, the requirements for transferring permanent records to NARA.”

~f oh! B ~[luld c~ck agency c(~,,lpll ~ce ~hen revlew,lng agency 5-year IRM p]~s; GSA c~](J do I Ikewise when revicwi ng agency requests

for delegation of procurement authority.
154 I Making Government Work

. . i

Top: One of several dozen microcomputers available

to students at the Little Big Horn College.

Bottom: Little Big Horn College, Crow Indian Reservation, Montana.

governmentwide directories (e.g., regarding

global climate change data or geographic information systems). Many agencies are creating and

operating electronic directories entirely inhouse

(although frequently with at least some private

sector contracting support), while others form

partnerships with private sector commercial or

not-for-profit organizations, In some cases, private firms develop and market electronic directories on their own initiative if sufficient demand

exists.

The complexity of agency activities, combined

with the changed economics of information technology, clearly favors decentralized approaches to

electronic directories. But this, in turn, increases

the need for common standards to ensure both

technical interoperability and consistent formatting among directories. Otherwise chaos would

result. The trend toward decentralized directories

also complicates the roles of agencies responsible

for government wide directories that have operated

primarily in a centralized mode. For several years,

Congress, OMB, agencies, and interested parties

have debated the need and options for a governmentwide directory, with considerable disagreement on how to proceed, what technologies to use,

and who should be in charge (e.g., OMB, GPO,

NTIS, or GSA).46 This has occurred despite the

fact that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

mandated the implementation of a governmentwide Federal Information Locator System

(FILS), and that the Paperwork Reduction

Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 reaffirmed

congressional desire that FILS be fully implemented. 47

OTA’s current and prior research48 has reaffirmed the need for a publicly accessible locator

to Federal services (including information). OTA

4 se c~]es R. McCl~e, Ann Bishop, Phi]ip Doty, and Pierrette Bergeron, Federul lnformui(m lnventl~~l-Lo(~or s~).vtem.x From Bur&n

(o Benejl (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University School of Information Studies, 1990).

47 AS imp]emnted by OMB d~ing the ] 980s, FILS prim~]y was used to check on agency information collection activities, not to facilitate

public access to agency information. For an historical overview, see Gary D. Bass and David Plocher, “Finding Government Information: The

Federal Information Locator System (FILS),” Governmen/ [nji~rmulion Quar~erly, vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, pp. 11-32.

48 s= 01-A, Helping Anlerf(.u Comlxte, op. cit., footnote 28, ~d lnffmnin~ [he NU1l{m oP cit., footnote 28. Also see Fred B, Wood,

‘Title 44 and Federal Information Dissemination-A Technology and Policy Challenge for Congress: A Viewpoint,” Government Publicufifms

Review, vol. 17, 1990, pp. 1-5.
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 155

has concluded that an effective solution would

include the following elements:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

an interagency task force would develop

standards for agency-specific and governmentwide directories to Federal services;49

the task force could be coordinated by NIST

or GSA, or perhaps by an existing interagency committee,

50 but would need

high-level support from the White House,

including OMB and the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP);

the task force would need active participation

from agency innovators;

the task force would recommend consistent

formats and compatible software for agency

directories;

directories would be accessible on a dial-up

and networked basis (including wide-area

and Internet51) and could be downloaded for

use in off-line electronic formats, such as

compact optical disks, multimedia kiosks,

and the like;

every Federal executive agency would

develop and maintain an electronic directory

to its own services (including information

services);

7.

8.

9.

10.

individual agencies would have discretion in

implementing their own directories, so long

as the directories meet governmentwide

standards;

GPO and NTIS would continue to index and

catalog government reports and documents,

with NTIS concentrating on material of a

more technical nature;

GPO and NTIS would offer gateway and

wide-area directory services52 (i.e., a “virtual” directory), as well as off-line electronic

formats—individual agencies and the private

sector could do the same; and

agency electronic directories would be accessible via commercial and not-for-profit

networks and gateways, and could be downloaded for use in commercial and not-forprofit off-line electronic products.

This approach appears consistent with—but

goes beyond—the recently revised OMB Circular

A-1 30 and the recently enacted “GPO Electronic

Information Access Improvement Act.” 53 To

implement this scenario, legislative and/or executive action would be needed to: 1 ) assign primary

responsibility for directory development to an

interagency task force; 2) direct the development

of a two-tier directory system—governmentwide

49 The Jnt~r~gcncy colllmi[[e~ on Dim Management for Global Change and the interagency CENDI committee (commerce, E~rgy, NASA,

Defense Information) have been working on directory standards for several years.

N) Such ~S a Corn ~ter ne[w~rk ing committee of the Federal Coordinate ng Committee orI Science, Engineering, and Technology; or CEND1,

an interagency coordinating committee on scientific and technical information.

sl T. inclu& use of Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) and Gopher software that pe~lts easy electronic access to info~nalion and

databases at dispersed geographic locations,

52 see Chmles R, McClure, William E. Moen, ~d JN RY~J “Design for an Internet-Based Government-Wi& Information Locator

System,” li’leltr{jni~ Netwtwking, vol. 2, No. 4, winter 1992, pp. 6-37; U.S. Government Printing Office, GPO/2 (Xl 1. Vision for [i Neti’

Millennium (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992); National Technical Information Service, U.S, Department of

Commerce, NT/.$ Bu.rine.$s Plun (Wmhington, DC: NTIS, July 1992). Also see the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access

improvement Act of 1993, Public Law 103-40, that mandates GPO to, among other things, develop an electronic directory to Federal on-line

informal ion; and the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991, Public Law 102-245, that mandates NTIS to study the feasibility of an

on-line electronic directory. These Acts clarify the authority of GPO and NTIS to disseminate information in electronic formats, Public Law

102-245 also requires Federal agencies to submit to NTIA in a timely manner all unclassified scientific, technical, and engineering infornlation

that results from federally funded research and development, Earlier NTIS and GPO electronic initiatives were delayed in part by debates over

privatization of NTIS and the appropriate role of GPO in electronic information dissemination. See OTA, lnj~rminx the NdII~~n, op. cit.,

footnote 28; OTA, Helpinx Amertcu C~wnpe(e, op. cit., footnote 28; Wood, “Title 44 and Federal Information Dissemination,” op. cit.,

footnote 48; Fred B. Wood, “Propowds for Privatization of the National Technical Information Service: A Viewpoint,” G{~ternrnent Public[tii(ms

Review, vol. IS, 1988, pp. 403-409; and Fred B. Wood, “Office of Technology Assessment Perspectives on Current U.S. Federal Information

Issues,” Government Publitu/i{m.r Re\iew, vol. 17, 1990, pp. 281-300.

‘~ Public Law 103-40. Alw) see Information Infrastructure Task Force, op. cit., footnote 4.
156 I Making Government Work

‘\ !

Microwave and satellite dishes at the University of

Alaska at Anchorage.

“gateway” or “virtual” directories, and agencyspecific directories; 3) reaffirm that the governmentwide and agency directories will be broadly

available in on-line and off-line electronic formats, and that governmentwide directories will

complement and not supplant or preempt line

agency initiatives; 4) ask the task force to set up a

technical support group to develop the necessary

directory standards; 5) include representatives of

the Depository Library Program, Consumer Information Center, Federal Information Centers,

agency clearinghouses, community information

and referral centers, and NARA, among others, in

the task force work; and 6) establish a framework

for oversight and accountability, including at least

general milestones for implementation. To assure

success, the task force needs to approach this

assignment with creativity and flexibility, include

users in planning and implementation (see chs. 5

and 6), and build on the rapidly advancing stateof-the-art in directory technology.54

PRICING AND PUBLIC ACCESS

The shift to electronic service delivery raises a

fundamental issue about the pricing of such services. Some Federal, State, and local government

agencies view electronic delivery as an opportunity to recover costs or actually generate net revenues. This would be accomplished by charging

users for, in effect, the privilege or convenience of

receiving services electronically rather than having to telephone, write, or show up in person at an

agency office. The California kiosk system, for

example, might charge users extra to renew

drivers’ licenses at remote locations, presumably

since users are saving time (and money) by not

having to wait in line at a State office. State and

local government use of 1-900 telephone numbers

is increasing rapidly as a means to recover costs

and pay for system development in financially

strapped jurisdictions.55 Some local governments

charge users enough for local land-use information to cover not only the cost of providing information, but the cost of developing the automated

system as well.56 While real estate companies and

M ~i~ inc]~e~, for example, winwAIs (WAIS using windows software) available m freeware from the National Clearinghouse for

Network Information Discovery and Retrieval; InterNIC (Internet Information Center) for new user orientation and directory services, among

others [some individual agencies are establishing their own NICS, e.g., AgriNIC]; and emerging standards for information search and retrieval

using low-cost or free sofiware (for more on the Z39.50 standard, contact the U.S. Geological Survey),

55900 ch~ges can approach private sector commercial levels. The Los Angeles County Pkmnir’ig Depafimem for examPlct charges 75

cents per minute ($45/hour) for remote computer access to planning commission directives, zoning information, and development proposals.

See Brian Miller, “900 Numbers Speed Service,” Government Technology, January 1993, pp. 8-9.

S6 SW public Technology, InC,, ~d the vid~tex Indus@ Association, Local Government Oppf)rlunilies in Vide{jtex.’ A Guide t~j

Comntunicufing und Guining Review Through Elerrronic Services (Washington, DC: Public Technology, Inc., 1991); and Patricia T. Fletcher,

Stutut I. Bretschneider, and Donald A. Marchand, Munqinx lnfbrmdion Technology: Trun.r@ming County G(nemments in the 1990.7

(Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University School of Information Studies, August 1992).
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 157

developers may be able to afford these charges,

local citizen and consumer groups on tight budgets

may be placed at a disadvantage.

Charging for electronic delivery creates a potential barrier to access and could create new or

aggravate existing inequities. public policy could

be based in part on whether electronic delivery is

viewed as a luxury or frill or specialized application, or, on the other hand, as a likely major mode

of delivery for a growing range of government

services. To the extent the Federal Government is

shifting to electronic delivery, as appears to be the

case, then Congress and the President need to pay

careful attention that this shift improves—not impairs-equity of access, Pilot projects suggest that

electronic delivery can benefit the economically

and educationally disadvantaged, but if the price

is too high (or the training inadequate or equipment unavailable) these benefits will not be realized. Also, man y Federal programs strive to reach

as many eligible citizens as possible, presumably

because of the substantial benefit not only to the

recipients, but to society-at-large (e.g., from

health, nutrition, training, and education services).

From this perspective, it makes little sense to erect

price (or other) barriers to electronic delivery for

the very persons the programs are intended to

benefit.

But electronic delivery does cost money, and

various forms of cost- sharing may be reasonable

for specific programs and recipients. At present,

for example, most users of Federal agency

electronic bulletin boards must pay long-distance

telecommunication charges themselves, but agencies frequently assess minimal access charges or

none at all. This controls the Federal cost and may

tend to minimize frivolous use, but it also may

discourage legitimate use for those who cannot

afford long-distance charges or do not have (or

cannot afford) a telephone and computer. The

exact cost structure and pricing formula may need

to be determined on a case-by-case basis, within

an overall framework established by Congress.

To set policy, Congress could use a modified

version of the pricing framework developed for

Federal information dissemination, As debated

over the last several years and embodied in the

recently revised OMB Circular A-130, Federal

agency pricing may not exceed the marginal cost

of dissemination and may be reduced or waived

entirely at the discretion of the agency heads’ The

exact definition of “marginal cost” is still somewhat ambiguous, as is a determination of whether

“free” really means zero cost to the user (who may

still have to pay for equipment and telecommunications). Congress could direct agency heads,

when setting prices, to give priority to assuring

equity of access and fulfillment of statutory

agency and program goals and that, in any event,

the prices should not exceed the marginal cost of

electronic service delivery.58 Congress could

specify that pricing should not be used to recover

the cost of system design and development, or of

the services being delivered, only—at most—the

ST See Offiw of Management and Budget, Clrcu]w A- 130, “Management of Federal Information Resources,” Dec. 24, 1985, 50 Fe&r~

Regl.ster 5273052751; OMB, proposed revision of Circular A- 130, 83 Fe&r-u/ Re~i.~/er 1829+ 18306; and final revision, op. cit., footnote 1.

Congress may need to clarify that OMB Circular A-25 on “User Charges” does not authorize or require full cost recovery for Federal services

intended to benefit the general public, To the contrary, OMB Circular A- 130 takes precedence, See Office of Management and Budget, OMB

Circular A-25 Revised, “User Charges,” Fe&rd Register, vol. 58, No, 134, July 15, 1993, pp. 38 142–38 146. Also see OTA, lnfi~rrning the

Nwifm, op. cit., footnote 28; OTA, Helping America Compe(e, op. cit., footnote 28; Interagency Working Group on Government Electronic

Information, “Public Access to Government Electronic Information: A Policy Framework,” Aug. 10, 1992, working draft; and U.S. Congress,

Houw, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice, and Agricuhure, Creu~i\e Wuy.$ of Using

and [)~.wem[nuflnx Federu/ ln~(~rmuti(m, Hearings, June 19, 1991, and June 4, 1992. The marginal cost-pricing principle also is reflected in

proposed legislation, wch as H R, 629, the Improvement of Information Access Act of 1993, Jan, 26, 1993, and S. 681, the Paperwork Reduction

i?eauthoriza~ion Act of 1993, Mar, 31, 1993.

w ~ee OTA He/ping Anlel.l( ~ ComWte, op. Ci[,, foo[n~e 28, Fe&ra] agency pricing of information in e!eClrOniC formats v~ies wi~ly; the

.

principle of marginal cost pricing appears to be inconsistently or erroneously applied, A 1993 GAO survey, for example, found that agency

pricing of CI1-ROMs varies from a few dollars per disk to over $1,000 per disk, See U.S. General Accounting Office, FederuI CD-ROM Ti[le.r.”

W’hut Are A\ulluhle and H(m 711e} Are Prlted, GAO/lMTEC-9Y3-.MFS (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1993).
158 I Making Government Work

cost of delivery. This presumes, however, that

Federal agencies are adequately funded for technology innovation and system development for

electronic delivery.

Congress may need to review policies for those

agencies that do not receive adequate funding for

system development, such as NTIS. NTIS faces a

dilemma—with no appropriated funds, it must

charge more than marginal cost (narrowly defined) for some products and services in order to

cover the costs of basic archiving activities and

product and system development. Congress also

might consider authorizing agencies to retain

funds received from sale of products and services—so long as pricing and other policies are

complied with. At present, agencies must return

such funds to the US. Treasury, unless specifically exempted. Agency use of retained funds

could be restricted to electronic delivery innovations or other specified purposes, such as subsidies

to disadvantaged users.

Effective electronic delivery to economically or

educationally disadvantaged users may require

not only “free” delivery, but at least partial Federal

subsidization of the requisite equipment and training. Federal agencies might offer, for example, to

pay part of the cost of kiosk deployment or 1-800

telephone numbers for computer access in distressed areas as part of an intergovernmental partnership or public/private partnership-possibly

with telephone, cable, computer networking, or

value-added information companies. Or Federal

agencies might provide electronic delivery infrastructure grants or vouchers to schools, libraries,

and small businesses in disadvantaged areas; these

should, of course, be closely coordinated with any

agency information technology funds set aside for

grassroots involvement, community communication centers, or local innovation.59

As part of an electronic service delivery “safety

net,” Congress also could initiate a review of the

roles the Consumer Information Center (CIC) and

Depository Library Program (DLP) might play in

assuring equity of access. The CIC is operated for

GSA by GPO’s Superintendent of Documents

(SupDocs), and provides copies of free or low

priced agency pamphlets and publications to the

general public. CIC’s potential role in electronic

delivery has received little attention to date. The

DLP also is operated by SupDocs, and provides

copies of selected agency reports to roughly 1,400

designated libraries throughout the United States,

at least one in every State and congressional district. The cost of documents provided to depository libraries is covered by agency budgets and/or

the DLP direct appropriation, but each library

must pay the costs of storing, equipping, and staffing the government documents collection. The

DLP serves all citizens, free of charge.

The DLP’s role in electronic delivery has been

studied and debated for several years. The recently

revised OMB Circular A-130 requires Federal

agencies to submit all required materials to the

DLP, regardless of format, to the maximum extent

feasible. Recently enacted legislation clarifies

and strengthens GPO’s general role in electronic

delivery and information dissemination, which

also should benefit the DLP. While some DLP

policy and funding issues remain, the significant

potential role for depository libraries (and libraries

in general) in electronic delivery is now well

established. 61

Congress could, as part of any governmentwide

electronic delivery initiative, mandate a careful

review of all Federal or federally supported programs intended to help assure an access “safety

net” for citizens who do not have adequate financial, institutional, or technical resources. The

59 See chs. 5 and 6.

60 Sw pub]ic ~wf ]0~-w, op. ci(. footnote 52-

61 SU John Hfis, A]M F. wes[in, md Anne L. Finger, Reference point Foundation, “Innovations for Federal Service: A Study of

Innovative Technologies for Federal Government Services to Older Americans and Consumers,” contractor report prepared for the Office of

Technology Assessment, February 1993; OTA, Helping America Compete, op. cit., footnote 28; OTA, lnji~rming the Nution, op. cit., footnote 28.

Also see OMB, Circular A- 130, op. cit., footnote 1.
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 159

review could include not only CIC and DLP, but

also the Federal Information Center program run

by GSA, the network of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Extension Service offices, the

numerous individual agency clearinghouses and

libraries (those run directly by agency personnel

and by agency contractors), and various agency,

interagency, NTIS, and GPO electronic directory

initiatives—all of which could have some role in

an electronic service delivery “safety net.”

CONTRACTING OUT/PROCUREMENT

As with other Federal activities, some electronically delivered services will be contracted out

to the private sector, others will be implemented

by the agencies themselves, and still others will

proceed in partnerships among Federal agencies,

their State/local counterparts, and/or the private

sector. Privatizing government activities is a

popular although controversial notion. At one extreme, privatization advocates look for opportunities to get the government out of the “business” of

providing materials or services that could, in principle, be supplied by the private marketplace. Opponents argue, with some justification, that

Congress established many Federal programs to

meet important public policy goals that probably

would not be met without government involvement and funding. When carefully considered,

most privatization proposals to date have focused

on contracting out or eliminating current government services. The “reinventing government”

theme is drawing more attention to the role of

contracting in systems integration and outsourcing

of electronic delivery, but it also is spotlighting the

growing concern about possible conflicts of interest and over-reliance on contracting.

The OMB Director has initiated a review of

current Federal contracting policies and practices,

including OMB Circular A-76 on “Performance of

Commercial Activities,” with particular attention

to accountability y, cost effectiveness, and the inherent nature of governmental functions. Congress

could evaluate the results of the administration’s

review, when complete, to determine if the proposed policies better balance the competing principles relevant to electronic delivery, such as:

Public Responsibility-However implemented,

the government in most cases must remain responsible for assuring that electronic delivery

meets the goals set by Congress for each service

and for electronic delivery generally.

Equity of Access—An important policy goal is

that electronic delivery improve public access

to Federal services and broaden public awareness of such services, and that it reduce—not

increase—the chasm between socioeconomic

“haves” and “have-nots.”

Government Accountability—Some Federal

services must be implemented by the government to assure accountability and integrity of

the process, provide independent management

and oversight, and preclude conflicts of interest.

Government Efficiency—The public clamor to

cut government expenditures and get more

“bang” for the tax “buck” does not automatically translate into increased contracting. Contracting out can end up costing the government

more money, and, if carried too far, can deny

the government the expertise needed to effectively monitor contractors. The most efficient

way for agencies to implement electronic delivery usually is outsourcing to commercial

providers of computer and telecommunications

equipment and networks. But the operation of

the delivery system—at least the agency part of

the system—may sometimes be done more efficiently by the agency. The determination of

the best mode of service delivery must be made

on a case-by-case basis.

Government Competition—Contracting out

also minimizes competition between the government and private sector, and can stimulate

the private marketplace, At the Federal level,

computer and telecommunications equipment

is competitively procured. Federal civilian

agencies likewise use commercial computer

and telecommunication networks almost exclusively, rather than building their own. Agencies

typically contract with commercial systems
160 I Making Government Work

integrators for the design, implementation, and

sometimes operation of the major automated

agency systems, Electronic service delivery

might raise concerns about government competition with the private sector, to the extent that

electronic delivery is similar to operating

agency computer centers, clearinghouses, libraries, or information dissemination programs.

Privatization of such activities has proven controversial. Some agencies contract out; others

do not. The cost effectiveness of contracting

these activities is difficult to verify. Agencies

rarely conduct follow-up evaluations.

To set a contracting-out policy, the Federal

Government could use a modified version of the

public-private framework developed for Federal

information dissemination.62 The policy could direct agencies, when planning and implementing

electronic delivery, to assure—as first priority—

that public accountability, equity of access, and

other statutory public policy goals are met. Within

that context, the policy could require agencies to:

1) deploy electronic delivery in ways that are cost

effective; 2) use commercial off-the-shelf equipment and networks to the extent possible; 3) carefully and creatively consider contracting or

partnering roles for the private sector; and 4) assure, whenever the private sector is involved, a

level competitive playing field and open access to

both the delivery vehicles and the services themselves (to the extent provided or limited by law).

Open access has been a controversial issue with

respect to Federal information services. Federal

information cannot be copyrighted,63 but some

agencies have used licensing agreements for various purposes, such as: 1) generating revenue to

cover the cost of dissemination; 2) limiting or

controlling the resale or enhancement of Federal

information by private companies; and /or

3) helping assure the quality of the information by

enforcing restrictions on allowable reuse or redissemination of the information. Also, Federal technology transfer laws could erode the copyright

prohibition if extended to allow agencies to enter

into licensing agreements with private companies

that restrict access to technical data and software

developed by Federal employees.64

Consumer, library, and public advocacy groups

are concerned about any restrictions on access.

Agency proposals to permit copyrighting of federally funded bibliographic and other databases

have proven inflammatory. The information industry asks that licensing agreements, when used,

be available to any qualified and interested company and that the licensing fee not exceed the

marginal cost of providing the information—in

order to ensure a level competitive playing field.

The practice or plans of some State and local

governments to either go into business for themselves or contract with selected private companies

to sell public information or other services at a

“profit” would raise serious concerns at the Federal level (profit defined as charging more than the

marginal cost or, possibly, whatever the market

will bear).65

Electronic service delivery should, overall, be

a net positive sum activity for both the Federal

Government and the private sector. A carefully

62 sce OMB, ~ropmed and fin~] revjsjons 10 Cjrcu]m A- 130, op. cit., footnote 57; OTA, Helpin~ Americu cf~m~te, oP. cit., footn~c 28.

~~ For private inform[ion, which cm be copyrighted, the intellectual propefly issues surrounding eleCtrOnlc formats are complex and

controversial. For a discussion, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Finding A Bulun<e: Clmlpuler .S{jflw’ure, lntellectuul

Pr~~perty, undthe Chullenge (.fTethw/logicu/ Chunge, OTA-TCT-527 (Washingon, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1992).

64 s= OTA Helping Americu Compele, op. cit., footnote 28

65 A ca~~ jn ~olnt is the F~erd Marj[imc Commission’s Automated Tariff Filing and Information System (ATFI). After considerable deb~e,

Congress directed the FMC to collect fees for direct and indirect use of AFTI, in an attempt to generate revenues that would offset phasing

down or out the unpopular boat tax, FMC responded with proposed rules that attempt to very tightly control all use of AFTI data, charge AFT]

acces fees that appear to be higher than marginal cost, and assert that AITI data are the exclusive property of the FMC, The FMC proposals

are strongly opposed by representatives of the information industry, libraries, and public interest and consumer advocates, and conflict with

several policy principles in the recently revised and reissued OMB Circular A-130; see OMB, op. cit., footnote 1, Public advocacy groups have

raised similar concerns about the Security and Exchange Commission’s Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR) and the

Department of Justice’s legal information system (known as JURIS). In both the EDGAR and JURIS cases, the contracting out of information

services has led to the imposition of limitations on use and./or high user fees that have had the effect of restricting public access.
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery I 161

crafted policy should simultaneously enhance equity of access to Federal services; improve the

productivity and efficiency of Federal service delivery; and stimulate the private sector through

direct procurements of off-the-shelf items, contracting out for technology systems and services,

and creation of new value-added competitive marketplace opportunities.

Absent improvements in procurement practices, major contracting for electronic service delivery could further strain an already overly

complicated, lengthy, rigid, and—some would argue—unnecessarily expensive Federal procurement process. Federal technology managers

frequently find themselves locked in by cumbersome procurement practices that leave little room

to adapt to technology changes and result in guaranteed early obsolescence of Federal automation

programs. Major agency automation initiatives

have, in the past, typically taken several years to a

decade or more to complete. Procurement strategies that may have worked reasonably well in the

1970s and 1980s are likely to result in automated

systems for the 1990s that will be two or three

generations of technology behind on the day they

become operational. Computer and telecommunication companies general] y prefer that the government define its requirements in functional terms

rather than attempting to specify detailed technical

designs. This provides greater flexibility to the

private sector in creatively responding with proposed technological solutions.

OTA concluded that Federal agencies need to:

1) take advantage of new breakthroughs in less

expensive off-the-shelf commercial equipment,

software, and services, and the accelerating trend

toward interoperable and compatible technologies; 2) find new ways to integrate pilot and demonstration projects, requests for information

(RFIs), and requests for proposals (RFPs) that will

increase the flexibility and cut the time and cost of

Federal information technology procurements;

3) seek creative opportunities for intra- and interagency procurement partnerships that take advantage of the economies of scale and scope made

possible through electronic delivery; 4) mandate

improvements in the system plans and designs on

which the procurements ultimately are based, using evolutionary rather than static procurement

strategies; and 5) use information technology to

open up competition and cut procurement overhead and red tape.66

OTA’s vision of Federal procurement practices

takes full advantage of information technology

t o :

6 7

1.

2.

3.

cut the response time for contracting by using

electronic bulletin boards and computer networking to announce contract solicitations,

and to receive questions and comments; and

electronic data interchange (EDI)—with electronic signatures—to receive bids and proposals;

cut the cost and paperwork by encouraging

all-electronic contracting and electronic filing

of contract documents (filing of private sector

responses to contract solicitations and agency

filing of contract records); and

reduce the complexity of contracting through

fewer, simpler, streamlined procurement

regulations available in a variety of electronic

formats.

Congress could direct OMB and GSA to review

and revise procurement procedures accordingly.

Congress could hold periodic oversight hearings

on information technology procurement, and, if

~ B&Wd on t~ rec.ulls of OTA1S own re~ar~h and on reviews by the Department of Defense and Vari OUS nOngOWnfIWntd groups. See,

for example, Thomas Giamrno, A4umJxed li~rdufi(mary DeLell)pmenf Gf-1/DEBOf?K: Prf)ce.w Desf r[prifm und App(icurifm (Arlington, VA:

U.S. Pa[cnt and Trademark Office, February 1993), Steven Kclman, Jerry Mechling, and John Springett, lr~fjrmu$i(m Techrud{)~’.v und

G/wemment Pr(x-urement: .Ttrutegic Issues for the Informutilm A~e (Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard

University, June 1992); Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association,“Evolutionary AcquisitionI)raft Reporr,” Mar. 12, 1993,

~T The Gem.ral Services Adrlllni\[ra(ion makes ~ome prl~~ s~~>~ule information avai]ahie }’]a bu]!~t]n bo~d, the r~cfcnse commer~i~

Communications Office placm full requests-f(~r-pr(>~lsds on a bulletin board
162 I Making Government Work

Top: The 54th Fighter Squadron at Elmendorf Air

Force Base, Alaska, depends on telecommunications

and computer systems for air traffic control and military intelligence.

Bottom: One of several satellite earth stations at

Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.

necessary, consider statutory changes and accompanying report language to provide further,

stronger guidance (possibly including revisions to

the Brooks Act,68 Competition in Contracting

Act,69 Paperwork Reduction Act,70 and other Federal procurement statutes).

The transition to electronic procurement, however, raises equity of access issues for smaller

businesses and not-for-profit organizations that

may not have the expertise, equipment, or

resources needed for participation. In this sense,

the small-business community faces challenges

similar to many government service recipients.

Equitable competitive opportunities for small

businesses can be furthered by including them in

broader grassroots and partnering initiatives designed to help assure equity of access to electronic

delivery (see chs. 5 and 6).71

TECHNICAL STANDARDS

Electronic service delivery will intensify the

need for interoperability among Federal agency

computer systems, and compatibility of Federal

systems with the commercial telecommunications

and computer infrastructure. The economies of

scale and scope offered by electronic delivery will

be largely lost if Federal agencies (and, where

appropriate, their State/local counterparts) cannot

use the same kinds of networks and “platforms”

(e.g., personal computers, kiosks, ATMs) for getting services to the people.

Common technical standards thus are an essential component of cost-effective electronic delivery, The Federal Government should, to the

maximum extent possible, use equipment and systems that incorporate widely accepted private sec-

~ Br~ks Act of I %5, Public IAW 89-3M.

69 Cmptitlon in c~tract;ng Act of 1984, Public ~w 98-369.

T(J PawWork R~uction Act of ]980, public Law %-51 1, and Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986, Public Law 99-500.

71 For f~~r discussion of busi~ss use of information technology for marketing and contracting, see U.S. Congress, Offiu of Technology

Assessment, The Electronic Enterprise: Opportunitie.r@ American Business and Industry, in progress. H.R, 2238, the Federal Acquisition

Improvement Act of 1993, introduced May 24, 1993, and reported out by the House Committee on Government Operations on July 28, 1993,

would, among other things, create electronic procurement networks for small purchases, encourage procurement of off-the-shelf products and

services, and establish a program to test innovative procurement practices. To assure equitable Federal procurement, the small-business

community needs to be a full partner in these initiatives. Also see Vice President Gore, op. cit., footnote 4.
Chapter 7-information Policies for Electronic Service Delivery 163

tor technical standards, where they exist. Federal

procurements of electronic delivery technologies

and systems could mandate use of appropriate

standards. The computer and telecommunication

industries have, in recent years, increasingly recognized that common standards are in their own,

as well as the government ‘s, interests. Many computer and telecommunication products and services are on the threshold of becoming mass

consumption items, and common technical standards can help further develop the market (e.g., as

with CD-ROM or electronic mail standards),

Where private sector standards do not yet exist, the

Federal Government could exert its influence

through the existing public-private standards-setting processes .72

A logical first step at the Federal level (and by

extension at the State/local levels) is a careful

review of electronic service de] i very as a “system”

to identify all relevant technical standards-current and prospective. Standards are needed for:

computer networking (and internetworking); electronic mail; videoconferencing; electronic data interchange; smart and hybrid cards and terminals;

kiosks; optical disk formats and software; and

electronic document and publishing formats,

among others.

Congress and the President could designate a

lead executive agency, perhaps NIST, for an electronic delivery standards-setting effort. The standards identified then could be mapped into the

existing public-private standards structure to determine where: 1 ) existing standards are satisfactory or need to be modified; 2) standards-setting

is underway but should be accelerated; and

3) standards-setting needs to be initiated. NIST

could convene forums on electronic delivery technologies, such as kiosks, so that manufacturers,

software developers, and users (including Federal

users) could collectively identify ways to fill gaps

in current standards.

REVISING STATUTES ON SERVICE

DELlVERY

Full implementation of electronic delivery

would, in many cases, require revision of public

laws that establish and define the services being

delivered. Widespread electronic benefits transfer, for example, would need clarification of the

rights and responsibilities of providers, intermediaries, and recipients of electronic food stamps,

WIC food supplements, medical expense reimbursements, and the like. The use of kiosks or

home computer terminals for obtaining Federal

training services (e.g., from the Department of

Labor) or agricultural research services (e g., from

the USDA Extension Service) could result in

changes in legal definitions of who provides the

specified Federal services and how.

Statutory revisions needed to accommodate

electronic delivery would be further complicated

by pending or planned Federal agency reorganizations. The Secretaries of Agriculture, Education,

Labor, and Housing and Urban Development, for

example, all have indicated their intent to use

information technology as one of the tools for

reorganizing their departments. Detailed planning

will take months, but any significant changes in

the agency and programmatic structures most

likely would—and should—affect the deployment

of electronic service delivery. Information technology offers many potential opportunities to support agency reorganization and streamlining.

Fine-tuning or revising program and service

delivery statutes would, in sum, require consideration of: 1 ) the current or revised governmentwide

information and telecommunication policy statutes that apply to electronic delivery; 2) current or

revised statutes and directives that apply to information technology management; 3) pending or

planned agency reorganizations; and 4) pending

or planned major programmatic changes that

would affect the services delivered--electronically or otherwise. Making the statutory revisions

72 For a general overview of standards-setting processes and options for improvement, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

G/{~bu/ S’tundurds: flu~lding l?l{~tk.$j~r ~he Fu/ure, OTA-TCT-5 12 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1992).
164 I Making Government Work

necessary to accommodate electronic delivery included in electronic delivery pilot projects and

could be difficult, given the complex set of laws, pre-operational tests, as is being done with, for

policies, plans, and directives that may be relevant. example, the EBT projects and tests sponsored by

In order to expedite the process as much as USDA (see ch. 4).

possible, a policy analysis component could be
Appendix A:

9 Boxes

CHAPTER 1

l-A—Using the Community Infrastructure for High

Leverage Electronic Delivery

1 -B—Illustrative Electronic Connections to the

Federal Government

CHAPTER 4

4-A—Food Stamps Today: A Paper-Based System

4-B—The Case of WyoCard: A Smart Card Success

4-C—The Case of Maryland: Statewide Electronic

Benefits Transfer

CHAPTER 5

5-A-Grassroots Computer Networking: Lessons

Learned

5-B—The RTK Net: Grassroots Access to the Toxic

Release Inventory

5-C—WyoCard: Keys to Success

5-D-The Community Information Infrastructure: A

Key Role for Colleges and Universities

CHAPTER 6

6-A—Laming From the States: California Strategic

Directions

6-B—Learning From the States: Washington State

Strategic Directions

List of

Boxes,

Figures,

and Tables

9 Figures

CHAPTER 1

l-l—Role of Telecommunications Infrastructure in

Delivering Federal Services Via Six Points of

Access

CHAPTER 3

3-l—Role of Telecommunications Infrastructure in

Delivering Federal Services Via Six Points of

Access

3-2—Existing Routes for Long-Distance Government

Telecommunications

3-3—The Three Levels of the NSFNET

CHAPTER 4

4-l—Participants in Electronic Benefits Transfer

~ Tables

CHAPTER 1

l-1—illustrative Electronic Service Delivery

Activities

1-2—Technology Readiness for Electronic Delivery

l-3—illustrative Guidance to Federal Agencies on

Electronic Service Delivery

l-4--Illustrative Distribution of Citizen Access to

Computer Resources

1-5—Illustrative Checklist for Successful Partnering

in Electronic Delivery

165
166 I Making Government Work

CHAPTER 2

2-l—Home and Office Technologies or Services: Key

Characteristics and Selected Applications

2-2—Time Required To Transmit Data on CD-ROM

2-3—Types of Electronic Kiosks: Key Characteristics

and Selected Applications

2-4-One-Stop Service Center Technologies: Key

Characteristics

2-5—Mobile Service Delivery Technologies: Key

Characteristics and Selected Applications

2-6-Types of Card Technologies: Key

Characteristics and Selected Applications

2-7—Types of EBT System Configurations: Key

Characteristics and Selected Applications

2-8—Electronic Commerce Technologies: Key

Characteristics and Selected Applications

CHAPTER 3

3-l—Comparison of Services Available: FTS2000

and the Commercial Market

3-2—Providers and Technologies Delivering Services

in the ‘‘Last Mile” to the Home

CHAPTER 4

4-1—EBT Project Status for the Food Stamp Program

by State

4-2—Estimated Overlap in Government Benefits

4-3—Estimated Implementation Costs for a

Nationwide EBT System

4-4-Estimated Annual Transaction Costs for a MultiProgram EBT System

CHAPTER 5

5-l—Illustrative Checklist for Successful Partnering

in Electronic Service Delivery

CHAPTER 6

6-l—Illustrative Guidance to Federal Agencies on

Electronic Service Delivery

6-2—Illustrative Prototypes of Re-Engineering

Government Through Information Technology
Appendix B:

List of

AFDC—Aid to Families With Dependent Children

ACH—Automated Clearing House

analog— information transmitted using a

continuously varying signal-e. g., radio

transmission

ANSI—American National Standards Institute

ATM—automated teller machine

AUP—Acceptable Use Policy (for the Internet)

backbone-a set of links to carry messages between

telecommunication switches

bandwidth-the range of frequencies or maximum

information (in bits per second) that a system can

transmit

BBS-electronic bulletin board system

BISDN—broadband integrated services digital

network

broadband—systems that can transmit relatively

large amounts of information, e.g., high definition

television

BST—Big Sky Telegraph

CBO--Congressional Budget Office

CD-ROM- compact disk—read-only memory

CIC--Consumer Information Center

CIO-Chief Information Officer

CoREN—Corporation for Regional and Enterprise

Networking

CRS--Congressional Research Service

CSL--Computer Systems Laboratory

DHHS--U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services

digital--information transmitted using two discrete

levels (high and low) and therefore less susceptible

to small signal variations

DLP— Depository Library Program

Acronyms

and Terms

DTIC—Defense Technical Information Center

EBT--electronic benefits transfer

EDI--electronic data interchange

EFT--electronic funds transfer

EFTA— Electronic Funds Transfer Association

EPA— Environmental Protection Agency

ESNet— Department of Energy’s energy science

network

Fax—facsimile

FedWorld—A bulletin board service maintained by

NTIS that, in turn, accesses over 100 other

government bulletin boards.

FBI—Federal Bureau of Investigation

FCC—Federal Communications Commission

FILS--Federal Information Locator System

FMS--Financial Management Service

FNS--Food and Nutrition Service

FOIA—Freedom of Information Act

frame relay—an electronic format for sending packets

FSP— Food Stamp Program

FTS--Federal Government’s telecommunications

program previous to FTS2000

FTS2000--Federal Government’s long-distance

telecommunication services program

GAO—U.S. General Accounting Office

GPO--U.S. Government Printing Office

GIS--Geographic Information System

GSA—U.S. General Services Administration

HPCC—High Performance Computing and

Communications program

hybrid card—a card using both a microprocessor and

a magnetic stripe

I&R—Information and Referral (offices)

167
168 I Making Government Work

Internet—a family of interoperable computer

networks

InterNIC— Internet Network Information Center

interoperability— the ability of one system to

communicate with or operate with another

IRM—Information Resources Management

IRMS--Information Resource Management Service

ISDN—integrated services digital network

kbps--kilobits per second

kilobit—1,000 bits

LATA—local access and transport area

LAN—local area network

LEC—local exchange carrier (the traditional local

telephone company)

Magnetic stripe card—a card with a magnetic stripe

on the back-e. g., most bank or credit cards

Megabyte--l million bytes (8 million bits)

Mbps— megabits per second

NAPA—National Academy of Public Administration

NARA—National Archives and Records

Administration

NASA—National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

narrowband—systems that transmit relatively small

amounts of information, e.g., telephone

conversations

NII—National Information Infrastructure

NIST—National Institute of Standards and

Technology

NLM—National Library of Medicine

NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

NPTN—National Public Telecomputing Network

NREN—National Research and Education Network

NSF—National Science Foundation

NSFNET—National Science Foundation network

NSA—National Security Agency

NSI—NASA Science Internet

NTIA—National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

NTIS--National Technical Information Service

off-line-not connected directly to a central computer—

e.g., connections may be made at a later time

OIRA----Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB--Office of Management and Budget

on-line- connected directly to a central computer

either permanently or through a dial-up connection

OSTP— Office of Science and Technology Policy

packet—a set of data transmitted in a predetermined

format and with an accompanying address

PCN— personal communication network

PCS--personal communication services-any of the

many mobile services designed to serve individuals

wherever they are

PEN—Public Electronic Network, Santa Monica, CA

PIN—personal identification number

POTS- plain old telephone service

POS--point-of-sale

PRA— Paperwork Reduction Act

RAN—rural area network

REA—Rural Electrification Administration

RFI—request for information

RFP—request for proposals

SeniorNet—a not-for-profit organization that

provides computer services to senior citizens

SIGCAT— Special Interest Group on CD-ROM

Applications and Technology

Smart card—a card the size of a bank card with an

embedded microprocessor

SS7— common charnel signaling system 7

SSA--Social Security Administration

SSI—Supplemental Security Income Program

SupDocs--Superintendent of Documents

T1—protocol for sending data at 1.544 Mbps

T3-- protocol for sending data at 45 Mbps

TCP/IP— transport control protocol/internet protocol—the electronic format used for Internet

messages

TDD--Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf

TRI— Toxic Release Inventory

Tulare Touch-electronic kiosk system used in

Tulare County, CA for its welfare eligibility

program

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture

VA—U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

VAN—value- added network

WAIS--wide area information servers

WIC--Special Supplemental Food Program for Women,

Infants and Children

WORM—write-once, read-many times optical disk

WEDI—Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange

WyoCard--State of Wyoming’s pilot project to

deliver WIC benefits
Appendix C:

Reviewers

Prudence Adler, Association of Research Libraries

Theresa Amato, Public Citizen Litigation Group

Lorraine Amico, National Governors Association

Nicholas Andre, U.S. National Communications

System

Virginia Banister, General Services Administration

Gary Bass, OMB Watch

Jerry Berman, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Larry Bernosky, National Academy of Public

Administration

Jo Anne Bourquard, National Conference of State

Legislatures

Charles Brownstein, National Science Foundation

Jennings Bryant, University of Alabama

Susan Brummel, General Services Administration

Jim Burrows, National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Frank Cantrel, Jr., MCI

Bonnie C. Carroll, CENDI

Jeff Charles, Institute for the Future

Steve Cisler, Apple Computer Inc.

Paul F.P. Coenen, Electronic Strategy Associates

Michael Corrigan, General Services Administration

George Coulbourn, Boeing

Deborah Davis, General Accounting Office

Charles Dollar, National Archives and Records

Administration

Steve Downs, Department of Health and Human

Services

Don Dulchinos, National Cable Television

Association

Bruce Egan, Columbia University

and

Contributors

Frances R. Enos, Hawaii State Legislative Reference

Library

Tim Fain, Office of Management and Budget

David Fine, Southwestern Bell

David Foster, EDI Consultant

Jane Fountain, Harvard University

Steve Frantzich, U.S. Naval Academy

Thomas Giammo, Patent and Trademark Office

Francie Gilman, Public Technology, Inc.

Peter Gillis, Treasury Board of Canada

Gary Glickman, Phoenix Evaluation& Planning, Ltd.

Steve Gould, Congressional Research Service

Barbara Green, North Communications

Bob Greeves, National Academy of Public

Administration

Susan Hadden, University of Texas

Linda Harris, Department of Health and Human

Services

Gregory Harter, EDI Associates

Ann Heanue, American Library Association

Kurt Helwig, EFT Associates

Mary Gardiner Jones, Consumer Interest Research

Institute

Sean Kennedy, Electronic Funds Transfer Association

Gene Kimmelman, Consumer Federation of America

John Kirlin, Abt Associates

Steve Kolodney, State of California

Linda Koontz, General Accounting Office

Gerald Kovach, MCI

Richard Kuzmack, Office of Management and Budget

Henry Lai, General Services Administration

Betsy Lane, Department of the Treasury

Richard Lanes, Southwestern Bell

169
170 I Making Government Work

Ronald E. Lawson, National Technical Information

Service

Bill Layden, General Accounting Office

Barbara Leyser, Center on Social Welfare Policy &

Law

Ted Lightle, State of South Carolina

Donald Lindberg, National Library of Medicine

Shirley Marshall, IBM Corp.

Sharon Mayell, City of Santa Monica, CA

Charles McClure, Syracuse University

Bruce W. McConnell, Office of Management and

Budget

Frank McDonough, General Services Administration

Jerry McFaul, U.S. Geological Survey

Marilyn S. McLennan, National Archives and Records

Administration

Jerry Mechling, Harvard University

Andy Mekelberg, Bell Atlantic

Michelle Meier, Consumers Union

Steve Metalitz, Information Industry Association

Paul Miller, VISA Inc.

John Moore, Department of the Treasury

Katherine Needham, American Bankers Association

Michael Nelson, Treasury Board of Canada

Bill Nichols, General Services Administration

Gregg Obuch, City of Oakland, CA

Frank Odasz, Big Sky Telegraph

John Okay, Department of Agriculture

Hugh O’Neill, Consultant

Peter Ognibene, ASI

James Payne, Sprint

David Peyton, Information Technology Association of

America

Janet Poley, Department of Agriculture

Jack Radzikowski, Department of Agriculture

April Ramey, General Services Administration

Calvin Ramos, Office of Science and Technology

Policy

Jeff Ritter, EDI Attorney

Mike Roberts, Educom

Richard Roca, AT&T

Jean Rogers, EFT Associates

Ken W. Rogers, Department of Commerce

Mark Rotenberg, Computer Professionals for Social

Responsibility

Thomas C. Runkle, State of North Carolina

Georgia Sales, InfoLine

Roy Saltman, National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Joseph Schuler, Consultant

Don Scott, General Services Administration

Art Sheekey, Department of Education

Andy Sherman, Government Printing Office

Roger Simack, AT&T

Padmanabhan Srinagesh, Bellcore

Raymond Strassburger, Northern Telecom

Jerome Svigals, Consultant

Michael Tankersley, Public Citizen Litigation Group

Jonathan Tasini, National Writers Union

Paul Teske, State University of New York at Buffalo

Alice Tetelman, Council of Governors Policy

Advisors

Bo Thomas, Sprint

David Townsend, Economics and Technology, Inc.

Mike Trevor, State of Montana

George B. Trubow, John Marshall Law School

Weston Vivian, University of Michigan

Al Weis, ANS Inc.

Peter Weiss, Office of Management and Budget

Rolf Wigand, Syracuse University

Roxanne Williams, Department of Agriculture

John Wohlstetter, GTE

Robert Woods, Department of Veterans Affairs

Fred B. Wood, Ill, Computer Social Impact Research

Institute

John Yrchik, National Education Association

OTA Reviewers:

Karen Bandy

Alan Buzacott

Vary Coates

David Jensen

Todd LaPorte

Linda Roberts

Joan Winston

David Wye
1 Anchorage, Alaska

Jesse B. Avila, General Services Administration

William Behnke, GCI Communications

Richard M. Blunt, General Services Administration

David Bouker, Nushagak Electric Cooperative Inc.

Richard Dowling, GCI Communications

Davie M. Elliston, Federal Aviation Administration

Steve Hamlen, Unicorn Inc.

Mark P. Moderow, GCI Communications

Ronald Morris, National Marine Fisheries Service

Jim Morrison, Anchorage Telephone Utility

John Morrone, Alaska Division of Information

Services

Bernadette B. Murray, PTI Communications

Gordon Parker, Alaska Telephone Association

Glenn A. Olds, Alaska Department of Natural

Resources

Alys Orsborn, Alaska Teleconferencing Network

David Schraer, Indian Health Service/Public Health

Service

John Shepard, Consultant

Lt. Commander William Smith, US Air ForceElmendorf AFB

Jacqueline L. Smith, Federal Aviation Administration

Barbara Sokolov, Medical Consortium Library

Peter Sokolov, GCI Communications

Jim Sipes, GCI Communications

Raymond L. Thomas, US Department of the Interior

John Valensi, Alaska Legislature Information Division

C.L. Wareham, Alascom

Charles L. Wuerpel, Alaska Division of Emergency

Services

Appendix D:

OTA

Field Trip

Participants

1 Fairbanks, Alaska

Allen Bellew, C-Drive

Daryl Donaldson, Alaska Legislature Information

Division

Ralph Gabrielli, College of Rural Alaska

Michael Harmon, Alaska Legislative Information

Office

Alexander Hills, University of Alaska

David Hoffman, University of Alaska Dept. of

Business Administration

Deborah Kalvee, University of Alaska Library

John Lehman, University of Alaska School of

Management

Paul H. McCarthy, University of Alaska Library

Tom McGrane, KUAC TV/FM

Luis M. Proenza, University of Alaska

Theresa Proenza, University of Alaska Small Business

Development Center

Greg Ruff, KUAC TV/FM

Irv Skelton, U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension

Service

Steve Smith, University of Alaska

James Stricks, Center for Distance Education

Daniel S. Sulzbach, San Diego Supercomputer Center

Mark Woodall, MicroAge Computers

9 Kotzebue, Alaska

Richard H. Erlich, State of Alaska Superior Court

Sonny Harris, Maniilaq Association

Lynn Johnson, Chukchi College

Frank Kramer, Maniilaq Association Hospital

171
172 I Making Government Work

Ben Phillips, OTZ Telephone Cooperative

Gladys Pungowiyi, Maniilaq Association

Whitham D. Reeve, Reeve Consulting Engineering

fl California

Donald J. Bache, GTE

Russell Bohart, California Health and Welfare Data

Center

Will Bush, California Franchise Tax Board

Celia Carroll, City of Santa Monica

Jack Casey, Olympic High School, Santa Monica

Mark L. Emberson, GTE

Arnie Fein, Tulare County Dept. of Social Services

Paula J. Gamer, GTE-Cerritos Project

Judy Graef, California State University at Sacramento

Lynette Iwafuchi, State of California Franchise Tax

Board

Frank C. Liu, Pacific Bell

Victoria Johnson, Pasadena Public Library

Steve E. Kolodney, California Office of Information

Technology

Frank Lanza, California Franchise Tax Board

Sharon Mayell, City of Santa Monica

Edward Messerly, U.S. General Services

Administration

Linda Morton, Riverside Telecommuting Center

Gary Nishite, California Department of Motor

Vehicles

Gregg S. Obuch, City of Oakland

Ken E. Phillips, City of Santa Monica

Jack Rust, Tulare County

Bryan W. Sands, City of Pasadena

Anita Scrams, Systems & Computer Technology

Corp., Visalia

Steve Starliper, Pacific Bell

Edwin J. Stevens, EMDA, Inc.

Frank Zolin, California Department of Motor Vehicles

1 California–Community Workshop at

University of Southern California

Bretta Beverage, Consultant

Russ Bohart, California Health and Welfare Data

Center

Pat Bourne, CompuMentor

Tom Boyce, California Institute of Technology

Annie Chen, Pacific Telesis

Terry Cooper, University of Southern California

Dan Durran, NEC

William Dutton, University of Southern California

Paula Gamer, GTE Cerritos Project

Neal Gilbert, Center for Community Change, South

Bend, IN

Barbara Green, North Communications

Sam Karp, HandsNet

Paul Lee, Esq., South Central Legal Services

Arlene Lure, Pacific Bell

Peter Lyman, University of Southern California

Library

Elizabeth Martinez, City of Los Angeles Public

Library

Sharon Mayell, City of Santa Monica

Cheryl Metoyer-Durran, UCLA School of Library and

Information Sciences

Ezekial Mobley, Jr., United Neighborhood Council of

Los Angeles

Michael North, North Communications

Kenneth Phillips, City of Santa Monica

Jane Pisano, University of Southern California

Gretta Pruitt, Central Los Angeles Board of Education

Consortium

Wendy Romano, Los Angeles County Library

Avis F. Ridley-Thomas, Office of the Los Angeles

City Attorney

Alvin S. Rudisill, University of Southern California

Malcolm Sharp, University of Southern California

Kay Kyung-Sook Song, Korean Community

Emergency Task Force

Richard Stahl, InfoLine

Beverly Thomas, The Next Step

Carol Valenta, Los Angeles Unified School District

Burt Wallrich, InfoLine

Betty Hanna Witherspoon, InfoLine

Dan Wright, City of Los Angeles Dept. of

Telecommunications

I Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

Debra L. Rosenbaum, Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho

Stephen A. Ruppel, North Idaho College

1 Montana

Gerry Anderson, Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative,

Inc.

Scott Buswell, Montana Office of Public Instruction

Bob Campbell, Montana Entrepreneurship Center
Appendix D--OTA Field Trip Participants I 173

Patty Clarement, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Penny L. Copps, U.S. West Communications, Inc.

James D. Ereaux, Salish Kootenai College/Flathead

Indian Reservation

Paul Eve, Salish Kootenai College/Flathead Indian

Reservation

Don Hanson, U.S. West Communications, Inc.

Ann Heifert, Big Sky Telegraph

Steve Henry, University of Montana

Tony Herbert, Montana Department of Administration

Kevin Hewlett, Indian Health Service/Flathead Indian

Reservation

Jay Jolly, St. Luke Community Hospital

Bob Kindrick, University of Montana

Gale Kramlick, Montana Office of Public Instruction

John Lutter, Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

Joseph McDonald, Salish Kootenai College

Bob Morns, Montana Office of Public Instruction

Frank Odasz, Big Sky Telegraph

Earl R. Owens, Blackfoot Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

Michael Pablo, Flathead Indian Reservation

Bill Patton, University of Montana

Jack Ramirez, Office of U.S. Senator Conrad Bums

Kay Lutz-Ritzheimer, Montana Entrepreneurship

Center

David L. Toppen, Montana University System

Mike Trevor, Montana Department of Administration

Frank Tyro, Salish Kootenai College/Flathead Indian

Reservation

Bill Wade, Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

Dave Wilson, University of Montana

Janine Windy-Boy, Little Big Horn College

1 Olympia/Seattle, Washington

Candy Archer, City of Mercer Island, WA

Brad Blancard, Washington State Dept. of Information

Services

Clare Donahue, Washington State Dept. of

Information Services

Kimberly T. Ellwanger, Microsoft Corporation

Sam Hunt, Washington State Dept. of Information

Services

Dennis Jones, Washington State Dept. of Information

Services

Rebel Kreklow, U.S. General Services Administration

Kay Pope, U.S. General Services Administration

Mary Riveland, Washington State Dept. of Licensing

Larry Scale, Washington State Office of Financial

Management

Carl Stork Microsoft Corporation

Tom Turner, Washington State Dept. of Licensing

Michael D. Woody, U.S. General Services

Administration

1 Wyoming

Diane Dunne, Women, Infants, and Children program

Clinic, Casper

Pamela Girt, Laramie County Community College

Janet Moran, State of Wyoming Women, Infants, and

Children Program

Lynn Van Raden, State of Wyoming Women, Infants,

and Children Program

Lucy Turek, Women, Infants, and Children Program

Clinic, Casper

Robert G. Yeager, Laramie County Community

College
Appendix E:

Contractor Reports

and OTA Trip

Reports Prepared

for This Assessment

Copies of contractor reports prepared for this study

will be available in late 1993 through the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS), either by mail

(U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161) or by

calling NTIS directly at (703) 4874650.

Steve Arnold, ‘Investing in an Information Infrastructure: An Overview of Japan’s Network Services,’

January 1993.

Richard Civille, Computer Professionals for Social

Responsibility, “Broadening the Research Community: Delivering Federal Services Using Information Technology, ” December 1992.

William H. Dutton, Annenberg School for Communication, “Electronic Service Delivery and the Inner

City: Community Workshop Summary,” December 1992.

William H. Dutton and K. Kendall Guthrie, ‘State and

Imcal Government Innovations in Electronic Services: The Case in the Western and Northeastern

United States,” Dec. 12, 1991.

Stephen Frantzich, Congressional Data Associates,

‘‘Electronic Service Delivery and Congress,’ January 1993.

John C. Gale, Information Workstation Group, “Multimedia Systems for Electronic Service Delivery,”

Jan. 25, 1993.

Thomas M. Grundner, National Public Telecomputing

Network, ‘The OT~Teleforum Project: An

Experiment With a Multi-City ‘Electronic Town

Hall,’” January 1993.

Susan G. Hadden and W. James Hadden, Jr., Intelligent Advisors, Ltd., ‘‘Government Electronic Services and the Environment,” November 1992.

John Harris and Alan F. Westin, Reference Point

Foundation, “Non-Profit and Academic Applications of Computer and Telecommunication Technologies, ’ December 1991.

John Harris, Alan F. Westin, Anne L. Finger, Reference Point Foundation, “Innovations for Federal

Service: A Study of Innovative Technologies for

Federal Government Services to Older Americans

and Consumers, ” February 1993.

J. Scott Hauger, “Ensuring the Accessibility of New

Technologies for the Electronic Delivery of Federal

Services for Persons With Disabilities,” Jan. 20,

1993.

Charles R. McClure, Rolf T. Wigand, John C. Bertot,

Mary E. McKenna, William E. Moen, Joe Ryan,

and Stacy B. Veeder, “Federal Information Policy

and Management for Electronic Service Delivery,’

Dec. 21, 1992.

Jack M. Nines, “Energy/Environmental Impacts of

Electronic Service Delivery: Trends and Innovations,” November 1991.

174
175 I Making Government Work

Frank Odasz, Big Sky Telegraph, “Computer Confer- Alan Porter and Scott Cunningham, ‘‘Private Sector

ence on Electronic Service Delivery to Rural/Small Innovations in Electronic Service Delivery,’ JanuTown America, ” Jan. 8, 1993. ary 1992.

Office of Technology Assessment, Trip Reports to Priscilla Regan, George Mason University, “TypoAlas@ californi~ Montana/Wyoming; and Olympia/ logy of Federal Government Services Relevant to

Seattle, WA; Nov. 10, 1992 Electronic Delivery, ” Janu~ 1992.

Phoenix Planning & Evaluation, Ltd. “Multi-Program

Cards for the Delivery of Social Services,’ January

1993.
Index

Access to services, 2,4,5-8, 10-11, 19-21,36-55,59,95-96,

106-107, 153-159

AFDC. See Aid to Families with Dependent Children

Aid to Families With Dependent Children, 86,95,96,98,99

Archiving electronic records, 4, 152-153

Big Sky Telegraph, 107-109

Broadband, 80-82

Budget set-asides, 18, 106-107

Bulletin boards, See Computer bulletin boards

California State Office of Information Technology, 126

Card technologies, 47-49, 88-90. See also Magnetic stripe,

Smart, and Hybrid cards

CD-ROMS. See Compact optical disks

CIC. See Consumer Information Center

Citizen involvement. See grassroots citizen involvement

Citizens with disabilities, 19, 106, 112-114

Community information infrastructure, 10, 17-19, 118-120.

See also Grassroots

Compact optical disks, 40

Computer bulletin boards, 39, 150-152

Computer conferencing, 4,26

Computer networking, 11,13-14,24-25,39,70-76, 107-110,

151

Computer Security Act, 23,52, 100, 146, 147

Congressional information, access to, 26-27,44, 150-152

Consumer Information Center, 20, 139, 156, 158

Contracting out. See Procurement

Cost effectiveness, 2, 11-12,60,88

Department of Agriculture, 20,24, 120, 133, 159

Department of the Treasury, 22,26, 101, 102

Depository Library Program, 20, 139, 156, 158

Desktop conferencing, 44-45

Directories, 17, 19, 54, 131, 153-156

Disabled. See Citizens with disabilities

EBT. See Electronic benefits transfer

EBT cards. See Card technologies

EDI. See Electronic data interchange

Electronic benefits transfer, 9,22, 25-26,47-50,83-103

costs, 93-98

feasibility test, 26, 102

policy issues and options, 98-103

leadership, 103

scenarios, 84-85

systems, 49, 50, 90-98, 101-102

Electronic commerce, 5,49-53

Electronic connections to the Federal Government, 28

Electronic data interchange, 5,49-53

Electronic delivery technologies, 29-55

Electronic delivery technology strategy, need for, 53-55

Electronic kiosks, 6,41-42

Equity. See Access

Federal Bulletin Board, 20, 39

Federal Information Center, 20

Federal Information Imcator System, 19,21, 131, 154

Federal strategy, vision, 6,9-10, 123-139

FedWorld Bulletin Board, 20,54

Fiber optics, 24, 80-82

FILS. See Federal Information Imcator System

Financial Management Service, 85, 103

FOIA. See Freedom of Information Act

Food and Nutrition Semice, 85,95,96, 102

Food Stamp Program, 85-87,95-96,98,99-100

Fraud and abuse, 26,86-87

Freedom of Information Act, 23, 148-150

FTS2000, 13,24,52,61-70

General Sexvices Administration, 9, 13, 20,21,22,24, 53,

62-70, 125, 128, 133-135, 136, 137, 139, 153, 154,

155, 159, 161

Government directories. See Directories

176
177 I Making Government Work

Government Printing OffIce, 20,39, 75, 130, 155, 158, 159

GPO. See Government Printing OffIce

Grassroots citizen involvement, 10, 17-19, 105-121, 128

GSA. See General Services Administration

High Performance Computing and Communications

Program, 71, 72

HPCC. See High Performance Computing and

Communications Program

Hybrid cards, 5, 26,48

Hybrid EBT systems, 88,90, 102

Information policy, 4, 15-17, 23, 141-164

Information Resources Management, 15-17, 21-22, 53,

123-139

leadership, 21, 131-134

organization, 21, 134-139

planning and budgeting, 21, 125-134

training programs, 21, 133-134

Information Resources Management Service, 21, 134, 135,

136, 137

Information technologies, 29-55

Inner city residents, 19, 106, 108, 110-112

Innovation 3, 112, 128, 130

Innovation funds, 129

Innovators, Federal/State/local, 9, 17, 111, 130

Integrated services digital networks, 15, 24,77-79, 82

Interactive multimedia, 41, 44-45

Internet, 14, 24, 39, 72-76. See also Computer networking

IRM. Se~ Information Resources Management

ISDN. See Integrated services digital networks

Kiosks. See Electronic kiosks

‘ ‘Last Mile’ service to the home, 76-82

Leadership, 9, 53, 103. See also Information Resources

Management leadership.

Local exchange carriers, 76-77

Locator system, 19, 75, 154-156. See also Directories;

Federal Infom~ation Lmcator System

Magnetic stripe cards, 5, 25, 26,4849, 85,88, 90

Management. See Information technology management

Maryland EBT pilot, 94

Minority groups, 110-112

Mobile access, 45-47

Mobile service centers, 6, 45

NARA, See National Archives and Records Administration

National Archives and Records Administration, 23, 139,

152-153, 156

National Information Infrastructure initiatives, 2, 17,25,71,

139

National Institute for Standards and Technology, 21,22,23,

42,53, 100, 136, 137, 139, 146, 147, 155, 163

National Performance Review, 2,9, 17, 139

National Public Telecomputing Network, 107-109

National Research and Education Network, 14,25,71-72,75.

See also Computer networking

National Science Foundation, 14, 73,75

National TechnicaIInfonnation Service, 20,39,75,130,153,

155, 158, 159

National Telecommunications and Information

Administration, 24, 25, 53, 120, 134, 137-139

Needs, meeting diverse, 10, 110-115

Network assistarmsflibrarians. See On-line assistants

Networking. See Computer networking

NH. See National Information Infrastructure

NIST, See NationaJ Institute for Standards and Technology

Not-for-profit groups, 17, 103, 108, 115, 120

NPR. See National Performance Review

NREN. See National Research and Education Network

NSF. See National Science Foundation

NSFNET, 13, 73, 74. See also Computer networking

NTIA. See National Telecommunications and Information

Administration

NTIS. See National Technical Information Service

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 21, 103, 134,

135, 136, 137, 145

Office of Management and Budget, 9, 13, 17, 18, 19,20,21,

22, 23, 24, 25, 26,52, 100, 101, 102, 125, 127, 128,

130, 136, 137, 139, 146-148, 153-155, 161

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, 22, 159

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, 20,22,

147, 155, 157, 158

Office of Science and Technology Policy, 24, 130, 135, 137,

139, 155

Off-line EBT system, 88-90. See also Smart cards

OIRA. See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB. See Office of Management and Budget

on-line assistants, 39, 54,75

On-line EBT system, 88-89. See also Magnetic stripe cards

One-stop service centers, 6,4243

@n gover~ent, 4,23,148-150

Open systems, 53-54

OSTP. See OffIce of Science and Technology Policy

Paperwork Reduction Act, 15-17, 19,20, 22, 124-125,

127-128, 131-132, 135, 146, 154, 162

Partnering. See Strategic partnering

Personal computers, 4,20,38, 108

Pilot projects, 2,7, 26,53, 86, 101, 129

Policy. See Information policy

PRA. See Paperwork Reduction Act

Pre-operational testing, 17, 18, 128, 129-130
Index I 178

Pricing of electronic service delivery, 156-159

Privacy Act, 15,23, 100, 143, 145

Privacy of personal information, 4,54,75, 143-146

Privacy Protection Comrnission/Board, 23, 146

Private commercial sector, 5, 17,49,103,107,111,120-121

Procurement procedures and policies, 4,22, 159-162

Provide~, service, 4,55,77,95, 103, 115, 120-121

Public access to Federal servk.es. See Access

Reinventing government, 2, 125, 136, 138, 139, 159

Remote access, 6, 24,25

RTK Net, 108, 110

Rural citizens, 19,24,25, 106

Rural Electx-iflcation Administration, 25,77

Security of personal information, 4,54,60, 143-148

Senior citizens, 19, 108, 114-115

SeniorNet, 114-115

Service to the citizen, 2,9, 125, 127-128

Smart cards, 5,25,26,48-49,85,90

Special Supplementary Program for Women, Infants and

Children, 11,85,86,87,90,91,95, 96, 117

Standards. See Technical standards

State/local involvement, 2,9,10,53,86,88-89,94, 101,103,

107, 115, 125-127, 129, 130, 133, 145. See also

Strategic partnering

Strategic partnering, 2,3, 10, 17,21,45,99, 102, 112,

115-121, 128

Strategies for success, 3, 17-18, 128, 131

Supplemental Security Income, 95,96

Technical standards, 52,60,82, 162-163

Technology policy, the adrmms “ “ tration’s, 2,9, 25, 137

Technology strategy. See Electronic delivery technology

strategy

Telecommunications infrastructure, 4,6,12-15,23-24,57-82

Telecommunications, role in electronic delivery, 58-61

Toxic Release Inventoxy, 108, 110, 149

Training, 11,95, 133

Universal service, 14-15,24

User-friendly applications, 2,39,54,74

Vendom See Private commercial sector; Providem

Videoconferencing, 4,26,44, 150

“Virtual” one-stop center, 43,45

Vision, importance of, 3, 128

Visions of electronic delivery, 31-36

Voluntary organizations, 17, 115

Washington State strategic directions, 127

WIC. See Special Supplementary Program for Women,

Infants and Children

Wyocard, 91, 117

.> U S GOVERNMENT PRINTINO OFFICE 1993 - 343-283 814 ‘96960