While the capacity to engage citizens in greater civic participation and interaction with goverment, questions linger as to whether the willingness of citizens to engage through digital government, especially those at the margins-- like young people. Arizona, Michigan, Washington, Illinois and Wisconsin are the top digital states, according to the eponymous survey released on 11/4/02 by the Center for Digital Government. The study, conducted in conjunction with Government Technology magazine, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and underwritten by AMS and Microsoft, ranked states according to their readiness for incorporating technology across a range of areas and services, including: social and education services (including program administration, voting information, and distance learning law enforcement and the courts; access to laws and regulations; e-commerce and e-procurement capacity (enabling online submissions of payments, forms, and paperwork); interagency technology infrastructure and information technology adoption; and GIS use for mapping, data analysis, and management for transportation and economic development projects. Though the findings emphasize the best practices unique to individual states, the most notable aspect of the research is that states are continuing to invest in electronic government efforts on a long-term basis, despite bleak economic pictures, political turnover, and difficult policy priorities priorities. Whether it is due to potential savings in terms of operational costs, or a means to stimulate greater citizen interaction with government and overall civic participation, it is clear that states are finding ways to address a range of difficult, if not often competing, ends. That tension is addressed by a series of reports from the UK-based Hansard Society, an educational nonprofit consisting of lawmakers, media, academic, and citizens engaged in the parliamentary process to increase civic participation. Its June 2002 Digital Jury findings stand out in its examination of one segment of the online—and offline—public often overlooked, if not marginalized, in civic affairs: young people. The goal of the Digital Jury was to determine how well younger online users took advantage of civic and political information from online versus offline sources, including how they found, evaluated, and acted upon what was available. The "jury" consisted of 100 British youth and young adults, ranging in age from 16 to 24, whose online activity relative to civic and political information were monitored from October 2001 until April 2002. The jury was assigned a number of tasks associated with finding particulate information and services across different areas and levels of government, emphasizing search engines, media, print sources as tools. A majority, 85%, claimed no party affiliation, and 69% had never contacted their member of parliament. Of those old enough to vote, 56.3% did so in the previous general election (compared to a total 39% of the overall young adult voting population). Nearly 60% of the sample, before the study, spent more than 5 hours online, yet while 74% claimed to have visited a government-related website, nearly 70% had never visited the parliament (legislative) site. While 67% bought at least one newspaper weekly, 75% visited a newspaper website. Comparatively, 90% watched television news at least once a week, the same percentage which visited the main television news channel’s website. With respect to reliance on search engines to find the requested information, the young people found it easier to locate national-level information and resources than local information, because of their visibility and prevalence. Far too often, relevant local results are difficult to locate, due to too many results in general, and, interestingly, too many unrelated search results from US sources crowding out relevant targets. Faulty search engines, poorly designed sites, redundancy and inconsistency across sites, and lack of updated information also caused difficulties for the users, because there was no way to screen out sources which could be trusted, or which were at least connected to an easier to find national-level resource. Though not directly related, the study also examined the viability of online interaction to help engage and inform citizens, and the types of information sources in general that are most trusted around civic and political information. The pool was examined on these two items by gender, age (under and over 21), media viewership, paper readership (broadsheet or traditional, tabloid or “alternative”, or non-readers), and voting tendencies. For an example of how online discussion forums play a role in local neighborhood-polic relations, read this 11/10/02 Washington Post article Males and those under 21 were both more likely to utilize, and enjoy, online discussion forums and chat as a medium for learning about politics and social life than females or those over 21. Non-newspaper readers were more likely to enjoy online discussions than readers of either persuasion, but not at all likely to voluntarily use them, while tabloid readers were more likely to utilize and enjoy online forums for learning about civic affairs. When comparing television and the web as a venue for political discussions, television was more generally preferred and considered more informative, but the web was considered more accommodating of public participation. In the study population, females, those who voted, those 21 and older, those who read broadsheet newspaper, and those currently employed all expressed a moderate to strong degree of confidence in online sources of information. In terms of overall trustworthiness of different sources of information, radio and television news, academic textbooks, and broadsheet newspapers scored high among young people. Most telling are the criteria articulated by the young people which they use to determine the value of an online information source:

• reputation of the online source
• trustworthiness of the entity
• site’s attempt to sell something or push a specific perspective
• quality of presentation and site design
• depth to the content provided
• availability of other sources for comparison

When asked to lay out advice for others looking for government or political information, the jury suggested starting with a well-known and well-regarded sites and following the links it provides, complementing search engine results of sought-after sources with those from differing perspectives. Though there are certainly differences between American and British political culture and societal forces might help flesh out relevant details, the importance of defining even these traits among the online youth surveyed cannot be overlooked. The Center for Voting and Democracy’s Steven Hill and Rashad Robinson, in an 11.7.02 Alternet commentary, point out that despite their consistently low participation in the voting process, young people are not apathetic with respect to civic life. Witness, for example, the record numbers of young people who volunteer on a wide range of community issues. The lack of connection young people make between community participation through volunteerism, and its extension through the act of voting, is telling, according to Hill and Robinson, because it underscores how political groups and community resources fail to actively court their involvement, and to do so in a way that provides information on what participation entails. In short, a lack of engagement leads to a lack of knowledge which feeds apathy. The ability to find and utilize government information and services is predicated upon a certain level of knowledge or familiarity around that which is sought. The Hansard Digital Jury findings underscore that providing greater access to information and services, even among a group perceived as technologically more savvy but not necessarily familiar with government, does not guarantee that those resources can actually be used. If digital government succeeds in making more information and greater level of service available, without paying attention to more general knowledge gaps among its users, the potential for disengagement through this potential viable new sphere is raised.