I am also curious about source documents. Any chance we could find who did not make the cut, at least for states? Arizona and Iowa just released new versions of their respective .govs (within the last few days) and I was looking to see where they landed on the 2009 list.

Jake, Thanks for your interest. You raise a legit concern -- but "at least one" does not a field make. Although I was not part of the evaluation team this year, the Center works hard to ensure that local governments receive recognition for good work. If you look across the field, you will find some that have used a third party (such as the one you mentioned), others that have collaborated with neighboring jurisdictions and still others that have done it by and for themselves. There's more than one way to get to a good result -- including both those that do it on a shoestring and those that get a little help from their friends, or outsiders.

I agree with Jake. Seems like these awards follow the money. It's a lot easier to win when you've got money to spend. Also, why isn't there a list of the losing sites? I'd be curious to know which states came in last and why.

According to the entry form, the judging criteria are: INNOVATION (30%) This criterion focuses on the "Wow!" factor - that is, the innovative use of technology or stand-out approaches. What we are looking for here is what hasn't been done before or what is cutting edge. We are also interested in new ways of innovating across agencies or jurisdictions and co-creation through social networks and other collaborative platforms. A competitive submission will clearly describe its latest innovation through a Web site, Web service or other online application, delivered across devices including mobility devices. It will also explain the degree of innovation, why the innovation was needed, and how the innovation has improved service delivery and the user experience. FUNCTIONALITY (50%) This criterion focuses on the functionality that supports end-to-end transactions with high ease of use and satisfaction for interactions between citizens, businesses and governments. A competitive submission will include but is not limited to: 1. Security: the ability to securely complete transactions: 2. Privacy: a plain language statement explaining safeguards for any personally identifiable information collected or displayed through the site: 3. Usability: clean appearance and ease of navigation, and commonality of look, feel and functionality among transactions or interactions of similar type (or within the same environment or domain); and, 4. Accessibility: a commitment to universal design consistent with accessibility standards (commonly known as Section 508 or W3C Level One guidelines) and subject to third party validation or certification. EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY (20%) This criterion focuses on measuring the impact of the solution on the operations of governmental institutions. A competitive submission will identify: 1. Whether a Return On Investment (ROI) method was formally used in assessing the impact of the solution; 2. If yes, which ROI was used (Cost Benefit, Value-add, Net Present Value, etc.; 3. What those measures indicate; 4. Combined with soft-dollar benefits, what the impact of the solution was on the cost structure of performing particular functions; and 5. The degree to which the Web site was a function of austerity measures and how it contributed to easing financial pressures while preserving service delivery.

Whoa. At least one of these is "powered by civica". How about choosing towns/cities that don't have their website designed & maintained by expensive companies? This kind of thing just isn't feasible for most towns nowadays.

Uath has great content, but according to WAVE (wave.webaim.org) it fails many ADA compliances tests. So, should it be elected the best site?

Dave, Here's the article that captures some of the reasons VB won

Andy, why not post a link to the entire report or source document? Thanks!

What is the criteria used to determine the winners?