The vast majority of the democratic dialogue between constituents and Congress is conducted through constituent correspondence. In many offices, managing and responding to constituent correspondence represents 50% of office resources. Moreover, the workflow and communications practices, while utilizing modern technology, have largely remained unchanged for 40 years. (Here is a 2-minute video depicting "The History of Congressional Correspondence.")
This section offers up ideas for offices to consider in tackling this challenge. Although offices approach mail management differently depending on their Representative's/Senator's priorities, tenure in office, and electoral situation, every office should find something that can help them improve their mail operations.
The goals of this section are to help offices: reduce overall workload; increase trust and satisfaction among constituents; and make your boss happier with the office mail operation.
Constituent correspondence continues to be one of the biggest headaches facing the modern congressional office, and innovations in this arena have the greatest potential to free staff time for other activities and improve constituent satisfaction. This memo outlines the innovations CMF believes can address problems many offices face in (a) the workflow processes involved in responding to constituent mail and (b) the content of responses. Our recommendations are based on years of study and guidance to congressional offices, and were chosen carefully because they can be easily implemented and potentially have significant positive impact on constituent communications.
Desired Outcomes
Reduce staff time spent on constituent correspondence
Decrease staff frustration/burnout/boredom responding to constituent mail
Increase constituent satisfaction with responses
Improve turnaround time from receipt to response
Constituent Correspondence Innovations
Below are the innovations we recommend offices implement. In parentheses are the letters which correspond to the desired outcomes (above) each innovation seeks to address.
Innovations that address workflow processes:
Engage differently with frequent communicators (a, b, d): All offices have constituents who communicate more frequently with their Member than other constituents. Every time you decide to respond, your office is utilizing resources. Some offices have found marked benefits in limiting the number of times they communicate with individual constituents. They accomplish this by responding only once per month per constituent and/or only exchanging one communication per issue rather than a prolonged back-and-forth engagement. Put more simply, they limit their responses to the so-called "frequent fliers" or "pen pals." One office estimates that this has reduced their overall volume of responses by 45%.
Develop a two-track mail system for quicker turnaround (a, b, d): The first track involves a robust letter library – a bank of responses that have already been approved and can be sent to constituents participating in form advocacy campaigns without additional review, editing, and approval. At most, these responses get matched by one staffer and approved (but not edited) by another staffer, but a well-trained and trusted LC or Staff Assistant (or even intern) should be able to handle most of these independently, saving the rest of the staff's time. Obviously new letters and new campaigns come into the office on a regular basis, and those would be placed on another track for more time-consuming research, drafting, editing, and approval. The idea behind this approach is to ensure that you have a dedicated staffer who can separate all mail into two very broad process categories: one track for existing form letters that can be quickly assigned and sent out in batches (resulting in a fast turnaround for the bulk of your incoming mail); and the other track where new text is required, thus necessitating additional steps.
Institute "mail zero" days (c, d): Many offices have a large backlog of mail and even more have slow turnaround times. The longer it takes to respond to a constituent, the more likely the response – no matter what it says – undermines constituents' views of their Members (e.g., "I sent you a note asking you to vote no on H.R. 1487 five weeks ago and didn't receive a reply until long after that vote took place"). During the kick-off meeting, Chief of Staff Kim Johnston outlined her office's approach – mail zero days. One day every two weeks, all staff spend the day writing, reviewing and sending mail until they have completely addressed any backlog the office might have.
Ensure staff receive training (a, b, d): A few hours spent training staff can save hundreds of hours on mail management. Correspondence management system (CMS) packages (IQ, Fireside21, iConstituent, etc.) have many features to save staff time and make mail management easier, but CMF has found that staffers responsible for mail intake, batching, sorting, reports and assignments aren't using those features. As a result, they spend far more time than necessary on administrative tasks. All of the CMS vendors offer free training, and CMF recommends anyone involved in mail management participate, even Chiefs and LDs, if they are frequent participants in the review and editing process. In addition, CMF provides free training to House staffers through the House Learning Center that offers a strategic approach to mail that can decrease the headaches an office experiences. Taken together, these resources can significantly reduce the amount of time spent on mail and improve turnaround time.
Call rather than write (a, c, d): Small campaigns and non-campaign messages from constituents cause a resource problem for offices. They require responses, but the ratio of the effort involved in a lengthy research and review process to the number of constituents served doesn't balance, so CMF recommends calling instead. Have an appropriate staffer familiar with the issue call constituents who have sent mail that are one-offs, part of campaigns that result in a small number of messages, or include too many issues to justify the amount of time it would take to craft a letter. Staffers must be trained in advance on how to handle the calls, but the time spent on training and making phone calls will save significant staff time, in the long run, especially when they simply leave a polite message on the constituent's voicemail. The office is viewed as responsive, and all it took was a few minutes of one staffer's time, rather than hours of office time.
Innovations that address drafting content:
Approach mail strategically with two tiers (a, b, d): Offices often respond to mail as if everything they receive is equally important. Limited resources leave staff scrambling to respond substantively to every message the office receives. Offices should instead determine which issues, organizations, and individuals are most important to the office's goals (because of Senator/Representative interest, committee assignment and district/state relevance) and implement a two-tier (as well as two-track) mail system to expedite the lower priority responses and spend time on the higher priority responses.
Tier 1: Communications from individuals, groups and organizations that are strategically important to the Member's goals or district/state receive the base response the office would send to constituents in Tier 1, as well as a little extra, such as a note about the legislator's activities on the issue, recent committee action, or a connection to something that happened in the district/state. (aim to have this make up no more than 30% of total output.
Tier 2: Communications that are less important (bills that never come to the floor, non-legislative priorities, people that disagree with you on non-strategic issues) receive a more generic, yet thoughtful, "I'm listening" response on the issue. If there is enough staff capacity, modify the form letter by referencing more specific detail about the issue. These letters should receive less stringent review. (this constitutes remainder, or 70%, of mail)
Draft shorter letters (a, b, c, d): Offices often have significant backlogs and constituents may have to wait for quite some time to get responses to their mail. The reasons for this are myriad, but CMF has routinely identified two main drivers: the drafting process is slow, especially when the staffer is conducting extensive legislative research and providing an exhaustive overview of an issue; and the review process is slow, especially when long drafts must be reviewed multiple times by multiple people before they can be sent. One simple answer is to draft shorter replies. Shorter messages can still be responsive, and they take far less time to draft and review, enabling them to get out the door more quickly. CMF recommends no response be longer than three paragraphs.
Construct value letters vs. process/policy letters (c): Most of the mail that reaches congressional offices is the result of organized campaigns. The people who send them generally support the organizations behind the campaigns, but they may not be thoroughly versed in the particulars of the issue on which they write, the Senator/Representative's position, or any other legislative activity on the issue. Offices often respond to this discrepancy by trying to "teach" the constituents about the issue – which committee the bill has been assigned to, its likelihood of passage, the history of the legislation in Congress, etc. Such "process" responses take a long time to research and draft, and they don't do a lot to build a relationship with the constituents. Moreover, constituents who participate in form message campaigns usually do not want or need such detail. They just want to express their views and feel they have been heard. CMF recommends responses always address these core questions: Does this convey that my boss is listening? Does it give the recipient a better understanding of my boss and/or my boss' values?
Create issue pages on your website (c, d): If you feel the need for legislative detail on particular issues, create new sections of your website. For example, a constituent writes asking the Senator/Representative to sponsor H.R. 1487. The bill has been referred to a committee on which the legislator doesn't sit and is unlikely to come for a vote, but the legislator is a passionate supporter of wilderness protections, the underlying intent of H.R. 1487. The office can create a section of the website outlining the Member's views and activities in support of wilderness protections. The response to the constituent would contain the usual thanks for your views, reference the Member's general support for the issue, and a link to the support page.
Eliminate pro/con letters (a, b, c, d): Value letters which seek to make connections with constituents rather than educating or persuading them can be shorter, easier to write, and more matter of fact than the letters most offices currently send. Many offices complicate their responses by crafting different messages for constituents who agree with the legislator's position and those who do not. This is a time-consuming practice that is not likely to increase constituent satisfaction. Writing one, short letter which makes a connection to the constituent, states the Member's position (if s/he has taken one), and/or conveys appreciation for the constituent's views can be much more satisfying to constituents than a long letter that tries to educate and argue.
Identify the source (b, c): There is a frequent disconnect between the motivations of the sender and the response that they ultimately receive from a Member of Congress. As discussed earlier, most letters offices receive are the result of coordinated campaigns. Those campaigns most often have a source – an action item that motivated the sender to participate in the campaign. That action item is usually discoverable by entering a sentence or two of text from the letter the office receives into a search engine. Reviewing the action alert which motivated constituents to send their messages before drafting a response could make the drafting process smoother and result in a better connection between the response letter and the constituent.
Constituent correspondence continues to be one of the biggest headaches facing the modern congressional office, and innovations in this arena have the greatest potential to free staff time for other activities and improve constituent satisfaction. This memo outlines the innovations CMF believes can address problems many offices face in (a) the workflow processes involved in responding to constituent mail and (b) the content of responses. Our recommendations are based on years of study and guidance to congressional offices, and were chosen carefully because they can be easily implemented and potentially have significant positive impact on constituent communications.
Desired Outcomes
Reduce staff time spent on constituent correspondence
Decrease staff frustration/burnout/boredom responding to constituent mail
Increase constituent satisfaction with responses
Improve turnaround time from receipt to response
Constituent Correspondence Innovations
Below are the innovations we recommend offices implement. In parentheses are the letters which correspond to the desired outcomes (above) each innovation seeks to address.
Innovations that address workflow processes:
Engage differently with frequent communicators (a, b, d): All offices have constituents who communicate more frequently with their Member than other constituents. Every time you decide to respond, your office is utilizing resources. Some offices have found marked benefits in limiting the number of times they communicate with individual constituents. They accomplish this by responding only once per month per constituent and/or only exchanging one communication per issue rather than a prolonged back-and-forth engagement. Put more simply, they limit their responses to the so-called "frequent fliers" or "pen pals." One office estimates that this has reduced their overall volume of responses by 45%.
Develop a two-track mail system for quicker turnaround (a, b, d): The first track involves a robust letter library – a bank of responses that have already been approved and can be sent to constituents participating in form advocacy campaigns without additional review, editing, and approval. At most, these responses get matched by one staffer and approved (but not edited) by another staffer, but a well-trained and trusted LC or Staff Assistant (or even intern) should be able to handle most of these independently, saving the rest of the staff's time. Obviously new letters and new campaigns come into the office on a regular basis, and those would be placed on another track for more time-consuming research, drafting, editing, and approval. The idea behind this approach is to ensure that you have a dedicated staffer who can separate all mail into two very broad process categories: one track for existing form letters that can be quickly assigned and sent out in batches (resulting in a fast turnaround for the bulk of your incoming mail); and the other track where new text is required, thus necessitating additional steps.
Institute "mail zero" days (c, d): Many offices have a large backlog of mail and even more have slow turnaround times. The longer it takes to respond to a constituent, the more likely the response – no matter what it says – undermines constituents' views of their Members (e.g., "I sent you a note asking you to vote no on H.R. 1487 five weeks ago and didn't receive a reply until long after that vote took place"). During the kick-off meeting, Chief of Staff Kim Johnston outlined her office's approach – mail zero days. One day every two weeks, all staff spend the day writing, reviewing and sending mail until they have completely addressed any backlog the office might have.
Ensure staff receive training (a, b, d): A few hours spent training staff can save hundreds of hours on mail management. Correspondence management system (CMS) packages (IQ, Fireside21, iConstituent, etc.) have many features to save staff time and make mail management easier, but CMF has found that staffers responsible for mail intake, batching, sorting, reports and assignments aren't using those features. As a result, they spend far more time than necessary on administrative tasks. All of the CMS vendors offer free training, and CMF recommends anyone involved in mail management participate, even Chiefs and LDs, if they are frequent participants in the review and editing process. In addition, CMF provides free training to House staffers through the House Learning Center that offers a strategic approach to mail that can decrease the headaches an office experiences. Taken together, these resources can significantly reduce the amount of time spent on mail and improve turnaround time.
Call rather than write (a, c, d): Small campaigns and non-campaign messages from constituents cause a resource problem for offices. They require responses, but the ratio of the effort involved in a lengthy research and review process to the number of constituents served doesn't balance, so CMF recommends calling instead. Have an appropriate staffer familiar with the issue call constituents who have sent mail that are one-offs, part of campaigns that result in a small number of messages, or include too many issues to justify the amount of time it would take to craft a letter. Staffers must be trained in advance on how to handle the calls, but the time spent on training and making phone calls will save significant staff time, in the long run, especially when they simply leave a polite message on the constituent's voicemail. The office is viewed as responsive, and all it took was a few minutes of one staffer's time, rather than hours of office time.
Innovations that address drafting content:
Approach mail strategically with two tiers (a, b, d): Offices often respond to mail as if everything they receive is equally important. Limited resources leave staff scrambling to respond substantively to every message the office receives. Offices should instead determine which issues, organizations, and individuals are most important to the office's goals (because of Senator/Representative interest, committee assignment and district/state relevance) and implement a two-tier (as well as two-track) mail system to expedite the lower priority responses and spend time on the higher priority responses.
Tier 1: Communications from individuals, groups and organizations that are strategically important to the Member's goals or district/state receive the base response the office would send to constituents in Tier 1, as well as a little extra, such as a note about the legislator's activities on the issue, recent committee action, or a connection to something that happened in the district/state. (aim to have this make up no more than 30% of total output.
Tier 2: Communications that are less important (bills that never come to the floor, non-legislative priorities, people that disagree with you on non-strategic issues) receive a more generic, yet thoughtful, "I'm listening" response on the issue. If there is enough staff capacity, modify the form letter by referencing more specific detail about the issue. These letters should receive less stringent review. (this constitutes remainder, or 70%, of mail)
Draft shorter letters (a, b, c, d): Offices often have significant backlogs and constituents may have to wait for quite some time to get responses to their mail. The reasons for this are myriad, but CMF has routinely identified two main drivers: the drafting process is slow, especially when the staffer is conducting extensive legislative research and providing an exhaustive overview of an issue; and the review process is slow, especially when long drafts must be reviewed multiple times by multiple people before they can be sent. One simple answer is to draft shorter replies. Shorter messages can still be responsive, and they take far less time to draft and review, enabling them to get out the door more quickly. CMF recommends no response be longer than three paragraphs.
Construct value letters vs. process/policy letters (c): Most of the mail that reaches congressional offices is the result of organized campaigns. The people who send them generally support the organizations behind the campaigns, but they may not be thoroughly versed in the particulars of the issue on which they write, the Senator/Representative's position, or any other legislative activity on the issue. Offices often respond to this discrepancy by trying to "teach" the constituents about the issue – which committee the bill has been assigned to, its likelihood of passage, the history of the legislation in Congress, etc. Such "process" responses take a long time to research and draft, and they don't do a lot to build a relationship with the constituents. Moreover, constituents who participate in form message campaigns usually do not want or need such detail. They just want to express their views and feel they have been heard. CMF recommends responses always address these core questions: Does this convey that my boss is listening? Does it give the recipient a better understanding of my boss and/or my boss' values?
Create issue pages on your website (c, d): If you feel the need for legislative detail on particular issues, create new sections of your website. For example, a constituent writes asking the Senator/Representative to sponsor H.R. 1487. The bill has been referred to a committee on which the legislator doesn't sit and is unlikely to come for a vote, but the legislator is a passionate supporter of wilderness protections, the underlying intent of H.R. 1487. The office can create a section of the website outlining the Member's views and activities in support of wilderness protections. The response to the constituent would contain the usual thanks for your views, reference the Member's general support for the issue, and a link to the support page.
Eliminate pro/con letters (a, b, c, d): Value letters which seek to make connections with constituents rather than educating or persuading them can be shorter, easier to write, and more matter of fact than the letters most offices currently send. Many offices complicate their responses by crafting different messages for constituents who agree with the legislator's position and those who do not. This is a time-consuming practice that is not likely to increase constituent satisfaction. Writing one, short letter which makes a connection to the constituent, states the Member's position (if s/he has taken one), and/or conveys appreciation for the constituent's views can be much more satisfying to constituents than a long letter that tries to educate and argue.
Identify the source (b, c): There is a frequent disconnect between the motivations of the sender and the response that they ultimately receive from a Member of Congress. As discussed earlier, most letters offices receive are the result of coordinated campaigns. Those campaigns most often have a source – an action item that motivated the sender to participate in the campaign. That action item is usually discoverable by entering a sentence or two of text from the letter the office receives into a search engine. Reviewing the action alert which motivated constituents to send their messages before drafting a response could make the drafting process smoother and result in a better connection between the response letter and the constituent.
CMF has been deeply involved in the topic of handling constituent mail since its inception. We have been teaching writing courses, researching mail volumes and office practices, advising individual offices on their practices, and surveying the public and congressional staff on their perceptions of its impact. Through this work, CMF has identified five core elements that are necessary for a successful mail program.
Set the tone at the top. The Senator/Representative and/or the Chief of Staff must establish the "tone at the top" that places a priority on constituent mail. This can't just be lip service; they must live their commitment. This means they cannot let mail pile up on their desks or in their inboxes waiting for approval. Mail should be discussed regularly at staff meetings, and mail reports should include status of mail by staffer. The purpose of mail reports is not to" shame and blame," but to provide transparency and accountability. NOTE: Be sure to utilize CMS/CSS software to personalize reports to your needs. Don't track in Excel!
Limit Senator/Representative involvement. Senators/Representatives should only be involved in the mail to the extent of his/her ability to add value and not be a hindrance. Since most Members are stretched to their limit with other duties, CMF recommends they only review major or controversial letters and letters to VIPs. This function can also be delegated to the Chief of Staff, Legislative Director, or Communications Director.
Give autonomy to a well-trained Legislative Correspondent/Mail Manager. Offices with a smooth mail program have invested time and energy into training their LC/Mail Manager. Once senior staff is confident the LC/Mail Manager understands the Senator's/Representative's style of writing and political views, as well as the office's mail processes, that person should be given a good deal of autonomy to manage the mail program themselves. This authority must be conveyed to the rest of the staff so that everyone, including Legislative Assistants and others involved in the mail, respects his/her authority. Offices that aren't comfortable vesting this level of authority to a junior staffer should designate a Senior Mail Staffer who is in charge of the program and works closely with the LC/Mail Manager.
Have an agreed-upon approval process and turnaround time(s). Offices should create a process for answering mail that includes roles and responsibilities; turnaround times for each step of the way; standardized format for letters, etc. This process should be written down, shared with all staff involved with mail, and reviewed periodically to ensure it is keeping up with demands and office capability. The ultimate goal is to create a mail manual that can be shared with incoming staff, thus shortening their learning curve and assuring adherence to office standards.
Take full advantage of CMS/CSS technology. Your constituent database software (CMS/CSS) represents the second largest budget item for offices, so be sure you're getting your money's worth. At the very least, all staff who answer mail should be trained on the CMS/CSS. This includes district/state office staff who use it for casework. CMS/CSS vendors make help available through classes, webinars, instant messaging, and over-the-phone help. Technology providers also update their software to help offices meet new challenges, so keep up with improvements.
CMF has been deeply involved in the topic of handling constituent mail since its inception. We have been teaching writing courses, researching mail volumes and office practices, advising individual offices on their practices, and surveying the public and congressional staff on their perceptions of its impact. Through this work, CMF has identified five core elements that are necessary for a successful mail program.
Set the tone at the top. The Senator/Representative and/or the Chief of Staff must establish the "tone at the top" that places a priority on constituent mail. This can't just be lip service; they must live their commitment. This means they cannot let mail pile up on their desks or in their inboxes waiting for approval. Mail should be discussed regularly at staff meetings, and mail reports should include status of mail by staffer. The purpose of mail reports is not to" shame and blame," but to provide transparency and accountability. NOTE: Be sure to utilize CMS/CSS software to personalize reports to your needs. Don't track in Excel!
Limit Senator/Representative involvement. Senators/Representatives should only be involved in the mail to the extent of his/her ability to add value and not be a hindrance. Since most Members are stretched to their limit with other duties, CMF recommends they only review major or controversial letters and letters to VIPs. This function can also be delegated to the Chief of Staff, Legislative Director, or Communications Director.
Give autonomy to a well-trained Legislative Correspondent/Mail Manager. Offices with a smooth mail program have invested time and energy into training their LC/Mail Manager. Once senior staff is confident the LC/Mail Manager understands the Senator's/Representative's style of writing and political views, as well as the office's mail processes, that person should be given a good deal of autonomy to manage the mail program themselves. This authority must be conveyed to the rest of the staff so that everyone, including Legislative Assistants and others involved in the mail, respects his/her authority. Offices that aren't comfortable vesting this level of authority to a junior staffer should designate a Senior Mail Staffer who is in charge of the program and works closely with the LC/Mail Manager.
Have an agreed-upon approval process and turnaround time(s). Offices should create a process for answering mail that includes roles and responsibilities; turnaround times for each step of the way; standardized format for letters, etc. This process should be written down, shared with all staff involved with mail, and reviewed periodically to ensure it is keeping up with demands and office capability. The ultimate goal is to create a mail manual that can be shared with incoming staff, thus shortening their learning curve and assuring adherence to office standards.
Take full advantage of CMS/CSS technology. Your constituent database software (CMS/CSS) represents the second largest budget item for offices, so be sure you're getting your money's worth. At the very least, all staff who answer mail should be trained on the CMS/CSS. This includes district/state office staff who use it for casework. CMS/CSS vendors make help available through classes, webinars, instant messaging, and over-the-phone help. Technology providers also update their software to help offices meet new challenges, so keep up with improvements.
The public's expectations of how they interact with elected officials has changed dramatically over the last few decades, but many offices haven't changed their practices to match. Now that everyone has access to many sources on congressional activity (some reliable, some not), people no longer rely on congressional offices to explain bills and provide them with legislative updates. Instead constituents want to hear how the Representative/Senator feels about issues that are important to them.
Another dramatic difference is the rise of issue campaigns generated by advocacy organizations. For most offices, this type of message now accounts for 75%-85% of incoming mail. This begs the question: Do constituents want or expect a full response or are they just making their position known to the Senator/Representative? In looking at a few offices' email open rates (available in most correspondence management systems), it seems that only about half of the recipients open the office's reply. Constituents want to know they've been heard. The key is to write content that assures them they have been.
CMF asked one of the offices that made our recommended changes to their mail system if their Member had noticed the changes. The staffer replied, "Yes, because constituents noticed and told him! They commented that they feel like they know where he stands and have even forwarded messages to their friends." She also indicated that the office's greatest success with the changes was that they were able to keep up with the increased communications in 2017! They produced higher-quality letters in less time, so they responded to many more messages with less staff time involved, even during the peak of early-2017 communications volumes.
Why You Should Do This
Many congressional offices are writing letters like it's 1979, but that's not what constituents expect in the current 140-character-limit world. Offices should focus more on connecting with constituents in short messages and less on trying to persuade them with legislative research or impress them with congressional letterhead and Member signatures.
What We Learned
Focus on connecting, not persuading. Instead of giving lengthy policy explanations or legislative status updates, write shorter responses that focus on your Representative's/Senator's views and actions. Link to existing content such as YouTube videos of him or her speaking; weekly explanation of votes on major bills on the webpage; or issue statements on Facebook. This will add a more personal touch to your replies and help constituents understand why your boss is voting a certain way.
Eliminate pro/con letters. Many offices write two separate letters for each issue: one for those who oppose and one for those who support his/her view. Doing so creates additional work for staff and risks sending someone the wrong letter. If your boss has taken a position, simply state it and his/her reasoning in a matter-of-fact tone. No need to persuade or be defensive. If your boss has not taken a position, simply connect to the issue and constituents in a different way.
Create higher value, but fewer, responses. Instead of creating a separate message for each individual campaign, group them together by broad policy areas (ex: changes to the tax code, protecting natural resources, regulatory reform). Then craft a high quality response on that topic with lots of links describing the Representative's/Senator's position and action taken to support it.
Involve the communications staff in constituent correspondence. In most offices, legislative staff oversee constituent correspondence and communications staff handle outreach. However, by coordinating, the office can develop common messages and talking points that, once approved can be repurposed for a variety of uses: responses to constituents, phone campaigns, Facebook, the website, and so on. This ensures consistency and reduces drafting and approval time. It can also help ensure responses to constituents are high-value and not too detailed. A few offices have even changed their organizational chart to make the Communications Director—instead of the Legislative Director—oversee all aspects of constituent correspondence.
Technology and advocacy organizations have made it extremely easy for the public to communicate with their Representatives and Senators. The record-breaking rise of civic engagement has increased mail volume to unprecedented levels. In the first six months of 2017, offices saw their mail increase threefold or more over 2016 levels . . . which were already so high offices were struggling to manage it. This is not business-as-usual, and offices don't have the luxury of continuing the same practices they used even as recently as 2016.
Why You Should Do This
Kathleen Gayle is currently Legislative and Communications Assistant for Congressman Wittman's (VA-01) office. She discusses her office's participation in the Congressional Management Foundation's Congress 3.0 project, specifically the work she participated in for their mail operations. After participating in CMF's experiment, they saw faster turnaround time and better time management within the office.
What We Learned
Answer difficult mail with a phone call. Your inbox probably contains a lot of messages that are difficult to answer for one reason or another. Offices particularly struggle with the "one-offs" – mail that isn't part of a larger campaign or tied to specific legislation. Instead of drafting a written reply, authorize and train staff to answer messages with phone calls. The office will save time in drafting and approving. It will also make constituents feel that their issue or opinion really matters since you are taking the time to call them and personally interact with them.
Institute "Mail Zero Day." Implementing a Mail Zero Day helps to keep backlogs under control by distributing the work throughout the office. This ensures constituents are responded to, and it helps staffers with especially heavy volumes or workloads keep up. These designated days can be used either to address an existing backlog or as an ongoing practice to ensure mail is addressed in a timely fashion. On Mail Zero Day, all staff dedicate their time to drafting and approving messages. The goal is to have no pending mail at the end of the day. Depending on what works best for your office, you can implement them once a month, bi-weekly, or whenever it's needed.
Don't answer every message from pen pals and ping-pongers. When the same constituent bombards an office with messages constantly, the office should reply to one or two inquiries, focusing on the issues that have pre-approved text ready. Similarly, constituent messages that are responding to your office's answer (ping-ponging) should be closed out unless a clarification truly needs to be made. One office reported reducing their overall mail volume 40% by limiting the number of pen pal and ping-pong messages to which they respond!
As the volume of incoming constituent communications rises exponentially across Capitol Hill, the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) has pulled together information that might help your office deal with the deluge.