In 1998, the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) embarked on a ground-breaking research project: to study best practices in congressional websites with the goal of providing Congress with guidance on how to use this emerging technology to improve constituents' communication with, and understanding of, the institution. Three years later the initiative was boosted by a two-year grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to create the Congress Online Project, in association with The George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management.
The project had an ambitious goal: develop a methodology for evaluating more than 600 congressional personal office, committee and leadership websites. CMF spent a year conducting focus groups with citizens, examining private sector research, and even polling reporters on their expectations when interacting with congressional websites. We then engaged in a thorough assessment process, assigning grades to every website on Capitol Hill. The strategy was: by highlighting the best practices, and playing to politicians' natural competitiveness with a grading system, Congress would better utilize online communications tools, thereby better serving citizens.
The initial results were not promising: 10% of congressional websites received grades of A or B, and 90% received grades of C, D or F. The 2002 CMF report on congressional websites stated:
"(T)he large majority of congressional offices treat their Web sites as ancillary to their duties, rather than integral to them. They don't see them a deserving priority attention and they devote minimal office time to them. They update them haphazardly or when time permits. They post content that highlights the activities and achievements of the Member rather than creating content specifically geared to meeting the needs of their audiences."
What happened in the next 12 months was remarkable. CMF held more than 200 sessions with individual congressional offices, explaining the research and identifying deficiencies in their online communications. When CMF again assessed congressional websites and issued a report in 2003, the results were markedly different. Using the same criteria, the percentage of congressional websites receiving an A or B rose from 10% to 50%. Both as a result of CMF's encouragement, and the innate intuition of Members and staff that the Internet offered significant political and communications potential, an era and culture of continual learning and improvement began.
Over the last decade, Congress experimented with content and features that had varying degrees of success. Blogs captured special attention five to six years ago – until staff and Members realized that it took a lot of effort to transcribe daily musings in an efficient and interesting way. Congressional podcasts were a fad – until Congress realized that its content was competing for audience attention on the same device (an iPod) on which the audience also had Ray Charles, NPR and Lady Gaga. These features and tools have been supplanted by newer innovations, such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
Now there are signs that Congress really does "get" technology and the value to individual Members, the institution of Congress, and constituents. IPads are common on the House floor, Members in the House and Senate display extraordinary creativity and transparency in their use of social media, and institutional offices continue to develop new methods to help Members use technology to enhance the relationship and communications between citizens and Congress.
Most notably, the 112th Congress Gold Mouse Awards: Best Practices in Online Communications on Capitol Hill documents the biggest leap forward in the vast majority of websites in the history of our research. In the past two years, the most common congressional website grade rose from an F to a B. CMF theorizes that this great leap could be a result of new attention on social media. With the shifting of resources to constituent communications (documented in CMF's 2011 Communicating with Congress research), there appears to be greater emphasis on all online resources.
And yet, there continue to be noticeable and embarrassing laggards. More than one-third of congressional websites received a D or F grade. (To receive one of these substandard grades, the following is likely: the website design hasn't been changed in the last three to five years, the content is woefully out of date and explanations of basic services – such as how to receive casework help from the office – is nonexistent.) This is not an abstract problem. When a constituent tries to get information from an office online, and gets no answers, the constituent's thoughts could range from, "What are they hiding?" to "They don't care about me." Both emotional responses contribute to cynicism about government in America and Congress' historically low approval ratings.
Fortunately, these cases are the minority. This report demonstrates the outstanding effort, contribution and transparency of the best websites on the Capitol Hill. The winners of the 112th Congress Gold Mouse Awards clearly have devoted substantial resources and creativity to building "virtual offices." They have sought ways to ensure that their constituents and stakeholders experience convenient avenues and tools for accessing services and information related to government processes. Most important, these Members and staff have displayed a degree of transparency and efficiency that ultimately enhances the image of Congress and helps to improve confidence in our democratic institutions.
