Blog

Earlier this week at our House training on congressional websites and the Gold Mouse Report, one of the attendees asked what his office - as an award winning office - could do to improve their website and perhaps get a Gold or even the Platinum Mouse Award next time around. I love that question because it shows that an office is not resting on their laurels happy that they won an award. It's something we get a lot. The best want to be better. Regrettably, we don't always see that same focus and drive in the offices at the bottom of the list.

Today we conducted training programs for House and Senate congressional staff on "Lessons from the 111th Congress Gold Mouse Project". Attendees looked at examples of successful websites, learned how to immediately improve their websites and received advice and insight from a panel of staff from award-winning congressional offices.

If you missed it, download the presentation handouts here: Gold-Mouse-Training-handouts (PDF) (9.3 MB).

In the second installment of "Inside the Hill", congressional staff discuss what it takes to create and maintain an effective and useful website.

This is the first post in our series on "building a better website."

After the initial excitement of the Mouse Award announcement wears off, congressional offices (even the award winners!) have one question: How do we make our website better?

In a May 11, 2010 guest column in Roll Call, titled "Mistrust Unavoidable in Grass-Roots Efforts," (subscription required) Amy Showalter and Kelton Rhoads asserted that efforts among grassroots practitioners to develop a "code of ethics" or "code of conduct" were unnecessary.

CMF has been working on this issue for several years. Through extensive research, we believe that it is possible for grassroots advocacy campaigns that adhere to a voluntary code of ethics to engender the trust that the vast majority of them deserve. Perhaps the biggest benefit of a code of ethics would be the ability for ethical, best-practice practitioners to distinguish themselves and their campaigns from those that seek to influence policy at any cost, ethical or not.

Website Grades Were Sent to Offices Today

This afternoon, we sent e-mails to Chiefs of Staff and Staff Directors notifying them of their office's website grade in the 111th Congress evaluations. Don't worry — these grades are confidential and are not provided to anyone but the office itself.

Naturally, we've been fielding numerous calls and e-mails from staff all over the Hill. Some are pleasantly surprised by their performance — others not so much.

But no matter where you fall on the grade spectrum, we have some good news for everyone:

1. There is plenty of time to improve your site before the 112th Congress evaluations.
2. Anyone, and we mean ANYONE, can win a Mouse Award by following the lead of the best sites.
3. And, for those offices wanting to know more than their overall score, you can purchase detailed Website Report Cards that provide grades for each of the major categories that sites were evaluated on.

We hope that you receive this information in the spirit it's given. Our mission is to help you communicate more effectively online. Just don't shoot the messenger.

Last Wednesday, we brought together Members and staff for the 111th Congress Gold Mouse Awards to celebrate online innovation on Capitol Hill. For the first time, we gave Platinum Mouse Awards to the #1 website in each category: House Members, Senate Members, committees, and leadership offices.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, and Rep. Steve Israel, three of our Platinum Mouse Award winners, took the stage to accept their awards and talk about the importance of using the Web to communicate with constituents.

How is the Partnership funded?

The Partnership For A More Perfect Union is a research center at the Congressional Management Foundation and is funded through foundation grants, fee-for-service programs, and membership of its Partner community.

For town hall meetings to be effective and deliberative - defined as the discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue - citizens need to be able to hear each other and the Member. Likewise, Members of Congress need the opportunity to explain their own policy positions in a face-to-face venue and to hear feedback from as broad and representative a group of their constituents as possible.

Every time we release the results of our Web site evaluations, the first thing most people ask is: 'Who had the worst sites?'