There appears to be considerable variance between what constituents want and what Congress needs, according to two reports on congressional websites released this year. The Congress Online Project's November 2001 report and the Advocacy Group's February 2001 report provide a useful balance of perspectives around public attitudes and expectations towards individual member websites, and ways these potentially valuable resources can be improved.

The Advocacy Group

The Advocacy Group report was based on an in-house site review of 540 individual member websites (including the five non-voting delegates in the U.S. House of Representatives) with respect to 24 design criteria deemed beneficial to improved online communications. The presence of the design elements yielded a corresponding numerical score for each site, and then averaged to provide comparisons by chamber, party, and members versus non-members of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Some interesting numbers emerge from the findings:

• 100% of the Senate has websites, but only 95% of House members have sites
• 87% of congressional sites accept e-mail, only 12% of the Senate and 15% of the House provide e-mail updates or newsletters for constituents
• 48% of the Senate and nearly 29% of the House do not provide fresh content (within two weeks)-- and 15% of the Senate and 19% of the House member sites do not even feature legislative or political accomplishments. Some 80% of member sites in both chambers, however, do provide press releases on their sites in some form.
• Less than 6% of House or Senate member sites provide the means to access member voting records, and only about 5% of member sites in either chamber provide a copy of the member schedules
• 90% of all member sites featured constituent services information, but only 8% of Senate and 4% of House member sites featured frequently-asked questions by constituents
• 83% if all sites featured links and information on the district or federal government, but only 40% organized content by issue area, and only 39% of Senate and about 20% of House sites incorporated a search engine to make information easier to find

Congress Online Project

The Congress Online Project reported considerations around the needs and preferences of constituents, drawing responses from a total of 80 participants in eight focus groups conducted in four cities. Two groups were convened in each city. One group consisted of actively-engaged people-- those who have interacted with lawmakers, or who are informed around policy activity and legislative affairs. The second comprised people less interested in legislative or policy matters.

Each group was asked their perceptions around congressional office public communications practices, their experience communicating with their members, and the information considered most desired by constituents. Each group was then asked to examine the same set of four individual member web sites-- one Democrat and one Republican from both the House and Senate-- in order to glean those factors that would facilitate usage and encourage repeat visitation by constituents first and foremost. The sites represented a range between heavy and non-use of graphics; media to constituent focus; information-dissemination to service-provision models; and segmented to general organization of sites.

With respect to general member communications, constituents felt that there was:

• too little information is conveyed to constituents on too infrequent a basis-- except during election periods
• limited information which explains how members actually *represent* constituents-- particularly what fills up a member's schedule during legislative sessions and recess periods
• poor explanations around the rationale for members' votes or positions on issues
• too mechanisms sufficient to receive input and feedback on issues of importance to constituents on a regular basis, in a manner that is timely and convenient; acknowledges the value of that contribution (even when at variance from member positions); and facilitates direct responses back to constituents

Findings

Interestingly, both reports provide significant overlap in their findings and recommendations The Advocacy Group report recommends that member sites incorporate:

easy-to-recognize URLs
• fresh content, including press releases from members
• well-labeled and well-partitioned homepage, incorporating enough "teaser" information to encourage visitor access to other parts of the site
• tools to collect e-mail from users
• full contact information for member and district offices
• online polls (although it cites hosted services, which need to be checked for their policy on data collected from users)
• basic information on constituent services
• information targeted to specific constituent segments
• federal government and district-related websites
• specific member legislative and political accomplishments
• member voting records
• content targeted to kids
• answers to constituent frequently-asked questions
• member schedules
• multimedia content
• animated graphics
• search engine, rather than relying upon navigational links
• foreign language translation

When asked to provide insight as to the most appreciated or desired elements on member websites, the Congress Online Project report participants suggested a preference for:

• content-rich sites kept current (within 2-3 weeks), which utilize few (or no) graphics (especially animated graphics), but do incorporate large fonts, white space, well-labeled and well-organized sections
• feedback points that are easy-to-find and easy-to-use
• member votes and explanations of policy positions
• legislation sponsored by members, and
• member schedules and details about the committees on which they serve
• online polls which allow for anonymous participation and surveys allowing more substantive input, with information on the outcomes and means to which contributions are applied
• contact information
• information on the congressional district, if not a map of all congressional districts for the state
• description of major policy issues before Congress
• information geared towards young people to foster more interest in legislative activity
• answers to frequently asked questions by constituents
• anonymous polling, even though unscientific, on issues of concern to constituents: assumed not to require staff responses
• prominently placed feedback forms with the means and commitment to ensure that staff do respond to questions and concerns and comments
• easily located and remembered web addresses, like"member.house.gov", rather than relying on the current template of "http://www.house.gov/last-name" or "http://www.senate.gov/~last-name". The Congress Online report, however, notes that the Senate has made already made it possible for members to utilize "member.senate.gov" for websites. URLs should be incorporated into standard communication practices by member offices.
• opportunities for constituent input to help improve the website, and opportunities to capture and reflect constituent comment on issues of importance
• e-mail newsletters in order to keep specific segments of constituents updated on a regular basis (ostensibly to also help inform constituents who prefer not to check the website or read a printed newsletter)
• member accomplishments that do not cross the line into shameless self-promotion

Considerations

While both reports provide useful (and to some degree easily-implemented) solutions for member websites, there are some points to raise with each. Though it's implied that some factors mattered more than others, none of criteria in the Advocacy Group report appear to have been individually weighted before they were compared across different groupings. It is therefore difficult to ascertain the relative importance of each factor. Additionally some of the evaluation factors, and some key recommendations, do not provide commentary on-- or take into account-- core issues like accessibility or privacy, or resource constraints and chamber rules under which member offices operate sites. The report also does not distinguish among members who serve in a leadership capacity within their parties, committees, or caucuses-- who might therefore have heavier information and communication demands than other members-- or newer members, who might have a smaller base of information from which to inform constituents. The Congress Online Project report methodology is helpful in explaining the screening criteria used for participants. There was a rough balance between men and women; among race, income, and party affiliation; and between policy and non-policy employment represented. The age range also stretched from 21-64 (with seniors over 64 recruited for the "general public" group). But only three of the focus group sites (Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; and Richmond, VA) have voting representation in both chambers of Congress, while the fourth city-- Washington, DC has a non-voting delegate in the House. Also, the emphasis on people already familiar with the Internet might eliminate a useful set of voices-- those who don't participate or have access, but who know what type of content would most encourage their participation online. The report itself acknowledges that despite the general comfort level with the Internet, only a few of the focus group participants actually utilized member websites, even then finding them of little value with respect to the main area of chief concern": demonstrating how constituents were represented. Despite the aforementioned considerations, both reports combined make an instructive case for how congressional offices can reconfigure or enhance existing content-- without necessarily expending a large amount of time or money to do so-- in order to meet the needs of their most important visitors: their constituents.

Resources

Constituents and Your Web Site
November 2001, Congress Online Project,

Online on the Hill
February 2001, Advocacy Group
[Adobe PDF format]