Capitol Hill Web Site Studies
by Guest Blogger, 3/12/2002
"Congress Online: Assessing and Improving Capitol Hill Web Sites",
released on 1/28/02 by the Congress Online Project, a two-year effort
run by the Congressional Management Foundation to help address issues
regarding the information and communications flow among Congress,
citizens, public interest groups, and lobbyists. The year-long COP
study is an attempt to provide Congress with advice as to how to make
individual member, committee, and leadership websites more effective,
useful, and responsive to the varied needs of the public.
It lays out five “building blocks” of effective sites, based on a
survey of all 605 non-institutional websites (the main chamber sites
and those of support organizations were not included). Each of the
five evaluation measures consisted of a number of individual criteria,
were audience, content, interactivity, usability, and innovation.
Audience addresses those features that help to identify both targeted
and unanticipated groups of users. Content focuses on those factors
that help to best attract, retain, and inform visitors. Interactivity
encompasses those items providing opportunities to connect offices
and the public. Usability addresses elements including design and
layout, navigability and readability, freshness and accessibility of
both the site itself and its content. Innovation is used to refer
not to state-of-the-art technology so much as those activities or
features that help give sites a strategic and/or creative edge.
Sites were assessed between August-October 2001, assigned letter
grades of A to F, and those meriting a “B” or above were evaluated
by a committee of experts who considered which sites were worthy of
designation as Congress Online Gold or Silver Mouse Award winners.
Fifteen sites were selected as Gold sites, twenty as Silver sites
(due to some flaw in one of the five categories preventing them
from achieving Gold status). As a follow on, electronic surveys of
media and advocacy groups, and in-person focus groups of public
users were conducted during fall 2001.
The study makes as plain a case as possible for why Congress—- and
the public—- should continue to demand the best sites possible:
increased/enhanced service, visibility, productivity, and
accountability; better communications to, feedback across, and
participation from various audiences. Because the real meat of the
study rests within the profiles compiled of the award-winning sites,
as well as the results of interviews with congressional staff within
member offices, committees, and leadership, it is difficult to do an
across-the-board comparison. Within these profiles, though, certain
key points can be gleaned:
- no amount of bells and whistles counts more than good content, and simply providing links is no substitute to developing content itself. Often, members simply employ links (often uncategorized and without annotation) to serve as substitutes for the actual content desired by their audiences;
- there is a basic set of content and features clearly desired, expected, and needed on individual sites-- no matter how repetitious it may seem-- that is not consistently provided within the framework of a site
- an elusive threshold of content exists between content that is either too self-serving or too laden with political trappings;
- congressional staffs rely increasingly on websites for information as much as the public
- The COP study attempts to cast Congress' inability or unwillingness to adopt standards and practices with respect to information and communications technology in terms of a “digital divide”. The notion of the digital divide in the policy arena generally refers to the disparity among groups with respect to technology, knowledge around its use, and the opportunities to apply it in ways relevant to their circumstances. Because only the most cursory mention is given to the disparity between House and Senate member office budgets, for example, we don't have information on how much offices actually feel is “too much” or “not enough” to develop and operate a site, much less how much “model” sites are spending on their technology operations. Regardless, one might think that a member, committee, or leadership offices, however, might be in a slightly better position to acquire and apply technology than individuals who are socially or economically marginalized, or underrepresented in the policy process. As such, a more appropriate term would be more useful. In a similar vein, there is no information as to whether sites were specifically assessed across particular browsers—- including a text-only browser-- by the evaluators, nor at different levels of access speeds, save for a brief mention of a desired baseline download time of 10 seconds or less, and a recognition that 2/3 of Americans access the Web at speeds slower than 56 Kbps.
- The study fails to flesh out the particular context in which elements identified as being integral to successful web elements in Congress come about. House Republican websites, for example, were found to represent a greater proportion of all awards for the best websites—especially among the congressional leadership sites. Yet no mention is made of the aggressive outreach of Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK), Chair of the House Republican Conference, in coordinating training and education among House Republican leadership and member offices. In the Senate, Democrats received a greater proportion designations for best website. Yet there is no mention of the work of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the Democratic Technology and Communications Committee, to push for more involvement by Senate Democrat member offices. The efforts of these individuals, as well as other "early adopters" has been widely covered in media related to Congress. In short, there is little contextual information as to the technology capacity of congressional leadership or those deemed technology pioneers, and how it stands in comparison to other members. An assessment of individual caucus sites would have been instructive as well, given the level of information sharing and policy formation that occurs, often across party lines, particularly within the Congressional Internet Caucus. The perception of members regarding how well their sites are serving their intended audiences, compared to their standings in the COP study, would have provided another useful measure. This all goes towards providing a better understanding of the institutional attitudes and forces, as distinct from the internal perceptions, that might help or hinder the integration of better technology practices throughout Congress. While it would be understandably difficult to provide useful comparison among all 605 websites surveyed, it is also a shame that no information is provided as to why specific Silver Mouse Award winners failed to achieve Gold status. Such information is invaluable for drawing out practices for other sites to emulate.
- Surprisingly, the COP study fails to spell out a number of important constraints (many self-imposed) that hamper Congress' ability to integrate information and communications technology into its overall operations. For example, laptops, cellular phones, PDAs, and other portable electronic devices are not currently allowed on the floor of either the House or Senate. There are also, currently, no formal rules in place for telecommunications technology used in the conduct of official Congressional committee business. Just last year, the House Subcommittee on Technology (formerly called the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House) undertook a concerted effort to examine how the “new technology” of computers and communications technology could be applied to the chamber. Moreover, both the House and Senate place restrictions as to what type of content can be disseminated online and through other media via member offices near primary and general elections, including posting notices to that effect on their sites. This goes a long ways towards providing precedent in both chambers for uniform content guidelines and design standards across all member sites. The study also gives only a cursory discussion of accessibility in the context of usability, citing those sites that have been "BOBBY-approved" and that follow standards set forth by the World Wide Web Consortium. There is however, one additional set of standards important to discussions of federal government online information. Section 508 standards went into effect on June 21, 2001, and require federal executive branch agencies' electronic information systems to meet specific technical specifications, such that information is made available to everyone through the same general means regardless of the physical limitations of individual users. If there are demonstrable instances where the standards pose an undue burden on agency operations, information may be presented in an alternate manner considered to be a reasonable accommodation for effective communication, including interpreters, transcripts, audio recordings, and screen readers, among other means. While the General Services Administration and the Department of Justice, along with the federal Access Board, coordinate and enforce those guidelines for the federal executive branch, the federal legislative branch operates under a voluntary compliance and enforcement system, coordinated by the Office of Compliance. Like other Congressional employing offices-- individual member offices, committees, support offices, Government Printing Office, General Accounting Office, and the Library of Congress— the Office of Compliance uses the the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act as the standard to facilitate both public and employee access to legislative information. The federal legislative branch and its offices, however, are not required to follow Section 508 guidelines, and the Office of Compliance lacks the power to proactively make policy recommendations on compliance with respect to electronic information systems; to mandate that electronic legislative information meet accepted accessibility and design standards; or to push for acceptance of Section 508 standards. So basically Congress doesn't apply the more stringent accessibility standards and practices to itself that it does to federal agencies. This is slowly changing, as interest develops around the Office of Compliance's 11/13/01 interim report on the application of Section 508 to Congress, reinforced by a similar 1998 report regarding compliance with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.
- The COP study also manages to overlook recent activities within Congress, which can serve as a foundation upon which to orient future efforts at integrate online technology into the operations of the body. Back in May 2000, an "online experiment" was launched to allow citizens to express their opinions regarding ways the federal government can provide improved content and more services via the Internet, initiated by United States Senators and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Fred Thompson (R-TN) for the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. The effort was titled "e-Government: An Experiment in Interactive Legislation," and the idea was to receive comments that would be used in the development of legislation. It served as a bipartisan approach towards engaging citizen input about how government can take advantage of online resources to serve the public better, by taking comments online in a "virtual hearing," rather than simply introducing legislation that lays out ambiguous goals for government. The Web-based Education Commission accepted "e-testimony," collecting comments into a database of submitted testimony, searchable by name or type of organization or individual, as well as educational or policy interest, as it sought ways to jointly engage the education and Internet communities. A few other commissions have allowed for similar input on a limited basis. Senator Lieberman has also been active in pushing for comprehensive e-government legislation to address information and communications technology disparities across and within branches of the federal government. Further, in response to the concern amidst the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax scares, Representatives Jim Langevin (D-RI) and Brian Baird (D-WA) introduced the Ensuring Congressional Security and Continuity Act, which would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology to examine the feasibility of a secure remote online system through which Congress could conduct its operations, deliberations, and voting in the event of an emergency requiring the removal of members from the Capitol and their offices. This follows on a 10/31/01 Democratic Leadership Council suggestion by the for the creation of a virtual Congress system to enable continued operations in the wake of an emergency.
- As mentioned earlier, the COP study also presents findings from a series of focus groups, consisting of 80 participants in eight groups conducted in four cities. An 11/12/01 NPTalk commentary discussed the focus group results. Each city had two groups, one of persons actively engaged with and/or aware of federal legislative information online, and one comprised of 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 articulate 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. Despite an attempt at demographic diversity with respect to age, race, gender, and geography, the emphasis was clearly on those persons already familiar with the Internet and who use it regularly in some form of policy context. This eliminates a useful set of voices-- those who don't participate in policy matters yet have online access, yet who know what type of content would most encourage their participation, and those active in policy activity through and with the legislature, yet who do not take advantage of online opportunities to do so. Nonprofit advocacy interests are also given, at best, a cursory nod within the study. Only individual activists and those individuals within organizations that do a considerable amount of lobbying were contacted through an online survey, as were members of the press. The relatively low response rates for both could be attributed to a number of factors. By focusing on a means of response guaranteed to elicit responses only from "those in the know," or those most likely to go to the sites, instead of a wider sampling of groups who either utilize congressional sites on a regular basis, or who avoid them in favor of other sources, a narrow, if not distorted picture of what "nonprofit advocates" desire is presented.
- If nonprofit advocacy perspectives appear to be underrepresented in the general discussion, it is nearly non-existent in the study's own literature review. Save for the Advocacy Group's February 2001 report, virtually every significant nonprofit or nonprofit-focused study or report on communications with and information dissemination by Congress appears to have been summarily ignored or dismissed, including OMB Watch's 1998 report on electronic communications within Congress and its 2001 study of information dissemination by state legislatures. There is no indication that other work reflecting nonprofit perspectives on electronic advocacy, particularly in the area of legislative or parliamentary-oriented advocacy was consulted for substance, if not for methodology. For example, John McNutt at the Boston College Graduate School of Social Work, for example, has been compiling a listing of journal articles and research, many of which fall within the same time period as the study's literature review period, including work and research relating to human needs and electronic advocacy at the state and local level. And it must be pointed out that the Advocacy Group's study itself has a number of significant flaws. 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.
- Last, and most curious, the report begins by cautioning Congress that it needs to embrace Internet technology better than it has to date, because, “[a] growing number of non-congressional entities [are launching] their own Web sites on Congress. These sites, by filling the void left by congressional web sites, are now successfully competing to become the sites of first choice for people interested in the activities of Congress. And research demonstrates the once Web users find sites they deem reliable, they have little interest in trying other options.” Near the end of the report, there is a brief review of “the competition”, which is somewhat more conciliatory in tone, distinguishing them as resources for voting records, issue information, information on how Congress works, legislative tracking, and citizen action capabilities. The majority of these services are either nonprofit in nature, or provided by nonprofits through third-party vendors. While it would be desirous for Congress as a whole, and individual members, committee, and leadership to provide every function outside sites do, nonprofit advocacy and educational resources provide access to legislative information, not to compete with Congress, or to necessarily fill its void. The work is done to provide a perspective and means of participation and accountability that the institution itself, because of its interests and constraints, cannot, while heightening public awareness around the nature of policy processes.
