Study Finds Congressional Web Sites "Disappointing"

A new report card on congressional Web sites from the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) says the overall quality is "disappointing" with over a third of the congressional Web sites earning a substandard or failing grade. There was also recognition and praise for the best Web sites on Capitol Hill with the announcement of the winners of the Gold, Silver, and Bronze Mouse Awards.

"Given the increasing number of Americans using the Internet to get information from or communicate with their government, it is disappointing that the most common grade earned was a 'D'," said Beverly Bell, executive director of CMF, a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded 30 years ago to promote a more effective Congress. "Congress has just not kept up with the demands of an increasingly Internet-savvy public."

Funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation, The 2006 Gold Mouse Report: Recognizing the Best Web Sites on Capitol Hill evaluated 615 Congressional Web sites including those of all Senate and House members and Delegates, committees (both majority and minority sites) and official leadership sites. Providing invaluable assistance for the 2006 report were research partners from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the University of California-Riverside, and Ohio State University.

"What is particularly striking is how few members use the Internet to convey substantial information about how they have voted, and why they have voted the way that they have. This is especially troubling given the potential of the Internet to transform the discussion members have with their constituents about the issues of the day. These data suggest that while a handful of members have really taken advantage of the opportunity that the Internet offers in this regard, the large majority of members have not seized the day," said Dr. David Lazer, associate professor of public policy and director of the Program on Networked Governance at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Key details from the report:

• Overall, Senate offices (including member, committee and leadership offices) are doing somewhat better than their House counterparts. The Senate had 7.7 percent more "A"s and "B"s and the House had a higher percentage (4.5 percent) that scored "D" or "F."
• House committees performed better than Senate committees. None of the House committee sites received a failing grade compared to 17.4 percent of Senate sites.
• Overall, Republican sites scored higher than Democratic sites with 65.9 percent of Republican sites scoring at least a "C" compared to 56.1 percent of Democratic sites.
• Looking just at individual member sites in the Senate, Republicans scored 10.3 percent more "A"s and 14.9 percent more "B"s. In the House, the highest grades were almost evenly split between the two parties with the Democrats edging out Republicans by just one percent among the "A"s and with a tie among "B"s with both parties receiving 22.8 percent.
• A high percentage of the winners won Mouse Awards in the past. For example, 54.6 percent of the Gold Mouse winners in 2003 won awards this year.
• There is a relationship between Web site grade and 2006 election margin. Members who received less than 50 percent of the vote had the highest percentage of sites that scored an "F" -- 21.1 percent. In addition, those who received more than 55 percent of the vote had the highest percentage of "D"s.

Among the report's major criticisms of member Web sites:

• Almost half (49.1 percent) do not give sufficient information on contacting the office regarding a problem with a federal agency.
• Only 26.4 percent offered guidance on the best ways to communicate with their offices.
• Only 11.4 percent of House and 5 percent of Senate Web sites posted their office hours.
• 32.0 percent do not have links to sponsored or co-sponsored legislation. Of the ones that do, 13.7 percent did not reference the most current session of Congress.

Web sites were evaluated based on how well they incorporate five basic building blocks that extensive research has identified as critical for effectiveness: audience, content, usability, interactivity, and innovation. Using these building blocks, an evaluation framework was developed that would be fair and objective, while still taking into account important qualitative factors that affect a visitor's experience on a Web site. The qualitative factors included: the quality and tone of the information presented; the usability and navigability of the site; its look and feel; and the degree to which the information meets visitor's needs.