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.

Click here to read the report.  

Among the key findings:

       *Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the senior managers and social media managers surveyed think Facebook is a somewhat or very important tool for understanding constituents’ views and opinions, 42% say Twitter is somewhat or very important, and 34% say YouTube is a somewhat or very important tool for understanding constituents’ views and opinions.

       *Nearly three-quarters (74%) of the senior managers and social media managers we surveyed think Facebook is somewhat or very important for communicating their Members’ views. YouTube is viewed by nearly three-quarters of staffers surveyed (72%) as somewhat or very important for communicating their Members’ views.  More than half (51%) of the staffers surveyed say Twitter is a somewhat or very important vehicle for their Members’ communications.

       *A strong majority of staffers (72%) believe that social media allows their Members to reach people they had previously not communicated with.  A majority of the staffers (55%) feel social media offers their offices more benefits than risks.

The report is part of CMF’s initiative, the Partnership for a More Perfect Union.  The Partnership seeks to enrich the relationship between citizens and Congress through education, building trust, and providing innovative yet pragmatic tools to facilitate purposeful two-way communication.

I recently made an historic discovery regarding what is probably the first system to track relationships between Members of Congress and organizations that seek to influence them. Any grassroots or government relations professional knows that it is essential to have an understanding of Congress, and one of the best ways to do this is to set up a customer relationship management (CRM) system to track relationships between supporters and legislators. The tools also are used to note important characteristics or interests of the legislator that may either connect him to your cause, track meeting discussions, and note follow-up actions.

But one does not need to be a masterful 21st century practitioner of CRM software best practices to create this kind of system. In fact, I believe I recently stumbled onto the first CRM of Congress. The group had a vital issue pending before the Congress; they had a motivated and well-organized grassroots base; and they created a system for tracking every detail of their interaction with legislators as well as the interests of congressmen (and they were all men). The time was 1900. The issue: whether women should have the right to vote.

I was attending an event recently that was organized by the Sewell Belmont House, a Capitol Hill home and for a time the unofficial HQ of the suffragette movement. As I was leaving, I noticed some photographs of a card catalog system the National Women’s Party had built. One black-and-white photo showed a woman standing next to what looked like the catalog system you might find in a library. On a sample card was information about an individual Member of Congress: hometown, age, previous legislative record, interests, spousal interests (rather important to the movement), positions taken on women suffrage, and summaries of meetings with the legislator — all in one at-a-glance card. The eureka moment hit me: “These women invented the first congressional CRM!”

This example demonstrated that the methods and strategies for influencing legislators and holding them accountable have not changed in 100 years. It shows that we get too bogged down in the details of technology. Groups and individuals seeking to influencing legislative outcomes should rely on the basics: learn about legislators and their interests (and their family interests as well); create a disciplined system for entering that information; and train all professional and citizen advocates who interact with lawmakers to collect the data. I know this isn’t easy. When I was CEO of a CRM software company that allowed clients to track data on Congress, I would tell my clients one immutable fact: you can make a box with buttons do anything — but getting a lobbyist to enter information about their meeting with a key staffer, that’s hard.

As March is Women’s History Month, it is appropriate to pay homage to the work of the mothers and sisters who paved the way for so many other mothers and sisters to vote, participate in government, and serve in office. It seems now we should also recognize another historic contribution by the suffragettes, the first congressional CRM. One can’t help but think that this system for detailed tracking of legislators had a positive effect on the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

(Transparency Note: I co-founded Knowlegis, which is, among other things, a CRM of Members of Congress. I am no longer affiliated with the company, and this post is not a pitch for that product. In fact, as I pointed out, you don’t need software. All you need is pen, paper, a really big card catalog, and a group of disciplined people committed to a cause.)

I just got done reading an amazing book about creating change in society, “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard,” by Chip Heath and Dan Heath. This morning, as I heard the stories of the winners of the Public Affairs Council’s Grassroots Innovation Awards, I realized that these innovators used some of the same strategies that the authors urged.

In the book, “Switch,” the authors suggested to get people to change one of the things you need to do is create a “destination postcard — a vivid picture from the near-term future that shows what could be possible.” The authors say you need to invoke emotional arguments, not rational statistics — something they called “finding the feeling.”

This was one of the ways that Portland General Electric convinced customers to conserve energy. They used an online campaign to suggest simple habits people could employ to save energy. But instead of using the argument, “You’ll save pennies on your electric bill,” they said, “The amount of energy we saved was enough to power the state capitol for three weeks.” The message also appealed to Oregonians cultural connection to community improvement. The postcard destination became more tangible.

The American Heart Association converted their annual report (the traditional, deadly boring vehicle for communicating accomplishments) into an interactive, online experience, with videos, photos and stories. The “postcard destination” of their work was now more accessible. The result translated into more stakeholders gaining a greater understanding of their issues and efforts.

The “social media” category winner, American Express, created “Small Business Saturday” to get Americans to patronize local businesses on the Saturday between Black Friday and Cyber Monday.

Using a dedicated Facebook page, the company gave statement credits to customers who shopped locally, free Facebook advertising to local merchants, and a $1 donation for each “like” of the “Small Business Saturday” Facebook page. The donations – $1 million worth – went to Girls Inc., which encourages young women to be entrepreneurs.

All advocacy is about change. It may be to reduce energy consumption, battle a serious illness, or support entrepreneurs. No matter how you package it, this change involves demonstrating to citizens their potential to improve themselves, their community, or others with whom they share a bond. It means creating a postcard destination. As “Switch” and the Grassroots Innovator Award winners show, by understanding basic human motivations, and applying innovative thinking and technology, change can occur.

The newly released House calendar for the 112th Congress presents a fascinating opportunity for grassroots advocates seeking to build relationships and influence legislators. The calendar makes good on part of a promise the House Republicans made when they took office that they would operate differently than Democrats, and even previous Republican leaders.

The schedule is mostly a two-weeks-on and one-week-off schedule. It includes five days of voting when legislators are in Washington, no votes after 7 pm, and consistent end times on Fridays. Whether incoming Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor can pull it off is still a question. (The Senate tried a similar calendar during the 104th Congress and punted it after 10 months.) But, for sake of sane scheduling, increased efficiency, and hot meals at 7:30 pm for Members and staff, let’s assume they can. What does this mean for those seeking to influence legislators?

First, legislators will likely schedule more town hall meetings. The 2010 House calendar had 5 District Work periods – the 2011 calendar has 13. This means Members of Congress have more certainty and time to schedule town hall meetings in the district. It also means they’ll likely schedule more events as well – visits to businesses, schools, and groups. Great photo op’s, but also great face time with constituents.

Second, constituents and their representatives often overlook the value of meeting with legislators in their district offices. However, with 21 weeks back home the best venue to meet with a Member of Congress and staff is the district office. Constituents will feel more comfortable meeting in their own locales (and save the cost of airfare to DC). And Members of Congress usually are not crushed for time when not rushing to committee hearings and votes in Washington, offering the potential for a more robust and detailed dialogue.

A few years ago I recommended district meetings to a group that was cutting back their budget and not having a traditional “fly-in” to DC. They were concerned that their lobbyist could not attend a district office meeting, and that the Member of Congress might want his policy expert (usually DC based) in the room as well. “Why not put them both on speaker phone in a conference call so they can monitor,” I said. It was as if I’d proposed some new-fangled technology! “A telephone…Why didn’t we think of that???”

The unpredictability of the House calendars and scheduling has wreaked havoc over the years to the best laid plans of Members of Congress and staff, and probably wrecked a few marriages as well. The 2011 calendar not only might make legislators more efficient, it could be a boon to grassroots advocates. Who knows? It might even save a marriage or two.

This August, just prior to a Tea Party march in Washington, DC, a blogger who claimed to be affiliated with the Tea Party published the DC home addresses of some Members of Congress.  The posting was part of a “Visitors Guide” to Washington.  Last summer it was people bringing firearms to congressional town hall meetings.  This summer it’s an open invitation to conduct a demonstration at elected officials’ homes.  “Feel free to protest,” the blogger added.

The last few years have seen an explosion in interest in advocacy, and that is generally a good thing.  A Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) survey of citizens found that 44% of adult Americans had contacted Congress within the last five years.  While this increased interest in exercising constitutional rights has value, one must keep in mind there is such a thing as “bad advocacy.”

CMF firmly believes that good advocacy results in good public policy.  Citizen advocates who can passionately and thoughtfully articulate how a pending policy will affect them as individuals or a group has a constructive effect on legislative outcomes.  One House Democrat said it to me this way: “The most effective way to influence a lawmaker is for a constituent to talk to a legislator about how the policy will affect the person or a particular group.”

For years, some groups and individuals have relished the act of interfering with the process of government or otherwise offending elected officials.  Shutting down the Senate phone system and protesting at the congressman’s home were viewed by the groups who used these tactics as victories in advocacy.  But what did they really accomplish?  Shouting at a Representative’s kids does little to curry favor or influence the legislator to support the group’s issue.  In fact, it is more likely to result in the legislator’s long-lived disdain for the group which organized the protest.

CMF strongly supports the right of citizens to “petition their government for a redress of grievances.”  That is why we created the Partnership for a More Perfect Union, which seeks to enrich relationships between Congress and citizens.  The right to “petition” Congress has very few limits (a Colorado court recently ruled that it is a constitutional right for a citizen to leave a pile of doggie doo with a letter to a Member of Congress).  But that doesn’t mean extreme measures are effective or wise.

Civility in advocacy is more effective than annoyance.  Public officials respect those who respect them and the process they represent.  We encourage groups who seek to influence legislative outcomes to employ reasonable and proven methods; encourage advocates to politely and persistently persuade legislators; and refrain from tactics that appear malicious or violent.

President John F. Kennedy said, “So let us begin anew – remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.”  That advice is not just about politeness, it’s more likely to yield results.

The recent opening on the Supreme Court, and the anticipated grassroots battle over the nominee, raise an ethical question for grassroots organizers. Groups on both the left and right see a Supreme Court nomination battle as an opportunity to rally troops, raise funds and bolster their causes. However, many political observers have suggested that President Obama will probably nominate a non-controversial candidate, seeking to avoid a bloody and partisan nomination fight so close to the 2010 mid-term elections.

If the nomination is sewed up, and the outcome is pre-ordained, why fight the fight? As a grassroots organization, why recruit new advocates, raise more money and hire more staff, if the purpose is not really to win a legislative battle? The question is this: Is it ethical to use a legislative battle to bolster your organization, even though your organization has little or no chance of success?

Readers hoping for the typical blog rant, espousing a view with no latitude for other opinions, will be disappointed by this entry. I genuinely am torn on the question; so my purpose is to explore the pro’s and con’s.

Pro’s:

First, one could argue that despite the futility of any grassroots effort, the First Amendment protects all efforts to petition the government for a redress of grievances, however fruitless. The act itself confirms our constitutional protection, therefore has value.

Second, while this particular campaign may be hopeless, other campaigns, either ongoing or in the future, by the group might be plausible. Shouldn’t a group use all means to recruit potential advocates who share in their beliefs, since there is always the potential to participate in a winning cause? Just because this particular effort is unlikely to succeed, the supporter benefits by notifying the organization that they support the cause, offering the organization the opportunity to provide information and outlets to facilitate their participation in the democratic process.

Third, there is always the outside chance that lightening could strike. Is it not the organization’s responsibility to funders and supporters to tilt at the windmill on the off-chance that Don Quixote actually slays the dragon this time?

Con’s:

There is really only one ethical question to ask when recruiting advocates for a likely losing cause: What’s your motivation? There are dozens if not hundreds of companies and pseudo-nonprofits claiming to advance causes based on the First Amendment, yet their motivations are either selfish or pecuniary. Petition sites abounded during the last ten years, all claiming to “send a message to Washington.” Yet, many of these sites were little more than list building operations designed to sell “affinity” joiners to like-minded organizations. Or, they were vendors claiming that petitions “make a difference,” while research demonstrates that Capitol Hill nearly universally ignores online petitions.

If a group gathers a supporter’s vital information (street address, email address, etc.) based on an inaccurate or fruitless claim, “You can make a difference in the future of the Supreme Court,” one must question their motive. If it is a genuine and well-established advocacy group, then there may be an ethical justification for the outreach, based on the logic in the “Pro’s” section of this blog. If, however, the motivation is otherwise, it’s hard to justify the outreach.

Motivation is an important part of any ethical calculation. If a group exploits an issue only to fill their coffers (and pay organizers’ salaries), it can hardly be seen as furthering First Amendment rights. Similarly, if a company or web site purports to influence legislative outcomes, but merely is a list collector and reseller, how does this support or advance our democratic system?

Organizations and companies make ethical choices every day related to grassroots tactics and strategies. Most have the best interests of supporters and clients in mind. Yet citizens – especially those whose job is to facilitate communication to elected officials – must devotedly defend and advance ethical practices in the online world dedicated to the Founding Fathers’ admonition and protection: “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Or…maybe not. What do you think?

The idea behind the question is that the government becomes SO transparent and easy to interact with that professional associations, nonprofits, and (gasp!) advocacy vendors become obsolete. My reaction is three-fold: 1) Add value to the raw data of government; 2) Provide expertise for interacting with government online; 3) Continue to use the aggregate power inherent in organizing.

First, government is unlikely to provide the type of sophisticated interpretation of government data that advocates need to get motivated or even involved. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services can post online a new fee formula of Medicare payments for doctor procedures, but it will take every medical professional association’s government affairs department to interpret the data and communicate to their members what the new policy actually means to them. That type of analysis is expensive, needs to be tailored to particular audience, and could be too controversial for sheepish government agencies.

Second, it would be ideal if interacting with government was a simple as ordering a book on Amazon.com. But the reality is that both the legislative and executive branches will always be complex, no matter how great the transparency. Plus, added transparency and added data means added noise – it will be difficult to discern what data is valuable and how to use it. Advocacy organizations and vendors will be needed to guide advocates through the maze of bureaucracies in order to have an impact on policy.

Third, the Founding Fathers included the right to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment precisely because they recognized the power that comes from aggregated interests, and the value of that power as a check in our democracy. The dark side of greater “direct democracy” without intermediaries is a diffusion of people’s organizational power. A chorus (or an angry mob) is more likely to be heard by government than a lone voice.

Finally, while I have great hope that the new Administration will genuinely follow through with its promise of new transparency and access to government through the Internet, it will take years to implement. And, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue is the Congress – which is not exactly the most receptive entity to introducing new technologies.

So what turned it around the second time? Certainly the tax sweeteners and higher FDIC protection limits motivated some, but there was more evidence in the weekend papers that our K Street Café colleague, Colin Delany, said it perfectly with his blog entry last week: it’s all about relationships. Those people who built a relationship with a member of Congress and communicated their interest in the legislation influenced the outcome. This is a crucial lesson in grassroots advocacy: there is a significant difference in legislators’ minds between those people with an opinion and those with an interest.

Saturday’s New York Times tells the story of Congressman Howard Coble (R-NC), who was swayed from “no” to “yes” in the span of a week, in part because a university president in Elon, NC explained how the credit crunch was hurting the institution. In Saturday’s Washington Post we hear how Congressman Elijah Cummings was influenced by a small business owner who feared he couldn’t make payroll because the bank had cut off his line of credit. Both legislators changed their votes.

There are two types of constituents who interact with lawmakers on policy questions: those who have an opinion, and those that have an interest (meaning, the policy affects them personally). Everyone has an opinion about the Iraq War, but only a small fraction of our population has a family member who is serving overseas. If a woman stands up at a congressional town hall meeting and says, “I think we should get out of Iraq,” the member of Congress will process that information one way. If the woman says, “I think we should get out of Iraq, and my son was just given his orders to ship out to Baghdad,” the legislator will have a completely different reaction.

Before the first vote in the House legislators heard from constituents who said, “I don’t like the idea of bailing out Wall Street.” Before the second vote they heard from constituents who said, “If this bill doesn’t pass I may have to lay off employees.” There is a profound difference in legislator’s hearts and minds between these to types of constituents. The first type might vote against them in the next election – a thought that is disappointing to a politician, but he can live with it. The second group weighs on a public official’s conscience until the end of time.

This is future of advocacy and portends who will win and lose when the 111th Congress convenes in January. Those groups with extensive grasstops networks who are skilled at advocacy and have built relationships with members of Congress will be the winners. One of the more sophisticated Knowlegis customers has built such a network (sorry, can’t reveal who they are). This group has categorized every grasstops member in their database with a score of 1 through 5. I asked the group’s government relations VP, “What classifies someone as a ‘1’?” He said, “That’s someone who can get their phone call returned from a member of Congress in one hour.” “How many of those do you have,” I asked. He replied, “You mean, in each congressional district?” Associations, corporations, and nonprofits who think like that will be on the winning end of every vote in the next congress.

First, the grassroots pressure is well documented.  Congress.org saw more than 100,000 messages sent last week to Members of Congress.  Roll Call reports today that web servers in the House crashed under the strain.  There is very little evidence to support “The Hill’s” story today that lobbyists got rolled on this bill.  There was little time to put pressure on lawmakers, and few did any advocacy advertising or direct e-mails to staff.

And when you examine the voting patterns, it shows that those legislators who are most vunerable to lose the upcoming election voted overwhelming in favor of the bill.  Of those House Members who won by less than 55% in the last election, 77% of them voted in favor of the bill.  A comparison of Democrats and Republicans did not show big partisan differences.  Among vunerable GOP members, 88% voted in favor of the bailout, and among vunerable Dem’s 70% voted in favor of the bill.

There is ample evidence that the most influential factor in a legislator’s decision-making process is constituent pressure.  This is especially true when you realize that most of the decisions a lawmaker makes are not life-and-death.  However, when it is a big decision — like going to war or the biggest financial investment in US history — research suggests that politicians follow their own instincts, value system, and ideology.