Communicating with Congress - Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Communicating
with Congress
Perceptions of Citizen
Advocacy on Capitol Hill
Made possible by grants from
Adfero Group, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and CQ Roll CallSpecial Thanks We are grateful to our sponsors, Adfero Group, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and CQ Roll Call, who have supported this research and report. Their contributions have enabled us to continue the important work of the Communicating with Congress project and promote a more meaningful democratic dialogue. © 2011, Congressional Management Foundation. All Rights Reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced in any manner without the written permission of the Congressional Management Foundation, except brief quotations or charts used in critical articles or reviews. The Partnership For A More Perfect Union at the Congressional Management Foundation 513 Capitol Court NE, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20002 202-546-0100 cmfweb.org pmpu.org
Introduction “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” That statement by Thomas Jefferson is a commentary on citizens’ right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Effective communications and interactions between citizens and elected officials are essential to the democratic process, both to sustain the credibility of government and to maintain a free flow of ideas which can be integrated into policy decisions. However, since the introduction of the Internet, maintaining that free flow has been a challenge both for Congress and citizens. Congressional offices are overwhelmed with the significant increase in volume and the diversity of delivery methods used by advocate organizations. On the other hand, citizens and the advocacy community have been frustrated by the myriad of technological tools utilized by offices to authenticate that actual constituents are sending messages, yet result in technological and “user interface” obstacles to communications. As the organization founded to aid in management-related issues in Congress, the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) created the Communicating with Congress project in 2003. Our goal is to help address the current frustrations and barriers, facilitate increased citizen participation in the public policy process, and promote a meaningful democratic dialogue that benefits our country. In these eight years we have produced a series of reports to illuminate the challenges that both sides of the communications equation face, and offer ideas to improve the process. In 2010 CMF expanded its mission to seek ways to improve citizen engagement and to help Congress use continuously-changing technologies to facilitate and enhance interactions with citizens. To do this, we established a new center at CMF, the Partnership For A More Perfect Union. The Partnership will advance this vision by providing research and training to Congress, advocacy groups, and citizens. This effort would not be possible without the generous support of our Founding Partners: Fleishman-Hillard, Convio, AT&T, and the Hansan Family Foundation, and we deeply appreciate their support. This report is the latest in CMF’s and the Partnership’s effort to provide Congress, advocacy groups, and citizens a greater understanding of constituent communications on Capitol Hill. The research is based on a survey of more than 250 congressional staff, many of them senior managers, on attitudes and practices related to managing constituent communications. Throughout 2011 we will release research that will assess current communications practices by congressional staff and offer data on how Congress has integrated social media tools to send communications and gauge constituent opinion. We will also expand our research on the importance of town hall meetings and their effectiveness in various formats. Finally, later this year, we will once again identify the best congressional websites through the 112 th Congress Gold Mouse Awards. In a democracy, as in any relationship, it is critical for both parties to have a degree of trust in one another. Trust between Members of Congress and those they represent depends on an honest and robust exchange of ideas. If Congress and citizens use the information in this report and material available on the Partnership’s website (http://pmpu.org), we know it will contribute to a more trusting and stable relationship between those who govern and those who are governed. Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill 1
1. The Internet, Participation and Accountability
According to the congressional staffers we surveyed, email and the Internet have increased both
citizens’ participation in the public policy process and lawmakers’ accountability to their constituents.
However, they feel that electronic communications have reduced the quality of constituents’
messages to Capitol Hill, and have had questionable impact on citizens’ understanding of what goes
on in Washington.
• Most staffers (87%) thought email and the Internet have
made it easier for constituents to become involved in public
“The ease with which constituents policy.
can communicate with their • Almost all (97%) felt electronic communications have
increased the number of constituents who communicate
Member has really diluted the
with their offices.
quality of communications
• A majority of staff (57%) felt email and the Internet have
overall. We get way too many made Senators and Representatives more accountable to
email inputs that forward the their constituents.
Congressman some email or • Nearly two-thirds (65%) thought email and the Internet have
reduced the quality of constituents’ messages.
YouTube link with ‘is this true’ as
the only message.” • Less than half (41%) thought that email and the Internet
have increased citizens’ understanding of what goes on in
—House Legislative Director Washington.
FIGURE 1
Email and the Internet Have . . .
100%
87%
80%
60% 57%
41%
40% 35%
20% 17%
3%
0%
Made it easier for constituents to Made Members/Senators more Increased constituents’
become involved in the public accountable to constituents. understanding of what goes on in
policy process. Washington.
Agree Disagree
2 COMMUNICATING WITH CONGRESS2. Citizens Have More Power Than They Realize
The most influential advocacy strategies for swaying an undecided Member of Congress depend on
personal communications from constituents. Whether individuals make contact face-to-face, by
phone, or through personalized email or postal mail, Senators and Representatives are influenced by
their constituents’ own views about the public policy issues before them.
• Most of the staff surveyed said constituent visits to the Washington office (97%) and to the
district/state office (94%) have some or a lot of influence on an undecided Member.
• When asked about strategies directed to their offices back home, staffers said questions at
1
town hall meetings (87%) and letters to the editor (80%) have some or a lot of influence.
• Constituents who make the effort to personally communicate with their Senators and
Representatives – except via fax – are more influential than lobbyists and news editors.
FIGURE 2
If your Member/Senator has not already arrived at a firm decision on an
issue, how much influence might the following advocacy strategies
directed to the W a s h i n g t o n o f f i c e have on his/her decision?*
In-Person Issue Visits from Constituents 46% 51%
Contact from a Constituent Who
36% 60%
Represents Other Constituents
Individualized Postal Letters 20% 70%
Individualized Email Messages 19% 69%
Phone Calls 14% 72%
Comments During a Telephone Town Hall 17% 68%
Visit From a Lobbyist 8% 74%
News Editorial Endorsement of an Issue 10% 65%
Individualized Faxes 8% 62%
Form Postal Letters 1% 53%
Form Email Messages 1% 50%
Postcards 1% 44%
Comments on Social Media Sites 1% 41%
Form Faxes 0% 30%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
A Lot of Positive Influence Some Influence
*Question was asked only of senior managers and mail staffers. Their responses are aggregated (n=194).
1
A similar question was asked of senior managers and mail staffers about advocacy strategies directed to district and state offices. The results
were comparable to those shown here.
Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill 33. It’s Not the Delivery Method – It’s the Content
There is virtually no distinction by the congressional staff we surveyed between email and postal mail.
They view them as equally influential to an undecided Member. What matters most is the content, not
the vehicle. Whether they are delivered via email or postal mail, messages that are customized in
some way by the constituents sending them are much more influential than identical form messages.
The personal touch from a constituent goes a long way toward differentiating a message.
• Nearly identical percentages of staffers said postal mail (90%) and email (88%) would have
influence on an undecided Member of Congress.
• About 20% of staffers said individualized email and postal mail would have a lot of influence
on an undecided Member and only one percent said identical form email and postal mail
would.
• Some helpful ways for constituents to personalize their messages include discussing the
impact of a bill on the state or district, providing the reasons they support or oppose the bill
or issue, and providing a relevant personal story.
FIGURE 3
If your Member/Senator has not already arrived at a firm decision on an
issue, how much influence might the following advocacy strategies
directed to the Washington office have on his/her decision?*
100%
80%
60%
70% 69%
40%
53% 50%
20%
20% 19%
1% 1%
0%
Individualized Postal Form Postal Letters Individualized Email Form Email Messages
Letters Messages
A Lot of Positive Influence Some Influence
*Question was asked only of senior managers and mail staffers. Their responses are aggregated (n=194).
FIGURE 4
How helpful is it for messages from constituents to include the
following?*
Information about the impact the bill
31% 46%
would have on the district or state
Constituent’s reasons for
34% 40%
supporting/opposing the bill or issue
Personal story related to the bill or issue 20% 28%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Very Helpful Helpful
*Question was asked only of mail staffers (n=87).
4 COMMUNICATING WITH CONGRESS4. Grassroots Advocacy Campaigns – Staff are Conflicted
The congressional staff we surveyed have conflicting views and attitudes about the value of
grassroots advocacy campaigns. Many believe they are good for democracy, and a significant
majority believes that responding to constituent communications – most of which are the result of
grassroots campaigns – is a high priority for their offices. Identical form campaigns also have some
degree of influence on undecided Members of Congress, yet a majority of staffers also believes that
most identical form communications are sent without constituents’ knowledge or approval.
• More than one-third of congressional staff (35%) agreed
that advocacy campaigns are good for democracy.
“One of our office’s top priorities
• Most staff (90%) agreed – and more than 60% strongly
agreed – that responding to constituent communications is maintaining a high quality of
is a high priority in their offices. dialogue with the people we
• More than half of the staffers surveyed (53%) agreed that represent.”
most advocacy campaigns of identical form messages are
—Senate Correspondence Manager
sent without constituents’ knowledge or approval.
FIGURE 5
Congressional Staff Views of Constituent and Advocacy Communications
100%
90%
80%
60% 53%
40% 35%
25%
22%
20%
6%
0%
Advocacy campaigns directed at Responding to constituent Most advocacy campaigns of
Congress are good for democracy. communications is a high priority in identical form messages are sent
my office. without the constituent's
knowledge or approval.
Agree Disagree
Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill 55. Social Media Used to Listen and Communicate
Congressional offices are integrating social media tools into their operations, both to gain an
understanding of constituents’ views and to communicate the Member’s views. Facebook even
surpasses identical form messages in importance for understanding constituents’ views and opinions.
However, comments from social media applications have little influence on undecided Members (see
Figure 1), most likely because Members and staff cannot tell whether comments are made by
constituents.
• Nearly two-thirds of staff surveyed (64%) think Facebook is an
important way to understand constituents’ views and nearly
“We continue to explore new three-quarters (74%) think it is important for communicating
ways to use technology to reach their Members’ views.
out to our constituents. Social • Twitter has also gained acceptance on Capitol Hill, with 42% of
media is less expensive and staffers saying it is an important way to understand
constituents’ views and more than half (51%) saying it is an
reaches a broader audience so important vehicle for their Members’ communications.
we plan to expand our use.” • YouTube is viewed by nearly three-quarters of staffers surveyed
—Senate Administrative Director (72%) as important for communicating their Members’ views,
and 20% considered it very important.
FIGURE 6
In your opinion, how important are the following for understanding
constituents' views and opinions?*
Attending events in the district/state 77% 21%
Personalized messages from constituents (email,
70% 27%
postal mail, faxes, phone calls)
In person town hall meetings 57% 33%
District/state office hours 53% 37%
Telephone town hall meetings 41% 42%
Paper surveys/polls 13% 55%
Facebook 8% 56%
Identical form communications from constituents 4% 52%
Online surveys/polls 7% 47%
Online town hall meetings 14% 30%
Twitter 4% 38%
YouTube 4% 30%
Member/Senator's blog 3% 31%
MySpace 1% 8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very Important Somewhat Important
*Question was asked only of senior managers and communications staffers. Their responses are aggregated (n=138).
6 COMMUNICATING WITH CONGRESSFIGURE 7
In your opinion, how important are the following for communicating the
Member/Senator's views and activities to constituents?*
Local media 80% 20%
Responses to constituent communications 83% 16%
Attending events in the district/state 86% 12%
Member/Senator's official website 64% 31%
Email newsletters 44% 47%
In person town hall meetings 45% 40%
District/state office hours 54% 29%
National media 32% 50%
Franked mass mailing letters 28% 52%
Telephone town hall meetings 45% 34%
Facebook 20% 54%
YouTube 20% 52%
Paper newsletters 20% 44%
Twitter 12% 39%
Online town hall meetings 11% 33%
Member/Senator's Blog 10% 29%
MySpace 4% 6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very Important Somewhat Important
*Question was asked only of senior managers and communications staffers. Their responses are aggregated (n=138).
FIGURE 8
Importance of Social Media Tools for Communicating with Constituents*
Communicating Member's Views 20% 54%
Facebook
Understanding Constituents' Views 8% 56%
YouTube Communicating Member's Views 20% 52%
Understanding Constituents' Views 4% 30%
Twitter Communicating Member's Views 12% 39%
Understanding Constituents' Views 4% 38%
Member's Communicating Member's Views 10% 29%
Blog Understanding Constituents' Views 3% 31%
Communicating Member's Views 4% 6%
MySpace
Understanding Constituents' Views 1% 8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Very Important Somewhat Important
*Question was asked only of senior managers and communications staffers. Their responses are aggregated (n=138).
Perceptions of Citizen Advocacy on Capitol Hill 7Methodology
These data are based on an online survey of congressional staff on their opinions and practices
related to constituent communications, including social media. The survey was in the field between
October 12 and December 13, 2010. Congressional staff were invited to participate through e-mail
requests to all House Chiefs of Staff and Legislative Directors, all Senate Administrative Directors,
and a variety of staff affinity groups (e.g. the House Systems Administrators Association). The survey
had 260 respondents (the demographics of which are described below):72% from the House of
Representatives and 28% from the Senate. Many of the questions asked were identical to those
asked in a 2004 survey, the results of which were published in the report Communicating with
Congress: How Capitol Hill is Coping with the Surge in Citizen Advocacy .
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
• 60% of respondents worked for Democrats and 40% for Republicans. (At the time of the
survey, 59% of House offices were held by Democrats and 41% by Republicans.)
• 29% were Chiefs of Staff; 21% Legislative Directors; 9% Communications Directors; and 41%
“mail staff” (legislative and administrative staffers with responsibility for researching, writing,
and/or processing constituent communications).
• 44% had three or fewer years of experience on Capitol Hill; 35% had 4–10 years; and 21%
had more than 10 years’ experience.
• 22% were younger than 25 years old; 60% were between 25 and 40; and 18% were over 40.
SENATE
• 64% of respondents worked for Democrats and 36% for Republicans. (At the time of the
survey, 59% of Senate offices were held by Democrats, and 41% by Republicans.)
• 28% were Chiefs of Staff; 17% Communications Directors; 25% Correspondence Directors;
and 30% “mail staff” (legislative and administrative staffers with responsibility for researching,
writing, and/or processing constituent communications).
• 36% had three or fewer years of experience on Capitol Hill; 29% had 4–10 years; and 35%
had more than 10 years’ experience.
• 14% were younger than 25 years old; 60% were between 25 and 40; and 26% were over 40.
Conclusion
This report is the first release of the data from our survey. We will be producing additional reports
based on this data throughout 2011. All of this research will be available online at the Congressional
Management Foundation’s Partnership For A More Perfect Union website (http://pmpu.org). The
goal of the Partnership is to further meaningful civic engagement through research, education,
programs to re-establish trust, and by providing innovative yet pragmatic tools to facilitate meaningful
two-way communication between Members of Congress and their constituents.
If you would like to receive notice of future releases and other updates from CMF’s Partnership For A
More Perfect Union, please register for email updates on the Partnership’s website.
8 COMMUNICATING WITH CONGRESSAcknowledgments The contributions of a number of people helped produce this data. For their feedback on the survey and help generating responses, I thank Rob Pierson, former Director of New Media at the House Democratic Caucus, Nick Schaper, Director of New Media for Speaker John Boehner, and Janice Siegel, Administra- tive Director for Rep. Jerrold Nadler. Thanks also to George McElwee, President of the House Chief of Staff Association, for helping generate responses from Chiefs of Staff. I also must express my appreciation for the contributions of my CMF colleagues. Fellows Jason Tortora and Jinglin Wang provided masterful assistance with survey design and research methodology, and Jason’s data analysis contributions were invaluable. Collin Burden assisted at every stage, from research methodology to graphics design, and his insight and edits were critical. Without Nicole Folk Cooper’s graphics design skills, as well as her critical thinking and detailed editing, this would be a far inferior product. I also thank interns Harshdeep Dhillon and Joe Glass for their fresh eyes and astute questions. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the vital contributions of Bradford Fitch and Tim Hysom, who oversaw all aspects of the project and the editing of this report. Kathy Goldschmidt About the Partnership For A More Perfect Union Since our nation’s founding, an active and engaged citizenry has been imperative for a healthy democracy. Fast forward to the 21st century: the population of congressional districts has grown exponentially; Congress’ approval ratings are consistently low; incivility and political polarization are on the rise; and the number and complexity of issues is greater than at any time in our history. Launched by the Congressional Management Foundation in 2010, the Partnership For A More Perfect Union is dedicated to enriching the relationship between citizens and Congress by comprehensively addressing the deteriorating relationship and communications challenges faced by both sides. The goal of the Partnership is to further meaningful civic engagement through education, re-establishing trust, and providing innovative yet pragmatic tools to facilitate purposeful two-way communication. Join us! Learn more about how to become a partner at pmpu.org. About the Congressional Management Foundation The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to helping Congress and its Members meet the evolving needs and expectations of an engaged and informed 21st century citizenry. CMF has pursued this mission for 34 years by working internally with Member offices, committees, leadership, and institutional offices in the House and Senate to identify and disseminate best management, communication, and citizen engagement practices through research, publication, training, consulting, and facilitation activities. To learn more about CMF, please visit cmfweb.org.
pmpu.org SPONSORED BY
You can also read
