Why congressional websites suck

Congressional websites are generally mediocre even if they tend to perk up in quality during an election year, states a new paper printed in a Brookings Institution newsletter.  

Based on the presence and absence of about 100 criteria such as timeliness of updates present during 2006 and 2007, three political science academics conclude that congressional websites are stuck in a suboptimal equilibrium.

Perhaps that's not surprising, given the true-life anecdote the authors relate, that of one member of Congress asking a staffer which television channel would display the member's homepage.

Nonetheless, during election years, the quality of incumbents' websites scored higher, state the authors - Kevin Esterling of the University of California-Riverside, David Lazer of Northeastern University and Michael Neblo of Ohio State University.

But, high quality is apparently just a fleeting phase since in years when an incumbent isn't up for re-election, quality regresses to the generally low average, the article authors state.

Congress as an institution doesn't promote website quality, the authors state, as evidenced by the fact that the websites of incoming congressional freshmen follow the same quality distribution curve as that of incumbents.  

"You could imagine Congress having mechanisms that would help members of Congress continuously improve their websites and get them to meet best practices," said Esterling during a telephone interview August 31. "We couldn't find evidence of institutionalization of such a process," he added.

Based on interviews the academics conducted with congressional staff, the authors say that metrics of what portions of a member's website constituents find the most interesting generally have no impact on content.

"Given this, it is perhaps no surprise that we found that the qualities of websites are virtually unrelated to the characteristics of members' districts," they state.

Neither do offices consult with each other to learn best practices. Political parties do take an interest in members' websites, but mostly to make sure they're on message, Esterling said while on the phone.

The paper also criticizes the office of House Information Resources, which provides limited website support, such as templates and webhosting.

"Perhaps it's changed, although I doubt it," Esterling said. Staffers told the authors that the templates are limited and constraining, and that working with House Information Resources can be a time-consuming affair.

Article authors hold out little hope for change, but do state that awards given out by the Congressional Management Foundation for the best congressional websites have at least fired up the competitive ardor of members who seek to out-do their peers in all matters, whether geeky as a website or not.

For more:
- download the article, "Improving Congressional Websites" (.pdf)
- see some of the ugliest and worst business websites of 2009
- go to perhaps the worst political website, ever (made with Microsoft FrontPage 5.0!)

Related Articles:
Study finds higher digital IQ among GOP senators
National Guard Bureau advises on social media, avoids official policy
FDA slaps Novartis for drug Facebook page