Section 3: Beliefs
How do congressional teams value constituent input, and what approaches to public participation do they find most meaningful?
In this section, we explore congressional teams’ beliefs surrounding constituent engagement, including their attitudes toward the work, how they value input, and their thoughts on which tools best get voices heard. We’ll then share some initial ideas about how the institution could evolve its approach based on these findings.
KEY FINDINGS
1 While quality and responsiveness are higher priorities for some Members and teams than others, constituent correspondence is consistently delegated to the most junior staffers, whose turnover, experience, and capacity inhibit innovation.
2 Constituent input is used most universally to back up existing policy agendas. Some Members look to their constituents for guidance, influenced most by powerful human stories. Others find little decision-making value in the opinions of their constituents.
3 High-effort, high-reward: Staff and Members value high-touch, personal contact over low-effort apps and tools that facilitate easy engagement but provide little meaningful information about constituents.
COMMON PAIN POINTS
- Staff do not have access to scientific means of understanding the pulse of their district. Input volume is only one indicator, which, to some, is not meaningfully representative of district sentiment.
- Low-effort, third-party contact tools inundate offices but rarely provide useful data points for staff, especially those that allow constituents to expend very little effort or personalization to communicate pro/con stances or add their name to stock petitions or campaigns.
3.1 Attitudes toward the work
This article is part of From Voicemails to Votes (PDF), a report conducted by The OpenGov Foundation on the mindsets, capacities, tools, and operations of Congressional offices with regard to constituent engagement. More about the project here.
