Congressional websites suck
I make a good living working with governmental agencies making them more efficient using a variety of technology tools, including websites. In fact, my company creates quite a buzz in the justice community with annual Top 10 Court Website Awards that for eight years straight have highlighted best of class in web court service delivery. According to a recent article in Government Technology Magazine our friends in Congress could learn a thing or two about Web customer service.
The Congressional Management Foundation "is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting a more effective Congress." In their realm, they issue annual Golden Mouse Awards to honor the best in Congressional website content and delivery.
To excerpt from their latest report ... the CFM found "that congressional Web sites, in general, have failed to keep pace with rising expectations as the Internet becomes increasingly entrenched in the daily lives and work of Americans ... The best Web sites are virtual offices that foster communication with constituents and provide valuable information and services." While a few shining examples are congratulated, most offer either no web presence or token "brochure" sites that are little more than campaign spam.
Their grading scores showed 13.8% of all congressional sites received an “A” (and a corresponding Mouse Award), and the remaining sites showed 23.7% received “B”s, 23.9% got “C”s, 25.4% obtained “D”s, and 13.2% scored “F”s.
People looking to interact with their government increasingly seek Internet connections to learn about what is expected for regulation compliance, and hopefully to resolve government transactions without the need to make a personal visit. This would entail e-government solutions where credit cards are taken to pay fees and fines, and electronic filing is allowed to file for permits or to submit required paperwork.
Congress and most state legislative bodies receive significantly low overall public approval ratings. They are seen as ponderous, self serving bodies that fail to connect with their constituencies and obsess with partisan politics over substantive work to solve societal ills.
To be fair, courts tend to have better overall public approval ratings, but their web service delivery is not significantly better. I review over 3,000 court websites worldwide to find the Top 10, and there are way too many repeat winners. This is an indication that most courts don't consider web service delivery very important. I issue these awards to serve as models for those courts with limited resources to use as a benchmarking tool. At least in the justice arena, courts who are motivated can use websites to accept e-filing, allow constituents to pay fines, make calendars available and offer case look-up to determine status.
To most citizens, government is a faceless, uncaring monster and the Internet is a great tool to allow the public to interact with their government without attribution or the need for travel. I will be tireless in my efforts to move local, state and federal government into e-service delivery. I will also do my best to ensure that the web is not the only way to do business with government or else we will exacerbate the digital divide.
Cities and counties should offer online permit applications. Job offerings and applications should all be online. Government websites should have email addresses and question submission features to promote citizen interaction. And state legislatures and Congress should make it easy for citizens to petition their government for relief.
Welcome to the brave new world.
Chris Crawford
www.justiceserved.com