"Given the increasing number of Americans using the Internet to get information from or communicate with their government, it is disappointing that the most common grade earned was a D," said Beverly Bell, executive director of CMF, a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded 30 years ago to promote a more effective Congress. "Congress has just not kept up with the demands of an increasingly Internet-savvy public."

Funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation, The 2006 Gold Mouse Report: Recognizing the Best Web Sites on Capitol Hill evaluated 615 Congressional Web sites including those of all Senate and House Members and Delegates, committees (both majority and minority sites) and official leadership sites. Providing invaluable assistance for the 2006 report were research partners from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the University of California-Riverside, and Ohio State University.

"What is particularly striking is how few Members use the Internet to convey substantial information about how they have voted, and why they have voted the way that they have. This is especially troubling given the potential of the Internet to transform the discussion Members have with their constituents about the issues of the day. These data suggest that while a handful of Members have really taken advantage of the opportunity that the Internet offers in this regard, the large majority of Members have not seized the day," said Dr. David Lazer, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Program on Networked Governance at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

"There are outstanding Web sites with 85 (13.8%) earning a score of "A" and a Mouse Award. They illustrate the best practices that we hope can serve as examples for others to follow," Bell said.

Of the 85 Mouse Awards, there were 18 Gold (A-plus), 27 Silver (A) and 40 Bronze (A-minus).

The full grade distribution:

Grade:
A: 13.8%
B: 23.7%
C: 23.9%
D: 25.4%
F: 13.2%

CMF has been studying congressional Web sites since 1998 and produced two previous reports in 2002 and 2003. Only three Members have received awards in each of the three Gold Mouse Reports: Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Senator Leahy is the only Member to earn a Gold Mouse Award every time they have been given. A complete list of this year's winners is attached.

"One of the key purposes of the awards is to highlight best practices so offices can improve their sites by learning from those doing a good job," said Bell.

These are the 2006 Gold Mouse Awards and reflect Members in the 109th Congress. Freshmen Members in the 110th Congress were not evaluated, but will be in 2007. The 2007 evaluations will take place during the summer, and another report will be released by the end of the year.

Key details from the report:

• Overall, Senate offices (including Member, committee and leadership offices) are doing somewhat better than their House counterparts. The Senate had 7.7% more "A"s and "B"s and the House had a higher percentage (4.5%) that scored "D" or "F."
• House committees performed better than Senate committees. None of the House committee sites received a failing grade compared to 17.4% of Senate sites.
• Overall, Republican sites scored higher than Democratic sites with 65.9% of Republican sites scoring at least a "C" compared to 56.1% of Democratic sites.
• Looking just at individual Member sites in the Senate, Republicans scored 10.3% more "A"s and 14.9% more "B"s. In the House, the highest grades were almost evenly split between the two parties with the Democrats edging out Republicans by just one percent among the "A"s and with a tie among "B"s with both parties receiving 22.8%.
• A high percentage of the winners won Mouse Awards in the past. For example, 54.6% of the Gold Mouse winners in 2003 won awards this year.
• There is a relationship between Web site grade and 2006 election margin. Members who received less than 50% of the vote had the highest percentage of sites that scored an "F" – 21.1%. In addition, those who received more than 55% of the vote had the highest percentage of "D"s.

Among the report's major criticisms of Member Web sites:

• Almost half (49.1%) do not give sufficient information on contacting the office regarding a problem with a federal agency.
• Only 26.4% offered guidance on the best ways to communicate with their offices.
• Only 11.4% of House and 5% of Senate Web sites posted their office hours.
• 32.0% do not have links to sponsored or co-sponsored legislation. Of the ones that do, 13.7% did not reference the most current session of Congress.

Web sites were evaluated based on how well they incorporate five basic building blocks that extensive research has identified as critical for effectiveness: audience, content, usability, interactivity, and innovation. Using these building blocks, an evaluation framework was developed that would be fair and objective, while still taking into account important qualitative factors that affect a visitor's experience on a Web site. The qualitative factors included: the quality and tone of the information presented; the usability and navigability of the site; its look and feel; and the degree to which the information meets visitor’s needs.

A full copy of the 2006 Gold Mouse Report: Recognizing the Best Web Sites on Capitol Hill is available on the Congressional Management Foundation's Web site.

Celebrating its 30th anniversary in 2007, the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting a more effective Congress. Since 1977 CMF has worked internally with Member offices, committees, leadership, and institutional offices in the House and Senate to foster improved management practices through staff training, office consultations, publications on best practices, and technology research. Simply put, CMF advocates good government through good management.