For anyone interested in facilitating constituent communication (emailing, calling, meeting with the legislators that represent you) to influence policy, it will be helpful to understand how offices process these various communication channels. This is what is referred to as the "formal process" in our post about the effectiveness of constituent communication on changing legislator's attitudes, as it represents the mechanism offices have put in place to systematically intake and consider constituent opinion. I'll start with explaining the general office structure, and then get into the process itself.
Before talking about how offices process communication, it’s important to have a rough understanding of who makes up a congressional office. Offices are split into two different locations, an office in DC and an office in the district, and though the roles will vary a lot office to office, a number of positions are common:
Generally speaking, Representatives have a maximum of 18 full-time employees and often less[1] while Senators will employ between 35 and 60 staffers in total. Employees are roughly evenly split between the district and DC offices, with slightly more in the DC office[2]. Given previous estimates that 75% of those in the DC office are focused on constituent communication, it’s likely that over 33% of a given office’s staff is devoted to processing, and responding to, constituent communication on issues.
So you’ve communicated with your member, now what happens? The entire process is well drawn out here, but once your communication has been received, it generally follows seven basic steps:
Incoming messages are first categorized by the type of communication being made, generally slotting messages into one of the following categories: a constituent service request (e.g., a flag request), request for assistance with a federal program (e.g., veterans’ benefits), meeting request, or sharing input on and/or looking to learn the Member’s stance on a specific issue. Relevant here are the inquiries outside of service and assistance requests.
To get a sense of the receiving process, it’s worth noting the quantity of communication received and the type of communication. First looking to quantity, 2013 data found high variance in communication received between offices:
19% of offices surveyed received over 2000 contacts weekly, 39% receiving between 1000 and 2000 weekly and 42% receiving less than 1000. What’s more is that these numbers are likely much higher now, as there’s been a consistent, increasing trend of communications over time.
For example, the average House office received an estimated 12,500 communications per year in the 1970s, but in 2020 received an estimated 65,000 emails alone, a 5x increase[3]. And that’s just emails. In terms of total communications received, Congress received 105 million communications in 2000 which increased to over 200 million by 2004, nearly doubling in only four years. This effect is particularly acute for senate offices, some receiving over 25,000 pieces of incoming correspondence per week, indicating they process over 1,300,000 each year[4].
This is because the number of constituents represented per member has grown dramatically over time, starting at 75,000 per district in 1911 and rising to around 650,000 per district in 2008, nearly a 10x increase. The funding simply has not matched this increase and has even lead to a decrease in overall staff over time, most funding increases now going to the executive branch which gets 120x the funding. Despite all of this, it is worth noting that one survey indicated 71% of offices still feel they have the resources to handle all of this incoming information, though this is likely also due to a trend of turning this messaging into data points over time and engaging less deeply.
Coming back from this digression, we can also (in broad strokes) paint a picture of what sort of communication is received. As a lower bound, staffers estimate at least 66% of incoming messages are form emails on average, pre-generated templates organizations put out that only require someone to write their name at the bottom, but these could make up as much as 90% of total messages received.
There is no uniform practice across offices for managing intake of messages or the subsequent logging process, but one commonality is that this is almost always done by junior staff and interns, and for some this may be the main way they pass most of their time.
This process generally starts with the LC reviewing, editing, and researching responses, with the LA frequently helping across the stages. If there’s already a pre-existing response matched to the subject of the message, the LC will normally match that up and then get largely procedural approval from another staff member.
If there’s no pre-existing message, the LD and CoS will often be brought in to help generate new responses, and will almost always need to approve those new responses before they can be used. It’s worth noting that the member will sometimes be involved in the process though, one study finding 28% are involved with approving the application of pre-existing messages, 26% with reviewing and editing new responses, and 42% approving new responses.
Mail reports see a lot of variation from office to office, but thankfully one 2015 study has captured some of that variety:
What’s included in a mail report?
Other statistics included in reports:
Frequency of reports:
2% compile them on a daily basis, 66% weekly, 5% bi-weekly[5], 7% monthly, 1% annually, 9% “as needed”, 2% at random intervals, and 8% never
For those who do so as needed, the motivations for creating one were: “when there was a big or high priority issue (2 offices); when a large campaign is received or a large increase in correspondence volume is observed (3 offices); when certain issues come to the House floor (1 office); when the “content of correspondence is deemed proper to share with other staff” (1 office); or at the request of another staffer in the office (1 office)”
Who receives the reports?
This is due to budgetary limitations, as around 2021 offices only had $1.5 million to spend, which can’t easily support 18 full time salaries.
We could assume that this might be roughly 55% in the DC office, 45% in the District office
A similar rate of increase (4x) was found between 1995 and 2004 specifically.
One specific office saw an increase from 9,300 annual communications in 2001 to 123,000 in 2017, a 13x increase.
Every other week