Studium

The study of representative-constituent relationships is usually focused on Washington, D.C. and representatives’ behavior within Congress. Numerous studies have been conducted that have revealed important information on voting records, committee work, and influence within the institution of Congress. The difference between those studies and this one is that this study focuses on the representative-constituency relationship within the district. Richard Fenno’s pathbreaking book about representatives’ perceptions of constituencies was the basis for this paper. His achievements in the field of representatives' perceptions have opened up an entirely new area of research.

Fenno's book, Home Style (1978), set out to explain how and why members of Congress behave the way they do when they are back at home in their districts. He traveled to eighteen districts where he studied fifteen representatives who were already serving, two representatives-to-be, and one representative elect. He made thirty-six trips in all and spent 110 days conducting research. Through his research he developed typologies in which members of Congress differ on factors such as how much time they actually spend in the district (rather than in Washington), how they distribute their resources between the district and Washington offices, how members of Congress explain what they do in Washington to their constituents, and finally, their presentation of themselves to their constituents. Fenno found that there are an unlimited number of home styles in Congress. Each member of Congress has different personalities that will make each of their own home style unique to him or her.

A replication of Fenno's original study would give great insight into the changes that have taken place over the past twenty-four years since the original research was done. New data gathered in the way Fenno collected them would allow new conclusions to be made about the validity of Fenno's theories. This project in no such way replicates Fenno's study on a large scale. Instead, it is a small attempt, through a case study conducted during an internship, to find out if Fenno's assertions hold true today in one representative's district office. Fenno himself asserted that the political conditions during the 1970's when he collected his data might have in fact caused his subjects to act differently than they normally would. The members he studied during the 1970’s lived and worked in an environment that was marked by its cynicism of political figures and institutions. Furthermore, is was not known to Fenno whether aggregate change of home styles in Congress was due to the conversion of member's styles or if change occurred with an influx of new members who brought with them fresh ideas and new home styles. I explore the changes that have occurred related to home style since the 1970's. The lapse in time between Fenno's study and this one will reveal new information about the theories Fenno presented. I expect to find that Fenno’s method of studying members of Congress in their districts will still be a valuable tool in the twenty-first century. I predict that many of Fenno’s theories will be applicable in today’s congressional district.

Fenno’s research attempted to answer two main questions: What does a member of Congress see when looking at a constituency, and most important, what are the consequences of these perceptions? He noted that when researchers ask constituency questions to a member in Washington, D.C., the answers can be distorted because the member is removed from the constituency itself. Therefore, the study of members’ behaviors is incomplete without researching him or her while s/he is submerged in the constituency. Without understanding home style one cannot truly begin to understand what motivates members of Congress to behave the way they do.

No other scholar has attempted to replicate Fenno's original research on home style in its entirety. His research spanned over the course of eight years and was extremely costly and time consuming. As a result, this paper will review studies that look at one small aspect of home style individually. In these studies more recent information would be helpful to make conclusions about home style in general. In addition, this study is limited in scope due to the fact that it is limited to one member. In his book, Fenno addressed a wide array of issues concerning home style—including personal attentiveness, constituency trust, the stages of constituency careers, and service to the district. Other scholars since then, like Diana Evans Yankis who studied communication styles of House members, Glenn R. Parker who studied constituent trust, John R. Johannes who studied congressional casework styles, and John R. Alford and John R. Hibbing who studied incumbency advantage affects, have addressed these issues (Yankis 1982, Parker 1989, Johannes 1983, Alford & Hibbing 1981). This paper will be confined to a single aspect—district attentiveness.

Attention paid to a district by the representative is an important aspect of home style. Technically speaking, district attention is viewed as a part of the allocation of resources aspect of home style. During his research, Fenno found that the amount of time a representative spends in the district is weakly affected by the representative’s perception of his or her electoral safeness. On the contrary, John C. McAdams and John R. Johannes (1985) found that members of Congress do become more attentive to their districts when faced with electoral threats. These two researchers collected data from many sources such as questionnaires that were mailed to House offices both in Washington, D.C. and the district and personal and telephone interviews with Washington, D.C. staff members. They found evidence to support the notion that members do indeed establish and keep up particular home styles, yet their analysis suggests that there are clear period affects that make members of Congress more attentive to their districts or policy-making for a short period of time.

District attentiveness is also affected by seniority. Fenno felt it would be reasonable to assume that as House members stay in office longer, attention paid to the district suffers. Senior members travel less to the district because of the physical burdens of travel, institutional maintenance positions like becoming chair of a committee, and because they feel their seat is safe. During his research, Fenno found numerical evidence to support this hypothesis but the correlation was weak. Jon R. Bond (1984) used results from telephone interviews of congressional staff in the Washington, D.C. offices, travel records from the Report of the Clerk of the House, and the Congressional Staff Directory to measure district attentiveness. His results lead him to draw the conclusion that senior members are less attentive to their districts than their freshman counterparts, confirming what Fenno found in 1978.

Another factor that affects district attentiveness is the financial burden of travel. Fenno looked at regional influences on travel as a variable of district attentiveness. He grouped members into five different regional blocks. By analyzing representative travel in this way, Fenno found that members of Congress with districts in the regions furthest from Washington, D.C. had overall the lowest frequency of trips home. A study done by Glenn R. Parker (1980) produced the same results. In his analysis, Parker found that the increase in travel allotments was the number one motivating factor in increased district attentiveness. I now turn to my case study to test Fenno’s theories and the aforementioned studies.

For two and one-half months during the summer of 2002, I was an intern in a congressional district office. So that the identity of the representative I worked for remains anonymous, I will refer to him as “Congressman Howard” throughout this paper. His district is a very diverse district in California. The district is not only economically diverse but also ethnically and religiously diverse. Moreover, it is in a large metropolitan area bustling with activity.

The internship position allowed me to be a participant observer systematically collecting data about the district office and Congressman Howard. My duties in the office included but were not limited to the following: taking constituent phone calls and intakes, answering constituent mail, opening cases, contacting the proper government agency to work out a solution to a constituent problem, and catching up work on old cases. Each week, I would go through the file drawers of open cases and make further inquiries for cases that had not progressed for thirty days. I was able to gain access to every aspect of the district operation. When constituents came into the office with problems, one of the staff members would do an intake. I was able to sit in on these, which gave me firsthand knowledge and allowed me to observe the interactions between the staff member and the constituent. I also attended four of Congressman Howard’s town hall meetings. During these meetings I was able to interact with the constituents and observe the congressman’s interactions with his constituents.

In addition to my observations, I interviewed two staff members and Congressman Howard. I interviewed Congressman Howard during one three-hour period, and I conducted my interviews with the caseworkers on multiple occasions for thirty minute to one hour intervals. During the interviews I wrote down as much information as I could possibly write. I chose not to use a tape recorder; I felt it was too formal and intrusive. It was not necessary to use one in any case because the staff and the congressman were more than willing to answer all of my questions and offered to clarify any part of the interview at a later date if needed.

Throughout each day, I took notes in a journal about my experiences and observations. I found myself jotting down numerous facts and observations constantly throughout the day. If I had questions for the staff members, I would write their answers down in my notebook for future reference. Finally, I took home newsletters from the congressman and other literature offered to the public. I read and analyzed the information provided in these materials.

It is important to understand what members of Congress see when viewing their constituencies. These perceptions are the basis of all that they do in the district. Members of Congress’ perceptions will affect how much time they spend in the district, what sort of district operation they have, what activities they engage in, their presentation styles, and even the types of Washington activity explanations they give. Fenno uses a “bull’s eye model,” where members’ views of constituencies are seen in a nest of concentric circles, to explain members of Congress’ perceptions. This model is the most informative because in one way or another, each member of Congress shares this perception (Fenno 1978). I sought to find out whether or not this bull’s eye model of perception was how Congressman Howard saw his constituents. Through my interview with Congressman Howard, it became evident that he did see his district divided into distinct sub-groups of constituencies.

The largest and most outer ring of the constituencies is the geographic (Fenno 1978). The geographic constituency is made up of the entire district. Fenno found that the most common answer to the question, “What kind of district do you have?” was described in geographical terms. However, according to Fenno, descriptions of constituencies are not limited to geography. Some members also describe their district in terms of demographic and political variables. When Congressman Howard gave a description it was of the demographic and political type.

Over thirty years it has changed. It has always been a district with a high percentage of minorities. In the beginning there was thirty percent Black and ten to twelve percent Hispanic. Two-thirds of the Democrats were minorities. It’s moderate to low income. One-in-two households has a union member. There are a great number of senior citizens and blue-collar workers. Now 45 percent of the district is Asian, Pacific Islander, and Indian, and Caucasians are the minority. It is politically progressive if not liberal. One half are registered Democrats, one quarter are Republicans, and one quarter “decline to state.” This has stayed fairly constant.

The second ring of the constituency is the reelection constituency. This group consists of the people the representative thinks votes for him or her in the general election. When members view their geographical constituency they make distinctions within the larger group between the people who vote for him or her and the people who do not (Fenno 1978). Congressman Howard knows that 50 percent of the district is registered Democrat. He also has a good idea of what ideological, demographic, and political groups vote for him. Congressman Howard recognized that he got most of his support from, “seniors, Democrats, minorities, unions, social liberals and activists, women with the exception of pro-lifers, gun control supporters, and environmentalists.” A district caseworker also thinks Congressman Howard gets liberal and moderate Republicans to vote for him. These are the groups he counts on to vote for him in the general election. At the same time, Congressman Howard thinks he knows what groups do not vote for him. “I spend very little time at the Mormon temple and Christian churches.” He also knows he is unlikely to get hard-line Republicans to vote for him.

Within the reelection constituency, there exists a smaller ring of support known as the primary constituency. These people are a member’s reelection constituents who would also be loyal to him or her in a primary contest. Every congressperson must have a primary constituency in order to stay in office. Even though each member of Congress has a primary constituency, it can be a difficult task to identify it. These constituents cannot be identified with voting data (Fenno 1978). Representative Howard sees his primary constituents in his district as made up of labor, seniors, environmentalists, and liberal Democratic activists.

The last ring is the most inner and personal constituency to a congressperson. The personal constituency, better known as the “intimates,” is made up of a member of Congress’ most trusted political allies and friends. Representatives have personal relationships with these people, which sets this group apart from any of the other constituencies (Fenno 1978). One of Congressman Howard’s caseworkers identified this group as his wife, the district director, his oldest son, a past administrative assistant, the new Washington, D.C. administrative assistant, one or two former members of Congress, and a couple of close friends.

Overall, members of Congress make it their business to try and understand, to the best of their capabilities, who does and does not vote for them. Their job depends on it. I found, just as Fenno did, that the bull’s eye model of constituency perception is applicable to today’s congressperson.

Time is a zero-sum game. A common complaint among House members is that there is not enough time to do everything the job demands. Doing something in Washington, D.C. takes time away from activities members of Congress could be participating in at home and vice versa.

There are many factors at play behind decisions about when and how often to come home. Fenno tested the relationship between the frequency of visits home and a member’s electoral safeness. It would be reasonable to assume that if a member becomes electorally vulnerable he or she would decide to come home more often to shore up his or her reelection. Fenno’s results showed that such a relationship is weak if anything (1978). When questioned as to whether he would consider coming home more often if faced with a serious challenger in an upcoming election, Congressman Howard recalled half a dozen times in the past where he faced more active opponents. Indeed, during these campaigns he traveled home more than normal. He was involved in debates and activities that demanded his attention. A more serious challenger requires more time, energy, and activity. He seemed to come home more during testing elections, not because he feared for his seat if not present enough, but more so due to the increased campaign activity caused by a serious challenger. Congressman Howard contradicts what Fenno’s hypothesis predicts. Fenno admits it would be facetious to discount this relationship due to a lack of quantitative evidence because, “our conventional indicators of electoral marginality are inadequate” (1978, 35).

Family and personal situations have been proposed as another motivating factor behind allocative decisions about time and travel. If a representative’s family lived in Washington, we would expect the representative to stay in Washington more often. In turn, if the family lived in the district, we could expect the representative to return home more often. Fenno’s findings supported this supposition as do mine. In the beginning of Congressman Howard’s career as a representative, his family lived in the district. He recalls that he did travel home more often back then. Now his wife and three young children live in Washington. He finds that with his family now in Washington he travels home less than before.

One might also expect to find a relationship between the number of trips home a representative makes and seniority (Fenno 1978). It can be argued that the longer a member is in Congress the more influence and responsibility s/he gains. Therefore, the need to spend more time in Washington increases. A second argument that supports the existence of this relationship is the incumbency advantage theory. The longer the representative is in office, the more secure his or her seat becomes due to electoral advantages enjoyed by incumbents, therefore not requiring as much time spent in the district for reelection purposes. Fenno also proposed a third possibility that supported the connection between seniority and number of trips home. He asserted that his data supported the fact that as members get older it becomes more troublesome and difficult for them to travel home as much as they used to in their early years. Fenno, considering all these factors of seniority, found that there is a clear difference in number of trips home between the most senior members (eight plus terms) and the most freshman members (three or less terms). Congressman Howard said that as long as he has been in office (fifteen terms), he has tried to come home once every month. With his increased influence and responsibility in the House, he does not think that it has affected the number of trips he makes to the district each year. On the surface, once again, Congressman Howard seems to contradict Fenno’s findings. At the same time, the fact that coming home once a month is not all that often compared to other members, must be factored into the equation. Members who start out coming home once a week might have to cut back on trips if it becomes physically tiring or if committee assignments keep him or her busy in Washington.

Another reasonable expectation is that the region the district is in determines how far away from Washington the members of Congress will have to travel, and how much it costs to get home to the district. Depending on these variables, certain representatives have an advantage over some in getting home. Fenno studied regional influences on the number of trips home made by House members. He divided the country into five regions: east, south, border, midwest, and far west (1978). He found that region has a substantial effect on the number of trips home made by a representative. In 1973 and 1974, House members were given a thirty-six trip allotment. Fenno felt that as the distance between the district and Washington increases, fewer trips were made. Fenno’s assessments show that members who have districts close to Washington come home far more often than members whose districts are further away. Congressman Howard's district is in the far west region, thus a low frequency is expected according to Fenno's calculations. Congressman Howard likes to think that if his district was closer, he would be able to travel home more often to attend events and hold more meetings.

The region of a district also affects a House member’s decision on district operation staff size. Two theories are commonly presented in an attempt to explain why members allocate their staff resources the way they do. The complementary relationship theory suggests that a House member places a large staff in the district to compliment his or her frequent trips home. The second theory asserts that a large district staff is set up to make up for the lack of presence in the district on the part of the House member. Fenno found that both theories have minor support. Fenno’s measure of district staff strength was the total of staff expenditures allocated to the district staff. What he found was distinctive differences in terms of regional district office staff allocation. Fenno concluded that the region in which the district office is located will directly affect the size of the district staff. However, the relationship is not linear. When examining Fenno’s results in the table below it becomes apparent that the far Western United States had fewer members in the lowest third percentile than did the Southern United States, thus suggesting that regional differences in district staff expenditures are not caused by distance.

	East	South	Midwest	Border	Far West
Lowest Third Percentile	16%	46%	37%	55%	22%
Middle Third Percentile	31%	35%	32%	24%	40%
Highest Third Percentile	53%	19%	31%	21%	38%

Source: Fenno 1978, 42

A fifth factor is now evident in today’s Congress that was not affecting the number of trips home made in 1973. In 1995, when the Republicans took control of the House, Friday votes were reinstated. This is potentially problematic for some members of the House who live far away and took advantage of three-day weekends to travel to the district. In my time spent in the district office, I found this to be true, at least for Congressman Howard. He was only able to spend two days each month in the district once his presence in Washington, D.C. was required on Fridays, whereas before, he was able to spend a three-day weekend in his district.

Although I did not examine every aspect of home style that Fenno studied, new conclusions can be drawn from this case study. Many of Fenno’s theories about home style are still applicable today. I found that the House member I researched viewed his constituency as a nest of concentric circles just as many other members did in the 1970’s. Congressman Howard and the way his district operation was set up, supported Fenno’s theories behind travel in regards to variables of electoral vulnerability, family influences, and region. At the same time, Congressman Howard did not fit Fenno’s theories about travel when looking at the variable of seniority.

A congressperson in both time periods has the same time constraints and job requirements. A representative today has to foster support within his/her district, go through reelection, and continue to take care of his/her constituency just as the representatives Fenno studied in the 1970’s did. Because the world of reelection in the district has stayed much the same, the home styles of representatives have not changed substantially. Each member of Congress has to allocate the resources given to him or her, present him or herself to his or her constituency, and explain his or her activities in Washington, D.C. This study shows that Fenno’s method of studying House members is still a valuable tool in the twenty-first century.

Alford, John R. and John R. Hibbing. (1981). “Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.” The Journal of Politics. 43: 1042 – 61.

Bond, Jon R. (1985). “Dimensions of District Attention over Time.” American Journal of Political Science. 29: 330–347.

Fenno Jr., Richard F. (1978).Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Johannes, John R. (1983). “Explaining Congressional Casework Styles.” American Journal of Political Science 27: 530 – 47.

McAdams, John C. and John R. Johannes. (1985). “Constituency Attentiveness in the House: 1977 – 1982.” The Journal of Politics. 47: 1108 – 39.

Parker, Glenn R. (1980). “Cycles in Congressional District Attention.” The Journal of Politics. 42: 540 – 48.

Parker, Glenn R. (1980). “Sources of Change in Congressional District Attentiveness.” American Journal of Political Science. 24: 115 – 24.

Parker, Glenn R. (1989). “The Role of Constituent Trust In Congressional Elections.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 53: 175 – 96.

Yiannakis, Diana Evans. (1982). “House Members’ Communication Styles: Newsletters and Press Releases.” The Journal of Politics. 44: 1049 – 71.