96-935 GOV
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Casework in a Congressional Office
November 19, 1996
John S. Pontius
Specialist in American National Government
Government Division
For Congressional Use Only
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Casework in a Congressional Office
Summary
This report and its appendices present a general overview of congressional office
procedures associated with handling casework and the assistance provided by a
Member of Congress to help constituents in their dealings with federal agencies. It
discusses options for assisting Members’ constituents and the role of Members and
staff in providing casework services.
Casework consists of assistance provided by Members of Congress and their
staffs at the request, and on behalf of, constituents in their dealings with federal
agencies. Most federally assisted casework involves problems with social security
checks, benefits, and appeals; workmen’s compensation claims, hearings, and appeals;
military service problems, such as a hardship discharge from the service; veterans’
benefits, medical care, and home loan guarantees; immigration problems; and other
appeals for help.
A Member of Congress usually allocates casework responsibilities to one or
more staff members who review and respond to needs, complaints, or personal
problems posed by constituents. The caseworker represents the Member, both to the
constituents and to the agencies. Identifying the total problem is the first step for the
caseworker. Upon receipt of the inquiry, most caseworkers feel it is advisable to send
an acknowledgement by letter to the constituent immediately to advise him or her that
the Member is aware of the request and is inquiring into the matter, and that the
constituent will be contacted again when some response is forthcoming.

Every caseworker has to develop his or her own method of analyzing the nature
of the constituent’s problem and how to generate the most expeditious and just
resolution. Adhering to ethical and legal standards is of concern to Members of
Congress and their personal and committee staff when intervening in the
administrative process. Once an agency has been contacted on behalf of the
constituent, the case should be tracked until completion. Responding to constituents’
needs, complaints, or problems gives a Member an opportunity to determine whether
the programs of the executive agencies are functioning in accordance with legislative
mandates and may indicate the need for new legislation.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Performing Casework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Assigning Casework Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Analyzing the Constituent’s Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Worker’s Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Military Personnel Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Military Hardship Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Social Security (Lost Check) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Social Security Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Congressional Intervention in the Administrative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Tracking Casework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Disposition of Casework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Handling Cases When Closing a Congressional Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A: Types of Cases, Information Required,
and Office Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Civilian Pensions and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Military Affairs and Service Academics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
State Department Inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B: The Ombudsman or Constituent
Assistance Office Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix C: Legal and Ethical Considerations
of Casework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Agency Intervention Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Employment Recommendation Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Responsibility to Constituents
(House Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Representations Before Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Principles to be Observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Guidance for Future Conduct
(Senate Ethics Committee Report) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Representation of Petitioners Before Federal Agencies
(Senate Rule XLIII, Section 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Rule XLIII — Representation by Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Congressional Intervention in the Administrative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix D: Sample Privacy Act Release Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix E: Appointments to U.S. Military
Service Academies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

U.S. Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Qualifications and Legal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Additional Types of Nominations for Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Liaison Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Coast Guard Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
This CRS report has evolved over the years from the work of Frederick H. Pauls, Judy
Carlile, Jack H. Maskell, Morton Rosenberg, Frederick M. Kaiser, and John Pontius.
Much of its text has been published, sometimes verbatim, in a variety of CRS,
congressional, and other documents.
The author wishes to thank George H. Walser, Senior Bibliographer in Library Services
Division, for the Bibliography, Jason Ackleson, Margaret Grzadziel, Daphne Bigger, and
Dolores Schofield for their valuable contributions.

Casework in a Congressional Office
Introduction
Casework consists of assistance provided by Members of Congress and their
staffs at the request, and on behalf of, constituents in their dealings with federal
agencies. Casework involves individuals (and on occasion a group with a common
concern), and typically includes a problem, grievance, question of eligibility, need, or
other tangible interest or benefit to these individuals. Whether it is a delayed social
security check, a denied veteran’s claim, or medicare reimbursement, the constituent’s
problem usually has to do with a federal program, rule, regulation, or administrative
decision resulting from the implementation of a public law. Or the constituent may
have another need connected with government, national or foreign, on which a
Member may be of assistance.
A basis for casework can be found in the first sentence of the Constitution: “We
the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union ... establish
justice ... promote the general welfare ....”
There is no doubt that the casework function in a congressional office promotes
an individual’s general welfare and often may correct an injustice. There is also no
doubt that the framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned a bureaucracy
such as we have, the scores of agencies, and the thousands of regulations that affect
our citizens. Occasionally, an important benefit check is delayed, or a veteran needs
hospital care right away—these are some of the many problems addressed to a
caseworker. The representative functions of Members of Congress in this area, while
not so defined, are arguably implicit in the Constitution. Additionally, the first Article
of the Bill of Rights provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the ...
right of the people ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Casework, or “constituent business” as it was sometimes called, was an early
function for Members of Congress, as noted in the diaries of John Quincy Adams and
James K. Polk. According to Leonard White’s The Jacksonians, Polk wrote of cases
in which he provided assistance in claims for pensions, land claims, writing letters for
appointments to West Point, and a search for a letter in a dead-letter office.1
Legislators did not have any staff to assist them; that was to come later. Until well
into this century, Members had to depend solely upon requests to the executive
agencies for information.
1 White, Leonard. The Jacksonians. New York, MacMillan, 1954. P. 144. See also
James K. Polk and His Constituents, 1831-1832. American Historical Review, v. 28, 1922-
23. P. 68-77.

CRS-2
By the 1940s, it had become clear that attending to constituents’ needs was
consuming large blocks of Members’ time. In a report by the American Political
Science Association’s Committee on Congress, published in 1945, this fact was
acknowledged and relief was recommended.2 That same year, hearings on the
organization of Congress were held by a joint committee at which a number of
Members and observers testified about this problem. Several witnesses advocated the
appointment of an administrative assistant who would assist Senators and
Representatives “in their office and departmental work.” Members reported spending
from 50-80 percent of their time occupied with nonlegislative matters, including the
handling of constituent requests before departments. Some urged deliverance from
the growing burden of services to constituents. A few argued that Members should
be forbidden altogether from intervening on behalf of constituents.3
In its 1946 report, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress noted
that “expansion of governmental activities during the past 25 years [had] vastly
increased the volume of ... requests for service” from constituents.4 It further stated
that “while it is true that the Constitution does not place this burden directly upon
Congress, nevertheless service to constituents has long been an accepted part of the
job of a Member of Congress.” This contact affords
5
, said the Committee, one of the
few remaining direct links between the citizen and his/her elected representative.
Furthermore, it continued, no other agency or office of government can perform this
service “so cheaply or with such patience, understanding, and personal interest as
congressional offices.” Despite suggested alternative ways of rendering this service,
therefore, the committee concluded that “it is neither possible or advisable” to do so.6
Because in the past the Congress had increased clerical assistance to Members,
the committee recommended that there be appointed “a competent assistant capable
of assuming a large part of the service burden” so as to release Members for the
performance of their legislative duties.
When the Senate subsequently enacted the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946, it included a provision to this effect. However, the House acted last; and its
version, which was accepted by the Senate due to the lateness of the session, did not
contain this provision. Nevertheless, it was successfully argued by Senator Robert
LaFollette, Jr., co-chairman of the Joint Committee that drafted the Legislative
Reorganization Act, that these assistants should be appropriated for because the
Senate had approved them. Within a short period of time, 91 of the 96 Senators
2 American Political Science Association. Committee on Congress. The Reorganization
of Congress. Washington, Public Affairs Press, 1945. P. 78-81.
3 U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Organization of
Congress. Hearings, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1945.
4 U.S. Congress. Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Organization of
Congress. H.Rept. No. 1675, 79 Cong., 2
th
nd Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1946.
P. 15.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., p. 16.

CRS-3
appointed such assistants. Subsequently, administrative assistants were also
authorized for the staffs of House Members.
These actions were tantamount to statutory authority for caseworkers in
Senatorial offices. Since 1946, of course, their number has grown commensurate with
the magnitude of constituent requests for assistance in dealing with the many
departments, agencies, and offices of the federal government. It is of both historical
and current importance that casework has been perceived as a legitimate, necessary,
and irreplaceable function of Members and their staffs and that the Congress explicitly
recognized this over four decades ago.

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 provided some increase in the
resources for constituent services in its reorganization of the Congressional Research
Service. Section 203(a)(5) of Public Law 91-510 authorizes CRS, “upon request, or
upon its own initiative in anticipation of requests, to prepare and provide information,
research, and reference materials and services to committees and Members of the
Senate and House of Representatives and joint committees of Congress to assist them
in their legislative and representative functions ....” The majority of CRS assistance
is related to legislation or oversight; CRS assists in casework only by providing
readily available materials to Members in responding to constituent inquiries.
CRS Services for Caseworkers
VIDEO AND AUDIO CASSETTES: The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has available
for Washington and field offices a one-hour VHS video entitled: Congressional Casework
Approaches and Considerations
. Areas covered include: general principles of casework; dealing
with constituents; communicating with federal agencies; and how casework for congressional
constituents can be organized and conducted. Limited copies of this program are available for one-
week loan to congressional offices by requesting Video Program VT92-1344. The audio portion of
this program is also available as Audio Brief AB-50254. CRS also has a video, Managing Projects
and Grant Work
(VT 94-1346) and Audio Brief (AB 50304). To obtain any of these products, call
the CRS Products Line at 202-707-7132.
SEMINARS: CRS presents a seminar on casework as part of its three day District/State Staff
Institute held periodically in Washington, D.C.. Congressional district office staff interested in
attending should call the Office of Special Programs at 202-707-7904.
OFFICES OF CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON: For a listing of more than 130 congressional
liaison offices of federal agencies, request Congressional Liaison Offices of Selected Agencies, by
Patricia D. Clark, CRS Report 95-413 PGM, April 3, 1996, 38 p. This report is intended to help
congressional offices in placing telephone calls and addressing correspondence to government
agencies, and is for congressional office use only.
Performing Casework
Assigning Casework Responsibilities
A Member of Congress usually allocates casework responsibilities to one or
more staff members who review and respond to needs, complaints, or personal
problems posed by constituents. The personal communication aspect is very

CRS-4
important. The caseworker should be personable, helpful, and ready to assist an
individual with his or her problem. A caseworker should also be compassionate,
realizing that those in need may be desperate when they contact Members. Finally,
the caseworker must be well organized and know how to follow through. The
caseworker represents the Member, both to the constituents and to the agencies.
Casework is rarely an isolated operation in a congressional office. It can involve
the administrative assistant, legislative assistants, grants and projects staff, the office
manager, and the press secretary, as well as the staff in the field offices. Caseworkers
contribute to the other functions of the office, such as alerting the press secretary of
a noteworthy case or identifying for the legislative staff a law that may need changing.
Responding to constituents’ needs, complaints, or problems gives a Member an
opportunity to determine whether the programs of the executive agencies are
functioning in accordance with legislative mandates. Thus, casework has the potential
to contribute to legislative oversight of agencies. Indeed, some offices make it a
practice to bring casework observations to the attention of the pertinent authorizing
committee(s), particularly if a pattern emerges.
In some offices, casework responsibility is divided between the field and
Washington offices. If this approach is used, the field offices usually address requests
involving community affairs, problems with local social service agencies, district/state
matters, and respond to local groups or organizations that need assistance; the
Washington offices address problems with federal agencies based in the nation’s
capital. In other offices, casework may be done entirely in the Washington office or
increasingly in the field offices. Ninety-five percent of all House caseworkers work
in field offices.
Most federally assisted casework involves problems regarding social security
checks, benefits, and appeals; workmen’s compensation claims, hearings, and appeals;
military service problems, such as a hardship discharge from the service; veterans’
benefits, medical case, and home loan guarantees; immigration problems; and other
appeals for help. Casework is closely related to, but different from, grants and project
work, which usually concerns local governmental units or other organizations (e.g.,
corporations, universities, and research firms) that compete for federal government
funds in the form of contracts, grants, loans or other disbursements. Some
congressional offices, however, combine these functions and call them “constituent
services.”7
7 For further information from CRS on grants and projects, congressional staff should
call 202-707-7132 and request Grants Work in a Congressional Office, by Rhoda Newman,
CRS Report 89-658 C, Dec. 5, 1989, 13 p.; Grants and Foundations Support, by Rhoda
Newman and James O. Nelson, CRS Report 95-1036 C, Oct. 6, 1995, 13 p.; Grant Proposal
Development by Rhoda Newman, CRS Report 90-430 C, Aug. 30, 1990, 11 p.; and Fund
Raising Techniques for Groups: Selected References, 1988-1993, by Robert S. Kirk, CRS
Report 93-825 L, Sept. 18, 1993, 4 p. CRS also has a one-hour video entitled: Managing
Projects and Grant Work, VT94-1346 and an audiobrief Managing Projects and Grant Work,
AB5034. For further information on the functions of a congressional office, request
Congressional Member Office Operations, by Frederick Pauls and John Pontius, CRS Report
(continued...)

CRS-5
Analyzing the Constituent’s Problem
Frequently, when constituents seek assistance, they are coming to a
Representative’s or Senator’s office as a last resort because they do not know where
else to go for help. They often feel caught in a bureaucratic labyrinth.
Identifying the total problem is the first step for the caseworker. Sometimes
individuals do not provide the entire story. Occasionally people have difficulty
communicating or may omit or forget crucial information. When caseworkers read
a letter, see a referral from the field office, or receive a phone call from a constituent,
they should make certain that they have all relevant information needed to proceed.
For example, a social security number and the age of the recipient, or time and length
of military service may not only be useful, but necessary in processing a claim.8
Upon receipt of the inquiry, most caseworkers feel it is advisable to send an
acknowledgement by letter to the constituent immediately to advise him or her that
the Member is aware of the request and is inquiring into the matter, and that the
constituent will be contacted again when some response is forthcoming. This method
establishes a basic office file in the name of the constituent, and is also a means of
requesting any additional information from the constituent, if needed.
Casework should be conducted with sensitivity to the constituent’s personal
privacy rights. Although neither the Freedom of Information Act nor the Privacy Act
apply to Congress, they may be used by caseworkers to seek federal department and
agency records on behalf of constituents. The former law allows any person to
request certain otherwise unpublished documents or papers on any subject so long as
the documents being sought are reasonably described and not otherwise restricted.
The latter statute permits an American citizen or permanent resident alien to seek
agency records or files pertaining exclusively to himself or herself.
General guidance on the Privacy Act is provided in an Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) memorandum of October 3, 1975, concerning “congressional inquiries
which entail access to personal information subject to the Privacy Act.” OMB
recommends that as a matter of policy each agency, in administering the Privacy Act,
should adhere to the position that disclosure may be made to a congressional office
from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional
office made at the request of that individual.
Since most agencies will not release information without written consent, it is
important to have either a letter from the constituent that will serve as a Privacy Act
release or a separate form on file. The form may state, “I authorize
Senator/Representative to check into my case and receive information
(...continued)
7
92-882 S, Nov. 30, 1992, 37 p.
8 See Appendix A: Types of Cases, Information Required, and Office Contacts.

CRS-6
connected with it.” The form must be sent to the constituent for signature an
9
d
return. When contacting an agency on behalf of a constituent, a caseworker may say,
“This office has Mr./Ms. ‘s authorization to receive information about
his/her case.” Many agencies do not wish to see the form and will accept a verbal
authorization but only with the assurance that a Privacy Act form will be forthcoming.
Every caseworker has to develop his or her own method of analyzing the nature
of the constituent’s problem and how to generate the most expeditious and just
resolution. Knowing where to go first can save time, and in some instances, time is
of the essence.
The caseworker should have a working knowledge of federal agencies. This
includes an understanding of the relevant agency programs as well as keeping abreast
of current legislation that might affect the constituent. Knowledge of the various
sources of assistance, federal and non-federal, including welfare organizations and
charities, enables the caseworker to assist more fully and expeditiously. Efficient
caseworkers develop their own telephone listing of contacts in the various agencies
and retain the numbers of fellow Hill caseworkers who can assist with a lead, a
number, or advice based on their casework experience.
Members of Congress also receive inquiries from constituents dealing with
subjects or programs within the jurisdiction of state or local governments. In such
instances, the Member office must decide upon an appropriate response to the
constituent inquiry. Most Member offices routinely respond to constituent inquiries
about local government issues by referring the matter to local officials. If the decision
is to refer the case to local officials, the constituent is notified that the congressional
office has done so. However, some Members have directed their field offices staff to
work in conjunction with state legislative staff and local government staffs as a means
toward more effective constituent services at the federal, state, and local levels.
In communicating with an agency, the caseworker must convey concern and, if
necessary, urgency, communicate clearly, and be reasonable but persistent. The
caseworker must also decide how best to transmit the case, either by phone, fax,
buck-slip, or letter. The form of contact usually depends on the degree of emergency.
Sometimes the problem requires an immediate response. More often the situation is
not quite so urgent. But all appeals for help have to be dealt with in a timely and
personal way on behalf of the Member. Following are examples of several cases:
Worker’s Compensation
With a worker’s compensation case, a constituent has typically filed a claim and
has not received the payment to which he or she feels entitled. The Department of
Labor, when contacted by a congressional office, will locate the case, check the
status, and determine agency action. It is the Department’s practice to answer
congressional correspondence within 14 calendar days.
9 An example of a Privacy Act form used by one Member’s office is provided in
Appendix D: Sample Privacy Act Release Form.

CRS-7
As with most agencies, if the answer is still unsatisfactory, a reconsideration,
hearing, or procedure before the Appeals Board are all alternatives for a denied
constituent. The appeals process can vary from agency to agency. At the Department
of Labor, an individual may request one of the above or all three, but at the appeals
board level no new information can be entered. While agencies will allow a
caseworker to review the file, it is rarely done.
Military Personnel Inquiries
When contacting a military liaison officer on behalf of a member of the Armed
Services, provide the name, rank, social security number, location and unit of
assignment. Additionally, a military liaison will probably require an acknowledgement
that a Privacy Act clearance has been provided to the congressional office by the
military petitioner. The military petitioner’s unit is contacted to determine the
situation and to verify information provided to the Member of Congress. If assistance
or counseling is appropriate, the military organization will do so, and express the
Member’s interest in the matter. The Member’s caseworker is then notified of the
findings and/or actions taken as a result of the inquiry.
Military Hardship Discharge
Military liaisons require the individual’s name, rank, social security number,
location and unit to which assigned, and the circumstances of his or her request for
a hardship discharge. Additionally, liaison officers also require acknowledgement that
a Privacy Act clearance has been submitted to the congressional office by the
requesting military member. The military liaison then contacts the unit to which the
member is assigned to find out his or her status and to verify the information the
military member has provided the Member. If the military member has not yet filed
a request for hardship discharge, the military liaison asks the military organization to
advise the military member regarding the application, and expressing the Member’s
interest in the matter. The military liaison then notifies the Member’s staff and
caseworker of their actions, and the outcome of the case.
The acceptable hardship criteria for a release as well as the steps involved may
differ among services.
Social Security (Lost Check)
Typically, a retiree who has not received his or her social security check contacts
a Member of Congress. A caseworker on that Member’s staff then contacts the
Social Security Administration with the pertinent information—name, social security
number, type of benefit, problem. The agency confirms that the individual has
reported the problem to its district office and determines the check number, amount,
and date of issue. This information is furnished to the congressional office. A
caseworker can greatly expedite the claim by phoning this information to the
Department of Treasury, Congressional Division of Check Claims.
If the check has not been cashed, Treasury will confirm or place a stop order on
the check and reissue it immediately.

CRS-8
If the check has been paid, a photostatic copy and claim form are sent to the
payee for endorsement verification. If it is shown that the beneficiary did not receive
or cash the check, a settlement check is issued to the payee upon receipt of a properly
executed claim. Suspicious circumstances surrounding claims will be investigated,
and such investigation can take several months.
Social Security Appeal
Most appeals are within the disability area. An unfavorable decision from the
Social Security Administration, either in whole or in part, may lead to an appeal.
After a due process notice (appeals rights) goes out, the constituent may file for
reconsideration. This request for reconsideration must be filed within 60 days of
receiving the notice. The individual’s claim is then again reviewed by the disability
determination service. If a favorable answer is still not forthcoming, the individual has
60 days to file for a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge, who will hear the
case, in a face-to-face hearing if so desired. If the judge’s ruling is unfavorable, there
is further recourse. A request for further review must be filed within 60 days. An
appeals council may review the decision. After that, it can be taken outside the
purview of the federal agency to the federal district court in the constituent’s area.
Congressional Intervention in the Administrative Process
Adhering to ethical and legal standards is of concern to Members of Congress
and their personal and committee staff when intervening in the administrative process.
Congressional interventions involve varying degrees of intrusion into agency decision
making processes.10
Tracking Casework
Once an agency has been contacted on behalf of the constituent, the case should
be tracked. While a letter is usually sent to the agency’s head from the Member of
Congress, it frequently helps to contact directly key agency staff likely to respond to
a casework request. Sometimes an interim response is sent to the constituent advising
that the Member is still working on the case. If no agency response has been received
after a reasonable amount of time, a follow-up is advised. When the agency finally
renders its determination, a caseworker should read it as if the caseworker were the
constituent. Rephrasing bureaucratese is an essential task of casework.
Casework and other requests of Members invariably increase over time. In order
to cope with the workload, offices have installed computer and word processing
systems. Such equipment enables offices to retain, in computers, disks or tapes,
casework information, including constituent’s name, the problem, any interim
communications, and final disposition data.
10 See Appendix C: Legal and Ethical Considerations of Casework. See also
Congressional Intervention in the Administrative Process: Legal and Ethical Considerations,
by Morton Rosenberg and Jack H. Maskell, CRS Report 90-440 A, Sept. 7, 1990, 78 p.

CRS-9
Disposition of Casework
Successful resolution of a case, more than anything else, will show the individual
that his or her Member, and the government, are really working for the constituent.
There are times, however, when it is not possible to achieve what an individual has
requested. A caseworker has to know when the case is no longer worth pursuing.
On the other hand, a caseworker must know when to persist in the face of agency
resistance and to do the utmost to assure as complete an effort on behalf of the
constituent as possible. If advisable, a negative decision from an agency can be
appealed to the appropriate agency office.11
Closed cases are kept on file for future reference. The files provide a Member
with examples of service to constituents and can be brought to the Member’s
attention for possible use when communicating with constituents. If the situation is
newsworthy, the Member’s press aide should be involved. Successful cases are
sometimes included in newsletters, press releases, and in human interest feature
stories. The constituent’s permission, of course, is required.
Handling Cases When Closing a Congressional Office
Open cases are those that are unresolved or not concluded by the time the
Member leaves office. A Representative has a number of options with regard to these
cases. He/she may pass on open cases to his/her successor, assuming the successor
is willing, and the constituent has granted approval. Sometimes, however, this is not
politically desirable. A retiring Member of the House may transfer open cases to one
of the state’s Senators, assuming a Senator and the constituent are agreeable to this
arrangement. If not, the active file is returned to the constituent.
When a Senator leaves office, active files are customarily transferred to the
succeeding Senator, or to the other Senator representing the same state, so that work
can continue on the problem. In some offices, however, the Senator who is leaving
will return the active file to the constituent, with a letter explaining that he or she is
leaving office and is no longer able to follow the case to a conclusion.
11 If the case is taken through the administrative process and the constituent feels that
he or she has unjustly been denied recourse or benefits, they have the right to take their
grievance to federal court, but only after the administrative process and appeals have been
completed.

CRS-10
Appendix A: Types of Cases, Information Required,
and Office Contacts
For a list of congressional liaison offices in over 130 federal agencies, call CRS
Products Line at 202-707-7132 and request Congressional Liaison Offices of
Selected Agencies
, CRS Report 95-413 PGM, a report to aid congressional offices
in placing telephone calls and addressing correspondence to government agencies.
The most common requests for assistance are noted here, including the type of
information usually needed, and a contact name and phone number.
Civilian Pensions and Benefits
1.
Social Security Benefits
(a) Retirement
(b) Disability
(c) Survivors
For each case—social security number, nature of the problem, name and
address, type of benefit.
410-965-3929 Mr. Edmond DiGiorgio (Social Security Administration)
2.
Supplemental Security Insurance — name, address (each state has different
rules), social security number and nature of impairment — aged, blind, or
disabled.
410-965-3929 Mr. Edmond DiGiorgio (Social Security Administration)
3.
Black Lung Benefits (administered by the Department of Labor)—social security
number, name, city, nature of the problem, claim number, and date of claim.
202-219-6141 Ms. Geri Palast (Department of Labor)
4.
Medicare—name, address, medicare claim number, social security number, and
description of problem.
202-690-8220 Ms. Carleen Talley (Health Care Financing Administration)
5.
Civil Service—Retirement
The Office of Personnel Management administers both the Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System
(FERS). Applicants include those seeking regular and disability retirements, or
their surviving spouses and children.

CRS-11
Other categories of inquiry:
(a) Lost checks
(b) Change of address for correspondence and direct deposit for checks
(c) Refunds of retirement contributions
(d) Voluntary contributions
(e) Federal employees health benefits program
(f) Federal employees group life insurance program
(g) Federal and state income tax withholding
(h) Court orders and tax levies
(i) Deposits and redeposits
For each inquiry it is necessary to have either the civil service annuity number,
survivor number, or a social security number, and date of birth of the person receiving
benefits.
202-225-4955 Ms. Charlene Luskey (Office of Personnel Management)
6.
Railroad Retirement
(a) Benefits—name, address, social security number
(b) Unemployment benefits—name, address, social security number
202-272-7742 Ms. Margaret Stanley (Railroad Retirement Board)
7.
Unemployment Benefits—name, social security number, place of last
employment, reason for termination. In general, cases should be handled
through the local unemployment office first.
202-219-6141 Ms. Teri Bergman (Department of Labor)
8.
Worker’s Compensation—name, address, social security number, claim
number, date of injury, and status of care. (Could cover, for example,
Longshoreman, F.E.C.A., or black lung programs).
202-219-6141 Mr. Bill Buie (Department of Labor)

CRS-12
Military Affairs and Service Academics
9.
Military
(a) Hardship
(b) Retirement
Name, rank, social security number, location, unit to which assigned, nature
of the problem
Army:
(Senate) 202-224-2881 Col. Randy Bookout
(House) 202-225-6818 Col. Daniel Fleming
Navy:
(Senate) 202-224-4681 Capt. Billy Lewis
(House) 202-225-7124 Capt. Ralph Alford
Air Force:
(Pentagon)
703-695-7231 Col. Nicki Watson
or 703-695-7375

Coast Guard: (Senate) 202-224-2913 Cdr. John J. Jaskot;
Ms. Liz Moses
(House) 202-225-4775 Cdr. John Gentile
10. Military Academy Recommendations — name, address, desired appointment,
indication of credentials and brief history requested for a letter of
recommendation.
12
11. Selective Service System — for those born on or after January 1, 1960: name
and social security number; selective service number is helpful. For those born
prior to January 1, 1960: name, date of birth, and address at time of registration;
selective service number is helpful. For approval or reapproval of educational
loans under Title IV of the Higher Education Act—name, social security
number, and/or selective service number.
703-235-2051 Mr. Arch J. Kelly (Selective Service System)
12. Veterans (Department of Veterans Affairs (VA))
VA benefits include, but are not limited to, disability, education and training,
home loan, life insurance, burial, survivors benefits, and health care benefits.
Eligibility for most VA benefits is based upon discharge from active military
service other than for training under honorable conditions for a minimum period
specified by law.
12 See Appendix E: Appointments to Military Service Academies.

CRS-13
Please provide veterans name, social security number, claim number, policy
number (for insurance), date of birth and period of service. Evidence of
honorable discharge may be necessary.
202-224-5351 Mr. Philip Mayo (Senate) (Department of Veterans Affairs)
202-225-2280 Mr. Philip Mayo (House) (Department of Veterans Affairs)
For policy issues or statutes, call congressional liaison:
202-273-5615 Mr. Phil Riggin (Department of Veterans Affairs)
State Department Inquiries
13. Visas—name, date, place of birth, type of visa (visitors, working, student,
immigrant); where they applied; nature of the problem, if applicable.
14. Passports (on an emergency basis, may be completed on same day)—name,
address, certified birth certificate, driver’s license, previous U.S. passport or
naturalization certificate, two passport photos, fee, flight tickets, pertinent
application form.
202-955-0198 Ms. Patience Tait (Department of State)
15. Letters of Introduction—to American embassy abroad. Congressional office
may contact State Department or embassy directly. Provide name of constituent,
date of visit to foreign country. Suggested clause to be included in letter:
“Please extend appropriate courtesies to my constituent.”
16. Overseas citizens services (deaths, arrests, missing persons, adoptions, child
custody, injured relatives)—name, relevant information on itinerary or location.
17. Refugee/asylum cases
202-647-8728 Ms. Bernadette Allen (Department of State)
Other
18. Immigration — name, place and date of birth, immigration file number if known,
type of case, location and date of filing. If the case was denied, find out if and
when an appeal has been filed.
202-514-2535 Mr. Bert Rizzo (Immigration and Naturalization Service)
19. Labor Certification
(a)
Employees who have applied for certification — employee name, employer
name, type of job, case number, last action, date of application or appeal.

CRS-14
(b) Employers (former) who are being investigated — name of employer or
person being investigated, location, name of individual making the inquiry.
202-219-6141 Mr. Bill Kamela (Department of Labor)
20. Higher Education Loans and Assistance
(a)
Student financial assistance and related issues including repayment,
defaults, consolidation.
202-401-1028 Ms. Libby Upshur (Department of Education)
(b) Budget and general program questions
202-401-1028 Ms. Cindy Sprunger (Department of Education)
(c)
Legislative proposals
202-401-1028 (request appropriate specialists)
(d) Grant funding
202-401-1028 Ms. Larinese Young (Department of Education)
(e)
Correspondence
202-401-1028 Ms. Theresa Toye (Department of Education)
21. Farmers’ Loans — Farm Credit Administration. Would like to know if
application has already been made, name, address, county and state in which
property is located.
703-883-4056 Mr. Mark McBeth (Farm Credit Administration)
22. Communications Licenses
The information needed depends on the nature of the inquiry. For example, for
status queries about pending applications, the agency needs the name of the
applicant, file number, call number of station, and city of license.
202-418-1903 Mr. Dan Phythyon (Federal Communications Commission)
23. Government Procurement and Property
(a)
How to obtain surplus personal/donation property
(b) How to do business with the federal government
(c)
Federal travel regulations/per diem rates for federal employees

CRS-15
(d) Child care in the federal work place
(e)
Regulations on smoking in federal buildings
(f)
GSA owned/leased space
(g) Disposal of surplus real property (Land/Structures)
202-501-1250 Ms. Laverne Walker (General Services
Administration)
24. Housing — name, address, property address, indications of need, case or file
number. Specify public or FHA assisted or insured housing. Programs cover
housing for the elderly and handicapped, Section 8 voucher and certificate
assistance, Fair Housing, FHA insurance, manufactured housing, home equity
conversion mortgages, and home ownership assistance for low and moderate
income families. Might get involved with local public housing agency or
regional HUD program.
202-708-0380 Mr. John Biechman (Department of Housing and Urban
Development)
25. Native Americans — to be eligible for most Bureau of Indian Affairs programs
requires that an individual be a member of a federally recognized tribe and living
on or near a reservation.
202-208-5706 Ms. Marge Wilkins (Bureau of Indian Affairs)
26. Postal Service
(a)
Employee problems — name, address, Post Office involved
(b) Job opportunities — name, address, Post Office involved
(c)
Mail delivery — name, address, Post Office involved
202-268-2506 Mr. Gerald McKiernan (U.S. Postal Service)
27. Federal Prisoners
(a)
Prisoner transfers, furloughs at federal prisons — name, register number,
name of prison, nature of problem.
202-514-9663 Mr. Steve Scher (Federal Bureau of Prisons)
(b) Prisoner paroles — name, register number, name of prison
301-492-5990 Ms. Dawn Booze (U.S. Parole Commission)

CRS-16
28. Small Business
(a)
SBA loan — name of business, location where filed, amount if possible,
other pertinent information.
(b) SBA contract assistance — name of contract, type of contract, what
government agency provides contract, name of contracting officer if
possible.
(c)
SBA 8(A) certification — company name, date the company filed for
certification, name of any Small Business Administration contact person
they have dealt with, and what they have heard from Small Business
Administration.
202-205-6700 Ms. Kris Swedin (Small Business Administration)
29. Recommendations — nature of the situation, whether school or job, relationship
with Member of Congress.
Note that federal law narrowly restricts what Members of Congress and their
employees can do or say in making recommendations regarding any personnel
action related to federal employment, except for political appointments.
See “Prohibited Employment Recommendations,” Appendix C, Legal and
Ethical Considerations of Casework.

CRS-17
Appendix B: The Ombudsman or Constituent
Assistance Office Alternative13
Having Members or their office staff perform casework is not the only way to
meet the need for intervention on behalf of constituents. Another alternative is the
ombudsman, which is Swedish for “one who represents someone.” These legislative
officers, sometimes referred to as the “Citizen’s Defender,” receive and respond to
complaints and grievances from individuals in a number of parliamentary democracies,
including Sweden, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. By comparison, ombudsman
offices in the United States — which are rarer, less independent, and narrower in
jurisdiction than those abroad — are usually in executive or administrative agencies,
rather than in the legislature.
Since the early 1960s, legislation has been introduced to implement the
ombudsman concept or to create a congressional office of constituent assistance, to
respond to casework and constituent complaints or inquiries submitted to it by
individual Members. No proposal, however, has advanced beyond the hearing stage,
despite the growing casework workload and heightened concerns about the
appearance of a conflict of interest when legislators or their staff intervene directly
before administrative agencies on behalf of constituents.
Proponents contend that a congressional office of constituent assistance, which
would be staffed by experienced and specially trained professionals, could deal with
these demands and concerns more efficiently and effectively than the present system,
which lacks coordination and shared expertise among the individual congressional
offices. Members and their staff, if relieved of conducting casework, would thus have
more time to devote to legislative, oversight, and other public policy matters. They
would thus be less likely to be in a situation which could lead to a possible conflict of
interest. Congress’ oversight capability, moreover, could be enhanced by a legislative
ombudsman office that consolidated and reported information, data, and statistics on
administrative abuses, questionable actions, and inefficiencies.
Opposition to a congressional office of constituent assistance has arisen,
however, for several reasons. First of all, legislators might be reluctant to transfer
casework, along with its perceived benefits, to an office outside their immediate
control. The constituent assistance office might also be seen as interfering with the
representation function and direct contact between a legislator and a constituent or
as jeopardizing the confidentiality between the two, if a third party (e.g., the
ombudsman or constituent assistance office staff) became involved. In addition, the
constituent assistance office’s resources and congressional casework, would come
either from existing Member accounts or would require an increase in legislative
branch operating expenses overall. Both options have drawbacks for Members.
13 This appendix is drawn from A Congressional Office of Constituent Assistance:
Proposals, Rationales, and Possible Objections, by Frederick M. Kaiser, CRS Report, 91-893
GOV, Dec. 19, 1991, Summary page.

CRS-18

CRS-19
Appendix C: Legal and Ethical Considerations
of Casework
Title 5 United States Code Section 3303 prohibits appointing officers of the
federal government from considering or receiving a recommendation other than as to
character or residency.
Title 18 United States Code Sections 201(b) and 201(c) forbids Members of
Congress and their staff from soliciting or receiving a bribe or anything of value for
or because of any official act performed.
Title 18 United States Code Section 203(a) states that Members and their staff
may not be privately remunerated for casework interventions on behalf of any person;
it sets forth penalties for:
“Whoever ... directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts or
agrees to receive or accept any compensation for any services rendered or
to be rendered personally or by another
1.
At a time when such person is a Member of Congress;
or Member of Congress Elect ...; or
2.
At a time when such person is an officer or employee
of the United States in the legislative
... branch of the government ...”
in relation to any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other
determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or
other particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct
and substantial interest, before any department, agency, court-martial,
officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission ...
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two
years or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office of honor trust,
or profit under the United States.
Title 18 United States Code Section 205 forbids government officials from pri-
vately handling cases before government tribunals on behalf of an individual, but
allows Members of Congress to do so without compensation. There are, however,
limits on Member representation; for example, they are prohibited from appearing in
maritime cases and before the Court of Claims and the now defunct Indian Claims
Commission.
Agency Intervention Protocol
Members of Congress are prohibited from ex parte communications concerning
formal adjudications (off-the-record communications by one person concerning some

CRS-20
agency action) and must abide by the rules which apply to all citizens making inquiries
to federal agencies (5 U.S.C. 557(d)). This does not mean that they cannot contact
agencies, but their communications may be made public under the ex parte rules of
a particular agency. The prohibition only applies to formal agency adjudications
(hearings on the record), and not to regular casework. For a further explanation see
Congressional Intervention in the Administrative Process: Legal and Ethical
Considerations, by Jack H. Maskell and Morton Rosenberg
, CRS Report 90-440 A,
Sept. 7, 1990, 78 p.
Employment Recommendation Restrictions
Section 8 of the Hatch Act Amendments of 1993 (P.L. 103-94, effective
February 3, 1994) amends Sections 3303 of Title 5 United States Code.
Members of Congress and congressional employees are prohibited from making
or transmitting any “recommendation or statement,” oral or written, regarding an
individual under consideration for, or personnel actions affecting employees in (1) the
competitive service; (2) a career appointee position in the Senior Executive Service
(SES) (or a similar appointment in a similar executive service); or (3) the excepted
service, other than for Presidential appointments or for positions determined to be of
a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making , or policy-advocating character.
Members of Congress and congressional employees may make a
recommendation concerning an applicant or employee who requests or is under
consideration for a personnel action only if the job is in what is defined as the
“excepted service” and a presidential appointment or of a confidential, policy-
determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.
Members of Congress and congressional employees may make a “statement,”
not a recommendation, with respect to an employee or applicant who requests or
is under consideration for a personnel action only if
1.
The statement is furnished in response to a request or requirement of the
agency and consists solely of an evaluation of the work performance,
ability, aptitude, and general qualifications of the employee or applicant;
2.
The statement relates solely to the character and residence of the employee
or applicant;
3.
The statement is furnished in response to a request made by an authorized
government official solely to determine whether the individual meets
suitability or security standards (e.g. security clearances);
4.
The statement is furnished in response to a provision of law or regulation
authorizing the consideration of the statement;
5.
The statement is furnished in response to a provision of law or regulation
authorizing the consideration of the statement.

CRS-21
This new provision prohibits the making or transmission of recommendations or
certain statements concerning hiring as well as statements regarding certain types of
“personnel actions.” Such personnel actions may include appointments, promotions,
disciplinary actions, transfer or reassignments, or pay and benefit decisions, among
others. [See 5 U.S.C. 2302(a)(2)(A), clauses (i) through (x).]
The law does not preclude a member of Congress from exercising normal
congressional oversight. A member may, for example —
1.
Ask for a report on a matter;
2.
Inquire as to status;
3.
Ask for an explanation of why an agency has acted in a particular way; or
4.
Refer the matter to an agency with oversight responsibilities, such as OPM,
EEOC or the Office of Special Counsel.
Responsibility to Constituents
(House Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion)

In its first advisory opinion of January 26, 1970, the House Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics Committee) concluded that the exercise of the
First Amendment right applies not only to petition by groups of citizens with common
objectives, but increasingly by people with problems or complaints involving their
personal relationship with the federal government. The Committee reasoned that:
As the population has grown and as the government has enlarged in scope and
complexity, an increasing number of citizens find it more difficult to obtain redress
by direct communication with administrative agencies. As a result, the individual
turns increasingly to his most proximate connection with the government, his
representative in the Congress, as evidenced by the fact that congressional offices
devote more time to constituent requests than to any other single duty.
The reason individuals sometimes fail to find satisfaction from their petitions are
varied. At the extremes, some grievances are simply imaginary rather than real,
and some with merit are denied for lack of thorough administrative consideration.
Sheer numbers impose requirements to standardize responses. Even if mechanical
systems function properly and timely, the stereotyped responses they produce
suggest indifference. At best, responses to grievances in form letter or by other
automated means leave much to be desired.
Another factor which may lead to petitioner dissatisfaction is the occasional failure
of legislative language, or the administrative interpretation of it, to cover
adequately all the merits the legislation intended. Specific cases arising under
these conditions test the legislation and provide valuable oversight disclosure to the
Congress.
Further, because of the complexity of our vast federal structure, often a citizen
simply does not know the appropriate office to petition.

CRS-22
For these, or similar reason, it is logical and proper that the petitioner seek
assistance of his Congressman for early and equitable resolution of his problem.14
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued House Advisory
Opinion No. 1 because it had received a number of requests on what “actions a
Member of Congress may properly take in discharging his representative function with
respect to communications on constituent matters.” The advisory opinion was written
to provide guidelines that would be of assistance to Members in dealing with such
matters.
Representations Before Federal Agencies
The Committee was of the “opinion that a Member of the House of
Representatives, either on his own initiative or at the request of a petitioner, may
properly communicate with an Executive or Independent Agency on any matter to:”
1.
Request information or a status report;
2.
Urge prompt consideration;
3.
Arrange for interviews or appointments;
4.
Express judgment;
5.
Call for the reconsideration of an administrative response which
he believes is not supported by established law; Federal
Regulation or legislative intent;
6.
Perform any other service of a similar nature in this area
compatible with the criteria hereinafter expressed in this
Advisory Opinion.
Principles to be Observed
The Committee concluded that the “overall public interest, naturally, is primary
to any individual matter and should be so considered. There are also other self-
evident standards of official conduct which Members should uphold with regard to
these communications.” The Committee recommended that Members observe the
following three basic principles of official conduct:
1.
A Member’s responsibility in this area is to all his constituents
equally and should be pursued with diligence irrespective of
political or other considerations.
14 House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Advisory Opinion No. 1: The
Role of a Member of the House of Representatives in Communicating with Executive and
Independent Federal Agencies. Congressional Record, v. 116, January 26, 1970. P. 1077.

CRS-23
2.
Direct or implied suggestion of either favoritism or reprisal in
advance of, or subsequent to, action taken by the agency
contacted is unwarranted abuse of the representative role.
3.
A Member should make every effort to assure that
representations made in his name by any staff employee conform
to his instruction.
The Committee noted that “subsequent legislation, regulation or rules may affect
part or all of this advisory opinion.”15
Guidance for Future Conduct
(Senate Ethics Committee Report)

The Senate Ethics Committee in the final report on its investigation of five
Senators’ who intervened on behalf of Lincoln Saving and Loan Association
presented the following guidelines for future conduct:
During the time that the Committee has had the Keating matter before it, the
Committee has had the opportunity to review the sources discussed above and to
consider at length the issue of the propriety of interventions with a federal agency
on behalf of an individual who has made or raised significant political
contributions. Based on this experience, the Committee suggests that until written
guidelines have been adopted, a Member who has any reasonable doubt about
whether to proceed in a particular matter consider the following issues:
The merits of the constituent’s case.
The continuing viability of the constituent’s claim. If the constituent’s
claim initially appeared to have merit, has the Senator acted despite
facts or circumstances that later undermined the merits of that claim?
The kind of agency involved and the nature of its proceedings. Is the agency
performing in a quasi-judicial, adjudicative or enforcement function?
If the Senator or staff member knows that an individual is a contributor, the
following issues should also be considered. (If the Senator or staff member does
not know if an individual is a contributor, he or she is not required or encouraged
to find out. Most Senate staff members are not provided with information
regarding contributions and are unaware of whether an individual seeking
assistance is a contributor.)
The amount of money contributed. Has the contributor given or raised more than
an average contribution?
15 U.S. Congress. Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Casework
Considerations. House Ethics Manual. 102 Congress, 2
nd
session. April 1992
nd
.
Washington, G.P.O., 1992. P. 239-266.

CRS-24
The history of donations by a contributor. Has the constituent made contributions
to the Senator previously?
The nature and degree of the action taken by the Senator. To what extent does the
action or pattern of action deviate from that Senator’s normal conduct?
The proximity of money and action. How close in time is the Senator’s action to
his or her knowledge of or receipt of the contribution(s)?
In its consideration of this case, the Committee has referred to or quoted from
sources which may be largely unknown to Senators, such as the writings of
Senator Paul Douglas and Advisory Opinion No. 1 of the House. The Committee
believes that these sources have value as helpful guidance to Senators and to the
Committee in analyzing the established norms of behavior in the Senate. However,
these sources, in and of themselves, are not precedential and should not be
considered as established Senate norms for purposes of discipline.16
Representation of Petitioners Before Federal Agencies
(Senate Rule XLIII, Section 2)

On July 2, 1992, the Senate passed S. Res. 273, establishing a new rule of the
Senate pertaining to representation of petitioners before federal agencies. Section
17
2 of the new rule, which lists various actions that a Member may properly take in
assisting a petitioner in dealings with government officials or agencies, is drawn in
substantial part from House Advisory Opinion No. 1 (above). The Senate Select
Committee on Ethics can provide advice and guidance to Members and staff on the
requirements of this rule.
Rule XLIII — Representation by Members
1.
In responding to petitions; for assistance, a Member of the Senate, acting
directly or through employees, has the right to assist petitioners before
executive and independent government officials and agencies.
2.
At the request of a petitioner, a Member of the Senate, or a Senate
employee, may communicate with an executive or independent government
official or agency on any matter to—
(a) Request information or a status report;
(b) Urge prompt consideration;
16 U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee on Ethics. Investigation of Senator Alan
Cranston. Senate Report no. 102-223, 102 Congress, 1
nd
st Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt.,
Print. Off., 1991. P. 13-14.
17 For a section by section analysis of S. Res. 273, see Congressional Record, Vol. 138,
no. 98, July 2, 1992, pp. S9762-4.

CRS-25
(c) Arrange for interviews or appointments;
(d) Express judgments;
(e) Call for reconsideration of an administrative response which
the Member believes is not reasonably supported by
statutes, regulations or considerations of equity or public
policy;
(f)
Perform any other service of a similar nature consistent
with the provisions of this rule.
3.
The decision to provide assistance to petitioners may not be made on the
basis of contributions or services, or promises of contributions or services,
to the Member’s political campaigns or to other organizations in which the
Member has a political, personal, or financial interest.
4.
A Member shall make a reasonable effort to assure that representations
made in the Member’s name by any Senate employee are accurate and
conform to the Member’s instructions and to this rule.
5.
Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of Members,
and Senate employees, to perform legislative, including committee,
responsibilities.
Congressional Intervention in the Administrative Process18
When congressional committees engage in oversight of the administrative
bureaucracy, or when Members of Congress intervene in agency proceedings on
behalf of private constituents or other private entities with interests affecting the
Member’s constituency, such interventions involve varying degrees of intrusion into
agency decision making processes. A CRS Report on congressional intervention in
the administrative process (90-440A) briefly examines the currently applicable legal
and ethical considerations and standards that mark the limits of such intercessions.
The report reviews the judicial development and application of standards for
determining when congressional pressure or influence has been deemed to have
tainted an agency proceeding. It concludes that the courts, in balancing Congress’s
performance of its constitutional and statutory obligations to oversee the actions of
agency officials against the rights of parties before agencies, have shown a decided
predilection for protecting the congressional prerogatives. Where informal rule
making or other forms of informal decision making are involved, the courts look to
the nature and impact of the political pressure on the agency decision maker and
intervene only where that pressure has had the effect of forcing the consideration of
factors Congress did not intend to make relevant. Where agency adjudication is
18 This section was drawn from Congressional Intervention in the Administrative
Process: Legal and Ethical Considerations, by Morton Rosenberg and Jack H. Maskell, CRS
Report 90-440 A, Sept. 7, 1990, Summary page.

CRS-26
involved, a stricter standard is applied, and the finding of an appearance of
impropriety can be sufficient to taint the proceeding. But even here the courts have
required that the pressure or influence be directed at the ultimate decision maker
before they will intervene.
The report also examines the conduct of Members of Congress intervening in
administrative matters from the perspective of ethics or conflict of interest rules and
statutes which may bear upon a Member’s official duties. Since congressional
intervention and expressions of interest in administrative matters from a Member’s
office are recognized as legitimate, official representational and oversight functions
and duties of Members of Congress, the primary focus of these ethical and statutory
conduct restraints is limited to (1) any improper enrichment or financial benefit
accruing to the Member in return for or because of his or her official actions, that is,
any illegal or corrupt bargain or payment for such activities, sale of influence, or
personal financial conflicts of interest in such matters; and (2) any overt coercion or
threats of reprisals, or promises of favoritism or reward to administrators, from the
Member’s office which could indicate an arguable abuse of a Member’s official
representational or oversight role in such matters. Additionally, ethical guidelines in
Congress may incorporate broad “appearance of impropriety” standards for Members
which could raise ethical concerns in relation to the acceptance of gifts, favors,
donations, and benefits by Members from those who are directly affected by the
Member’s official duties, even in the absence of a showing of a corrupt bargain, an
express payment, or other specific connection to an official act.
Appendix D: Sample Privacy Act Release Form
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO:
Senator/Representative
United States Senate (House of Representatives)
Washington, D.C. 20510 (20515)
(Date)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I am aware that the Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the release of information in my file
without my approval. I authorize the (name of federal agency or Department) to
provide information on my claim/case to (Senator/Representative) .
(Signature)
(Address)


CRS-27
(Social Security or claim number)
(Telephone Number)
If you wish information to be provided to parent, child, attorney, or other
interested party, please indicate below.
I authorize to receive information from
Senator/Representative relative to my claim/case.
(Signature)

CRS-28

CRS-29
Appendix E: Appointments to U.S. Military
Service Academies
U.S. Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies
Nominations for appointments to U.S. military service academies made by
Members of Congress are accepted by the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval
Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy. The following nominating procedures
apply to the U.S. Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies:
Quota for appointments is five cumulative per Senator and five cumulative per
Representative to each Academy at any one time. Appointments made by predecessor
are considered part of the quota of a newly elected Member.
Nominations by Members are made when a vacancy in the appointment quota
occurs, i.e., when an appointed member graduates or for any reason leaves an
academy. Announcements of vacancies in the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Military
Academy, and U.S. Air Force Academy are made by August of the preceding year.
Additional announcements are made as vacancies occur. Notification of vacancies in
an individual Member’s quota is made at the beginning of a newly elected Member’s
term of office. Unfilled vacancies are carried over from one year to the next.
Tri-service nomination forms (DD Form 1870) are supplied to a Member with
the notification of a vacancy in an Academy quota. Additional forms can be obtained
on request from academy liaison offices.
The following information should be typed on a nomination form:
1.
Full name (no nicknames);
2.
Date of birth;
3.
Social security number;
4.
Permanent address, temporary address;
5.
Identification of candidate as constituent;
6.
Type of nomination;
7.
Alternate’s numerical rank, if applicable;
8.
Signature of the Member of Congress.
In addition to requesting nomination by a Member of Congress, the individual
must complete an application form for each academy to which the candidate is
applying. Application form request cards are supplied by the academies to either
Members of Congress or applicants.

CRS-30
A maximum of ten applicants can be nominated for each vacancy. If fewer than
ten applicants are available for one vacancy, all names can be submitted as nominees.
If more than one vacancy exists, ten names can be submitted for each vacancy.
Three methods of nominee selection can be used by Members:
Competitive Method — ten nominees are submitted for one vacancy; most
qualified nominee is appointed by the academy.
Principal with Competing Alternates Method — Member’s first choice of
nominees is designated as principal nominee. If qualified, the nominee receives the
appointment; if disqualified, nominees compete for the vacancy. Most qualified
person receives appointment.
Principal with Numbered Alternates Method — principal nominee is designated
by Member; alternates are numbered in order of preference. If qualified, principal
receives appointment. If disqualified, alternates are considered in order of preference
until one is qualified.
A combination of methods can be used if two or more vacancies exist. For
example, in the case of two vacancies, one principal with nine alternates and ten
competitors can be nominated, or twenty competitive nominees can compete for the
two vacancies.
Admission to the academies can also be obtained through the following
appointment procedure-qualified alternate can be appointed to bring academies to
maximum strength. Qualified nominees who did not receive appointments for which
they were nominated are eligible. Appointments are granted in order of merit and are
charged against quotas of the secretaries of the military services.
Nominations to more than one academy can be made for one applicant.
Applicants can be nominated by both a Senator and a Representative; if appointed, the
applicant’s appointment will be charged against only one vacancy.
The deadline for submission of nominations by Members is January 31 of the
year for which July entrance is desired. Nominations will be accepted at the U.S.
Military and Naval Academies from August 1 of the previous year to January 31, and
at the Air Force Academy from May 1 of the previous year to January 31.
Members are informed of the status of nominees throughout the selection
process.
Notification of a nominee’s appointment is made to a Member of Congress by
telephone about three days (Military Academy—five days) in advance of the
nominee’s receipt of the appointment. Advance notice to a Member allows time for
personal congratulations by the Member prior to Academy notification to nominee.

CRS-31
Qualifications and Legal Requirements
Qualifications for admissions to the academies include a consideration of
scholastic examination scores, physical aptitude scores, class rank, extracurricular
activities, athletics and medical examinations, and are determined on an individual
basis through evaluation of the “whole person.”
Scholastic Assessment Test-1 or American College Testing examinations are
required of all applicants. Guideline scores required generally (check specific
requirements with Academy in which interested) are:
SAT-119
ACT
Military Academy
560 Verbal; 560 Math
21 English; 27 Math
Naval Academy
530 Verbal; 600 Math
22 English; 26 Math
Air Force Academy20
580 Verbal; 560 Math
24 English; 25 Math
Test scores will be sent directly to a Member on the request of a nominee.
Nominees financially unable to take College Boards can do so, free of charge, with
a verification of need from a high school official. Members of Congress may contact
the Educational Testing Service (609-771-7881) to be assigned a SAT code number
so that SAT-1 scores are sent directly to the Member of Congress. Extra copies of
ACT scores are obtained when the applicant indicates a request for them on the ACT
application form. The applicant must then send an extra copy to the Member from
whom a nomination is being requested.
Class rank in the top 40 percent is usually required but qualification will be
waived for nominees attending selected schools.
Physical aptitude examination is required of all nominees.
Medical examination is required of all applicants; exams are given at various
locations around the country. Evaluation of all medical examinations is made by the
Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board.
20/20 vision uncorrected is required of 65 percent of the applicants for the U.S.
Naval Academy. Vision must be correctable to 20/20 for applicants to the U.S.
Military Academy. U.S. Air Force Academy applicants must have visual acuity no
worse than 20/50 for potential pilot, 20/200 for navigator and distant correctable to
20/40 in one eye and 20/70 in the other, or 20/30 in one eye and 20/100 in the other,
or 20/20 in one eye and 20/400 in the other for commissioning.
19 Recentered SAT-1 scores.
20 In addition, the Air Force Academy requires ACT scores of 24 in Reading and 25 in
Science Reasoning.

CRS-32
Minor disqualifying defects subject to medical or dental correction can be
waived. Disqualifying illnesses include: chronic skin disease; asthma; organic heart
diseases; uncorrected hernias; and loss of either thumb or great toe.
Candidates must be:
1.
Citizens of the United States;

2.
At least 17 and no more than 21 years of age by July 1 of the year of entry;
3.
Unmarried, not pregnant, and have no legal requirement to provide support
to a dependent;
4.
Of good moral character; and
5.
Be a resident and legally domiciled in the state/district from which they are
nominated.21
Additional Types of Nominations for Appointments
Presidential Nominations to Academies can be given to sons and daughters of
career or retired military parents. Applications by eligible applicants are made directly
to the academies. Appointments are competitive.
Vice Presidential Nominations for appointment can be made by the Vice
President of the United States as the President of the Senate. Nominations are made
from the Nation at large; quota is five appointments to each academy. Applicants
must write to the Vice President for consideration.
Sons and Daughters of Medal of Honor winners can be appointed to the
Academies. Applications by eligible applicants are made directly to the Academies.
Applicants must only meet qualifications for admission. Qualified children of POW’s
and MIA’s and of deceased or disabled veterans may compete for one of 65
appointments by applying directly to the academies.
Nominations for Active Duty Enlisted Members can be made by the secretaries
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Honor military schools and ROTC units also have
limited nominating authority.
Liaison Offices
Military Academy
U.S. Total Army Personnel Command
Attn: TAPC-OPD-CM
200 Stovall Street
Alexandria, VA 22332-0413
21 Legal residence of father normally determines constituency; if parents are divorced,
residence of parent with whom the nominee lives determines constituency.

CRS-33
Ms. Jorja Graves
Telephone: 703-325-7414
Fax: 703-325-6073
U.S. Air Force Academy Group
USAFA/RRA
Pentagon Room 4E-144
1040 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1040
Ms. Norma Nottingham
Telephone: 703-697-7116
Fax: 703-695-7999
Naval Academy
Nomination and Appointments Office
117 Decatur Road
Annapolis, MD 21402
Ms. Delma Miller
Telephone: 410-293-4392
Fax: 410-293-4348
Additional information, services, and assistance in making nominations are
provided by the academy liaison offices. Services include:
1.
Personal visits to Members’ offices by academy representatives;
2.
Dissemination of information for applicants to Members’ offices;
3.
Providing assistance, on request, in forming selection committees to assist
a Member in making nominations to the academies.
The U.S. Military Academy sponsors one trip a year for congressional staffers
to visit the academy and periodic visits for educators. The U.S. Naval Academy hosts
10 to 15 orientation visits each year for congressional staff, educators and the media.
The Air Force Academy Group conducts three to four Orientation Tours to the
academy each year for congressional staff who are responsible for the academy
program.
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy

Each Member of Congress may nominate 10 candidates to the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy annually. Nominees must be (a) U.S. Citizens or a national of the
United States; and (b) a resident of the state/district represented by such Member.
Nominees then compete for appointment to the Academy based upon their
competitiveness and state and national vacancies. Qualifications for admission include
consideration of the candidate’s academic record, class rank, test scores (ACT or
SAT-1), and meeting the medical requirements as well as Naval Reserve midshipmen

CRS-34
standards. Additional information can be obtained by calling Capt. James M. Skinner,
Admissions Office at 516-773-5391 or 1-800-732-6267, or Fax 516-773-5390.
Coast Guard Academy
The Coast Guard Academy bases admissions on an annual nationwide
competition. The Academy does not have a congressional nominee program for
applicants. Competition is open to any American citizen who has reached his or her
17th but not 22nd birthday by July 1 of the entering year. In selecting students for
admission, the Academy prohibits discrimination based on gender, race, color,
national origin, or religion. Factors considered in the competition include ACT or
SAT-1 scores, high school standing, and leadership potential as demonstrated by
participation in high school extracurricular activities, community affairs, or part-time
employment. All candidates must pass a rigid medical and physical fitness
examination. Applications are made directly to the Academy, Office of the Director
of Admissions, New London, Conn. 06320. For additional information, call Captain
Robert W. Thorne at 860-444-8500, or Fax 860-437-6700.

CRS-35
Selected References22
Armey, Richard K. Dunn, Jennifer. Shays, Christopher.
It’s long enough: the decline of popular government under forty years of single
party control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, House
Republican Conference, 1994. 141 p.
LRS94-6829
Three Republican Representatives charge that uninterrupted Democratic
control of the House since the 84th Congress has led to “the tainting of the
entire legislative process,” including increased public perception of the
Representative as an “errand runner” to an expanding federal bureaucracy.
Baldwin, Deborah.
Taking care of business. Common Cause magazine, v. 11, Sept./Oct. 1985:
17-19.
LRS85-8059
“Members of Congress have found a surefire way to please their
constituents: helping them cut through government red tape. This service to
constituents—known as casework—rose 100% between 1970 and 1980, and
Members typically receive 5,000 to 10,000 inquiries for help per year.”
Birnbaum, Jeffrey H.
The limits of constituent service. Government executive, v. 23, June 1991:
28-30, 33.
LRS91-8217
“How far should agencies go in accommodating congressional pleas to aid
constituents? A high-seas tragedy raises some tough questions for the Coast
Guard,” which allegedly delayed enforcing a federal safety law on
fish-processing ships in response to a congressional request. Fatalities in a Mar.
1990 fishing boat sinking might have been avoided if the law had been enforced,
it has been charged.
Bond, Jon R. Covington, Cary. Fleisher, Richard.
Explaining challenger quality in congressional elections. Journal of politics, v.
47, May 1985: 510-529.
LRS85-15912
Using data from 1980 contested House elections, the authors “find that
both short-term and long-term partisan forces (previous vote margin and the
normal vote), national tides, and policy making behavior (ideological
discrepancy) significantly affect the probability of attracting politically
experienced, well-financed challengers. District diversity and incumbents’ use
of `perks’ available for advertising and casework, on the other hand, are not
related to any indicator of challenger quality.”
22 Prepared by George H. Walser, Senior Bibliographer, Library Services Division,
CRS. The LRS numbers appearing at the end of each reference citation may be used for
ordering a document from the CRS inquiry section (202-707-5700). Please limit your
requests to more than 10 items.

CRS-36
Cain, Bruce. Ferejohn, John. Fiorina, Morris.
Constituency service in the United States and Great Britain. In Congress
reconsidered. Edited by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. 3rd ed.
Washington, CQ Press, 1985. p. 109-130.
LRS85-2057
Compares and contrasts constituent casework performed by Members of
Congress and British MPs. “In both countries members have long traditions of
providing services to individuals and groups in their districts. And ... in both
countries members behave in similar fashion in the realm of service
responsiveness.”
——The personal vote: constituency service and electoral independence.
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1987. 268 p.
JK1071.C28 1987
“Describes the behavior of representatives and the perceptions of
constituents in two developed systems, the United States and Great Britain.
Service and allocation responsiveness have come to be increasingly important
components of the representational relationship.... Constituency service
constitutes an important means by which representatives earn personalized
electoral support—votes based not on party membership or association with a
particular government but on the individual identities and activities of the
candidates.”
Casework and congressional elections. American journal of political science, v. 25,
Aug. 1981: 512-604.
LRS81-8800
Contents.—The congressional incumbency effect: is it casework, policy
compatibility, or something else? An examination of the 1978 election, by John
R. Johannes and John C. McAdams.—Some problems in studying the effects of
resource allocation in congressional elections, by Morris P. Fiorina.—The
grateful electorate: casework and congressional elections, by Diana Evans
Yiannakis.—Does casework matter? A reply to Professor Fiorina, by John C.
McAdams and John R. Johannes.
Cohen, William S. Lasson, Kenneth.
Getting the most out of Washington: using Congress to move the federal
bureaucracy. New York, Facts on File, 1982. 220 p.
JK464 1982.C63 1982
Senator and his assistant offer “cases where citizens have turned to
Congress for assistance in resolving conflicts with, or grievances against, their
government.” They describe the overall casework function and present anecdotal
instances of how it has worked to solve problems in a variety of areas.
Congressional staff journal. 94th Congress, no. 1 (Dec. 1975)-98th Congress, no. 3
(May-June 1983) Washington, For sale by the Supt. of Docs., G.P.O.,
bimonthly.
LRS50-85001
First published as “Staff: A Congressional Staff Journal As a Process for
Communications,” this magazine focused on offering useful and practical
information to staff on congressional operations and office procedures.
Representative articles on casework include advice on avoiding Privacy Act and
Freedom of Information Act difficulties when obtaining constituent records
(July-Aug. 1981; LRS81-14008), and tips and guidance in handling social

CRS-37
security cases (Nov.-Dec. 1981; LRS81-14778), IRS tax cases (Jan.-Feb. 1982;
LRS82-52), prison cases, including Americans jailed overseas (Mar.-Apr. 1982;
LRS82-1009), and immigration cases (Sept.-Oct. 1982; LRS82-20134).
Cramton, Roger C.
A federal ombudsman. Duke law journal, v. 1972, no. 1, 1972: 1-14.
LRS72-8134
Article analyzes complaint handling by federal and local government
agencies and Members of Congress.
Dear Congressman: help! Edited by Vickie M.Smith and Gloria Van Treese.
Tallahassee, Fla., Stone House, 1981. 80 p.
JK1083.D4
Seven employees of former Senator Dick Stone outline for constituents the
services available from a congressional office and how to effectively request
assistance from a Member and work with the office staff.
Epstein, Laurily K. Frankovic, Kathleen A.
Casework & electoral margins: insurance is prudent. Polity, v. 14, summer
1982: 691-700.
LRS82-7704
“Since the Congress as an institution is judged so poorly and since the
evidence points so strongly to an absence of agreement on issues between
representatives and their constituents, incumbent security is puzzling ....
Attention to individual constituent demands (casework) constitutes a valuable
insurance policy for representatives, particularly those from putatively marginal
districts.”
Felten, Eric.
Aiming to please the folks at home. Insight (Washington times), v. 8, Oct. 4,
1992: 6-11, 26-29.
LRS92-8510
“When it comes to the business of being reelected, those in Congress have
learned what is paramount: constituent service. Gratitude for favors can make
the difference between victory and defeat. There are even guidebooks on
keeping the customer satisfied and taking credit for it. Meanwhile, the serious
work of legislation often gets bypassed.”
Frantzich, Stephen E.
Dealing with casework demands. In his Write your congressman: constituent
communications and representation. New York, Praeger, 1986. p. 39-64.
JK1083.F72 1986
“Constituency service or ‘casework’ eschews primary concern for broad,
universalistic issues of public policy and instead focuses on particularized
benefits. Such benefits exhibit two characteristics: (1) each benefit is given out
to a specific individual or an identifiable small group, and (2) the perceived rules
for distribution do not entitle every petitioner automatic benefits but require
special intervention.”

CRS-38
Hamilton, Lee H.
Constituent service and representation. Public manager, v. 21, summer 1992:
12-15.
LRS92-5356
“The purpose of this article is to explain how and why members of
Congress do casework, and to discuss some of the ethical issues we confront as
a result. The first part provides background information. Next is a discussion
of what members of Congress expect from bureaucrats when we go to bat for
our constituents. Finally, I offer some proposals aimed at improving the way
congressional casework is conducted.”
Hawthorne, Fran.
Jumping on Washington’s benefits bandwagon. Institutional investor, v. 23,
Sept. 1989: 154-156, 161, 163, 165.
LRS89-10487
“As concerns about health care and retirement grow, a new breed of
benefits champions has emerged in Congress to address them.”
Hessenius, Charles.
Explaining who writes to Congressmen: a contextual analysis. Political
geography quarterly, v. 10, Apr. 1991: 149-161.
LRS91-2218
“The study of constituent-congressman relations often ignores the potential
importance of the social nature of the constituency itself as it may influence the
relationship. It has been believed that seeking casework was almost completely
associated with individual attributes. Furthermore, it was believed that social
class was not an important predictor of who would write. This paper shows that
social class and the class context of an individual are important contributors to
whether or not a person will write to his or her congressman.”
High-tech on the Hill: how computers and other wonders are serving Members and
constituents. Roll call, v. 34, Sept. 25, 1988, suppl.: 1, 3-8, 10. LRS88-8013
Short articles include a description of congressional office use of computers
for mail, casework, and campaigning.
Hill, James P.
The third house of Congress versus the fourth branch of government: the impact
of congressional committee staff on agency regulatory decision-making. John
Marshall law review, v. 19, winter 1986: 247-273.
LRS86-13659
“Article focuses on the critical, but overlooked, informal oversight role
Congress delegates to its committee staff.” Casework inquiries are one technique
giving staff numerous opportunities to influence regulatory decision-making, the
author finds.
Johannes, John R.
Casework as a technique of U.S. congressional oversight of the executive.
Legislative studies quarterly, v. 4, Aug. 1979: 325-351.
LRS79-9286
“Based on questionnaire data from and interviews with over 250 former and
current members of Congress, congressional personal office staffs in Washington
and in home offices, and officials in department and agency legislative liaison
offices, this paper explores the utility of ‘casework’ for oversight. The theses
are that: constituency service is more valuable for congressional oversight than
is generally recognized in the literature; oversight via casework is nonsystematic

CRS-39
and selective; casework’s utility for oversight is both made possible and
constrained by ‘opportunity factors’ (case loads and types; congressional staff
adequacy, location, structure, procedure, and motivation; members’ motivations;
members’ committee assignments and status; and agency motivations, staffing,
and procedures); and casework’s greatest potential as a contributor to oversight
may lie in its effect upon internal agency oversight.”
——Casework in the House. In The House at work. Edited by Joseph Cooper and
G. Calvin Mackenzie. Austin, University of Texas Press, 1981 (Dan Danciger
publication series) p. 78-96.
LRS81-20678
“Casework on Capitol Hill and in district offices has become a semi-
professionalized and semi-institutionalized function which some fear may
threaten not only more important roles of Congress but electoral competition as
well. For some congressional districts, such fears may be real, but available
evidence must be stretched to argue that the problem is yet as serious as critics
claim.”
——Congress, the bureaucracy, and casework. Administration & society, v. 16, May
1984: 41-69.
LRS84-11151
Concludes in general from interviews with and questionnaire surveys of
Members of Congress, congressional staff, and involved federal officials “(1) that
casework is more useful than commonly believed for purposes of congressional
and internal executive oversight of programs, personnel, and operations; (2) that
congressional and administrative elites hold very similar views about
congressional casework; and (3) that the positions and responsibilities held by
congressional and administrator participants in the casework process affect their
views toward casework in a fashion predicted by a textbook understanding of
administrative processes.”
——The distribution of casework in the U.S. Congress: an uneven burden.
Legislative studies quarterly, v. 5, Nov. 1980: 517-544.
LRS80-12889
Using casework data for the 95th Congress, the author suggests “that the
distribution of casework may be largely idiosyncratic. Factors that have
independent effects on casework in the House include: region (the East);
constituents’ abilities to ask for assistance (education, concentration of
government employees in districts, and the percentage urban); and member
salience and visibility (seniority). In the Senate, legislative activism, state
population, and concentrations of the elderly are significantly related to case
loads. Several implications are offered for staffing, electoral outcomes, and
congressional oversight.”
——Entrepreneur or agent: Congressmen and the distribution of casework,
1977-1978, by John R. Johannes and John C. McAdams. Western political
quarterly, v. 40, Sept. 1987: 535-553.
LRS87-9282
“Two hypotheses explaining the distribution of casework are tested: (1)
congressmen as entrepreneurs, aggressively generating demands for casework,
and (2) congressmen as relatively passive agents, whose casework loads are
determined more by the nature of the constituency than by any efforts by the
members of their staffs. Both hypotheses receive support, but the ‘congressman
as agent’ perspective provides a stronger explanation. The analysis suggests,

CRS-40
further, that casework is perceived nonpolitically as merely part of a
congressman’s job. The implication is that there can be relatively little electoral
payoff and that efforts to stimulate casework requests are relatively inefficient.”
——Explaining congressional casework styles. American journal of political science,
v. 27, Aug. 1983: 530-547.
LRS83-11401
“Using questionnaire and interview data from 1977 to 1978 on 146 House
and 72 Senate offices, this study examines five aspects of congressional
casework activity: the amount of time members personally devote to casework,
the size of their casework staffs, the percentage of casework done in home
offices, the degree to which congressmen attempt to solicit cases, and their
propensity to use casework for electoral or public relations purposes.... The
most important findings are that (1) only a small proportion of the variance in
casework activities can be explained by the variables used here, (2) member
seniority proves to be the most consistent factor in explaining such activities, and
(3) ‘demand-side’ factors (constituency demands, traditions expectations) are
more important than previous research indicated.”
——Political culture & congressional constituency service. Polity, v. 15, summer
1983: 555-572.
LRS83-11596
“In this article Professor Johannes examines the concept of political culture
as an important factor in explaining constituency service orientations and
activities in Congress. His data show a strong link between culture and
constituency service with reference to congressmen and their staffs. He finds
that in the latter’s case, the link is even stronger.”
——To serve the people: Congress and constituency service. Lincoln, University of
Nebraska Press, 1984. 294 p.
LRS84-9445
Systematically examines the growth since the 1960s of the casework
function of Congress, and the concomitant expansion of executive branch
congressional liaison offices, concluding that “the casework system legitimately
and effectively provides citizens with direct redress of grievances, while
affording legislators, their staffs, and executive branch personnel valuable
feedback on how government programs are—or are not—working.”
——Women as congressional staffers: does it make a difference? Women & politics,
v. 4, summer 1984: 69-81.
LRS84-15864
“Women seem more committed to casework, are less skeptical of
constituents’ problems, seem more forthright and concerned with norms of
equity, and are more apt to link casework to other (legislative) functions of
Congress. No differences exist, however, with respect to casework success.”
Kaiser, Frederick M.
A Congressional Office of Constituent Assistance: proposals, rationales, and
possible objections. Dec. 18, 1991. Washington, Congressional Research
Service, 1991. 9 p.
91-893 GOV
This report briefly describes the basic characteristics of a Congressional
Office of Constituent Assistance (Or Ombudsman) and suggests rationales for
and possible objections to its establishment. The report also summarizes recent
proposals along these lines, generated by the increasing volume of casework and

CRS-41
by concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest when legislators or
their personal staff intervene directly with administrative agencies.
Klonoff, Robert.
The Congressman as mediator between citizens and government agencies:
problems and prospects. Harvard journal on legislation, v. 16, summer 1979:
701-734.
LRS79-19166
Article examines “the serious and far-reaching implications which casework
has for the legislative process as a whole,” concluding “by presenting a
comprehensive plan, calling for the creation of a case handling and monitoring
service within Congress, designed to maximize the informational benefits and
minimize the resource costs of handling constituent complaints involving federal
agencies.”
Koch, Deborah.
Managing projects and grant work; video program. July 19, 1994. Program
time: 60 minutes.
LTR94-1346
As financial assistance for constituents grows scarce, it is increasingly
difficult to know how to advise constituents seeking funding. Deborah Koch,
a former Projects Director in a congressional office, discusses how to manage
multiple projects and grant requests, how to conduct the relevant research, and
how to provide constituents with useful information even when federal funding
is unavailable.
Also available as audio brief AB50304.
Lee, Riva.
Grantsmanship. Washington, Congressional Management Foundation, 1977.
44 p. (Guidebook series)
LRS77-16754
Discusses sources of federal grant and loan monies, the need for financial
assistance at the state and local levels, and the difficulty of obtaining reliable
information about the federal grant and loan processes. Focuses on the role of
the congressional office in helping to obtain funds for its district.
McAdams, John C. Johannes, John R.
Congressmen, perquisites, and elections. Journal of politics, v. 50, May 1988:
412-439.
LRS88-14081
“Examines the so-called `perquisites/constituency service’ hypothesis that
purports to explain incumbents’ electoral margins in congressional elections.
The findings are that casework loads, trips home, and mailings did not affect the
1982 vote, but that district partisanship and ideology, redistricting, national
electoral tides, and occasionally district education levels did.”
Mason, David M.
Let Congress be Congress: an agenda for legislative reform. Policy review, no.
62, fall 1992: 31-36.
LRS92-9072
“Some reforms of Congress are more important than others. Structural
reforms will be most useful if they encourage legislation and discourage
non-legislative activity. Procedural reforms will be most useful if they foster
clear decisions on big-picture issues. Several reforms clearly meet these tests,”
including an end to casework.

CRS-42
Newman, Rhoda.
Grants work in a congressional office. Revised Dec. 5, 1989. Washington,
Congressional Research Service, 1989. 13 p.
89-658 C
Congressional offices are often approached by constituents seeking funds
for projects of potential benefit to their states and districts. This report discusses
the grants process and varying approaches and techniques congressional offices
have developed in dealing with grants requests.
Olson, Kenneth G.
The service function of the United States Congress. In Congress, the first
branch of government. Twelve studies of the organization of Congress
conducted under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. Edited by Alfred de Grazia. Washington, American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1966. p. 337-374.
JK1061.T9 1967
“This paper examines the nature and significance of the voluminous set of
personal demands and requests which citizens increasingly press upon their
congressmen .... The basis contention of this paper is that the service function,
far from being merely a time-consuming diversion from the essential legislative
duties of members, is central to all of the work of the Congress.”
Paul, Karen Dawley.
Records management handbook for United States Senators and their archival
repositories. Prepared by the Senate Historical Office under the direction of
Walter J. Stewart, Secretary of the Senate. Washington, G.P.O. 1992. 179 p.
(Publication, Senate, 102nd Congress, 2nd session, S. Pub. 102-17)
LRS92-5389
“Revised edition of a handbook first issued in 1985 [LRS85-3496; issued
as Senate Publication 99-4 and Senate Bicentennial Publication no. 2] to assist
Senate staff who administer the informational resources of senators’ offices.”
Includes advice on organizing, managing, and disposing of casework records.
Pauls, Frederick H. Pontius, John S.
Congressional Member office operations. Revised Nov. 30, 1992. 37 p.
92-882 S
This report, with appendices, reviews staff functions in a congressional
office. See the chapter on projects and casework, pp. 12-17, and Appendix D,
projects and casework staff: duties, tasks and job titles, p. 30.
Povich, Elaine S.
‘Your petitioners therefore pray...’. Chicago tribune, Dec. 18, 1992: 1, 10.
LRS92-11587
Report on the project to catalog and research the approximately 10,000
petitions sent by constituents to the House of Representatives between 1789 and
1817 includes an accompanying article by Lynn Van Matre discussing
contemporary constituent relations in Congress, primarily casework and mail.
Rosenblum, Victor G.
Handling citizen initiated complaints: an introductory study of federal agency
procedures and practices. Administrative law review, v. 26, winter 1974: 1-47.
LRS74-6031

CRS-43
Article reports on questionnaire responses from 64 federal departments and
agencies. Of the total, 51 had no office specifically for handling citizen
complaints and therefore had no explicit procedures for processing them.
Congressional and White House-initiated complaints got higher priority than
direct citizen complaints. Less than one fifth said that citizen complaints directly
resulted in procedural changes.
Serra, George.
What’s in it for me? The impact of congressional casework on incumbent
evaluation. American politics quarterly, v. 22, Oct. 1994: 403-420.
LRS94-9419
Uses “actual member-constituent contacts in a congressional district to
determine the effect of casework on incumbent evaluation. The results indicate
that, although casework does benefit the incumbent, its impact is specified by
partisanship. In addition, findings show that casework has a ripple effect on the
formation of constituent opinion in the district.”
——Casework, issue positions, and voting in congressional elections: a district
analysis, by George Serra and David Moon. Journal of politics, v. 56, Feb.
1994: 200-213.
LRS94-9238
“This study utilizes data gathered in a particular congressional district (both
data on actual member-consistent contacts and survey data) to discern more
explicitly whether ombudsman service and relative issue proximity to the
incumbent affects consistent vote choice. The findings support the position that
both service and policy responsiveness matter in congressional elections.”
——-
The electoral consequences of perquisite use: the casework case, by
George Serra and Albert D. Cover. Legislative studies quarterly, v. 17,
May 1992: 233-246.
LRS92-6964
“Study begins by examining how a particular perquisite, casework, affects
incumbent saliency and reputation among constituents.... Results are
incorporated into a model used to predict the electoral consequences of
perquisite use. The model suggests that perquisites have most impact in
constituencies in which a relatively small proportion of voters identify with
incumbent’s party.”
Shapiro, Richard H.
Managing casework. In his frontline management: a guide for congressional
district/state offices. Washington, Congressional Management Foundation,
1989. p. 93-131.
LRS89-12754
Outlines “the issues offices must address in developing an efficient and
effective casework system.”
Teague, Gerald V.
Profile of congressional grantspersons. Grants magazine, v. 4, Sept. 1981:
145-148.
LRS81-20284
Presents results of a March 1981 survey of 107 congressional offices
concerning casework devoted to grants assistance. “Particular focus was on the
individual staffers assigned this responsibility, the services they routinely
perform, and the recipients of their assistance.”

CRS-44
Theiler, Patricia.
Capitol letters. Common Cause magazine, v. 10, May-June 1984: 26-29.
LRS84-4313
Examines the impact of constituent mail on Members of Congress. “When
Members’ offices aren’t answering mail or judging its significance, they are
handling requests, since, after all, part of their jobs is serving their constituents.”
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Casework
considerations. In its House ethics manual. 102nd Congress, 2nd session. Apr.
1992. Washington, G.P.O., 1992. p. 239-266.
LRS92-2657
Sets forth the standards which House Members and employees should heed
in dealing with federal agencies on behalf of constituents.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. Subcommittee on Social
Security. Social security subcommittee staff survey of congressional
caseworkers. Washington, G.P.O., 1978. 27 p.
LRS78-3917
At head of title: 95th Congress, 2nd session. Committee print WMCP:
95-71. “The tentative conclusion of the survey is that congressional caseworkers
generally approve of how the Social Security Administration deals with their
inquiries on behalf of constituents. The other side of the coin, however, is that
these same caseworkers, basing their views on complaints from the same
constituents, are generally quite critical of the treatment and service afforded
claimants by local Social Security offices.”
U.S. General Accounting Office.
Observations on the management and operation of executive branch legislative
liaison offices. July 25, 1979. Washington, G.A.O., 1979. 12 p.
LRS79-21733
“FPCD-79-70”
Partial contents.—Delegating and referring inquiries.—Guiding
congressional contacts.—Assuring timely responses.—LLO staff experience and
training.—Attitudes toward congressional relations.
Waldman, Michael.
Quid pro whoa. New republic, v. 220, Mar. 19, 1990: 22-25.
LRS90-1165
Discusses the ethical constraints that should apply when Members of
Congress assist constituents having difficulties with the government.
Westen, T. Edward.
The constituent needs help: casework in the House of Representatives. In To
be a Congressman: the promise and the power. Edited by Sven Groennings and
Jonathan P. Hawley. Washington, Acropolis Books, 1973. p. 53-72.
JK1061.G75
“The job of a congressman encompasses a varied set of roles and tasks.
This essay describes how with the aid of his staff, a congressman performs
everyday constituency service. Casework is differentiated according to whether
congressmen themselves must perform it or can delegate it to their staffs. The
chapter concludes with a brief evaluation of the casework function.”