Nonprofits Strengthening Democracy

1. Nonprofits Strengthening Democracy Key Findings from an Agency-Based Voter Mobilization Experiment

2. Who We Are • Kelly LeRoux, University of Illinois- Chicago • Rachid Elabed, ACCESS/National Network for Arab American Communities

3. Agenda • Background • Study Purpose and Design • Findings • Implications

4. Importance of the Study • Rates of civic participation are uneven in the U.S. with lower voter turnout among lower-income groups. • Nonprofits can make democracy more inclusive by engaging their clients in the voting process. • Built-in personal contact with underrepresented populations • Trusted messengers • Ability to integrate voter participation into ongoing services and activities

5. What We Know • Nonpartisan GOTV efforts DO make a difference, and face-to-face contact is the most effective strategy for encouraging voter turnout. • Studies of canvassing in low-income neighborhoods have shown personal contact to increase probability of voting • anywhere from 6 to 9.8 percentage points in national elections (Gerber and Green 1999; 2000a; 2000b) • as much as 14 percentage points in local elections (Green, Gerber, and Nickerson, 2003).

6. Gaps in Our Understanding • Previous studies of nonpartisan voter engagement campaigns have focused primarily on canvassing at the door or on the phone as the strategy for increasing voter turnout. • No prior studies have been conducted on the impact of “agency-based” nonpartisan voter mobilization efforts to increase voter turnout.

7. Study Purpose • The first study to empirically examine the effects of agency-based voter mobilization on voter turnout. • Key research questions: • Do the nonpartisan, agency-based voter mobilization efforts carried out by nonprofits increase voter turnout? • If so, what forms of assistance and information are most effective?

8. Research Method:Selection of Participant Agencies • Partnered with Michigan Nonprofit Association to identify appropriate agencies • Key criteria for inclusion: • A willingness to select clients for each of the three groups and track them over the course of the study • A commitment to executing all phases of the study according to the design

9. Research Method:Selection of Participant Agencies • Identified 7 participant organizations (9 sites) • Mix of mission-types: senior service, community health center, community action agency, disability services, multi-service/community center • Each organization designated a study coordinator/leader • Agencies’ prior experience with voter mobilization varied

10. Research Method: Study Design • Quasi-experiment with non-random assignment to groups • Each of the 9 sites were required to select 70 clients and apportion into 3 groups: • Control group • 20 clients who would receive no contact whatsoever about voting from the agency • Treatment Group 1 • 20 clients who would receive one contact offering voter registration assistance only • Treatment Group 2 • 30 clients who would receive one voter registration contact plus one or more contacts offering voter education or voting reminders

11. Research Method: Study Design • Randomization factors • Transience of population: agencies were instructed to select clients they could maintain contact with throughout study duration • Program logistics: goal was to make group constitution as simple and natural as possible for agencies, most groups created around natural group boundaries

12. Research Method: Timeline and Treatment Components • Study period was three months, beginning Sept 7th, concluding December 1st 2010 • Three phases: • Sept. 7th to Oct. 6th – Voter Registration Contacts • Those in Treatment Groups 1 and 2 were asked if they wished to receive assistance registering to vote. Staff were asked to document possible outcomes: new registration, already registered, not interested. • Oct 7th to Nov 2nd – Voter Ed and GOTV Contacts • Nov 3rd to Dec 1st – Data collected via post-election survey

13. Research Method: Timeline and Treatment Components • Study period was three months, beginning Sept 7th, concluding December 1st 2010 • Three phases: • Sept. 7th to Oct. 6th – Voter Registration Contacts • Those in Treatment Groups 1 and 2 were asked if they wished to receive assistance registering to vote. Staff were asked to document possible outcomes: new registration, already registered, not interested. • Oct 7th to Nov 2nd – Voter Ed and GOTV Contacts • Those in Treatment Group 2 received additional forms of contact including help finding polling location, being given a sample ballot, being notified of a candidate forum, or being contacted with an in-person reminder to vote. The number and type of contacts were documented. • Nov 3rd to Dec 1st – Data collected via post-election survey

14. Data Collection • A short survey was administered by the site project leaders after the election to client participants in all three groups. Survey captured information on: • Whether voted or not • Whether encouraged family and friends to vote • Participation in other forms of civic participation • Demographic information • Name and address • Data collection period remained open for one month, Nov. 2nd through Dec. 1st • A total of 505 surveys were completed for a final response rate of 83%

15. Sample Characteristics • Characteristics of the sample: • Gender: 61% female, 39% male • Age: ranged from 18-88 • Education: 63% had HS diploma or less as highest level of education • Ethnicity: 68% African Americans, 14% Caucasians, 9% Arab Americans, 4% Latino/a, 2% Asian American and 3% identified themselves as “other” • Income: More than 90% at or below poverty level • Sample in the study is highly reflective of racial and ethnic demographics of Detroit

16. Results: Four Key Findings 1. Clients in both treatment groups had a higher likelihood of voting than those in the control group.

17. Results: Four Key Findings 1. Clients in both treatment groups had a higher likelihood of voting than those in the control group. 2. The likelihood of voter turnout increases proportionally with the nonprofits’ level of voter engagement effort.

18. Results: Four Key Findings 1. Clients in both treatment groups had a higher likelihood of voting than those in the control group. 2. The likelihood of voter turnout increases proportionally with the nonprofits’ level of voter engagement effort. 3. The reach of nonprofits’ voter engagement work may extend beyond the clients themselves - clients in both treatment groups were not only more likely to vote, but also more likely to encourage their family and friends to vote.

19. Results: Four Key Findings 1. Clients in both treatment groups had a higher likelihood of voting than those in the control group. 2. The likelihood of voter turnout increases proportionally with the nonprofits’ level of voter engagement effort. 2. The reach of nonprofits’ voter engagement work may extend beyond the clients themselves - clients in both treatment groups were not only more likely to vote, but also more likely to encourage their family and friends to vote. 4. Among all forms of voter assistance nonprofits provided, new voter registrations and voting reminders were the two forms of contact that make the biggest difference in increasing voter turnout.

20. Key Finding #1 • Clients in both treatment groups had a higher likelihood of voting than those in the control group. 71% 66% 54%

21. Key Finding #2 • Clients that were in a treatment group had an increased probability of voting, even after accounting for age and education level. • Probability of voting increased by approximately 9.3 percentage points with each additional voting-related contact by agency

22. Key Finding #3 • Clients in both treatment groups were also more likely to encourage family and friends to vote. • Probability of encouraging family and friends to vote increases by roughly 4.8 percentage points with each additional voting-related by his/her agency.

23. Key Finding #4 • Voter registration contacts and voting reminders were the two forms of contact that make the biggest difference in increasing voter turnout.

24. Implications for Practice • This study suggests that nonprofits’ voter mobilization efforts are effective at increasing voter turnout. Nonprofit staff and board members can be confident that resources allocated to these activities will bring a civic participation “return on investment”. • There is a direct relationship between the number of contacts and likelihood of voting. A single face-to-face contact will make a difference, but probability of voting and encouraging family and friends to vote will increase with every contact.

25. Implications for Practice • Helping a non-voter become a first-time voter may yield longer-term civic participation dividends • Evidence has shown that voting in one election substantially increases the likelihood of voting in future elections, by as much as 46% (Green, Gerber, and Shachar, 2003). • Our study involved only 7 organizations, but with more than 360,000 health and human service organizations in the U.S. imagine the difference nonprofits could make in promoting a more inclusive democracy!

26. Sources Cited Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 1999. Does Canvassing Increase Voter Turnout? A Field Experiment. National Academy of Sciences, 96(19): 10939-10942. Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2000a. The Effect of a Nonpartisan Get-Out-the-Vote Drive: An Experimental Study of Leafletting. Journal of Politics, 62(3): 846-857. Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2000b. The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3): 653-663. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green and Ron Shachar. 2003. Voting May Be Habit-Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3): 540-550. Green, Donald P., Alan S. Gerber and David W. Nickerson. 2003. Getting out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments. Journal of Politics, 65(4): 1083-1096.