Thank You for an Incredible 2013!

Before 2013 comes to a close, we want to a take a brief moment to thank our partners, our supporters, and nonprofits across the country for supporting voting.

2013 was an exciting year for Nonprofit VOTE:

• We debuted brand-new research on the impact of nonprofit voter engagement, including both turnout data and case studies. 
• The second annual National Voter Registration Day was once again endorsed by the National Association of Secretaries of State and embraced by secretaries of state across the country.
• We released the latest report in our America Goes to the Polls series as well as an accompanying report on voter turnout gaps. 
• We concluded another successful run of our annual webinar series, all of which can be watched anytime on our YouTube channel.

There will be plenty for nonprofits to do in 2014. In case you want to get a jump on things, you can register now for our January 23rd webinar on making a voter engagement plan.

Thank you for everything and Happy New Year from Nonprofit VOTE!

What We Learned in 2013

As 2013 ends, it's the perfect time to reflect on what we learned this year.

This summer, Nonprofit VOTE released a two-part report, Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program. While Part I of the report showcases the impact of nonprofit voter engagement on turnout in 2012, Part II tells the story of the nonprofits that talked to their communities about voting. By tracking the contacts nonprofits made with voters, we found:

• Nonprofits were particularly effective at increasing voter turnout among groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the electoral process. Voter turnout of nonprofit voters compared to all registered voters was: 18 points higher for Latino voters, 15 points higher for voters under the age of 30, and 15 points higher for voters with household incomes under $25,000. 
• Disparities in voter turnout by age, income, race, and ethnicity narrowed or disappeared among voters engaged by the nonprofits compared to the large turnout gaps evident among registered voters. 
• The most successful nonprofits made their voter engagement plans early, giving them time to pilot their programs and make adjustments. 
• Staffing is a key consideration. This means not only having a staff lead organizing and planning activities, but also ensuring there is adequate staffing--provided internally or by a partner--to carry out the efforts. 

In addition to our findings, other organizations also reported on new voting insights:

• Turnout in states with Election Day Registration was 12.5 points higher than in states without it. Election Day Registration accounted for approximately 1 in 8 ballots cast on November 6, 2012 in the eight states (and DC) that allowed it at the time. 
• For young people without college experience, the existence of a photo ID law in their state predicted lower turnout in 2012. However, the same report found that same-day registration improved overall youth turnout. 
• Turnout among voters with disabilities was strong, despite difficulties. 30.1 percent of voters with disabilities reported difficulty in voting at a polling place, compared to 8.4% of voters without disabilities. Nevertheless, 15.6 million people with disabilities reported voting in the November 2012 elections, turning out at a rate 5.7 percentage points lower than that of people without disabilities. 
• 75 percent of disenfranchised voters live in their communities, either under probation or parole supervision or having completed their sentence. 5.85 million Americans are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses. However, since 1997, 23 states have modified felony disenfranchisement provisions to expand voter eligibility. As a result, from 1997 to 2010 an estimated 800,000 citizens have regained the right to vote.

Thursday: Nonprofits Increase Voting - Findings from 2012

There's still time to register for Thursday's webinar: 

Nonprofits Increase Voting: Findings from 2012
Thursday October 24th, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

What happens when nonprofits talk to their constituents about voting? To find out, Nonprofit VOTE and its partners enlisted 94 nonprofit service providers to track their voter contacts with 33,741 individuals in seven states during the 2012 election. Afterward, CIRCLE conducted an independent analysis of voter file data to see how turnout among voters contacted by nonprofits compared to other groups. 

Join us as we discuss the impact nonprofits had on voter turnout and the populations nonprofits reached. In addition to the turnout results, we will cover key takeaways from 27 interviews with participating organizations, including the challenges they faced, their successes, and lessons learned. Don't miss out on this opportunity to find out what happens when nonprofits engage their communities around voting and to learn about strategies that worked to incorporate voter engagement into ongoing programs and services.

Featured Presenters: Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg is the Deputy Director of CIRCLE where she oversees their core research projects and produces resources and reports for various audiences, including peer-reviewed articles, reports, and factsheets. She has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Loyola University Chicago. Isela Gutiérrez-Gunter is the Research Associate and Latino Outreach Coordinator at Democracy North Carolina. She has over a decade of experience at advocacy-oriented nonprofits, including work with the ACLU of Washington State and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. She has a BA in History from Scripps College and a MSW from UNC-Chapel Hill. George Pillsbury is the founder and Executive Director of Nonprofit VOTE.  

"Yes, we vote"

By Michael Weekes, President of the Providers' Council. Reprinted from The Provider, the newspaper of the Providers' Council, Summer 2013 issue.  

Nonprofit VOTE, the nation's leading nonpartisan source focused on engaging nonprofits in registering voters and promoting voting through mission-focused activities, has released a seminal report on voting rates for those connected with nonprofits.

The essential question asked also serves as the title of the report: Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents and Staff? Based on empirical analysis of service providers in several states by Tufts University's Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), the report concludes the answer is a resounding "Yes."

For those of us who are connected with CareVote, the Providers' Council's decade-long effort to encourage voting among its human service provider network, it was gratifying news affirming our beliefs and assumptions.

The Council, in full disclosure, is represented on the board of Nonprofit VOTE and shares its belief that nonprofits have earned a well-deserved reputation as trusted resources for many in our nation. As indicated by national data, nonprofits play a role in hundreds of millions of lives – employing more than 13.7 million people, with another 62.7 million serving as volunteers and of course the multi-millions receiving services.

The report's research was conducted in relationship to the 2012 national election when close to 100 nonprofit service providers in seven states, as well as one national partner, agreed to engage with Nonprofit VOTE in its Track the Vote project.

In tracking the voting behavior of 33,741 individuals who registered to vote and/or pledged to vote via outreach from these service providers, this select group from Arizona, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina and Ohio – plus the National Association of Community Health Centers – helped to answer important questions. Overall, the data clearly shows the effect of having contact with a nonprofit about voting on increasing the likelihood that individuals will actually vote.

Equally important in a sector that is stretched for resources, it shows the essential elements that help nonprofit service providers integrate voter participation in their work. The qualitative and quantitative analysis framed response to queries related to the audience reached; capacity of service providers to engage; impact of those contacted by nonprofits to vote; what tactics and strategies have efficacy; and what factors contribute to success for service providers.

Among the significant findings were:

• Clients, constituents and staff were "markedly more diverse, lower income and younger than all registered voters in the seven states, made up of populations with a history of lower voter turnout in past elections";
• Nonprofit-contacted voters were nearly twice as likely to be younger voters (under age 30), more than three times more likely to be Latino or black and four times more likely to have incomes under $25,000;
• The turnout rate among nonprofit-influenced voters was at 74 percent – 6 points higher than the rate for all registered voters, including 18 percent higher from Latino and Asian voters, 8 percent higher among whites and 7 percent higher among blacks;
• Nonprofit intervention had the "…biggest impact among turnout of the least likely voters…"

Still, there remains more work to be done, including drilling down to the specific interventions that appeared to have the greatest impact on increasing voter participation, as well as determining if the changes are sustained during the next election cycle and the level of resources that are needed to be effective.

But the report provides the first answers to the fundamental question of can nonprofits make a difference in voter turnout based on personal contact with millions of Americans.

The report summary notes, "The populations reached by nonprofit providers were disproportionately younger, lower income and diverse by race and ethnicity – with a past history of lower voter participation."

Which means, according to Nonprofit VOTE founder George Pillsbury, "When nonprofits talk to the people we serve about voting, they listen and turn out to vote. It means more election impact and a louder voice for our issues and our communities."

We agree with his assessment and hope this work will help us expand the role of nonprofits in advancing democracy in this nation. At its core, is not that the essence of a nonprofit organization's mission-driven purpose?

October Webinar: Nonprofits Increase Voting - Findings from 2012

Nonprofits Increase Voting: Findings from 2012
Thursday October 24th, 2:00-3:00pm Eastern

What happens when nonprofits talk to their constituents about voting? To find out, Nonprofit VOTE and its partners enlisted 94 nonprofit service providers to track their voter contacts with 33,741 individuals in seven states during the 2012 election. Afterward, CIRCLE conducted an independent analysis of voter file data to see how turnout among voters contacted by nonprofits compared to other groups. 

Join us as we discuss the impact nonprofits had on voter turnout and the populations nonprofits reached. In addition to the turnout results, we will cover key takeaways from 27 interviews with participating organizations, including the challenges they faced, their successes, and lessons learned. Don't miss out on this opportunity to find out what happens when nonprofits engage their communities around voting and to learn about strategies that worked to incorporate voter engagement into ongoing programs and services.

Featured Presenters: Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg is the Deputy Director of CIRCLE where she oversees their core research projects and produces resources and reports for various audiences, including peer-reviewed articles, reports, and factsheets. She has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Loyola University Chicago. Isela Gutiérrez-Gunter is the Research Associate and Latino Outreach Coordinator at Democracy North Carolina. She has over a decade of experience at advocacy-oriented nonprofits, including work with the ACLU of Washington State and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. She has a BA in History from Scripps College and a MSW from UNC-Chapel Hill. George Pillsbury is the founder and Executive Director of Nonprofit VOTE.  

Can Nonprofits Increase Voter Turnout? Yes.

A new study by Nonprofit VOTE found that turnout among voters contacted by nonprofits during the 2012 election was 74%, six points above the 68% turnout rate for all registered voters.

The clients engaged by nonprofits were markedly more diverse, lower income, and younger than the general population of registered voters. Though these demographic groups are known to turn out at lower rates than their peers, nonprofits were successfully able to narrow traditional voting gaps based on age, race, ethnicity, and household income.

To assess the impact nonprofits have on turnout, Nonprofit VOTE enlisted 94 nonprofit service providers in seven states to track their voter contacts for evaluation purposes. These organizations reached 33,741 clients who registered or signed a pledge to vote. The results are available in a new report, Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program.

"The findings and demographic information from this study underscore the potential of local nonprofits to reach people missed by campaigns and who are not expected to vote," said Michael Weekes, President of the Providers' Council and Nonprofit VOTE Chair.

In the study, the nonprofits had their biggest participation impact among groups underrepresented in the electoral process. The turnout rate of voters contacted by nonprofits compared to all registered voters was:

• 18 points higher for Latino voters (72% vs. 54%), 
• 15 points higher for voters under the age of 30 (68% vs. 53%), and 
• 15 points higher for voters with household incomes under $25,000 (68% vs. 53%). 

"Political participation is highly unequal in the United States, and efforts to engage the lowest-income Americans are scattered," says Peter Levine, Executive Director of CIRCLE, the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. "One highly promising strategy is to integrate nonpartisan voter registration and outreach into the activities of nonprofits that serve the poorest Americans. The new report from Nonprofit VOTE shows that this approach worked in 2012 and should be strengthened for 2014 and beyond."

Download the Executive Summary and the full report to review the findings. 

Evaluating the Impact of Nonprofit Voter Engagement

What kind of impact do nonprofits have on voter turnout when they talk to their clients and constituents about voting? Who do they reach?

In 2012 we sought to answer these and other questions about the effectiveness and impact of nonprofits conducting voter engagement by having 94 nonprofits track their voter contacts. They engaged 33,741 clients and constituents across seven states, who were successfully matched to the state voter file.

Now, we're pleased to announce our findings from this first of its kind evaluation in a forthcoming report--Can Nonprofits Increase Voting Among Their Clients, Constituents, and Staff? An Evaluation of the Track the Vote Program. The results showed the impact of personal voter outreach by nonprofit service providers in raising turnout out rates among those least expected to vote and closing gaps in voter participation across all demographics.

• The clients and constituents engaged by nonprofits were markedly more diverse, lower income, and younger than all registered voters in the seven states, made up of populations with a history of lower voter turnout in past elections. 
• Voter turnout among those contacted by nonprofits was 74%, six points above the 68% turnout rate for all registered voters--with the largest turnout differences seen among young. Latino, and "low propensity voters" who campaigns typically miss. 

Learn more by signing up to receive a digital copy of the full report and detailed findings as soon as it is available.

Do Voters Contacted by Social Service Agencies Vote?

Last year, 87 service providers in nine states tracked approximately 41,000 voters they registered or had sign a voter pledge card. There were 15,393 voter registrations and 25,416 voter pledges. Now, we're using that data to measure the impact of nonprofit voter engagement and highlight effective strategies for nonprofits. We're excited about what we're learning. Here's the progress report so far:

1. Voter File Match: We're matching the 41,000 voters to state voter files to find out if they're officially listed as registered voters. Our match rate so far is 94%--high given our low-income and mobile populations.

2. Comparing Turnout Rates: For voters matched, we will compare voter turnout rates to average turnout rates for the state and various demographic groups.

3. Learning about our Voters: The state voter file, enhanced with data from research partners, will tell us who our nonprofits are reaching. What is their background and are they first time or infrequent voters? Demographic information on age, gender, ethnicity, and income can generate detailed turnout reports. Turnout rates can also be compared among groups, as well as for each agency and type of contact--either a voter registration or voter pledge.

We'll have additional details to share once the voter file match is complete and we start processing data. A full report, including case studies and data summaries, will be released in May. Stay tuned!

Measuring Impact, Learning What Works

This year, Nonprofit VOTE undertook a first-of-its-kind collaboration to assess the capacity of service providers to promote voting and their impact in doing so. Working with seven partners in nine states, we tracked the voter engagement activities of 87 local service providers who each agreed to register or collect voter pledges from 250 or more of their clients. With training from their state partner, local nonprofits tracked the voter contact information of over 40,000 people receiving services--15,110 people registered to vote and another 25,355 clients and staff members filled out pledge to vote cards. Everyone received a follow up mailing and/or call with state-specific voting information. The participating nonprofits represented a diverse pool of organizations, including community action agencies, immigrant serving nonprofits, health centers, affordable housing groups, family and children focused agencies, shelters, and disability programs spread across states like Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio, and North Carolina.

Early next year, we will review state voter files to find out if the 40,000 people contacted voted in the November election and if, for example, they were first time voters or were already registered but infrequent voters who didn't vote in the 2010 midterm. We're also conducting in-depth interviews with 26 of the participating nonprofits to hear firsthand how they conducted voter engagement, the capacity challenges they faced, and what did and didn’t work. Together, the metrics and case studies will create a more robust roadmap to allow a far greater number of nonprofit service providers to incorporate voter engagement into their work in future election cycles and to do so with greater effectiveness and impact. Stay tuned.

Nonprofit Voters Increase Share of the Electorate

In 2012, your organization and the entire nonprofit sector helped encourage communities across the country to participate and vote. Clearly your efforts to register, educate, and engage voters paid off.

This year, lower-income, younger, and more diverse communities frequently served by nonprofits accounted for a greater share of voter turnout than ever before. While some of this can be attributed to population increases, it was also aided by unprecedented voter education and engagement efforts from the nonprofit and civic sector.

• Young voters (under 30) defied predictions by claiming a higher share of total turnout in 2012 (19%) than in 2008 (18%).
• The Latino share of the electorate continued to rise, increasing to 10% this year.
• Black voters maintained their share of the electorate from 2008, holding at 13%.
• Voters with family income below $50,000 increased their share of the electorate, jumping three points to 41%, despite the fact that the population of that bracket has remained unchanged from 2008.

Read the full report for additional details on the changing electorate, early voting, participation trends, and more. Congratulations again on successfully promoting voting and engaged and active citizenship in 2012!

Simple Strategies to Increase Turnout

A recent briefing by Todd Rogers--a Harvard professor and former founding executive director of the Analyst Institute--synthesized research and data on effective voter turnout strategies. Many of the findings can be applied to nonprofit voter engagement efforts, helping us strategically nudge voters to the polls on Election Day.

While it's important to raise the profile of the election and make ongoing announcements about dates and deadlines, try to make your one-on-one conversations about the election more personal. Prompt your clients to think through the logistical details of their plans for voting--such as when they intend to head to the polls, how they will get there, and what they will be doing beforehand. This type of conversation is twice as effective (among single-voter households) as simply asking people if they intend to vote. (Rogers suggested that voters who lived with other voters were already more likely to discuss their Election Day plans as part of everyday life.)

Additionally, negative messaging--like lamenting low turnout--can be counterproductive and is unlikely to motivate voters. Instead, emphasize that turnout is expected to be high--this approach particularly impacts infrequent or occasional voters.

We've already reported on the difference between the importance of "being a voter" and the importance of "voting"--so think about how to phrase conversations with clients in a way that frames them as voters, rather than just asking them to vote.

Although this information can help inform your voter engagement work, don't be afraid to try new strategies and figure out what works best for your nonprofit. And if you have a tactic that's particularly effective, share it!

(Image Source)

Voter Registration Upgrades Needed

The Pew Center on the States recently released an issue brief on "Evidence That America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade".

The report underscores the need for registration systems that better maintain voter records, save money, and streamline processes. The report notes that nationwide:

• At least 51 million eligible citizens remain unregistered--more than 24% of the eligible population.
• More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
• Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.
• About 12 million records have incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved, or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them.

However, since 2010, elections officials from several states have been working with Pew on plans to upgrade their voter registration systems. This includes comparing registration lists with other data sources--like motor vehicle and National Change of Address records--minimizing data entry by finding ways for voters to submit information online, and using protocols to better track and identify inaccurate records. 

Although nonprofits might not be able to fix all these registration issues, there's plenty we can do to ensure all eligible citizens are registered. Learn more about voter registration and how you can participate in National Voter Registration Day on September 25!

(Image Source) 

Ex-Offender Turnout In Iowa

A recent study examines the effects of a 2005 Executive Order in Iowa that automatically restored voting rights to former felons who had completed their sentence. Before 2005, persons with felony convictions had to apply to the Governor to have their voting rights restored. Since the Executive Order was enacted, an estimated 100,000 Iowa ex-felons have had their voting rights restored.

Moreover, the analysis found that voter turnout among persons with felony convictions increased substantially following the policy change and that notification of voting rights restoration increased voter turnout among the released prisoner population by four to eight percentage points in the 2008 presidential election.

Unfortunately, in January 2011, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad issued his own Executive Order that rescinded the 2005 advancement, once again requiring ex-offenders to petition the Governor individually to have their voting rights restored. The study's authors predict that this will inhibit turnout, noting that many persons with felony convictions would vote but are discouraged because of the "burdensome application process."

This is particularly unfortunate because, in Iowa, African-Americans account for almost 25% of the prison population, although they make up only 2.8% of the state's population. This can severely impact both the civic and economic health of the community, as well as the correctional system. Research has shown that restoring voting rights to ex-offenders can reduce the recidivism rates of released prisoners.

What are the voting rights of felons in your state? Find out on our website and check out our felon disenfranchisement factsheet in English and Spanish.

(Image Source)

New Report on Turnout Gaps in 2010 Midterm

We're pleased to announce that our new voter turnout report, Voter Participation Gaps in the 2010 Midterm Election, is now available! It is the latest in our America Goes to the Polls series, and is based on the newly released biennial Census survey on voting and registration. The report tracks, analyzes, and explains income, age, education, and disability voting gaps. Prominent turnout gaps include:

• Age - 24% of youth (ages 18-29) turned out in 2010, a sharp drop from 51.1% in 2008.
• Household Income - There was a 20 point turnout gap between members of lower income and higher income households.
• Educational Attainment - Only 35% of those with a high school diploma or less turned out in 2010, compared to 61% of those with a college degree or more.
• Mobility - There was a 34 point turnout gap between individuals who had resided in their home for less than a year (28%) and those who had resided in their home for at least 5 years (62%).
• Disability - The survey included data on voters with disabilities and found that turnout among individuals with hearing difficulty actually exceeded turnout for those with no disability by 4 points.

Download the report to learn more about voting gaps. Then visit the Resources section of our website to see how your nonprofit can help close them.

Convenience Improves Turnout

At Nonprofit VOTE, we support and advocate for election systems and practices that make voting easier, more convenient, and allow a greater number of people to participate.

So we were glad to hear about a new paper by political scientists from Rice University and the University of Alabama called "Voting at Non-Precinct Polling Places: A Review and Research Agenda".

The researchers found that the convenience of Election Day voting centers--polling locations that combine multiple precincts and give voters options when deciding where to cast their ballot--can increase turnout.

Robert Stein, one of the paper's authors, said that "Over the last 3-5 years, research has revealed that implementation of voting centers has led to up to a 10 percent increase in not only voter turnout, but turnout of people who wouldn't normally vote."

Because of their size and accessibility, voting centers give voters the opportunity to vote somewhere that's more central to their daily routine, and thus increases the likelihood that they will vote. Stein suggests that voting centers work best in low-density urban areas and are most appealing to voters who are less likely to vote due to hectic schedules.

The findings of "Voting at Non-Precinct Polling Places" underscore the positive impact of voting centers, and are a helpful reminder that we can make voting more accessible to everyone through strategic election administration choices.

(Image Source)

New Census Data on 2010 Election

The Census Bureau has released data on "Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2010" that compares voting and registration patterns by demographic, social, and geographic characteristics. This release is the latest in a series of national reports that is one of the most frequently cited sources for registration and turnout data.

Last year, Hispanics comprised 7% of voters, the highest percentage ever for a non-presidential election. The percentage of non-Hispanic white voters was 77.5%, down from 80.4% in 2006. Tiffany Julian of the Census Bureau's Education and Social Stratification Branch noted that "The electorate looks much different than when we first started collecting these data 37 years ago," yet turnout and registration rates still do not mirror the nation's growing diversity.

There are persistent voting gaps for many of the populations that nonprofits serve. In addition to racial and ethnic gaps, economic gaps remain stark: People in families who earned $100,000 or more were more than twice as likely to vote as those who lived with families earning less than $20,000. Homeowners were more likely to both register and vote than renters.

Based on this data, Nonprofit VOTE will be issuing a report next month that details registration and turnout gaps, along with other relevant information for the nonprofit community. In the meantime, check out the full data files from the Census Bureau.

(Image Source)

Do Nonprofit Staff Vote?

Survey says…yes!

Earlier this year, the Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits (SVCN) polled 560 nonprofit staff members to learn more about the sector's voting patterns. Respondents included 114 "executive and senior managers" and 446 "line-staff personnel," described as mid-managers, caseworkers, program and clerical staff, etc.

100% of executive and senior managers reported being registered to vote, along with 92% of line-staff. Overall, nonprofit staff were 49% more likely to be registered than the average Santa Clara county resident, where the survey was conducted. In California's 2010 midterm election, nonprofit staff turnout was 21% higher than the county average. In 2008 it was 12% higher.

In California's 2010 midterm election--which featured gubernatorial candidates--turnout among nonprofit staff was 21% higher than the rate for all county residents. In 2008 it was 12% higher. These participation rates help make the case for the sector's importance and impact, and it can also send a message to elected officials.

This study is exciting because there is almost no information on the voting habits of nonprofit staff. This data, along with other emerging research is building the quantitative case for what we already know anecdotally--that the nonprofit sector is a key player in the voter and civic participation field. Although the numbers are likely inflated due to an overestimation of self-reported behavior, Census surveys have found that the margin of error for voting questions is only a few percentage points.

Still, there are gaps to close within our ranks: respondents who identified themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander were about 12% less likely to be registered than other groups surveyed. Black respondents were about 29% less likely to have voted in the 2010 midterm election.

Nevertheless, it is safe to say that many nonprofit employees are already voting. While we often focus on the voting behavior of clients and constituents, your organization can also ensure all staff members are registered to vote by including a registration form in the paperwork for all new hires or adding a reminder to paycheck envelopes. Visit our website for materials and ideas.

(Image Source)

A New Look at On-Campus Voter Registration

A recent study, "Getting Registered and Getting to the Polls" examines the impact of on-campus voter registration efforts on college student turnout.

Although many schools frequently host on-campus registration drives, their success is generally evaluated solely on the number of forms collected. However, this study focuses on what happens after students register.

The authors explore whether or not students who register through an on-campus voter registration drive actually turn out to vote, and if providing basic information about the voting process to those students increases turnout.

By comparing the turnout rate of students who registered through the on-campus drives with the turnout rate of similar young people, the study found that students who registered on-campus turned out at a higher rate than young people nationwide.

And while it is important to analyze and improve on-campus registration strategies, we must also look at new and innovative ways to engage non-college youth in the political process. This includes registering eligible high school students and looking to expand pre-registration opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds.

Because it has become difficult to reach many individuals at home, other voter mobilization efforts are increasingly important. Nonprofits and other community-based organizations are well-positioned to reach younger community members and to make the case for the importance of civic participation. By encouraging young people to register and to vote, we can increase the likelihood that they participate in both upcoming and future elections. Get started today!

(Image Source)

Vote vs. Voter

Question: What's the difference between the importance of voting and the importance of being a voter?
Answer: A 14% difference in turnout.

A new study by Stanford social psychologist Christopher Bryan suggests that voter turnout can be improved simply by calling someone a voter, rather than asking them to vote.

The study shows that subtle linguistic cues can increase voting behavior. As part of the study, surveys were sent to 133 registered voters in California the day before the 2008 election. Half were asked if it was important to vote, while the other half were asked if it was important to be a voter. The phrasing of the survey was varied to frame voting either as the enactment of a personal identity ("being a voter") or as simply a behavior ("voting").

Following the election, public voting records were used to determine that 82% of those who got the "vote" question actually voted, while 96% of the "voter" group did, a 14% difference. Surveys were also sent to 214 older registered voters from New Jersey prior to their gubernatorial election, and returned similar results--90% of the "voter" group turned out, compared to 79% of the "vote" group, an 11% difference. The results demonstrate how assuming or affirming valued personal identities can be channeled to motivate important socially relevant behavior.

Bryan has hypothesized that the increase in voter turnout among the "voters" is due to how people view themselves or would like to be seen. The survey's wording allowed a person to see themselves as a voter, something most consider a positive trait. On the other hand, asking people to vote is just like asking them to do anything else (like take out the garbage), and doesn't necessarily bring to mind any positive affiliations.

This has important implications for all kinds of groups interested in increasing turnout, particularly nonprofit organizations. The next time you talk to a client about voting, think about how you can phrase the conversation to frame them as a voter, rather than just asking them to vote. But remember, simply talking to your clients about voting makes them more likely to vote, and more likely to encourage their friends and family to vote.

(Image Source)

Tweet

Nonprofit VOTE Shares Groundbreaking Research

During the 2010 midterm election, a first of its kind study assessed--and ultimately affirmed--the agency-based approach to increasing voter participation. Conducted with the support of Nonprofit VOTE and the Michigan Nonprofit Association, this new research demonstrates the effectiveness of nonprofit voter engagement efforts.

The study found that:

1. When a nonprofit talked to clients about voting, their likelihood of voting increased.
2. The likelihood of a client voting increased proportionally with each additional voting-related contact made by the nonprofit.
3. A nonprofit's outreach efforts went beyond the individual they engaged--clients contacted about voting were also more likely to encourage their friends and family to vote.
4. Among the types of voter assistance provided, registering new voters and offering voting reminders made the biggest difference in increasing voter turnout.
   

To learn more visit our research page and read the study factsheet. You can also watch our webinar "Nonprofits Increase Voter Participation: New Research from the Field," download the PowerPoint Presentation, and read the full report.

We encourage you to share the study factsheet with staff, stakeholders, and other nonprofits in your network to spread the word about what nonprofits can and should do to help increase voter participation rates.

If your nonprofit is already doing voter outreach, we hope this groundbreaking research reaffirms that the work you're doing makes a difference, particularly to your clients. And if you're a nonprofit looking to get started, visit our website for resources and information on how to voterize your nonprofit!

The study, conducted with seven nonprofits in the Detroit area, was led by Dr. Kelly LeRoux, an Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. LeRoux’s research has been published in more than a dozen public and nonprofit management journals, and she is currently working on a book titled "Nonprofits and Voter Mobilization in the U.S."nonprofit!

Tweet