Engaging New Voters: The Impact of Nonprofit Voter Outreach on Client and Community Turnout

I bet that when you volunteer to help a non profit fighting homelessness, a disease, for a better community, you were working to fix things—not to be part of the Democrat political machine? Sorry, you were wrong. The Left has decided to use the volunteers and those helped by non-profits as political foot soldiers in the War Against Freedom.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

“In the lead up to the 2014 general election, Nonprofit VOTE and its partners conducted a study on the effects of voter outreach carried out by nonprofit service providers and community-based organizations on their clients’ and constituents’ likelihood to vote.¹ The study found that those who, with the assistance of nonprofit staff or volunteers, either registered to vote or signed a pledge to vote in the 2014 general election turned out to vote at higher rates than other registered voters in the states and counties where the study was conducted, across all demographic groupings.”

Just as the Democrats are using the DMV to register voters—without asking—non profits are no longer charity organizations, they are “community organizations” like ACORN. The question is, how much arm twisting does the staff do to force volunteers and those helped, vote—and tell them how to vote?

Engaging New Voters: The Impact of Nonprofit Voter Outreach on Client and Community Turnout

by Nonprofit VOTE, Beyond Chron, 12/7/15

In the lead up to the 2014 general election, Nonprofit VOTE and its partners conducted a study on the effects of voter outreach carried out by nonprofit service providers and community-based organizations on their clients’ and constituents’ likelihood to vote.¹ The study found that those who, with the assistance of nonprofit staff or volunteers, either registered to vote or signed a pledge to vote in the 2014 general election turned out to vote at higher rates than other registered voters in the states and counties where the study was conducted, across all demographic groupings.

REACHING VOTERS MISSED BY CONVENTIONAL CAMPAIGNS

In addition, the study showed that nonprofits reached precisely the people most in need of assistance an encouragement to vote: populations with a history of lower turnout who are frequently neglected by traditional political campaigns and parties. Voters engaged by nonprofits were markedly younger, more diverse, and lower-income than other registered voters in the study states. They were almost twice as likely to be under the age of 30, more than three times as likely to be Latino or black, and nearly four times as likely to have a household income under $25,000. More than half the voters engaged were identified, prior to the election, as “low propensity” voters, i.e. voters not expected to vote in the 2014 midterm.²

The study tracked 28,881 individuals who registered to vote or signed a pledge to vote at 129 nonprofits in nine states. Using demographic and voting history data, we were able to determine whom the nonprofits reached and at what rate those contacted turned out to vote in the 2014 election, as compared to all registered voters in the states and counties where the study took place. “Low propensity” here is defined as having a Catalist propensity score under 50, the cutoff that many campaigns used in targeting GOTV activities for the midterm election.

INCREASING VOTER TURNOUT ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS

Regardless of race or ethnicity, personal contact by nonprofit staff or volunteers resulted in increased turnout rates for those who registered or pledged to vote. Voter turnout of these “nonprofit voters” compared to the comparable demographic group among all registered voters in the study states was 15% higher for Latino voters, 31% higher for black voters, and 46% higher for Asian American voters.

Nonprofit voters also showed increased turnout compared to other registered voters in the study states across age categories, with the greatest increase seen by voters under 30. Nonprofit voters under 30 saw a 28% increase in turnout, despite being more racially and ethnically diverse and lower-income than other voters.

Intervention by a nonprofit had its biggest impact on turnout of the least-likely voters. Nonprofit voters with the lowest for propensity scores (scores under 25) were more than twice as likely to cast ballots compared to their counterparts among all registered voters in the study states.

USING PLEDGE TO VOTE CARDS TO INCREASE TURNOUT

Asking voters who were already registered to vote to sign a pledge to vote also proved to be extremely effective in increasing turnout. This was especially true for pledge signers with very low propensity scores. Pledge signers with a propensity score under 25 saw a 144% increase in voter turnout compared to their counterparts among other registered voters in the study states. Signing a pledge is known to impact voting rates even without additional follow up. However many of the nonprofits were able to use the contact information given to mail a reminder postcard or call contacts closer to the election.

These turnout results mirror those of a study Nonprofit VOTE conducted in 2012,  which showed that nonprofit outreach resulted in above average turnout rates across all demographics, most strikingly among young and low propensity voters not expected to turn out. Together the two studies show that voter outreach by a trusted nonprofit messenger can be extremely effective in increasing turnout among those nonprofits’ clients, consumers and constituents. Outreach is especially effective in turning out those who are least likely to vote.

BEST PRACTICES FOR NONPROFIT VOTER OUTREACH

To assess best practices, we asked the nonprofits that participated in the study to fill out an in-depth online survey. We also conducted interviews with several of the higher and lower performing nonprofits. High performers had several things in common, including more support from executive leadership; a dedicated staff lead; staff training on how to collect voter registration and pledge cards; an early start, usually in June or July, with activities intensifying as the election approached; use of regularly scheduled tabling for voter registration at their site and at events; strong partnerships with their state lead, local board of election and others; and previous experience with voter engagement or issue advocacy work.

To learn more visit www.nonprofitvote.org/engaging-new-votes to download the full report.

The report was prepared by Julian Johannesen, Director of Research and Training, George Pillsbury, Senior consultant and Lindsey Hodel, National Field Director. Technical assistance was provided by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tuft’s University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service.

Founded in 2005, Nonprofit VOTE partners with America’s nonprofits to help the people they serve participate and vote. We are the leading source of nonpartisan resources to help nonprofits integrate voter engagement into their ongoing activities and services. For further information, visit www.nonprofitvote.org.