nonprofits increase voting f indings from 2012 presented by &
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTINGFINDINGS FROM 2012
Presented by
&
![Page 2: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Over half of all eligible voters were not contacted by a campaign in 2012.
Source: American National Election Studies, 2008 and 2012 Survey of Political Involvement and Participation in Politics
PARTICIPATION GAPS
![Page 3: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
• Access and Trust: Nonprofits have unique access to underrepresented populations
• Reverse Door knocking: People “knock” on our doors for services.
A ROLE FOR NONPROFITS
![Page 4: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• Partners in 7 states: Recruited participants
• 94 nonprofits: Community health centers, multi-service agencies and other service providers
• 33,741 voters: Tracked face-to-face voter engagement with voters at their agency
THE STUDY
![Page 5: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
• Registrations and Pledges: People were asked to register to vote or sign a pledge to vote
• Matching to Voter File: Nonprofit Voters matched to voter file for demographics/turnout– State VAN (voter file): matching– Catalist: analysis
TRACKING THE NONPROFIT VOTERS
![Page 6: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
DEMOGRAPHICS AND TURNOUT:
Quantitative Findings
![Page 7: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Nonprofit Voters were a much more diverse group of registered voters than registered voters in the general population.
NONPROFIT VOTERS A DIVERSE GROUP
Quant
![Page 8: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Nonprofit Voters outperformed their counterparts in the general population by 6 points.
NONPROFIT VOTERS HAD HIGH TURNOUT
![Page 9: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Latino and Asian American Nonprofit Voters out- performed their counterparts by 18 points.
BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
![Page 10: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Nonprofit Voters turned out at comparable rates with only small disparities by race or ethnicity.
CLOSING VOTER TURNOUT GAPS
![Page 11: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Lower income Nonprofit Voters outperformed their counterparts by as much as 15 points.
BY INCOME
![Page 12: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Young Nonprofit Voters under age 30 outperformed their counterparts by 15 points.
BY AGE
![Page 13: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• Catalist assigns individuals a propensity to vote score on a scale of 0-100.
• Campaigns focus mobilization on individuals with a propensity between 30 and 70.
• Individuals with lower propensity scores are frequently neglected.
PROPENSITY TO VOTE
![Page 14: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Very low propensity Nonprofit Voters turned out a rate 3 times that of their counterparts.
BY PROPENSITY
![Page 15: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
• Higher Turnout: Voters contacted by a nonprofit where they receive services turned out at higher rates than the general population.
• Less Disparities: Turnout by Nonprofit Voters was more consistent across all demographics of race, income, and age.
• Greater reach: Nonprofits reach and turnout voters campaigns don’t contact.
CONCLUSIONS
![Page 16: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION DAY – 9/22/14
![Page 17: NONPROFITS INCREASE VOTING F INDINGS FROM 2012 Presented by &](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062519/5697bffa1a28abf838cc064c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
617.357.VOTE (8683)
www.nonprofitvote.org
Nonprofit VOTE89 South StreetSuite 203Boston, MA 02111
George [email protected]
Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg