Measures of Success
State Voices measures increases in civic engagement in the following four categories:
Increased civic engagement means increased voter participation. We want the numbers of both historically underrepresented and socially responsible voters to increase every election. Taking on a goal this large requires efficiency and cooperation. Our organizations track who they register and contact, and they review their methods constantly for improvement. After each election, we can assess what strategies worked and where, helping keep organizations up to date on efficient, productive turnout methods.
Voter files play a key role in measuring increased voter participation. As they register and identify voters, organizations can flag them as historically underrepresented and/or socially responsible in a central voter file. This allows other organizations access to this information so they can focus their own GOTV efforts. A great example comes from Michigan, where in 2006, participating organizations made 79,950 door-to-door, 85,166 volunteer phone, and 144,071 mail contacts and IDs using a central voter file, as well as enhanced over 190,000 membership records – all data organizations accessed and used in their 2008 GOTV efforts.
Because this information is collected, analysis can be done after the election to determine what percentage of flagged voters participated. Additionally, evaluators work with organizations within our state networks to carry out experimental evaluations that test which GOTV methods proved most effectual. In 2008, Colorado’s network incorporated twelve experimental evaluations into their GOTV work. Their 501(c)3 members set an aggressive plan to register 194,279 new voters and make 1,768,500 GOTV contacts prior to the November election. Because of these evaluations, post-election, organizations in Colorado will have hard data to help them determine which turnout methods worked and which didn’t so ineffective methods can be reconsidered and successful methods amplified.
With this system, no longer do organizations have to pour energy and effort into turnout strategies and later wonder whether they were successful. By flagging voters in a central voter file and running these evaluations, we can provide specific numbers to measure this success.
Increased civic engagement means voters feel those issues important to them are being addressed in the public arena. We have to look at what issues are being addressed and discussed by leaders, institutions and the media. We call this the issue environment, and we believe that by creating and maintaining a socially responsible issue environment, the issues that impact historically underrepresented and/or socially responsible voters most will be the center of the debates in every election. By working together and pooling resources, state networks push our issues forward into the public policy realm.
That’s why our networks are busy building relationships with their state governments, as well as creating ballot initiatives and legislative campaigns. They enact strategies to better utilize both traditional and new media to spotlight local and state issues. This year, many networks have added media grants to their priorities lists, providing funding for organizations to engage in innovative campaigns.
What happens when table organizations unite behind an issue to push it into the public eye? In 2006, the Wisconsin c(3) network coordinated with key partners to initiate universal health care referenda in Eau Claire County and the City of Racine. The referenda won by 82% and received more votes than any other item on the ballot, including candidates running without opposition.
But whether or not an initiative passes is not the only way to assess changes in the issue environment. We consider policies and legislation passed by state and local governments, as well as candidate platforms. Some state networks have piloted annual benchmark polls to measure changes in their issue environments, and we have also formed experimental evaluations to test changes in small media markets over the span of multiple years. With these evaluation measures, we can easily identify whether or not a state’s issue environment is changing to reflect those issues important to historically underrepresented and/or socially responsible voters.
Increased civic engagement means an interest in local politics and a focus on important issues that continues throughout every year. We believe that by changing the number and quality of volunteers, campaign staff, nonprofit leaders and candidates, we will see sustained civic engagement. With effective leadership, all of our efforts in elections and with the issue advocacy are improved, made more innovative, and brought closer to our communities.
Our networks are focused on leadership development - identifying and training both experienced and new leaders. For example, Pennsylvania’s state network, Pennsylvania Voice, has partnered with organizations such as the Center for Progressive Leadership and Student Voices to provide leadership trainings at all levels. From the Guyasuta Public Policy Fellowship engaging youth in regional transit policy-making to impact trainings that hone the fundraising skills of those more experienced, the network is focused on providing training and recruitment resources for its member organizations so that veteran leaders are constantly adding to their toolboxes and new leaders are ready to start working.
We use both descriptive and experimental evaluation to appraise the success of leadership development. We can quantify certain measures: how many candidates with a broad spectrum of interaction, how many people receiving volunteer engagements, and how many people receiving job placements with campaigns and nonprofit organizations. More involved evaluations use control groups to compare and contrast the placement success of trained versus untrained leaders. By tracking this information, we can follow the changes in the number and quality of volunteers, campaign staff, nonprofit leaders and candidates.
Increased civic engagement means maximizing each dollar to get the most results. We work to create economies of scale, providing shared services to participating networks and network partners in order to save them money. That means they can put those cost savings directly into their civic engagement program work. We believe that when organizations share resources, they build both their budgets and their capacity.
That’s why we encourage resource sharing and evaluate to see how much organizations save when they share services, volunteers and training. For example, State Voices and the Civic Engagement Fund currently provide all sixteen state networks and their partner organizations access to a central list of eligible voters via the national Catalist database and the VAN interface, as well as with tech staff to train and support its usage. How much does this save? When Michigan Voice piloted a central 501(c)(3) voter file with Catalist in 2006, thirty-four organizations received access. Sharing this resource saved each group $50,000, delivering a potential cost savings of $1.7 million they could put directly back into their civic engagement programs.
We use cost analyses to determine the return on investment organizations receive from shared services as well as the number of dollars spent per vote. In doing so, we have hard numbers to support our belief that sharing more equals saving more.
Contribute to the State Voices national network today via Network for Good.