Tag Archives: elections

Mission Essential: Nonprofits Vote

Posted on October 27, 2011 by | 2 Comments

One of my favorite finds, in some of my research for this blog several months ago, is Nonprofit Vote, an organization dedicated to helping nonprofits do voter engagement work right. That means that they identify, support, and applaud efforts that are sustainable, integrated, mission-consistent, and, most of all, impactful.

As we tick down to one year until one of the most important elections I can remember (and, yes, I do kind of say that about most of them!), I’ve been reading through some of the case studies and empirical analyses of what makes a successful voter effort by a nonprofit organization, particularly with an eye towards models that work for social service agencies. Nonprofit Votes has hosted some webinars highlighting successes, and there are some lessons learned that are very much worth sharing.

  • Face-to-face contact is by far the most effective way to increase voter turnout (increasing turnout anywhere between 6-14%, depending on the population and the type of election), especially with underrepresented populations. Of course, making those face-to-face contacts with potential voters is very time-consuming and extremely expensive…unless you happen to see them on a regular basis anyway because, I don’t know, maybe they are your clients?
  • The particular study from which I’ve pulled these data was conducted with nonprofit social service agencies, working with a variety of constituencies, in Michigan, and it’s a scientifically rigorous examination of how agency-based voter engagement, specifically, impacts voter behavior. That means that they had random assignment to control and “treatment” groups, the latter defined here as one group at each agency that received a voter registration appeal only and one group that had more sustained communication around voting and its significance. Importantly, some of the participating agencies had NEVER done voter work with their clients before, which makes the results all the more promising, especially for those who might be (wrongly!) thinking that it’s too late for them to develop a 2012 strategy.
  • The key findings, the ones that I think are so exciting? Clients in both treatment groups had a higher likelihood of voting than those in the control group. The likelihood of voter turnout increases proportionally with the nonprofits’ level of voter engagement effort, so it really does pay to go beyond just putting up the “Please Vote” posters (probability of voting increased by about 9% with each contact). Clients in both treatment groups were not only more likely to vote, but also more likely to encourage their family and friends to vote, which means that the same “word-of-mouth” system on which we rely for referrals and health education and so many other critical functions works for encouraging civic participation, too, allowing nonprofits to expand their reach far beyond those they directly serve. 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.

    There’s nothing “magic” about these organizations, or about the people they serve. Your clients are likely just as responsive to thoughtful, targeted, sustained communication about voting and why it matters as these folks were, and your organization just as capable of integrating these activities into your work.

    In the world of social services, we devote considerable energy to emerging practices with success rates that are anything but guaranteed.

    We know that changing the face of the electorate in the United States will make a difference in the kind of hearing our concerns receive, and the kinds of public policy priorities that rise to the top of the agenda.

    And now we know something more about how to make that happen.

    And so we must.

    • → 2 Comments

    Posted in Inspiration and Examples, My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged , ,

    Making it count: demographics and the “new” electorate

    Posted on October 11, 2011 by | 3 Comments

    The new Census report on voting in the 2010 elections was released a couple of weeks ago, and there are some interesting trends there.

    As our friends at Nonprofit Vote describe it, “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.” Furthermore, people with at least some college education made up 68 percent of voters. Individuals without a high school diploma comprised 6 percent of voters.

    These statistics were made all-too-real for me two weeks ago when I facilitated a voter registration and Get-Out-The-Vote training for a local nonprofit organization that serves a primarily low-income Latino community. When we got to the part of the training where I ask people to think of the objections they’re likely to hear from those they’re trying to engage in the electoral process, the responses came fast and furious.

    • “My one vote won’t matter.”
    • “They’ll just steal the elections anyway.”
    • “I couldn’t figure out who to vote for.”
    • “The whole process is corrupt; I don’t want any part of it.”
    • “They’re not even talking about issues that matter to me–it’s a waste of time.”
    • “I have too much going on to spend time figuring out elections and stuff.”

    And on and on and on.

    These nonprofit employees weren’t off the mark. The Census Bureau reports that the most common reason people did not vote was they were too busy (27 percent). Another 16 percent felt that their vote would not make a difference.

    The truth is that there are a lot of barriers that separate the population this organization serves–mostly native Spanish speakers, a lot of recently naturalized citizens who didn’t grow up in our democratic system, families with young children and a million demands on their time and attention–from active and informed participation in our electoral system.

    So that’s why, despite great progress, we still don’t have an electorate that fully represents our population. And the implications are profound, serving to perpetuate policy decisions that, in turn, widen the gap between elected officials and those they should serve.

    Demographics alone won’t change our destiny. It’s up to us–including nonprofit organizations well-positioned to engage our constituents in our democracy–to make sure that 2012′s statistics on voter turnout continue the trajectory of increasing participation by communities of color, and that low-income communities are present in the voting booth at this critical time in our economic future.

    The numbers may be on “our” side–those of us who want a diverse electorate that invigorates our national conversation about the kind of future we want to build–but history is replete with examples when numbers were not enough.

    We’re the missing link, and we’ve got some chasms to hurdle. And not-quite-13-months to get leaping.

    → 3 Comments

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary

    Tagged , , ,

    Guest Post: Why I ran

    Posted on June 13, 2011 by | 4 Comments

    **Note from Melinda: This guest post is from Shana Althouse, a tremendous former student of mine who is also a neighbor, and for whom I campaigned in advance of the Fall 2010 elections. Although she wasn’t elected to the Kansas House in that cycle, I know that Shana will continue to influence policy and our community, and I am honored to have her share her thoughts here about running for elected office as a social worker.

    “Don’t Stop Believing” – Journey
    You might think that a person who ran for the Kansas state legislature would have quoted Kathleen Sebelius (former Kansas Governor, now Secretary of DHHS) or Dennis Moore (retired Congressman from Kansas’ third district) for political inspiration. While I do admire them both, it was Journey’s song, “Don’t Stop Believing” that ran through my head last summer when it was 100 degrees and I was walking door to door to meet the voters in my district. Yes, I had a theme song, and it carried me to Election Day. Why did I have a theme song? The reality is, running for public office requires you to find a way to keep going, and a reminder of why you are running. For me, my motivation was that I sincerely believed I could make a difference. If not now, when?

    When I first contemplated running, I had just heard my state representative talk about how the demographics in our district were changing. I live in a Republican county, but Democrats had been picking up seats all around my district and voting trends were leaning Democratic. I thought, “really, hmmm.”
    In the summer of 2007 I hosted a healthcare round table at my house. One of the attendees had run for State Representative in our district previously as a Democrat. I mentioned to her that I had an interest in running for public office someday. The next week I received a call from the President of the Johnson County Democrats and we met for coffee. It wasn’t long before the state party was calling and asking if I was going to run. I decided it was time to take this seriously and I needed my husband to be okay with this. I had managed a political campaign in 2008 and I knew my husband had to be totally on board or it was a no go. It was not an easy decision for us. When you run for office, you do not get paid and it is a major time commitment. We have two school-age children with busy social lives. We had a lot to factor into our decision. We finally decided to go for it and, since I would be finishing my Master’s in May, I would forego the job hunt to focus on the campaign.

    My decision to run was strongly influenced by my profession. As a social worker, we advocate for those who often are not able to advocate for themselves—children, working families, the homeless, people with severe and persistent mental illness. Now, more than ever, we need strong leaders who can work on behalf of those who are disenfranchised. We need more public officials, not more politicians.

    The support I received from my colleagues was tremendous. Many social workers donated to my campaign and offered to go door to door with me. The biggest disappointment, though, came from our local KNASW chapter which chose to donate to and endorse my opponent. This was purely a political decision, influenced by other representatives. KNASW could have easily chosen to donate to both candidates, especially considering the fact that one of us was actually a social worker. If our profession is to encourage more social workers to make the commitment to run for office, we have to be willing to support each other actively and enthusiastically.

    I will never regret or doubt my decision to run for public office. I have met many amazing individuals who have tirelessly devoted their lives working for the betterment of our society. I remain engaged through community organizations and may consider running again someday. I know that my presence in the campaign raised critical issues for our district and shaped the tone of the debate. For now, though, I am truly enjoying spending more time with my family and friends!

    → 4 Comments

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary

    Tagged , ,

    Your 2011 (yes, 2011) Get-out-the-vote strategy

    Posted on June 2, 2011 by | Leave a comment

    Yes, I know there’s not a major election in 2011. Here in Kansas, we had some local and school board elections last April, and so I get that very few people are now (as we head into summer!) thinking about voting, and specifically, how their nonprofit organizations should engage in the electoral process.

    Except that we must.

    Now.

    Because waiting until other people are talking about the elections, or we’ve gotten around to thinking about them, will be way too late.

    If we expect that the people we serve, many of whom absorb multiple messages a day about their marginalization in our society, will suddenly see themselves as integral parts of the political process when we register them to vote a month before the election….

    We’ll be disappointed.

    Again.

    So, I spent some time last week reviewing Nonprofit VOTE’s 2010 survey of nonprofit voter engagement strategies, and thinking about the lessons learned from that election cycle, and what they should mean for our efforts as we (yes, really) head into 2012.

  • The finding that, for me, was the most hope-filled, was that nonprofits are increasingly defining their voter engagement work as far surpassing voter registration or even GOTV. Voter education and broader civic engagement activities (sort of the “infrastructure”, in some ways, to later voter registration work) are occupying an increasingly important role in organizations’ approach to their clients as voters. Hurray! We need to make civic participation a default in the lives of those we serve, and we won’t do that if we reduce something as important as DETERMINING THE PEOPLE WHO WILL SET THE POLICY THAT STRUCTURES YOUR LIFE to a transaction that occurs on one day every 4 (or, if we’re lucky, 2) years.
  • We’re getting smarter about integrating our voter work, including voter registration, into the rest of our operations. If we want to do voter engagement year-round, which we must, then we have to do it sustainably. And that means including voter outreach in intake (which 25% of respondents do!), and finding ways to talk about issues and elections in normal interactions with clients. Still, half of respondents reported that only one staff person was responsible for the majority of the voter engagement work, and, as I’ve seen in my own practice, we have to think more broadly than that, so that all staff (and volunteers, and Board members) understand that we see our clients as co-creators with us of the change we want to see in the world, and that we share a responsibility to help them actualize it.
  • Nonprofits are starting to practice what we preach. Of course this survey, while it includes several hundred respondents, isn’t statistically representative. I know that. But, still, I’m encouraged by the almost 50% of organizations that encourage staff to volunteer as poll workers (including, in some cases, providing paid time off to do so), and those sponsoring candidate forums so that those they serve can learn more about the issues (bonus: the organizations have a higher profile and a stronger position from which to engage in advocacy, then, too!).
  • We’re getting serious about process. We know, and have known for more than a decade, that our electoral system needs some reforms, that people need help to figure out how to navigate the electoral process, and that our most vulnerable populations need special electoral protections. More nonprofits are figuring out ways to be involved in that work, too, working for reforms and educating clients about the system and connecting them to resources in the event of problems. That work can lay the foundation for a different conversation in the next electoral cycle.

    What about you? What voter engagement activities is your nonprofit organization implementing? Have you started that work for 2012 yet? What are your goals for voter registration, turnout, and education? How do you see voter engagement as connected to your overall mission?

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary, Events and Calls to Action

    Tagged ,

    A Political Action Committee for the poor?

    Posted on April 11, 2011 by | Leave a comment

    Even though I’m from Kansas, it’s not often that I find myself inspired by a quote from Bob Dole.

    But, on page 148 of the really fascinating book So Damn Much Money, about the role of money in the distortion of the political process, Dole is quoted decrying the ways in which Political Action Committees (in 1982, a relatively new innovation) were influencing policy decisions:

    “Poor people don’t make campaign contributions.”

    Now, I grant that that’s a rather obvious statement by then-Senator Dole.

    But it makes me wonder:

    Should they?

    What I mean is, at the same time that advocates for social justice take on the current judicial and regulatory structures that allow for such a significant infusion of money into the political process (which, of course, should absolutely be a critical advocacy issue for those who are committed to legislation that reflects the needs of now-marginalized communities), should we find a way to work within the “world as it is”, and start a “Poor People PAC”?

    I know…it’s immoral to think about diverting money that could be spent on direct assistance for low-income people to campaigning for policymakers sympathetic to their needs.

    Except we do it all the time when we hire fundraisers or organize special events–there we think of it as investing, spending money so we can make money.

    And most of us social workers don’t object to the organization of a PAC by the National Association of Social Workers (except that it focuses more on issues of social work professional licensure and reimbursement, although there is arguably considerable overlap between those sympathetic to our profession and those committed to the issues we address).

    So why not?

    It doesn’t require denying the inherent problems in the system as it’s organized today, any more than registering as a lobbyist requires pretending that all lobbyists are committed to the public good.

    It just says that, while the system works this way, we want it to work for the very people who need it most.

    It wouldn’t take that much money, I don’t think, to begin to change the way that elected officials viewed the concerns of people in poverty and those who work with them: a few fundraisers, some well-placed $1,000 contributions, and a focus on accountability to the constituencies and the issues of those in need.

    It might reinvigorate the democratic process for those who are understandably disenamored of its exclusion of those without the money to pay the “access fee”–if people in poverty interviewed candidates to decide who would get their endorsement (and their contributions), they might see themselves more legitimately as stakeholders in the process who deserve authentic representation.

    What do you think? Is this an area where nonparticipation is the only ethical option? Or is a PAC for the poor an idea worth exploring?

    → Leave a comment

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary

    Tagged , , ,

    The next frontiers for voting rights

    Posted on November 9, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    President Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965

    Amidst rather uniformly dismal election results for those of us committed to a vigorous collective response to the challenges that face us, including the truly concerning recall of judges over disputes of ideology in Iowa (a major blow to the doctrine of judicial impartiality and separation of powers), there was one bright spot:

    Kansas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to strip the legislature of the power to deny Kansas citizens with mental illnesses the right to vote.

    It’s one of those things that I can’t imagine 289,740 people voting against really, but it’s still encouraging that 482,222 voted for it, and especially rewarding to see the grassroots campaign that mental health advocates, including a strong consumer contingent, put together to take advantage of this opportunity to educate the public about mental illness, civil rights, and the importance of equality.

    So, see–something good from November 2, 2010.

    But, especially in the aftermath of Election Day, we’ve got serious work to do, and not just to protect critical policies and continue to push for progressive advances in tax policy, the social safety net, economic recovery, entitlement reform, health care reform, K-12 and higher education and, well, just about every other aspect of American life.

    We’ve also got to make voting rights a top priority.

    We need to expand suffrage, and vigorously defend it, not just because increasing the number of people who can and do vote is a good way to ensure that we’ll be happier with the outcome. We need to prioritize voting rights, too, because it restores the American ideal of an engaged citizenry, and it makes us proud of who we are and what we can do, together.

    Our finest moments have been when we realize that the rights of citizenship are the most secure, and the most honored, when they’re extended broadly and valued deeply.

    On the list that demands our attention:

  • Commitment to easing the process of re-entry for ex-felons, and revisiting the process of even temporarily denying voting rights to those who commit crimes–this is important not just because it expands the right to vote but also because it sends a message to those who are incarcerated: “we don’t want you cut off from the society into which we’ll expect you to successfully reintegrate”
  • Defense against restrictive photo ID requirements–I want to scream every time someone says, “but you even need to show ID to see a movie.” Um, last time I checked, seeing an R-rated movie is NOT a constitutionally-protected right. Voting is. Unless we’re going to provide free, easily available photo identification to all American citizens, with exceptions for those with religious objections to photographs, requiring photo identification to vote is a poll tax, it’s abhorrent, and we can’t stand for this attack on democracy masquerading as concern with (largely invented) “voter fraud”. I almost wrecked my car when I heard about the Obama Administration dropping its legal challenge to Georgia’s voter identification requirements. This could move us back to 1964, and our nation can’t afford that.
  • Aggressive protection of voter privacy and the integrity of the election system–I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t think that the private companies that manufacture voting machines are intent on overtaking our elections. But I am very concerned about two things: first, that there’s enough truth to the threat of that scenario to make some people wary of the election process and, second, that it does represent another example of turning some of our most sacred public functions over to private companies. There are some things that government should just do itself, whether or not it’s the most efficient, because to farm it out just looks bad and, well, running the democratic process is one of those.
  • A constitutional amendment specifically guaranteeing the right to vote–108 democratic nations have this language, while the U.S. and 10 others don’t. Words do matter, and having these words in the U.S. Constitution could provide the legal foundation for challenges to all of the exclusions above, too, setting the stage for a reorientation towards an affirmative right to civic participation that has to be disproven, rather than the effective opposite, which is the status quo.

    It’s time for a national conversation not just about the results of our elections but the process of them: do we want paper ballots again? what about open-source electronic voting technology? should we have mandatory public audits of elections? if so, who should conduct them? how would we engage the public in oversight of elections, and how could this make a difference in how people engage in the acts of democracy? why can’t people register to vote on Election Day?

    Did you see any violations of voting rights this past Election Day? Did your clients vote? If not, why not? What changes to voting laws might facilitate their participation? What are your thoughts about expanding suffrage rights in the next decade?

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary, Events and Calls to Action, My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged , ,

    The Morning After: what it means for social workers

    Posted on November 3, 2010 by | 4 Comments

    This is NOT a conclusive analysis of every race from yesterday’s midterm election. It’s not even a post with links to the commentary flooding the Internet (although, if you’re in Kansas or Missouri, you can find it here.)

    Honestly, after working the polls for 13 hours, I couldn’t stay up late enough to see all of the returns, and I think my brain is still wrapping around some of the results I have seen, anyway.

    But I have seen enough to have some thoughts about what this election means for social workers, though, and I’d love to start a discussion with other politics watchers about what you think this all means, or will mean in the future, to the profession, to the causes we care about, and, most importantly, to those we have the honor to work alongside–our clients.

  • Much has been made of how the “Obama effect” that turned out so many young, ‘disaffected’ voters, including people of color, has “evaporated” in 2010. To that, I guess I’d say…of course it has. We’ve known for a long time that when the focus is on short-term Get Out the Vote, instead of building long-term relationships that help people who have previously been marginalized by society to weave political engagement into the fabric of their daily lives, through connection to organizations and issues that matter to them…that engagement evaporates. Social workers know how to do it better, and we have an obligation to make politics meaningful for those others only remember every two years.
  • People want change. And so do we. We know that framing is more than half the battle, and when it comes to talking about a vision for our country, social workers can tap into a growing desire for a new direction to talk about the problems we see in our communities, the types of strategies that could address them, and what working collectively to implement them would look like. After all, exit polls suggest that this was, more than anything, an election about people’s insecurities, about their fears that this economy won’t deliver the life they envision for their families. And social workers deal with fear and insecurity, and the injustice that creates them, all the time.
  • There is a hostility to government intervention in social problems that, to social workers who have seen what utter abdication of collective responsibility looks like, seems not only unwise but cruel. At the same time, those same polls I referenced above show a convergence of opinion about the greatest challenges facing our nation, some of the very challenges that we know only a powerful, wealthy entity is capable of taking on. What that dichotomy means to me, really, is the dynamic that I’ve seen dozens of times in advocacy and what, for me, is the central story of the past two years: we can mostly agree when it’s time to name problems, but the consensus falls apart when it’s time to choose solutions. I don’t have any words of wisdom to make the prospect of dealing with a Congress decidedly more hostile to social spending than the one we’ve had for the past four years. I wish I did. But I do believe that, if we can center on a discussion about the values that motivate us and the problems that plague us, then maybe we have a chance to take another running shot at this problem-solving exercise we call governance.
  • And, finally, in what is the ultimate glass-half-full assessment by someone who’s decidedly not that Pollyanna-ish, my 13 hours in the polling place reminded me that, really, this is a system that mostly works. I don’t mean that it works on the level of money in politics, which I continue to believe is a huge problem, or even the mechanics of how we do voter registration or how people learn about the issues. But I mean that, really, I think that last night’s results mostly reflect how people are really feeling right now, or at least a majority of the American public, and there’s something reassuring, in my democracy-loving soul, about seeing that reflected, even when I wish I wasn’t, personally, in the minority this time.

    So, social workers, are you spending a day doing self-care? How do you feel about last night’s results? More importantly, how do you feel about tomorrow?

    • → 4 Comments

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary, Questions you're embarrassed to ask

    Tagged , ,

    Hey! You! It’s Election Day!

    Posted on November 2, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    I’ll be working the polls this Election Day (6AM-8PM, for the whopping sum of $120!), so I’m writing this up the week before.

    I had a lot of ideas about what I wanted to write about on Election Day, from a preview of the races most critical to social justice causes to a discussion about voter protection to ideas for addressing the critical shortage of poll workers in much of the country.

    But, then, what I really want to say is:

    via Flickr Creative Commons

    If you had a really great (or really bad) Election Day experience, please leave a comment. I’d also be interested in any predictions about the outcomes, and their impact.

    Happy Election Day!

    → Leave a comment

    Posted in Events and Calls to Action

    Tagged , , ,

    Off limits? Social work ethics and negative campaigns

    Posted on November 1, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    The author of The Political Brain alleges, in regards to negative campaigns, or those that are primarily based on personal appeals rather than calculated facts:

    “There is no relation between the extent to which an appeal is rational or emotional and the extent to which it is ethical or unethical. Every appeal is ultimately an emotional appeal to voters’ interests–what’s good for them and their families–or their values–what matters to them morally” (p. 14).

    I think this whole question is important, not just at election time, but in terms of the ethics of social work advocacy, too, because, really, the kinds of claims that candidates lodge at each other during campaign season are not often that dissimilar than those lobbied (or, in some cases not) by opposing camps in a policy debate.

    And it’s not a question that’s easily resolved, at least not for social workers, who have to wrestle with this even a little more than others who adhere to an ethic of honesty and integrity, but not necessarily to the strictures of the NASW Code of Ethics.

    But, after spending quite a bit of time reading through our Code, and grappling with the literature (such that it is) on ethics and integrity in social work, I come back to the same place where I started, not too far from this author:

    Negative campaigns are not necessarily unethical. They certainly can be, but so can “positive” ones, to the extent to which they are misleading, or unfair, which is certainly not the exclusive purview of “attack” tactics.

    Our Code of Ethics requires more than just the factual honesty that is the key dividing line for many, though: we have a responsibility to respect the dignity and worth of every person, including the candidate (or elected official, or opposing advocate) in question, whose denigration might advance our cause.

    But because we know that eliciting strong emotions is key to influencing opinion, and because of the stakes involved in the electoral and policy campaigns in which we’re involved, failing to use the most effective tools at our disposal could, in fact, be seen as even more ethically ‘suspect’ than an attack which is carefully constructed so as to be persuasive but not manipulative, powerful but not vindictive, and compelling but not “truthy”.

    Obviously, in the electoral and policy arenas, social workers will have to make our own judgment calls about how to make these ethical decisions. But it’s clear that our Code of Ethics doesn’t mean to tie our hands so that we can’t, for example, expose the inconsistencies between a candidate’s voting record and stump speech, or label as racist the stereotypes emanating from the debate over Arizona’s anti-immigrant profiling bill.

    There are certainly ample examples of unethical campaigning–unethical by anyone’s standards.

    And then there are those, which, while technically true, would not meet social work’s standards, which require us to take into account the humanity of those who would be our adversaries.

    And, then, there is the failure of some social workers to boldly speak truth to power, using the Code of Ethics almost as a shield, to save us from the uncomfortable work of going after those who seek to harm the populations our profession has called us to defend.

    Now that’s unethical.

    → Leave a comment

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary

    Tagged , , ,