OVERVIEW

Study authors studied the impact of canvassing campaigns during the 2000 election. Phone-to-phone canvassing-in which canvassing staff spoke with or left messages for potential voters-significantly increased voter turnout in study areas in Oregon, Colorado, and especially New York. Face-to-face canvassing, employed in Oregon only, produced even larger impacts.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Young adults under age 30.

Increasing political participation was the goal of a canvassing program implemented during the 2000 presidential election. Phone-to-phone and face-to-face contact with potential voters was employed.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Evaluated population: Potential voters under 30 years old living near college campuses in New York, Colorado, and Oregon.

The experimental evaluation was based on random voter mobilization experiments geared to those under 30 years old living near college campuses in New York, Colorado, and Oregon (Green & Gerber, 2001). Researchers found that phone-to-phone canvassing produced significant increases in voter turnout rates (five percentage points) in New York, but the program did not have any significant impacts in either Oregon or Colorado. However, when the authors aggregated the results across the sites, they found an overall significant treatment effect of a five percentage-point increase in voter turnout. It should be noted that this was a relatively conservative evaluation, because a successful contact included both actual conversations with the target youth or young adult, but also if a voice message was left on the answering machine.

The researchers also evaluated a face-to-face canvassing program in Oregon. They found that face-to-face canvassing produces a significantly greater rate (8.5 percentage-points) of voter turnout. Interestingly, through non-experimental analysis of others living in the participant's home, the researchers found that for every 100 treatment participants in the canvassing experiment, there was a total of 8.4 additional votes mobilized through what the researchers considered to be a "spill-over effect." Overall, the researchers conclude that 20 successful phone contacts translate into one additional vote and 12 successful face-to-face contacts translate into one additional vote.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

References:

Green, D.P., & Gerber, A.S. (2001). Getting out the youth vote: Results from randomized field experiments. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Program also discussed in the following Child Trends publication(s):

Zaff, J. F., & Michelsen, E. (2002). Encouraging civic engagement: How teens are (or are not) becoming responsible citizens (Research brief). Washington , DC : Child Trends.

Zaff, J. F., & Michelsen, E. (2001). Background for community-level work on positive citizenship in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

SUMMARY & CATEGORIZATION

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 18-30 / Program age ranges in the Guide: 15-21, 22-25

Program components: Community/media

Measured outcomes: Citizenship

Keywords: young adults, other, co-ed, political involvement, civic engagement, Community or Media Campaign
 

Program information last updated 12/31/01.

© Child Trends 2003