​Can community organizations increase attendance at housing fairs by giving residents personal invitations?
 
Background
 
The city of Milwaukee has increased community outreach efforts to get residents to attend and participate in housing programs to improve the neighborhood.  Four field experiments were conducted in Milwaukee to test the success of these outreach efforts.

• Study 1: People were either given a postcard asking “need help with your home?” or “want to help your community?”
• Study 2: People either received a visit from an organizer or they were not contacted.
• Study 3: People either received a standard letter, a letter emphasizing connections to the community, or no letter.
• Study 4: A repeat of Study 3 with different homeowners.

 
 
Results
 

• Postcards mentioning the community led to a higher meeting attendance compared to postcards that did not. (Study 1)
• People who received a letter were more likely to attend the housing fair compared to those who did not receive a letter. (Study 3 and Study 4)
• The letters emphasizing community were best able to get people to attend the housing fair. (Study 4)
• Personal invitations can increase attendance at housing fairs and pointing out an attachment to the community helps even more.

 
MDL Policy Brief. 2014. “Community Outreach around Housing” Milwaukee, WI: The Marquette Democracy Lab Project
 
 

Does the method of voting and/or surrounding factors of the election contribute to whether or not door-to-door mobilization increases voter participation?
 
Background
 
In San Diego County certain voters are required to vote by mail while others live in traditional precincts and can vote by going to a polling place.  In a field experiment to measure the effects of door-to-door canvassing get out the vote (GOTV) canvassers were randomly assigned to fifty traditional precincts and fifty vote-by-mail precincts.  This was leading up to the November 2008 general election.  Voting’s social rewards, such as campaign activity, the people running in the election, and the significance of the election, were also considered.
 
Results

• A door-to-door campaign increases participation more in traditional precincts compared to vote-by-mail precincts.
• This larger effect is ONLY among voters who are most likely to be affected by social rewards.
• Election reform strategies that take advantage of voting’s social rewards may increase participation.

 
Link to Study

Does expressing a position help state legislators build support even if their positions are controversial or opposite to the public?
 
Background
 
8 Democratic state legislators from a Midwestern state agreed to participate in the experiment.  Constituents took surveys before getting letters from the legislators.  In the first round one legislator sent some constituents letters taking an opposite stance on an issue while other constituents did not receive a letter.  In the second round seven legislators did the same thing except some of the letters had an extensive explanation while others had a brief explanation.  Recipients were also surveyed after they received the letters.
 
Results

• First Round: There was no backlash against the legislator for taking an opposite stance.
• Second Round: There was no backlash against a legislator for taking an opposite stance.  Sometimes constituents supported a legislator more after receiving a letter.  The length of the explanation had a very small effect.
• Overall Lesson: At the state level legislators who do not communicate their positions on controversial issues could be better off making their positions known to the public.

 
Link to Study

The New York Times Article on Study
 
Governing.com Article on Study

Can municipal governments increase response rates to surveys by telling citizens how it will benefit them and/or their community?
 
Background
 
A small town in the Northeast wanted pubic input for a major public redevelopment project.  The emailed citizens in their town a link to a survey about the redevelopment project using three different strategies:

1. Ask—request that citizens take the survey.
2. Personal Benefit—suggest that the citizens benefit by making their beliefs heard.
3. Community Benefit—suggest that the community benefits when citizens take the survey and officials hear different beliefs.

 
Results
​

• 35% of those who received the “Ask” strategy took the survey.
• 40% of those who received the “Personal Benefit” strategy or the “Community Benefit” strategy took the survey.
• There was no significant difference between the “Personal Benefit” strategy and the “Community Benefit” strategy.
• Overall Lesson: Telling citizens about the benefits of taking a survey will increase response rates.

 
Authors: Daniel Butler and Eleanor Powell