Research on Election Programs
We aim to identify electoral funding opportunities that strengthen the US democracy as much as possible. We start by identifying the most competitive races.
Then, we focus on identifying organizations that effectively implement evidence-based programs with the potential to substantially impact those races, either through non-partisan programs that prevent distortions of democracy by encouraging citizens to vote regardless of their candidate preference, or through partisan programs.
Initially, we conduct brief assessments of several programs, screening them for evidence of impact and cost-effectiveness. We then conduct in-depth reviews of the most promising programs and develop a cost-effectiveness estimate.
If a program meets our criteria, we recommend it to our network and/or support it through our Focus for Democracy Regranting Funds.
Identifying Programs for Review
Once we determine the key competitive races to focus on, we initiate a broad search of a variety of programs to consider through various channels:
Review independent scientific studies.
We review randomized controlled trials and studies published in academic journals, as well as studies from research hubs for non-public election-related research, to identify particularly effective tactics and programs.Independently review evidence from organizations seeking a recommendation.
We often rely on self-reported data from organizations to initially assess the effectiveness of programs in generating net votes in critical races. Our evaluation team then reviews the study design and methodology, and often the raw data, and conducts its own analysis to estimate a program’s cost-effectiveness.Actively gather information on new programs and implementing organizations.
We consult with practitioners, academics, and experts in campaign tactics. We attend myriad conferences and webinars to stay informed about the latest developments in the field and to build relationships with practitioners, donors, and allied donor advisors.Engage with implementing organizations.
We regularly engage in discussions with organizations implementing programs to gain a deeper understanding of their initiatives and projects.Research the funding landscape.
We research funding sources for various programs, considering factors such as resource availability, whether funding will be secured in time to execute programs efficiently, and the likelihood that other donors will fund the programs.
Our Evaluation Process
We review numerous programs each election cycle and conduct an in-depth analysis of the most promising candidates.
Here's an overview of our evaluation process:
Preliminary review: We conduct a cursory review of various programs to assess their alignment with our criteria. If a program does not seem likely to meet our standards, we deprioritize it.
Digging deeper: For programs that show promise based on our initial review, we assess them at progressively deeper levels to understand their potential impact and effectiveness.
Analyzing promising programs: We allocate most of our time and attention to programs that meet our criteria. We elevate programs that demonstrate the following:
Strong evidence: There is compelling evidence supporting the program's effectiveness.
Cost-effectiveness: The program is highly cost-effective, maximizing the number of votes or voters generated per dollar invested.
Need for our funding: If the program appears likely to scale to its optimal level without our network’s funding assistance, we do not recommend it. Instead, we track its fundraising progress and remain ready to recommend it if our network’s help is needed. Our evaluators also track real-time budget gaps for our recommended programs and encourage funders outside the F4D network to help bridge them. If, at any point, they appear likely to achieve their optimal funding level, we stop recommending them for network donations.
Key competitive races: The program is implemented in critical races in battleground states and swing districts.
Scalability: The program can reach the majority of target voters in key geographic areas.
Considering organizational capacity and execution risk: We assess the organization’s ability to implement a program effectively and the competency of its leadership team. We also assess the feasibility and challenges associated with implementing the program.
Based on our comprehensive evaluation, we recommend funding organizations that demonstrate excellence in implementing cost-effective programs and have the potential to make a significant impact in critical races.
Establishing Causation: How do we know the program made a difference?
One of the main challenges in evaluating programs is determining whether positive change in an area results from the program under study, rather than from other programs or factors.
For example, suppose an organization reports that, compared to the previous election, voter turnout was five percentage points higher in the district where they implemented a door-knocking voter education program. How do we determine which portion of the increase in voter turnout was attributable to door-knocking and which portion was due to TV ads, news coverage, contacts, and social media? Perhaps more buzz about the race made voters in the district more engaged than they had been in the earlier election.
Many studies rely on simplistic before-and-after comparisons, which often fail to distinguish between program effects and unrelated changes across elections.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
An effective approach to addressing the challenge of causal attribution involves randomization. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), participants are randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. The treatment group receives the intervention under study (e.g., a door-knocking program), while the control group does not. The two groups are then compared to see if the treatment has had any effect.
Scientists have long considered RCTs the best way to establish causal attribution because they help ensure that the two groups being compared are similar in all aspects except the treatment under study. By randomly assigning participants to the treatment or control group, researchers can reasonably be sure that observed differences between the two groups (e.g., higher voter turnout) are attributable to the treatment under study, rather than to other factors that could affect the outcome.
In the example below, the RCT randomly assigned unregistered voters to either the treatment group (recipients of the voter registration mailers) or the control group (who did not receive a mailer).
Both treatment and control groups would be similarly exposed to all other election news, advertising, campaign tactics, and voter registration drives of other organizations.
After the election, the state’s publicly available voter file is reviewed to verify who actually voted. If the treatment group had a significantly higher percentage of people who voted compared to the control group, we can conclude that the voter registration mailers were effective in increasing voter turnout.
That being said, it is important to note that our assessment of a study goes beyond its classification as an RCT. We find nonrandomized studies compelling in certain cases, while some RCTs may not provide compelling evidence. Furthermore, if preregistration were more prevalent, we would likely consider it a more crucial and encouraging characteristic of a study than randomization.
While we believe that RCTs possess multiple qualities that make them more credible than other study designs when all else is equal, they are often more expensive and challenging to conduct, and are not the sole determining factor in our decision to fund a program.
Note: Conducting RCTs may be financially or practically unfeasible in some instances. In such cases, alternative techniques for attributing causality are employed. Where possible, we strongly prefer randomized controlled trials as we can have much greater confidence in their validity than other methods.
Learn More About Our Work:
Focus for Democracy Action is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit dedicated to strengthening democracy through evidence-based donor advising. A minority of its work involves lawful coordination with candidates and campaigns, as permitted under IRS regulations for 501(c)(4) organizations. All recommendations are vetted to ensure compliance with IRS regulations.