Mobilizing a powerful movement to drive social change is a growing focus across the social sector. In recent years, researchers and campaigners have taken substantial strides toward better understanding what tactics advance policy change.
David Broockman and Josh Kalla of UC Berkeley are two political scientists making waves with their rigorous testing of advocacy strategies. We sat down with them for a wide-ranging conversation on what political science research has to say about progressive political movements and lessons for philanthropic advocates.
Three insights stood out to us – two related to grassroots and voter mobilization, and a third reminding readers of the importance of the inside game. We’ll cover the first two today, and the latter in an upcoming post.
1. Mobilize people on their motivations – and politics often isn’t one of them.
“Convincing people that yours is a good cause is only part of building a movement,” David and Josh explained. “The best advocacy groups have people who feel connected not just to the issue, but to the network of activists.”
This idea has been around for years, they noted: over a decade ago, Theda Skocpol chronicled the power of civic associations in the 19th-century US. “They were not organized because people cared a lot about politics,” the pair summarized. “They were organized around socializing or other issues that people already cared about. Effective movements find ways to create a social group,” as experimental research from Hahrie Han has recently validated.
Peter Murray echoed these themes in a 2013 article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review. “Most Americans don’t view themselves primarily as activists,” he wrote. Therefore, the most successful movement-building organizations – think AARP and the NRA – engage in “functional organizing,” providing tangible services and creating social communities.
Not only are these organizations more likely to attract active members, but the strength of their members’ affiliation amplifies the groups’ power: “When a group like the Chamber of Commerce meets a member of Congress,” David noted, “they don’t say, ‘We have a SuperPAC that will attack you.’ They say, ‘We know all the hardware store owners in your district. We called them and they said they’re mad because if you approve this bill, they’re each going to have to fire someone.’ They have local connections not only to threaten votes, but also to help them make an argument about how a policy will impact real people in the district.” But remember, “Why are those hardware stores part of the Chamber of Commerce? It’s not because they’re waiting for that call about the hardware store bill. It’s because membership gives them other benefits.”
One implication is that rather than aiming to build as large a movement as possible, advocates should sometimes focus on mobilizing a targeted group of committed activists. “Even with just one percent of people,” they explained, “If politicians think it’s a voting issue for those people, it can be enough to change the politicians’ behavior.”
2. High-quality canvassing is a crucial mobilization tactic. Emphasis on high quality.
David and Josh recently took the political world to task for the lack of good canvassing in campaigns nationwide. Their article is well worth a read for anyone interested in campaigning, whether election-focused or otherwise.
We asked them to elaborate on why they think good canvassing is so underutilized and what the implications are for funders who cannot get involved in specific elections. They told us:
“Most campaign managers are not investing seriously in having quality conversations. There are two reasons for this: one is that they think it is not cost-effective. In isolated cases that might be true, but research suggests that canvassing tends to be more cost-effective than other less personal tactics for mobilizing voter turnout and perhaps for voter persuasion, too.”
“The second reason is that it’s much easier to hire a mail firm or buy a TV ad than to raise a temporary army to knock on doors. It’s not that the money isn’t there – in some cases, campaigns could divert only a third of media spending to canvassing and have a conversation with almost every voter in a battleground state. But the logistical challenges are immense.”
However, that objection is beginning to hold less weight now that “groups like the Los Angeles LGBT Center and Working America have proven it’s possible to have canvassers not just knocking on doors, but conducting in-depth, high-impact conversations.”
To David and Josh, there are three implications for philanthropy. First, “demand that high-quality canvassing takes place” in funded mobilization efforts. Second, “invest earlier – those organizations have spent years perfecting their model of training canvassers, holding them accountable, and building them into their communities.” And finally, be careful when setting metrics: “You can barely pick up a newspaper without a campaign extolling the number of door knocks from its canvassing efforts, and yet the vast majority of people don’t remember the conversation.” Instead, find ways to measure the number of good conversations (e.g., visits that recipients recall in a follow-up poll), and trade off some quantity for quality if need be.
Check back soon for more from David Broockman and Josh Kalla.