4. Considerations for Future Work
As GoVoteNYC continues its work to increase voter turnout In NYC and reduce barriers to voting, there are opportunities to build on the lessons learned over the last two years and amplify impact within its different buckets of work: grantmaking, capacity building, and learning and evaluation.
All partners emphasized the importance of longer-term philanthropic investments in civic engagement and education that extend beyond any given election. More specifically, nonprofit partners stressed their desire to build over the long-term, particularly within communities that have historically not had access to power. For many, power translated into having community needs prioritized by elected officials and the ability to hold them accountable to their commitments.
To this end, nonprofit partners emphasized the need for multi-year, general operating support dollars that would allow them to sustain their civic engagement work over time, without having to constantly fundraise.
One nonprofit partner put it this way: "The innovation is that we ask for off-year funding and we get two years to plan. I get to tell canvassers, you've got a job until November 2024. I'm able to tell my team, we have a plan because we have funding."
"If I were to challenge myself [as well as philanthropy], it would be to think about how important is it that we're supporting work that makes people more informed of their own rights and more informed about the opportunity that they have to make changes that they want to see in their own community.
Particularly for communities that often have ideas and visions, but don't have the structure, the funding, or the process to [realize] those dreams and those needs."
-Nonprofit Partner
Grantmaking Priorities
While most donors believed that current nonprofit partners should continue to be supported by GoVoteNYC, they acknowledged there have been different perspectives as to which types of groups to prioritize and how narrowly (or broadly) its strategy should be focused. Some donors expressed concern that the composition of groups was too varied and too small to make a substantive impact, a dynamic that reflects the diverse interests and constituencies of the Fund itself. One funder, for example, stated, “I don’t feel like it’s the wrong mix. I just feel it’s way too small a mix and mixing [different types of organizations] seems silly at this small of a scale.”
Donor members offered the following ideas to deepen and/or expand GoVoteNYC’s grantmaking priorities:
Increased attention to youth and/or young adults. A critical mass of donors, as well as nonprofit partners, encouraged GoVoteNYC to integrate a stronger focus on youth. Donors noted that a focus on youth may mean funding different types of strategies and nonprofits, including those that might be primarily virtual or volunteer driven.
Several nonprofit partners mentioned that they are starting to engage youth who are not of voting age, recognizing that values and behaviors around voting take shape earlier in life. Relatedly, a number of interviewees also mentioned the importance of supporting civic education in middle and high schools, before youth are of voting age.
Integration of structural reform to voting processes. The structural barriers to voting, both on a statewide and citywide level, are well-documented. Many of GoVoteNYC’s webinars have highlighted the importance of breaking down these barriers, understanding that shifts in voter turnout will be harder to make in the absence of systemic changes to the electoral process. Several interviewees expressed a desire to see the collaborative do more to support organizations working at the intersection of voter engagement and reform/advocacy initiatives.
Attention to ‘innovation.’ Several funders expressed an interest in seeing investments in innovative, technology-based initiatives, particularly as an avenue for reaching younger voters. At the same time, some nonprofit partners and donor members expressed skepticism that such initiatives could move the needle. One funder stated, “I’m cynical that there’s some magic app that’s going to change voter turnout dramatically.” Although donor member perspectives on this point are mixed, it may be helpful to conduct some due diligence to see if there are potentially promising initiatives worthy of support.
Synergies between city-level and state-level GOTV and electoral reform efforts. While GoVoteNYC has a citywide focus, some interviewees suggested a statewide approach, similar to the New York State Census Equity Fund, could be fruitful. This suggestion was made in light of the many state-level processes that influence how New York City elections are run, as well as challenges in voter turnout throughout the state. In addition, like the census, voting is an issue where funders across geographies can find common cause.
"Something that I've been thinking a lot is the need to... (work] with young people who can't vote. [We need to have] those conversations with them now, so when they're voting age, they have more faith in this system."
-Nonprofit Partner
Capacity Building
Continue to facilitate connections among cohort members and civic engagement stakeholders more broadly. Most nonprofit partners benefited immensely from the cohort meetings and many said they were open to more opportunities to connect not only with other grantees, but with partners across sectors such as government, with the hopes that it would lead to better coordination of activities and strategies.
For example, one nonprofit partner shared, “I definitely appreciate the opportunities to sync with other partners in terms of what they’re planning. But I also think that there’s a missing component there, which is on the ground what’s happening, so that we’re not all bumping heads…that level of coordination is something that I’m hoping to see from something in future rounds of groups like this.”
Others expressed a desire for convenings to create more space to get into the nitty-gritty of voter outreach strategies, while others also felt convenings could be a safe space to share frustrations and get moral support for work that can be taxing. Still others expressed a desire to see the Fund create space for aspirational conversations that allow participants to dream about the possibilities and begin to build collectively towards a shared vision.
Provide support for translation. A critical mass of groups mentioned the need for high-quality translation services to reach limited English proficiency voters. Although some organizations have access to such resources, others do not, while still others required easier access for ad hoc needs. Some nonprofit partners suggested GoVoteNYC invest in a bank of hours with a set of translators that multiple partners could access, thus streamlining the process and making it more cost-effective.
Make webinars available to a broader audience. Both funders and nonprofit partners gave high praise to the webinars organized by GoVoteNYC, crediting them with exposing them to new ideas and perspectives. Several interviewees felt that it would be helpful to make these webinars available to a broader audience both to serve the learning needs of the field and to strengthen the infrastructure for civic engagement and education citywide. In addition to its existing partnership with Philanthropy New York, partnerships with the NYC Civic Engagement Commission or other allied entities may offer easy opportunities to open up webinars to a wider audience.
Organize in-person events. While most people are adept at working virtually now, several partners expressed a desire to connect with one another in real life, in hopes of developing stronger working relationships, including through site visits and learning exchanges.
Partnerships
GoVoteNYC grantees collaborated with more than 100 partners, including social service and public health providers, public housing tenant associations, high schools, senior centers, city agencies (e.g. Civic Engagement Commission, Mayors Office of Criminal Justice, Department of Probation), national organizations (e.g. League of Women’s Voters, Center for Justice Innovation, NAACP), and ten clergy-led congregations from across the city.
Learning and Evaluation
Recognizing that GoVoteNYC’s work is nascent and evolving, we asked members of the GoVoteNYC collaborative what outcomes they would like to see the collaborative’s grantmaking portfolio achieve.
While an increase in voter turnout is an obvious desired outcome, some funders expressed skepticism about the potential impact the collaborative can have given its size and the small amount grant funding, relative to the scope of the issue at hand. As one funder stated, “[Given] the funds available and the scale of the problem, we cannot be responsible, certainly in the short term, for shifting the overall turnout numbers. And I think we also know that there are other bigger factors and variables in play.”
One nonprofit partner elaborated on this point:
“The traditional [evaluation] metrics… don’t work in civic engagement when it’s just knocking on 20 doors and hoping two or three are convinced to turn out when they never have before. When you’re working with isolated communities in languages that are underrepresented, many of whom are undocumented, you have to fundamentally recalibrate what you’re expecting from the funding.”
City leaders interviewed for this evaluation also thought there was an opportunity for philanthropy to support learning beyond the traditional metrics, investing in community-based, qualitative data gathering (similar to the public-private initiative NYC Speaks) that could inform citywide civic engagement initiatives.
Here are some additional outcomes donor members hoped to achieve through their support of GoVoteNYC.
Increase in groups that integrate GOTV work into their programming, especially organizations that may not have previously engaged in GOTV work. Funders saw opportunities for organizations, regardless of their mission, to integrate the importance of voting into their regular programming. Funders felt there were opportunities to achieve economies of scale through this approach and to promote sustainability, given that organizations are likely to engage consistently with a core group of community members with whom they have already established a level of trust.
One funder described it this way, “I would like a template for organizations that are doing lots of social services or health services. What does the replicable strategy for those organizations look like to be effective in encouraging their clients to vote? What is that cost, what is that infrastructure? What is the model? The settlement houses come close and that could be a template for the YMCA, community health centers, and things like that.”Greater collaboration among nonprofit partners, leading to more coordination and shared strategizing. Funders believed there was value in organizations coming together in a regular, consistent way to develop strategies, share successes, and provide mutual support. They felt this was especially important, given, as one funder stated, “There is no such network as far as I can see that is for organizations to come together around voter engagement.”
Greater knowledge about elections. Recognizing that the ins and outs of local elections are not necessarily common knowledge, some funders wanted to know if nonprofit partners were able to make headway in educating their communities about the particulars of voting.
One funder offered, “Does the average person have a better understanding of how elections happen, of what the different types of elections are, when they happen? That would also be interesting [to assess] – something that would show that it’s not just that folks are turning out, but that they are engaging and have a deeper understanding of politics in the city.”Increased accountability from electeds and candidates to communities, translating to increased community power. Some funders hope that increased voter turnout and civic engagement among marginalized constituencies could draw greater attention by electeds and candidates to the needs of previously overlooked communities.
One funder reflected, “I would be curious what [nonprofit partners] are seeing in terms of dialogue between elected officials or folks who are running in community? Are elected officials or politicians really actively reaching out to community and have they seen changes there based on the organizing that they’re doing or the campaigns that they’re doing?” "Progress toward structural reform within both the city and the state’s voting systems. Although to date this has been outside of GoVoteNYC’s scope, some funders expressed a desire to see structural reform. Specifically, funders want to see policy enacted that remove barriers to voting, including reforms to the largely dysfunctional Board of Elections, changes in the voting calendar that ensure that local elections correlate with national and state elections (which have higher turnout), and revisiting closed primaries. In addition, changes to polices related to non-citizen voting, mechanisms for voter registration, and age of municipal voting could further increase voting.
"I would like to see that organizations regularly incorporate discussion of and explicitly see as a part of their mission, making sure that their staffs, their clients, their communities are voting–that it's not seen as separate and apart from their missions. So in the short term, it's helpful to see groups that are food pantries, that...they also have materials available about the upcoming election or about your community board or about your voting district, things that people just may not come across except for their coming to get their food at the pantry."
-Funder