Table 4.1: Treatment and Control Assignments and Outcomes
Assignment Total Obs. First Contact Second Contact Doorhanger Voted
First Wave 9356 2949 32 1342 3288
Treatment Only
First Wave 3578 2 0 0 1205
Control Only
First and Second 2073 2040 548 890 875
Wave Treatment
Second Wave Control 360 352 5 37 161
and First Wave Treatment
Experiment Totals 15367 5343 585 2269 5529
Each cell entry describes the number of individuals who fall into the row assignment category.
Table 4.2: Effect of Any Contact (Using First Wave Assignment): Intent-to-Treat Effect and Treatment Effect
N in any first wave treatment 11789
N in control group 3578
N in the treatment group who are actually treated 5341 N in the control group who are inadvertently treated 2 N who voted in the treatment group 4324
N who voted in the control group 1205
Percent Voting — Treatment 36.68%
Percent Voting — Control 33.68%
Percent Contacted — Treatment 45.30%
Percent Contacted — Control .06%
Contact Rate .4524
Estimated ITT Effect 3.0002
SE of ITT Effect .9064
Estimated Treatment Effect 6.6304
SE of Treatment Effect 2.00
Note that here errors are neither robust nor clustered by household.
Table 4.3: Effect of First Contact Only (Excluding Second Wave Treatment Assign- ment): Intent-to-Treat Effect and Treatment Effect
N in treatment group 9716
N in control group 3578
N in the treatment group who are actually treated 3301 N in the control group who are inadvertently treated 2 N who voted in the treatment group 3449
N who voted in the control group 1205
Percent Voting — Treatment 35.5%
Percent Voting — Control 33.68%
Percent Contacted — Treatment 33.97%
Percent Contacted — Control .06%
Contact Rate .3391
Estimated ITT Effect 1.8201
SE of ITT Effect .9275
Estimated Treatment Effect 5.366
SE of Treatment Effect 2.7344
Note: These values include individuals who were later assigned to be the control group for the second wave of treatment. Individuals who were inadvertently given the second treatment are included (37 total).
Table 4.4: Effect of First Contact Excluding Second-Wave Precincts: Intent-to-Treat Effect and Treatment Effect
N in treatment group 4907
N in control group 1490
N in the treatment group who are actually treated 1636 N in the control group who are inadvertently treated 2 N who voted in the treatment group 1752
N who voted in the control group 485
Percent Voting — Treatment 35.7%
Percent Voting — Control 32.55%
Percent Contacted — Treatment 33.34%
Percent Contacted — Control .13%
Contact Rate .3320
Estimated ITT Effect 3.1537
SE of ITT Effect 1.3939
Estimated Treatment Effect 9.4975
SE of Treatment Effect 4.1977
Note: These values were calculated using the population of individuals from the precincts where there was no second-contact experiment.
Table 4.5: Marginal Effect of Second Contact: Intent-to-Treat Effect and Treatment Effect
N in treatment group 2040
N in control group 352
N in the treatment group who are actually treated 548 N in the control group who are inadvertently treated 5
N who voted in the treatment group 861
N who voted in the control group 156
Percent Voting — Treatment 42.21%
Percent Voting — Control 44.32%
Percent Contacted — Treatment 26.86%
Percent Contacted — Control 1.42%
Contact Rate .2544
Estimated ITT Effect -2.1122
SE of ITT Effect 2.8690
Estimated Treatment Effect -8.3023
SE of Treatment Effect 11.2765
Note: These values were calculated conditioning upon only those individuals who were successfully contacted in the first wave of contacts. This excludes the 41 individuals who were assigned to the second experiment but were not successfully contacted during the first-wave of the campaign.
Table 4.6: Covariate Balance: Difference Between Contact and No Contact Means
Variable Any Contact Marginal Second Contact
Democratic Registration .052* (.007) .002 (.021)
Republican Registration -.014* (.004) -.011 (.012)
Decline-to-State Registration -.036* (.006) .011 (.017)
Other Registration -.002 (.003) -.002 (.010)
Female .026* (.011) -.068* (.032)
Age 4.87* (.29) .031 (.872)
Vote History .196* (.017) .065 (.047)
Latino -.01** (.005) .03* (.013)
Number of Observations, Received Treatment 5343 585
Number of Observations, No Treatment 10024 1839
Total 15367 2424
∗=α=.05 and ∗∗=α =.10
Note: Age and female have some missing observations.
Figure 4.1: Contact Rate by Percent Home-Turf Canvassing. Note that each dot represents one precinct.
.2.4.6.8Precinct Contact Rate
0 .2 .4 .6 .8
Intensity of Home!Turf Effort
95% CI for Fitted Line Contact Rate by Precinct
Fitted Line 95% CI for Precinct Contact Rate
Figure 4.2: Intent-to-Treat Effect by Percent Home-Turf Canvassing. Note that each dot represents one precinct.
!.4!.20.2.4Estimated ITT
0 .2 .4 .6 .8
Intensity of Home!Turf Effort
95% CI for Fitted Line Estimated ITT by Precinct
Fitted Line 95% CI for Precinct Level Estimate
Figure 4.3: Average Treatment Effect by Percent Home-Turf Canvassing. Note that each dot represents one precinct.
!.50.51Estimated ATE
0 .2 .4 .6 .8
Intensity of Home!Turf Effort
95% CI for Fitted Line Estimated ATE by Precinct
Fitted Line 95% CI for Precinct Level Estimate
Table 4.7: Coefficients from 2SLS, Effect of Any Contact on Vote
Variable Coefficient
2SLS
Any Contact .066*
(.021)
Constant .34*
(.008)
Clusters 13354
N 15367
F(1,13353) 10.05
2SLS with Control Variables
Any Contact .051*
(.020)
Democratic Registration .016**
(.008)
Age .002*
(.0003)
Vote History .16*
(.004)
Latino .096*
(.014)
Female .002
(.01)
Missing Age -1.63*
(.247)
Missing Female -.045
(.079)
Constant .017
(.012)
Clusters 13354
N 15367
F(8,13353) 302.74
2SLS with Precinct Fixed Effects
Any Contact .048*
(.02)
Constant .58*
(.033 )
Precinct Fixed Effects Included
Clusters 13354
N 15367
F(50,13353) 3.94
∗=α=.05
∗∗=α=.10
Note: The random assignment for treatment in the first wave is used as an instrument and has correlation .4016 with the treatment variable.
Table 4.8: Coefficients from 2SLS, Marginal Effect of a Second Contact on Vote
Variable Coefficient
2SLS
Second Contact -.083
(.112)
Constant .44*
(.028)
Clusters 2128
N 2392
F(1,2127) .55
2SLS with Control Variables
Second Contact -.088
(.101)
Democratic Registration .0001
(.023)
Age .001
(.001)
Vote History .172*
(.01)
Latino .048
(.048)
Female -.012
(.028)
Missing Age -.88
(.616)
Missing Female .059
(.23)
Constant .146*
(.042)
Clusters 2128
N 2392
F(8,2127) 44.77
2SLS with Precinct Fixed Effects
Second Contact -.081
(.09)
Constant .65*
(.068 )
Precinct Fixed Effects Included
Clusters 2128
N 2392
F(26,2127) 1.76
∗=α=.05
∗∗=α=.10
Note: The random assignment for treatment in the second wave is used as an instru- ment and has correlation .2138 with the second wave contact indicator.
Table 4.9: Difference in Vote and Contact Rate Means: Home-Turf Canvassing vs Not
Variable Not Home-Turf Obs Home-Turf Obs Difference
Any Contact .316 9822 .402 5545 .086*
(.005) (.007) (.008)
Voted .356 9822 .367 5545 .012
(.005) (.006) (.008)
∗=α=.05
Table 4.10: Logit Coefficients from Marginal Effect of Home-Turf Contact on Turnout Amongst Contacted
Variable Coefficient
Home-Turf Contact by Zip .225*
(.098)
Constant -.266*
(.03) Home-Turf Contact by Precinct .171
(.279)
Constant -.248*
(.03)
N 5343
Number of Home-Turf contacts by zip 453 Number of Home-Turf contacts by precinct 52
∗=α =.05
Table 4.11: 2SLS, Separated by Precinct: Home-Turf Canvassed vs Not
Variable Home-Turf Coefficient Not Home-Turf Coefficient 2SLS
Contact .085* .52**
(.03) (.029)
Constant .33* .34*
(.013) (.01)
Clusters 4807 8547
N 5545 9822
F(1,N-1) 8.53 3.20
2SLS with Control Variables
Contact .07* .037
(.028) (.027)
Democratic Registration .001 .024*
(.014) (.010)
Age .002* .001*
(.0004) (.0003)
Vote history .155* .163*
(.007) (.005)
Latino .117* .090*
(.03) (.016)
Female -.007 .007
(.016) (.011)
Missing Age -2.14* -1.37*
(.395) (.319)
Missing Female .030 -.086
(.136) (.07)
Constant .008 .021
(.022) (.014)
Clusters 4807 8547
N 5545 9822
F(8,Clusters-1) 110.22 194.22
∗=α=.05
Note: The instrument used here is the treatment assignment from the first wave.
Table 4.12: Effect of Home-Turf Contact on Voting for Contacted Individuals
Variable WFE WFE
Home-Turf Contact by Zip 0.056** 0.043** 0.113** 0.091**
(0.024) (0.023) (0.031) (0.029)
Democratic Registration 0.007 0.011
(0.015) (0.015)
Age 0.001 0.001
(0.000) (0.000)
Missing Age -0.017 -0.024
(0.037) (0.017)
Female -0.012 -0.015
(0.017) (0.017)
Missing Female 0.060 0.085
(0.147) (0.146)
Vote History 0.178** 0.176**
(0.007) (0.007)
Latino 0.112** 0.113**
(0.026) (0.025)
Walker Fixed Effects Included Included
Constant 0.434** 0.108** 0.500** 0.212
(0.007) (0.023) (0.217) (0.215)
* = α = .05
N 5343 5343 5343 5343
Note: There is a separate fixed effect coefficient for contacts made by unknown walkers (399 observations). Home-Turf Contact by Zip indicates the number of walkers that made a contact who were from the same zip code as the voter.
Table 4.13: Meta-Analysis
Method Pooled Estimate: No Cov p-val Pooled Estimate: Cov p-value N
Fixed Effects 0.057 0.004 0.045 0.015 50
Random Effects 0.057 0.004 0.045 0.015 50
Test for Heterogeneity 46.293 0.584 47.480 0.535 49
Table 4.14: Random Effects Meta-Analysis Regression
Variable No Covariates With Covariates
Share of Contacts that are Home-Turf 0.382** 0.321**
(.157) (0.153)
Intercept 0.025 0.001
(0.023) (0.022)
* = α = .05
N 50 50
Figure 4.4: Doorhanger Used in SCOPE Campaign
ITS DOWN TO THE FINAL HOUR ITS DOWN TO THE FINAL HOUR
NOVEMBER 7 NOVEMBER 7
AGENDA
FLEX YOUR POWER FLEX YOUR POWER
AGENDA
YOUR VOTE MATTERS TO OUR COMMUNITY YOUR VOTE MATTERS TO OUR COMMUNITY
1715 West Florence Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90047 (323) 789-7920 1715 West Florence Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90047 (323) 789-7920
VOTE TUESDAY, NOV 7 AT THIS LOCATION:
VOTE TUESDAY, NOV 7 AT THIS LOCATION:
Click to buy NOW!
PDF-XCHANGE
ww
w.docu-track.com Click to buy NOW!
PDF-XCHANGE
ww w.docu-track.com
Chapter 5
Community-Based Mobilization:
GOTV and SCOPE in South Los Angeles, June 2006
5.1 Summary
This chapter examines the effects of door-to-door canvassing by canvassers who are residents of the precincts in South Los Angeles in June 2006. Here we expect to find that canvassing efforts are more successful when canvassers are drawn from the neighborhoods themselves. This is consistent with the concept that within-network individuals are more likely to be similar types, and thus (as stated as a result in the theoretical chapter) will be able to communicate valence characteristics, such as the value of participating in an election. In this experiment we find no statistically significant effect of door-to-door canvassing. However, we do find a positive effect of home-turf canvassing. We discuss these conclusions in light of community-based GOTV efforts.