More notes from RootsCampDC...

America Votes session, Sunday Dec. 2, 2006

(Viewed: times)

 

ROOTSCAMP/DC

 

Defined session objectives:

sharing what happened on “both sides of the wall” in ’06

What worked and what didn’t in the field in ’06

officials notes on these lessons learned and data sharing are the only permitted record for this session: No blogging or writing about this session permitted.

 

Description of coalition/ local level/state level/national level:

 

AMERICA VOTES IS: A broad coalition of grassroots organizations and labor Unions doing voter engagement and GOTV across local/State/national levels. Coordinating on Strategy, file and data sharing and reduce the overlap with shared resources and careful coordination around those resources.


Lessons learned from ’04: That only the surface had been scratched. And that while a lot had started there was much more to do.

The Process went like this in preparation for ‘06

development of comprehensive and strategic State Plans

Individual plans were then created based on voids in those plans (new constituencies to reach, new tools to develop)

The Shared voter file through catalyst and the interface created was the most powerful tool created for this coalition that allowed for really robust coordination in ’06.

The strategic plans were also shared on the voter files so that those in the coalition could see who was being targeted over and over again and who was being overlooked.

Polls were shared as well as well as the timing of those polls to allow for a central tracking system and shared resources to avoid duplication of research and those resources to be spent elsewhere – like micro-targeting, mail pieces etc…

How does this impact the field programs? Because of the shared research and plans there was the opportunity to have a really wide GOTV program across local, state and national levels.

After election data that is possible knowing all this information is living in one place also allows for really smart evaluation of what worked in the field –what was overkill – what was not aggressive enough…

 

WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE ON THE STATE LEVEL:

(OHIO)

in 2004 there was only 1 field director of AV on the ground in Ohio

In 2004, the state table meetings yielded a lot of good information for what research, polling etc..that was being duplicated by multiple groups. This needed to change

GOTV coordination with the partners: in 2004 there were 18,000 people on the ground door knocking in Ohio – this included paid ACT staff.

The early coordination in 2004 allowed for further understanding of what needed to happen in the future.

In 2005 – there was still AV staff in Ohio to foster the new grassroots org.’s that sprang up in the state during ’04, it allowed for a continued strenghthening of the coalition with the new understanding of the over 100, 000 vote deficit that this coalition needed to target and engage. There was a lot of re-accessment, made strategic decisions in a more fluid way – so that for instance once Strikland was clearly ahead – the coalition could shift focus to other races that needed more support and GOTV.

 

LOCAL COORDINATION:

(Pittsburg)

Lessons learned from 2004 were all the ways coordination was not working.

sharing of what is working over face-to-face meetings and session –and finding where further coordination was needed – and where other local groups with full time organizers on the ground could seek advice from those organizers who live there and know how to help get to the nuances of how to reach people.

Building an infrastructure on the local level for all the field operatives from multiple organizations living in the same office, sharing strategy and information and building trust so that all the organizers could work together for the common goals.

common tools (like shared space, shared vehicles) allowed for piloting and testing of very targeted niche work that can’t be done on the national level. For instance, a small new group of drop-off voters or disenfranchised voters emerges that on the local level with shared tools can be reached out to because the national machine isn’t needed to make that happen.

Main challenge going forward – the importance of early plans and resources. While the tables were meeting every week – the field coordinators didn’t yet have authority from their national affiliates to start a program.


Page Information

  • 1 year ago [history]
  • View page source
  • You're not logged in
  • Tags: data field

Wiki Information

Recent PBwiki Blog Posts