Type: Blog

Back to Ideas
Blog

States Are Falling Short In Providing Voter Access

Adam Ambrogi and Brenda Wright
/
November 30, 2015

This op-ed is co-authored by Brenda Wright, Vice President of Policy and Legal Strategies at Demos, and Adam Ambrogi, Program Director for Responsive Politics at the Democracy Fund. It first appeared in the Nov. 30 issue of The National Law Journal.

Shelley Zelda Small is a 62-year-old Los Angeles resident who believes in voting as a civic duty and has voted in every election since she was 19 years old. So when she moved from Encino, California, to West Hollywood in August 2014, and reported her address change to the Department of Motor Vehicles, she made sure to ask the DMV to update her voter registration as well. But when she arrived at her local polling place last November, she was told she was not on the registration rolls and was turned away – for the first time in her life, Small lost her opportunity to vote.

The good news is that, due to a new law approved this last month in California and advocacy by national and California-based voting rights groups, the DMV will be adopting an automated voter registration process that will, in most cases, seamlessly update voter registrations when voters report a move — solving the problem for Small and millions more like her.

In mid-November, another state took a major step in the right direction. Alabama, conceding that it had never truly complied with a registration law, settled a case with the U.S. Department of Justice. The agreement made important changes to how the state motor-vehicle agencies support voter registration for eligible Alabama residents. The case is notable because the DOJ has not brought an action against a state under the “motor voter” provision of the National Voter Registration Act since at least 2002. California and Alabama were not alone in needing to improve its registration process. It appears that many states are falling short on their obligations to make voter registration widely accessible at DMVs and other agencies serving the public, according to an extensive investigation by Demos, a public policy group. Potentially tens of millions of eligible ­voters are being left off the voter rolls as a result.

Reforming the voter registration process through state agencies such as DMVs is a policy reform that more states should consider. Moreover, states have strong incentive to do so because of the increasing scrutiny they are receiving on their handling of voter registration through their DMVs. Providing voter registration services at DMVs is already a requirement of a 20-year-old federal law, the National Voter Registration Act.

Passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress, the registration act simplified the process of voter registration in many ways — including the convenience of mail-in registration as well as ensuring the opportunity to register at government agencies such as DMVs, public assistance offices, military recruitment offices and other agencies serving the public on a regular basis.

The law was intended to ensure that eligible individuals have the chance to register to vote. The law promotes integrity at the same time, including “portability” of registration when voters make local moves and notify their DMVs.

However, there is a serious problem with the implementation of this law. There are estimates that the vast majority of Americans interact with the motor vehicle offices, with anywhere from 87 to 90 percent of eligible voters holding a driver’s license that must be renewed periodically and kept up-to-date with address or name changes. Agency registration provides the opportunity to register the vast majority of the eligible population to vote in an easy and secure way.

Neglected Responsibilities

But in recent years, too many states have neglected their obligations. In the recent study conducted by Demos, only eight states earned a designation of “high-performing” on their voter registration obligations at DMVs. Numerous states are falling short. In fact, if all the lower-performing states could perform at the current 75 percent level on Motor-Voter registrations, an additional 18 million eligible persons could register to vote in a two-year period. This is the least we can expect from government agencies charged with facilitating voter registration. Recently, voter advocates have begun the process of holding DMVs accountable. State officials in California were put on notice last summer that they were likely violating federal law by failing to ensure eligible persons can register successfully at state DMV offices, and hopefully will be moving to the head of the class with enactment of its new automated system. North Carolina also has been put on notice, and many other states need to examine their practices and work to improve their systems as well.

Compliance isn’t challenging and it doesn’t have to be costly. States like Michigan and Delaware have been performing incredibly well with one out of every two DMV transactions resulting in a new or updated registration. Compare that to California, where about one out of every 100 transactions resulting in a registration. Any argument that these improvements to the system hurts DMVs or increases wait times also doesn’t pass muster. Automating the system in Dela­ware reduced overall average wait times by 67%, leading to increased efficiency and (likely) happier DMV customers.

There are too many Shelley Smalls across the country who are being deprived of the most precious right in a democracy, the right to vote. While we are glad California figured out a way to address this problem in their state, many other states need to step up to the plate. Once they do, millions more eligible persons will have their voices heard in our democracy. We should demand no less.

Reprinted from the Nov. 30 issue of The National Law Journal (c) 2015 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Rock the Vote Today…and Everyday

Adam Ambrogi
/
November 5, 2015

In the penultimate scene of the movie O Brother Where Art Thou, the fictional musical hit group of the 1930s—the Soggy Bottom Boys—are unmasked at dance hall as a bunch of escaped prison convicts. Attempts to cart them away are foiled when the raucous crowd, loving the musical session, rises up and pressures the Governor to pardon the Boys so they can keep on playing their hits.

Thus is the power of celebrity and culture, where sports stars, actors, and musicians are essential to changing opinions or promoting some desired behavior (good or bad). Is it possible to use our love of culture and icons to get more people, especially younger Americans, to engage in the democratic process?

Enter Rock The Vote, which emerged out of a battle over censorship in music in the early 1990s and refocused to create awareness, attention, and excitement about voting. This year they celebrated their 25th Anniversary by sticking to their roots. At an event in DC’s famous music venue Black Cat, Rock the Vote President Ashley Spillane hosted some of the original key players in the history of the organization: 2 Live Crew and Run DMC. The evening was not only a throwback to the 1990s, but if you’ve ever heard their music, certainly a celebration of anti-censorship activity.

Motivating young voters to be aware, informed, and engaged is no easy feat. There are policies we should promote to encourage fairness, transparency, and ease in the voting process, but policies alone don’t generate interest. CIRCLE, a Democracy Fund grantee and research organization examining young voter participation, indicated that the 2014 Election youth turnout—19.9% of 18-29 year olds—was the lowest registration and turnout rate ever recorded. Education about why government (and therefore voting) is relevant to their lives is essential. Also essential is a national conversation about why voting is important and, dare I write, cool.

Rock the Vote is the best known national organization combining culture and civics to inspire folks to vote—and is one of the best chances to engage people where they’re at. For example Kendall Jenner’s video of her registering to vote using RTV online tools was shared with her vast social network, which today sits at about 37 million Instagram and 12.6 million Twitter followers. Most candidates and issue organizations can only hope to have that kind of megaphone.

On Election Day 2015, NASDAQ invited Rock the Vote to open the tech markets in honor of their 25th annviersary. Betsy Wright Hawkings from the Democracy Fund was there in Times Square to help celebrate with our partners in this work. We will continue to look for all levers to excite new voting communities; we are thrilled to support Rock the Vote in this politically exciting year to come.

Photo Credit: @NASDAQ

Back to Ideas
Blog

Signs of Life in the Healthy Congress Index and New Hampshire

Betsy Wright Hawkings
/
October 23, 2015

There’s some irony in the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) releasing its third quarterly Healthy Congress Index two weeks after House Republicans failed to agree on a candidate for Speaker. And earlier this month, the search for a new leader intensified in Washington as the nonpartisan group No Labels convened more than 1,500 Problem Solvers and 8 presidential candidates in New Hampshire for a convention on finding common ground.

The coming months will reveal how the recent actions of a few members of the Freedom Caucus will play out politically, and how those actions will impact emerging signs of health in American democracy as seen in the work of organizations like BPC and No Labels Foundation (both of which are Democracy Fund grantees).

Healthy political parties play an important role in effective, functioning legislatures. But our government’s congressional majority, believing it depended on large numbers to enact a policy mandate to combat the Executive Branch, tolerated members willing to put politics above the basic institutional integrity of the House.

At the Democracy Fund, we are working to make sense of these complex problems and to open ourselves up to new, creative solutions. Our process includes mapping the systems of Congress, with the goal of helping our Governance Program better understand Congress and the hyperpartisanship that has recently characterized it. Our hope is to help the institution – and the dedicated members and staff who work there – to develop more efficient systems to facilitate its functions and to empower more effective leaders in service of our country.

Over recent weeks, the question of whether the system as we have understood it can continue to function became more urgent. So long believing that the common enemy of big government and overregulation would ultimately keep their team united, House leadership misunderstood that the real goal of some appears to have been to break the system entirely.

The Bipartisan Policy Center’s assessment of the Healthy Congress and No Labels’ Problem Solvers aside, time will tell how this episode will affect our political system’s ability to function—of the people, by the people and for the people.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Preparing Today to Meet and Manage the Challenges of Elections in 2016

Paul DeGregorio
/
October 14, 2015

This post is authored by Paul DeGregorio and Adam Ambrogi.

It’s 2015, months away from the first presidential primary and more than a year away from the presidential election. Election officials often hear, “Must be easy right now between elections, with nothing to do.” Guess again. This “off year” of 2015 will instead be a busy time for the more than 8,000 election officials across the US. Experience shows election officials that the more they prepare, the fewer problems they will encounter in the presidential election year. What happens when there’s failure to adequately prepare? Imagine the chaotic scene in Hartford, Connecticut, where hundreds of voters were turned away because election officials didn’t have registration rolls at polling places in time. Planning ahead to plan and reduce the likelihood of these preventable mistakes must happen now.

A presidential election with no incumbent may increase participation in the 2016 primaries, especially when there are a record number of active candidates. It was the 2012 presidential election that exposed some of the continuing problems in our election processes. The bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA), which heard significant testimony from across the country in 2013, issued excellent recommendations for improving election administration by borrowing from nationwide best practices. If you’re an election official we recommend that you read, reference and use www.supportthevoter.gov, the website where the PCEA report and other corresponding information is available.

The important questions are: Will election administrators take heed in preparation for 2016? Will they be prepared? Will they take advantage of all the resources available to them to prevent problems?

In recent years, many states have instituted new laws and changes, as recommended by the PCEA. New innovations like online voter registration, electronic pollbooks and improved processes to serve military and overseas voters, voters who require language assistance and voters with disabilities, should work to enhance the voting experience. Beyond big reforms, we have assembled a handful of practical tips to help election officials better prepare, so that the voter’s Election Day experience is seamless.

We’ll start with five basics: details matter, anticipate the unanticipated, use data, learn from others, and the medium is the message.

Details Matter. When details are overlooked it is often not without consequences. It takes careful effort to ensure that a voter’s registration is processed correctly or that the software installed in ballot tabulation equipment is the right version. In elections, it is actually very difficult to get it exactly right all the time. There are too many human and technical missteps that can produce flaws in the system. So, election officials should have written processes allowing staff members to see quality control steps. Never take for granted that staff will do a task without specific instruction. In fact, you should review your training procedures, cross-train, and incorporate lessons from the most common mistakes from past elections.

Details also matter to your stakeholders. Ensure the political parties, candidates and the media understand the plan for Election Day and early voting. If you’re implementing new laws, get legal clarification on all changes since the last election. The heat of an election is not the time to interpret statutes.

Anticipate the Unanticipated. It may be that you haven’t experienced it before—but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. One way to expect the unexpected is to keep tabs on your peer jurisdictions. Electionline.org (a Democracy Fund grantee), is a website filled with daily news stories—particularly the day after elections—on things that go wrong on election day. “How could that have happened?” is a frequent reaction by readers. Check it daily (and sign up for email dispatches) to see how one little mistake can lead to one big headline—and headache. Unfortunately, election officials are seeing more problems with aging voting equipment, particularly technology and devices that are over ten years old. We urge you to ask and address these questions:

  • Have you tested new computers or websites under the right conditions? What about older equipment?
  • Does your service supplier have a backup plan with extra hardware and technicians available to address breakdowns?
  • What happens if your website or system is hacked days before the election?
  • What if your electronic pollbooks fail on Election Day?

Start answering these questions now and you’ll be glad you took the time to scenario plan.

Use Data. So many election officials are collecting data every election cycle, but aren’t sure how to use it. The Voting Technology Project’s tools are part of an Election Management Tool Kit, a joint program of Caltech/MIT. The Tool Kit was put together with the practical help of election administrators, business managers and other management experts.

Don’t have good data? You can plan ahead now to capture information you’d like to have:

  • Plan to have volunteers chart and document line-wait times at both your early voting sites and your polling places.
  • Use mock elections with sample ballots to determine how long it will take to serve voters. Then scenario plan for large turnout to make sure you have the right layout, number of poll workers and voting equipment to keep wait times under 30 minutes. Don’t forget to check your ballot processing and counting times.

Learn from Others. This is the quintessential “best practice.” Check out the websites of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the Election Center, the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers, and your state election office. You should also call or email a fellow election official in another county or state when embarking on something new (like writing a Request for Proposals to buy new technology). In fact, the EAC provides resources on how other states are procuring voting technology. There are plenty of other examples of important information sharing:

  • Chronic poll worker shortage for presidential elections? Find out why some election officials have more than enough and leverage the same opportunities they do.
  • Worried about funding? Ask around your local associations to find those who get what they ask for when submitting their election budget.

The Medium is the Message. Social media can be your friend —and also your worst nightmare. Social media is a great way to inform your voters, especially to those casual voters who only cast a ballot in presidential elections. Explore modern methods to get into their world to get them the information they need. They might read or see a text or SMS communications, a Tweet, Facebook post, or Instagram or some other medium they use every day. And don’t shy away from appropriately correcting wrong or misleading information when it makes its way into social media, tagging local press in the social media communication. But there are important things to consider whenever you communicate with the public:

  • What about language barriers? Have you had an influx of new voters with English language challenges who may need changes to your website, materials and poll workers to help them navigate the voting process in their native language? Many community groups can work to aid or vet translated elections materials, to ensure the meaning is conveyed loud and clear. The Department of Justice has some basic guidelines on how to support language translation and outreach for elections.
  • Also pay attention to plain language. Voters will respond better to simple instructions that avoid administrative jargon. Usability of election or ballot language is important for a population as broad and diverse as ours. Check out the Center for Civic Design for ideas on how to make election materials easy for voters to understand.

In short: Now is the time and may be the only time that you have to plan and innovate on your efforts to run elections in advance of the 2016 rush. Much has changed over the last few cycles, and it is more important than ever to be thinking critically about how you can put yourself in the best position to serve your voters for the 2016 elections. We wish election officials nothing but success in their efforts to serve voters professionally in 2016—and beyond.

Paul DeGregorio serves as a Senior Fellow for the Democracy Fund. He currently serves as Senior Advisor to the Association of World Election Bodies (A-WEB).

Adam Ambrogi serves as the Program Director for the Responsive Politics program at the Democracy Fund. Prior to joining the Democracy Fund he served as Chief Counsel for the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Approaching Democracy as a Complex System

Joe Goldman
/
August 10, 2015

Our democracy is a complex political system made of an intricate web of institutions, interest groups, individual leaders, and citizens that are connected to each other in countless ways. Every attempt to influence some aspect of this complex system produces a ripple of other reactions – some may be predictable, but many are not. This can make it difficult to anticipate what will happen when we intervene to try to make our democracy work better.

Our team at the Democracy Fund is not the first to find that it is easy to fall into the trap of oversimplifying the challenges faced by our democracy as we endeavor to strengthen it. While we all know that democracy is never fixed when a court case is won or a new law is signed, we have found that our strategies often fail to recognize how fixing one piece of the system will be inadequate for achieving our long-term aims. The passage of major legislation, whether it is McCain-Feingold or the Help America Vote Act, is usually met with legal challenges, loop holes, and resistance, which undermine our goals and can lead to unanticipated results that are sometimes worse than the problems with which we began.

Adopting a Systems Approach

The answer is not to give up hope or to abandon our cause. Instead, we believe that widespread system change calls for the humility to acknowledge that there are no simple answers or silver bullets in a complex world. We need to embrace the complexity of the problems we are facing, which requires that we experiment, learn, and iterate. Progress must be made through multi-pronged strategies that reinforce one another, are sustained over time, and reflect a more holistic understanding of the major forces driving and constraining change.

One method for avoiding the trap of oversimplification is called “systems thinking,” which refers to the practice of seeking to understand and influence complex systems. The Democracy Fund, along with some of the other organizations within Omidyar Group, is adopting an approach informed by systems thinking to improve our ability to achieve our goals of making our democracy work better. To this end, our team has begun a process of documenting our understanding of the dynamic systems in which we are working.

We are using a tool called “systems mapping” to make sense of the complex problems we are working on and to open ourselves up to new, creative solutions. A systems map is different than a network map that describes how different individuals or organizations are connected to one another. Instead, a systems map describes the dynamic patterns (or feedback loops) that occur in a system, whether they are vicious or virtuous cycles of behavior and reaction.

Take an arms race for example. In this type of vicious cycle, one party buys arms because it feels threatened by another. This leads the other to feel threatened and to buy arms, which in turn leads the first party to buy even more arms. The result is an endless chain of escalating reactions.

The stories we tell ourselves about the world around us determine how we try to act in it. At the end of the day, a systems map is really just a rich story that lets us see how our world is interconnected and helps us be more effective in our attempts to improve it. To better understand what this kind of map that focuses on dynamic feedback loops can look like, take a look at these maps created by the Hawaii Quality of Life initiative.

Iterative and Participatory Maps

As we apply systems thinking to our work, the Democracy Fund has decided to make our process highly participatory and iterative. We chose a participatory approach because we know that even with the expertise of our staff, our understanding of the systems on which we are working is incomplete. By engaging diverse groups of experts, advocates, public officials, and peer funders, we gain much broader insight into the systems on which we are working, which will hopefully allow for more creative solutions to emerge. Collectively, we can harness the power of systems thinking as a means of taking a step back and being more comprehensive in our depiction of both problems and opportunities. We at the Democracy Fund are grateful to all those who have already contributed their time and expertise to our process and look forward to engaging more voices in the months to come.

We also have adopted an approach that is deeply iterative. By definition, you can never understand everything about a complex system given the sheer volume of dynamic relationships at play. Perhaps, more to the point, a complex world is always changing. As the system changes, we need to change with it. We will need to regularly revisit our maps and our plans to reflect all that we learn as we experiment and intervene, making our systems maps adaptive, living tools.

Beginning to Map Our Systems

We are currently working on three initial systems maps—one on election administration, one on local journalism, and one on the legislative branch of our federal government. We expect these systems maps to contribute to smarter interventions and we anticipate that the maps will foster collaboration with our partners by transparently laying out our understanding of the problems on which we are working. In this way, each map will become a tool for telling a better, more comprehensive story about our strategies. The systems maps also have the potential to support greater opportunities for dialogue, negotiation, and insight. These first three maps will be followed by others that look at additional aspects of our political system.

We believe that the process of creating systems maps will help us challenge and test our assumptions, as well as identify areas where we want to learn more. Once the relationships and causal pathways are created, we hope to see the opportunities for engagement in the system more clearly. Moreover, through systems thinking, and systems mapping more specifically, we hope to focus on building a political system that is resilient to new and recurring challenges and shocks, rather than trying to find silver bullet solutions that give a false sense of fixing a problem.

We have only just begun this journey of ours, but we are excited about the potential of systems thinking to help reveal new connections, questions, and approaches to a set of challenges about which we care deeply. Over the next year, we look forward to hearing your feedback as we share our draft maps here on this blog.

Stay tuned for more to come.

(Special thanks to Tiffany Griffin, our Manager of Learning and Impact, for spear heading our work on systems thinking and working with me to produce this introductory post on our approach. I’d also like to thank Rob Ricigliano – Omidyar Group’s systems and complexity coach – as well as his colleague Karen Grattan for their guidance as the Democracy Fund has approached its systems work.)

Back to Ideas
Blog

New Research Reveals Stark Local News Gaps in New Jersey

Tom Glaisyer
/
August 6, 2015

At the Democracy Fund, we seek to foster a more informed and active electorate by providing voters with the information, opportunities for engagement, and skills they need to make informed choices. A particular focus of this work has been to build up journalism at the local and state house level, and we have supported the Institute for Nonprofit News nationally and more recently the News Voices Project in New Jersey with an objective strengthening news provision at the local level. The latter with the specific objective of collaborations between newsrooms and communities.

We also realize we don’t yet have a full picture of the state of journalism at the city level and that motivated us to support the new research published today by Rutgers University regarding the level of news provision in three New Jersey Communities. From the release:

In “Assessing the Health of Local Journalism Ecosystems: A Comparative Analysis of Three New Jersey Communities,” researchers examined the journalistic infrastructure, output, and performance in the New Jersey communities of Newark, New Brunswick, and Morristown.

The research, supported by the Democracy Fund, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, and Knight Foundation, indicates substantial differences in the volume and quality of reporting. Low income communities saw less coverage than higher income neighboring cities.

In Newark, with a population of 277,000 and a per capita income of $13,009, there are only 0.55 sources of news for every 10,000 people. Whereas, in New Brunswick, with a population of 55,000 and a per capita income of $16,395, there are 2.18 news sources for every 10,000 people. But the differences are most stark in comparison to Morristown, which has a population of 18,000 and a per capita income of $37,573 but 6.11 news sources for every 10,000 people.

These pronounced differences in the availability of sources of journalism were then reflected in how much journalism was produced within these three communities:

  • Morristown residents received 23 times more news stories and 20 times more social media posts from their local journalism sources per 10,000 capita than Newark residents, and 2.5 times more news stories and 3.4 times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than New Brunswick residents.
  • New Brunswick residents received 9.3 times more news stories and six times more social media posts per 10,000 capita than Newark residents.

Similar differences across the three communities often persisted when the researchers focused on aspects of the quality of local journalism, such as the extent to which the stories were original (rather than repostings or links to other sources); the extent to which the stories were about the local community; and the extent to which the stories addressed critical information needs, such as education, health, and civic and political life.

Professor Phillip Napoli, the lead author, said, “If journalism and access to information are pillars of self government then these findings suggest those tools of democracy are not being distributed evenly, and that should be cause for concern.”

A study of three communities is not conclusive, and over time we hope that this report will be supplemented by an analysis of a larger number of communities and complemented by others that use complementary research methodologies. That said, we believe the results published today will aid us as we consider how we approach our work and help inform the work of others. As we think further about this we welcome comments below from journalists and others who are at the coalface at this transitional moment.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Introducing the News Voices New Jersey Project

Karla McLean
/
August 5, 2015

“What happens to our communities when quality journalism diminishes or disappears altogether?” The News Voices: Free Press New Jersey project, supported by the Democracy Fund and the Dodge Foundation, seeks to address this question through “a bold effort to build meaningful relationships between local newsrooms and their communities [and] to create a collaborative network of people invested in the future of local news toward vibrant inclusive communities.” This innovative project is led by Fiona Morgan and Mike Rispoli of Free Press.

News Voices will build a network of residents, civic leaders, journalists, and academics to advocate for quality and sustainable journalism. Essentially, the project harnesses the people power of New Jersey “to foster better local journalism.”

The News Voices project proposes that the current landscape of journalism requires focusing on saving traditional outlets including newspapers while adopting new technology. However, this initiative focuses on the purposes of journalism: holding the powerful accountable, informing audiences, and acting in the public interest.

Free Press has chosen to pilot this program in New Jersey because the state’s close proximity to the New York and Philadelphia media markets. As Free Press points out “If New Jersey were its own market, it would be the fourth largest in the country.” This proximity has often led to the overshadowing of New Jersey’s local issues within news within outlets based in other states but having audiences in New Jersey. As startup journalism communities within the state grow they continue to focus on nonprofit and for-profit online new organizations and experimenting social media platforms. News Voices New Jersey “want[s] to bring together people from a variety of backgrounds, with shared interests, to make our communities and local news institutions stronger.”

We at the Democracy Fund continue to be interested in bringing newsrooms and a renewed focus on local communities into the public dialogue. News Voices is also looking for additional voices from journalists and the community to highlight topical issues for local journalism. You can join the News Voices: New Jersey project by emailing Mike Rispoli at mrispoli@freepress.net.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Congratulations to the Online News Association!

Jessica Mahone
/
August 5, 2015

We’re pleased to learn the Online News Association has received an American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) Power of A Silver Star Award in recognition of The Challenge Fund’s contributions to the local, national, and global communities.

“Their story exemplifies how associations make a difference every day – not just to the industry or profession they represent, but to society at large,” said High “Mac” Cannon, MPA, CAE, Executive Director of ACEC of Metropolitan Washington and chair of the Judging Committee.

The Challenge Fund, a project funded by the Democracy Fund in collaboration with the Excellence and Ethics in Journalism Foundation, the McCormick Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Rita Allen Foundation is designed to innovate both local news reporting and journalism student training.* Each year, faculty in college and university journalism programs around the country submit projects to incorporate student journalists into the process of local reporting. Winners receive a $35,000 mini-grant to implement their project.

The impact of the program is two-fold. First, the Challenge Fund helps increase the number of reporters working on local news stories. Second, the fund promotes the innovation in local news by emphasizing projects that incorporate new technology, techniques, partnerships, and approaches in reporting.

Among first year winners, projects have tackled the impact of rising sea levels on south Florida communities, built a collaborative around digital investigative journalism in Georgia, and produced investigative stories on mold in New York City Housing Authority tenements. This year’s winners are fact checking claims made about the African-American community, using listening stations to gather information from members of traumatized communities, and using virtual reality to tell the stories of marginalized youth.

The Democracy Fund is proud to support the work of ONA and congratulate them for their recognition by ASAE.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Live from Austin: The 2015 Knight News Challenge Winners

Paul Waters
/
July 22, 2015

The Democracy Fund congratulates the Knight News Challenge winners announced yesterday at the Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life at the University of Texas at Austin.

The wide range of solutions the winners will deploy seek to inform voters about the candidates and issues at both the local and national levels, as well as to help reduce barriers to getting people to the polls. Their projects cover efforts ranging from increasing transparency in campaign financing to increasing voter participation by providing informational tools on election processes, candidates, and issues. The Democracy Fund was especially excited about the number of the applicants and winners from the state and local election official communities. From the Rhode Island Secretary of State Natalie Gorbea to Cook County Clerk David Orr, this pool of winners really highlights the ability of elections offices to embrace innovation.

When the Democracy Fund joined in launching this challenge on better informing voters and increasing civic participation with the Knight Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, and Rita Allen Foundation, we had great hopes for the creativity it might reveal and are looking forward to seeing the work of the winning projects:

The Democracy Fund contributed $250,000 to the total $3.2 million awarded yesterday, and we believe it is money well-invested. Ten of the winners will receive investments of $200,000 to $525,000 each, while 12 early-stage ideas will receive $35,000 each through the Knight Prototype Fund, which helps people explore early-stage media and information ideas.

The Democracy Fund is encouraged and hopeful as we prepare for the next chapter of the News Challenge: the launch of these creative ideas. To those who didn’t win, we want to recognize the courage it takes to put an idea on public display, and we encourage those who were not selected to keep pursuing feedback and partnerships in your efforts.

Good luck to all!

Back to Ideas
Blog

Guest Post: New API Research shows Growth of Fact Checking and Partisan Challenges

Jane Elizabeth
/
April 22, 2015

This is cross-posted from the American Press Institute. View a full version with charts here and read more about the Democracy Fund’s support of fact checking here.

The amount of fact-checking journalism produced in the United States is increasing dramatically, and while there are limits to its persuasiveness, it is a measurably effective tool for correcting political misinformation among voters, according to new scholarly research conducted for the American Press Institute and released today.

The number of fact-check stories in the U.S. news media increased by more than 300 percent from 2008 to 2012, one of the studies found. That accelerates the growth in fact-checking journalism found in the prior national election cycle.

Fact-checking journalism also succeeds in increasing voter knowledge, according to controlled experiments with audiences.

“Fact-checking journalism is growing rapidly but is still relatively rare and heavily concentrated among outlets with dedicated fact checkers,” said the University of Exeter’s Jason Reifler, one of the scholars engaged in the research.

The three studies released today, conducted by scholars at six universities, build on existing research and constitute the most comprehensive effort to date examining the work of journalists to police political rhetoric.

Among some of the other findings:

  • More than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable view of political fact-checking.
  • Fact-checking is equally persuasive whether or not it uses a “rating scale” to summarize its findings.
  • Fact-checks of inaccurate statements are more persuasive when the consumer and the politician belong to the same political party.
  • Democrats, in general, have a more favorable view of and are somewhat more persuaded by fact-checking journalism than Republicans.

The results released today are part of a series commissioned through API’s Fact-Checking Project, an initiative to examine and improve fact-checking in journalism. The program is funded by the Democracy Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Rita Allen Foundation.

The Growth of Fact-Checking

By several measures fact-checking is growing. In the study of the frequency of fact-checking — either original fact-checks or stories about such work — the number of fact-checking stories increased by more than 50 percent from 2004 to 2008 and by more than 300 percent from 2008 to 2012. The growth occurred mostly at 11 newspapers that partnered with PolitiFact, one of the country’s most prominent fact-checking organizations, but the number of such stories also more than doubled between 2008 and 2012 at media outlets unaffiliated with PolitiFact.

The findings on the growth in fact-checking are reinforced by the Reporters’ Lab at Duke University, which found that the number of fully active fact-checking organizations in North America increased from 15 in April 2014 to 22 in January 2015.

The API study, authored by Lucas Graves at the University of Wisconsin, Brendan Nyhan at Dartmouth College and Reifler, also explored what conditions encourage more fact-checking journalism to occur. The researchers found that reporters who are reminded of fact-checking’s journalistic value produce significantly more fact-checking stories than those who are not reminded. Yet, the study found, reminding reporters that readers like fact-checking did not have a statistically significant effect.

Fact-checking and consumer knowledge

A second study, also by Nyhan and Reifler, found that more than eight in 10 Americans have a favorable view of political fact-checking journalism.

But there are some partisan differences in public perceptions of the practice: Republicans don’t view fact-checking journalism as favorably as Democrats do, especially among people with high levels of political knowledge.

Americans also appear to learn from fact-checks written by journalists, the study found. Knowledge of relevant facts increased by 11 percentage points among people who were randomly exposed to a series of fact-checks during the 2014 election, compared to a control group. In general, the study found, fact-checks are more effective among people who already have higher levels of political knowledge.

The study is the first randomized controlled trial estimating the effects of exposure to fact checking over time.

‘Pants on Fire’ Optional

Another of the studies examined the effectiveness of “rating scales” in fact-checking journalism. This research, conducted by Michelle A. Amazeen of Rider University, with Graves, Emily Thorson of George Washington University, and Ashley Muddiman of the University of Wyoming, found that a fact check is an effective tool for correcting political misinformation, whether or not it employs a “rating scale.” When given a choice, however, readers selected a fact check with a rating scale.

Such ratings are used by fact-checking organizations such the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, which uses a Pinocchio scale, and PolitiFact, whose Truth-O-Meter includes the well-known “Pants on Fire” rating.

Fact-checks of inaccurate statements are less persuasive when the reader and politician belongs to opposite political parties, the researchers found. These readers tend to think the opposing party politician’s statement was false, even before they read the correction. For this reason, political fact-checking may be of particular benefit during primary contests, according to the authors, although fact-checking currently is more likely to occur during general election cycles than in primaries.

The study also found that a non-political correction — in this case, regarding a statement made by a breakfast cereal company official — was more effective when a rating scale was added to the text.

The Future of Fact-Checking

Overall the studies suggest that fact-checking is achieving its core aim: countering the spread of political misinformation. And the public largely appreciates this work.

“The results suggest that corrections of misinformation do help people to more accurately understand the world around them,” Amazeen said.

Reifler added, “In short, people like fact-checking and it appears to help them become better informed.”

Read the full studies here:

The Growth of Fact Checking

Estimating Fact-Checking’s Effects

The Effectiveness of Rating Scales

In the coming weeks, API will publish more findings from its fact-checking research, including the prevalence of misinformation on Twitter and a report by journalist Mark Stencel examining the impact of fact-checking on the behavior of those in the political arena.

Democracy Fund is a foundation working to build an inclusive, multiracial democracy that is open, just, resilient, and trustworthy.

Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036
© 2025 Democracy Fund — Founded by The Omidyar Group