The Central San Joaquin Valley, the agricultural heart of California (and the nation), is among the areas hardest hit by the latest economic downturn, and it stands on the leading edge of the foreclosure crisis. The downturns in construction caused by the recession, combined with limited employment opportunities in this region, led to skyrocketing unemployment rates. According to US Department of Labor estimates, nine of the 10 worst cities in terms of unemployment were in the San Joaquin Valley--including our three urban research sites of Fresno, Merced, and Stockton (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). To this point, sociologists have failed to examine how foreclosures affect collective efficacy and civic engagement. In this article, we seek to fill this gap by applying Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earl's (1997) concept of collective efficacy to the study of two communities, one urban and one rural, in California's Central San Joaquin Valley. In their pioneering research on neighborhood dynamics in Chicago, Sampson et al. (1997, 918) argue that collective efficacy is the common intent to reduce the existing problems within a neighborhood. Since neighborhood collective efficacy is dependent on social cohesion and social control, these factors are crucial indicators of how foreclosures affect neighborhoods. Social cohesion is defined as the ability of neighbors to coexist and work well together. Social control is defined as the ability of neighbors to work together to prevent and solve problems within their community. To this point, much of our knowledge about this topic comes from anecdotal stories and news reports that suggest that neighborhood foreclosures cause a strain in neighborhood efficacy. The moving in and out of families disrupts the order of the neighborhood, causing relationships to be less stable than in neighborhoods where foreclosures are not as common. What Sampson et al. (1997) show is that increased neighborhood cohesion is associated with positive outcomes as well as fewer social dislocations. The greater the level of social cohesion within a neighborhood, and the greater overall social control, the better able a neighborhood is to ameliorate negative outcomes such as violence. For example, if a neighborhood has high cohesion, there is likely to be a greater sense of trust among its residents. In order to retain this trust, neighbors are more likely to exercise behaviors that reaffirm this belief and work together to prevent disruptions of trust (such as violence). Therefore, individuals are more likely to intervene in situations in which the common good of the neighborhood is threatened. Greater collective efficacy was positively associated in the study with higher socioeconomic status, homeownership, and older age. This reaffirms the association between residential stability on the one hand and neighborhood cohesion and social control (and therefore collective efficacy) on the other. Foreclosures interrupt this stability and negatively affect the lives of the people within the neighborhood. Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls (1999) show that diminished social control leaves the neighborhood more vulnerable to crime, or at least causes individuals to feel less safe. Empty houses within neighborhoods seem to decrease safety because they serve as an outlet for gangs, the homeless, drug addicts, and teenagers. Furthermore, when houses are empty for extended periods of time, they may become less presentable, lowering market values and discouraging potential new neighbors from entering the area. Again, this could result in less social cohesion since the neighborhood's population is shrinking, but the likelihood of crime is growing. Other scholars have used the concept of collective efficacy to study a variety of topics. For example, Browning and Cagney (2002) show that collective efficacy can be (along with financial stability) an indicator of the capacity of local schools to affect educational outcomes. …

In this article we use the results of a field experiment to investigate whether the choice to convert to permanent vote-by-mail (PVBM) status is driven primarily by individual voters' characteristics-such as a registrant's propensity to vote-or the messages elections administrators and advocates use to convince them to change their status. We find two significant outcomes. First, regardless of the message received, high-propensity voters are much more likely to convert than are low-propensity voters. Second, among low-propensity voters the convenience-based message was the least likely to cause conversion to PVBM status, and none of the messages had a significant effect among high-propensity and prior-PVBM registrants. Taken together, these results suggest that the current focus by scholars and practitioners on VBM's impact on the costs of voting may be misplaced.

This study seeks to understand what motivates people to voluntarily make the switch from voting at a polling place to voting by mail. Specifically, we seek to understand whether valence appeals can convince voters to change their voting behavior. Working with the San Joaquin County (CA) Registrar of Voters, we implemented a field experiment to test four messages encouraging voters to make the switch: safety of voting by mail, cost savings for the county, social acceptance of the practice, and the added convenience of voting by mail. We find that each of the messages, except convenience, increases the likelihood that voters will switch their registration status. Interestingly, this result holds across ethnic groups.

Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and PolicyVol. 10, No. 1 Original ArticlesFree AccessWho Converts to Vote-By-Mail? Evidence From a Field ExperimentNathan W. Monroe and Dari E. SylvesterNathan W. Monroe and Dari E. SylvesterPublished Online:17 Mar 2011https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2009.0058AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail IntroductionOver the past 30 years, a number of states have instituted election reforms aimed at lowering the costs associated with voting. With the expansion of various alternative voting options, reformers have hoped to remedy the low levels of voter turnout that have marked modern American democracy. Following suit, scholars have increasingly turned their attention to "convenience voting" (Gronke et al. 2008) mechanisms, studying voter registration through motor voter acts (Highton and Wolfinger 1998), easing restrictive registration rules (Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980; Nagler 1991; Highton 1997), early voting (Gronke et al. 2007; Stein 1998; Richardson, Jr. and Neeley 1996), same-day registration (Burden et al. 2009), no-excuse absentee (Leighley and Nagler 2009) and centralized vote centers (Stein and Vonnahme 2008; Brady and McNulty 2004). Among them, however, no voting reform has had more attention—from either reformers or scholars—than vote-by-mail (Gronke et al. 2007; Southwell 2004; Southwell and Burchett 2000; Kousser and Mullin 2007; Arceneaux et al. 2009).Vote-by-mail (VBM) began to gain momentum in the late 1980s and found the national spotlight in the early 1990s when Oregon citizens approved an initiative to conduct all elections by mail. Since then, VBM's popularity has expanded significantly, becoming the modal form of voting in several states, with potential for many more to follow. All counties but one in Washington State use VBM exclusively. In the 2008 general election, nearly 65 percent of all votes cast in Colorado were permanent mail ballots.1 At the time of this writing, a majority of states have a form of VBM prior to the election without the need for the voter to submit a reason to obtain a mail ballot (National Conference of State Legislatures website). This form of voting, typically referred to as "no excuse absentee voting" is currently available in thirty states. It is important to note that there are several forms of vote-by-mail that exist across states, including those (such as Oregon's) in which law mandates that voting is conducted by mail and those (such as California's) in which voters have an option to cast their votes solely by mail. For the purposes of this article, we shall limit our analysis to the latter, which has also been referred to as permanent vote-by-mail. In this case, voters make the choice to submit a one-time request to become a VBM voter, and then cast future votes by mail.Voters' choices to convert to permanent VBM status have not been studied until now. These choices may be quite complex and interesting. An easier, less costly voting mechanism that can be used at a time and place of their choice may appeal to some voters. For others, opting to use VBM may mean foregoing some significant psychological benefits of going to the polls, such as fulfilling expressive needs publicly (Fiorina 1976; Riker and Ordeshook 1968) or yielding to perceived social pressure to vote (Green et al. 2008). Moreover, some voters may feel uncomfortable voting without the assistance of poll workers, or trusting the U.S. Postal Service to deliver their mailed ballot to the correct destination.2In this article, we begin unpacking the dynamics behind the VBM choice.After a state or county adopts VBM, will lowering the cost of signing up convert significant numbers of new voters to become permanent VBM voters?When VBM does convert new voters, what types of citizens will be most likely to adopt VBM through the low-cost option?To answer these questions, we combined a field experiment with supplemental survey research. We conducted our field experiment prior to the June 3, 2008, election in California's San Joaquin County, where signing up for permanent VBM is an option for registered voters.3 We found that citizens who received information on VBM and opportunities to become VBM voters—in the form of already-filled-out postcards—are more likely to convert to that voting method.Next, we used survey data to assess whether the effect of the treatment is conditioned by a voter's turnout frequency. We first investigated conversion rates within subsets of the population based on education, income, ethnicity, language, and homeowner status, and found that traditionally "high propensity" voting groups were more responsive to the postcard. We then used a multivariate probit model to look directly at the interactive effect of our treatment and prior turnout on conversion to VBM, and found further support for the notion that frequent voters are more likely to respond to VBM conversion efforts. These findings extend the logic of Berinsky (2005; Berinsky et al. 2001) that shows that among VBM voters, turnout improved mainly amongst already high-propensity voters. Our analysis focuses on voter participation prior to the voting stage, asking whether an outreach effort draws more citizens into the voting process by encouraging them to register as permanent vote-by-mail voters.In the next section, we survey previous literature, providing the foundation for our theoretical framework and core hypothesis, which occupy the section that follows the literature review. With predictions in place, we proceed to describe our field experiment and results, then give our supplementary analysis using survey data. In the final section, we briefly summarize and conclude.Whither Vbm?As VBM has grown in prevalence, particularly in the western portion of the United States, the VBM movement has become a highly controversial electoral reform in the voting literature. Some scholars have found evidence of VBM's positive impact, for example cost savings, increased turnout, improved convenience of voting, and increasing acceptance among the electorate and election administrators. For instance, elections conducted entirely by mail are approximately 33–50% less expensive to run than elections conducted entirely at polling places (Southwell 2004). Moreover, some have found that VBM increases the percentage of registered voters turning out to vote (Gronke et al. 2007; Southwell and Burchett 2000).4 And, in her analysis of the Oregon VBM system, Southwell (2004) finds widespread majority support for the system five years after its adoption for all elections. Her findings seem to cast doubt on the notion that high initial rates of support for VBM were based on the novelty of the system rather than true satisfaction.On the other hand, skeptics suggest that VBM "has not changed who makes up the electorate, but only how they vote" (Fortier 2007). In other words, rather than adding new voters to the pool of voting Americans, VBM seems to improve the convenience of voting for those who were already inclined to vote, and this effect seems fairly robust across election types such as special elections (Southwell and Burchett 2000) as well as primary and general elections (Berinsky et al. 2001). Berinsky et al. therefore argue that any increase in the voter pool is based strictly on better retention of previous voters, rather than mobilization of new recruits (Berinsky et al. 2001).Furthermore, some scholars have found that pernicious effects may result from the institution of VBM. Berinsky, for instance, found evidence across multiple studies that VBM may contribute to widening socio-economic gaps in turnout, such that more educated, older, higher-income, and Caucasian voters would enjoy higher rates of turnout owing to VBM (Berinsky 2005). Kousser and Mullin also found a slight but statistically significant reduction in voter turnout when comparing VBM districts to traditional-polling-place districts (Kousser and Mullin 2007).5No previous research on VBM, however, has focused on voters' choices to convert to VBM. In a state where both traditional voting and VBM choices exist, which citizens will choose to vote by mail? One motivation behind the VBM movement is the notion that it will open up voting to segments of the population that currently find it difficult to vote. Does this low-cost voting option really draw in voters who find it too difficult to get to the polls? In the next two sections, we tackle these questions, first theoretically and then empirically.Cutting Costs of Signing Up For VbmDowns (1957) proposed that would-be voters consider the costs and potential benefits of voting before deciding to do so. The strictest interpretation of his framework seems to fall flat: In most cases, a single vote will not be decisive, and if Downs is correct, no "rational" person should show up and vote.Inaccurate though that prediction may be, there is still something appealing about the basic calculus of voting that it suggests. Specifically, it seems useful to assume that, in broad terms, as the costs of voting decrease, citizens are more likely to vote, all else constant. A voter who lives 30 miles from the polling place is almost certainly less likely to vote, on average, than someone who lives across the street.But how does the notion of the cost of turning out to vote relate to the decision to sign up for VBM? VBM is considered a lower-cost voting option, but VBM sign-up carries its own costs. Compared to the act of locating and traveling to a polling site for each election, becoming a permanent VBM voter carries a one-time cost that typically takes attention, effort, and knowledge. This up-front, fixed cost of signing up for VBM must be made up for in cost savings over all the future instances when the voter uses VBM instead of paying the extra cost to go the polls.The flow chart in Figure 1 illustrates this point. The voter, represented in the oval on the far left, faces three choices: Pay no cost and do not vote; pay cost C to vote in person; or pay cost V to sign up for permanent VBM status, and then pay cost M to vote by mail. Assuming, however, that there is a latent preference to cast a ballot, the relative size of the costs outlined here are instructive. Of course, where the cost of signing up for VBM plus the cost of casting a ballot by mail is lower than the cost of showing up to vote (i.e., V+M

Electoral reformers often look to the adoption of vote-by-mail as a way to increase voter turnout in American elections. Significant questions remain, however, about efficacy of the method. In California, for example, voters must explicitly register to use vote-by-mail and many have been reluctant to make the change. Can voters’ perceptions about vote-by-mail be changed? Are voters willing to use vote-by-mail when given the opportunity? Working with the San Joaquin County, CA, Registrar of Voters during in 2008, we engaged in a prolonged, graduated, and multifaceted voter education effort (funded by a HAVA grant to the Registrar) to try to change how voters in San Joaquin County perceive vote-by-mail (i.e., make it seem more attractive) and to increase the number of voters who use the method to vote. Using data generated from three waves of randomized telephone interviews following each of the California statewide elections in 2008, we demonstrate that voters generally did not change their perceptions about vote-by-mail, even in the face of concerted and increasing efforts to get them to do so, nor did they significantly alter their voting behavior.

This article was supported in part by Award No. 06LHHCA001, granted by the Corporation for National and Community Service, Learn and Serve America Higher Education through California Campus Compact. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Corporation for National and Community Service, California Campus Compact, or the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

How can social indicator research improve understanding of community health as well as inform stakeholders about the assets disadvantaged communities have for coping with disparities? This paper describes the development and evolution of the Partnership for Assessment of Communities (PAC) and its best practices for social indicator research. The PAC will be of interest to researchers across multiple disciplines for a number of reasons. First, PAC is a working model of best practices for multidisciplinary scholarly inquiry. Second, it has developed an integrated model of quantitative and qualitative methodology to define and measure community health as compared to traditional quality-of-life indicators. Third, it serves as an example of “action research,” in that the findings have the potential to make an impact on community stakeholders and policy outcomes in the greater Central San Joaquin Valley of California, a region characterized by deep social and economic disparities.

The arguments for and against term limits have been the subject of debate since the mid-1990s. Proponents claim term limits bring new energy and ideas to government, while opponents argue they shift power to special interests and the bureaucracy. Analyses of the true effects of term limits have been focused on their implementation at the state level. This article examines the effects of term limits on taxation, city employment, and spending on other public policies at the municipal level. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau and pooled cross-sectional time series models, the authors find that the presence of term limits has only a modest effect on economic and distributive public policies in U.S. cities as a city’s economic milieu has a greater effect on taxation and policy expenditures.

This article focuses on the persistence of the digital divide and its impact on political participation, and in particular, on the role that geographic location plays in unequal access. The authors findings, based on survey data from the 2007 Pew Internet and American Life project, indicate that physical location continues to play a key role in levels of access to broadband technology and that increased home Internet use is associated with a significantly higher probability of contacting government officials in various ways.