Knight Research Brief 1

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: Advancing Community Action for Civic Innovation Research Brief November 2003

OVERVIEW Civic engagement and its relationship to the health of democracy in America has received nationwide attention during the last decade. While the very definition and scope of “civic engagement” is still contested, policymakers, journalists, researchers, and community leaders have bemoaned a decline in citizen engagement and questioned democracy’s capacity to solve public problems at the community level. In the aftermath of the September 11th tragedy, initial reports signaled a resurgence in civic engagement and a renewed faith in democracy, however, the research provides mixed evidence regarding the net impact on citizenship and American democratic institutions. Whether Americans are withdrawing from public life or participating in different ways is still a matter of much scholarly contention. Although no consensus has been reached regarding the level of civic engagement, the debate has broadened to include important questions about the quality, equality, and sustainability of participation. What are the key factors that foster, enhance, and sustain citizens’ civic engagement and build a community’s capacities for reinvigorating democracy? The Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland, in partnership with the Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service at Georgetown University, has conducted a national-level assessment to examine what works to strengthen civic engagement in the United States. Developing a comparative framework to understand the main variables that enhance civic engagement and democratic citizenship at the community-level, this research study draws on a growing knowledge base of effective civic innovations and strategies of various communities around the United States. The goal of this research effort is to help local policy makers, advocates, practitioners, and foundation program officers set objectives and design strategies tailored to the realities of their communities that strengthen civic engagement, community involvement, and, ultimately, democratic citizenship. This Research Brief provides a summary of this project’s conceptual framework, including the main goals for enhancing civic engagement, the fundamental factors that influence civic engagement at the community level, the key measures to assess civic health, and the innovations and strategies employed to achieve these goals. The Research Brief also highlights the conditions necessary for civic engagement to thrive, priority areas for future efforts, and key research gaps in the civic engagement literature. Most important, this Research Brief presents a preliminary assessment of what works to enhance civic engagement at the community level based on the findings of eight reports that reviewed over 700 scholarly articles (What Works Table on pages 11-12).

ENHANCING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT & DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP Civic engagement means “active participation in civic life.” This study focuses on those civic and political activities that contribute to or enhance democracy. Thus, this study presumes that the ultimate goal of enhancing civic engagement is to strengthen democracy. This overarching goal involves four key measurable objectives, which overlap with one another but are all prerequisites for a healthy democracy. Specifically, civic innovations and strategies should: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Increase the quantity of civic engagement: This means increasing the number of people involved or percentage of the population engaged and increasing the number of organizations and civic structures (where appropriate). Increase the quality of civic engagement: This means improving existing opportunities for volunteers or enhancing organizational effectiveness and creating new more meaningful opportunities to participate, which would also contribute to the next goal, increasing the equality of civic engagement. This also includes increasing the quality of citizens through skill-building opportunities and civic education. Increase the equality of civic engagement: This involves identifying civic structures and other factors that serve to include or exclude, leveraging differences and minimizing disparities in order to increase participation, access, influence and representation of underrepresented groups by race, class, ethnicity, age, gender and religion. This also includes elevating, where appropriate “fringe involvement” to “center stage” to help strengthen the links between informal and formal networks (e.g., community leaders: gang leaders vs. elected officials). Increase the sustainability of civic engagement: This involves strengthening existing venues or opportunities for participation and identifying and nurturing emerging strategies and innovations that seek to build citizenship and engagement at the local level over the long-term.

Main Factors Affecting Civic Engagement Civic engagement is a broad and complex topic. What are the main factors that affect civic engagement? To better understand the field, we have reviewed the existing empirical literature and identified the three main factors that shape the possibilities for civic engagement and healthy democratic communities. Individual and Community Factors result from individual experiences that are driven by internal (such as personal values) and external (such as familial and societal) forces. These factors set the context or conditions both at the individual and collective levels that either facilitate or impede civic engagement and are identified as: • • •

Civic Motivations and Values Civic Identity, Norms, Conditions Civic Differences and Disparities

Civic Tools and Resources are the primary means in terms of strategies and practices, both at the individual and collective levels, to enhance the quality, quantity, equality, and sustainability of civic engagement and are identified as: • •

Civic Education and Knowledge Civic Skills and Capacities

The Modes and Infrastructure for Participation are the main forms, venues, and infrastructure though which people are or become civically engaged. These are identified broadly as Civic Participation and Civic Structures and take four forms: community and religious, economic, political, and electoral participation and structures. Together the inter-relationships among these three main factors shape and affect the possibilities for enhancing civic engagement (i.e., quantity, quality, equality, and sustainability), and thus shape the potential outcomes for building healthy democratic communities. FOSTERING CIVIC INNOVATIONS AND STRATEGIES What leads people to engage civically in their communities?

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

2

First and foremost, people must have reason to believe that, whatever the form of involvement, their civic actions will positively affect their communities. Political theorist Harry Boyte argues that people are most likely to sustain engagement when people see active citizenship as “public work,” which is conceived as an ongoing creative process whereby people find efficacy in working in public ways and venues to solve community problems collectively (Boyte, 1997, 2000; Boyte & Kari, 1996). Various experiences in St. Paul, Philadelphia, Portland, OR, and other cities suggest that, where people find their voice matters, they are most likely to act on some form of engagement in the broader community (Berry, Portney & Thomson, 1993; Boyte & Kari, 1996; Markus, 2002).

Collectively, these city-level studies point to a number of key conditions necessary for community-level civic engagement to thrive: 1) a high level of organizational and economic diversity, 2) responsive and participatory governance structures, 3) successful mobilization efforts of broad coalitions, 4) a focus on leadership, and 5) access to resources and education. 5 Key Conditions for Fostering Communitylevel Civic Engagement •

A high level of organizational and economic diversity: A diverse mix of organizations is most likely to provide broader more inclusive opportunities and responsive means for people to participate meaningfully in their communities than individual community actors acting alone (e.g., community, church, labor union, and local government or multi-sectoral partnerships) (Norris, 2002a; Nelson, Craig, & Riker, 2003). The greater the level of economic diversity in middle-income communities is positively correlated with higher levels of civic engagement by citizens, for instance, as they seek to influence decisions about the allocation and provision of public services (Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003, 14; Oliver, 1999; Costa & Kahn, 2003). Those communities that have a broader range of community economic development organizations (e.g., community development corporations, cooperatives, community land trusts, farmers’ markets) have generally demonstrated higher levels of civic engagement and economic stability (Williamson, Imbroscio, & Alperovitz, 2002; Rusch, 2001).

•

Responsive and participatory governance structures: Community-based organizations and neighborhood associations that enable people to address their concerns through participatory governance structures can provide effective channels for voice, representation and accountability, especially for poor, minority, and disenfranchised peoples (Portney & Berry, 2001; Markus, 2002; Cuoto & Guthrie, 1999; Fung & Wright, 2002). When people are engaged in the defining, deliberation, decision-making and implementation of community priorities and initiatives, the sustainability of civic engagement is enhanced (Cortes, 1993;

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

3

What conditions are necessary to foster and to sustain civic engagement at the community level? A variety of organizations and institutions at the local level play a critical role in facilitating and shaping the possibilities for enhanced civic engagement: Charitable and political organizations, religious congregations, advocacy groups, unions, schools and universities, community foundations, local government, cooperatives, community development centers, neighborhood associations, and local political party chapters, just to name a few. Together, these organizations help to establish strong social networks, develop civic skills, and foster deep roots for further participation and political involvement. Markus’s study (2002) of civic engagement in fourteen major cities finds that the role of community-based organizations in the form of neighborhood associations, small church groups, PTAs and other citizens’ groups is critical. These local groups mobilize people to address the problems of their communities, spanning various issues, from health to housing, hunger, and crime. To the extent that these organizations are grounded in the communities with wide representation, they have great potential to generate citizen awareness, facilitate active civic and political engagement, and foster leadership development. For instance, the neighborhood governance councils in West Chicago have provided low-income people with an effective forum that enables them to influence and shape the policies for community policing and public schools (Markus, 2002; Fung, 2001).

and processes (Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003, 24). Promoting targeted educational and skills-training opportunities and interestgroup membership in a diverse range of community economic development organizations (e.g., coops, credit unions) can enhance people’s access to resources and their level of civic engagement. In addition, well-designed civic education, media training, and non-partisan public information initiatives targeted to specific audiences (e.g., youths and adults) can enhance citizens’ civic knowledge and engagement (Torney-Purta, 2003) as well as mobilize them to register and to vote in elections (Wilcox, 2003).

Potapchuk, 1996; Community Building Institute & National Civic League, 2002; Fung, 2002). In the economic sphere, employees’ participation in the democratic ownership and governance of economic enterprises such as cooperatives or employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) enhances or facilitates positive civic engagement and political participation beyond the workplace (Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003). •

Successful mobilization efforts of broad coalitions: The building of broad-based grassroots coalitions of community and religious organizations offers an effective means to enable people to influence political institutions and to address economic priorities in both rural and urban settings (Cortes, 1993; Couto, 1998; Warren, 1998 2001). Broad inter-group coalitions have successfully mobilized community-wide participation to address vital issues ranging from affordable housing to policing and school reform. The organization of multistakeholder coalitions that involve poor people from multiple ethnic groups has, in various instances, been successful in either stopping or reorienting corporate-led economic development plans, and in mobilizing effective environmental justice and living wage initiatives at the community level (Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003).

•

A focus on leadership: Civic leadership development is critical for building and sustaining the capacity for developing effective and responsive organizational channels and civic activities. Leaders sustain organizations. Sustainable organizations foster social change (Warren & Wood, 1998; Wood, 1998, 2001, 2002 & 2003; Goldsmith, 2002). The emphasis should be on broadening and diversifying an organization’s leadership.

•

Access to resources and education: One of the greatest civic barriers is the lack of access to the economic, educational, and political resources necessary to engage meaningfully in civic life. In the economic sphere, the lack of access to economic resources (e.g., wealth and income inequality) can significantly limit a person’s ability to participate in civic life and to influence economic and political institutions

Acknowledging the key contributing factors that enhance or inhibit civic engagement and the conditions necessary for community-level civic engagement to occur, what strategies or innovations have been tried and what priority areas have been identified to increase the quantity, quality or equality of civic engagement? Civic Strategies & Innovations for Enhancing Civic Engagement: Recommendations By reviewing the recommendations that emerge from the literature and surveying the innovative approaches that community-based organizations and institutions have employed to enhance civic engagement, this analysis provides the initial basis for lessons, strategies, and effective practices that can be applied at the local level. However, a primary objective of this research was to highlight evidence on the extent to which different strategies or innovations produce measurable outcomes and outputs. What works? What doesn’t? And what might? How should we measure the effectiveness of a particular innovation or strategy? And how can communities assess their own progress toward local civic engagement goals? Moreover, how do you take a social innovation or strategy that has worked in one community and “take it to scale,” or take it to another community? In an earlier study commissioned by the Russell Sage Foundation, Hollister and Hill (1995) identify several definitional and methodological challenges inherent in the evaluation of community-wide initiatives. This study highlighted specific problems with developing consistent reliable outcome measures, using

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

4

community as the unit of analysis and comparison, measuring community-level variables such as social networks and formal/informal institutions, and linking shortterm measures with long-term outcomes. Acknowledging these issues, The Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University is attempting to answer this question and is in the early stages of creating a matrix of strategic options for scaling out to assist with “the geographic spread of social innovation.” While we attempted to organize and synthesize what is known about the performance of various approaches in civic engagement, unfortunately, perhaps the most prominent research gaps identified in the literature review underlined in many of the dimension reports, describe the lack of longitudinal data in evaluating the state of civic engagement in any form or through any vehicle or venue. The lack of such comprehensive data fundamentally limits the study of civic engagement to areas where there is the most information – such as voter participation, registration, and so forth. Moreover, a lack of longitudinal data precludes the necessary development of program evaluation and program intervention to understand what practices are working over time. Nevertheless, existing research does point to a number of areas where obvious gains can be made in every mode of engagement. Specifically, the research encompasses four broad priority areas for pursuing effective civic strategies and innovations that enhance civic engagement at the community level: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Strengthening civic infrastructure; Addressing economic inequalities and fostering community economic stability; Developing youth with a focus on education; and Strengthening the electoral process.

A critical first step is to strengthen a community’s civic infrastructure to foster civic engagement. Developing a civic ecology of community capacities that identifies key actors, strengthens their skills and capacities, and fosters supportive relationships among them for shared purposes provides the essential building blocks at the community level for public problemsolving (Friedland & Sirianni, 2003). This means fostering effective multi-stakeholder collaborations that include business, nonprofit

and political actors at the community level to solve public problems (Nelson, Craig & Riker, 2003). Civic journalism represents a promising area for developing a community’s civic capacity, where local newspapers and other media (i.e., television and radio) can play a catalytic role in highlighting key issues facing a community, stimulating broad community-level deliberations, and creating an agenda for action on pressing public issues (Friedland, 1996, 2001; Sirianni & Friedland, 2001). A second priority area is to address economic inequality and to strengthen community economic stability. A key finding of this project is that explicitly addressing social and economic inequalities is critical to reducing civic disparities and enhancing civic engagement of those lacking access, opportunities, and resources (Frasure & Williams, 2003; Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003). In the case of economic participation, there are several promising areas for enhancing civic engagement, such as supporting economic interest group membership, increasing socio-economic diversity, and promoting greater wealth equality. Fostering a democratic workplace and participatory governance of economic enterprises where workers develop essential skills has a positive impact on civic engagement (Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003). There are new emerging strategies for curbing the economic power of corporations through different forms of advocacy such as shareholder resolutions, boycotts, and buycotts. Broad-based, multi-stakeholder coalitions involved in environmental justice and living wage initiatives offer positive examples where communities have made progress in addressing corporate power and reducing economic and social inequalities (Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003). Diversifying the range and scope of community economic development organizations (e.g., community development corporations, cooperatives, community land trusts, farmers’ markets) enhances civic engagement and community economic stability (Williamson, Imbroscio, & Alperovitz, 2002). Third, there is a continuing need to focus on youth development and education. Civic identity, values, and adult patterns of participation find their roots in youth participation (Youniss & Hart, 2003). Based on this finding, Youniss and Hart advocate greater investment in targeted youth programs that encourage community and civic involvement,

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

5

with a particular emphasis on bridging the resource gap in inner cities to level the playing field for disadvantaged youth. In addition to community-based programs to engage youth, school-based curricular and extracurricular initiatives are critical to developing the appropriate content knowledge to ensure that civic skills and the propensity to participate are grounded and informed (Torney-Purta, 2003). Fostering meaningful civic knowledge requires enhancing the content and skills for enabling participation through a combination of schoolbased civic education, media education, and parental engagement in a youth’s civic development (CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2003). School-based strategies that have a significant impact in enhancing the civic engagement of youth are curricular offerings with high civic content, an open classroom climate that allows for respectful discussion of issues, and a school environment that empowers students. Participation in student council, other forms of extracurricular activity and in community service have a strong positive influence on a student’s civic engagement. In order to encourage a student’s potential political and electoral participation, there should be an explicit focus in the curriculum about the importance of voting and elections in school (Torney-Purta, 2003). Investing in media training and education with an explicit civic content is an effective strategy. Civic education is enhanced by exposure to local, national, and international news in the media and by active discussion and connection of the news to civic and political practices. Students who regularly read a newspaper and/or regularly watch television news achieve a higher civic education knowledge score. Home literacy resources and the active involvement of parents in discussion of civic and political affairs have a positive reinforcing impact on the civic education of youth (Torney-Purta, 2003). Fourth, a timely priority area is to strengthen electoral infrastructure and opportunities for electoral participation. The controversies surrounding campaign finance reform and the 2000 Presidential election put pressure on FEC officials to tighten controls on election monitoring and step up structural reform, regarding the relationship between money and politics. A review of the literature also indicated that several civic barriers to electoral participation remain, especially for marginalized

groups (e.g., minorities, immigrants, and former convicted felons). Because of the lack of resources and skills necessary to participate, minorities are less frequently mobilized than whites and marginalized by organized politics, which further depresses their level of civic engagement (Uslaner, 2003; Rogers, 2000; Frymer 1999; Jones-Correa, 1998; Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995). Williams and Frasure (2003) suggest the following strategies to address civic disparities in electoral participation: 1) move towards proportional representation, 2) make naturalization simpler and easier, 3) support efforts to diversify the candidate pool and ensure that elections are competitive, and 4) enfranchise voters including felons and perhaps resident aliens. Many scholars and political activists also recommend strategies to lower the social and economic costs of participation for everyone. Specifically, to make voting and voter registration easier and more accessible for everyone, they advocate multi-day balloting, same day registration, and keeping the polls open longer on election day (Wilcox, 2003). There is also evidence that citizen mobilization efforts should be stepped up to include more rigorous door-to-door efforts, to leverage political work through houses of worship and to expand reach to marginalized groups through the political party system (Uslaner, 2003). When considered as a whole, these four priority areas provide the basis for the following recommendations on page 7 below for strengthening civic engagement. ENHANCING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT: RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES There is an urgent need to develop tools that can be used for top-down and bottom-up evaluation of various ways to foster civic engagement. Such tools – focusing on what works, what has been shown to work, and what might work – should prove particularly helpful for community leaders, nonprofit organizations, policy-makers and foundations seeking to enhance the quantity, quality, and equality of civic engagement and sustain its impact for enhancing democracy in their communities. The What Works Table on pages 11-12 below provides a preliminary assessment of effective civic innovations and strategies that enhance civic engagement at the community level.

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

6

Main Recommendations for Strengthening Civic Engagement 1) Focus on strengthening the civic infrastructure a) Strengthen local institutions: community-level institutions provide initial opportunities to engage. b) Support multi-sectoral partnerships: government and foundation initiatives should work with colleges and universities to promote university’s civic role. c) Acknowledge power of community-based organizing for leadership development and social justice change. d) Develop a civic ecology of civic capacities that identifies key actors, fosters supportive relationships, and provides the building blocks at the community level for public problem-solving. e) Foster effective multi-stakeholder collaborations that include business, nonprofit and political actors at the community level to solve public problems. f) Promote civic journalism that fosters and facilitates community dialogue, deliberations, and agenda setting about pressing problems and priorities. 2) Address economic inequalities and foster community economic stability a) Support economic interest group membership. b) Increase socio-economic diversity. c) Promote greater wealth equality. d) Increase restrictions on corporate political power. e) Encourage workplace democracy and democratic economic governance. f). Strengthen and diversify the range of community economic development organizations. 3) Focus on youth development and education a) Incorporate trends of civic engagement in designated courses and across the curriculum. b) Connect civic and political practices outside of the classroom. c) Allow different opinions to be expressed in the classroom: empower students to look beyond adults’ perspective for solutions. d) Expect students to reason about the support for their own positions and reflect about the experience in and outside the classroom. e) Invest in youth programs that encourage civic involvement. f) Help bridge the resource gap in inner cities to provide mentors and additional support for inner city youth. g) Focus on strengthening educational opportunities for under-privileged youth. h) Target age groups differently. 4) Strengthen the electoral process a) Advocate for increased election monitoring and structural reform. b) Move towards proportional representation. c) Make naturalization simpler and easier. d) Support efforts to diversify the candidate pool. e) Ensure that elections are competitive. f) Lessen costs of voting: multi-day balloting, same day registration, polls open longer. g) Enfranchise voters including felons and perhaps resident aliens. h) Provide citizens with ample ways to become informed about campaigns and issues. i) Mobilize citizens: civic voter mobilization campaigns, door-to-door efforts. j) Mobilize potential voters through political parties and houses of worship.

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

7

Out of this analysis, we have also identified important areas and questions for further research, experimentation, and exchange about the key factors that affect civic engagement at the community level. To improve our collective understanding of the civic challenges facing communities with different institutional contexts, future research and practitioner efforts to enhance community-level civic engagement must continue to be informed by the constructive collaboration among scholars and feedback from community practitioners. To date, we have learned concretely about the many challenges inherent in accomplishing the project’s fundamental goals: identifying effective strategies and practices and developing relevant tools for enhancing civic engagement at the community level based on a comprehensive assessment of the academic literature. The real test will be how to connect research and practice effectively to present our findings in a way that best informs and enables community practitioners to apply these innovative strategies and best practices to enhance the civic engagement of citizens in the specific contexts of their communities. The challenge remains to develop appropriate tools and to identify relevant practices that can be adopted at the community level and be tailored to their specific community context.

KEY AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The research presented in this report crosses the gamut of civic engagement, utilizing information from both academics and practitioners. A great deal is known about ways to immediately influence community and national engagement patterns, ranging from electoral reforms such as same-day voter registration to societal reforms such as youth leadership campaigns. However, in measuring the unique and overlapping contributions for each category of civic engagement, a number of questions remain unanswered. Perhaps the most prominent research gap identified is the lack of longitudinal data, which limits the ability to assess fully the performance of civic strategies and innovations over time. In addition, civic engagement encompasses wide-ranging fields of academic knowledge, thus, gaps necessarily exist between disciplines or areas of study and with practitioners.

Another key research gap relates to group differences or the study of the engagement patterns across race, religion, class, and gender within the U.S. Minority populations often develop tight community bonds and express their specific societal, political, and economic engagement in unique ways. The unique contribution of specific groups remains unclarified. To date, research has focused on lumping groups into broad categories, eliminating the possibility of understanding the discrete contribution of specific nationalities. This grouping based on race rather than national origin reveals nothing about potential engagement differences between nationalities, blurring existing engagement patterns into a racial average. Likewise, similar problems can be seen in measuring the religious involvement of ethnic groups. While new research projects are underway (e.g., The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s Pluralism Project and Immigrant Initiative Programs), key knowledge gaps still remain in the area of non-Christian religions’ civic participation. Religious involvement related to engagement has primarily dealt only with Judeo-Christian groups and belief systems. Yet, the influx of many new religious groups in the past thirty years requires an additional perspective. Any civic engagement related to Buddhist, Hindu, or even Muslim churches remains largely unconsidered. Moreover, while recent research has focused on the relationship between gender and civic engagement patterns, the interaction of socioeconomic and gender transformations requires further study. Skocpol’s review of civic transformations and inequalities predicts that: “Since women were traditionally central to many voluntary membership federations that stressed cross-class fellowship and non-market-oriented public values, it will be fascinating to learn how all this changed during the recent era, as class inequalities have increased and gender differences have attenuated” (2002, 38). While research gaps exist both within and across the modes of civic engagement, many areas require further consideration. The mode of economic engagement receives limited attention as an outlet for civic engagement when compared to electoral or social engagement. Much of the data for economic engagement

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

8

remains anecdotal, and non-systematic. Few studies have sought to understand what specific skills and attitudes can be transferred from economic governance to civic and political participation. The research field also lacks analysis that explores the characteristics of local organizations and how these characteristics affect individual and group participation for any given purpose. Efforts are needed to improve the means for assessing organizational capacity in facilitating civic engagement. Such research could impart not only valuable lessons for all community organizations attempting to develop civic engagement, but also would differentiate between participation rates and success/failure of institutions over time. While much is known about the participation patterns over time of larger membership organizations and elite-class associations, much less is known about advocacy groups or cross-class associations (Skocpol, 2002, 38). An even more prominent critique of research in the field of civic engagement involves the “disconnect” between civic engagement as a means to a desired outcome and civic engagement as an end or desired outcome itself. Societal engagement because of social capital could be high in a community; however, this specific reality does not predetermine that a community will be successful in terms of accomplishing any particular end. Thus, research should not only seek to measure civic engagement nationally and locally, but should also measure what such engagement produces in terms of national and local results.

Greater analysis is also required of the institutional infrastructure and social context that affect the quantity, quality, equality, and the sustainability of community-based civic participation. Further study should examine both the positive and negative roles civic structures play at the community level. This type of analysis could help determine when and how civic structures serve as bridges facilitating greater participation as well as when and how they serve as exclusionary barriers to equal participation. This Research Brief is based on a longer synthesis report on “What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation” (2003) prepared for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The full report, along with eight Civic Engagement Working Papers, is available from The Democracy Collaborative’s web site. The Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland gratefully acknowledges the support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation for this project.

For more information, please contact: The Democracy Collaborative University of Maryland 1228 Tawes Hall College Park, MD 20742-7255 Phone: 301-405-9266 Fax: 301-314-2533 www.democracycollaborative.org

REFERENCES Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A. & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Berry, J., Portney, K. & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Bobo, L. & Gilliam, F. D., Jr. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and Black empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84: 377-393. Boyte, H.C. (1997). The meaning of citizenship. Kettering Review, Winter, 55-62.

Boyte, H.C. (2000). Public work: An Interview with Harry Boyte. Higher Education Exchange, 43-51. Boyte, H.C. & Kari, N.N. (1996). Building America: The democratic promise of public work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burns, N., Schlozman, K.L. & Verba, S. (1997). The public consequences of private inequality: Family life and citizen participation. The American Political Science Review, 91: 373-389.

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

9

Community Building Institute & National Civic League (2002). Strengthening policymaking and building community in America: Supporting reform and innovation through participatory urban governance. Commissioned by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Washington, DC. Cortes, Jr., E. (1993). Reweaving the fabric: The iron rule and the IAF strategy for power and politics. In H. G. Cisneros, (Ed.). Interwoven destinies: Cities and the Nation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 295-319. Cortes, E. (1996). Community organizations and social capital. National Civil Review, 85: 49-53, Fall. Costa, D.L. & Kahn, M.E. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. ASPANET: Social Capital and Diversity, 1(1), March. Couto, R. A. (1998). Community coalitions and grassroots policies of empowerment. Administration & Society, 30(5): 569-594. Couto, R. A., with Guthrie, C. S. (1999). Making democracy work better: Mediating structures, social capital, and the democratic prospect. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Delli Carpini, M.X. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press. Flanagan, C.A. & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic development : Implications of research for social policy and programs. Social Policy Report, 15(1): 3-16. Frasure, L. & Williams, L. (2003). Civic Disparities and Civic Differences: Ethno-Racial Civic Engagement in the United States. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 3, College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project. Friedland, L.A. (1996). Bringing the news back home: Public journalism and rebuilding local communities. National Civic Review, 85: 45-48, Fall. Friedland, L.A. (2001). Communication, community, and democracy: Toward a theory of the communicatively integrated community. Communication Research, 28(4): 358391. Friedland, L.A. & Sirianni, C. (2003). Civic Skills and Capacities. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 8, College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project. Fung, A. (2001). Accountable autonomy: Toward empowered deliberation in Chicago schools and policing. Politics and Society, 29(1): 73-103. Fung, A. & Wright, E. O., (Eds.) (2002). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. New York: Verso. Galston, W.A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4: 217-234. Gerber, A.S. & Green, D.P. (2000, September). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter

turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3): 653-63. Goldsmith, S. (2002). Putting faith in neighborhoods: Making cities work through grassroots citizenship. Noblesville, IN: Hudson Institute Publications. Hollister, R.G. & Hill, J. (1995). Problems in the evaluation of community-wide initiatives. Working Paper 70. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M. & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trusts & Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE). Markus, G.B. (2002). Civic participation in America. Report of the Civic Engagement Study. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Milner, H. (2002). Citizen literacy: How informed citizens make democracy work. Hanover, NH: Tufts University, published by University Press of New England. Nelson, K.E., Craig, M. & J.V. Riker. (2003). The Infrastructure for Civic Engagement: Community and Religious Participation and Structures. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 4, College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project. Nembhard, J.G. & Blasingame, A. (2003). Economic Dimensions of Civic Engagement and Political Efficacy. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 5, College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project. Niemi, R.G. & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes student learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Oliver, J.E. (1999). The effects of metropolitan economic segregation on local civic participation. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1): 186-212, January. Oliver, J.E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Potapchuk, W.R. (1996). Building sustainable community politics: Synergizing participatory, institutional, and representative democracy. National Civic Review, 85: 54-59. Potapchuk, W.R. (1999). Building an infrastructure of community collaboration. National Civic Review, 88(3): 165-169, Fall. Portney, K.E. & Berry, J.M. (1997). Mobilizing minority communities. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5): 632-644. Putnam R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster Press Putnam, R.D. (2001). Civic disengagement in contemporary America. Government and Opposition, 36(2): 135-156. .

References continued on page 12

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

10

WHAT WORKS TABLE: A Review of Civic Innovations & Strategies to Enhance Civic Engagement Civic Innovations and Strategies Areas for Targeted Intervention INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY FACTORS Civic Infrastructure *Government *Business *Community-based Organizations *Foundations *Unions *Universities & Colleges *Schools *Unions * Media * Alternative Spaces (technology) Economic Inequalities Socioeconomic conditions and diversity

CIVIC TOOLS & RESOURCES Youth Development and Education

Community-based Initiatives

What Works

What Doesn’t Work

Mixed Reviews

“Best Bets”

-Developing a civic ecology of civic capacities: inventory for local context -Promoting multi-stakeholder collaborations: strengthen organizational diversity and multi-sectoral partnerships -Supporting participatory and responsive governance structures -Leveraging locally-based and locally-owned media to shape the community dialogue process

-Urging people to get involved -Unresponsive government and civic structures

-Leveraging television and Internet for civic journalism or civic education purposes

-Developing electronic community networks -Strengthening citizen deliberative forums -Community-University partnerships for community leadership development and problem-solving

-Strengthening educational and training opportunities -Mobilizing at the grassroots level to reach out to marginalized groups (e.g., faith-based community organizing) -Leveraging alternative venues for skill building and leadership development (e.g., churches, unions, cooperatives)

-Homogenization of economic development -Limited opportunities for local control of economic development priorities -Socio-economic isolation and socioeconomic segregation

-Empowering grassroots groups to leverage group consciousness/ identity politics -Mobilizing through political parties and houses of worship

-Promoting diversity in community economic development organizations -Supporting efforts to democratize the workplace (e.g., ESOPs) -Supporting interest group membership -Mobilizing citizens through campaigns (e.g., living wage, environmental justice)

-Strengthening school-based leadership development programs -Targeting classroom and curricular strategies for both process and content -Incorporating civic participation in the curriculum -Creating an open and supportive classroom -Connecting civic practices outside the classroom

-Closed and rigid classroom learning environment -Stand alone courses in Civics are insufficient

-Expanding service learning initiatives (without reflection and learning components)

-Supporting service learning and community service activities that enable formal and informal opportunities for reflection and learning -Targeting media education on civic and public issues toward students and youths -Strengthening communitybased youth leadership and service programs (e.g., City Year, AmeriCorps)

-Strengthening membership and skills training in community-based organizations -Encouraging youth voluntarism that strengthens their sense of self-efficacy

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

11

Areas for Targeted Intervention MODES FOR PARTICIPATION Electoral & Political Processes

What Works

What Doesn’t Work

Mixed Reviews

“Best Bets”

-Reducing barriers to voting and voter registration: multiday balloting, same day registration, extended polling hours -Mobilizing citizens through civic, faith-based, and neighborhood organizations and specific issue campaigns (e.g., living wage) -Increasing election monitoring and clean election reforms

-Negative issue ads and campaigning -Uncontested and uncompetitive elections

-Phone and direct mail appeals -The role of the Internet in mobilizing participation -Supporting efforts to diversify the candidate pool

-Face-to-face voter mobilization and civic education efforts -Ensuring elections are competitive by providing public funding, subsidies, and access to public media -Moving toward proportional representation -Making naturalization simpler and easier -Enfranchising former felons and resident aliens

References Continued from page 10 Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S. & Brady, H. E. (1999). Civic participation and the equality problem. In T. Skocpol & M.P. Fiorina, (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 427-459.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., Brady, H. & Nie, N.H. (1993). Race, ethnicity and political resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23: 453497

Sirianni, C. & Friedland, L. (2001). Civic innovation in America: Community empowerment, public policy, and the movement for civic renewal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Verba, S., Burns, N. & Schlozman, K.L. (1997). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59: 1051-1072.

Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Skocpol, T. & M.P. Fiorina, (Eds.). (1999). Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press and Russell Sage Foundation. Stone, C.N., Henig, J.R., Jones, B.D. & Pierannunzi, C. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Torney-Purta, J. (2001). Civic knowledge, beliefs about democratic institutions, and civic engagement among 14-year olds. Prospects, 31: 279-292. Torney-Purta, J. (2003). Tools and Strategies: Civic Education and Civic Knowledge. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 2, College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project. Uslaner, E.M. (2001). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. Working Paper, College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Uslaner, E.M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. New York: Cambridge University Press. Uslaner, E.M. (2003). Civic Engagement in America: Why People Participate in Political and Social Life. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 2, College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project.

Verba, S, Schlozman, K.L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren, M.R. (1998). Community building and political power. American Behavioral Scientist ,42 (1). Warren, M.R. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wilcox, C. (2003). Political Structures and Political Participation. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 6, College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project. Williamson, T., Imbroscio, D. & Alperovitz, G. (2002). Making a place for community: Local democracy in a global era. New York: Routledge. Wood, R.L. (2002). Faith in Action: Religion, race, and democratic organizing in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Youniss, J. & Hart, D. (2003). Motivation, Values, and Civic Participation. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 1, College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project. Youniss, J. & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief

12