Knight Synthesis Report Final

WHAT WORKS TO STRENGTHEN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN AMERICA: A GUIDE TO LOCAL ACTION AND CIVIC INNOVATION SYNTHESIS REPORT

By James V. Riker The Democracy Collaborative University of Maryland, College Park and Kathryn E. Nelson The Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service Georgetown University July 29, 2003 The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project Co-Directed by The Democracy Collaborative, University of Maryland, College Park and The Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service, Georgetown University

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

About the authors: James V. Riker is Associate Director of the Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland, College Park (e-mail: [email protected]). Kathryn E. Nelson is Associate Director of the Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations at Georgetown University (e-mail: [email protected]). For more information about The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project (www.democracycollaborative.org), please contact the project’s co-directors: James V. Riker, Ph.D. The Democracy Collaborative University of Maryland 1241 Tawes Hall College Park, MD 20912-7255 Phone: 301-405-996 Fax: 301-314-2533 E-mail: [email protected]

Kathryn E. Nelson The Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service Georgetown Public Policy Institute Georgetown University 3240 Prospect St., NW, Lower Level Washington, DC 20007-2196 Phone: 202-687-0501 Fax: 202-687-0597 E-mail: [email protected]

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

2

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Table of Contents What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation ...................................................................5 Research Approach and Methodology …………………………………………………… 5 Defining Civic Engagement and Democratic Citizenship ...................................................5 Measures and Key Indicators: The Challenge of Measuring Civic Health………………..7 Goals of Strengthening Civic Engagement and Democratic Citizenship ..........................13 Dimensions of Civic Engagement .....................................................................................13 Toward a Conceptual Model of Civic Engagement………………………………………14 Major Dimensions of Civic Engagement and A Summary of Key Findings: Reviewing the Literature on Contributing Factors to Civic Engagement …………………………...18 Key Research Questions………………………………………………………….18 Individual and Community Factors……………………………………………………....18 Civic Motivation and Values………………………………………………………….19 Civic Norms and Conditions…………………………………………………….……19 Civic Disparities and Differences……………………………………………….…….23 Civic Tools and Resources…………….………………………………………………….26 Civic Education and Knowledge………………………………………………………26 Civic Skills and Capacities………………………………………………………...…..27 Modes and Infrastructure for Participation: Individual & Collective Action……………..29 What Conditions Are Necessary to Sustain Civic Engagement…………………………..31 5 Conditions for Fostering Community-Level Engagement………………………………31 Civic Strategies and Innovations for Enhancing Civic Engagement: Recommendations and Key Examples…………………………………………………………………………33 The Challenge to Develop a Tailored Civic Engagement Strategy for the Local Context………………………………………………………………………………….....37

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

3

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Key Research Gaps: Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................45 Conclusions and Next Steps...............................................................................................46 Additional Resources: Appendices A. List of Participants at the Democracy Collaborative—Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project Consultation Meeting, Washington, DC…………………….….48 B. List of Civic Engagement Working Papers……………………………………………50 C. Glossary of Key Terms of Civic Engagement…………………………………………52 D. Bibliography on Civic Engagement…………………………………………………....55

List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Major Surveys of Civic Engagement and Civic Health....................9 Table 2: Measures and Key Indicators of Civic Engagement and Civic Health………….11 Table 3: Indicators of Civic Engagement Outcomes and Outputs..………………………17 Table 4: Main Forms of Civic Engagement………………………….…………….……...29 Table 5: Vehicles and Venues that Facilitate Civic Engagement……..………….……….30 Table 6: Civic Infrastructure: Vehicles/Venues that Enhance Civic Engagement at the Community Level by Goal ..………………………………………….……..32 Table 7: Civic Innovation and Strategy by Key Actor …………..…………………...…..34 Table 8: Civic Innovation and Strategy by Focus Area ………………..………………...35 Table 9: Sample Strategies and Innovations for Strengthening Civic Engagement by Goal and Civic Dimension…..………….……………….……….………...….…36 Table 10: What Works Table: A Review of Civic Innovations and Strategies to Enhance Civic Engagement……………………………………………….........43 Table 11: The 26 Knight Foundation Communities and Their Identified Priorities………47 Figure 1: The Main Factors that Affect Civic Engagement: A Conceptual Model………..15

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

4

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation 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. With funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, this project provides a synthesis of the existing empirical research on a wide range of civic engagement strategies and makes this research accessible for practitioners and policy makers. The goal of this effort is to help local policy makers, advocates, and foundation program officers set objectives and design strategies tailored to the realities of their communities that strengthen community involvement, civic engagement and ultimately democratic citizenship. Our first step is to develop a framework for thinking about the goals of strengthening civic engagement and democracy and for assessing the effectiveness of existing civic innovations and strategies. This report highlights the framework we have developed based on broad multi- and inter-disciplinary analyses of the main dimensions of civic engagement. It focuses in turn on the goals of this initiative, civic strategies for achieving these goals, measures for assessing the effectiveness of existing civic enhancing initiatives and programs, and factors that should shape the development of a coherent approach to assessing civic engagement and democratic citizenship. Although we recognize that this framework will evolve and be further refined as it is tested and applied to the specific context of communities, the present version provides a starting point for reviewing the existing empirical literature on civic engagement and innovation. Research Approach and Methodology The project’s main research approach has been to review the extensive national literature on the dynamics of civic engagement. Based on a preliminary review of the literature, the project’s co-directors initially developed a conceptual framework for assessing the national literature on civic engagement (with the latest version presented below). Out of this process, six definable (but potentially overlapping) dimensions of civic engagement were identified. We then commissioned leading scholars from the fields of economics, education, psychology, political science, public policy, and sociology to prepare reports on each of the main dimensions of civic engagement. Involving an interdisciplinary group of 15 scholars from six universities, this project has examined the key factors that enhance and sustain citizens’ civic engagement and build community capacities for reinvigorating democracy. Initial draft reports were presented at a Consultation Meeting involving scholars, researchers, and practitioners on October 24, 2002 at the Aspen Institute in Washington, DC (see list of participants in Appendix A). Based on constructive comments and insights at the meeting, these reports were revised and are available as Civic Engagement Working Papers (see Appendix B). These eight papers provide an in-depth analysis of the main factors that shape and affect civic engagement. The main research findings from those papers are summarized and highlighted in this report. Defining Democracy, Civic Engagement and Democratic Citizenship Arguably, democracy, civic engagement, and citizenship are contested concepts. For the purposes of this project, we would like to articulate a few working definitions that are comprehensive, inclusive and, of course, that speak to both practitioners and scholars. There are three distinct levels to understanding these concepts from the individual (i.e., the basis for individual action), community (i.e., the basis for collective action), and normative (i.e., the values that sustain action) levels (see Appendix C for a complete glossary of key terms of civic engagement). To initiate our work, we propose the following definitions: Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

5

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Democracy: •

Coming from the Greek words “demos” meaning people and “kratos” meaning authority, most simply democracy can be understood as a form of government where people have the right to make or participate in the decision-making processes of government. Different forms of democracy often correspond to the specific needs and demands of a population. Direct democracy allows everyone to participate in all decision-making, while representative democracy provides for elected officials to make decisions within a framework of accountability.1

Civic Engagement: •

At the individual level: Civic Engagement means “active participation in civic life.” Our focus is on those activities that contribute to or enhance democracy and its tenets of freedom, equality, and justice.2

•

At the community level: Civic engagement is “based on the participation of individual citizens in the associations of civil and political society.”3

•

At the normative level: Civic engagement is “based on normative orientations sustained, above all, by institutions and institutional leaders.”4

•

Scope of civic engagement activities: Drawing on Verba, Scholzman and Brady’s Civic Voluntarism Model, which recognizes “the embeddedness of political activity in the non-political institutions of civil society” (1995, 40), this project’s definition of civic engagement includes both formal political activities e.g., voting, volunteering and contributing to political campaigns, and membership in political organizations, as well as informal political and nonpolitical activities associated with voluntary organizations e.g., protesting, volunteering, contributing and membership behavior associated with charitable organizations and churches.5

Democratic Citizenship •

At the individual level: Democratic citizenship implies that a person acts in exercising their rights and duties in manner that is participatory and representative (thus democratic), and that fosters and deepens democracy.

•

At the community level: Democratic citizenship contributes to broad participation and representation in civic institutions and governance processes and improves the overall quality of life in a community.

1

Dahl, R.A. (1991). Democracy and its critics. Hartford: Yale University Press, p. 14. By our definition, civic engaging groups such as the KKK would be against the tenets of democracy, and would thus be excluded from the analysis. 3 Brint, S. & Levy, C.S. (1999). Professions and Civic Engagement: Trends in Rhetoric and Practice, 1875-1995. In: Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Theda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina, eds., Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, p. 164, fn. 7. 4 Ibid, p. 164, fn. 7. 5 Verba, S. & Schlozman, K.L. & Brady, H..E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

6

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

•

At the normative level: Democratic citizenship fosters the essential values, culture, institutions, and practices for a democratic society.

Active Citizenship •

At the individual level: Active citizenship means that a person is obligated to exercise their rights and duties in a society to serve the public good.

•

At the community level: Active citizenship means that participating in accountable political work and democratic governance is seen as an essential obligation and role of citizens (both as individuals and collectively), and not the sole domain of government officials and politicians.

•

At the normative level: Active citizenship means that people are “co-creators and civic producers” in “creating the democratic way of life.”6

Measures and Key Indicators: How do we measure civic health or civic engagement? Perhaps the only task more challenging than defining civic engagement, is the task of measuring civic engagement and civic health. Over the course of the last decade, civic engagement has captured the attention of scholars, policy analysts and community leaders concerned about the health of American democracy. Many credit Robert Putnam’s 1995 essay, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” for igniting a national discussion on civic participation. Putnam (1995, 2000) cites declines in voter turnout, PTA membership, and social trust as key indicators that signal a withdrawal from civic life. While several scholars join Putnam in his lament for declining civic engagement, (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler & Tipton, 1996), others vigorously oppose his position, contending that just the opposite is true. Skocpol (1999) and Ladd (1996, 1999) cite shifting demographics and maintain that Americans are finding new ways to participate. Additionally, Ladd (1996) credits steady membership in organizations, increased church attendance and new forums for engagement offered via the Internet for the high levels of civic participation he observes. As we reviewed the empirical literature and major surveys on civic engagement that identify key measures of civic health, a set of widely varying indicators emerged. Table 1 provides a summary of the findings from major surveys of civic engagement from across the U.S. and the key indicators used to assess civic health at the community level. Table 2 catalogues the major measures and indicators used to gauge the health of civic engagement by the four modes of engagement (i.e., electoral, political, economic, societal). We have specified possible indicators for assessing each mode of civic engagement at the individual, community, and normative levels. How do these measures translate into recommended action steps for communities? Some scholars suggest that conventional measures of civic engagement are somewhat limited in that they do not capture or adequately measure engagement patterns of particular populations (e.g., minorities or youth). Having reviewed several studies on civic behavior, a program officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts, concluded, that “most measures of political engagement…provide little insight into how young people understand or participate in politics” (Stepp, 2003, C01). Moreover, how particular factors contribute to overall civic health differs depending on how narrowly or broadly civic engagement is conceptualized. For example, conservative think tanks advocating a very narrow conception of acceptable forms of civic engagement, which limits political participation to “the 6

Boyte, H. (2001). Center for Democracy and Citizenship, University of Minnesota web site: http://www.publicwork.org/.

.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

7

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

elected” or through “representative governance,” view the increase in participatory governance and political involvement by NGOs and other “unelected” entities as a threat to civic health, whereas, advocates of increased citizen involvement through more participatory governance structures view such increased visibility and involvement as a sign of improved civic health (Lobe, 2003, A01). These two contrasting perspectives raise important questions about “who” is engaged and with “what results.” Clearly, one test is whether the forms of civic engagement make a difference in improving the lives of citizens (at the community level) and the overall civic health of the community. In the interest of comprehensiveness, we have taken the broader view of civic engagement based on how it is conceptualized in communities as well as exploring all of its potential modes from electoral to political, economic and societal engagement.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

8

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Table 1: Summary of Major Surveys: The First Step towards Community Assessment Survey Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics

Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America

Primary Investigator; Year Sidney Verba, Kay Schlozman, and Henry Brady; 1995

Robert Putnam along with three-dozen community and private foundations nationwide; 2001 Ongoing

Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey

Key Findings and Indicators Used to Assess Civic Health at the Community Level • Broader Scope of Civic Engagement Activities: This study expanded the definition of civic engagement to include activities beyond electoral forms of participation and conceptualized the relationship between voice and equality. Importantly, they concluded that the voices of citizens in the U.S. are not equal, in some arenas (e.g., religion) more equality exists than in others (e.g., politics). • Civic Disparities: Drawing from resource theory, this study confirmed that differential access to education and to key resources (time, skills, money) is a leading contributor to participatory inequalities. •

•

•

Political and Civic Engagement of Young Adults in America

CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement); 2002

Social Capital/Community Connections: Advocating the key role social capital plays in facilitating civic engagement, this study developed a Scorecard Assessment Tool to rate communities and to provide tailored recommendations for improvement, including 100 ways to increase social capital in daily life. Religious involvement: Coinciding with Verba et al. (1995), Putnam’s assessment has also found that religious involvement is one of the most important predictors to giving and volunteering as well as other forms of civic involvement, including: membership in civic groups, trusting neighbors, socializing, etc. Diversity: The data suggest that community activists in settings of unusual diversity need to redouble their efforts to build trust, to reduce social isolation, to expand political participation, and to bridge class barriers.

On Youth: This study explores how various activities and attitudes influence youth civic engagement. Key findings include: • • •

Patriotism may have little effect on youth: Despite initial surge after September 11th, young adults’ civic and political involvement has not increased in recent months. Parental influence has strongest affect: Parental influence and behavior is strongest predictor of young adults’ civic attitudes and behaviors. Charitable activities preferred over electoral activities: Community involvement (e.g., volunteering, donating) is more appealing to youth than political or electoral engagement.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

9

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Survey Illinois Civic Engagement Project

Boston Civic Health Survey Indicators of Civic Health

Primary Investigator; Year Illinois United Way and Illinois Issues; 2001

Key Findings and Indicators Used to Assess Civic Health at the Community Level • Citizen Engagement Profiles: This survey identified seven different groups of people based upon their engagement patterns: civic leaders, community activists, faith-based activists, cyber-activists, informal socializers, informed contributors, and the relatively disengaged; It also identified 68 multi-sector ideas to increase civic engagement in any community • Diversity in Engagement: The study found that there was no major difference in participation levels based upon gender, but that there were key differences based on age, level of education, political affiliation, and type of employment. • Civic Barriers: Many Illinois citizens identified time, knowledge, money, health, and social constraints as key barriers to community participation.

Boston Foundation; 1999

Neighborhood Context: This study attempted to determine how various neighborhood-level measures influenced Boston’s civic health. Key factors assessed include: •

•

Economic Stability: This study attempted to determine if there was a link between neighborhood economic stability and participation. Specifically, if national electoral participation rates differed from participation in local elections by neighborhood. Overall, more Bostonians voted in national elections than in local elections. More stable neighborhoods reflected higher voting rates than less economically stable areas. Moreover, this study found that neighborhoods with strong economic development and high levels of home ownership are likely to build a sense of community and contribute to increased levels of civic engagement. Social Trust/Civic Confidence/ and Diversity: This study reported that 80% of Bostonians trust their neighbors, which, in light of the fact that Boston is one of the most racially segregated communities in the U.S., is consistent with national studies that link high levels of social trust with low levels of diversity.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

10

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Table 2: Measures and Key Indicators of Civic Engagement and Civic Health Modes of Civic Engagement

Individual Measures

Electoral Engagement o Voting o Ballot Initiatives o Referenda o Participating in Campaigns

•

Political Engagement o Direct Advocacy o Indirect Advocacy o Public Issue Lobbying o Protesting

•

• • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • Economic Engagement o Consumer Action o Labor Action o Stockholder Initiatives

• • • • • • • • • •

Community Measures

Individual Voting Patterns/Participation Volunteering for a Political Campaign Contributing to Political Campaigns Running for Political Office

•

Attending Meetings for Local Boards or Councils Protesting, Marching, and Demonstrating Lobbying Involvement for Community and National Programs (Petition Writing) Contentment with Political Institutions Relevancy of Politics to Personal Life Media Consumption/Exposure Political Knowledge/Skills Discussion of Political Matters/ Persuasion Make a Speech/Write an Article/Write Letter to Newspaper Civic Orientations/ Views/Party Affiliations Display Buttons/ Signs/ Stickers Canvassed a Neighborhood

•

Income Perceptions of Corporate Responsibility Job Security Work Status/Occupation Job Satisfaction Consumer Debt Levels Career Plans Union Membership Professional Associations Informal Workplace Connections

• • •

• •

• • • • •

• • • • • •

Normative Measures

Number of Candidates Running for Office Total Voting Population 18+ years Registered Voters Community Participation Rates for Local and National Elections

• • •

Civil Discourse Clean Elections Commitment to the Outcome of the Electoral Process

Civic Orientations/Views/Party Affiliations Confidence in Political Institutions Issue Identification Levels of Political Recruiting Exposure to Political Stimuli in Church Exposure to Political Stimuli in Voluntary Organizations

• •

Civi1 Discourse Participatory and Responsive Governance Processes Effective Mechanisms for Deliberative Democracy

Poverty Rates Child Poverty Rates Adequacy of Income Supports Living Wages Affordable Housing Unemployment Rates Working Conditions Consumer Debt Levels Union Membership

•

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

•

• •

Commitment to Community Building Equitable Development Economic Democracy

11

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Modes of Civic Engagement Societal Engagement o Social Capital Creation o Charitable Giving o Volunteer and Community Service o Public and Civic Education o Skills Building o Service Provision o Community Problem-Solving

Individual Measures • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Asked to Participate/Contribute Youth Leadership Perceptions of Civic Obligation Perceptions of Civic Competence Charitable Giving in absolute dollars Charitable Giving as a % of Disposable Income Level of Institutional Trust Perceptions of Fairness Perceptions of Helpfulness Personal Neighborhood Ratings Personal Efficacy Trust of Local Authorities Visits with Family and Friends Attending Festivals or Parades Serving on a Board Working Informally with Others Organizational Affiliation Religious Affiliation and Attendance Reasons for Involvement Barriers to Involvement Parental Encouragement Satisfaction with Life Interaction with Children’s School Employment Relationships and Affiliations Tolerance of Diversity Education Participation Sense of Personal Safety Fundraise for an Organization

Community Measures • • • • • • • • • • •

Reported Crimes/ 1,000 population Divorce / 1,000 Married Women Volunteerism Rates Public Education Programs Demographics and Social Locations of Respondents Cultural and Social Orientations of Respondents Connectedness Neighborhood Beautification Access to Education Community Social Service Distribution Community Social Service Capacity

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

Normative Measures • • • •

Civi1 Discourse Collective Identity Level of Community Collaboration InterOrganizational Cooperation

12

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

While no consensus has been reached regarding the health of civic engagement, the debate has broadened to include questions about the overall quality and equality of participation. Expanding the focus from the question ‘how many are engaged’ to ‘who is engaged, what are they doing and why,’ several studies investigate underlying motivations and various factors that drive civic engagement across race, class, and gender.7 Most recently, findings from the “largest scientific investigation of civic engagement in America,” Putnam’s Social Capital Benchmark Survey and Saguaro Seminar Series, emphasize that: “Quite apart from increasing the level of civic engagement in American communities, we need to attend to its social distribution” (2001, 7). The emphasis here is to understand the multi-dimensional nature of civic engagement and different measures and goals for enhancing it at the community level. Goals of Strengthening Civic Engagement and Democratic Citizenship The conceptual framework for this study presumes that the ultimate goal of civic engagement is to strengthen democracy. Acknowledging the validity of Putnam’s most recent observation regarding the social distribution of engagement, 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. Increase the quantity of civic engagement: this includes increasing the number of people involved or percentage of the population engaged and increasing the number of organizations and civic structures (where appropriate). 2. Increase the quality of civic engagement: this includes improving existing opportunities through professionalized volunteer management or enhanced organizational effectiveness and creating new more meaningful opportunities to participate (e.g., more leadership vs. rank and file staff or volunteer opportunities), 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. 3. 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). 4. 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. Dimensions of Civic Engagement As the discussion of definitions and measures suggest, civic engagement is a broad and complex topic. To better understand the field, we have reviewed the existing empirical literature by demarcating dimensions that can be divided into basic categories assessing the extent to which each dimension can gauge the health of civic engagement and democracy. Essentially, we have outlined six major dimensions of civic engagement that divide into three main categories. 7

For a broader discussion of these findings, please refer to Scholzman, Burns & Verba, 1994; Verba, Scholzman & Brady, 1995; Hodgkinson & Weitzman, 1996; Skocpol, 1997; Elshtain, 1997; Newton, 1997; Minkoff, 1997; Heying, 1997; Schudson, 1998; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999; Hodgkinson & Kirsch, 2000.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

13

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Individual and Community Factors: These factors result from individual experiences that are driven by internal (such as personal values) and external (such as familial and societal) forces. They, in turn, shape the context or conditions that 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: These are the primary means, both individual and collective, used to enhance the quality, quantity, equality, and sustainability of civic engagement and are identified as: • •

Civic Education and Knowledge Civic Skills and Capacities

Modes and Infrastructure for Participation--Individual and Collective Action: These are the forms, venues, and infrastructure through which people are or become civically engaged. This dimension can be divided into four main areas: •

Civic Participation and Civic Structures: a) b) c) d)

Community and Religious Participation and Structures Economic Participation and Structures Political Participation and Structures Electoral Participation and Structures

Toward a Conceptual Model of Civic Engagement How do we understand the basic relationship among the main factors that affect civic engagement? Figure 1 below provides a conceptual model of the three main categories of factors that shape the possibilities for civic engagement and healthy democratic communities. Individual and Community Factors set the context or conditions both at the individual and collective levels that either facilitate or impede civic engagement. Modes and Infrastructure for Participation are the main forms, venues, and infrastructure though which people are or become civically engaged. Civic Tools and Resources provide essential intervention strategies and practices, both at the individual and collective levels, which enhance civic engagement. Together the inter-relationships among these three categories of 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 at the individual, community, and normative levels.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

14

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

FIGURE 1: The Main Factors that Affect Civic Engagement: A Conceptual Model

Individual and Community Factors • • •

Civic Motivations & Values Civic Identities, Norms, & Conditions Civic Disparities & Differences

Modes and Infrastructure for Participation • • • •

Electoral Participation Political Participation Economic Participation Societal Participation

Civic Tools and Resources • •

Civic Education & Knowledge Civic Skills & Capacities

Civic Engagement • • • •

Quantity Quality Equality Sustainability

Healthy Democratic Communities • • •

Individual Level Community Level Normative Level

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

15

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Using this framework, how do we reconcile the various existing measures of civic engagement (as outlined in Tables 1 and 2) with a set of consistent indicators by which to benchmark progress across communities? To start the process, we have defined a set of outcome and output indicators specific to each of the four key goals identified in our framework (Table 3). These indicators provide concrete measures of the extent to which each goal is achieved, both in the short-term (one to five years) and over the long-term (five to twenty years). More specifically, outcome indicators measure the community-wide conditions (such as racial segregation) that such strategies intend to change over the long-term. Output indicators provide more immediate measures of program accomplishments (such as number of people volunteering or running for public office). Over time, programs that are successful in producing the desired outputs should contribute to progress on the larger outcome measures especially at the community (i.e., basis for collective action) and normative (i.e., values that sustain action) levels. However, because outcomes change slowly and may be affected by factors outside a community’s control (such as regional economic conditions), they are at best partial indicators of short-term progress.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

16

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Table 3: Measures and Indicators of Civic Engagement Policy Outcomes and Outputs Goals of Policy that Promote Civic Engagement and Democratic Citizenship Increase quantity of civic engagement

Indicators ƒ ƒ ƒ

Outcomes (long-term: five to twenty years) Increased general awareness of civic engagement and responsibilities of democratic citizenship Increased number of people involved in civic activities: voters, members, consumers, workers, volunteers, donors, advocates and campaigners Increased number of civic organizations, coalitions and structures

ƒ

ƒ ƒ ƒ

Increase quality of civic engagement

ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Increase equality of civic engagement

ƒ

ƒ ƒ Increase sustainability of civic engagement

ƒ ƒ ƒ

Increased number of meaningful opportunities to participate Increased number of qualified citizens (e.g., skill-building) Increased number of well-resourced and effective civic organizations and infrastructure Increased level of inter-organizational cooperation and community collaboration across sectors

ƒ

Increased access, influence and representation of underrepresented groups by race, class, ethnicity, age and gender (e.g., meetings with local government officials, state legislatures, running for office or holding public office, etc.) Increased types of arenas for involvement: improve or “rethink/remake the public sphere” to be more inclusive of alternative civic practices and perspectives, etc. Increased community commitment to equitable development

ƒ

Maintained or increased number of people involved in civic activities in the long-term Maintained or increased number of civic organizations, opportunities and structures Enabling civic environment that removes barriers and fosters sustained participation in democratic governance (i.e., both processes and practices) at the community level

ƒ

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

ƒ

ƒ ƒ

ƒ ƒ

Outputs (short-term: one to five years) Increased awareness of local civic engagement opportunities and leverage of new national focus on citizen involvement (e.g., AmeriCorps, U.S. Freedom Corps) Increased number of people involved in civic activities Increased number of civic organizations, coalitions and structures Implementation of community plans and priorities Improved quality of civic literacy and education initiatives Improved quality of volunteer training, management and incentive programs

Increased participation by underrepresented groups by race, class, ethnicity, age, and gender (e.g., youth and immigrants) Increased number of civic education, skills programs for immigrants, youth, and targeted minorities Increased alternatives to how citizen skills are acquired and “taught,” and reassess existing programs and recruitment strategies Increased continuity of citizen involvement at the local level: track year-to-year rates of involvement Maintained existing and nurture emerging initiatives/organizations Progress in achieving goals set by citizen organizations

17

Major Dimensions of Civic Engagement: A Summary of Key Findings Reviewing the Literature on Contributing Factors to Civic Engagement The overall focus of this research effort is to provide greater clarity about the specific factors or conditions – both supportive and unsupportive – that affect the prospects for enhancing civic engagement at the community level. These include individual and community factors such as civic motivations and values, civic identity, norms and conditions, civic differences and disparities; the tools and resources necessary for facilitating civic engagement such as civic knowledge, education, skills and capacities (both individual and collective); and the forms, venues, and civic infrastructure through which people are or become civically engaged. To provide a thorough and consistent assessment of each dimension, we have also outlined five key research questions relevant to the assessment of each dimension (see below). Key Research Questions: For each of the dimensions of civic engagement, we have addressed the following key research questions. •

Scope and Magnitude: What is the overall scope and magnitude of this dimension of civic engagement?

•

Salience: How effective and salient is this dimension in assessing the level of civic engagement and the health of democracy?

•

Implications for the Community: What lessons and insights does this dimension offer for sustaining, enhancing or inhibiting civic engagement at the community level?

•

Civic Strategies and Innovations: What strategies or innovations have been tried to address this dimension and increase the quantity, quality, and equality of civic participation? What strategies ensure the sustainability of civic engagement? What works, what doesn’t, and what might? (Identify effective practices and tools)

•

Key Knowledge Gaps: What are key areas of inquiry that need to be addressed on this dimension?

Each broad dimension has the potential to promote the four basic goals of civic engagement (e.g., quantity, quality, equality, and sustainability), although the type of strategy adopted may primarily advance one goal over another. For example, a community’s efforts to address civic disparities by improving race relations would focus foremost on enhancing the equality of civic engagement, while also contributing secondarily to the quantity, quality and sustainability of civic engagement. A. Individual and Community Factors: Individual and community factors result from individual experiences that are driven by internal (such as personal values) and external (such as family, friends, and community) forces. They, in turn, shape the context or conditions that facilitate or impede civic engagement.

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Civic Values and Motivations Varying perceptions regarding the relationship between civic values and motivations and civic behavior have somewhat clouded the discourse on civic engagement. For example, many blame the change in collective civic values including the surge in individualism and decline in social trust (Bellah, 1986; Etzioni, 1999; Putnam, 2000), for the perceived decline in civic participation. Recently, scholars in the field of psychology cite the widely-held misperception that civic values are tied to permanent features of a person that “motivate” or lead to civic behavior or participation. A review of the literature indicates that the relationship between motivations and values and civic behavior is bi-directional in nature. Several scholars and moral activists advocate a mobilization model or the view that participation leads to identity formation, which in turn accounts for continued activism (Stoker, 1999; Teske, 1998; Colby & Damon, 1993). Of particular importance is activism during youth, which helps to develop the motivations and values that shape an individual’s political and civic identity, which leads to further involvement as an adult. Much of the research on civic values has considered the relationship between value differences of individuals and value differences across cultures or larger society. Examining the societal influence of collective values, Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess, Harris, and Owens (2001) conceptualize a “circle of values” that follows two broad dimensions: self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence and conservation vs. openness to change. Schwartz et al. argue that this circle of values is universal and transcends culture. They find that most cultures rank the three most important values in the same ascending order: benevolence, self-expression, and universalism. Indicating how civic norms and conditions influence civic values and motivations, Inglehart (1997) emphasizes the role that resource theory and economic development play. He argues that if individuals are not focused on meeting basic subsistence needs, they have the time and motivation to focus on “nonmaterial” goals such as self-expression in the form of civic engagement. The implication of these two findings for civic engagement is that there is good reason to believe that people share a common value structure and value hierarchy. It is probably not the case that people who participate civically “have different values” than people who do not. Instead, it is likely that people have the same values, but that the values important for civic participation are more influential in the lives of those who are active civically. The research and policy question then becomes not “how do we create new values?” but instead “which values are important for civic engagement and how can their salience be increased?” Two lines of research have addressed this question, one focusing on differences in value salience between cultures and the other on individual differences in values within a culture. Notably, many scholars have posited a relationship between tolerance and various indices of civic participation. However, in general, individual values are not powerful predictors of individual differences in behavior (Youniss & Hart, 2003, 7-8). Drawing from the civic voluntarism model put forth by Verba et al. (1995), Youniss and Hart conclude, that, “civic participation precedes and causes the values that ordinarily are thought to motivate civic engagement [thus increasing] civic engagement requires attending to the powerful social forces that determine the salience of particular values, influence motivation, and shape civic participation” (Youniss & Hart, 2003, 4). Civic Norms and Conditions Most of the research focuses on the relationship between various civic norms and conditions and four key factors that influence engagement: civic knowledge, social trust, efficacy and access to resources. Important to this analysis, efficacy has both internal and external dimensions: internal efficacy (individual feels he can make a difference) and external efficacy (individual believes officials are responsive and that a difference can be Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

19

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

made). Regarding efficacy, Uslaner (2003) highlights the considerable evidence that people who feel that they have the power to effect change (internal efficacy), vote more often, give more to political campaigns, and participate in local meetings (Teixeira, 1992; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). Likewise, he also documents the research that suggests believing that public officials are responsive (external efficacy), leads to greater voter turnout, attendance at local meetings, signing of petitions, contributing to political candidates, volunteering in politics, and persuading others to vote (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Squire, Wolfinger, & Glass, 1987; Teixeira, 1992). Civic norms and conditions that shape the context for civic engagement can be divided into two categories: 1) those factors that can be controlled and 2) those factors that cannot. Broadly speaking, demographics on age, race, community size are not easily influenced, whereas newspaper readership, consumption of electronic media, public trust, mobilization, social connections and socialization, group membership, religious involvement, education, and income are somewhat more malleable (Uslaner, 2003). Media Exposure and Consumption: Newspapers, Television, Internet Usage Media exposure and consumption have mixed effects on knowledge, trust, and efficacy. Regarding knowledge, a closer look at newspaper readership reveals a strong link between voter turnout and newspapers that practice “civic journalism,” educating their readers by presenting extensive coverage on political campaigns (Markus, 2002). Additionally, the type of ownership appears to have some impact; Local coverage by local stations seems to stimulate community activism, whereas national coverage by nationally-owned stations has been linked to increased campaign activity (Verba & Nie, 1972; Uslaner, 2001). However, not all forms of media exposure or consumption lead to greater civic engagement. While there is general consensus that exposure to local community radio and high levels of newspaper readership positively affects community and political engagement (Teixeira, 1992; Guterbock & Fries, 1997; Putnam, 2000; and Uslaner, 2002), the evidence is mixed regarding the net impact of television viewing and Internet usage. Identifying a “leisure time opportunity cost” between television viewing and participation in civic life, several scholars posit a link between high levels of television viewing with low levels of social trust and internal efficacy (Gerbner et al., 1980, Putnam, 1995b, 1996; Brehm & Rahn, 1997, Putnam, 2000). Others observe little effect of television viewing on trust, civic engagement generally, or volunteering more specifically and argue that what you watch matters more than how much you watch (Teixeira, 1992; Uslaner, 1998; Newton, 1999; Norris, 2000; Uslaner, 2001). Similarly, many scholars draw parallel arguments when considering the effect of electronic media and the Internet. Nie and Erbring (2000) suggest that those who spend a significant amount of time on the Internet have fewer social ties, while others highlight the unique role the Internet plays to expand communication, nurture social connections, and create unique networks and online communities that transcend geography (Hauben & Hauben, 1997; Guterbock & Fries, 1997, Keeter et al., 2002). Uslaner (2003) emphasizes that, with regard to civic engagement effects, like television, what people access via the Internet is more important than how much they use the Internet. Similarly, there doesn’t seem to be a clear link between the media and efficacy either (Uslaner, 2003). While some argue that citizens are empowered by increased knowledge and civic journalism efforts, others suggest that increased media exposure to political life has alienated citizens, resulting in less confidence in public institutions like Congress (Hibbing & Thiess-Morse, 1998). Again, arguably, it seems that what people access through the media not how much they access through the media is what can potentially compromise public confidence, trust, and ultimately efficacy. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

20

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

In sum, the evidence is mixed regarding the effect the media has on civic and political engagement. There is little evidence that television or the Internet either spurs participation or leads people to become disengaged. Civic journalism by newspapers and strong local roots can stimulate engagement, but this is becoming less common. The media can have an indirect effect, by spurring popular discontent with politics and leading people to mobilize against those in power. This offers the potential for political mobilization, but probably works against working with others on community projects (Uslaner, 2003, 23-24). Social Capital and Trust Most of the research on civic norms and conditions has focused on the importance of social capital (Putnam, 1996, 2000, 2002; Cortes, 1996; Edwards & Foley, 1998; Baron, Field & Schuler, 2000; Maloney, Smith & Stoker, 2000; Dekker & Uslaner, 2001; Edwards, Foley & Diani, 2001), and trust in one’s neighbors and public institutions (Putnam, 2002; Uslaner, 2001, 2002) in facilitating civic engagement. The fundamental piece of this analysis focuses on the concept of social capital. Defined broadly by multiple scholars (Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988; Putnam 1995 & 2000), social capital refers to the reciprocal social bonds that are formed through various affiliations, ranging from formalized networks e.g. neighborhood association or regional planning board to informal gatherings, e.g. local poker night or book club. Many scholars have linked strong social networks and the social capital they create as critical indicators of civic engagement behavior. However, it is important to note that social capital can also be negative, as social bonds can promote communities of exclusion as easily as they can promote communities of inclusion. For example, religious involvement plays a key role in the type of social capital that is created and the level of trust, tolerance, and reciprocity observed at the community level. Earlier theorists contend that religious beliefs and traditions suppress political participation (Niebuhr, 1929; Marx, 1967; Quinley, 1974), while more recent scholars (Verba & Nie, 1974; Verba, Scholozman & Brady, 1995; Putnam, 1995, 2000, 2002; Wuthnow, 2002), suggest that religious involvement or affiliation increases the likelihood of broader civic participation (Guth et. al, 2002). Religious fundamentalism can be both a positive and negative influence on civic engagement and community building, promoting certain relationships with tolerant attitudes, while simultaneously constructing barriers with intolerant attitudes toward other relationships (Dionne, 2001). With regard to political engagement, strict congregants are less likely to engage politically when compared to mainline Protestant or Catholic groups. Campbell (2001) argues that congregants perceive a substitution effect for outside activities. Rather than working for a political cause that may have a religious interest, strict members choose to instead work directly for the needs of the congregation. However, if strict congregants mobilize for a particular action, their close bonds ensure a high level of unity that could translate into political efficacy. Moreover, such religious loyalty is key to political loyalty since specific religious groups often support the same party over time (Djupe, 2000). Socioeconomic Status: Access to resources necessary to participate Most studies of civic participation draw upon resource theory and employ the Socioeconomic Status (SES) Model to explain differences in participation levels between groups (Wright & Hyman, 1958; Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1992; Teixeira, 1992, Verba, 1995; Guterbock & Fries, 1997; Guth, Green, Kellstedt, & Smidt, 2002). The SES model acknowledges that access to resources like social status, wealth, income, and education helps to develop the necessary civic skills that allow for greater and more meaningful civic and political involvement. Recently, scholars have focused more attention on the breakdown of civic norms and negative societal conditions e.g. corruption, inequalities, and mistrust, which threaten to destabilize democracy and civic engagement (Warren, 1999; Uslaner, 2001, 2002; Skocpol, 2002; Williams & Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

21

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Frasure, 2003). For example, in light of the increased role campaign contributions play in American electoral politics, some suggest that income inequalities could continue to compromise social trust and exacerbate participatory inequalities (Wilcox, 2003). However, Uslaner and others assert that the relationship between social trust, income inequality, and civic participation may be more indirect rather than direct (Uslaner, 2002; Brown & Uslaner, 2002; Uslaner, 2003). They find that “High levels of inequality lead to less generalized trust–and generalized trust in turn lays at the foundation of many good deeds such as giving to charity and volunteering time…[however] there is no corresponding effect of trust on most other forms of participation, including (or especially) political activities” (Uslaner, 2003, 18). Context and Identity: Communities of Place and Communities of Identity While most scholars agree that the context of participation is important, how various civic norms and conditions interact to influence participation is still the subject of much scholarly debate. Different types of engagement (e.g., charitable, religious and political) and various populations respond to different conditions to produce different civic impacts. The context of community is a complex concept, including both communities of place and communities based on identity. Huckfeldt’s seminal work on social context theory (1979) underscores the importance of the local social context to political participation. He observes that: “1) many political activities involve locally-based social interaction and 2) the neighborhood environment is a relatively constant and inescapable source of political and social stimuli” (174). Regarding communities of place, there is mixed evidence as to whether neighborhood context matters. A recent study observes that minorities with strong ties to their neighborhoods are more likely to take part in political life (Marschall, 2001). Another study suggests that poor African-Americans are less likely to attend community meetings if they live in neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty (Cohen & Dawson, 1993) and still another concludes that neighborhood economic context has little or no effect on African-Americans’ organizational membership (Alex-Assenoh & Assenoh, 2001). Regarding communities of identity, there is greater consensus regarding the positive impact ethnic and racial identity has on minority engagement, however, context continues to temper the effects (Cohen and Dawson, 1993; Guterbock & London, 1983; Shingles, 1991; Uslaner, 1989). While a sense of community and ethnic/racial identity leads to greater participation, there are conflicting arguments about trust. Whether high trust in public officials (and integration into mainstream political life) or low trust in officials (with a more exclusivist sense of racial identity) leads to more participation is still a point of contention (cf. Marschall, 2001; Cohen & Dawson, 1993; Shingles, 1991; Garcia, 1997). Once again, the importance of racial identity depends upon the political and social context. For example, in cities with black mayors, African-Americans are more likely to have a sense of internal and external efficacy, so they will take a more active role in civic affairs (Bobo & Gilliam, 1990). However, Gilliam and Kaufmann’s more recent 1998 study indicated that: “once minority mayors have been in office for several decades, African American participation rates decline as empowerment is replaced by cynicism regarding the ability of politics to solve pressing problems” (cited in Frasure & Williams, 2003, 27). Another key contextual factor is racial segregation. African-Americans (though not Latinos) are less likely to vote and to participate in civic affairs more generally when they live in racially mixed environments. Oliver finds a similar effect for whites and argues: ...racial segregation seems to boost certain types of civic activities, particularly those involving more symbolic gestures or social connections b/ residents. Both whites and blacks are more Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

22

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

interested in local politics, are more likely to take part in local organizational activity, and are more likely to vote in local elections when surrounded by people of their own race (2001, 137). Civic norms and conditions are fundamental to assessing civic engagement because they identify the roots of personal and institutional correlates for action or inaction. Individual and collective action should coincide with or reflect civic norms and local conditions. Granted, civic norms and conditions are not easily changed in the short-term. However, a greater understanding of the norms and conditions that influence civic knowledge, social trust, and efficacy, will equip foundations, local government, and nonprofit organizations with a contextualized point of entry to increase the quantity, quality, equality and sustainability of civic engagement. Civic Disparities and Differences While early research on civic engagement focused on “why people participate,” more recent research has focused on “why people do not participate” or “why or how people differ in their participation.” Several studies investigate underlying motivations and various factors that drive civic engagement across race, class (income and education), gender, age, and religion (Scholzman, Burns & Verba 1994; Verba, Scholzman & Brady 1995; Hodgkinson & Weitzman 1996; Skocpol 1997; Elshtain 1997; Newton 1997; Minkoff 1997; Heying 1997; Schlozman, Brady & Verba 1997; Delli Carpini 1998; Schudson 1998; Hodgkinson & Kirsch 2000; Scholzman, Burns & Verba 2000; Junn 2000; Putnam 2000; Verba 2001; Caiazza 2001; Uslander 2001; Skocpol 2002). As cited earlier, the “largest scientific investigation of civic engagement in America,” Putnam’s Social Capital Benchmark Survey and Saguaro Seminar Series, observes that: “Quite apart from increasing the level of civic engagement in American communities, we need to attend to its social distribution” (Putnam, 2001, 7). Frasure and Williams’ analysis (2003) provides a thorough synthesis of the civic differences and disparities that cut across the other major dimensions of civic engagement: civic motivations and values, civic norms and conditions, civic education and knowledge, civic skills and capacities, and civic participation and structures (e.g., community, religious, economic, political). To clarify, civic disparities are by definition negative and entail some sort of inequality, while civic differences e.g. diversity in how different groups participate, diversity in views, pluralism etc., can contribute to a healthy democracy and increase the quality and equality of civic engagement. To know whether a particular factor is a disparity or a difference, one must examine its content and effect within the immediate context. Thus in the following discussion, the binary disparity/difference implying an evil/good will be actually defined by its social context. If the factor reinforces the subordination of the historically deprived and limits their ability to participate in the democratic process, it is a disparity. If the factor undermines the subordination of the historically deprived and facilitates their ability to participate in the democratic process, it is a difference (Frasure & Williams, 2003, 17). A review of the literature reveals the following major points of cleavage affecting civic participation, access, influence, and representation: ethnicity, race, gender, class (SES: socioeconomic status or income and education inequalities), and age. This analysis’ key focus is what economic, political, or social structures and which forms of civic engagement and political participation serve to reinforce differences and exacerbate inequalities and which ones serve to minimize them. This approach raises several questions that are not easily answered: How do civic disparities “negatively” influence the quantity, quality, equality and sustainability of civic engagement? How do or might civic differences “positively” influence the quantity, quality, equality and sustainability of civic engagement? For example, are people of color different from Whites on matters of civic and political participation; are the diverse populations within so-called racial/ethnic minorities different on matters of civic engagement? If so, what specific factors help to explain these Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

23

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

variations in civic and political behavior among these various groups? If not, how are these groups similar? (Frasure & Williams, 2003, 4). Overall, the research shows that minorities participate less in politics than whites, however, their rates of other forms of civic engagement (such as membership in voluntary associations) are similar to those of whites (Uslaner, 2003). Notably, while recent scholars identify the limitation of national survey methodology to capture separate models of ethnicity or neighborhood-level contextual effects (Walton, 1985, DeSipio, 1996; Leighley & Vedlitz, 1999; Leighley, 2001; Uhlaner, 2001; Frasure & Williams, 2003), the data consistently point to a number of factors that cultivate civic differences and exacerbate civic disparities: • • • • • • • •

Historical policies of exclusion: (slavery, gerrymandering, targeted taxation policies, relocation policies and the creation of Native American reservations, and voting disenfranchisement across gender and race); Migration and immigration patterns; Inequalities in socio-economic status (SES); Resource mobilization; Unresponsiveness of organized political parties to marginalized groups; Social context and social networks; Psychological orientations; and Group consciousness.

Beyond the negative effects of historical policies of exclusion, migration, and immigration patterns, overall, the research overwhelmingly indicates that minorities participate less than whites because they have fewer resources. As cited earlier, Verba, Scholzman, and Brady (1995 & 1999) observe that those without key civic resources, namely skills, time, and money, are unable to assume the costs of either political (campaigning, running for public office, making a campaign contribution) or non-political civic engagement (working in a non-political organization, charitable work, and charitable contribution). Frasure and Williams (2003) agree, contending that: education, income, and occupation count most in explaining differences in civic engagement and political participation… [Specifically], those with higher educational attainment, incomes, and wealth have greater resources to make their voices heard in politics. Occupations that require skills that are transferable to the civic realm (for example, administration, writing, making presentation, contacting elites, and decision-making--i.e., skills people gain in professional and managerial jobs) encourage participation. These factors (education, occupation, and income) tend to run together, and their cumulative and interactive effects are massive in influencing civic engagement—in both its electoral and non-electoral forms (2003, 15). Moreover, 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; Pinderhughes, 1987). In an earlier examination, Verba and Nie (1972) suggest that, in addition to the lack of resources, SES may also contribute to a difference in civic attitudes or orientations, which negatively affects participation. They argue that: “low-status individuals are less likely to participate because they have fewer positive civic orientations that either raise the costs of participation or reduce the benefits--the net effect being a lower probability of participating” (cited in Frasure & Williams, 2003, 16). In contrast, many scholars credit group consciousness Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

24

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

or an identity-based civic orientation for positively leveraging civic differences and overcoming civic disparities to effectively mobilize minorities and marginalized groups (Marschall, 2001; Garcia, 1997; Dawson, 1994; Cohen & Dawson, 1993; Uhlaner, 1991; Shingles, 1981; Miller, Gurin, Gurin, & Malanchuk, 1981; Verba & Nie, 1972). Essentially, group consciousness theory argues that when minorities have a greater sense of group identification, they are more likely to participate in political and social life. However, according to this theory marginalized communities are motivated by mistrust rather than trust in establishing group consciousness for mobilization. Frasure and Williams describe the complex implications that this inverse relationship carries for civil society and American democracy: …for people of color, civil society has been dual. There has been the external civil society, which has more often than not marginalized them and their interests, and there has been the internal civil society people of color have built themselves to contest their marginalization. It is in these internal civil societies that people of color have built networks of reciprocity and trust which has facilitated the development of forms of collective action that clearly contested existing policies or practices directly affecting their communities. Concern with civic disparities is concern with marginalization and contestation. In determining how social capital “makes democracy work,” strong and active organizations of marginalized populations, the constraints which these organizations face, comparative local institutional limits to access, conflicts with mainstream society, and how mainstream society works to preserve civic disparities must be examined. The very health of democracy – American style – must be judged by whether it eliminates civic disparities, fosters inclusion, and produces shared power (2003, 36). While many scholars have attempted to clarify how socio-economic disparities are filtered through or overcome by other more manipulable factors such as resource mobilization, psychological orientations, and group consciousness, Frasure and Williams reiterate that: “the dominant finding nonetheless is that differential socioeconomic status is the chief factor producing civic disparities” (2003:15). Over time, research has confirmed that socio-economic status plays a larger role than race, ethnicity, gender, and class in explaining civic disparities. Holding education, income, and occupation constant, African Americans and whites report equal participation rates in political activities (e.g., voting, campaigning, contributing, and contacting appointed officials). Moreover, African Americans report higher participation rates with regard to non-political activities, such as membership in voluntary organizations (Markus & Walton, 2002; Keeter et al., 2002; Leighley, 2001; Verba et al., 1995; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Bobo & Gilliam, 1990; Guterbock & London, 1983; Olsen, 1972; Verba & Nie, 1972). In contrast, Latinos participate less than both groups, indicating that “SES may be a more potent predictor for blacks and whites than for Latinos” (Frasure & Williams, 2003, 16). Burns, Scholzman, and Verba’s more recent work (2001) also documents a link between SES and gender. Despite successful efforts to minimize gender inequalities over the past few decades, men, on average, are still better educated, higher paid, and maintain higher status in the workplace. Moreover, since women are less likely than men to be employed full-time or in jobs that develop civic skills, as Frasure and Williams suggest: “gender disparities in the workplace figure prominently in explaining gender differences in political participation” (2003, 16). In sum, the research indicates that socio-economic disparities must be addressed before civic disparities can be remedied. As Frasure and Williams observe, easier said than done: And, thus we have the chicken and the egg problem: seemingly, about all that is needed to require decision-makers to provide more opportunities for people of color, the poor and working classes, women, and youth to improve their education, occupations, and income is strong political participation Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

25

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

and engagement; and yet this is not likely to occur unless high levels of education, income, and occupational status already exist. Thus, continuing ethno-racial, gender, class, and even age disparities in civic engagement and political participation make sense only in the context of continuing sharp socioeconomic disparities (2003, 16). B. Civic Tools and Resources What are the principal intervention strategies and practices for addressing civic engagement? Civic tools and resources are the primary means, both at the individual and collective levels, used to enhance the quality, quantity, equality and sustainability of civic engagement. Ideally, they provide citizens with the essential concepts, information, and skills about civic institutions, processes and practices to enable them to participate fully in shaping healthy democratic communities. The two main forms are civic education and knowledge, and civic skills and capacities. Civic Education and Knowledge Civic education and knowledge are the key tools and resources for enhancing civic engagement. The overall emphasis is on providing civic “content knowledge” (i.e., concepts and information on civic and political institutions and processes) “that is meaningful to individuals and that might motivate them to participate,” and on developing specific “skills that would make their participation more informed and effective” for actualizing and contributing to democratic citizenship at the community level (Torney-Purta, 2003, 29). Civic knowledge is the basic level of understanding (i.e., information, experience, and knowledge) that people possess about the “political institutions and processes” that contribute to and enhance civic engagement and democracy (Galston, 2001, 223). Drawing from constructivist theory in psychology, civic knowledge is “meaningful information or knowledge that can be related to the individual’s level of cognitive structures” (Torney Purta, 2003, 12). A person’s level of civic and political knowledge significantly affects their attitudes toward particular civic issues, their orientation to democratic ideals and institutions, and their overall political participation (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Galston & Levine, 1997; Galston, 2001; Torney-Purta, 2001). Much debate has centered on what constitutes civic literacy, whereby people possess sufficient political knowledge of public issues, institutions, and process to affect change (Flanagan & Faison, 2001; Milner, 2002). Milner’s cross-national research has found that the level of civic literacy is the best predictor for people’s level of participation (Milner, 2002). Civic education and knowledge strategies focus on “meaningful civic knowledge” that equips people with the information and experience to engage as full and active citizens. Drawing on socio-cultural theories, what an individual finds meaningful “is shaped through everyday participation in the practice of discussion within the communities to which the individual belongs” (TorneyPurta 2003, 6). The types of civic knowledge that are likely most meaningful in fostering civic engagement include information about: national political structures; political leaders and issues; historical knowledge; conceptual content knowledge about the principles of democracy; and interpreting political communication (Torney-Purta, 2003, 9-10). The level of civic knowledge is a strong predictor of the main types of civic engagement by adults: volunteering, voting, party membership, and non-violent protest (Torney-Purta, 2003). However, issues of inequality emerge as the level of civic knowledge among both adults and youths consistently varies based on the level of their socio-economic status and education (Niemi & Junn, 1998). One promising direction for remedying inequality is to provide meaningful and motivating civic education strategies that have demonstrated a positive impact on improving the civic knowledge of poor as well as affluent youths (Torney-Purta, 2003, 41). Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

26

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Civic education is the range of learning activities that equip people with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to be informed, capable and active citizens in their communities. Civic education is seen as a means to impart relevant political knowledge, instill democratic ideals, and foster critical thinking about civic responsibilities and duties (Bahmueller, 1991; Galston, 2001). The primary focus of civic education initiatives is on developing appropriate school-based strategies that improve the quantity, quality, and equality of civic education and knowledge for youths. Through their teaching, curricular, extra-curricular and community service activities, schools are seen as vital institutions for imparting civic norms, fostering learning about civic institutions, processes, and practices, and developing the civic skills of youths (CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2003). Presently, there is a growing concern nationally that the existing level of school-based civic education is inadequate and that appropriate standards and effective multi-prong strategies are needed to address it (Ibid; Gagnon, 2003). The most effective service-learning programs are supported and sustained by fostering ongoing learning partnerships among schools, universities, and community institutions (Jacoby et al., 2003). The most promising approaches to promoting civic education include: providing instruction in government, history, law, and democracy; incorporating discussion of current local, national, and international issues and events into the classroom, particularly those that young people view as important to their lives; designing and implementing programs that provide students with the opportunity to apply what they learn through performing community service that is linked to the formal curriculum and classroom instruction; offering extra-curricular activities that provide opportunities for young people to get involved in their schools or communities; encouraging student participation in school governance; and encouraging students’ participation in simulations of democratic processes and procedures (CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2003, 6). In addition, a range of civic education training and media strategies targeted toward both youths and adults can positively affect their level of civic engagement. When viewed together, these civic education and knowledge strategies offer the means for enhancing the civic engagement of citizens. Civic Skills and Capacities What are the essential skills and capacities for enhancing civic engagement? For the purposes of this analysis, civic skills are key competencies that enable citizens to participate individually and collectively to affect change in the governance and democratic processes at the community level. This approach focuses on equipping and empowering citizens individually, as well as on developing a community’s collective capacity. There are a wide range of civic skills and capacities that are critical to citizens’ participation (Sirianni & Friedland, 2001; Stone, Henig, Jones, & Pierannunzi, 2001; Briggs, 2003). The emphasis is on developing citizens’ skills for active listening, leadership, negotiation, conflict resolution, and public speaking, and collectively for shared action, organizing, mediation, community- and coalition-building, and advocacy (Flanagan & Faison, 2001, 3; Friedland & Sirianni, 2003). Civic skills and capacities focus on enhancing human resource potential through skill-building and social learning, on shaping the venues for active civic engagement, and on developing possibilities for community-level action in affecting and advancing democratic change. Enhancing the range and repertoire of civic skills (e.g., leadership, organizing, coalition building) across a broad group of citizens, especially among under-represented and disenfranchised peoples, improves the possibilities for affecting change (Norris, 2002; Briggs, 2003). Despite the ongoing decline in social capital, Friedland and Sirianni contend that civic innovation and civic capacity have “grown in many demonstrable instances and cases over roughly forty years” (2003, 9). Across the United States, the emergence of new forms of civic innovation ranging from community economic development Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

27

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

to environmental and living wage initiatives, youth civic engagement, university-community partnerships, and the democratic reform of key local institutions (e.g., community policing, neighborhood councils, public schools) have contributed to developing new civic skills and capacities at the community level (Boyte, 1991; Sirianni & Friedland, 2001; Friedland & Sirianni, 2003; Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003). Civic capacity is the ability of a community or its constituent parts – actors and groups, organizations and institutions – to pose and solve community problems (Friedland & Sirianni, 2003). Specifying the local community (not individuals) as the primary level for analysis, Friedland and Sirianni argue that: “civic capacities… lie in the ability of groups, organizations, and institutions to mobilize the skills, techniques and practices to engage in public problem-solving” (Ibid, 1). This approach focuses on building the civic capacities of these groups and fostering a web of inter-organizational relationships in a community to “act in concert” to address pressing public issues (Stone, 2001, 596). The emphasis is on consulting with and convening key civic groups, and on mobilizing organizations and institutions across sectors – government, business, and nonprofits – to deliberate, collaborate on problem solving, and develop a “shared agenda” for public action, ultimately to affect change (Stone, 2001, 596). Building the infrastructure and venues for community deliberation and activating empowerment strategies that enhance civic literacy (Milner, 2002) and promote social learning are crucial steps to developing a community’s civic capacity for collaboration and “democratic self-government” (Sirianni & Friedland, 2001, 241-2; Potapchuk, 1999). Given a community’s power dynamics and institutional resources, the level of civic capacity (i.e., individual and collective initiatives to address community governance) shifts over time and space, requiring special efforts to sustain and increase joint community action to affect change (Shinn, 2000). Developing ongoing civic capacities (e.g., for deliberation, collaboration, and mobilization across sectors) by establishing a broad organizational and institutional basis rooted in the community is crucial to increasing and sustaining civic engagement (Stone, 2001a; Potapchuk, 1999). The implication of this approach to civic capacities is that it provides a distinctive analytical perspective to understand the critical relationships affecting a community’s capacities for civic engagement in context. As Friedland and Sirianni argue: Individualistic frameworks for understanding civic capacity (and their extension to networks via the social capital concept) are important but insufficient for studying the community-wide dynamics through which civic capacity is generated. Civic capacity is a property of community and its levels and networks of action, and further, only a community-level analysis can yield useful, practical insights to practitioners of civic capacity and change (2003, 9). This approach instead focuses on understanding a community’s civic ecology that is “the entirety of civic relationships in a defined area.” Civic ecology is “a series of nested relationships that extend both horizontally and vertically” (Ibid, 10; Brofenbrenner, 1979; Friedland, 2001). The emphasis is on developing a civic ecology that identifies key actors, fosters supportive relationships, and provides the building blocks for public problemsolving at the community level. The emphasis is on developing effective multi-stakeholder collaborations that include business, nonprofit and political actors at the community level to solve public problems (Friedland & Sirianni, 2003). By analyzing the dynamic relationships among key actors, this approach provides an essential analytical tool for developing a comparative civic framework for analyzing the specific context and pathways for enhancing civic engagement within and across communities.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

28

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

C. Modes and Infrastructure for Participation: Individual & Collective Action Overview and Scope The Democracy Collaborative – Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project focuses on a wide continuum of civic engagement, from the most partisan electoral and political forms of participation, to the least partisan forms of community engagement. Table 4 provides a typology of the many forms of civic engagement. These distinct forms of engagement have varied implications for the ways that people participate in civic life. Table 4: Main Forms of Civic Engagement

Electoral Engagement

• • •

Voting Ballot initiatives and referenda Running for office or participating in campaigns

Political Engagement (Voice)

• • •

Direct advocacy targeted at officials (or indirectly through the press) Public issue lobbying (e.g., petitions, legislative campaigns) Protesting (e.g., boycotting, buycotting, marches, civil disobedience)

Economic Engagement

• • •

Consumer action Labor action Stockholder initiatives

Societal Engagement

• • • • • • •

Social capital creation Charitable giving Volunteer and community service Public and civic education Skill-building Service-provision Community problem-solving

Critical to understanding under what conditions people participate in their communities is how people are asked, invited, or recruited to participate in these various forms of civic engagement. The analysis also considers the vehicles and venues or civic structures that facilitate participation. Specifically, civic structures are the institutional, political, and social contexts that affect how people participate in the governance and democratic processes at the community level. Organized by type of engagement, Table 5 describes the vehicles (e.g., community-based and neighborhood organizations) and venues (e.g., institutional infrastructure for engagement and spaces for civic deliberation) that facilitate the recruitment and retention processes of citizen engagement in its various forms.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

29

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation Table 5: The Civic Infrastructure-Vehicles and Venues that Facilitate Civic Engagement by Type of Engagement

Vehicles and Venues for Electoral Engagement

• • • • •

Political parties Political action committees Electoral advocacy groups Legislative system Judicial system

Vehicles and Venues for Political Engagement

• • • •

Nonprofit advocacy organizations Public interest groups Social movements Faith-based social justice coalitions

Vehicles and Venues for Economic Engagement

• •

Consumer organizations Cooperatives and community development centers Labor unions Shareholder initiatives

• • Vehicles and Venues for Societal Engagement

• • • • • •

Community-based organizations Churches and religious organizations Neighborhood associations Nonprofit service organizations Networks of organizations and associations Schools and universities

What leads people to sustain their engagement in their communities? 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). 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. Table 6 (below) provides an overview of the key community-based vehicles and venues that comprise the civic infrastructure for enhancing civic engagement by each major goal. 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 listed in Table 6 have provided low-income Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

30

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

people with an effective forum that enables them to influence and shape the policies for community policing and public schools (Markus, 2002; Fung, 2001). What conditions are necessary to foster and to sustain civic engagement at the community level? How do the various forms of participation (e.g., direct political action, consumer action, advocacy, charitable involvement, and direct service) increase the quantity, quality, equality, and sustainability of broader civic engagement? As presented in Tables 4-6, a variety of organizations and institutions at the local level play a critical role in facilitating and shaping the possibilities for enhanced civic engagement. Key contributions include: establishing strong social networks, developing civic skills, and fostering deep roots for further participation and political involvement. In addition to identifying the primary forms of participation and main components of the civic infrastructure, the research elucidates 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 (Nelson, Craig, & Riker, 2003). 5 Key Conditions for Fostering Community-level 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; Nelson, Criag, & Riker, 2003). 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; 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).

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

31

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation Table 6: The Civic Infrastructure – Vehicles and Venues that Facilitate Civic Engagement at the Community Level by Goal Goals

Community-based Participation & Structures

Increase the Quantity of Civic Engagement

• • • • • •

Increase the Quality of Civic Engagement

• • • • •

Increase the Equality of Civic Engagement

• •

• • • Increase the Sustainability of Civic Engagement

•

• • •

Charitable 501 (c3) organizations Religious organizations, churches, congregations Local volunteer and community service programs Neighborhood associations Local chapters of national organizations (City Year, Common Cause, Public Interest Research Groups – PIRGs, AmeriCorps) Faith-based and secular coalitions build large networks that increase the number of citizens involved at local level Citizens’ deliberative forums (e.g., Jacksonville Community Council Inc., FL) Community advocacy organizations (e.g., BUILD, Baltimore; Communities Organized for Public Service – COPS – San Antonio; Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance – OREPA, TN) Neighborhood governance councils (e.g., West Chicago; Los Angeles; Hampton, VA) University-community partnerships (e.g., Chicago, Philadelphia) Church-based community initiatives (e.g., IAF interfaith network in Texas) Secular coalitions of community-based organizations that represent low-income and minority people (e.g., South End/Lower Roxbury Housing & Planning Coalition, Boston; Coalition for a Better Acre – CBA, Lowell, MA) Faith-based community organizing initiatives (FBCO)/ leadership development (e.g., IAF interfaith network in Texas, Front Porch Alliance in Indianapolis, Pacific Institute for Community Organizations, Ten Point Coalition in Boston, Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, ISAIAH initiative in Minnesota, PACT in Miami, San Francisco Organization Project, the Gamaliel Foundation, DART) Environmental justice and living wage movements (e.g., Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, Chester, PA; BUILD, Baltimore; COPs and Metro Alliance, San Antonio, TX) Inter-city network of minority youth leaders to address schools and policing (e.g., Philadelphia Youth Civic Engagement Summit) Nonprofit-AmeriCorps partnerships (e.g., Admission Possible in St. Paul, MN) FBCO initiatives (e.g., IAF interfaith network in Texas, Front Porch Alliance in Indianapolis, Pacific Institute for Community Organizations, Ten Point Coalition in Boston, Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, ISAIAH initiative in Minnesota, PACT in Miami, San Francisco Organization Project, the Gamaliel Foundation, DART) Networks of nonprofit organizations and associations that foster inter-organizational and community-level collaboration (e.g., St. Paul, MN) Diverse community networks and coalitions that include unions, schools, churches and grass roots organizations (e.g., FBCO efforts: IAF interfaith network in Texas; Los Angeles) University-community partnerships (e.g., Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia)

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

32

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation •

Successful mobilization efforts of broad coalitions: The building of broad-based grassroots coalitions of community and religious organizations offers an effective means for empowering people to influence political institutions and promote economic reforms 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 public school reform. The organization of multi-stakeholder 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 and processes (Nembhard & Blasingame, 2003, 24). Promoting targeted educational and skills-training opportunities and interest-group membership in a diverse range of community economic development organizations (e.g., cooperatives, credit unions) can enhance people’s access to resources and their level of civic engagement. In addition, well-designed civic education, media training, and nonpartisan public information initiatives targeted to specific audiences (e.g., youths and adults) can enhance citizens’ civic knowledge and engagement (Torney-Purta, 2003; Youniss & Hart, 2003) as well as mobilize them to register and to vote in elections (Wilcox, 2003).

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 and Key Examples As the analysis above has highlighted, community-level civic engagement and the corresponding civic ecology are shaped by a number of key contextual conditions. Within a particular community’s context, each potential pathway available for a community to intervene should link the specific actors, the priority focus areas, and resources available to the desired effect, outcomes, and goals for enhancing civic engagement. Acknowledging the overriding importance of context in determining what will work, what won’t work, and what might work to effect community impact, Applied Survey Research developed a logic model for evaluating community impact that links effort with effect, process with outcomes, and resources, activities and outputs with both short-term and long-term learning, action, and impact outcomes (see Appendix D). Drawing from this model, Tables 7-9 summarize the community-level strategies by key actor, by focus area, and by major goal and civic dimension to help parse out the civic ecology at work. For example, Table 7 highlights a number of effective civic strategies and innovations by key organizations and institutions. Table 8 identifies the specific focus both in terms of strengthening civic skills (e.g., youth development, public education) and civic capacities (e.g., community organizing, institution building) for enhancing civic engagement, and Table 9 provides these strategies within the context of our four major goals to enhance civic engagement by key civic dimension. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

33

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Table 7: Civic Innovation and Strategy by Key Actor Actor Government

Key Organizations/ Initiatives USA Freedom Corps, AmeriCorps, Admission Possible

Faith-Based Organizations

IAF Interfaith Network, Front Porch Alliance, Pacific Institute for Community Organizations, Ten Point Coalition, Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, ISAIAH, PACT, San Francisco Organization Project, Gamaliel Foundation, DART, Center for Public Justice Burlington Legacy Project, Community HeroCard, Model Practices Collaborative, Jacksonville Community Council, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living, Roxbury Housing & Planning Coalition, Coalition for a Better Acre, DC Agenda Center for Community Change, Community Coalition, Michigan Organizing Project, BUILD, Communities Organized for Public Service, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance City Year, Public Allies, National Civic League, Youth Service America, Philadelphia Youth Civic Engagement Summit Boston Community Foundation Persistent Poverty Project, Carnegie’s Strengthening Democracy Initiative, Pew Partnership’s 19 Solutions, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

Community Organizing and Building Organizations

Advocacy Organizations

Key Nonprofit Service Organizations Private and Community Foundations

Information Clearinghouse, Think-Tanks, Research Organizations University / Educational Organizations

Pew Partnership for Change’s “Just Call it Effective”, Aspen Institute’s Young Voter Toolkit, Innovation Center’s Youth Development Guide, PIRGs Campus Compact, Campus Outreach Opportunity League, Public Leadership Education Network, University of Pennsylvania; University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development

Civic Strategy /Goals Seeks to provide infrastructure for national service, inspiring volunteer work/community action Seeks to provide leadership development, education, and organizing power centered on religious institutions

Key Added Value Places service at forefront of national importance, engenders volunteerism and public citizenship beyond local level

Seeks to develop community connection between citizens, institutions, and government; often seeking to improve the public good

Highly inclusive projects can unite differing community interests and enable them to pursue community-wide goals as a collaboration

Seeks to improve existing conditions for communities by leveraging the political resources for positive change

Advocacy targets specific issues, people, and groups to provide new or improved services

Seeks to engage people of all ages, inspiring everyone to be active citizens in some way

Provides outlets for community service, in addition to public recognition of efforts, strives to develop the participation of all groups for any purpose Improves the ability of community’s or institutions to engage citizens; provides funding for new programs and creates institutions to target community problems

Seeks to develop the infrastructure for engagement, including the development of community institutions, capacity, leadership, and research

Provides a venue for many unengaged communities, including minorities and immigrants; an extensive venue where many participate socially and civically already

Seeks to improve the educational, research, and evaluation base for institutions and communities

Distills academic research into practical advice; information infrastructures educates and enhances existing or developing programs

Seeks to connect the university to the greater community by providing venues for engagement as well as services that could enhance community life

Provides an information infrastructure for developing citizens as well as provides opportunities to apply civic action in a variety of forms

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

34

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Table 8: Civic Innovation and Strategy by Focus Area Focus Area Youth Development

Key Organizations/ Initiatives City Year, Youth Service America, Philadelphia Youth Civic Engagement Summit

Civic Strategy/Goals Develop youth leadership, instill civic skills, provide a civic education, promote community change Seeks to enhance the leadership and civic capacity of specific groups through issue-education and training

Key Added Value Advances the quantity, quality, and equality of civic engagement by developing present and future citizen leaders Promotes the civic development of disconnected or underserved groups, leadership development for non-youth; Addresses civic barriers

Civic Capacity: Leadership Development (minorities/ immigrants) Civic Capacity: Alternative Spaces (Technology)

Women in Government, Center for Public Justice, Model Practices Collaborative Congress.org, Connect Richmond, Peer Learning Network, MoveOn.org

Provides virtual forums and communities through which individuals and groups can vote, serve, learn, and/or organize

Provides new avenues for engagement; lowers the costs for certain forms of engagement; facilitates community organizing; Addresses civic barriers

Institution Building: Government, Nonprofit, Business, Media & Multi-Sectoral Institution Building: Local, Community-Level

Campus Compact,, Corporation for National Service, National Civic League, Admission Possible, DC Agenda, Business Strengthening America (BSA)

Develops and facilitates institutions and programs of service, education, and direct engagement

Provides the key infrastructure for national service and community service programs; funds projects nationally; collaborates between sectors, addressing civic barriers

Carter Center, Community HeroCard, Michigan Civic Engagement Project

Community Organizing: Community Change Models

Minnesota Active Citizenship, Burlington Legacy Project, CityScan, Center for Community Change, Jacksonville Community Council, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living

Inspires community and neighborhood service; seeks to unite individuals, communities, and institutions Seeks to inspire general community action and active citizen engagement through community organizing and community change models

Community Organizing: Issue Specific Models

Boston Persistent Poverty Project, Community Coalition, BUILD, Communities Organized for Public Service, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Roxbury Housing & Planning Coalition Pew Partnership for Change’s “Just Call it Effective”, Aspen Institute’s Young Voter Toolkit, Innovation Center’s Youth Development Guide, PIRGs, National Civic League’s Alliance for National Renewal Common Cause’s Civic Engagement Program, Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life, Brookings Center for Public Service, PIRGs AmeriCorps Evaluations, Research Institutions

Works locally in focused projects born out of a community’s ideas and directed toward a community’s needs; Addresses civic barriers Provides the tools for communities to organize themselves for any purpose they may seek; also seeks to improve overall engagement within the community in order to clarify community values and pursue community goals; Addresses civic barriers Differing from above, the groups and institutions generally pursue a single organizing goal for specific sects of the community

Public Education: Toolkits Media: Civic Journalism Public Education: General

Public Education: Targeted Evaluations

Seek to inspire service, work collaboratively, and develop leaders toward a specific community end

Seeks to provide tools for organizations and citizens to utilize in developing engagement for specific groups or communities; distills academic research into practical advice

These products of research/ educational organizations or foundations can be distributed widely at little to no cost, providing a transportable instant information base upon which to build

Provides research and education on civic engagement patterns, trends, and recommendations

Develops an information infrastructure that provides the foundations of future research, model development, and idea exchange

Seeks to analyze the success or failure of specific projects according to their intended goals or purposes

Enhances the information infrastructure of civic engagement by refining program techniques and advancing quality practices

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

35

Table 9: Sample Strategies and Innovations for Strengthening Civic Engagement by Goal and Civic Dimension Major Goals

Civic Motivations and Values

Civic Norms and Conditions

Civic Differences and Disparities

Civic Education and Knowledge

Civic Skills and Capacities

Modes of Civic Engagement * Civic Participation

Increase the Quantity of Civic Engagement

•

Kids’ Voting Campaigns

•

Targeted recruitment strategies

• •

Increase the Quality of Civic Engagement

•

•

Increase the Equality of Civic Engagement

Increase the Sustainability of Civic Engagement

•

School and community volunteer programs/curriculum: instill ethic of service Improvements in volunteer training, management and incentives Improvements in organizational effectiveness

Targeted recruitment strategies across the spectrum

•

Broader representation in community governance

•

•

Public awareness campaigns

•

•

•

Recruitment, Retention, and Placement of Volunteers, members, donors, advocates Ongoing Get Out the Vote Campaigns at the local and national level

• • •

•

•

•

•

Targeted Community Grantmaking Community Issue Forums

Electronic Community Networks Community Development Projects Bipartisan legislator retreats

•

•

•

•

Targeted recruitment strategies Public education campaigns to underserved and under-recognized constituencies

“Building community” initiatives Targeted skillbuilding initiatives

•

Service Learning

•

Civic Education Curricula

•

•

•

•

•

Youth Civic Practice initiatives

• •

Leadership training

Civic Journalism

•

Civic Service for the Community

• • • •

•

Civic Capacitybuilding

•

Convening community planning fora

Civic Literacy Initiatives

• •

Economic development initiatives that address economic inequalities

•

Recognition of local social networks and informal leadership Initiatives that target government and private accountability Recognition of local social networks and informal leadership

•

•

• •

•

Targeted recruitment strategies across the spectrum Targeted community grantmaking Community forums: diversity awareness/ training Community Technology Centers Initiatives that hold government and private sector accountable to minority interests Recognition of local social networks and informal leadership

•

Targeted Civic Training

•

Representation in civic training by Demographics (youth, adult, ethnicity)

•

National Civic Education Initiatives

•

Civic education initiatives by membershipbased organizations, churches, and unions

Includes Community, Religious, Economic, and Political forms of Participation and Structures

•

•

•

Low-income and Immigrant Civic Practices Initiatives Community technology centers

National Civic Education Initiatives

• •

Consumer action Targeted recruitment strategies “the ask” for voter registration, volunteering, political campaigning, unions Local and National Volunteer Programs/ Resource Centers Outreach Union drives Voter Education Volunteer training Skill-building opportunities through church and community involvement Consumer boycott Workplace awareness campaigns Union drives Targeted recruitment strategies “the ask” for voter registration, volunteering, political campaigning, unions etc.

Civic Structures • • • • •

• • • •

•

• • •

•

Religious-based solutions for some groups

•

•

Recruitment, Retention, and Placement of Volunteers, members, donors and advocates Membership and participation in democratic economic organizations (coops, credit unions)

•

•

• •

Neighborhood associations Voter Initiatives Clean Election Reforms Responsive mediating institutions Management Support Organization programs or other nonprofit infrastructure orgs Union organizing Citizen Deliberative Forums Community Advocacy Organizations Coalition-building among grassroots organizations and denominations Electronic Community Networks Recognition of local social networks and informal leadership Targeted Community Leadership and Advocacy Development Targeted Community Center Development Equality of representation on community issues Business and Foundation funded infrastructure-building Representative civic governance Three-sector partnerships: business, local government and nonprofit civic organizations

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

The Challenge to Develop a Tailored Civic Engagement Strategy for the Local Context 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? Arguably, the conditions, tools, forms, and structures that make civic engagement possible differ from place to place, due to differences in community socioeconomic conditions, history, and political realities. For example, in some communities, where population is growing rapidly with major demographic shifts, addressing diversity in local government might be a top priority. In communities where participation by minority populations and trust in local government is high (e.g., Gary, Indiana), however, pursuing such a strategy may not be relevant. Thus, it does not make sense to implement the same strategy everywhere. A local – or metropolitan – civic engagement strategy should be crafted to address current and expected community conditions. It is not sufficient to identify simply civic differences or disparities. Just as important, local policy makers need to understand the unique context and community specific factors that may be contributing to these disparities. Only then can they determine which goals make sense, and which should receive the highest priority. Based on these priorities, a mix of programmatic initiatives should be crafted to address the community’s identified needs and promote appropriate change. This is easier said than done. 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 community as the unit of analysis and comparison, measuring community-level variables such as social networks and formal/informal institutions, and linking short-term measures with longterm 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. Strengthening civic infrastructure; 2. Addressing economic inequalities and fostering community economic stability; Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

37

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

3. Developing youth with a focus on education; and 4. 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 problem-solving (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 foster 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 fosters community economic stability (Williamson, Imbroscio, & Alperovitz, 2002). Third, there is a continuing need to focus on youth development and education. As cited earlier, 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, 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 extra-curricular 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 school-based 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). Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

38

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

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. As cited earlier, 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; Pinderhughes, 1987). Frasure and Williams (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). These four priority areas provide the basis for the four recommendations for strengthening civic engagement summarized below:

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

39

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

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.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

40

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Recommendations for Strengthening Civic Engagement (continued) 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.

Drawing from the four priority areas highlighted in the research, the inventory of civic innovations and strategies listed in Tables 7-9, and the logic model for evaluating community impact cited earlier, Table 10 (What Works Table) offers a summary of the current and promising approaches to enhancing the quantity, quality, equality, and sustainability of civic engagement at the community level. In the left-hand column, we have listed the areas for targeted intervention according to three broad categories: individual and community factors, civic tools and resources, and modes for participation. In the four columns that follow to the right, we have classified the civic innovations and strategies by “what works,” what doesn’t work,” “mixed reviews,” and “best bets.” As cited earlier, 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 gap identified in the literature, describes the lack of evaluation or performance measures in assessing “what works” to enhance civic engagement. This glaring gap underscores the need for developing criteria to evaluate programs and interventions 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.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

41

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Table 10: What Works Table: A Review of Civic Innovations & Strategies to Enhance Civic Engagement Civic Innovations and Strategies Areas for Targeted Intervention

What Works

What Doesn’t Work

Mixed Reviews

“Best Bets”

Civic Infrastructure *Government *Business *Community-based Organizations *Foundations *Unions *Universities & Colleges *Schools *Unions * Media (media effects) * Alternative Spaces (technology)

-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

Economic Inequalities

-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)

INDIVIDUAL & COMMUNITY FACTORS

Socioeconomic conditions and diversity

CIVIC TOOLS & RESOURCES Youth Development and Education

Community-based Initiatives

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

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

43

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Areas for Targeted Intervention

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

MODES FOR PARTICIPATION Electoral & Political Processes

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

44

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Key Knowledge Gaps: Recommendations 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. As cited previously, perhaps the most prominent research gap identified is the lack of longitudinal data. In addition, civic engagement encompasses a breadth of academic knowledge, thus, gaps necessarily exist between disciplines or areas of study and with practitioners. Moreover, inadequate program evaluation inhibits understanding about the value and impact of specific initiatives. Without appropriate evaluation, policymakers, scholars, and even citizens cannot gauge the true impact of their efforts or make informed decisions about the potential opportunity costs. 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 recent 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” (Skocpol, 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 remains anecdotal, 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). Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

45

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

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. Conclusions and Recommended Next Steps By reviewing the literature and highlighting effective examples of civic engagement at the community level, this summary report identifies promising approaches and innovative strategies that have helped to catalyze civic engagement and enhance democratic citizenship. 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. How can the Knight Foundation leverage this analysis to create real change at the local community level? 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 to identify best practices to enhance the civic engagement of citizens in the specific contexts of their communities. Table 11 provides a summary of key community priorities identified by the 26 Knight partner communities to date. While just seven of these communities have identified specific civic engagement or related priorities (e.g., improve race relations), all of the Knight partner communities can readily benefit from enhancing civic engagement whatever their community priorities may be. The challenge remains to work together with foundation officers, community leaders, practitioners, and citizens to develop appropriate strategies and to identify relevant practices that can be adopted and tailored to their specific community context.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

46

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Table 11: List of Knight Partner Communities by State and Identified Community Priorities State Community Top Priorities (civic engagement related goals in italics) California Long Beach • To improve school readiness. San Jose • To improve school readiness. Colorado Boulder • To improve school readiness. Florida Bradenton • To increase positive outcomes for middle school youth. Miami • To increase financial security of households. • To improve community development. • To increase civic engagement. Palm Beach County • To increase positive outcomes for middle school youth. Tallahassee • To improve school readiness. Georgia Columbus • To increase positive outcomes for at-risk youth. Macon • To reduce number and percentage of teen pregnancies. Milledgeville • To increase positive outcomes for middle school youth. Indiana Fort Wayne • To improve school readiness. Gary • To increase economic development with an emphasis on minority business. • To improve child development. Kansas Wichita • To improve school readiness. Kentucky Lexington • To reduce equity gaps in public schools while improving academic achievement. Michigan Detroit • To increase community development. • To increase access and diversity in arts and cultural organizations. Minnesota Duluth • Priorities to be determined. St. Paul • To increase access to affordable housing. Mississippi Biloxi • To improve family economic well-being. North Carolina Charlotte • To improve school readiness. • To improve race relations. • To preserve and maintain open space. North Dakota Grand Falls • To increase the community’s capacity for economic growth. • To increase the organizational strength and stability of arts and culture nonprofits. Ohio Akron • To increase job expansion and retention of jobs. • To increase positive outcomes for middle school youth. Pennsylvania Philadelphia • To improve literacy for young children. • To increase cultural arts participation. State College • To improve the health and development outcomes for young children South Carolina Columbia • To equip middle-school youth to become productive citizens. Myrtle Beach • To improve community engagement. South Dakota Aberdeen • Priorities to be determined. Source: Based on the Knight Foundation web site as of June 5, 2003 Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

47

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation Appendix A: The Democracy Collaborative – Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project Consultation Meeting The Aspen Institute Washington, DC October 24, 2002 List of Participants Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland, The Democracy Collaborative & Department of Government & Politics Gary Bass, OMB Watch Anthony Blasingame, University of Maryland, Department of Economics Richard Couto, Antioch University, Ph.D. Program in Leadership and Change Michael Craig, Georgetown University, The Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service Lewis Friedland, University of Wisconsin—Madison, School of Journalism & Mass Communication William Galston, University of Maryland, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy & the Democracy Collaborative Jessica Gordon Nembhard, University of Maryland, The Democracy Collaborative & Afro-American Studies Department Daniel Hart, Rutgers University—Camden, Department of Psychology Virginia Hodgkinson, Georgetown University, The Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service Jeanette Lang, City Year Annie Leonetti, University of Maryland, The Democracy Collaborative & Department of Government & Politics Katherine T. Loflin, The Knight Foundation Debbie Matisoff, City Year Margaret Morgan-Hubbard, University of Maryland, The Democracy Collaborative Kathryn Nelson, Georgetown University, The Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service Miles Rapoport, Demos James Riker, University of Maryland, The Democracy Collaborative Carmen Sirianni, Brandeis University, Department of Sociology Clarence Stone, University of Maryland, Department of Government & Politics

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

48

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation Nancy Stutts, University of Richmond, Jepson School of Leadership Judith Torney-Purta, University of Maryland, Department of Human Development Natalie Patrice Tucker, Georgetown University, The Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service Eric Uslaner, University of Maryland, Department of Government & Politics Lisa Versaci, The Knight Foundation Clyde Wilcox, Georgetown University, Department of Government James Youniss, The Catholic University of America, Life Cycle Institute & Department of Psychology

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

49

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Appendix B: The Democracy Collaborative—Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project List of Working Papers MAJOR DIMENSIONS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Individual and Community Factors Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 1 •

Civic Motivations and Values “Motivation, Values, and Civic Participation” By James Youniss, Catholic University; and Daniel Hart, Rutgers University-Camden

Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 2 •

Civic Identity, Norms, Conditions “Civic Engagement in America: Why People Participate in Political and Social Life” By Eric Uslaner, University of Maryland

Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 3 •

Civic Disparities and Differences “Civic Disparities and Civic Differences: Ethno-Racial Civic Engagement in the United States” By Lorrie Frasure, University of Maryland; and Linda Williams, University of Maryland

Modes of Participation and Infrastructure for Participation: Individual and Collective Action Civic Participation and Structures: Forms, Venues and Vehicles

Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 4 •

Community and Religious Participation “The Infrastructure for Civic Engagement: Community and Religious Participation and Structures” By Kathryn E. Nelson, Georgetown University; Michael Craig, Georgetown University; and James V. Riker, University of Maryland

Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 5 •

Economic Participation “Economic Dimensions of Civic Engagement and Political Efficacy” By Jessica Gordon Nembhard, University of Maryland; and Anthony Blasingame, University of Maryland

Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 6 •

Political Participation “Political Structures and Political Participation” By Clyde Wilcox, Georgetown University

Tools and Resources Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 7 • Civic Education and Knowledge “Tools and Strategies: Civic Education and Civic Knowledge” By Judith Torney-Purta, University of Maryland

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

50

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 8 • Civic Skills and Capacities “Building Civic Skills and Capacities through Civic Innovation” By Lewis Friedland, University of Wisconsin; and Carmen Sirianni, Brandeis University

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

51

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Appendix C: A Glossary of Key Terms of Civic Engagement Key Terms

At the Individual Level

Active Citizenship

Active citizenship means that a person is obligated to exercise their rights and duties in a society to serve the public good.

Civic Capacity

Civic Differences

Civic Disparities

8

At the Community Level

Active citizenship means that participating collectively in accountable political work and democratic governance is seen as an essential obligation and role of citizens, and not the sole domain of government officials and politicians. Civic capacity means Civic capacity is the both the abilities and ability of a community or work of citizens and the its constituent parts – communities in which actors and groups, that work takes place. organizations and institutions – to pose and solve community problems. Civic differences reflect Civic differences reflect the diversity in how the diversity in how different individuals different groups participate (e.g., diversity participate (e.g., diversity in views, pluralism) and in views, pluralism) and can contribute to can contribute to increasing the quality and increasing the quality and equality of civic equality of civic engagement and to engagement and to building a healthy building a healthy democracy. democracy. Civic disparities are the Civic disparities are the negative management of negative management of inequitable societal inequitable societal factors (e.g., age, race, factors (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, gender, class) ethnicity, gender, class) that exclude or limit an that exclude or limit a individual’s access to group’s access to participate fully in civic participate fully in civic processes. processes.

At the Normative Level Active citizenship means that people are “co-creators and civic producers” in “creating the democratic way of life.”8

Civic capacity is the shared commitment to develop people’s abilities – as individuals and collectively – to address and solve community problems. Civic differences value diversity and recognize the positive roles that different voices, both individually and collectively, can contribute to increasing the quality and equality of civic engagement and to building a healthy democracy. To overcome civic disparities requires concerted action to address the societal structures and barriers that exclude or limit the full participation of individuals or groups due to some form of inequality.

Boyte, H. (2001). Center for Democracy and Citizenship, University of Minnesota web site: http://www.publicwork.org/.

.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

52

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Civic Education

Civic education is the range of learning activities that equip people with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to be informed, capable, and active citizens in their communities.

Civic education is the range of learning activities that equip groups, organizations and communities with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to contribute to informed and active participation in their communities.

Civic Engagement

Civic engagement means “active participation in civic life,” with a focus on those activities that contribute to or enhance democracy and its tenets of freedom, equality, and justice.9 Civic knowledge is meaningful information or knowledge about civic processes and practices that is valued and valuable to an individual in serving the public good.

Civic engagement is “based on the participation of individual citizens in the associations of civil and political society.”10

Civic Knowledge

Civic Norms

Civic norms are the values that shape individual action for the public good.

Civic knowledge is meaningful information or knowledge about civic processes and practices that is valued and valuable in groups to which the individual belongs for serving the public good. Civic norms are the values that shape group, organizational or community action for the public good.

Civic education fosters and sustains essential learning (e.g., skills, knowledge, and attitudes) that enables people to contribute actively to strengthening civic processes and practices as informed citizens and leaders in their communities. Civic engagement is “based on normative orientations sustained, above all, by institutions and institutional leaders.”11 Civic knowledge creates, fosters, and sustains meaningful information and knowledge about civic processes and practices that serves the public good. Civic norms foster the values that guide and sustain citizen and community action to serve the public good.

9

By our definition, civic engaging groups such as the KKK would be against the tenets of democracy, and would thus be excluded from the analysis. 10 Brint, S. & Levy, C.S. (1999). Professions and Civic Engagement: Trends in Rhetoric and Practice, 1875-1995. In: Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Theda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina, eds., Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, p. 164, fn. 7. 11 Ibid, p. 164, fn. 7.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

53

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Civic Skills

Civic skills are key individual competencies that enable citizens to participate meaningfully in affecting change in the governance and democratic processes at the community level.

Democratic Citizenship

Democratic citizenship implies that a person acts in exercising their rights and duties in manner that is participatory and representative (thus democratic), and that fosters and deepens democracy.

Public ProblemSolving

Public problem-solving involves citizens in the public processes needed to address and make decisions about vital community issues.

Civic skills are key organizational and community competencies that enable citizens to participate meaningfully in affecting change in the governance and democratic processes at the community level. Democratic citizenship contributes to broad participation and representation in civic institutions and governance processes and improves the overall quality of life in a community. Public problem-solving is engaging key groups, organizations, institutions, and stakeholders in the public processes needed to make decisions about vital community issues.

Civic skills enable citizens to participate meaningfully in affecting change in the governance and democratic processes at the community level. Democratic citizenship fosters the essential values, culture, institutions, and practices for a democratic society.

Public problem-solving fosters full citizen participation in the public deliberations and decisions affecting a community.

This Glossary is informed and adapted from the following sources: The Democracy Collaborative—Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Working Papers (2003); Minnesota Active Citizenship Initiative (2002); CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation of New York (2003).

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

54

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation Appendix D: The Democracy Collaborative—Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

Bibliography References Cited Alex-Assenoth, Y. & Assenoth, A.B. (2001). Inner-city contexts, church attendance, and African-American political participation. Journal of Politics, 63, 886-901. Ansley, F. & Gaventa, J. (1997, January/February). Researching for democracy and democratizing research. Change. Bahmueller, C.F., (Ed.). (1991). A framework for teaching democratic citizenship: An international project. Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education. Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, T., Eds. (2000). Social capital: Critical perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Bellah, R.N., et al. (1986). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in America. New York: Harper & Row. 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. Benjamin, E. (1995). Nonprofits in poverty communities: Patterns and strategies of survival. Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute. Berry, J., Portney, K. & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Berry, J.M. (1999). The new liberalism and the rising power of citizen groups. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Bobo, L. & Gilliam, F. D., Jr. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and Black empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84, 377-393. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. (R. Nice, Trans.). New York: Greenwood Press. 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.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

55

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Brehm, J. & Rahn, W. (1997, July). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023. Briggs, X.D.S. (2003). Planning together: How (and how not) to engage stakeholders in charting a course. Cambridge, MA: The Art and Science of Community Problem-Solving Project, Harvard University. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, M. & Uslaner, E.M. (2002). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. Paper presents at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August. Burns, N., Schlozman, K.L. & Verba, S. (1997, June). The public consequences of private inequality: Family life and citizen participation. The American Political Science Review, 91, 373-389. Bush, G.W. (2002). The state of the union address. Washington, D.C.: Public Broadcasting Service, January 29. Campbell, D.E. (2001). Acts of faith: Strict churches and political mobilization. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) & Carnegie Corporation of New York (2003). The Civic Mission of Schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York & CIRCLE. Cohen, C.J. & Dawson, M.C. (1993, June). Neighborhood poverty and African American politics. The American Political Science Review, 87, 286-302. Colby, A. & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New York: Free Press. Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), S95-S120. 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, June. 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. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

56

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

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. Dekker, P., & Uslaner, E. M., Eds. (2001). Social capital and participation in everyday life. New York: Routledge/ECPR. Delli Carpini, M.X. (1998). Race and community revitalization: Communications theory and practice. (Working Paper). New York: Columbia University. Delli Carpini, M.X. (2000). What should be learned through service learning? Political Science & Politics. Delli Carpini, M.X. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press. DeSipio, L. (1996). Counting on the Latino vote: Latinos as a new electorate. Charlottesville, VA : University Press of Virginia. Dionne, E.J., Jr. (1997, Fall). Why civil society? Why now? Brookings Review, 15 (4). Dionne, E.J. (2001). Sacred places, civic purposes: Should government help faith-based charity. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Djupe, P. A. (2000). Religious brand loyalty and political loyalties. The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(1), pp. 90-106. Dudley, C.S. (1997, December). Launching new community ministries. Kettering Review. Edwards, B. & Foley, M.W. (1998, September). Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam. American Behavioral Scientist, 42 (1), 124-139. Edwards, B., Foley, M.W. & Diani, M., eds. (2001). Beyond Tocqueville: Civil society and the social capital debate in comparative perspective. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Elshtain, J.B. (1997, Fall). Civil society creates citizens; it does not solve problems. Brookings Review, 15 (4), 13-15. 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. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

57

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

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), 358-391. 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. (2002). Creating deliberative publics: Governance after devolution and democratic centralism. The Good Society, 11 (1), 66-71. Fung, A. & Wright, E. O., (Eds.) (2002). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. New York: Verso. Gagnon, P. (2003). Educating democracy: State standards to ensure a civic core. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Galston, W.A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217-34. Galston, W. A. & Levine, P. (1998). America’s civic condition: A glance at the evidence. Brookings Review, 15, 23-26, Fall. Garcia, J.A. (1987, Summer). The political integration of Mexican immigrants: Examining some political orientations. International Migration Review, 21, 372-389. 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, Stephen (2002). Putting faith in neighborhoods: Making cities work through grassroots citizenship. Noblesville, IN: Hudson Institute Publications. Guterbock, T.M. & Fries, J.C. (1997, December). Maintaining America’s social fabric: The AARP survey of civic involvement. (Working Paper). Washington, D.C.: American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Guterbock, T.M. & London, B. (1983, August). Race, political orientation, and participation: An empirical test of four competing theories. American Sociological Review, 48, 439-453. Guth, J.L., Green, J.C., Kellstedt, L.A., & Smidt, C.E. (2002). Religion and political participation. Paper prepared for the American Political Science Association, Boston, August 29-September 1. Hauber, M. & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Press. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

58

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Heying, C. (1997). Civic elites and corporate delocalization. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (5), 657-668. Hibbing, J. & Thiess-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hodgkinson, V.A. & Weitzman (1996). Giving and volunteering in the United States: Findings from a national survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector. Hodgkinson, V.A. & Kirsch, A. (2000, July). The characteristics of citizen participation and generosity with implications for public policy. Paper presented at the meeting of the ISTR Conference, Dublin, Ireland. Hollister, R.G. & Hill, J. (1995, April). Problems in the evaluation of community-wide initiatives. (Working Paper No. 70). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jacoby, B. et al. (2003). Building partnerships for service-learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Junn, J. (2000). The significance of race and class for political participation. Presented at the meeting of the Political Participation: Building A Research Agenda Conference. Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, Princeton University. Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K. & Zukin, C. (2002, August). Schooling and civic engagement in the U.S. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts. 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). Ladd, E.C. (1996). The data just don't show erosion of America’s ‘social capital.’ The Public Perspective, 5-23. New York: The Roper Center. Ladd, E.C. (1999). The Ladd report. New York: Free Press. Leighley, J.E. (2001). Strength in numbers? The political mobilization of racial and ethnic minorities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Leighley, J.E. & Vedlitz, A. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and political participation: Competing models and contrasting explanations. Journal of Politics, 61, 1092-1114. Lobe, J. (2003) NGOs in the U.S. firing line. Asia Times, June 14, A01. Lugo, Luis (1998). Religion and public square: Religious grantmaking at The Pew Charitable Trusts. (Working Paper). Washington, D.C.: The Pew Charitable Trusts, Religion Program. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

59

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Maloney, W. A., Smith, G. & Stoker, G. (2000). Social capital and associational life. In Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, T., Eds. (2000). Social capital: Critical perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 212225. Markus, G.B. (2002). Civic participation in America. Report of the Civic Engagement Study. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Marschall, M. (2001). Does the shoe fit? Testing models of participation for African-American and Latino involvement in local politics. Urban Affairs Review, 37, 227-248. Marx, G. T. (1967). Protest and prejudice. New York: Harper and Row. Milner, H. (2002). Citizen literacy: How informed citizens make democracy work. Hanover, NH: Tufts University published by University Press of New England. Milner, H. (2002b, August). Civic drop-outs? What young citizens know and don’t know about politics. Canada in comparative perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts. Minkoff, D.C. (1997, March/April). Producing social capital: National social movements and civil society. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (5), 606-619. Murphy, P.W. & Cunningham, J.V. (2003). Organizing for community controlled development: Renewing civil society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 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. Newton, K. (1997, March/April). Social capital and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (5), 575-586. Newton, K. (1999). Mass media effects: Mobilization or media malaise? British Journal of Political Science, 27, 577-599. Niebuhr, H.R. (1929). Social sources of denominationalism. New York: Public Smith Publishers. Nie, N.H. & Erbring, L. (2001). Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society, Stanford University. Niemi, R.G. & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes student learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

60

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Norris, P. (2002a). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Norris, P. (2002b, August). Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts. Ocasio, L. (2002, Winter). Faith of whose fathers? Ford Foundation Report, 33 (1), 24-27. Oliver, E. (2000a). Civic capacity and the authentic governance principle: Understanding social contexts and citizen participation in metropolitan America. Paper presented at the meeting of the conference on “Political Participation: Building a Research Agenda,” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, October. Oliver, E. (2000b). City size and civic involvement in metropolitan America. American Political Science Review, 94 (2), 361-73. 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. Portney, K.E. & Berry, J.M. (1997). Mobilizing minority communities. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (5) 632-644. Portney, K.E. & Berry, J.M. (2001). Mobilizing minority communities: Social capital and participation in urban neighborhoods. In B. Edwards, M. W. Foley, and M. Diani, eds., Beyond Tocqueville: Civil society and the social capital debate in comparative perspective. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 70-82. Potapchuk, W.R. (1996). Building sustainable community politics: Synergizing participatory, institutional, and representative democracy. National Civic Review, 85, 54-59, Fall. Potapchuk, W.R. (1999). Building an infrastructure of community collaboration. National Civic Review, 88 (3), 165-169, Fall. Putnam, R.D. (1995a). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), 65-78. Putnam, R.D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics, December, 664-683. Putnam, R.D. (1996). The Strange disappearance of civic America. The American Prospect, 34-48, Winter. 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), 135156, Spring. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

61

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Putnam, R. (2002, February 11). Bowling together. American Prospect, 13 (3), 1-5. Quinley, H.E. (1974). The prophetic clergy: Social activism among Protestant ministers. New York: Wiley and Sons. Rosenstone, S.J. & Hansen, J.M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan. Schlozman, K.L., Burns, N. & Verba, S. (1994, November). Gender and the pathways to participation: The role of resources. The Journal of Politics, 56 (4), 963-90. 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. Scholzman, K.L. & Burns, N. & Verba, S. (2000). What if politics weren’t a man’s game? Presented at the meeting of the “Political Participation: Building a Research Agenda Conference,” Princeton University. Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civil life. New York: Free Press. Schwartz, S.H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the crosscultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542. Shingles, R.D. (1991). Black consciousness and political participation: The missing link. The American Political Science Review, 75, 76-91. Shinn, C.W. (2000). Civic capacity : Theory, research and practice. Public Administration Abstracts, 27(1). 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. Skocpol, T. (1997, Fall). America's voluntary groups thrive in a national network. The Brookings Review, 15 (4), 16-19. Skocpol, T . (1999, July-August). Associations without members: The recent transformation of American civic life. The American Prospect, 45, 66-73. 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. Skocpol, T., Ganz, M. & Munson, Z. (2000). A nation of organizers: The institutional origins of civic voluntarism in the United States. American Political Science Review, 94 (3), 527-546. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

62

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Squire, P., Wolfinger, R.E. & Glass, D.P. (1987). Residential mobility and voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 81, 45-66. Stepp L.S. (2003). Hall pass to the voting booth. Washington Post, April 30, C01. Stone, C.N. (2001). Civic capacity and urban education. Urban Affairs Review, 36 (5), 595-619. 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. Teixeira, R.A. (1992). The disappearing American voter. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Teske, N. (1997). Political activists in America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thomson, A. M. & Perry, J. L. (1998). Can AmeriCorps build communities? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(4), 399-420, December. 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. (1998). Social capital, television, and the ‘mean world”: Trust, optimism, and civic participation. Political Psychology, 19, 441-467. Uslaner, E.M. (2001). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. Working Paper, College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Uslaner, E.M. (2002a). Religion and civic engagement in Canada and the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41 (2), 239-254. Uslaner, E.M. (2002b). 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. (1995). Civic engagement and citizen equality. In: Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Verba, S. (2001). Political equality: What is it? Why do we want it? (Working Paper). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Verba, S. & Nie, N.H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

63

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Verba, S. & Nie, N.H. (1974). Participation in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., Brady, H. & Nie, N.H. (1993, June). Citizen activity: Who participates? What do they say? The American Political Science Review, 87, 303-318. Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., Brady, H. & Nie, N.H. (1993, October). Race, ethnicity and political resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 453-497 Verba, S., Burns, N. & Schlozman, K.L. (1997, November). Knowing and caring about politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics, 59, 1051-1072. Verba, S, Schlozman, K.L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walton, H., Jr. (1985). Invisible politics: Black political behavior. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Warren, M. E., (Ed.). (1999). Democracy and trust. New York: Cambridge University Press. Warren, M. E. (2000). Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Warren, M.R. (1998, September). Community building and political power. American Behavioral Scientist 42(1). Warren, M.R. & Wood, R. (2001). Faith-based community organizing: The state of the field. Jericho, NY: Interfaith Funders. 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. Wolfinger, R.E. & Rosenstone, S.J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wood, R.L. (2002). Faith in Action: Religion, race, and democratic organizing in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wood, R.L. (2003, March). Public religion and faith-based activism. Paper prepared for the Independent Sector Spring Research Forum, Washington, D.C., March 6-7. Wright, C.R. & Hyman, H.H. (1958, June). Voluntary association memberships of American adults: Evidence from national sample surveys. American Sociological Review, 23, 284-294. Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

64

What Works to Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

Wuthnow, R. (2002). The United States: Bridging the privileged and the marginalized. Yates, M. & Youniss, J. (1999). Roots of civic identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 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., McLellan, J. & Yates, M. (1997, March/April). What we know about engendering civic identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40 (5), 621-631. Youniss, J. & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Synthesis Report: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project

65