KNIGHT Research Brief 1

8/14/2019 KNIGHT Research Brief 1

1/12

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America:Advancing Community Action for Civic Innovation

Research Brief

November 2003

OVERVIEW

Civic engagement and its relationship to the health of democracy in America has received

nationwide attention during the last decade. While the very definition and scope of civicengagement is still contested, policymakers, journalists, researchers, and community leaders

have bemoaned a decline in citizen engagement and questioned democracys capacity to solvepublic problems at the community level. In the aftermath of the September 11th tragedy, initialreports signaled a resurgence in civic engagement and a renewed faith in democracy, however,the research provides mixed evidence regarding the net impact on citizenship and Americandemocratic institutions. Whether Americans are withdrawing from public life or participating in

different ways is still a matter of much scholarly contention. Although no consensus has beenreached regarding the level of civic engagement, the debate has broadened to include importantquestions about the quality, equality, and sustainability of participation.

What are the key factors that foster, enhance, and sustain citizens civic engagement and build a

communitys capacities for reinvigorating democracy? The Democracy Collaborative at theUniversity of Maryland, in partnership with the Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizationsand Service at Georgetown University, has conducted a national-level assessment to examinewhat works to strengthen civic engagement in the United States. Developing a comparative framework to understand the main variables that enhance civic engagement and democratic

citizenship at the community-level, this research study draws on a growing knowledge base ofeffective civic innovations and strategies of various communities around the United States. The goal of this research effort is to help local policy makers, advocates, practitioners, andfoundation program officers set objectives and design strategies tailored to the realities of theircommunities that strengthen civic engagement, community involvement, and, ultimately,

democratic citizenship.

This Research Brief provides a summary of this projects conceptual framework, including themain goals for enhancing civic engagement, the fundamental factors that influence civicengagement at the community level, the key measures to assess civic health, and the innovations

and strategies employed to achieve these goals. The Research Brief also highlights theconditions necessary for civic engagement to thrive, priority areas for future efforts, and keyresearch gaps in the civic engagement literature. Most important, this Research Brief presents a

preliminary assessment of what works to enhance civic engagement at the community level basedon the findings of eight reports that reviewed over 700 scholarly articles (What WorksTable onpages 11-12).


2/12

Enhancing Civic Engagement in America: A Research Brief 2

ENHANCING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT &

DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP

Civic engagement means active participation in

civic life. This study focuses on those civic and political activities that contribute to or enhance

democracy. Thus, this study presumes that the

ultimate goal of enhancing civic engagement isto strengthen democracy. This overarching goal

involves four key measurable objectives, which

overlap with one another but are all prerequisites

for a healthy democracy. Specifically, civicinnovations and strategies should:

1. Increase the quantity of civicengagement: This means increasing thenumber 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 means improving existing opportunitiesfor volunteers or enhancing organizational

effectiveness and creating new more

meaningful opportunities to participate,

which would also contribute to the next

goal, increasing the equality of civicengagement. 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 structuresand other factors that serve to include orexclude, 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 centerstage to help strengthen the links between

informal and formal networks (e.g.,

community leaders: gang leaders vs. elected

officials).

4. Increase the sustainability of civicengagement: This involves strengthening

existing venues or opportunities for

participation and identifying and nurturingemerging strategies and innovations that

seek to build citizenship and engagement atthe local level over the long-term.

Main Factors Affecting Civic Engagement

Civic engagement is a broad and complex topic.

What are the main factors that affect civicengagement? To better understand the field, we

have reviewed the existing empirical literature

and identified the three main factors that shapethe possibilities for civic engagement and

healthy democratic communities.

Individual and Community Factors resultfrom individual experiences that are driven by

internal (such as personal values) and external

(such as familial and societal) forces. These

factors set the context or conditions both at theindividual and collective levels that either

facilitate or impede civic engagement and are

identified as:

Civic Motivations and Values

Civic Identity, Norms, Conditions

Civic Differences and Disparities

Civic Tools and Resources are the primary

means in terms of strategies and practices, both

at the individual and collective levels, to enhancethe quality, quantity, equality, and sustainability

of civic engagement and are identified as:

Civic Education and Knowledge

Civic Skills and Capacities

The Modes and Infrastructure for

Participation are the main forms, venues, and

infrastructure though which people are or

become civically engaged. These are identified

broadly as Civic Participation and Civic

Structures and take four forms: community and

religious, economic, political, and electoral

participation and structures.

Together the inter-relationships among these

three main factors shape and affect the

possibilities for enhancing civic engagement

(i.e., quantity, quality, equality, andsustainability), and thus shape the potential

outcomes for building healthy democraticcommunities.

FOSTERING CIVIC INNOVATIONS AND

STRATEGIES

What leads people to engage civically in their

communities?


3/12


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 sustainengagement when people see active citizenship

as public work, which is conceived as an

ongoing creative process whereby people findefficacy 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).

What conditions are necessary to foster and to

sustain civic engagement at the community

level?

A variety of organizations and institutions at thelocal level play a critical role in facilitating and

shaping the possibilities for enhanced civic

engagement: Charitable and political

organizations, religious congregations, advocacy

groups, unions, schools and universities,community foundations, local government,

cooperatives, community development centers,

neighborhood associations, and local political party chapters, just to name a few. Together,

these organizations help to establish strong social

networks, develop civic skills, and foster deeproots for further participation and politicalinvolvement.

Markuss study (2002) of civic engagement in

fourteen major cities finds that the role ofcommunity-based organizations in the form of

neighborhood associations, small church groups,

PTAs and other citizens groups is critical. Theselocal groups mobilize people to address the

problems of their communities, spanning various

issues, from health to housing, hunger, and

crime.To the extent that these organizations are

grounded in the communities with widerepresentation, they have great potential to

generate citizen awareness, facilitate active civic

and political engagement, and foster leadership

development. For instance, the neighborhoodgovernance councils in West Chicago have

provided low-income people with an effectiveforum that enables them to influence and shape

the policies for community policing and public

schools (Markus, 2002; Fung, 2001).

Collectively, these city-level studies point to a

number of key conditions necessary for

community-level civic engagement to thrive: 1) a

high level of organizational and economic

diversity, 2) responsive and participatorygovernance structures, 3) successful mobilization

efforts of broad coalitions, 4) a focus on

leadership, and 5) access to resources andeducation.

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 moreinclusive 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 localgovernment 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 theallocation 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 developmentcorporations, cooperatives, community land

trusts, farmers markets) have generallydemonstrated higher levels of civic

engagement and economic stability

(Williamson, Imbroscio, & Alperovitz,2002; Rusch, 2001).

Responsive and participatory governancestructures: 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, especiallyfor poor, minority, and disenfranchised

peoples (Portney & Berry, 2001; Markus,

2002; Cuoto & Guthrie, 1999; Fung &

Wright, 2002). When people are engaged in

the defining, deliberation, decision-makingand implementation of community priorities

and initiatives, the sustainability of civic

engagement is enhanced (Cortes, 1993;


4/12


Potapchuk, 1996; Community Building

Institute & National Civic League, 2002;

Fung, 2002). In the economic sphere,

employees participation in the democratic

ownership and governance of economicenterprises such as cooperatives or

employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)

enhances or facilitates positive civicengagement and political participation

beyond the workplace (Nembhard &

Blasingame, 2003).

Successful mobilization efforts of broadcoalitions: The building of broad-based

grassroots coalitions of community and

religious organizations offers an effectivemeans to enable people to influence political

institutions and to address economic

priorities in both rural and urban settings

(Cortes, 1993; Couto, 1998; Warren, 1998

2001). Broad inter-group coalitions havesuccessfully mobilized community-wide

participation to address vital issues ranging

from affordable housing to policing and

school reform. The organization of multi-stakeholder coalitions that involve poor

people from multiple ethnic groups has, in

various instances, been successful in eitherstopping 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 developingeffective 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

organizations leadership.

Access to resources and education: One ofthe greatest civic barriers is the lack of

access to the economic, educational, and

political resources necessary to engagemeaningfully in civic life. In the economic

sphere, the lack of access to economic

resources (e.g., wealth and incomeinequality) can significantly limit a persons

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 developmentorganizations (e.g., coops, credit unions) can

enhance peoples access to resources and

their level of civic engagement. In addition,well-designed civic education, media

training, and non-partisan public

information initiatives targeted to specific

audiences (e.g., youths and adults) canenhance citizens civic knowledge and

engagement (Torney-Purta, 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 theconditions necessary for community-level civic

engagement to occur, what strategies orinnovations have been tried and what priority

areas have been identified to increase thequantity, quality or equality of civic

engagement?

Civic Strategies & Innovations for Enhancing

Civic Engagement: Recommendations

By reviewing the recommendations that emerge

from the literature and surveying the innovativeapproaches 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 producemeasurable outcomes and outputs. What works?

What doesnt? And what might? How should we

measure the effectiveness of a particularinnovation or strategy? And how can

communities assess their own progress toward

local civic engagement goals? Moreover, how

do you take a social innovation or strategy that

has worked in one community and take it toscale, 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 ofcommunity-wide initiatives. This study

highlighted specific problems with developing

consistent reliable outcome measures, using


5/12


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 long-term outcomes.Acknowledging these issues, The Center for the

Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at

Duke University is attempting to answer thisquestion 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 lackof longitudinal data in evaluating the state of

civic engagement in any form or through anyvehicle or venue. The lack of such

comprehensive data fundamentally limits thestudy 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 programevaluation and program intervention to

understand what practices are working over time.

Nevertheless, existing research does point to anumber of areas where obvious gains can be

made in every mode of engagement.

Specifically, the research encompasses fourbroad priority areas for pursuing effective civicstrategies and innovations that enhance civic

engagement at the community level:

1. Strengthening civic infrastructure;2. Addressing economic inequalities and

fostering community economic stability;

3. Developing youth with a focus on education;and

4. Strengthening the electoral process. A critical first step is to strengthen a

communitys civic infrastructure to foster civicengagement. Developing a civic ecology of

community capacities that identifies key actors,

strengthens their skills and capacities, and fosterssupportive relationships among them for shared

purposes provides the essential building blocks

at the community level for public problem-

solving (Friedland & Sirianni, 2003). Thismeans 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 communitys civic

capacity, where local newspapers and othermedia (i.e., television and radio) can play a

catalytic role in highlighting key issues facing a

community, stimulating broad community-leveldeliberations, and creating an agenda for action

on pressing public issues (Friedland, 1996, 2001;

Sirianni & Friedland, 2001).

A second priority area is to address economic

inequality and to strengthen community

economic stability. A key finding of this project

is that explicitly addressing social and economicinequalities is critical to reducing civic

disparities and enhancing civic engagement of

those lacking access, opportunities, andresources (Frasure & Williams, 2003; Nembhard

& Blasingame, 2003). In the case of economic participation, there are several promising areas

for enhancing civic engagement, such assupporting economic interest group membership,

increasing socio-economic diversity, and

promoting greater wealth equality. Fostering a

democratic workplace and participatory

governance of economic enterprises whereworkers develop essential skills has a positive

impact on civic engagement (Nembhard &

Blasingame, 2003). There are new emergingstrategies for curbing the economic power of

corporations through different forms of advocacy

such as shareholder resolutions, boycotts, and buycotts. Broad-based, multi-stakeholdercoalitions involved in environmental justice and

living wage initiatives offer positive examples

where communities have made progress in

addressing corporate power and reducingeconomic and social inequalities (Nembhard &

Blasingame, 2003). Diversifying the range and

scope of community economic developmentorganizations (e.g., community development

corporations, cooperatives, community land

trusts, farmers markets) enhances civic

engagement and community economic stability

(Williamson, Imbroscio, & Alperovitz, 2002).

Third, there is a continuing need to focus on

youth development and education. Civic

identity, values, and adult patterns of participation find their roots in youth

participation (Youniss & Hart, 2003). Based onthis finding, Youniss and Hart advocate greater

investment in targeted youth programs that

encourage community and civic involvement,


6/12


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 toengage youth, school-based curricular and extra-

curricular initiatives are critical to developing the

appropriate content knowledge to ensure thatcivic 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 youths civic

development (CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporationof New York, 2003). School-based strategies

that have a significant impact in enhancing the

civic engagement of youth are curricularofferings with high civic content, an open

classroom climate that allows for respectfuldiscussion of issues, and a school environment

that empowers students. Participation in studentcouncil, other forms of extracurricular activity

and in community service have a strong positive

influence on a students civic engagement. In

order to encourage a students potential political

and electoral participation, there should be anexplicit focus in the curriculum about the

importance of voting and elections in school

(Torney-Purta, 2003). Investing in mediatraining and education with an explicit civic

content is an effective strategy. Civic education

is enhanced by exposure to local, national, andinternational news in the media and by activediscussion 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 educationknowledge score. Home literacy resources and

the active involvement of parents in discussion

of civic and political affairs have a positivereinforcing impact on the civic education of

youth (Torney-Purta, 2003).

Fourth, a timely priority area is to strengthen

electoral infrastructure and opportunities forelectoral participation. The controversies

surrounding campaign finance reform and the

2000 Presidential election put pressure on FEC

officials to tighten controls on electionmonitoring and step up structural reform,

regarding the relationship between money andpolitics. A review of the literature also indicated

that several civic barriers to electoral

participation remain, especially for marginalized

groups (e.g., minorities, immigrants, and former

convicted felons). Because of the lack of

resources and skills necessary to participate,

minorities are less frequently mobilized than

whites and marginalized by organized politics,which further depresses their level of civic

engagement (Uslaner, 2003; Rogers, 2000;

Frymer 1999; Jones-Correa, 1998; Huckfeldt &Sprague, 1995). Williams and Frasure (2003)

suggest the following strategies to address civic

disparities in electoral participation: 1) move

towards proportional representation, 2) makenaturalization 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 residentaliens. 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 foreveryone, they advocate multi-day balloting,

same day registration, and keeping the polls openlonger 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 reachto marginalized groups through the political

party system (Uslaner, 2003).

When considered as a whole, these four

priority areas provide the basis for the

following recommendations on page 7 belowfor strengthening civic engagement.

ENHANCING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT:

RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES

There is an urgent need to develop tools that can

be used for top-down and bottom-up evaluationof various ways to foster civic engagement. Such

tools focusing on what works, what has been

shown to work, and what might work should

prove particularly helpful for community leaders,

nonprofit organizations, policy-makers andfoundations seeking to enhance the quantity,

quality, and equality of civic engagement and

sustain its impact for enhancing democracy in

their communities. The What WorksTable on pages 11-12 below provides a preliminary

assessment of effective civic innovations andstrategies that enhance civic engagement at the

community level.


7/12


Main Recommendations for Strengthening Civic Engagement

1) Focus on strengthening the civic infrastructure

a) Strengthen local institutions: community-level institutions provide initial opportunities to engage.b) Support multi-sectoral partnerships: government and foundation initiatives should work with colleges and

universities to promote universitys 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 andoutside the classroom.

e) Invest in youth programs that encourage civic involvement.f) Help bridge the resource gap in inner cities to provide mentors and additional support for inner city youth.

g) Focus on strengthening educational opportunities for under-privileged youth.

h) Target age groups differently.

4) Strengthen the electoral process

a) Advocate for increased election monitoring and structural reform.b) Move towards proportional representation.

c) Make naturalization simpler and easier.

d) Support efforts to diversify the candidate pool.

e) Ensure that elections are competitive.f) Lessen costs of voting: multi-day balloting, same day registration, polls open longer.

g) Enfranchise voters including felons and perhaps resident aliens.

h) Provide citizens with ample ways to become informed about campaigns and issues.

i) Mobilize citizens: civic voter mobilization campaigns, door-to-door efforts.j) Mobilize potential voters through political parties and houses of worship.


8/12


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 collectiveunderstanding of the civic challenges facing

communities with different institutional contexts,

future research and practitioner efforts toenhance community-level civic engagement

must continue to be informed by the constructive

collaboration among scholars and feedback from

community practitioners.

To date, we have learned concretely about the

many challenges inherent in accomplishing the

projects fundamental goals: identifying effectivestrategies and practices and developing relevant

tools for enhancing civic engagement at the

community level based on a comprehensiveassessment of the academic literature. The real

test will be how to connect research and practiceeffectively to present our findings in a way that

best informs and enables communitypractitioners to apply these innovative strategies

and best practices to enhance the civic

engagement of citizens in the specific contexts of

their communities. The challenge remains to

develop appropriate tools and to identify relevantpractices that can be adopted at the community

level and be tailored to their specific community

context.

KEY AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The research presented in this report crosses the

gamut of civic engagement, utilizing information

from both academics and practitioners. A greatdeal is known about ways to immediately

influence community and national engagement

patterns, ranging from electoral reforms such as

same-day voter registration to societal reformssuch as youth leadership campaigns. However,

in measuring the unique and overlapping

contributions for each category of civic

engagement, a number of questions remain

unanswered. Perhaps the most prominentresearch gap identified is the lack of longitudinal

data, which limits the ability to assess fully the

performance of civic strategies and innovationsover time. In addition, civic engagement

encompasses wide-ranging fields of academic

knowledge, thus, gaps necessarily exist betweendisciplines or areas of study and with

practitioners.

Another key research gap relates to group

differences or the study of the engagement

patterns across race, religion, class, and gender

within the U.S. Minority populations often

develop tight community bonds and express theirspecific societal, political, and economic

engagement in unique ways. The unique

contribution of specific groups remainsunclarified. 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 aracial average. Likewise, similar problems can

be seen in measuring the religious involvement

of ethnic groups. While new research projectsare underway (e.g., The Pew Forum on Religion

and Public Lifes Pluralism Project andImmigrant Initiative Programs), key knowledge

gaps still remain in the area of non-Christianreligions 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 anadditional 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 civicengagement patterns, the interaction ofsocioeconomic and gender transformations

requires further study. Skocpols review of civic

transformations and inequalities predicts that:

Since women were traditionally

central to many voluntary membership

federations that stressed cross-classfellowship 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 haveattenuated (2002, 38).

While research gaps exist both within and across

the modes of civic engagement, many areasrequire further consideration. The mode of

economic engagement receives limited attentionas an outlet for civic engagement when

compared to electoral or social engagement.

Much of the data for economic engagement


9/12


remains anecdotal, and non-systematic. Few

studies have sought to understand what specific

skills and attitudes can be transferred from

economic governance to civic and political

participation.

The research field also lacks analysis that

explores the characteristics of local organizationsand how these characteristics affect individual

and group participation for any given purpose.

Efforts are needed to improve the means for

assessing organizational capacity in facilitatingcivic engagement. Such research could impart

not only valuable lessons for all community

organizations attempting to develop civic

engagement, but also would differentiatebetween participation rates and success/failure of

institutions over time. While much is known

about the participation patterns over time oflarger membership organizations and elite-class

associations, much less is known about advocacygroups or cross-class associations (Skocpol,

2002, 38).

An even more prominent critique of research in

the field of civic engagement involves the

disconnect between civic engagement as a

means to a desired outcome and civicengagement as an end or desired outcome itself.

Societal engagement because of social capital

could be high in a community; however, thisspecific 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 civicengagement 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 boththe positive and negative roles civic structures

play at the community level. This type of

analysis could help determine when and howcivic structures serve as bridges facilitating

greater participation as well as when and how

they serve as exclusionary barriers to equal

participation.

This Research Briefis based on a longer

synthesis report on What Works to

Strengthen Civic Engagement in America: A

Guide to Local Action and Civic Innovation

(2003) prepared for the John S. and James L.

Knight Foundation. The full report, along

with eight Civic Engagement Working

Papers, is available from The DemocracyCollaboratives web site.

The Democracy Collaborative at the

University of Maryland gratefully

acknowledges the support of the John S. and

James L. Knight Foundation for this project.

REFERENCES

Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A. &

Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism andcommitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Berry, J., Portney, K. & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of

urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Bobo, L. & Gilliam, F. D., Jr. (1990). Race, sociopolitical

participation, and Black empowerment. American Political

Science Review, 84: 377-393.

Boyte, H.C. (1997). The meaning of citizenship. KetteringReview, Winter, 55-62.

Boyte, H.C. (2000). Public work: An Interview with Harry

Boyte. Higher Education Exchange, 43-51.

Boyte, H.C. & Kari, N.N. (1996). Building America: The

democratic promise of public work. Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human

development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Burns, N., Schlozman, K.L. & Verba, S. (1997). The public

consequences of private inequality: Family life and citizenparticipation. The American Political Science Review, 91:

373-389.

For more information, please contact:

The Democracy Collaborative

University of Maryland1228 Tawes Hall

College Park, MD 20742-7255

Phone: 301-405-9266

Fax: 301-314-2533

www.democracycollaborative.org


10/12


Community Building Institute & National Civic League(2002). Strengthening policymaking and building community

in America: Supporting reform and innovation through

participatory urban governance. Commissioned by the

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Washington, DC.

Cortes, Jr., E. (1993). Reweaving the fabric: The iron ruleand 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 socialcapital. National Civil Review, 85: 49-53, Fall.

Costa, D.L. & Kahn, M.E. (2003). Civic engagement and

community heterogeneity: An economists perspective.ASPANET: Social Capital and Diversity, 1(1), March.

Couto, R. A. (1998). Community coalitions and grassroots

policies of empowerment. Administration & Society , 30(5):569-594.

Couto, R. A., with Guthrie, C. S. (1999). Making democracy

work better: Mediating structures, social capital, and the

democratic prospect. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North

Carolina Press.

Delli Carpini, M.X. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans

know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT :

Yale University Press.

Flanagan, C.A. & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic

development : Implications of research for social policy and

programs. Social Policy Report, 15(1): 3-16.

Frasure, L. & Williams, L. (2003). Civic Disparities and

Civic Differences: Ethno-Racial Civic Engagement in the

United States. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 3,

College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-KnightFoundation Civic Engagement Project.

Friedland, L.A. (1996). Bringing the news back home: Public

journalism and rebuilding local communities. National Civic

Review, 85: 45-48, Fall.

Friedland, L.A. (2001). Communication, community, and

democracy: Toward a theory of the communicatively

integrated community. Communication Research, 28(4): 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. & Wright, E. O., (Eds.) (2002). Deepeningdemocracy: Institutional innovations in empowered

participatory governance. New York: Verso.

Galston, W.A. (2001). Political knowledge, political

engagement, and civic education. Annual Review ofPolitical Science, 4: 217-234.

Gerber, A.S. & Green, D.P. (2000, September). The effects

of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter

turnout: A field experiment. American Political ScienceReview, 94(3): 653-63.

Goldsmith, S. (2002). Putting faith in neighborhoods:

Making cities work through grassroots citizenship.

Noblesville, IN: Hudson Institute Publications.

Hollister, R.G. & Hill, J. (1995). Problems in the evaluation

of community-wide initiatives. Working Paper 70. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.

Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M. & Jenkins, K. (2002).The civic and political health of the nation: A generational

portrait. Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trusts & Center

for Information & Research on Civic Learning &

Engagement (CIRCLE).

Markus, G.B. (2002). Civic participation in America. Report

of the Civic Engagement Study. Ann Arbor, MI: University

of Michigan.

Milner, H. (2002). Citizen literacy: How informed citizensmake democracy work. Hanover, NH: Tufts University,

published by University Press of New England.

Nelson, K.E., Craig, M. & J.V. Riker. (2003). TheInfrastructure 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 CivicEngagement Project.

Niemi, R.G. & Junn, J . (1998). Civic education: What makes

student learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing politicalactivism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oliver, J.E. (1999). The effects of metropolitan economic

segregation on local civic participation. American Journal ofPolitical Science, 43(1): 186-212, January.

Oliver, J.E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Potapchuk, W.R. (1996). Building sustainable community

politics: Synergizing participatory, institutional, and

representative democracy. National Civic Review, 85: 54-59.

Potapchuk, W.R. (1999). Building an infrastructure of

community collaboration. National Civic Review, 88(3):

165-169, Fall.

Portney, K.E. & Berry, J.M. (1997). Mobilizing minoritycommunities. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5): 632-644.

Putnam R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and

revival of American community.New York: Simon &

Schuster Press

Putnam, R.D. (2001). Civic disengagement in contemporary

America. Government and Opposition, 36(2): 135-156.

.

References continued on page 12


11/12


WHAT WORKS TABLE: A Review of Civic Innovations & Strategies to Enhance

Civic Engagement

Civic Innovations and StrategiesAreas for Targeted

Intervention

What Works What Doesnt

Work

Mixed Reviews Best Bets

INDIVIDUAL &

COMMUNITY

FACTORS

Civic Infrastructure*Government

*Business

*Community-basedOrganizations

*Foundations

*Unions

*Universities &Colleges

*Schools

*Unions

* Media

* Alternative Spaces(technology)

-Developing a civic ecology

of civic capacities: inventoryfor 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 toshape the community

dialogue process

-Urging people to get

involved-Unresponsive

government and civic

structures

-Leveraging television and

Internet for civic journalism orcivic education purposes

-Developing electronic

community networks-Strengthening citizen

deliberative forums

-Community-University

partnerships for community

leadership development andproblem-solving

Economic Inequalities

Socioeconomic

conditions and

diversity

-Strengthening educationaland training opportunities

-Mobilizing at the grassroots

level to reach out to

marginalized groups (e.g.,

faith-based communityorganizing)

-Leveraging alternative

venues for skill building and

leadership development (e.g.,churches, unions,

cooperatives)

-Homogenization ofeconomic development

-Limited opportunities

for local control of

economic development

priorities-Socio-economic

isolation and socio-

economic segregation

-Empowering grassroots groupsto leverage group consciousness/

identity politics

-Mobilizing through political

parties and houses of worship

-Promoting diversity incommunity 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)

CIVIC TOOLS &

RESOURCES

Youth Development

and Education

Community-based

Initiatives

-Strengthening school-basedleadership 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 practicesoutside the classroom

-Strengthening membership

and skills training incommunity-based

organizations

-Encouraging youth

voluntarism that strengthenstheir sense of self-efficacy

-Closed and rigidclassroom learning

environment

-Stand alone courses in

Civics are insufficient

-Expanding service learninginitiatives (without reflection

and learning components)

-Supporting service learningand community service

activities that enable formal

and informal opportunities for

reflection and learning

-Targeting media education

on civic and public issuestoward students and youths

-Strengthening community-

based youth leadership and

service programs (e.g., CityYear, AmeriCorps)


12/12


Areas for Targeted

Intervention

What Works What Doesnt

Work

Mixed Reviews Best Bets

MODES FOR

PARTICIPATION

Electoral & PoliticalProcesses

-Reducing barriers to votingand voter registration: multi-

day balloting, same dayregistration, extended polling

hours

-Mobilizing citizens through

civic, faith-based, andneighborhood organizations

and specific issue campaigns

(e.g., living wage)

-Increasing election

monitoring and clean electionreforms

-Negative issue ads andcampaigning

-Uncontested anduncompetitive elections

-Phone and direct mailappeals

-The role of the Internet inmobilizing participation-Supporting efforts todiversify the candidate pool

-Face-to-face voter mobilizationand civic education efforts

-Ensuring elections arecompetitive by providing public

funding, subsidies, and access to

public media

-Moving toward proportionalrepresentation

-Making naturalization simpler

and easier

-Enfranchising former felons

and resident aliens

References Continued from page 10

Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S. & Brady, H. E. (1999). Civic

participation and the equality problem. In T. Skocpol & M.P.

Fiorina, (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 427-459.

Sirianni, C. & Friedland, L. (2001). Civic innovation in

America: Community empowerment, public policy, and themovement for civic renewal. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From

membership to management in American life. Norman, OK:

University of Oklahoma Press.

Skocpol, T. & M.P. Fiorina, (Eds.). (1999). Civic

engagement in American democracy. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press and Russell Sage Foundation.

Stone, C.N., Henig, J.R., Jones, B.D. & Pierannunzi, C.

(2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming

urban schools. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Torney-Purta, J. (2001). Civic knowledge, beliefs about

democratic institutions, and civic engagement among 14-year

olds. Prospects, 31: 279-292.

Torney-Purta, J. (2003). Tools and Strategies: Civic

Education and Civic Knowledge. Civic Engagement WorkingPaper No. 2, College Park, MD: The Democracy

Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic Engagement Project.

Uslaner, E.M. (2001).Inequality, trust, and civicengagement. Working Paper, College Park, MD: University

of Maryland.

Uslaner, E.M. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Trust. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Uslaner, E.M. (2003).Civic Engagement in America: Why

People Participate in Political and Social Life. Civic

Engagement Working Paper No. 2, College Park, MD: TheDemocracy Collaborative-Knight Foundation Civic

Engagement Project.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., Brady, H. & Nie, N.H. (1993).

Race, ethnicity and political resources: Participation in the

United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23: 453-497

Verba, S., Burns, N. & Schlozman, K.L. (1997). 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.

Warren, M.R. (1998). Community building and political

power. American Behavioral Scientist ,42 (1).

Warren, M.R. (2001). Dry bones rattling: Communitybuilding to revitalize democracy. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Wilcox, C. (2003). Political Structures and Political

Participation. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 6,College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight

Foundation Civic Engagement Project.

Williamson, T., Imbroscio, D. & Alperovitz, G. (2002).Making a place for community: Local democracy in a global

era. New York: Routledge.

Wood, R.L. (2002). Faith in Action: Religion, race, and

democratic organizing in America. Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago Press.

Youniss, J. & Hart, D. (2003). Motivation, Values, and Civic

Participation. Civic Engagement Working Paper No. 1,

College Park, MD: The Democracy Collaborative-Knight

Foundation Civic Engagement Project.

Youniss, J. & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and

social responsibility in youth. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Documents

KNIGHT Research Brief 1