What is civic engagement? According to a dictionary definition, it means participating in one’s community and connecting with others who share a common interest or space. That is the definition of the term most nonprofits, academics, journalists, scientists and government agencies use.
Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, the main affinity group for funders dedicated to civic engagement practice, also uses a definition that aligns with other sectors: “Civic engagement is the process of helping people be active participants in building and strengthening their communities, whether defined as a place or a shared identity or interest.”
PACE’s characterization, however, though used by its members, is not the working definition of the term for most U.S. grantmakers. Unlike almost every other sector, much of U.S. philanthropy adheres to a narrow, constricted view of civic engagement, seeing it as primarily dealing with issues surrounding voting, elections, political campaigns, participation in government forums and the census. In philanthropic circles, “civic engagement” has become a loaded term, and many foundations consider it “too political.” Much of the philanthropic sector considers activities like volunteering, capacity-building and community engagement to be something different, when they are, in fact, part of a broad spectrum of civic engagement activities.
The confusion is compounded by the contradictory and inconsistent way the sector often classifies civic engagement activities. Candid’s Foundation Center, for instance, does not include the term “civic engagement” in its main philanthropic classification system, but a search for the term in Candid’s GuideStar yields more than 6,000 results. “Civic participation,” a term the Foundation Center taxonomy does include, is a subcategory of a subcategory, narrowly defined as communicating with public officials and participating in town meetings and similar forums. Candid’s Democracy Maps use different, more expansive definitions of both civic engagement and civic participation.
Real-world consequences
Does it really matter if philanthropy uses its own idiosyncratic definition of civic engagement? Actually, it does. How philanthropy thinks and talks about civic engagement has real-world consequences, and its misalignment with other sectors has ramifications. Grants supporting civic engagement strategies are hard to find. Philanthropic classification systems privilege siloed, prescriptive approaches. Thousands of academics who would like to do more community-engaged and community-driven research cannot find funding. Grants are not designed to incorporate the timelines and budgets needed to deploy civic engagement strategies. Researchers may be funded to study a community problem but not to connect that study to a search for solutions or to build a community’s capacity to tackle the issue.
Another consequence is that much of the innovative work philanthropy is doing to empower communities to solve problems remains fragmented and disconnected. Important as voting and electoral access are, defining those activities as the primary aspect of civic engagement disregards other, equally important pathways to community cohesion and agency, which in turn strengthen and nourish democracy and civic life.
Civic engagement has many dimensions. It is a process, a way of working. It actively involves community participants in identifying collective problems and advancing solutions. Its big-tent approach encompasses a broad array of possibilities. Often, it works best when it is solutions-oriented and organized around problem-solving and consensus-building — a week-in, week-out endeavor that delivers concrete, tangible results to communities regardless of the electoral calendar.
As one way to understand the true breadth of civic engagement, consider this mapping exercise by PACE. In it, PACE divided civic engagement into two main categories — civic practices and issue integration. There are at least 13 topic areas in the civic practices category, including volunteering, service learning, leadership development and capacity-building, as well as advocacy, community organizing, democracy-building activities and election-related issues. PACE members also worked in more than 11 “issue integration” areas, using civic engagement strategies to advance their missions in areas such as health, education and public safety.
A big-tent approach
I have spent much of the past year exploring the state of civic engagement in southwestern philanthropy for Philanthropy Southwest, the regional philanthropy-serving association. We used the definition of civic engagement that other sectors and PACE uses, focusing on six issue areas that impact everyday community life and philanthropic operations — data collection, nonprofit capacity-building to better access government funding, civic information, health, volunteerism and Native American communities.
Case studies demonstrated that when civic engagement adopted a “big-tent” approach, including activities beyond the definition most of philanthropy uses, community involvement progressed from initial limited-scope, hyper-local activities to deeper, more comprehensive engagement. Communities gained skills and formed new coalitions and partnerships that often led to additional community action. Those approaches may or may not have involved advocacy and the voting booth, but they undoubtedly enriched civic spaces, increased the odds of meaningful public participation, and allowed people to move along the civic engagement continuum to find their sweet spot. This is the true essence of civic engagement, and there is much to be gained from studying how and when this occurs, and exploring how philanthropy can help create and enlarge such pathways.
Don’t misunderstand. Good voting behaviors and fair electoral processes are important components of the civic engagement spectrum. But they are not the whole story, and alone are insufficient. In order for them to thrive, civic engagement must also contribute to a dense web of connections and thrum of activity between multiple players and stakeholders on different playing fields for numerous purposes.
Houston’s Episcopal Health Foundation (EHF) is an example of one foundation doing such work. It combines faith-based engagement with a health mission to build and strengthen communities. EHF works with over 150 churches in a 57-county service area with a population of 11 million.
EHF encourages both communities and churches to take the lead in deciding which issues and strategies matter most to them. It also helps congregations figure out what kinds of outreach they want, and provides training and technical assistance. By creating many avenues for engagement, EHF establishes multiple channels for community engagement and feedback, and has gained a better understanding of the most pressing issues in the counties it serves.
EHF’s Texas Community-Centered Health Homes initiative, a large-scale, long-term investment in community clinics, helped clinics brainstorm and execute programs with community partners to improve conditions that affect community health. The program elicited a broad range of community responses, including advocacy for sidewalks to reduce traffic injuries and increase opportunities for exercise and community connectedness, Food RX programs to give patients and their families more access to fruits and vegetables, and efforts to create community gathering spaces and rehabilitate local parks.
Incubators and infrastructure
Examples I encountered in the southwest showcase how philanthropic support for civic engagement in its broader sense can help communities build up and exercise their civic muscles. For example, EHF also has its Holy Currencies Ministry Incubation Program, a faith-based community engagement “idea incubator” that helps congregations better connect to their communities and diverse populations in their neighborhoods, and assists parishioners to develop a ministry plan and roadmap for building community partnerships. EHF also has an Activating Community Voice Program that helps organizations design, plan and execute successful community engagement efforts, and a peer learning network to strengthen the capacity of community groups.
Meanwhile in Arizona, the Virginia Piper Trust, a PACE member, has focused on civic engagement in its larger sense to create opportunities for older adults in Maricopa County to volunteer in meaningful ways. It offered small planning grants to organizations like municipal governments, public libraries and community colleges to help them envision different ways of tackling the challenge, which, in turn, broadened the trust’s own understanding.
Even before it received a planning grant, the city of Tempe had been exploring how to better serve its older adults and create a place where they could gather and learn. The Piper Trust strategy helped facilitate the interaction of foundation, nonprofit, city and community for this purpose.
With Piper Trust support, the city and Friends of the Tempe Public Library launched Tempe Connections in the library’s main branch, creating a Connections Cafe as a gathering place for socializing, workshops and information on civic engagement opportunities for older adults. The café is an example of civic infrastructure, scaffolding that supports regular opportunities for people to connect with each other. The enthusiastic public response to Tempe Connections encouraged the citizens’ advisory committee that managed the program to think bigger and build on their success. Friends of Tempe Public Library and their collaborators went on to develop programs to complement existing city literacy and youth programs, creating what are now considered national models for student tutoring and volunteer management.
Using civic engagement strategies in this way is a growing national and global trend, influencing the work of academics, nonprofits, scientists and journalists, and government agencies. At the federal level, many agencies are expanding their civic engagement initiatives and seeking public input to learn how to improve such processes. In September 2022, U.S. Chief Data Scientist Denice Ross and the Office of Management and Budget even announced a whole-of-government approach to establish data partnerships with local communities, grassroots organizations, underrepresented researchers, and state and local governments.
By sticking to a narrow definition of civic engagement, philanthropy isolates itself from these larger trends and does itself and its grantees a disservice. Philanthropy can better align itself with other sectors and achieve its mission by embracing the multiverse and continuum that is authentic civic engagement.
Louise Lief is a consultant to philanthropy, media and nonprofits, focusing on civic engagement and collaborative approaches. This article was adapted from the report Civic and Community Engagement in Southwestern Philanthropy for Philanthropy Southwest, with funding from the Houston Endowment.
Credit:Source link
