What Do We Mean By “Civic Engagement”?

Journal of Transformative Education Vol. 3 No. 3, July 2005 236-253

DOI: 10.1177/1541344605276792

236

DOCTYPE = ARTICLE

What Do We Mean By

“Civic Engagement”?

Richard P. Adler

Judy Goggin

Civic Ventures

Civic engagement refers to the ways in which citizens participate in the life of a com-

munity in order to improve conditions for others or to help shape the community’s fu-

ture. This term has been used to date primarily in the context of younger people. But

in the past few years, a new movement has emerged to promote greater civic engage-

ment by older adults. This article begins by reviewing existing definitions of civic en-

gagement and concludes that there is no single, widely agreed-upon meaning for the

term. The second part of the article looks at attempts to measure how civic engage-

ment is being practiced by Americans of different ages and finds that patterns of civic

engagement differ dramatically between younger and older generations. The final

part of the article describes some recent initiatives aimed at expanding the civic en-

gagement of older adults.

Keywords: civic engagement; volunteering; community service; older adults; Next

Chapter

America needs more than taxpayers, spectators, and occasional voters.

America needs full-time citizens.

—President George W. Bush

Commencement address at Ohio State University, June 2002

Introduction

Finding the right language to describe social change is critical. In some cases,

new language is needed. In other cases, existing terminology needs to be adapted

to encompass new realities and new opportunities.

An example of this is the concept of civic engagement, which has been used to

date primarily in the context of younger people. The expectation that young peo-

ple will participate in volunteering or community service as part of their growing

up is now widespread. In fact, a young person’s record of volunteering is now rou-

tinely examined, along with grades and test scores, by colleges and universities in

evaluating applicants for admission.

In the past few years, a new movement has begun to emerge whose goal is to

expand civic engagement by older adults. This movement was largely sparked by

publication of the book Prime Time, by Marc Freedman (1999). The movement

has continued to evolve and grow since then and has attracted an increasing

number of supporters. As the movement gathers momentum, this seems to be a

good time to consider the meaning of the concept of civic engagement and how

it applies to this particular population.

The first part of this article reviews existing definition(s) of civic engagement

and concludes that there is currently no single, widely agreed-upon meaning for

the term. How the term is defined depends to a large degree on the perspective

and interests of the definer. The second part of the article approaches this topic

by looking at attempts to measure how civic engagement is being practiced by

Americans of different ages. What we discover is that the actual patterns of civic

engagement differ dramatically between younger and older generations, that they

are almost mirror images of each other. The final part of the article reviews some

of the national and local efforts now underway that are aimed at expanding the

civic engagement of older adults

Defining Civic Engagement

A Google search on civic engagement finds some 383,000 citations for the

term.

Although this suggests that the term is in fairly wide use, a review of some

of the key literature on the topic shows that there is a considerable range of defi-

nitions of the term.

A report prepared for the Carnegie Corporation confirms that there is a “lack

of consensus on what constitutes civic engagement” (Gibson, 2000, p. 17). And a

discussion on the Web site of Campus Compact, an organization that promotes

greater civic engagement within higher education, offers a scientific metaphor to

argue that a lack of consensus about the meaning of the term at this time is nat-

ural and even appropriate in light of the relative immaturity of the field:

Judith Ramaley, the [former] president of the University of Vermont and a biol-

ogist by training, has pointed out that when a new organism or biological

process is just being discovered, scientists often struggle for awhile, as they try to

define together exactly what they have before them. Similarly, the term civic en-

gagement is a term being used to describe many different philosophies of citi-

zenship and many different kinds of activities. (Civic Engagement: Terminology,

n.d.)

Civic Engagement

237

238

SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS

As Ramaley notes, how civic engagement is defined depends on the perspec-

tive and interests of the definer. What is striking is how wide the range of defini-

tions for the term is. When looked at together, these definitions help suggest the

extent and variety of activities that the term encompasses and help to illuminate

the various points of view about the concept.

The following are just a few examples of how the term has been defined. In this

section we consider definitions that limit the term to a specific realm or type of ac-

tivity. In the next section, we look at definitions that are much broader and inclusive.

Civic engagement as community service. Some definitions of civic engagement

emphasize participation in voluntary service to one’s local community, either by

an individual acting independently or as a participant in a group. For example,

“Civic engagement [is] an individual’s duty to embrace the responsibilities of cit-

izenship with the obligation to actively participate, alone or in concert with oth-

ers, in volunteer service activities that strengthen the local community” (Diller,

2001, p. 21).

Civic engagement as collective action. Other definitions restrict the term to ap-

ply just to action taken collectively to improve society. For example, “Civic en-

gagement is any activity where people come together in their role as citizens”

(Diller, 2001, p. 22) and “Civic engagement may be defined as the means by which

an individual, through collective action, influences the larger civil society” (Van

Benshoten, 2001).

Dean Robert Hollister (2002) of Tufts University prefers the term active citi-

zenship to civic engagement, but his definition also emphasizes the importance of

collaboration with others in a variety of venues: “Active citizenship is about col-

lective action more than the behavior of individuals. It is about collaboration,

about intense joint activity…pursuing community issues through work in all sec-

tors, not just government.”

Civic engagement as political involvement. Yet other definitions limit the mean-

ing of the term to activities that are not only collective but that are specifically po-

litical (i.e., that involve government action): “Civic engagement differs from an

individual ethic of service in that it directs individual efforts toward collective ac-

tion in solving problems through our political process” (Diller, 2001, p. 7).

Bernie Ronan (2004), of the Center for Civic Participation, also focuses on the

political and the collective dimensions of the term by referring to the historical

roots of the words:

The Latin word civis has found its way into two words in our language, city and

citizen. Civic engagement is about rediscovering politics, the life of the polis, the

city where men and women speak and act together, as citizens. The word civic,

when connected to engagement, implies work, work that is done publicly and

benefits the public, and is done in concert with others.

Journal of Transformative Education / July 2005

A definition from the Minnesota Vital Aging Network also makes an explicit

distinction between service activities and civic activities and asserts that civic en-

gagement must include a public leadership component:

Civic engagement describes citizen participation in civic affairs….Civic mission

is not the same thing as service mission. Service implies doing for and civic im-

plies doing with. Service is about meeting people’s needs. Civic is about deliber-

ations and public work aimed at some public issue or challenge. Civic engage-

ment involves active participation and leadership in public life. (Civic

Engagement, n.d.)

Civic engagement as social change. In his definition of the term, David Crowley

(n.d.), founder of Social Capital, Inc., focuses on the element of social change in-

herent in civic engagement: “Civic engagement describes how an active citizen

participates in the life of the community in order to help shape its future. Ulti-

mately, civic engagement has to include the dimensions of social change.”

BROAD DEFINITIONS

Although the aforementioned definitions limit civic engagement in some way,

other definitions encompass a wide range of activities. For example, Robert Put-

nam (2000) used the term civic engagement quite broadly. Interestingly, nowhere

in his landmark book, Bowling Alone, does he provide an explicit definition of the

term. The most detailed description of the term is actually part of a discussion of

“civic disengagement:”

Civic disengagement appears to be an equal opportunity affliction. The sharp,

steady declines in club meetings, visits with friends, committee service, church

attendance, philanthropic generosity, card games, and electoral turnout have hit

virtually all sectors of American society over the last several decades and in

roughly equal measure. (p. 185)

Putnam’s definition includes informal social activities (visits with friends, card

games) as well as formal activities (committee service), community and political

participation. Putnam’s primary interest is in “social capital,” and he generally

uses civic engagement to refer to the entire gamut of activities that build social

capital.

Other experts also define the term in a broad way. For example, Michael Della

Carpini (n.d.), who has written extensively on the topic, makes a point of assert-

ing that the term encompasses a wide range of activities of different types:

Civic engagement is individual and collective actions designed to identify and

address issues of public concern. Civic engagement can take many forms, from

individual voluntarism to organizational involvement to electoral participation.

It can include efforts to directly address an issue, work with others in a commu-

nity to solve a problem, or interact with the institutions of representative

democracy. Civic engagement encompasses a range of specific activities such as

Civic Engagement

239

240

working in a soup kitchen, serving on a neighborhood association, writing a let-

ter to an elected official or voting.

Yet others deliberately define the term in a very expansive way. For example,

“We define civic engagement [as] all activity related to personal and societal en-

hancement which results in improved human connection and human condition”

(Diller, 2001, p. 22) and perhaps the most expansive (and subjective) definition

of all, “[Civic engagement is] experiencing a sense of connection, interrelated-

ness, and, naturally, commitment towards the greater community (all life forms)”

(Diller, 2001, p. 22).

CHARTING THE DIMENSIONS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

As these varied definitions demonstrate, civic engagement includes a number

of different dimensions and aspects, with different individuals and groups em-

phasizing different aspects of the term. Figure 1 is an attempt to show graphically

two different dimensions of the term: One (shown on the horizontal axis) is the

span between individual or informal activities and more formal, collective actions

that involve participation in organizations; the other (on the vertical axis) is the

distinction between involvement in community activities (e.g., donating blood or

serving as a tutor or mentor for a young person) and involvement in political ac-

tivities (e.g., voting, supporting a political party, advocating for a particular pub-

lic policy).

This broad spectrum of activities can include both paid as well as unpaid vol-

unteer roles. Individuals involved in intensive service (e.g., AmeriCorps) typically

receive a stipend for their involvement. And, particularly for older adults, civic

Journal of Transformative Education / July 2005

FIGURE 1: The Continuum of Civic Engagement

Source: Adapted from Crowley (n.d.).

engagement can take the form of paid work in areas of high social need, such as

education or health care.

The RespectAbility project of the National Council on the Aging has devel-

oped a useful scheme to categorize the intensity of volunteering (i.e., the two cat-

egories on the right hand side of the “community activities” continuum in Figure

2). They segment volunteering into the following four levels based on time and

duration of involvement:

· episodic (e.g., special day and/or one-time projects)

· steady (e.g., regularly scheduled weekly activities with 2 to 5 hours of commit-

ment

· intensive (e.g., 9 to 12 months of regularly scheduled weekly activities)

· “incentive-ized” (e.g., volunteer stipends, compensation for meals and trans-

portation).

As we see in the next section, the ways in which older adults are civically en-

gaged (in terms of these dimensions) differ in some fairly significant ways from

the civic engagement of younger people.

A PROPOSED DEFINITION FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

So how should civic engagement be defined, particularly in relation to interest

in expanding civic engagement among older adults?

Perhaps the simplest definition of civic engagement is “the interactions of cit-

izens with their society and their government” (Civic Engagement, n.d.).

Draw-

ing on some of the definitions cited earlier, and particularly on that from David

Crowley (n.d.), a useful definition would be the following: Civic engagement de-

scribes how an active citizen participates in the life of a community in order to

improve conditions for others or to help shape the community’s future.

Measuring Civic Engagement in Practice

Up to now, we have focused on how the term civic engagement has been de-

fined in the abstract. But to get a fuller understanding of the term, it is useful to

look at some attempts to define the term operationally, in terms of how civic en-

gagement is actually being practiced in the world. In this section, we consider

some recent empirical findings about the extent of civic engagement by Ameri-

cans and how patterns of engagement vary between generations.

INDICATORS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

A 2001 report on The Civic and Political Health of the Nation sponsored by the

Pew Charitable Trusts (Keeter, Zukin, Andolina, & Jenkins, 2002) presents the re-

sults of a national telephone survey of 3,246 Americans aged 15 to 55+ that was

designed to find out “what citizens are doing and how often they are doing it.”

Civic Engagement

241

242

The researchers who conducted the survey created a list of 19 “core activities”

that they considered to be components of civic engagement (see Table 1). These

activities are divided into three main categories: indicators of community-fo-

cused activities (“civic indicators”), including volunteering and raising funds for

charitable causes; indicators of participation in the electoral process, including

voting and working for a candidate or a political party; and indicators of politi-

cal activity, including actively supporting or opposing particular issues or poli-

cies. In the report, the researchers focus on the first two forms of engagement:

civic and electoral. Although these indicators are by no means inclusive of all of

the forms of civic engagement, they are useful in helping to understand similari-

ties and differences between different generations in their patterns of engagement.

The survey found that approximately “half of all Americans can be character-

ized as engaged” in one way or another (see Figure 2). However, there was con-

siderable variation in how they focused their activities. One fifth of the respon-

dents “specialize in the electoral realm,” whereas “another 16 percent confine their

Journal of Transformative Education / July 2005

Table 1: The 19 Core Indicators of Engagement

Civic indicators

Community problem solving

Regular volunteering for a nonelectoral organization

Active membership in a group or association

Participation in fund-raising run/walk/ride

Other fund-raising for charity

Electoral indicators

Regular voting

Persuading others

Displaying buttons, signs, stickers

Campaign contributions

Volunteering for candidate or political organizations

Indicators of political voice

Contacting officials

Contacting the print media

Contacting the broadcast media

Protesting

E-mail petitions

Written petitions

Boycotting

Buycotting

Canvassing

SOURCE: Keeter, Zukin, Andolina, and Jenkins (2002).

efforts to the civic [i.e., community] realm.” Another group of respondents (16%

of the total) were “active in both the civic and electoral arenas” (Keeter et al., 2002).

GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

In their study, Keeter et al. (2002) compared the levels of civic engagement of

four generations of Americans ranging from the “DotNets,” who are aged 15 to

25, to the “Matures,” who are older than age 55. They found that the patterns of

engagement vary considerably among the different generations (see Table 2).

The good news here is that older adults are on the whole more engaged than

the average for all Americans. More than 50% of the 55+ population are engaged

in some form (Keeter et al., 2002). Members of the boomer generation (age 38 to

55) are only slightly more engaged, whereas the two younger generations are

more disengaged overall than average.

But there are also distinctive differences in the patterns of engagement among

the four cohorts. Older Americans have the highest level of involvement in “elec-

toral” (i.e., political) activities of any age group: More than twice as many matures

are “electoral specialists” (that is, they are involved in two or more different elec-

toral activities) than those younger than the age of 38 and are 40% higher in elec-

toral participation than boomers.

By contrast, older Americans have the lowest level of engagement in civic (i.e.,

community) activities of any age group, with less than half the percentage of

Civic Engagement

243

Political Activities

0 or 1 2 or more

0 or 1

48%

“Disengaged”

20%

“Electoral Specialist”

Civic

Activities

2 or

16%

“Civic Specialist”

16%

“Dual Activist”

Figure 2: Four Types of Engagement

Table 2: Patterns of Civic Engagement by Age (in Percentages)

DotNet GenX Boomer Mature

(15 to 25) (26 to 37) (38 to 55) (55+) Total

Disengaged 56.8 53.0 42.1 43.3 47.6

Electoral specialist 15.1 13.2 19.3 31.3 20.1

Civic specialist 17.0 20.5 18.7 9.1 16.4

Dual activist 11.1 13.3 19.9 16.3 15.9

SOURCE: S. Keeter (personal communication, March 2003).

244

“civic specialists” than either the GenXers or the boomers, and are just slightly

more than half that of the youngest cohort, the DotNets (Keeter et al., 2002).

Now let’s look more closely at the data on how older adults are actually en-

gaged.

Voting. It is well known that older Americans are active participants in tradi-

tional electoral processes. Although participation in elections is low and declin-

ing among young people, voting remains high among older adults (see Table 3).

In fact, seniors’ participation in voting has increased over the past two decades at

the same time it was falling for young people: Voter turnout among those 65+

grew from 63.5% in 1972 to 67% in 1996, whereas voting among younger adults

has declined steadily since 1972 (Levine & Lopez, 2002). Americans older than

age 65 now vote at approximately 3 times the rate of those younger than age 29.

The contrast in attitudes toward voting by the different generations was

summed up by a comment made by an anonymous participant in a seminar on

civic engagement: “The older generation views voting as a sacrament, but to

young people, it’s tangential” (Gibson, 2000, p. 5).

Organizational membership. It is at the other end of the civic engagement

spectrum—participation in community organizations and volunteer activities—

where the status of older adults’ involvement is less clear-cut. For example, sen-

iors present a mixed picture in terms of their participation in community-based

organizations, which is one commonly used measure of civic engagement. Mem-

bership in churches and other religious organizations increases with age and is

highest for those older than age 70. The same is true for veterans groups and fra-

ternal organizations. Participation in neighborhood groups, social service

groups, and groups related to health is higher among adults aged 50 to 69 than

other age groups. Involvement in public interest groups and other types of civic

and community groups appears to be highest among those younger than the age

of 49 and declines among older adults (see Table 4).

Community service. Many older Americans participate in community service.

According to a survey conducted for Independent Sector (America’s Senior Vol-

unteers, 2000), nearly half of all those older than 55 say they volunteer. But the

Journal of Transformative Education / July 2005

Table 3: Voting Patterns by Age

18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65+

Percentage who…

Are registered 43 63 73 78

Voted in 2002 election 19 38 56 63

SOURCE: Day and Holder (2004).

Civic Engagement

245

portion of seniors who volunteer is lower than that of younger people: Although

more than 50% of all high school students say they are involved in volunteering,

only 47.5% of those older than 55 say they volunteer. Among those aged 65 to 74,

46.6% volunteer, whereas just 43% of those 75 and older do so. (In general, stud-

ies show that volunteering peaks in middle age—35 to 54—and is lower among

both younger and older persons.) The same survey also found that the average

amount of time that older Americans spent in volunteer activities declined from

4.4 hours per week in 1995 to 2.3 hours a week in 1998.

Promoting civic engagement: Youth initiatives. One possible reason that the

civic involvement of younger people is as high as it is today is that a considerable

amount of effort has been invested in recent years in creating mechanisms and in-

centives to encourage and support this kind of engagement among youth. For ex-

ample, one likely explanation for the fact that fully 80% of college-bound high

school students now participate in some form of volunteer activity (Youth En-

gagement, 2002) is the fact that many colleges—and particularly the most elite

institutions—now take community service activities into account, along with

grades and SAT scores, in the admission process. A variety of organizations have

also been established to promote greater civic engagement among young people.

Nonprofit groups such as What Kids Can Do, YouthNOISE, and Purple Sun that

focus on youth have emerged. Since 2000, the Coalition of Community Founda-

tions for Youth has been working to increase the support for youth civic engage-

ment by community foundations around the country.

Table 4: Types of Organizations and Membership by Age

Percentage Answering Yes

Age of Respondent

Type of Organization 18 to 30 31 to 49 50 to 69 70+

Religious 47.9 61.0 68.8 74.3

Veterans groups 2.6 5.4 10.4 15.8

Fraternal groups 6.0 7.8 12.4 20.3

Health 17.6 14.4 18.2 10.5

Environmental 14.1 14.4 9.9 12.1

Other public interest 9.4 9.9 7.4 6.5

Ethnic/cultural 6.6 5.4 5.4 1.4

Neighborhood groups 6.8 21.1 22.2 15.5

Social service 8.1 8.5 8.9 5.5

Civic/community 5.3 5.7 5.4 3.8

NOTE: Groups in which older members predominate shown in bold.

SOURCE: Guterbock and Fries (1997, p. 5).

246

The concept of service learning also has provided a powerful mechanism for

expanding youth engagement. The concept integrates community service with

school curriculum and gives students the opportunity to get academic credit for

participating in volunteer activities. Service learning requires students not only to

engage in service but also to reflect on their service and what they have learned

from it.

The concept has achieved a remarkably high level of acceptance within the

country’s schools. But the growth of service learning came about as a result of a

sustained effort over a period of more than three decades to establish support

mechanisms and secure funding from foundations and government sources. A

2002 report from the National Commission on Service-Learning summarizes

some of the key developments that led to widespread acceptance of the concept:

The expansion of service-learning began in earnest [in the 1970s] when indi-

viduals in schools and youth development agencies began to find one another

and share their experiences….In the late 1980s, national meetings were con-

vened that brought people together across the country, and practitioners began

to plan ways to develop and expand their work. By the early 1990s federal legis-

lation had begun to provide support to local initiatives. Campus Compact

spread service-learning through hundred of campuses…and in 2001, the Na-

tional Service-Learning Partnership was established with 1,000 members…to

expand and strengthen service-learning in American primary and secondary

schools. (Fiske, 2002, p. 18)

As a result of all of this activity, the number of high schools offering formal serv-

ice learning increased dramatically. Whereas 27% of high schools were involved

with community service and just 9% offered service learning programs in 1984,

by 1999, 83% were involved with community service and 46% offered service

learning (Skinner & Chapman, 1999). By the 2000-2001 school year, more than

13 million public school students were involved in service and service learning

projects (Fiske, 2002).

Campus Compact, which was founded in 1985 by the presidents of Brown,

Stanford, and Georgetown Universities to promote civic engagement among in-

stitutions of higher learning, now includes more than 900 public and private 2-

and 4-year colleges and universities across the country. According to a 2003 sur-

vey by Campus Compact, more than one third (36%) of all students at member

institutions—or approximately 1.8 million students—participated in some form

of service activities, and member campuses offered an average of 37 service learn-

ing courses (2003 Service Statistics, 2003).

Although young people have become actively involved in community service,

their participation in the electoral process, as noted earlier, continues to decline

and remains a source of worry for those concerned about the future of our

democracy. Despite the efforts of groups such as the Youth Vote Coalition and

Rock the Vote to encourage greater electoral participation by young people, more

remains to be done to reverse this downward trend.

Journal of Transformative Education / July 2005

Civic Engagement

247

Expanding Civic Engagement Among Older Adults

Although the graying of America is dramatically altering the country’s social

landscape, we have yet to develop the range of institutions and mechanisms that

are required to support greater civic engagement by older adults. However, there

is a growing recognition of the importance of civic engagement—both for soci-

ety and for older adults themselves. And a number of projects and initiatives

whose goal is to encourage greater engagement among this population are now

underway.

Making the “ask.” One simple and potentially powerful step to increasing the

contributions of older adults is to ask them to get involved (Figure 3). A survey

by Independent Sector found that

Seniors were approximately five times more likely to volunteer if they were

asked. Even people 75 years and older volunteered at a high rate when asked. Ap-

proximately 81 percent of seniors over 75 volunteer when asked, compared to

only 25 percent when they were not asked. (America’s Senior Volunteers, 2000, p. 5)

According to Independent Sector (America’s Senior Volunteers, 2000), about

half of all adults age 21 through age 64 are asked to volunteer each year. However,

less than one third of those age 65 and older said that they had been asked to vol-

unteer in the past year. African American and Hispanic seniors were less likely to

be asked to volunteer than White seniors (although they did volunteer at the same

rate as others when asked).

Interestingly, compared to adults of all ages, those older than the age of 55 are

less likely to volunteer if not asked (17% of older adults vs. 29% of all adults vol-

unteer even if not asked) and are more likely to volunteer if they are asked (84%

Were Not Asked to Volunteer

83%

Did not

volunteer

17%

Did volunteer

Were Asked to Volunteer

16%

Did not

volunte er

84%

Did

volunteer

Figure 3: The Impact of Being Asked to Volunteer (Adults Age 55+)

Source

: America’s Senior Volunteers

(2000, p. 5)

248

Journal of Transformative Education / July 2005

of seniors who are asked volunteer vs. just 71% of all adults) (America’s Senior

Volunteers, 2000).

These data suggest that participation in community service among older adults

could be increased substantially if more of them were asked to serve. Whereas this

is true for Americans of all ages, it is particularly true of older Americans.

It may also be the case that the kinds of assignments that organizations have

to offer may not be well matched with the interests and abilities of potential older

volunteers (see e.g., Tanz & Spencer, 2000). A number of observers have pointed

out that “old models” of service are not likely to be very appealing to the baby

boomers who will be the next generation of retirees and that these programs need

to change their messages, if not their structure, if they want to remain relevant

and vital. It has been suggested that boomers are likely to be more demanding of

assignments that make good use of their skills and that provide opportunities to

make real, meaningful contributions. And, organizations may need to provide

greater flexibility in assignments to appeal to the diversity of interests and needs

of boomers (Lindblom, 2001).

Community service programs. Several national programs have been created to

involve older adults in community service, but they remain limited in scale. Two fed-

eral service programs for older adults under the Corporation for National and Com-

munity Service’s Senior Corps—Foster Grandparents and Senior C ompanions—

each year involve a total of just 43,000 participants who spend 20 hours a week in

service activities in return for a modest stipend (Annual Report to Congress, 2000).

These programs are “means tested,” that is, participation is limited to seniors

whose annual income is below a certain level. Two other federal programs for

older volunteers—the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) and the Se-

nior Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE)—are much larger and are not means

tested. But they have no specific requirements for level of participation (that is,

participants can contribute as much or as little time as they wish) and offer no

stipends.

Civic Ventures’ Experience Corps® represents an attempt to create a new

model for seniors’ civic engagement. Launched in 1996, it offers adults older than

age 55 the opportunity to commit a significant amount of time (15 hours a week)

in providing an important community service in return for a small stipend to

cover out-of-pocket expenses. (There are also opportunities for individuals to

contribute lesser amounts of time.) The initial focus of Experience Corps has

been on recruiting members to serve as mentors and tutors to at-risk school chil-

dren. In the future, Experience Corps members may address other social needs.

The program now involves more than 1,500 participants in 13 communities and

is just now beginning to move toward scaling up in several of the cities in which

it operates. (The organization has recently published Appealing to Experience

(2005), a practical guide to creating effective recruitment messages aimed at older

adults. Another useful guide to engaging older adults is 50+ Volunteering: Work-

ing for Stronger Communities, 2004, from the Points of Light Foundation.)

Civic Engagement

249

Changing the aging paradigm. The dominant paradigm of aging has tradition-

ally been based on the premise of decline and an increasing need for support. As

a result, the “aging establishment” in this country has focused on delivering

needed services, such as meals, transportation, medical care, and housing, to sup-

port the frail and/or poor elderly. A new paradigm has been emerging that looks

at older people not just as recipients of service but as resources who have accu-

mulated a great deal of experience that can be enormously useful to society. This

perspective is not intended to replace the old one but to supplement it.

A parallel shift is taking place around the concept of retirement. Traditionally

seen as a time for withdrawal from active participation in society and a time to

enjoy leisure activities, retirement is increasingly being seen as a transition to a

new phase of life that offers its own challenges and opportunities, including op-

portunities for continued contribution to society. As the oldest of the baby

boomers reaches 60, there will be millions of adults who are entering the next

stage of their lives—but with a new perspective on what retirement means.

To help accelerate these shifts, all three of the major national professional or-

ganizations in aging—the American Society on Aging (ASA), the Gerontological

Society of America (GSA), and the National Council for the Aging (NCOA)—

have launched initiatives designed to promote greater awareness of and support

for civic engagement by older adults among their members and in the broader so-

ciety. (All three projects are being supported by grants from the Atlantic Philan-

thropies, which has identified civic engagement among older adults as one of its

priorities.)

Just this year, the ASA established a new track on civic engagement as part of

its annual conference. It also will be communicating the results of research in the

field to its members, to encourage them to put these findings into practice, and

will highlight the issue to the members of its Journalists’ Exchange on Aging.

GSA has launched a 5-year initiative called Civic Engagement in an Older

America that will promote the study of civic engagement by experts in the field of

aging. In early 2005, it also sponsored public forums in four cities to provide in-

put on the significance of civic engagement to the 2005 White House Conference

on Aging.

And NCOA has launched a project called RespectAbility that includes a survey

of nonprofit organizations to determine their readiness to provide meaningful

volunteer opportunities for older volunteers, a film about the implications of an

aging population, and a series of meetings around the country to increase un-

derstanding about how to tap older adults as a resource. Another national effort

is being undertaken by the Harvard School of Public Health, which is developing

a national media campaign (funded by the MetLife Foundation) intended to

change public attitudes toward aging and motivate boomers and retirees to en-

gage in community service.

Building pathways to engagement. Although these national efforts can be use-

ful, engagement happens locally. Therefore, a critical challenge is to build acces-

250

sible pathways to engagement for older adults on the local level. Civic Ventures

has developed a concept called The Next Chapter

Initiative, whose goal is to

create a new kind of local resource to assist adults making the transition from

midlife to a new life stage characterized by opportunities for connection and di-

rection. The initiative is built on the premise that access to meaningful choices for

work, service, lifelong learning, and social connections plays an important role in

the health and ongoing development of older adults. It also emphasizes the im-

portance of linkages to the life of the community and its needs (Life Options Blue-

print, 2003).

Efforts to develop and launch Next Chapter programs are currently underway

in places such as New York; Cleveland; Chicago; Phoenix; San Diego; Portland,

Oregon; and Ocala and Winter Park, Florida.

Although the focus and scope of

these projects vary from one community to another, they typically involve new

types of partnerships among organizations and agencies that have not previously

worked together. Many of them are being supported by grants from community

foundations interested in expanding opportunities for older adults and strength-

ening the social fabric of their communities.

Among the institutions that are prominently involved in Next Chapter initia-

tives are public libraries and community colleges. For example, public libraries in

Arizona and Connecticut are serving as hosts for new programs. These programs

are part of a broader effort to create “21st Century libraries” that go beyond the

traditional roles of libraries as repositories of information to serve as key con-

nectors between community needs and local residents who have an interest in ad-

dressing those needs. In 2004, Libraries for the Future, a national organization

that is a program division of the American for Libraries Council, launched a 4-

year initiative called Lifelong Access Libraries—Centers for Lifelong Learning and

Civic Engagement. The initiative is promoting a new library service model for

working with older adults that emphasizes learning, social connections, life plan-

ning, and community engagement.

Bernie Ronan (2004), director of the Center for Civic Participation at Mari-

copa Community Colleges, noted that “community colleges have a rich history of

[promoting] civic engagement, having undertaken community service and serv-

ice learning projects for the past two decades.” Community colleges are actively

involved with Next Chapter projects in Cleveland; Phoenix; San Diego; Westch-

ester County, New York; Ocala, Florida; and Portland, Oregon (Goggin & Ronan,

2004).

In Arizona, Mesa Community College and Scottsdale Community College are

developing Next Chapter programs with support from the Virginia G. Piper

Charitable Trust. The Mesa program includes the development of life planning

services, gateways to opportunities for civic engagement and volunteerism, life-

long learning, and linkages to current and emerging services within the Mesa

community. The goal of Scottsdale Community College’s new LifeVentures pro-

Journal of Transformative Education / July 2005

gram is to provide opportunities for participants to discover a variety of re-

sources to volunteer, pursue civic engagement, re-career and find employment,

and to engage in lifelong learning, embark on healthy lifestyles, and enjoy social

connections in a community for all ages. These programs represent a new way for

colleges to reach out to and serve the needs of the growing number of older adults

who are not attracted to traditional “senior programs.”

Conclusion

All of these initiatives should be helpful in raising awareness of the potential

value of increasing civic engagement by older adults. They should also be helpful

in changing norms and expectations about life after retirement. They can help

change the image of retirement from a time for extended leisure to a period for

continued growth and contribution. They can help change the way organizations

think (or don’t think) about the value of older adults as potential resources in

supporting their missions. And they should be helpful in expanding meaningful

opportunities for service in later life and in creating pathways to those opportu-

nities.

But the heart of the movement toward greater engagement of older adults will

be the actions of the millions of Americans who are reaching the end of midlife

and are making decisions about how they want to spend their time in the next

phase of their lives. Among other things, they will decide if they want to devote

at least some of their time to helping others and to working to improve their

communities. What kind of society we all will live in will depend to no small de-

gree on what they decide.

Notes

1. Google search conducted March 20, 2005. The number of references to civic engage-

ment is considerably less than the number of Google citations for the related term social

capital, which yields some 727,000 references—or about twice as many.

2. Each state has a commission that coordinates volunteer service activities in that state,

though they may have different names in different states. A number of definitions come

from a survey by Diller (2001) of these state commissions.

3. In a sense, this definition is almost tautological: civic meaning related to one’s role as

a citizen and engagement being closely synonymous with interaction.

4. For details about the Harvard project, see www.hsph.harvard.edu/chc/reinventingaging/

index.html.

5. A directory of Next Chapter projects is online at www.civicventures.org/117.html.

Civic Engagement

251

252

References

2003 service statistics: Highlights of Campus Compact’s annual membership survey. (2003).

Providence, RI: Campus Compact. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from

http://www.compact.org/newscc/stats2003/summary.html

50+ volunteering: Working for stronger communities. (2004). Washington, DC: Points of

Light Foundation.

America’s senior volunteers. (2000). Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Annual report to congress, Fiscal Year 2000. (2000). Washington, DC: Corporation for Na-

tional and Community Service.

Appealing to experience: Zeroing in on the right message. (2005). Washington, DC: Experi-

ence Corps.

Civic engagement. (n.d.). Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://www.van.umn.edu/options/

2d_civic.asp

Civic engagement: Terminology. (n.d.). Retrieved February 25, 2003, from http://www

.compact.org/mapping/civicterminology.html

Crowley, D. (n.d.). Summary of youth engagement strategy. Woburn, MA: Social Capital,

Inc.

Day, J. C., & Holder, K. (2004). Voting and registration in the election of 2002 (P20-552).

Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.

Della Carpini, M. (n.d.). Definitions of civic engagement. Retrieved February 12, 2003, from

http://www.campuscares.org/serve/definitions3.html

Diller, E. C. (2001). Citizens in service: The challenge of delivering civic engagement training

to national service programs. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Commu-

nity Service.

Fiske, E. B. (2002). Learning in deed: The power of service-learning for American schools.

New York: National Commission on Service-Learning.

Freedman, M. (1999). Prime time: How the baby boomers will revolutionize retirement and

transform America. New York: Public Affairs.

Gibson, C. (2000). From inspiration to participation: A review of perspectives on youth civic

engagement.” New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Goggin, J., & Ronan, B. (2004). Our next chapter: Community colleges and the aging baby

boomers. Leadership Abstracts, 17(11). Retrieved January 11, 2005, from

http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0411.htm

Guterbock, T. M., & Fries, J. C. (1997). America’s social fabric: A status report. Washington,

DC: AARP.

Hollister, R. (2002). Lives of active citizenship. Inaugural talk, John DiBiaggio Chair in Cit-

izenship and Public Service, Tufts University.

Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, M. (2002). The civic and political health of

the nation: A generational portrait. College Park, MD: Center for Information and Re-

search on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), School of Public Policy, Univer-

sity of Maryland.

Levine, P., & Lopez, M. H. (2002). Youth voter turnout has declined by any measure.College

Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement

(CIRCLE), School of Public Policy, University of Maryland.

Life options blueprint. (2003). Phoenix, AZ: Civic Ventures and Libraries for the Future.

Lindblom, D. (2001). Baby boomers and the new age of volunteerism. Washington, DC: Cor-

poration for National and Community Service, National Service Fellowship Program.

Journal of Transformative Education / July 2005

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Ronan. B. (2004). (Testimony at the White House Conference on Aging Public Forum on

Civic Engagement in an Older America, Phoenix, Arizona, February 25, 2004.

Skinner, R., & Chapman, C. (1999). Service learning and community service in the K-12

public schools (NCES 1999-043). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Tanz, J., & Spencer, T. (2000). Candy striper, my ass! Fortune, 142(4), 156-160. August 14,

2000.

Van Benshoten, E. (2001). Civic engagement for people of all ages through national service.

Unpublished manuscript.

Youth engagement: Basic facts and trends. (2002). College Park, MD: Center for Informa-

tion and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), School of Public Pol-

icy, University of Maryland.

Richard P. Adler is vice president for research and development for Civic Ventures.

From 1996 to 2004, he was principal of People & Technology, a consulting firm in Sil-

icon Valley that served clients in the United States and abroad. From 1990 to 1997,

Adler was vice president for development at SeniorNet, a national nonprofit organi-

zation that provides adults aged 55 and older with access to computer and telecom-

munication skills. Before joining SeniorNet, he was a director at the Institute for the

Future, taught communications at Stanford and UCLA, and was a research fellow at

the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Har-

vard, a master’s from the University of California at Berkeley, and an MBA from the

McLaren School of Business at the University of San Francisco. E-mail:

radler@civicventures.org.

Judy Goggin is senior vice president for Civic Ventures, where she is responsible for

the development of its Next Chapter Initiative. From 1983 to 1998, she led all U.S.

programs for Elderhostel. She is currently chair of the American Society on Aging con-

stituency unit for older adult learning (LEARN), serves on the Executive Leadership

Council for AARP-Massachusetts, and is an active member of the Boston Multicul-

tural Coalition on Aging. She holds a master’s degree from St. Louis University and a

bachelor’s degree from Marylhurst College. E-mail: jgoggin@civicventures.org.

Civic Engagement

253