The 2009 Civic Health Index ranks Florida 44th in terms of its civic culture, concluding “it is, in fact, one of the worst in the nation” (2). The overall ranking is a composite of sub scores, ranking the state 34th in voter turnout, 37th in citizens working with others to address community problems, 48th in attendance at public meetings, and 49th in the percentage of citizens who volunteer.
While the Civic Health Index doesn’t attempt to account for the causes of Florida’s poor civic health, the authors point to research by the Corporation for National and Community Service (which also ranks Florida 49th in volunteering) that suggests causes for low levels of volunteering: low attachment to the community, long commutes to work, low levels of education, high levels of poverty, and low capacity in civic associations to recruit and manage volunteers. If the Corporation’s hypotheses are correct, it is not hard to see why Florida has such poor civic health– a state particularly characterized by a highly mobile population, many of whom do not consider it “home,” low financial support for education, and high levels of poverty.
The authors of the Civic Health Index offer some possible avenues to improve the situation in Florida: strengthening the (K12) education system, involving seniors in public life, facilitating the growth of social networks, and taking advantage of new technologies. However there are two major players that aren’t featured in this analysis: government and universities.
Government should be particularly concerned about the state’s low ranking on public meetings. Low turnout means participants that do attend are highly unrepresentative of the population, usually bringing in the door only the most extreme or self-interested view points. This in turn makes public meetings a negative experience for everyone and unuseful for formulating public policy. The proper response is probably not more meetings but meetings that build interest in civic life. The purpose of public meetings itself needs to be re-examined. The government organizers of public meetings should be making design choices that emphasize bringing in new sectors of the population that are currently not attending, and, most importantly, making the experience of participating in a public meeting an affirming rather than alienating experience for the public.
Many colleges and universities are engaged in traditional civics education. Indeed the Lou Frey Institute of Politics and Government at the University of Central Florida and the Bob Graham Center for Public Service at the University of Florida (two contributors to the Civic Health Index report) are to be commended for their initiative to bring civics education to middle schools in Volusia county and elsewhere in the state. In addition, volunteerism and community service are more prevalent and institutionally supported than ever on college campuses throughout the country. But there is yet more than can be done.
The Civic Health Index reports points to a more fundamental source of the symptoms that lead to low rankings: the lack of personal identification with a shared community among the citizens of the state. Creating, among the citizenry, identification with the community (a desire to find the common good) combined with efficacy as public actors (the traditional goal of civic education) is the undiscovered country of civic research and practice for colleges and universities. These institutions should be bringing together schools and governments, nonprofits and businesses, parties, interest groups and the underrepresented to study the problems of civic community building and to assist all of these partners in jointly creating what has come to be called “bridging social capital.” Everyone needs to be in the room together for this to happen, not just the usual suspects limited to the trained representatives of opposing views. Indeed, given their missions and the nature of the enterprise of high education, colleges and universities are probably the only social institutions capable of creating bridging social capitol of this sort. By reason of default then, it has become their responsibility if our civic health is to improve.
References
Corporation for National and Community Service. Volunteering in America. Online at: http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/rankings.cfm
National Conference on Citizenship. 2009 Florida Civic Health Index. Online at: http://www.ncoc.net/index.php?tray=series&tid=top57&cid=2kc29
2 Comments
This case is of particular interest to me because I have lived in Florida since I was born. Growing up, I was involved in several non-profit organizations. The majority were sports, but we still did quite a bit of community service for various organizations. Upon entering high school, I joined the Civil Air Patrol, which is an official auxiliary of the Air Force. I was highly engaged with my community at various airfields, parks, and road clean-up projects. High school offered many a program geared towards actively involving students in the community. Of them, I was in Student Government Association, Marine Corps JROTC, and several sports. Needless to say, I probably had one of the highest levels of civic engagement both bridging and bonding.
After high school, I noticed a sharp decline in my engagement. I took on a full-time job, averaged 15-18 credit hours per semester in college, and lived on a farm requiring much of my help. I took on a lot at the age of 18, but as I look back, I realize now I was missing something: my devotion to the community. I suppose it was partly due to my full schedule, but it is partly due to the fact that I was no longer in any organization.
This article has opened up my eyes because previously, I would have disagreed with Florida being on the low-end of civic engagement. However, looking at the past few years, I can honestly say that among the people I have been associating with, none of us volunteer. Lately, I noticed my friends who have graduated or received their masters are more willing with volunteer their time than someone without a college degree. As it seems, college life offers a myriad of student involvement programs geared towards bringing the community together. Those that join these programs seem to carry on with them upon graduation. Overall, my Civic Engagement class with Dr. Ball has definitely enlightened me to find interest groups and NPOs that I would be willing to donate my time to in the very near future.
This is an issue that I have been wrestling with for the better half of the 13 years I’ve lived in Florida. However, I’ve never able to put words to it until now. Dr.Ball spoke of a “highly mobile culture” in Florida. It is in my opinion that this, more than the other reason presented, is the cause for Florida’s embarrassing civic health. In general, it seems that almost everyone I meet in Floria is from somewhere else. One of the first questions I ask someone in conversation is: “Where are you from?” The response I frequently receive is somewhere in the northeastern region of the United States or at least somewhere outside of Florida. It is very rare for me to meet someone who associates their home with somewhere in Florida. I am in college, so I understand that it is expected for me to meet people from other parts of the country but I’ve found that some of them actually live in Florida now, but they still associate their home with their birthplace. This may just be a cultural phenomena but I find it very revealing as it pertains to building social capital. For example, I only lived in Boston, Massachusetts until I was about 7 years old. However, I still tell people that “I’m from” Massachusetts and I still support all the teams from my hometown (Celtics, Patriots, Red Sox, Bruins, etc).
Because Florida attracts so may different people from some many different backgrounds, it causes individuals to flock towards those who share common interests generated from living or at least associating with a specific region and in turn, culture. I feel that it is accurate to say that people from the northeast (New York, Massachusetts, etc) are very different from people in the south (Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, etc). Florida’s highly mobile culture, in my opinion, is extremely conducive to building “bonding social capital.” In other words, people associating with others who share common backgrounds and interests with them.
As Dr.Ball proposed, it is the duty of Florida’s educational institutions to start producing citizens who are aware of the sad civic health of Florida and desire to help people understand that it takes the effort of everyone to build the society we all desire. This society will be produced through many different methods but “bridging social capital” will be the difference maker. “Bridging social capital” refers to the building of social networks between people with different interests and backgrounds. In my opinion, the production of this bridging capital will result in a dramatic increase in Florida’s civic health because it will mean that people are actually associating with those outside of their typical social network. It is my hope that this will change Florida from “the place where my house is” to “my home.”
Chris Gould
Stetson University
Political Science Major
Sophomore
Post a Comment