It isn’t news that voters between the ages of 18-29 tend to turn-out for elections in substantially smaller numbers than other age groups in the population, and this has been especially true in mid-term elections. For example, in 2014 just 21% of voters in this age group voted. Thus, it was big news when data became available that young voter turn-out in the 2018 midterms was at 31%. This was the highest turnout in the last seven midterm elections.
My particular interest in the engagement of young people in the political process leads me to ask how we explain this increase and whether there are lessons civic educators can learn from this significant increase that might be replicated in future elections. There is no better source, in my view, than CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Engagement), for getting more detailed numbers and insight into youth voting.
Chapel Hill is preparing an action plan to help immigrants and refugees feel valued and to fully participate alongside their neighbors in the social, civic, and economic fabric of their adopted hometown.
The action plan is the second phase of a two-year collaborative planning process with UNC-Chapel Hill in developing strategies for being more inclusive and responsive to the needs and interests of immigrant and refugee community members.
In my role as an associate professor at the School of Government, I often find myself leading discussions with various groups on the topic of public engagement. Just within the last couple of months I have spoken with numerous current and future government officials about public engagement practice, including:
a local elected official here in Chapel Hill,
several local government staff members from various communities here in North Carolina,
dozens of MPA students, many of which are current public service practitioners, and
a group of government officers from India.
I also read a lot about and conduct research on various aspects of public engagement. With that in mind, there are some overarching observations or principles that I keep coming back to that I’d like to share here on the blog. Continue Reading
Charlotte is one of the fastest growing cities in the country and is made up of diverse residents and perspectives. To maintain a healthy community through this growth, it is important to invest in all people, address difficult issues and work to remove barriers. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD), in partnership with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Community Relations, developed an engagement initiative called Bridging the Difference which aims to bring the community together for conversations around issues impacting Charlotte. These conversations will cover topics such as diversity, equity and inclusion; police support and accountability; racial healing; immigration; public safety, including schools; access and opportunity; bias and privilege. Creating a space to have productive and transparent dialogue with the community is critical for local government as it seeks to engage at all levels.
Bridging the Difference has three primary goals:
Involve: Involve the community inclusive of all perspectives to engage and understand wants/actions.
Understand: Increase understanding and trust through a series of conversations about police and community relations and public safety.
Mitigate: Mitigate potential challenges/issues in advance of major events with effective community outreach and interaction.
The impact of housing on health is a growing topic of discussion in health transformation in public health conferences around the country. Dr. Megan Sandel MD, MPH, the nation’s leading expert on how housing impacts child health, is coming to Greensboro for Housing Summit 2019.
In Greensboro, community partnerships are already addressing health through housing interventions.
Here are five of the ways:
1. As we age or experience mobility challenges, our housing may no longer fit our needs for accessibility and safety; we may risk injuries from falling and become isolated in our own homes.
Prescription: Aging Gracefully. Community Housing Solutions and Triad Healthcare Network are partnering to modify homes and medical protocols to the specific needs of each homeowner to improve health. As part of a national research study, this Greensboro partnership is proving the benefits of the integrated approach.
People seeking to improve their communities through dialog and understanding are doing important work. Their missions and approaches vary widely; community groups, advisory panels, faith groups and others are tackling plenty of diverse issues that are specific to their circles.
Within the community engagement community, best practices are sometimes hard to identify.
The context of, say, a small-scale event dealing with restorative justice differs greatly from a packed city council meeting covering zoning permits. The message, audience, program design, and feedback mechanisms can be completely different, which makes standardizing a set of guidelines an oft-impossible task.
Still, there are a few gatherings that bring together enough diverse, experienced, and motivated engagement practitioners that something approaching best practices can be found across many of community engagements’ subfields, from productively navigating race relations to developing responsive digital platforms.
I was pleased to be part of the Saturday December 15th gathering of NC leaders in the civic tech field for prioritizing goals and strategies for 2019. Civic tech is about working on community needs, using volunteers with IT and web design expertise, to utilize government open data for the common good. I provide a longer description of civic tech here.
I will focus on just one idea, because it is close to my heart: for smaller towns and rural areas, what does civic tech look like, and how can it help tackle real community needs?Continue Reading
Pleased to have Maggie Woods report on the kick-off of a long-term effort on community reconnection. Maggie is a Policy and Program Manager at NC State University’s Institute for Emerging Issues.
North Carolinians are having increasing difficulty talking — and listening — to each other. That’s making it hard for us to get things done in our communities. And people want to find ways to fix that.
At least that’s what we heard, as my colleagues and I from NC State University’s Institute for Emerging Issues held “community conversations” across Western North Carolina this past summer.
From Buncombe to Clay to Wilkes counties — in coffee shops and at colleges — we met with 80 plus people to get their ideas about why it is so hard to connect to each other and how we can do better.
You say SKED-ule, and I say SCHEDJ-ule. Does it matter? Is “Citizen” Participation the same as “public” participation? Here’s an exploration of labels and meanings intended, but may not received as intended.
For community engagement (the title of this blog) how you categorize or label people in a particular participation process is important. Words matter because it can create an impression of inclusion or exclusion. Meanings may vary from “you are a user of a government service” to “you and your neighbors are policymakers.”