[open-government] Pew: Civic Engagement in the Digital Age - Report and Detailed Analysis

Thu Apr 25 16:33:04 UTC 2013

This is the most important report in the e-democracy/open government
field in about five years. Check out:

Civic Engagement in the Digital Age
    http://bit.ly/15QZUPK

Thank you to everyone at PewInternet.org!

Let's talk about it on Twitter with #pewcivic hashtag. What is your big takeway?

Here is my in-depth analysis and commentary:
    http://bitly.com/pewcivic

(And links to where people are talking about it.)

And while long, the full text (see the link just above for any future
corrections/additions) of my analysis:

The new must-read Civic Engagement in the Digital Age study by the Pew
Internet and American Life Project makes it clear to me:

 Accepting “politics as usual” means those who already show up in
political life continue to dominate online. Closing the digital civic
engagement divide is a challenge for our generation to solve.

Every few years, like their Neighbors Online report, the Pew Internet
and American Life project releases game changing numbers that help us
re-calibrate our priorities and investments to build civic and
democratic good.

Quick Numbers

After many hours of pouring through the report, these are the numbers
that stood out to me.

Good: 49% of all adults participated in online “civic communication”
and/or are a “political social networking site” user in 2012

10% only did online “civic communication” (34% total)

16% only were political sns users (39% total)

23% did both

More on the political sns users below – Report author Aaron Smith sent
us the breakdown above and other tidbits which are not detailed in the
main report.

Bad: Huge online civic communication gap based on income - Households
over 75K at 47%+, 20K to under 30K only 24% – Almost half the
participation rate participating civically online, report shows huge
education gaps as well

Really Bad: Whites 38% compared to Blacks at 23% and Latinos at 17% –
Action oriented online civic communication helps citizens have a
voice, power, and influence in democracy

Bad Foundation: For offline “civic communication” Whites 43%, Blacks
31%, Latinos 26% - Survey does find better Black – White racial equity
with direct involvement in offline civic groups/activities. It is
essential to point out that many differences in race are more related
to income and education levels than anything else – but the impact is
that same, important voices are not being heard.

Clift Notes: Everything about the Internet, from raising voices to
organizing to information access to convenience, makes it a great
equalizer for democratic participation. Today with far greater
minority access to the Internet, why is the civic communication gap
larger online than offline?

The online gap based on race is 3% larger for Blacks and 4% for Latinos.

What is it about the design, technical assumptions, perceived
relevancy, marketing, and inclusive outreach with online civic
engagement that is not working make democracy stronger and more
equitable? Why are the clear democratic benefits of the digital age
not leading to a more representative and participatory democracy for
all? If we seek to engage not just more people from a small pool of
the most educated and wealthier citizens, but instead want this
digital opportunity to provide more democratic opportunity for all, we
are going in the wrong direction.

Promising: 44% of 18-24 year olds do online “civic communication”
compared to 38% offline; 38% of those 25-34 also engage online with
33% engaging offline – Compared to 34% online and 39% offline among
all adults. On the other hand as you go up in age, the online “civic
communication” divide becomes a real problem (if you agree that online
engagement is crucial for the will of the people to be heard in the
halls of power)

Noted: Net users signing an online petition in 2012: 20%, 19% in 2008
– WhiteHouse.gov e-petitions and sites like Change.org are still
relevant

Noted: Online donors up 9% from 30% in 2008 to 39% in 2012, but
political donors overall drop 2% to 16% of adults

Bad: In 2008 25% of Internet users contacted a government official
about an issue via email in – Dropped to 20% in 2012 even with texting
added to email as an option

Bad: 10% in 2008, dropped by half to 5% of Internet or text message
users having sent a “letter to the editor” to a newspaper or magazine
online, by email, or by text message in 2012

Very Good: 2012 survey explored many new questions for social
networking site users – 60% of all U.S. adults use a social networking
platform AND 39% of adults are considered “political social networking
site users.”  That is up from 26% adults in 2008 who “took part in
some sort of political activity” on a social network. (Considering the
overall growth in Facebook and Twitter, the growth isn’t so dramatic.

In 2008, 11% of SNS users (not adults overall) posted political news.
In 2012, 28% posted links to political stories and 33% said that they
reposted other types of political content on SNS’s.

In 2008, 12% of SNS users had friended a political candidate. In 2012,
20% of users said that they have friended or followed a candidate or
similar political figure.

In 2008, of SNS users 13% started or joined a group on a social
networking site organized around political or social issues. By 2012,
it rose to 21%.

Clift Notes: More private life but political social networking may be
displacing contacting elected officials directly and sending letters
to the editor. Very interestingly political sns users at 39% outnumber
the 34% who engaged in online “civic communications.” (with 23% doing
both). That leads to the question – are the 16% of adults who are only
engaging as political sns users more or less having private political
discussions with trusted friends and family or are they also seeking
to take action in “public life.” My take – it is good that more people
talk politics, but if you want to make change it has to also extend to
taking action in expressly public life situations. Getting your
political opinions off your chest among your friends is not the same
as sharing our desires with our community or the representatives and
governments who spend our tax money and pass laws that govern us.

Good: In terms of racial online engagement equity of the 39% overall,
40% of Whites are political SNS users, 37% of Blacks, and 31% of
Latinos

Not Good: If you want reach older Americans, while 67% of those 18-24
are political sns users, only 24% of 55-64 and 13% of 65+ are engaged
that way

Clift Notes: Online group communication is a powerful catalyst for
democracy – the freedom of assembly is what makes authoritarian
governments nervous because that gives speech an audience where people
become motivated to take action. I believe what I said in 1998 more
than ever, “The most democratizing aspect of the Internet is the
ability for people to organize and communicate in groups.”

Groups take you from more private missives on “your wall” (Facebook
status updates on your timeline or whatever it is called this month)
or email chain letters into a group commitment.  Be that a Facebook
Group or becoming a Twitter hashtag “regular” or joining a trusty
email list you’ve joined in. That 21% number of SNS users who started
or joined an online group is hugely positive.

Very Good: In 2012, 43% of SNS users decided to learn more about a
political or social issue and 18% took action involving a political or
social issue based on that they read on those sites

Not as Bad: The racial gap in “learning” about issues is less here
than in other areas – the 43% breaks down to 46% of Whites, 38% of
Blacks, and 34% of Latinos

Really Bad: Taking action based on SNS “learning” drops almost in half
from 20% for Whites and 12% for Blacks and 11% for Latino

Clift Notes: Addressing this democratic digital divide on taking
action may be the biggest opportunity for investment with technology
for engagement. A past Pew Government Online study from 2010 found
similar divides except that African-Americans and Latinos were twice
as positive about saying it is “very important” for government
agencies to post information and alerts on social networks (Whites
17%, Blacks 31%, Latino 33%).

This parallels input from our inclusive forum engagement team members
on the importance of Facebook for trusted connections and bonds within
their ethnic community. We often hear disdain from our Somali and
Hmong friends about public online newspaper commenting where vitriol
and “immigrants go home” comments abound. They speak about the
relative feeling of more safety and trust with people they know in
their communities via mostly private Facebook connections. As our
BeNeighbors.org neighbors forums are an independent micro social
network with very public and integrationist online approach, these
numbers suggest an opportunity to adapt our model, share our lessons,
and seek to further integrate our expressly public life take action
approach with Facebook beyond simple feeds to Pages. The challenge you
need to help us with is how to then also maintain the engagement of
older citizens.

Email Still King: At least in terms of how people are asked to take a
civic action – 31% via email versus 16% on a social networking site
and 5% via texting. The eNonProfit Benchmark study will tell you why.

Silver lining? The demographics of folks who have political
discussions online in general and offline are far more racially
equitable. We can build on that.

Also in terms of equity, Whites, Blacks, and Latinos are statistically
identical at 11, 10, and 9% with posting pictures or videos online
related to political/social issues

8% of all adults or 17% of political SNS users are only politically
involved online and not offline nor other places online – the
demographics are lower income, younger, and less educated – Might this
be a gateway activity to bring new people into civic and political
life online and off (I am digging into the data to better understand
more about this 8% of adults)

Extended Commentary

Going back to my statement from over a decade ago, “Where we end up in
forty years will be based on our democratic intent and the actions we
take, or the Internet despite its positive potential, will expand the
democratic divide not close it.”

So with two decades dominated by:

Dramatic spikes in online election campaign activity (I wonder what a
2013 survey might disclose with online politics for example)
The continuous roar of red meat online advocacy, and
Divided government which often blames too many angry emails from
partisan constituents as among the reasons they can’t compromise
… is it no wonder the awesome potential of the Internet to raise new
and significantly more diverse voices in our democracy has not been
met?

How do we better leverage our amazing ability to access government
information on-demand and share more relevant knowledge to actually
improve the outcomes of democratic governance?

Should you give up? No. Do we give up? Heck no.

For those of us experiencing the “positive potential” here and now, we
have an obligation to share this experience with all people.

We must share it, extend it, build it, improve it, continue to
innovate and experiment if we truly believe in a democracy of, for,
and by the people.

With “open government” and civic technology “open to all” in theory
but in reality reaching only a narrowcast some, we must dedicate
ourselves to aggressively sharing democracy online with ALL. We must
work to make it far more relevant to less represented groups in
society. If we don’t, our investments of time, energy, and passion
will further empower the empowered and unintentionally deepen our
civic and democratic divides. Digital civic engagement dominated by
the most partisan or well off, no matter your political leans, is bad
for our nation.

Stepping off my soapbox, I’ve put together some more questions spurred
by the excellent PewInternet.org report to frame our reflections and
debate in the coming years:

 1. Why invest in open government, online community engagement, or
seek to improve democracy generally with civic technology and
information if they do not appear to be an agent for greater public
participation by new people or missing voices?

 One might acquiesce and say, digital politics is just a new
battlefield for those in power and those who want it to fight it out.
It is their playground and simply not of interest to most people –
particularly less represented communities. One might say, equity
aside, with greater access to information and elected officials,
better public decisions are being made. Of course, I do not believe
this. Open government investments without active inclusion strategies
and dedicated outreach resources may be contributing more the
democratic divide than providing solutions. That is the wake up call
from this Pew report.

 2. What are the greatest gaps in online political participation and
what more can we determine from the report data about those gaps?

 3. What areas of online activity show some evidence of more equitable
participation across income, education, and race (… for example are
certain people of color such as those under 30, higher income, or
better educated participating more online than in-person and working
to raise less heard voices)?

 These next two questions suggest that digital engagement should and
can be shaped to raise new voices and build a better democracy. These
questions suggest we look first to find the largest gaps in
participation to identify where we should target our scarce digital
engagement resources in order to make the greatest gains. Second, we
can sort through the data and see where there are spikes of promise
and areas of least resistance to move us away from the status quo
democratic divide.

As noted above, looking at the report numbers in terms of race and
political social networking users, there is greater equity with
discussion and learning, but almost a 2 to 1 divide between White and
African-American/Latinos (20% v. 12/11%) social networking users on
taking action based on what was learned online. That is one huge gap
to close with efforts that build on some of the most promising equity
in the report.

Four more big questions are missing from this debate:

 5. For whom is online engagement an entry-level form of political
participation that can then be shape to lead to a broader base of
traditional as well as sustained online political engagement? (Can we
break the ice online more cost-effectively than other interventions?)

This section on page 11 of the report is a huge opportunity to explore
in terms of promoting greater democratic engagement:

“17% of political SNS users — representing 8% of the total adult
population — engage in political activity on social networking sites
but in no other online or offline venues. Demographically, this
‘politically active on social networking sites but not elsewhere’
group tends to be younger, less affluent, and less well-educated than
the larger group that participates politically on social networking
spaces and also other venues.  (Page 11)”

 6. Can we find evidence on which online features, content, or
interventions lead to greater engagement by less represented groups?

 7. On its current track, if we leave online political engagement for
the higher income highly educated folks, will the online-generated
amplification effect or power concentration impacts make things even
worse in terms of the distribution of power and government resources?

 8. Will the positive civic results from those who have “Worked with
fellow citizens to solve a problem in your community” offline or
online be concentrated in better off areas or is there an opportunity
to use online engagement as an accelerator or multiplier to help lower
income and very diverse communities solve more community problems
together?

 I confess. As someone who has both experienced the fundamentally
empowering impact of online group communication, timely and
personalized access to government information and decision-makers, and
having spent two decades working to shape “e-democracy” so new voices
can be heard and more people can help meet public challenges, I am
quite biased.

As E-Democracy.org (the world’s first election web site in 1994) has
gone deep with inclusive community engagement online with major
support from the Knight Foundation building on pilot support from the
Ford Foundation, we’ve focused our funded work on lower income,
racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods and immigrant
communities.

We serve all kinds of communities with public Neighbors Forums (our
additional all volunteer efforts are clearly stronger in middle income
areas) and reach up to 25% of households ~daily by mixing practical
community life exchange with open and civil dialogue on very local
public issues. We’ve officially partnered with the City of St. Paul
based on their expressed interest in connecting with and hearing from
diverse voices not just those who already show up. Our view is that
digital engagement, if done right (including major in-person outreach)
is one of the most effective ways to make up the gap in overall
political participation and community engagement.

So as you read the Pew report, I encourage you to ask what you can do
to change the status quo with civic engagement online and work to
extend what works with greater more democratic participation online in
your own neighborhood, city, state, and nation. Let’s use the power of
the Internet to make real democratic change to truly reach new people,
raises diverse voices, and ultimately improves the lives everyone
around us.

Steven Clift - http://stevenclift.com
  Executive Director - http://E-Democracy.org
  Twitter: http://twitter.com/democracy
  Tel/Text: +1.612.234.7072