The Handbook of Life-Span Development || Developing Civic Engagement within a Civic Context

590

CHAPTER 15

Developing Civic Engagement within a Civic Context

JONATHAN F. ZAFF, DANIEL HART, CONSTANCE A. FLANAGAN, JAMES YOUNISS, and PETER LEVINE

TRENDS IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT 591Voting 591Volunteering 593Civic Activism 593News Consumption 595Social Connections 595Attitudes and Values 596

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN AN ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT 597

INTRAINDIVIDUAL FACTORS RELATED TO CIVIC INVOLVEMENT 599Stability/Trajectories of Civic Behaviors 599Demographic Differences 600Sociopsychological Factors 601

THE ROLES OF VARIOUS CONTEXTS IN DEVELOPING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT 605Race/Ethnicity/Immigration 606National and Political Influences on

Civic Engagement 606

Family 607Program Participation 608Community Context: Youth Bulges 614Classrooms 615

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: NON–COLLEGE-BOUND YOUTH AS AN EXAMPLE 616Family 617Schools 618Neighborhood and System-Level Factors 618Work and Income 619Military 620Integration into Community Life: Homeownership

and Organizational Affiliations 620Technology and New Media 621Agency and Opportunity for College Attenders 622

CONCLUSIONS 623REFERENCES 624

civic activities due to low levels of involvement, the need to

revitalize democracy as older generations are replaced, the

perceived neglect of civic engagement in schools through-

out the world, and the erosion of a civic infrastructure in

communities.

In this chapter, we defi ne civic engagement, examine

trends over the past 30 years, consider the developmental

process within a developmental systems framework (what

we call a civic context), and provide an illustration of this

developmental process for non–college-attending youth, a

group at high risk for not engaging in civic activities. We

conclude with implications for the practice community as

well as next steps for research. Although we take a life-

span perspective in this chapter, we are mostly resigned to

focus on development from childhood through the transi-

tion to adulthood. The empirical literature on the continued

Engaging in civic activities benefi ts both the individual

and the individual’s family, community, and country. That

is, civic engagement is associated with other positive out-

comes of individual development, such as educational

achievement and social competencies, and with societal

benefi t, such as having an active citizenry that participates

in democracy and contributes in other ways to the greater

good, such as through volunteering in the community or

protesting against unfair labor practices (Calabrese &

Schumer, 1986; Lerner, 2004; Levine & Youniss, 2006;

Moore & Allen, 1996; Morgan & Streb, 2000; Youniss,

McLellan, Su, & Yates, 1999; Zaff & Michelsen, 2002).

This bidirectional relationship of the community and the

individual is consistent with developmental systems theo-

ries (Lerner, 2002, 2006). Scholars in all advanced West-

ern nations are concerned about engaging their citizenry in

The Handbook of Life-Span Development,Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

edited by Richard M. Lerner, Michael E. Lamb, and Alexandra M. Freund.

Trends in Civic Engagement 591

development of civic engagement among older adults is

unfortunately thin and life-span data ranging from child-

hood into older adulthood is even thinner.

Civic engagement encapsulates civic behaviors, civic

skills, civic connections, and civic commitment. Thus,

civic engagement is best understood in terms of these dis-

tinctions as enduring and necessarily dependent on the in-

dividual’s view of self. The following are essential to civic

engagement: (1) knowledge and exercise of rights and re-

sponsibilities, (2) some sense of concern for the state and

shared fate with one’s fellow citizens, and (3) a subjec-

tive identifi cation with other citizens. Citizens must accept

these roles and responsibilities and maintain identifi cation

with fellow citizens over time if a society is to endure.

Civic engagement goes beyond participation in a civic

act. Being substantively engaged includes the integra-

tion of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive components

(Zaff, Boyed, Li, Lerner, & Lerner, 2010), such that civic

behaviors, civic skills, civic connections, and civic com-

mitment are all considered part of the civic engagement

construct. That is, civic engagement is more than civic be-

haviors, although civic behaviors are essential components

of civic engagement. This multidimensional idea of civic

engagement construct is rooted in Erikson’s ego identity

theory (involving a search for a sense of self that refl ects

a role meeting both individual and societal needs) (Erik-

son, 1963; Marcia, 1980) and in German “action” theories

(Baltes, 1987; Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 2006;

Freund & Baltes, 2002); these latter conceptions note that

adaptive development involves mutually benefi cial rela-

tions between the actions of the individual on the context

(e.g., engagement with or contributions to the institutions

of civil society) and the actions of the context (e.g., involv-

ing constraining or promoting individual behavior) on the

individual (Brandtstädter, 1998, 2006).

Erikson and German action theorists posit that cognitive

processes and overt (and implicit) behaviors are inherently

interconnected. For instance, in action theory, behaviors

are intertwined with motivations and goal orientations to-

ward specifi c tasks. This theory is not necessarily present-

ing a cause (motivation)/effect (task) dynamic. Instead, the

cognitive, emotional, and behavioral are part of the intrain-

dividual developmental system, pieces that are inseparable

in the developmental process. Action theorists might hy-

pothesize that civic engagement is expressed as a connec-

tion to one’s community, a commitment to improving that

community, and the act of helping one’s community.

Actions that enhance the community in this way will likely

feed back to the individual, providing a context with the

resources to support his/her positive development (Lerner,

2004; Lerner, Alberts, & Bobek, 2007). Consistent with

these theories, Youniss (2006) has argued for a develop-

mental theory of political-civic engagement that integrates

cognitive processes with actions that take place within a

collectively shared structure.

Civic participation has many facets. In the United States,

as noted earlier, voting is often considered to be the most

important of civic duties, and voting, as well as other roles

in the electoral process, are frequently viewed as core com-

ponents of political participation (e.g., Conway, 2000).

Political scientists and sociologists have also emphasized

the importance of community service as essential for the

well-being of civic life in the United States (e.g., Putnam,

2000). In addition, and unlike voting and much of commu-

nity service, political and civil activism, such as protesting,

boycotting, or buycotting is typically conducted apart from

government agencies and in defi ance of the government.

With the myriad ways that an individual can engage with

her or his community, we might suggest that free citizens

defi ne their roles as citizens in various ways from activism

to voting, from the violent revolution of George Washington

to the nonviolent resistance of Martin Luther King, Jr.

In this chapter, we do not discuss broader forms of con-

tribution, such as to the family. Although these behaviors,

attitudes, and skills are important for the health and well-

being of the recipients of the contributions, and are re-

lated to positive developmental outcomes of the individual

(Lerner, 2004), our focus is on civic contributions; that is,

actions that benefi t the broader and more distal community

and/or the polity.

TRENDS IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

With the preceding defi nition for civic engagement we ex-

amine the trends in civic engagement over the past three

decades, which is when data on various aspects of civic

involvement were initially collected.

Voting

Voting is the best documented form of civic engagement,

and the trend in young Americans voting turnout tells a

meaningful story that we can also observe in some other

variables. There was a smooth downward trend from the

fi rst year when late adolescents were eligible to vote, 1972,

until 2000, broken only by a spike in 1992. During this

period, there was no decline in turnout among Americans

592 Developing Civic Engagement within a Civic Context

over the age of 25 (see Figure 15.1). The decline in overall

voter participation appeared to be strictly a youth phenom-

enon, with the trend for older Americans staying relatively

stable (Levine & Lopez, 2002). However, there have been

signifi cant increases in youth voting in two consecutive

presidential elections. Given that the declining rates of

civic participation among youth are developmentally more

interesting than the stable rates of older Americans, we

focus more so on youth in this section.

Trends in the average levels of participation for all

youth over time put an emphasis on generational differ-

ences, but people who are born at the same time may

have very different experiences, contributing to very dif-

ferent levels of engagement. In particular, social class is

a well-documented correlate of civic engagement (Verba,

Schlozman, & Brady, 2000). If we operationalize social

class for young adults in a simple way, as attending or not

attending college for any amount of time, we divide the

population into roughly equal groups. Each group has wit-

nessed declines in many forms of civic engagement since

the 1970s, and large gaps between these groups remain

(see Figures 15.2 and 15.3) (Flanagan, Levine, & Setter-

sten, 2008). The only exception is volunteering for those

young adults who have attended at least 1 year of college.

When we do observe declines in the rate of civic engage-

ment for young people (or for young people of a particular

demographic category), at least two interpretations can be

offered. One is that the desirable behavior is declining by

generation, with lasting detrimental effects for democracy.

The other is that people are delaying their entry into civic

engagement, much as they are delaying child-bearing and

lengthening their years of education. The decline in voting

Figure 15.1 Voter turnout by age, 1972–2008.

19720%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

67.0%

65.8%

51.1%

48.5%

60%

70%

80%

1976 1980 1984 1988 1992

18–29 Citizen

18–24 Citizen

30 and older Citizen

25 and older Citizen

Graph 1: Voter Turnout by Age, 1972–2008

1996 2000 2004 2008

0

trust others

group member

union member

read newspaper

self-reported voting

contacted by partyvolunteer

community project

attend club meeting

religious attendance

20

40

60

1970s

2000s80

100

Figure 15.2 Civic engagement among 20- to 29-year-olds with at least one year of

college experience, 1970s and 2000s.


from 1972 to 2000 may be more a matter of delay. Each

cohort began with a lower turnout rate than its predeces-

sors but narrowed the gap as it moved toward age 30.

Volunteering

On the other hand, volunteering has been rising in recent

years. Among American 12th graders in the Monitoring

the Future survey, there has been a steady increase in the

rate of those who had volunteered at least once in the past

12 months, rising from 65.3% in 1976 to 75.9% in 2005

(Lopez & Marcelo, Lopez, & Kirby, 2007a). Data have not

been collected as long for 10th graders, but a similar trend

exists, rising from 67.9% in 1990 to 70.6% in 2005. For

eighth graders, there had been an initial increase, but then a

decrease in 2005 to the 1990 benchmark of approximately

65%. The 10th- and 12th-grade trends are similar to those

from the Higher Education Research Institute’s (HERI)

freshman survey, showing an increase in the percentage

of freshman reporting having volunteered at least once in

high school, from 66% in 1989 to 83% in 2005. However,

when looking at regular volunteering (i.e., at least once

per month), the trends are much lower and fl atter: for 12th

graders, ranging from 7.8% in 1976 to 13.2% in 2005; for

10th graders, fl at at approximately 10%; and for 8th grad-

ers, a slight decline from 10% to 9%. According to the

Current Population Survey, administered by the U.S.

Census, there has been a large increase in volunteering

among the population aged 16 years and older,1 rising more

1 Data accessed on August 1, 2009, available at: http://www.

volunteeringinamerica.gov/national.

than 30% between 1989 and 2008, from approximately 20

to 27%. This increase has been most apparent for 16- to

19-year-olds (26% in 2008), 45 to 64-year-olds (29.4%),

and those 65 years old and older (23.5%).

Civic Activism

Contemporary American youth are, in general, less likely

to be engaged in traditional forms of political activism—

demonstrations, rallies, protests, and so on—than were

youth of the 1960s (Galston, 2001). Evidence for this

claim is based upon the Roper Survey of Political and

Social Attitudes data set, which contains survey responses

from representative samples of Americans questioned

each year between 1974 and 1994. Each year, the Roper

organization asked Americans whether in the past year

they had participated in any of twelve political activities

such as “attended a political rally or speech,” “served on

a committee for some local organization,” “attended a

public meeting on town or school affairs,” “been a

member of some group like the League of Women Voters,

or some other group interested in better government,”

“worked for a political party,” and so on. For each of the

activities, the trend is clear for 18- to 24-year-olds be-

tween 1974 and 1994: Participation declines with histor-

ical time. Youth near the close of the century were much

less likely to report political participation—50% less

likely in some instances—than were youth just 20 years

earlier. While data are not available for the 15 years

since, there is little reason to imagine that youth political

activism as measured in the Roper Survey has increased

(see Figure 15.4).

Figure 15.3 Civic engagement among 20- to 29-year-olds with no college

experience, 1970s and 2000s.

0

trust others

group member

union member

read newspaper

self-reported voting

contacted by partyvolunteer

community project

attend club meeting

religious attendance

20

40

60

1970s

2000s80

100


In addition, using the Roper data set, Hart and col-

leagues (2007) found that political activism in 1974 was

more tightly connected to educational attainment and fam-

ily social class than it was in 1994. For example, family

income was positively correlated with political activity for

youth in 1974 (i.e., as family income increases, so does the

number of political activities), but there was virtually no

association between family income and political activity in

1994. Similarly, the association of educational attainment

with political activism was stronger in 1974 than in 1994.

Between the 1960s and the 1990s, there was a striking

decline in the frequency of protests, especially involving

young people. According to data collected by Soule and

Earl (2005) from newspaper archives, the United States

saw more than twice as many protest events per year be-

tween 1964 and 1974 than during the 1980s. In 1970, more

than half of all protests were initiated by youth, whereas

only 10 to 20% had youth leaders in the eighties. In other

words, youth protests were an important part of the na-

tional political scene in 1970 but either rare or unnoticed

15 years later.

On college campuses, the rate of demonstrations fell

by two-thirds between 1967 and 1978, but it almost fully

recovered by 1997 (Levine & Cureton, 1998). Some of

the means of political expression that have become in-

creasingly common among college students (such as

email petitions, lawsuits, and media campaigns) could

be considered diffi cult for non-college youth to manage,

since they do not have the institutional infrastructure

from which to become active nor the close-knit commu-

nities of civically motivated peers. Meanwhile, strikes

have become much less frequent, both on campus and in

the workforce. The general trend is away from protests,

pickets, strikes, and disruptions and toward sophisticated

“white-collar” forms of politics. This raises the question,

as posed by some, such as Skocpol (2000) about the prac-

tical relevance of certain types of activities (e.g., email

petitions) and whether these activities should be consid-

ered civic.

Aside from the Roper survey, protesting and other forms

of civic activism have not been systematically tracked over-

time. In addition, even in the Roper survey, the way that

the questions are asked do not necessarily resonate with the

respondents. For instance, young African-American males

in low-income urban centers might be more likely than

high-income youth attending preparatory schools to partic-

ipate in civic actions against government entities, such as

the police and the schools that they perceive to be under-

serving or mistreating them. Thus, these hypothetical acts

might be considered to be civic and appropriate for their

context, but would not necessarily be assessed through

typical survey research; especially surveys funded and/or

fi elded by the federal government, which do not contain

such measures. Thus, it is important to consider that the

trends presented and the differences seen by race/ethnicity,

gender, and generation, do not provide a full picture of the

types of civic behaviors in which some groups might be

more involved than others.

Figure 15.4 MSCivic participation among 18- to 24-year-olds, 1974–1994.

1970

0

5

10

Member Good Government Group

Member Local Organization

Attended Political RallyAttended Public Meeting

Political Party Volunteer

20

15

Per

cent

age

Par

ticip

atin

g

1975 1980 1985Year

1990 1995


News Consumption

The long and deep decline in youth voting between 1972

and 2000 was accompanied by a similar decline in news

consumption. HERI surveys of incoming college freshmen

(Pryor et al., 2006) found that the proportion who consid-

ered it “important” or “essential” to “keep up-to-date with

political affairs” fell from 60% in 1966 to about 30% in

2000, although it recovered by six points between 2000 and

2005 (while turnout also rose). Likewise, in the National

Election Studies, the percentage of Americans between the

ages of 18 and 25 who consistently followed the news fell

from 24% in 1960 to 5.1% in 2000, but popped up to 9.6%

in 2004. Newspaper readership among young people was

cut in half between 1975 and 2002, according to the Gen-

eral Social Survey, although again there was some recovery

in 2004.

This downward trend is not confi ned to younger Ameri-

cans. According to the biennial news consumption survey

conducted by the Pew Center for People and the Press

(2008), newspaper readership declined from 58% in 1994

to 34% in 2008. Similar decreases are seen in radio news,

local TV news, and morning and nighttime network news.

There were slight increases in regularly watching cable

TV news or online news, from 33% in 2002 to 39% in

2008, and in viewing online news three or more days per

week, from 2% in 1995 to 37% in 2008. These upward

trends have not been enough to offset the other declines.

In addition, there was an increase in the percentage of all

Americans, 18 years and older, who reported not viewing

any news the previous day.

To make matters worse, it does not seem to be the case

that people are delaying their interest in the news until later

in their lives, and then catching up with previous genera-

tions. On the contrary, several careful studies of the his-

torical data show that each recent generation has entered

adulthood with less interest in the news than its prede-

cessors had, and has never closed the gap. For example,

those who were young adults in 1982 have remained about

20 percentage points behind the children of the 1960s in

news consumption as the two cohorts have moved through

their lives (see Figures 15.5 and 15.6).

Social Connections

Social connections, whether through clubs, civic associa-

tions, or formal or informal community dialogues, create

social capital and support and promote civic activity par-

ticipation among members (e.g., see Putnam, 2000, for a

discussion of social capital and civic organizations). In

1975, according to the General Social Survey, two-thirds

of young people (aged 18 to 25) belonged to at least one

group. (Respondents were prompted to think of several

kinds of associations, including church groups, unions,

and sports clubs, and were also given the opportunity to

say that they belonged to a kind that had not been listed.)

In 1994 and 2004, only half said that they belonged to any

group at all. In DDB Lifestyle surveys conducted during

the 1970s, 40 to 50% of young people said that they had

attended a club meeting at least once within the previous

year (see Figure 15.7). In the same survey conducted be-

tween 2000 and 2006, only 15 to 22% of young people

recalled attending a club meeting.2

2 Authors’ tabulations.

Figure 15.5 MSAttentiveness to news among 18- to

25-year-olds.

Attentiveness to News (age 18–25)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

read daily newspaper (GSS)

follow public affairs (NES)

Figure 15.6 MSNews consumption and confi dence among

18- to 25-year-olds.

News Consumption and Confidence (age 18–25)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

read daily newspaper (GSS)

confidence in the press (GSS)


Attitudes and Values

Attitudes toward others and values about social and eco-

nomic issues can facilitate both a civil discourse to move

forward on social and economic problems in a country or

a community, or a derisive discourse between parties with

competing views. In addition, such attitudes and values

can help to defi ne the civic quality of a given generation.

Only 4% of young Americans (age 18 to 25) say that

they favor segregated neighborhoods. That is down from

about 25% in the 1970s, and is lower than the rate among

people over age 25. This change is almost entirely attribut-

able to the arrival of new generations: again, individuals do

not seem to change much over their lifetimes.3 However,

this change in values has not accompanied a big change

in behavior. More than half of young churchgoers still say

that their congregations have members of only one race/

ethnicity—the same rate as among older people, and not

much different since 1975. In the Social Capital Bench-

mark Survey (Saguaro Seminar, 2001), 66% of young

white people who belonged to participatory groups said

that all the other members were also white. This rate was

not much different for older whites. In the same survey,

just 20% of young people claimed that they had invited a

friend of another race/ethnicity to their house—better than

the 6% rate among adults over age 56, but still not so com-

mon. We do not know whether tolerant answers to survey

questions will translate into real social change if people

remain quite segregated in their daily lives.

A similar pattern is evident in attitudes toward allowing an

“admitted homosexual teacher” to speak (see Figure 15.8).

People born before 1906 were extremely unfavorable when

3 General Social Survey, authors’ tabulations.

Figure 15.7 Measures of community participation for 18- to

25-year-olds.

Measures of Community Participation from the

DDB Life Style Survey (age 18–25)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31attend church often

attend a club meeting

work on a community project

Figure 15.8 MSAttitudes toward free-speech rights for gay teachers, 1970–2004.

Source: General Social Survey.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

born before 1906

Free Speech Rights for Gay Teachers

“greatest generation”born before 1926boomers

Xers

1973

1974

1976

1977

1980

1982

1984

1985

1987

1989

1989

1990

1991

1993

1994

1998

1998

2000

2002

2004

Civic Engagement in an Ecological Model of Development 597

they were fi rst asked the question in 1973, but some be-

came more tolerant as they aged. The subsequent genera-

tions have changed less, but in the same direction. Each

generation is more favorable than the older ones.

Young Americans are also highly patriotic and idealistic

(Rahn & Transue, 1998). Many believe that they can and

should make the world better, especially by directly serv-

ing their fellow human beings. However, there have been

some disturbing trends in values over the past 20 years. For

example, there has been a 50% decline in the proportion of

young people who trust others. Rahn and Transue (1998)

explain the erosion of young people’s social trust as a re-

sult of “rapid rise of materialistic value orientations that

occurred among American youth in the 1970s and 1980s”

(p. 548). Uslaner and Brown (2005) explain trust as a func-

tion of optimism. People who believe that the world will

get better (that there will be more public goods for all) are

willing to trust others and cooperate. People who believe

that the pie is shrinking adopt a zero-sum, “me-fi rst” ap-

proach (Ostrom, 1999). Whatever the cause, a decline in

trust is a caution for civil society, since trust correlates with

participation in voluntary associations.

Overall, Americans want to make the world a better

place, with a focus on community service. These attitudes

can be seen in the higher rates of volunteering, but decreas-

ing rates of political engagement. In addition, although the

populace is more tolerant of their fellow citizens, these at-

titudes are accompanied by a decreasing level of trust.

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN AN ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT

Several theoretical frameworks have been used to exam-

ine the development of civic engagement. In this section,

we discuss the prevailing theories and present a theoreti-

cal framework that captures the multidimensionality of the

development of civic engagement and how a civic con-

text promotes civic engagement. In recent years, the most

prevalent framework has been the political socialization

model. This model stresses the importance of familial and

school-based infl uences on future engagement, especially

political participation, which is often measured in terms of

voting rates, and refer to those practices whereby citizens

are incorporated as full members of the polity or public

sphere of society (Flanagan & Gallay, 1995). Although in-

dividuals are guaranteed rights by virtue of their status as

citizens, it is through the exercise of those rights that they

assume membership and have a voice in defi ning the pol-

ity and through their civic engagement sustain their rights

(Walzer, 1989).

Interest in the psychological mechanisms underlying

political stability motivated early political socialization

studies in the aftermath of World War II. Political scien-

tists and developmental psychologists in this tradition fo-

cused on the early years as formative of political loyalties

and held that maturation in later adolescence “crystallizes

and internalizes patterns established during the preado-

lescent period” (Dawson & Prewitt, 1969, p. 51). Accord-

ing to this theory, loyalty to civic leaders and the polity

they represented fl owed from the young child’s sense of

basic trust in the benevolence of those leaders—that is,

his or her belief that they ruled with the child’s best inter-

ests in mind (Easton & Dennis, 1969). Knowledge about

the specifi cs would come later but was based on this af-

fective foundation.

A critique of political socialization theory concerns its

emphasis on the social integration of younger generations

into an extant political system and their assimilation of

system norms (Hyman, 1959). In this vertical model it was

assumed that adult agents passed on to the younger genera-

tion a set of principles that sustained the system. Relatively

little attention was paid to the interaction between the so-

cialization process and context within which the process

takes place, in the inherent strength of youth and adults,

or in the life-span development of the individual: for

example, politics as a contestation of views, the reasons

why marginalized groups would buy into a system in which

they might feel excluded, or the role of peers in political

development. In fact, change—whether in individuals or

in society—was given short shrift. The focus on childhood

eclipsed attention to the adolescent and adult years and the

ways in which growth in understanding the political system

might also be related to an increase in political cynicism.

The active role of younger generations in interpreting the

principles of their social order—of stabilizing the system

by making those principles their own—was not part of the

models of human development in that period. Instead, po-

litical socialization drew from a replication model in which

older generations passed an intact system on to younger

generations. As generational replacement theorists have

subsequently shown, engagement of younger generations

and replacement of their elders in the political process is a

source of political change (Delli Carpini, 1989).

This theory also did not account for how the cognitive

processes of civic engagement are plastic and infl uenced

by the culture of the individual’s political ethos. Despite


an increase in hypothetical reasoning, pessimism about the

possibilities of eliminating social problems such as pov-

erty or crime increased with age (Leahy, 1983). Although

late adolescents were aware that social systems could be

changed, they were not very adept at imagining alterna-

tives to the status quo. However, this may refl ect more

about the average adolescent’s exposure to alternative

political systems than about their capacities. One recent

study comparing the political views of adolescents in

four security-based societies in which the state plays a

major social welfare role, with their peers in two opportu-

nity-based societies in which individuals shoulder more re-

sponsibility for their basic needs concluded that normative

beliefs about the proper relationship between states and

citizens refl ect the social contracts to which the youth are

accustomed (Flanagan & Campbell, in press). Other work

suggests that exposure to alternative systems can broaden

adolescents’ political perspectives. Using a simulation ex-

ercise, Torney-Purta (1992) has demonstrated that adoles-

cents’ schemas about international politics accommodate

when they assume the roles of different nations and share

perspectives on political issues as seen from different na-

tions’ points of view.

To account for these infl uences, the generational per-

spective of civic engagement concentrated on the role

of historical events in distinguishing generations and on

young people as actors engaged in rather than merely react-

ing to social change. Theorists in this tradition contended

that the late adolescent and early adult period was a water-

shed in the development of a political ideology. Drawing

from Mannheim (1952), they held that this was a stage

when an individual was not yet saddled with social roles

and could view society from a fresh perspective. At this

stage of transition to adulthood, many young people are in

settings away from their families where they are exposed

to different lifestyles, norms, and perspectives on social

issues and would potentially form new reference groups

(Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1991). For example, longi-

tudinal comparisons of high school seniors who attended

college in the late 1960s with their peers who did not at-

tend college revealed that political attitudes were shaken

up by the college experience, but that once crystallized,

the attitudes of those who went to college were more stable

thereafter (Jennings, 1993).

Consolidating political views is part of the process of

consolidating identity. Thus, the way an individual grap-

ples with and resolves the salient social issues of the pe-

riod when he or she comes of age becomes an integral part

of personality thereafter (Stewart & Healy, 1989). In fact,

longitudinal work shows that it is not the historical events

per se but the way that different generational units deal

with those events that predicts their subsequent political

positions (Jennings, 2002). Notably, it is not simple expo-

sure or even interest in the salient political issues during

one’s coming of age but rather how actively one grapples

with and is affected by those issues that are formative of

identity thereafter.

By focusing on the transition to adulthood as a politi-

cally defi ning period, less attention was paid in genera-

tional theory to the formative role of family values in the

development of political views. Longitudinal studies that

followed students of the 1960s and their parents showed

that the political positions of activists and their parents

were more liberal than were those of their age-mates

during the height of student activism as well as 15 years

later (Dunham & Bengston, 1992). Likewise, a study con-

ducted in the 1990s found that college students’ attitudes

toward the Persian Gulf War were similar to the attitudes

that the students’ parents had held toward the Vietnam

War in their college years (Duncan & Stewart, 1995). Not

surprisingly, concordance of political attitudes is higher in

those families in which political issues are salient topics of

discussion and action (Jennings, 2002).

Neither the political socialization nor the generational

theories that attended to the developmental antecedents of

politics in adulthood were grounded in the everyday lives of

adolescents. However, many of the skills and motivations

associated with adult political engagement are learned in

the formative years. Moreover, political views, like other

aspects of social cognition, are rooted in social relations.

Among other things, they concern the way we think about

our membership in society, our rights, responsibilities, and

relationships with others in society. Such views are formu-

lated as adolescents theorize about society and their role in

it and as signifi cant adults in their lives share their views of

the world and the values that matter to them. For example,

in a study of 434 11- to 18-year-olds, Flanagan & Tucker

(1999) found signifi cant associations between adolescents’

personal and family values and beliefs and their theories

about inequality: Those who held individuals accountable

for being poor, unemployed, or homeless were more likely

to believe that America was a fair society where opportu-

nities were equally distributed, and were more likely to

endorse materialist values and believe ardently in self-

reliance. In contrast, youth who attributed these problems

to systemic or structural causes were more likely to endorse

compassion and altruist values. In another study, adoles-

cents’ descriptions of the personal meaning that democracy

Intraindividual Factors Related to Civic Involvement 599

holds for them showed consistent relationships with their

personal and family values: Youth for whom civic equality

was the most meaningful aspect of democracy were more

likely than their peers for whom individual rights were

the most meaningful to espouse environmental values and

less likely to espouse materialist values or social mistrust

toward other people. The youth who espoused equality

also were more likely than their peers for whom represen-

tative rule defi ned democracy to endorse values of social

responsibility (Flanagan et al., 2005).

To resolve the dichotomy between individual attributes

and external infl uences, a growing number of civic en-

gagement scholars and practitioners have moved toward

embracing a developmental model—one they believe to

be more holistic and explanatory of civic participation

across the life span. Based on the dialectical relationship

between individual and contextual factors that is described

by developmental systems theories (Bronfenbrenner &

Ceci, 1993; Lerner, 1991), an emerging theory of civic de-

velopment recognizes that factors which exist both in the

youth, such as values, and external to the youth, such as

socializing agents, work in concert to encourage or

deter civic engagement. This composite of individual and

social contextual variables can be considered to comprise

a civic context. Further, consistent with Erikson (1966)

and developmental systems theorists (e.g., Bronfenbrenner

& Ceci, 1993; Eccles et al., 1993; Vygotsky, 1978), an

age-appropriate civic context should be in place through-

out childhood in order to encourage the summative de-

velopment of civic knowledge, skills, engagement, and

eventual identity. The following are tenets of the devel-

opmental model that we use to frame the intraindividual

and contextual factors that encourage civic engagement.

In other words, developmental systems theories provide a

useful and appropriate framework for understanding the

interconnecting factors within and external to the indi-

vidual that promote civic engagement (Zaff, Youniss, &

Gibson, 2009).

Assumes that civic skills and behaviors are acquired over •

time. Developmental theorists believe that sustained

civic participation—or civic identity—is a process that

evolves throughout childhood and into adulthood. Civic

identity does not suddenly emerge at age 18 with voting

eligibility or with an AmeriCorps experience after col-

lege. Rather, civic identity is developed through mul-

tiple experiences during childhood and adolescence that

predispose young people to take advantage of opportu-

nities as they emerge throughout the life span.

Addresses a wide and diverse array of proximal factors •

that infl uence young people’s civic development such as

families, communities, faith traditions, peer groups, the

media, schools, out-of-school activities, public events, and

others—rather than from one school, course, or family.

Views all young people as capable of becoming civi-•

cally engaged but understands that this potential must

be sparked by adequate resources and opportunities. In

short, when the proper conditions are in place, the de-

velopmental processes will kick in.

Recognizes the importance of societal and community-•

level factors in infl uencing civic development. Poverty,

social disorganization, isolation, and lack of access to

political systems can be as infl uential in infl uencing civic

engagement as familial or school-related factors. Com-

munities with a civic infrastructure that includes nonprof-

its, faith-based institutions, and voluntary groups are more

likely to promote sustained and active participation, while

communities without these elements may hinder it.

Believes that interventions, programs, and/or events •

intended to increase youth civic engagement should be implemented long before young people reach college and

even prior to high school—a conclusion that education

reformers also have reached.4 While civic development

can and does occur during adulthood to remediate civic

defi cits in childhood and adolescence, starting earlier

leads to longer-term and more substantial results later.

Thus, civic engagement is deeply embedded in psycho-

logical, social, and political contexts. The consequence

is that adolescent activism is relatively common in some

historical periods, in some strata of youth, and in some

with particular attributes, but rare in other periods, other

cohorts, and in some types of adolescents. Without consid-

ering these variables together, an incomplete picture of the

development of civic engagement will emerge.

INTRAINDIVIDUAL FACTORS RELATED TO CIVIC INVOLVEMENT

Stability/Trajectories of Civic Behaviors

Civic attitudes remain relatively stable across the life

course. In fact, across more than 30 years, Jennings and

Stoker (2002, 2004) found that stability is more a norm

4 This is based on the exponential increase in funding for early child-

hood education and pre-K initiatives over the past decade, as well as

the strong focus of No Child Left Behind on elementary schools.


than change with regard to political attitudes. Although the

content of the issues might differ by generation (e.g., gay

rights for more recent generations compared to the Vietnam

War for older generations), the stability in attitudes about

the content tends to remain the same. This stability has been

found to be more pronounced among those who were more

active earlier in life than those who were less active. Im-

portantly, and consistent with the notion that the emerging

adult years are a particularly pertinent time in civic engage-

ment development, stability in political attitudes is lower

during young adulthood and increases during subsequent

developmental periods (Alwin & Krosnick, 1991).

The stability of political involvement is suggested by the

political behaviors of former student activists (Fendrich &

Lovoy, 1988). Data were collected in 1986 from 85 adults

who had been assessed 25 years earlier concerning their po-

litical activism. The researchers found that the ex-student

radical activists and institutional activists participated in

a wide range of local political activities (e.g., community

activism, party and campaign work, political communica-

tion) 25 years later.

The developmental trajectories of the sense of member-

ship and of rights are quite surprising in that both seem to

emerge at very young ages. For example, Barrett, Wilson,

and Lyons (2003) demonstrated that English school chil-

dren distinguished between British citizens and those of

America and Germany as young as 5 years of age. More-

over, even young children preferred citizens of their own

nations to those of others (for further evidence of in-group

preference see Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003).

Barrett and colleagues (2003) found that the importance of

their national identities increased over the course of child-

hood, with older children judging nationality to be more

important to them than gender and age identities. In com-

paring their results to those of other researchers, Barrett et

al. concluded that there is considerable variation in fi nd-

ings across countries and that developmental trajectories

are yet to be fully identifi ed.

With respect to cognitive capacities, optimal levels of

abstract reasoning and refl ective thinking are attained in

the early adult years. Typically, it is not until late in the

second or early in the third decade of life that people genu-

inely integrate different points of view as they form opin-

ions. Although adolescents can deal with abstract concepts

and viewpoints, it is usually in the early adult years that

they can coordinate several abstract systems together and

appreciate the subtleties in abstract relations, including un-

derstanding themselves and others. Young adults are more

capable than adolescents of understanding the implications

of their own (as well as states’ or corporations’) actions on

abstract “others.” They also understand the consequences

of their own and others’ actions over time. Thus twenty-

somethings are better than teens at understanding the life-

time impact of passive smoking on a nonsmoking spouse

or of hydrocarbons on the ozone layer. Young adults ap-

preciate principled reasoning and can separate another

person’s political views from their friendship with that

individual. They should, therefore, be able to passionately

debate political issues without personalizing the differ-

ences. Compared to adolescents and to their own parents,

young adults are more committed to civil liberties and are

more tolerant of points of view that differ from their own.

Young adulthood is an optimal time for refl ective thinking,

for examining the bases of ideas and opinions. However,

that capacity is more likely to develop when ideas are chal-

lenged by opposing information or points of view (Fisher,

Yan, & Stewart, 2003). In other words, any undergraduate

student should have the innate capacity for refl ective judg-

ment. However, it is in the context of Socratic dialogue,

where ideas that are taken for granted are examined, or

in encounters with heterogeneous groups, where different

views are aired, that refl ective judgment is likely to reach

an optimal level.

Demographic Differences

Multiple studies have found that females are more likely

to participate in civic activities than males, although this

difference varies by country. For instance, among high

school seniors in the United States (Johnston, Bachman,

& O’Malley, 1999), females (33.6%) were found to par-

ticipate in community affairs or volunteer activities more

than males (28.3%). Using cross-sectional data, Flanagan

and colleagues (1998) found that, in fi ve countries (United

States, Australia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Russia) females

were more likely than males to report having engaged in

community service. In the Czech Republic and Sweden,

there were no gender differences. European-American

youth are more likely to vote and to volunteer in com-

munity service than African-American and Hispanic-

American youth (Johnston, Bachman, & O’Malley, 1999).

African-American youth are well ahead of whites on sev-

eral measures of civic engagement: regular volunteering,

raising money for charity, persuading other people about

elections, displaying signs and buttons, donating money

to parties and candidates, belonging to political groups,

contacting the print and broadcast media, and canvassing

(Marcelo, Lopez, & Kirby, 2007b). The electoral turnout


of African-American youth has been very close to that of

whites in most recent federal elections, even though black

youth have less education on average, and even though an

estimated 1.4 million African-American men (of all ages)

are blocked from voting because of felony convictions

(The Sentencing Project, 2008). As seen in the trends pre-

sented earlier in this chapter, there are disparities in vari-

ous aspects of civic engagement by socioeconomic status,

whether measured by income or educational level. We de-

scribe the contextual factors that explain these differences

later in this chapter, but we note that the disparities are

apparent across the life course (Tang, 2008).

Age can have important implications for understand-

ing civic engagement. For instance, older adults (aged

60 years and older) have a greater sense of civic duty than

younger generations. However, these older groups are not

necessarily more likely to be engaged in civic activities

(Dalton, 2006). In addition, older adults have stronger po-

litical party identifi cation than younger cohorts (Alwin &

Krosnick, 1991) and they have a stronger reliance on volun-

tary organizations to take part in volunteer activities (Tang,

2008). Thus, levels of aspects of civic engagement (e.g.,

duty) might vary by the age of individuals and engagement

might be promoted in different ways (e.g., through volun-

tary organizations). However, as described previously, other

components of civic engagement, such as attitudes toward

one’s community and the greater polity remain relatively

stable over time. Internal assets, such as functional ability,

relates to service dependent on age, such that older adults

are more likely to volunteer for organizations if they have

higher levels of functional ability, whereas the effect is not

necessarily apparent in younger cohorts (Tang, 2006).

Sociopsychological Factors

A collection of sociopsychological factors increase the

likelihood that youth and adults will participate in civic ac-

tions, including values and motivations, civic knowledge,

trust, a sense of belonging, and an assortment of personal-

ity characteristics.

Values and Motivations

From a psychological perspective, it is important to think

about the extent to which a nation’s values are subsumed in

the citizenry, as well as the nature of the values that are sub-

sumed. A nation’s valuing of free market forces over regula-

tion does not, for example, mean that the citizenry adopts the

same values. Groups within a society attempt to drive na-

tional values, while national values attempt to drive citizens.

It is of interest here to note that certain human values such

as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are

seen universally to manifest either in formal documents or

in attempts to resist oppression of those most basic values

(see, e.g., Turiel, 2003). Developing an ideology comprised

of values and motivations enables youth to organize and

manage the vast array of choices the world presents. Po-

litical ideologies are forming in adolescence when personal

values, worldviews, and political attributions appear to be

highly concordant (Flanagan & Tucker, 1999).

Collectivist and altruistic ideologies, that is, a moti-

vation to act for the greater good, in early adolescence

predict civic engagement among older adolescents and

adults (Avrahami & Dar, 1993; Batson & Shaw, 1991;

Colby & Damon, 1995; Omoto & Snyder, 1995; Perkins,

Brown, & Taylor, 1996). There has been little research on

individual values as a contributing factor to civic engage-

ment, although having a moral commitment to community

service has been linked to participating in civic activities

(Colby & Damon, 1995; Flanagan & Faison, 2001; Hart,

Yates, Fegley, & Wilson, 1995; Serow & Dreyden, 1990).

Research also suggests that social contextual variables

promote the acquisition of the types of values that pre-

dict civic engagement, such as parents, peers, and siblings

(e.g., Eisenberg, 2003; Hoffman, 1975; Pratt, Arnold, Pratt,

& Diessner, 1999; Volling, 2003).

Two main types of motivation for community service

participation that have been found for adults are collectiv-

istic motivations and individualistic motivations (Omoto

& Snyder, 1995; Perkins, Brown, & Taylor, 1996; Perkins

et al., 1990). Data from one study of Israeli adolescents

support this fi nding. Avrahami and Dar (1993) exam-

ined the collectivistic and individualistic motivations of

community service volunteers among 415 kibbutz youth

in Israel (192 boys and 223 girls). A total of 465 youth,

matched to the age of the other cohort who chose to go di-

rectly to the army, were also assessed. The results revealed

a range of motivations for volunteering, going from more

individualistic motives to collectivistic motives.

Other types of motivation may exist for adolescents, as

well. In one study, Johnson, Beebe, Mortimer, and Snyder

(1998) examined a longitudinal panel sample of adoles-

cents in St. Paul, Minnesota. One thousand ninth graders

were selected for inclusion in the study and subsequently

followed over a 4-year period; 933 participants remained

in the fourth year of the study. Analyses indicated that

13 to 19% of the students volunteered during each year

of the data collection, with over 40% of the participants

volunteering at least once over the 4 years of the study.


On average, the students participated in these activities for

approximately 4 to 5 hours per week. Regarding predic-

tors of volunteering, ninth graders with higher educational

plans, aspirations, and grade point averages, and an in-

trinsic motivation toward school had a greater likelihood

of volunteering in grades 10 through 12. Thus, intrinsic

motivation works in conjunction with other factors that

defi ne healthy developmental trajectories to promote civic

engagement. More specifi cally for girls, having higher

academic achievement and positive self-esteem and over-

all well-being, and lower self-derogation were related to a

greater likelihood of volunteering.

Importantly, research suggests that motivations and at-

titudes directed toward engagement are derived from in-

volvement in activities (Penner, 2002; Reinders & Youniss,

2006). We discuss the effect of program participation later

in this chapter. What is not necessarily known is whether

there is an interaction between motivations and attitudes

before a civic experience and the civic experience. For ex-

ample, involvement in a service activity to help the home-

less for an individual who already feels empathy for the

homeless might have a greater impact on that individual’s

future attitudes and behaviors than an individual who did

not have that empathy when entering the service experi-

ence. On the contrary, there might be a more sustained,

transformative impact on an individual who did not have

such empathy before the experience, but gains a deep ap-

preciation for the homeless while participating in the ser-

vice activity.

Individuals need to have the opportunity to help, not

just the motivation. Research with adults suggests that a

desire to participate (i.e., their motivation) combined with

their knowledge of and accessibility to volunteer opportu-

nities is associated with participation in youth prevention

programs (Kauffman & Poulin, 1994; Poulin & Kauffman,

2006). These results were derived from data collected from

1,019 adults (50.9% male with a slight oversampling of

high socioeconomic status [SES]) in one study and 250

participants (51% male and 66.7% European American

coming primarily from middle- to lower-SES families) in

the second study.

Civic Knowledge

Civic knowledge is important, as well. Civic knowledge

is associated with political participation and respect for

rights (Galston, 2001). Indeed, the association of civic

knowledge with civic engagement is foundational for

most civics curricula, based on the assumption that those

who know will do, although this assumption is not as

well-substantiated as many proponents of civics education

imagine (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins, 2007). Civic

knowledge includes information on government function-

ing, current political issues, and community needs. Such

information can be obtained through interactions at home

and with friends, participation in community service, read-

ing newspapers and magazines, listening to news on the

radio or television, and courses taught in school. As Niemi

and Junn (1998, p. 1) point out, “political knowledge has

frequently been considered one of the most important

qualifi cations for self-governance.”

Research consistently demonstrates that civic knowl-

edge is related to civic participation (for a review, see

Galston, 2001). For example, using data from the National

Election Studies (NES), Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996)

found that 90% of citizens in the top decile of political

knowledge voted in the 1988 presidential election, while

only 20% of the least-knowledgeable individuals (bottom

decile) went to the polls. This trend held up even after

controlling for demographic factors, effi cacy, and political

engagement. Other research has found weaker associations

between knowledge and action. In an analysis by Hart and

colleagues (2007), the association of high school civic

knowledge with voting in young adulthood is positive and

stable, but the magnitude is very small. In addition, after

accounting for demographic factors, community service,

and extracurricular participation, young adults who were

one standard deviation apart in civic knowledge in high

school were almost equally likely to vote. Moreover, the

relation of high school coursework in the social sciences

to civic knowledge was surprisingly weak.

Thus, a review of the existing literature on civic knowl-

edge indicates that increased civic knowledge does not

guarantee youth involvement in political or civic action

and that other factors must also be considered when at-

tempting to promote youth social engagement. In particu-

lar, belonging and trust in governmental institutions are

crucial in fostering traditional political action. This means,

for instance, that youth with a sense of connection to their

communities and social institutions and a high level of

trust would be more engaged and interested in the political

process and less likely to report intent to take part in illegal

or risky political activities.

Trust

Social trust—the expectation that others are fair, trustwor-

thy, and helpful rather than out for their own gain—is the

cornerstone in the psychological foundation of citizenship

(Flanagan, 2003). Adults high in trust participate in civic


life to a much greater degree than do those who lack trust

(Putnam, 2000). Similarly, adolescents who are high in

trust report more conventional civic engagement, and more

intended civic engagement in adulthood, than adolescents

who lack trust in political institutions (Hart & Gullan,

in press). One recent longitudinal study following more

than 1,000 early, middle, and late adolescents over 2 years

found that social trust is more malleable in early adoles-

cence and tends to crystallize by late adolescence. Further,

controlling for levels of social trust at Time 1, the authors

found that students’ reports of school solidarity and demo-

cratic climates for learning at their school boosted levels

of social trust at Time 2 over and above those at Time 1

(Flanagan & Stout, in press). This is important because

it suggests that young people’s faith in humanity can be

affected by their experiences. In contrast, most of the re-

search on adults suggests that social trust is rarely affected

by adults’ involvement in community organizations, with

the possible exception of groups that are highly diverse

and those that engage in charitable work (Uslaner, 2002).

There is abundant evidence to indicate that generalized

trust is associated with interpersonal contexts (Flanagan,

2003) as well as economic indicators such as poverty

and income inequality (Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner,

& Prothrow-Stith, 1997). Together these mean that, for

instance, harmonious family life complemented by a

fl ourishing national economy would contribute to high

levels of trust. In an analysis of IEA Civics Study data,

Hart and colleagues (2007) found that political trust is a

predictor of political activity. The results of these analyses

suggest that political trust is a predictor of both forms of

political activity, although in the case of illegal protest, the

association was negative, with high levels of political trust

predictive of low levels of illegal protest. Second, civic

knowledge was also predictive of both forms of political

activity. Of particular importance for our purposes in this

chapter are the interactions among political trust, civic

knowledge, child saturation, and voice and accountability.

In particular, adolescents’ endorsement of items in the il-

legal protest scale suggest that this form of political activ-

ism refl ects the interplay of individual-level characteristics

(political trust, civic knowledge) with the political and

demographic qualities of the country. In short, endorse-

ment of illegal protest is facilitated by low levels of po-

litical trust combined with low levels of civic knowledge,

country-level acceptance of political dissent, and high

levels of child saturation. Certainly the last two qualities

were characteristic of the United States during the 1960s.

Furthermore, trust in political institutions is positively

associated with the forms of political activism that soci-

eties traditionally aim to foster and negatively associated

with illegal forms of political protest. Widespread youth

support for illegal protest probably requires a confl uence

of forces that include low trust, high child saturation, and

a society accepting of political dissent.

Belonging

From a peer relations perspective, the need to belong

seems to be a primary motivator for many people, lead-

ing to even greater acceptance of negative behavior when

it is a norm in the group in which membership is desired

(Duffy & Nesdale, 2009). It is likely that individuals

also feel a need to belong to a nation, even in childhood

(Bennett, 2004). The extent to which a need to belong to a

nation will affect one’s civic identity is unclear, although

a sense of belonging is certainly related to the formation

of a national versus ethnic identity (Berry, Phinney, Sam,

& Vedder, 2006).

The need to belong may be a universal human motiva-

tion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and there is consider-

able evidence that when adolescents feel like they belong

and feel connected to social institutions, not only are they

more likely to make healthy decisions and avoid risky

ones, they also are more likely in early adulthood to vote

(Smith, 1999). Adolescents who feel a sense of belonging

or solidarity with their school and the students and teach-

ers therein also are more likely than peers who do not to

say that they would intervene to stop a fellow peer from an

act that would pose harm to fellow members of the school

community (Syvertsen, Flanagan, & Stout, 2009).

Erikson (1968) captured the developmental imperatives

that youth face to belong when he described the key psy-

chosocial tasks of these years as exploring and consolidat-

ing an identity. This entails seeking purpose, deciding on

beliefs and commitments, and linking to others (in orga-

nizations, religious traditions, or social causes) who share

such commitments.

Personality

Many sociologists posit an indirect association and sug-

gest that personality traits lead to actions that put people

in contexts in which they are recruited for volunteering.

For example, extraversion may lead to volunteering be-

cause extraverted individuals are more likely to join the

organizations that provide opportunities for volunteering

(Wilson, 2000). However, other researchers claim a direct

association of personality to volunteering and assert that

prosocial personality traits such as empathy lead some


to volunteer in order to help others. In a study of AIDS

organization volunteers, Penner and Finkelstein (1998)

found that prosocial characteristics such as concern for

others in need predicted volunteering. Proponents of this

direct association of personality to volunteering have also

emphasized that motivations for volunteering may not be

strictly prosocial but may also include instrumental factors

(Clary, Snyder, & Stukas, 1996). For example, an ambi-

tious high school student, knowing that college admission

committees look favorably on community service, may

volunteer to tutor children in an after-school program—a

decision that would refl ect achievement motivation but

not necessarily a prosocial personality (Friedland &

Morimoto, 2005).

Using inverse factor analysis and cluster analysis to

analyze personality data, researchers have found that most

individuals can be classifi ed into one of three personality

prototypes based on their distinct patterns of scores on the

personality instruments. The three most common patterns,

or personality types, to emerge have been labeled resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled (Asendorpf & van

Aken, 1999; Caspi & Silva, 1995; Chang Weir & Gjerde,

2002; Hart, Hofmann, Edelstein, & Keller, 1997; Robins

et al., 1996). Resilients are high in emotional regulation,

are socially skilled, and tend toward positive emotionality.

In contrast, the undercontrolled and overcontrolled types

have diffi culty with emotional regulation. Individuals char-

acterized as undercontrolled have low levels of impulse

control and tend to have diffi culty maintaining successful

social interactions due to externalizing behaviors such as

hyperactivity. Individuals characterized as overcontrolled

are shy, timid, anxious, and also have problems in social

interactions.

Longitudinal analyses of the National Longitudinal

Survey of Youth (NLSY) conducted by Hart, Atkins, and

Fegley (2003) suggest that children categorized as resilient

possess a pattern of prosocial traits that one would also ex-

pect to fi nd in individuals likely to volunteer. For example,

emotional regulation and positive emotionality are associ-

ated with prosocial behavior (Eisenberg, 2000; Eisenberg

& Fabes, 1998). Hart and colleagues (2003) found that re-

silient children exhibited higher levels of emotional regu-

lation and positive emotionality than their overcontrolled

and undercontrolled counterparts. They found that these

characteristics were also associated with prosocial behav-

ior such as sharing.

Empathy, or the disposition to be emotionally respon-

sive to others’ emotions, has also been identifi ed in the

literature as being associated with prosocial behaviors

such as volunteering (Davis et al., 1999; Eisenberg,

2000). Similarly, Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, and Freifeld

(1995) identifi ed two personality dimensions, labeled

other-oriented empathy and helpfulness, and found that

these two dimensions were predictive of volunteering.

These characteristics are also consistent with the person-

ality typology discussed above; for example, Hart and

colleagues (2003) found that undercontrolled children

had lower levels of empathic concern than resilient and

overcontrolled children. Most volunteering is motivated

by prosocial values; however, prosocial concerns are not

solely responsible for volunteering. Instrumental factors,

such as an interest in gaining new skills or a desire to

engage in an activity looked upon favorably by society,

have also been found to contribute to volunteering (Clary,

Snyder, & Stukas, 1996). Resilient children are probably

more likely to volunteer for these reasons than are children

characterized as overcontrolled and undercontrolled. For

example, resilients have been found to perform better aca-

demically than their overcontrolled and undercontrolled

counterparts (Hart et al., 1997). This fi nding suggests that

resilients are attached to the institution of school and con-

sequently may be likely to seek out opportunities within the

context of school that develop competence or participate in

activities regarded favorably by school personnel. A co-

curricular activity such as community-service volunteering

is one example. It is possible that the relation of personal-

ity to volunteering is a result of personality’s infl uence on

joining social organizations. For example, Wilson (2000)

suggested that extraversion might lead individuals to so-

cial organizations from which they are recruited to vol-

unteer. The magnitude of personality in the prediction of

volunteering is substantial. We can estimate that children

characterized as resilient in early childhood are 50% more

likely than undercontrolled children and 29% more likely

than overcontrolled children to volunteer in adolescence.

Moreover, the results suggest that the personality types,

assessed in early childhood, were established prior to vol-

unteering. Consequently, it appears that personality type

led to volunteering, rather than participation in volunteer-

ing shaping personality type.

Genetics

Children and adolescents vary in their propensity to partici-

pate in civic life, and new research suggests that to some

extent genetic factors may play a role in producing these

individual differences. The general argument that genes are

important for understanding individual differences in child-

hood is not a new one. For example, Turkheimer (2000) has

The Roles of Various Contexts in Developing Civic Engagement 605

suggested that many (if not most) psychological character-

istics are infl uenced by genes. In fact, behavioral geneti-

cists have argued that the resemblance of children to their

parents is more attributable to genes than it is to parents’

systematic behavior toward children (Turkheimer, 2000).

Two lines of research are evident in the study of the

genetic roots of civic life. The fi rst of these uses behavioral

genetic evidence, generally from examining patterns of

similarity among monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ)

twins. The assumption is that if there is greater similarity

in a civic quality between MZ twins (who are genetically

identical) than observed between DZ twins (who share

about 50% of the same genes), then genetic factors are

operative. MZ twins are more similar than DZ twins in

voting (Fowler, Baker, & Dawes, 2008) and strength of

party affi liation (Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005). Indeed,

the authors of these studies suggest that genetic factors

outweigh the infl uence of family environment in shaping

political attitudes and political behavior. For our purposes

in this chapter, the fi ndings of behavioral genetics are cau-

tionary. Until research is done on the infl uence of parents

on adopted, biologically unrelated children—in which case

parents do not share genes with their children—then it is

impossible to be certain that parenting patterns, not genes,

infl uence civic development.

A second line of research has looked for gene–

environment interactions. The emphasis in this work has

been to examine the effects that different versions of

genes have in varying environments. A great deal of work

in this tradition has been done in the study of psycho-

pathology. For example, Caspi et al. (2003) in a widely

cited paper reported that children with one version of a

gene regulating serotonin, a neurotransmitter affecting

mood, were particularly likely to develop depression in

adulthood if—and only if—they were exposed to abuse

in childhood and adolescence. This is an example of a

gene–environment interaction, with the gene only pre-

dictive of a particular outcome in a particular environ-

ment (abusive). Fowler and Dawes (2008) reported that a

gene–environment interaction predicted voting, with one

variant of MAOA, a gene involved in the regulation of

serotonin and consequently mood, associated with an in-

creased likelihood of voting particularly if the individual

regularly attended religious services. Such fi ndings are

provocative and interesting—that voting is in part moti-

vated by biological processes that are activated by social

institutions—but very much in need of replication. In-

deed, Caspi et al.’s fi ndings described above that were

so infl uential in driving research on gene–environment

interactions have not been replicated (Risch et al., 2009).

While work on genes and civic development will surely

continue—and continue to fascinate—it seems safest to

conclude at this point that it should be viewed as a direc-

tion of work with much promise but few well-established

facts.

In summary, longitudinal and cross-sectional research,

while minimal, suggests several tentative conclusions.

Numerous individual factors potentially contribute to the

development of civic engagement. Although demographic

differences have emerged in some cases (i.e., regarding

gender), more interesting fi ndings emerge for internal

attributes such as motivation, personality, empathy, and

feelings of trust and belonging. There does not appear to

be one particular motivation or personality that matters.

Rather, several different motivations and personality at-

tributes may drive the same behavior, but with a different

rationale for that behavior. Gene–environment interactions

comprise an emerging, but still nascent fi eld within civic

engagement, which provides an intriguing line of research

to complement the others.

THE ROLES OF VARIOUS CONTEXTS IN DEVELOPING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

Considering the variety of activities that comprise civic

engagement, antecedent activities are most likely not con-

sistent across activity type. Colby and Damon’s moral so-

cialization theory (1995) operationalizes these experiences

by noting that parents, peers, culture, and society socialize

individuals to have a sense of moral commitment to various

goals and behaviors; for instance, with a moral commit-

ment to helping others or improving the state of society. In

this section, we explore more deeply the contextual factors

that encourage the development of civic engagement.

Other relationships, such as positive relationships with

peers, also predict civic behaviors (Wentzel & McNamara,

1999; Yates & Youniss, 1998; Green, Gerber, & Nickerson,

2003), although the long-term effects of these relation-

ships are unknown. Participation in religious activities

is also related to a greater likelihood of participating in

community service activities (Serow & Dreyden, 1990;

Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates, 1999). These associa-

tions are consistent with the theories of social capital in

which social connections and social organizations create

norms and an infrastructure to support civic engagement

(Putnam, 2000).


Race/Ethnicity/Immigration

Ethnic and racial diversity among citizens poses some

potential challenges for encouraging civic engagement.

Putnam (2000) has reported that increasing racial and eth-

nic diversity is often accompanied by decreases in social

capital. Ethnic and racial diversity may undermine so-

cial capital because citizens of different races and ethnici-

ties can view themselves in competition with each other

(Perlmutter, 2002), the consequences of which can be in-

creased bias favoring those who share the same racial and

ethnic identities and derogation of those who do not. So-

cial capital, according to Putnam, is created through social

networks characterized by reciprocity and trustworthiness.

Those who have access to more social capital tend to be

healthier, wealthier, and happier. Most importantly, with

regard to civic engagement, social capital is positively as-

sociated with civic participation (Kahne & Sporte, 2008).

There is evidence that this occurs even in countries that

are known for their tolerance of others, such as the Nordic

nations (Pred, 2000). However, other lines of research in-

dicate that preference and affection for one’s group does

not equate to disdain for other groups (Brewer, 1999) and,

in fact, a strong ethnic identity may be an important step

toward tolerance of others (Phinney, Ferguson, & Tate,

1997) since a comfort with one’s own culture provides a

comfort with oneself and thus a base from which to inter-

act with those from other cultures. Personal experiences

of prejudice and social exclusion are likely a factor in the

civic motivation and action of ethnic minorities. Not only

do ethnic minorities report more instances of prejudice

than their majority peers, but those experiences also are

positively related to their ethnic identity awareness. Ethni-

cally aware youth and African-American youth in particu-

lar, are more likely than others to say that they want to

be politically active by advocating for the rights of their

ethnic group and by working to improve race relations.

But African Americans are less likely than other ethnic

minorities or their ethnic majority peers to believe that the

government is responsive to the average citizen (Flana-

gan et al., 2009). Contrary to prevailing stereotypes, im-

migrant youth are not less civically engaged than their

native-born peers, once other social background factors

are controlled. Furthermore, compared to native-borns,

immigrant youth display their civic commitments in a

wide variety of forms, including many that benefi t their

extended community of fellow immigrants (see Jensen

& Flanagan, 2008). Although the research is inconclusive,

the current fi ndings provide for an important discussion

about the intersection of race, ethnicity, diversity, and civil

society.

National and Political Infl uences on Civic Engagement

Civic engagement is also likely to be the product of politi-

cal climate. For instance, civic engagement is likely to be

different in societies characterized by repression of dissent-

ing views than it is in societies open to a variety of compet-

ing perspectives. For example, Hart and Gullan (in press)

have suggested that the emergence of political activism is

infl uenced by the openness of a society to political protest.

In a related vein, the absence of explicit political activism

does not imply satisfaction or complicity in the state of

affairs of a nation, but may simply refl ect the acknowl-

edgment of the danger of activism in a society closed to

opposition (Turiel, 2003). Torney-Purta, Wilkenfeld, and

Barber (2008) found that political effi cacy, which may in-

fl uence civic engagement, was actually lower in countries

in which more political rights and civil liberties are ac-

corded to citizens.

One study by Sears and Valentino (1997) helps to il-

lustrate how societal level factors may infl uence the devel-

opment of civic engagement. The researchers investigated

how a political event (in this case, the 1980 Wisconsin

presidential primary) can socialize youth to be politically

active. The researchers used three longitudinal waves of

data taken from a probability sample of Wisconsin families

(second wave n = 501 pairs, third wave n = 366 pairs), with

youth aged 10 to 17 years. Surveys were taken before the

Wisconsin presidential primary (January to March 1980),

after the election, and 1 year after the end of the election.

Before the election, the youth did not have a concrete po-

litical identity; making partisan statements without know-

ing facts or having deep thoughts about the topics. During

the campaign, youth partisan attitudes became more con-

crete, with an increase in knowledge of the candidates and

their political parties. However, at the 1-year follow-up,

most political identity gains had dissipated.

The constituents of civic engagement are connected to

social realities. Participation, membership, and support for

rights are all linked to demographic and political character-

istics of countries. In the United States, political scientists

such as Skocpol (2000) have theorized that the decreasing

rate of political engagement has resulted from a political

infrastructure that has evolved from one that was infl uenced

by civic associations to one infl uenced by professional ad-

vocates and lobbyists and other political elites. The power


of political elites, and thus the weakening strength of the

average citizen, possibly acts as a disincentive to engage in

the political process because of reduced self-effi cacy in the

process. Similarly, participation, membership, and support

are predicted by the interaction of trust, an individual level

characteristic, with political voice measured at the level of

country. The nature of the interaction is that scores for par-

ticipation, membership, and support for rights are highest

among those with high levels of trust residing in countries

characterized by high levels of voice. Finally, child satura-

tion was positively associated with conventional participa-

tion and patriotism. In addition, according to a synthesis by

Yates and Youniss (1998), there are several nations (e.g.,

Israel and Canada, among others) that have mandatory ser-

vice requirements, whether in the social service sector or

military. The authors suggest that such policies create a

national ethos of service and possibly result in a deeper na-

tional identity among its citizens than in countries without

such national service policies.

Family

Parents who act as role models, who reinforce volunteer-

ing behavior in their children, and who participate in gen-

eral activities with their children have children who are

more likely to be involved in volunteering activities (Dun-

ham & Bengston, 1992; Flanagan et al., 1998; Fletcher,

Elder, & Mekos, 2000; Hashway, 1998). Parents can act

as socializing agents for civic engagement among youth,

either by reinforcing adolescents’ actions or by modeling

civic behaviors. Several small, cross-sectional studies have

revealed a relationship between parenting (i.e., reinforce-

ment, modeling, warmth, and support) and adolescent

civic engagement (e.g., Kasser, Ryan, Zax, & Sameroff,

1995). In a cross-sectional, cross-cultural study, Flanagan

and colleagues (1998) examined civic commitment among

5,579 12- to 18-year-old adolescents living in seven coun-

tries (United States, Australia, Sweden, Hungary, Czech

Republic, Bulgaria, and Russia). The researchers sought

to identify variables that were associated with a future

commitment to contribute to one’s country and to improve

one’s society. A consistent fi nding across all seven coun-

tries was that a family ethic of social responsibility was

associated with civic commitment.

Fewer longitudinal or experimental studies have been

conducted on parental infl uences on civic engagement.

In one example, Fletcher, Elder, and Mekos (2000) ana-

lyzed data from the Iowa Youth and Families Project, a

longitudinal study of 451 European-American families

from several rural counties in north central Iowa. Using

data from the 9th- and 10th-grade waves, they sought to

determine whether parental infl uence predicts adolescent

involvement in community service (e.g., Sunday school

teacher, Future Farmers of America) and other community-

level activities (sports, academic activities, etc.). Overall,

it appears that parental modeling of participation, parental

warmth, and parental reinforcement of adolescent behav-

ior is associated with extracurricular activity participation,

including community service. Parental reinforcement of

youth involvement is most predictive when the parents are

not themselves involved in community service activities.

Using data from the Maryland Adolescence in Context

Study, Zaff and colleagues (Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles,

2008) analyzed data from a diverse sample of 1,000 youth

followed from middle school into young adulthood. The

authors found that parental socialization of civic behaviors

and ethnic/cultural norms encouraged the sustained civic

participation of the youth.

In a nationally representative, longitudinal study of vol-

unteering behavior, Hart, Atkins, and Ford (1999) inves-

tigated the development of volunteering behavior among

adolescents. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of

Youth, Child Sample, the researchers studied the reasoning

behind volunteer service (what the researchers consider to

be a contributor to the development of moral identity) of

421 males and 407 females. This nationally representative

sample was comprised of adolescents born to mothers who

were 14 to 21 years old in 1979, and therefore are the chil-

dren of younger mothers who tend to be disadvantaged.

Average age of the adolescents was 16 at the time of the

survey. The results suggest that cognitively and socially

stimulating family environments and parent–child activity

participation predicts greater volunteer service.

It should also be noted that children can potentially af-

fect the civic engagement of their parents. For example,

McDevitt and colleagues (McDevitt & Chaffee, 2000;

McDevitt, Chaffee, & Saphir, 2001; McDevitt & Kiousis,

2006) have tested their “trickle up” model in which they

theorize that increased youth civic knowledge acts as

a catalyst for political discussions with parents. This, in

turn, would result in increased parental civic knowledge.

Results of their analysis of 5th through 12th graders and

their parents found that student exposure to a civics cur-

riculum (in this case, through a program called Kids Voting

USA) predicted higher levels of parent–student discussion

about civic topics (e.g., a presidential election), which

was signifi cantly related to higher levels of parent civic

knowledge.


Overall, there is evidence to suggest that parents can

infl uence the civic engagement of youth, and youth have

the potential of infl uencing at least the civic knowledge

of their parents. More specifi cally, parents who act as

role models, who reinforce volunteering behavior in their

children, and who participate in general activities with

their children have children that are more likely to be in-

volved in volunteering activities.

Program Participation

Civic engagement researchers have hypothesized that civic

activities are formative contexts that develop a youth’s

civic identity (Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates, 1999) and

sustained civic participation. In addition, activities that are

not explicitly civic in nature, such as sports or the arts,

could serve as microcosms of public life, thus providing

the social capital and opportunities for social skill build-

ing that are related to later civic engagement. To examine

this theory with regard to civic engagement, researchers

have focused on whether participation in civic and non-

civic activities leads to a civic identity, using civic engage-

ment as a rough proxy for civic identity (Glanville, 1999;

Zaff, Moore, Papillo, & Williams, 2003; Hahn, Leavitt,

& Aaron, 1994; Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates, 1999).

Researchers have found that it is important to engage

youth in the specifi c activities we would like to see in the

future (Youniss & Yates, 1999; Zaff & Moore, 2002). Re-

searchers have theorized that programs to promote civic

engagement should begin with an opportunity for adoles-

cents to participate in civic activities, such as community

service or political volunteering. By performing service, a

participant may become personally involved with political

issues, rather than thinking about them abstractly (Youniss

& Yates, 1997). Involvement in community service also

provides a network of people with whom to discuss civic

issues (Crystal & DeBell, 2002). In performing commu-

nity service, people may also become familiar with social

problems of which they were previously unaware (Eyler

& Giles, 1999). This last point, about specifi c activity par-

ticipation, is important since there appears to be a discon-

nect in increased national trends in the United States in

volunteering rates and fl at or decreasing rates of political

activity. This disparity is possibly the result of volunteer-

ing that is typically focused on non-political activities (e.g.,

tutoring or working in a soup kitchen) instead of activities

with a more political valence (Wilson & Musick, 1999). In

their analysis of two national longitudinal U.S. data sets,

McFarland and Thomas (2006) report that involvement

as a youth in voluntary associations that entail commu-

nity service, public speaking, debate, and performance,

and religious affi liations are the strongest predictors of

political involvement in young adulthood. After control-

ling for multiple social background and selection factors,

they conclude that “youth organizations that demand time

commitments and that concern service, political activity,

and public performance have the most signifi cant positive

relation to long-term political participation” (p. 416). In

addition, active involvement in addressing social problems

during youth is predictive of long-term civic engagement.

This relationship has been found for involvement in civil

rights (e.g., Fendrich, 1993; McAdam, 1988), anti-war

(e.g., Jennings, 2002), and feminist (e.g., Stewart, Settles,

& Winter, 1998) movements. Although the typical service

activities of high school students do not equate directly

with participation in the above movements, they can be

seen as a form of “proto-activism” in which young people

take steps toward more intense engagement (Jennings,

2002). Special note is taken of the fact that school-based

required service was found to be as effi cacious as volun-

tary service in predicting subsequent civic engagement.

Civic Engagement Programs

Overall, research has demonstrated relatively strong as-

sociations between being engaged in civic activities in

middle and high school and later civic involvement. Smith

(1999) analyzed the 1988 National Education Longitudinal

Study (NELS) data to attempt to determine the associa-

tion of engagement in activities in high school and politi-

cal participation in adulthood. Smith found that previous

extracurricular voluntary participation was most predictive

of future political participation (e.g., registering to vote,

voting, and volunteering in political organizations). Using

data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High

School Senior Class of 1972, Hanks (1981) explored the

relationship between youth participation in voluntary ac-

tivities and participation by those adolescents in adulthood.

He found that extracurricular activity participation during

the senior year of high school was related, 2 years later, to

more political campaign participation, to more discussion

of political issues, and to a higher likelihood of voting.

This fi nding remains after controlling for social class, aca-

demic performance, and self-esteem. The strength of the

association is greatest for participation in activities that are

a means to an end (e.g., honorary clubs, vocational educa-

tion clubs, school newspaper), as opposed to activities that

are an end in themselves (e.g., athletic teams). This fi nding

has been replicated in an analysis of Monitoring the Future


(combining data from 1988 to 1993), a cross-sectional and

nationally representative data set of high school seniors

(Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates, 1999). After controlling

for several background variables such as religion, gender,

socioeconomic status, and minority status, the researchers

found that frequency of community service was strongly

and signifi cantly related to participation in conventional

political activities (whether seniors had voted or were likely

to vote, work on a political campaign, contribute money to

a political campaign, or write a letter to an offi ce holder)

and unconventional political activities (whether seniors had

or were likely to boycott some organizations or participate

in a public demonstration for some cause). A similar fi nd-

ing came from a study using High School and Beyond data

(Glanville, 1999). Using data from the fi rst wave (1980)

and third follow-up (1986) of this nationally representa-

tive survey of high school seniors, Glanville found that

extracurricular participation in activities that have some

tangible outcome as the goal, such as student government,

debate, and the school newspaper, was predictive of work-

ing for a campaign, attending a political gathering, and

contributing money to a campaign as a young adult. The

association remained after accounting for several

individual-level variables (locus of control, sociability,

political interest, and community leadership), church at-

tendance, and demographics. However, an association with

voting disappeared once the individual level variables were

included in the model.

When youth in low-income communities participate in

community service, their participation tends to be mediated

by local churches, rather than by a wide set of community-

based nonprofi t organizations that typically attract more

college-bound youth and are also able to offer a wider-

ranging and more diverse set of service experiences. This

means that youth from these neighborhoods have less of a

“buffet” from which to choose how and where they will do

their service and tend to have lower rates of participation

in such opportunities (Harvard Family Research Project,

2007).

There are some bright spots in this picture. Some after-

school programs, especially those that focus on at-risk

youth, have been able to combine academic and social en-

richment with recreation and opportunities for community

service (Allen, Philliber, Herrling, & Kuperminc, 1997;

Philliber, Williams, Herrling, & West, 2002). Quantum

Opportunities, Teen Outreach Project, and Across Ages are

examples of programs that have had at least a modest im-

pact on current community service, as well as on academic

and social outcomes that lead to more positive outcomes

during adolescence (Allen, Philliber, Herrling, & Kuper-

minc, 1997; Hahn, 1994; LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend, &

Taylor, 1996). Other programs, such as service-learning

programs funded through the Learn-and-Serve federal

grant program, have had mixed results. Here we present

fi ndings from programs that illustrate the potential of pro-

grams to promote civic engagement.

One program that experimentally evaluated civic en-

gagement at program follow-up is the Quantum Oppor-

tunity Program (QOP), a multiservice, 4-year, year-round

demonstration project that was conducted in fi ve cities

(San Antonio, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Saginaw, and

Oklahoma City). The program was designed to serve dis-

advantaged youth by giving youth a supervised and safe

place after school in which to do homework, learn to use

computers, take fi eld trips to museums, hear speakers on

various health topics, and participate in volunteer activities.

Learning life skills is also part of the curriculum. An older

mentor was paired with the youth to mentor them during

the 4-year period that started in ninth grade and continued

through high school. Students were given a small stipend

for participating in program services and given bonuses for

completing program segments.

By aggregating across sites (n = 25 participants per

site), and using a randomly assigned experimental/control

group design, Hahn, Leavitt, and Aaron (1994) were able

to determine the effectiveness of the program, including

post–high school effectiveness. Along with a plethora of

positive academic impacts (e.g., increased rates of high

school graduation and postsecondary education, reduced

rates of high school dropouts, and increased number of stu-

dents with the attitude of being “hopeful about the future”),

the experimental group donated signifi cantly more time

than the control group to a nonprofi t, charitable, school,

or community group, in the 6 months after leaving the

program. There was not, however, a follow-up beyond the

6-month one, so longer-term impacts are not known. The

impacts were also mainly driven by a subset of the com-

munities, so the universality of the program’s effectiveness

is not conclusive.

A national quasi-experimental evaluation of Learn and

Serve America’s service-learning programs funded by the

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)

was conducted by the Center for Human Resources at

Brandeis University (1999). CNCS is a government en-

tity created to fund programs that support school and

community-based efforts to promote national and com-

munity service. The Learn and Serve evaluation covered

the 1994–1997 period and consisted of an ethnically and


socioeconomically diverse sample. The programs were se-

lected through a structured sampling process from a group

of 210 randomly selected sites. Although there was varia-

tion among program characteristics, all of the programs

chosen for the evaluation had been in operation for at least

1 year, reported higher-than-average service hours of par-

ticipants, reported regular use of student written and oral

refl ection, and were school-based and linked to a formal

curriculum. Across the sites, students provided, on aver-

age, 70 hours of direct service, such as working as a tutor,

in a nursing home or homeless shelter. Over 75% of par-

ticipants had face-to-face contact with those they were

serving, such as meeting with students or senior citizens.

This service also generally involved both individual and

group projects. Very importantly, 80% of the program

participants felt that they had made a contribution to their

community, and over 60% said that their service involved

real responsibilities, a chance to do things themselves,

and opportunities for discussion. Post-program results

demonstrated short-term effectiveness. Aside from educa-

tional implications (e.g., school engagement, higher school

grades) high school participants had signifi cantly higher

service leadership attitudes and civic attitudes than the

comparison group. Program participants were also signifi -

cantly more likely to have volunteered for and spent more

time doing community service. Middle school participants,

aside from having better social studies grades and fewer

arrests and instances of pregnancy, were also signifi cantly

more likely than controls to have volunteered, but then did

not volunteer signifi cantly more hours.

Participants were also evaluated 1 year after the pro-

gram to determine longer-term associations with positive

outcomes. Of the original 1,000 participants, 764 were in-

volved in the follow-up (460 program participants and 304

comparison participants). The only effect that remained for

middle school students was a marginally signifi cant differ-

ence on number of arrests in the previous 6 months (i.e.,

participants having fewer arrests). High school participants

provided almost twice as many hours of volunteer service

as comparison students, but this effect was only marginally

signifi cant. Service leadership was signifi cantly greater for

participants, but the size of the effect decreased over the

past year. Also, these longer-term associations may be con-

founded by individual characteristics. For instance, those

who continued to be involved in community service after

the end of the program were signifi cantly more likely to

volunteer and have college aspirations, and less likely to

consume alcohol than those who did not continue to be

involved in community service.

These programs suggest that a well-designed extension

of schooling into the community can increase achievement

(see meta-analysis by Durlak & Weissberg, 2006, for ad-

ditional program examples). A host of other service-based

programs targeting higher-risk youth show that they have

a signifi cant, although modest, impact on academic, be-

havioral, and labor market outcomes, but either do not

show any impact on civic participation or were not evalu-

ated to test for that outcome (see Michelson, Zaff, & Hair,

2002, for a review). Moreover, although some of these

programs are directed toward youth from disadvantaged

backgrounds, they still tend to reach only a relatively small

number of this population. The availability of these op-

portunities is not necessarily equitable across socioeco-

nomic status. According to the Harvard Family Research

Project (2007), youth from higher-income families are still

signifi cantly more likely to participate in virtually all out-

of-school programs and activities—sports, clubs, arts, and

so on—than youth from lower-income families, with the

exception of the latter receiving more tutoring as part of

compensatory education.

There are data available that suggest particular program

attributes of which program designers should be aware.

For instance, Conrad and Hedin (1982), in an evaluation

of 27 experiential education programs, found that the pres-

ence of seminars that occur at least once per week was the

strongest variable predicting student positive citizenship.

Also, engaging youth in the formation of service-learning

programs has been suggested as an important program

characteristic. Such interactive classroom time allows for

refl ection and makes for an explicit connection between

the service and the learning (Katula, 2000). Other factors

that have been found to be effective components of service-

learning programs include the length of the program and

the number of experiences (i.e., program intensity) (Con-

rad & Hedin, 1982). Providing opportunities for interesting

activities in which adolescents feel appreciated for their

work and they can see the impact that they have on their

communities may help to make the experience a positive

one for youth. Research fi ndings also suggest that students

should be involved in the formation of the programs. In

other words, youth should be given a voice in deciding the

types of activities in which to participate and the curricu-

lum in school (Garvey, McIntyre-Craig, & Myers, 2000;

Katula, 2000; Morgan & Streb, 2000). Garvey and col-

leagues (2000) made several suggestions for how to give

youth a voice. They suggest allowing adolescents to assess

their community’s needs for programs, making sure to en-

gage adolescents in discussion during class time, sharing


program planning responsibilities, letting youth help with

determining the budget and funds needed for the program,

allowing youth to apply what they have learned in the

classroom to the implementation and eventual evaluation

of the program, and celebrating the impact that they and

the program have had on the community.

Evidence suggests that community service performed

during adolescence is related to later civic participation.

Astin, Sax, and Avalos (1999) analyzed longitudinal data

from college students with outcome measures collected

9 years after college graduation. They found that volun-

teering in college positively predicted volunteering 9 years

after graduation. For example, 44% of people who were

very involved in volunteering in college and also volun-

teered shortly after college were volunteers 9 years after

graduation, while only 19% of people who neither volun-

teered during college nor shortly after college were volun-

teers 9 years later. Similarly, Wilson and Musick (1997)

found in their analysis of the Americans’ Changing Lives

panel survey that volunteering in adulthood was predictive

of volunteering 3 years later and Smith (1999), analyz-

ing data from the National Education Longitudinal Study

(NELS), found that students who did service in their last

year of high school were higher 2 years later on a compos-

ite measure of civic participation (combining volunteering

and voting) than were peers who had not done service in

their senior year.

Experiences during emerging adulthood also appear to

be important for encouraging civic engagement. For ex-

ample, Americorps is the national service program funded

by CNCS. Americorps has two components. The state

and national program engages participants in substantive

service work with public and non-profi t organizations

throughout the country. The National Citizen Commu-

nity Corps (NCCC), a team-based residential program for

18- to 24-year-olds in which participants live with their

teams at regional campuses and are deployed to time-limited

projects throughout their region. The projects range from

environmental preservation and low-income housing to

youth development and disaster relief. An 8-year follow-up

in a quasi-experimental evaluation of national/state and

NCCC programs found multiple effects on participants’

civic measures (Corporation for National and Community

Service, 2008). The comparison group was comprised of

individuals who had explored applying to the program

but decided against joining. Propensity scores were used

to control for differences between the program and com-

parison groups. Participation in community affairs, such

as community meetings, and employment with a public

service organization were signifi cantly higher for Ameri-

corps participants, as were several civic attitudes, such as

effi cacy to lead a community-based initiative and to posi-

tively impact a community. Similar fi ndings were found

for the NCCC participants, except that they did not have

signifi cantly higher rates of participating in community af-

fairs, but they did have signifi cantly higher rates of vol-

unteering behaviors. Overall, considering the long-term

nature of this study, it is impressive that civic effects were

sustained, suggesting that the experiences in Americorps

support the development of civic engagement and that the

effects might differ based on the Americorps experience.

Two important caveats, however, temper the results. First,

although propensity scores were used, the scores did not

include specifi c measures of motivation to participate.

Thus, it could be that the program group was comprised of

individuals with higher levels of civic motivation before

entering the program than the comparison group. Also,

the response rate at the 8-year follow-up, as compared to

the baseline assessment, was only 58%, leaving open the

possibility that those who responded to the follow-up were

more exceptional in their civic attitudes and behaviors than

those who did not respond.

The benefi ts of community service for civic develop-

ment may depend on whether it is required or voluntary.

A number of commentators have suggested that requiring

community service of students—either as a condition of

high school graduation or as part of a class—produces

unthinking, possibly resented, activity that cannot deepen

students’ commitment to the civic good (e.g., Stukas,

Snyder, & Clary, 1999). Chapman (2002, p. 12) has

asked rhetorically, “Does a student who learns that almost

anything counts toward the service requirement [for a

school]—so long as he doesn’t get paid—develop a keen

sense of civil calling? Or does he hone his skill at gaming

the system?” Friedland and Morimoto (2005) has found

that “resume padding” such as for college admissions is

a possible driving force for participation in civic actions,

although the authors do not have data to support their con-

tention that the motivation to participate has any effect on

the civic activities in which the students participate.

On the other hand, there is some evidence that required

service is linked to later volunteering. Metz and Youniss

(2003) studied a high school prior to, and following, the

introduction of a community service requirement. This

allowed them to compare students who were voluntarily

involved in community service with those whose com-

munity service was mandated. Metz and Youniss (2003)

found that those whose service was required evidenced the


same gains in civic interest and behavior evident in the

volunteers following the service activities.

Other research (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & Atkins,

2007) has shown that being required to perform commu-

nity service in high school is associated with higher rates

of voting in adulthood, not lowered civic engagement.

Those who participated frequently in community service

in high school were more likely to volunteer than were

those whose community service was nonexistent or infre-

quent. Extracurricular involvement in high school was also

a statistically signifi cant predictor of civic volunteering,

and there were important differences among types of extra-

curricular activities. Leadership in high school instrumen-

tal extracurricular activities is associated with the highest

levels of civic volunteering in adulthood.

Bennett (2003), Finn and Vanourek (1995), and others

have hypothesized that mandated service might prove to

de-motivate young people because they are forced to help

others and address social problems. Stukas, Snyder, and

Clary (1999) made a similar conjecture based on the no-

tion that adolescents who are striving for autonomy might

be especially averse to forced service. Findings from Hart

et al. (2007) should allay such concerns, as they show that

mandated service can motivate high school students’ civic

engagement. Why is service, even when mandated, effec-

tive, and why might its effects persist through the onset

of adulthood? One explanation is that community service

shapes identity. Many students do service at sites that

are managed by non-profi t organizations and social service

agencies that respond to social problems, such as home-

lessness, and provide assistance to people in need of food,

shelter, and the like (Raskoff & Sundeen, 1999). These or-

ganizations offer assistance in the name of explicit value

systems that are communicated to their clients as well as

volunteer personnel. For example, Allahyari (2000) de-

scribes how administrators at a Salvation Army Mission

and soup kitchen run by the Catholic Workers educate cli-

ents and volunteers in their philosophies of conversion-

reform and respect with dignity for the poor, respectively.

These philosophies provide rationales for service that

volunteers can incorporate into their self-concepts as they

come to see themselves as persons capable of contributing

to the common good (Hart, 2005; Penner, 2002; Piliavin,

Grube, & Callero, 2002). In this regard, young people are

not only doing service, but also doing it as representatives

of a particular value tradition as they serve in the name of

a specifi c tradition. Because organizations and their found-

ing philosophies persist over time, individuals have a ref-

erent point to which they can relate as they move ahead in

the life cycle. These organizations are an anchoring point

for personal as well as social identity (Erikson, 1968).

Moreover, because service is done at these sites, students

may become members of networks with other persons

with whom they did service collectively. Thus, individuals

fi nd themselves connected to organizations and networks

that afford them lasting resources for civic involvement

(McAdam, 1988).

The mechanisms underlying the long-term civic impact

of organizational involvement in one’s youth are not well

delineated but several come to mind. First is a selection

effect: Joiners in youth become joiners in adulthood. As

research on voluntarism suggests, their personalities may

differ: Volunteers are more likely than non-volunteers to

exhibit positive emotions and social skills including open-

ness, agreeableness, and extraversion (Matsuba, Hart, &

Atkins, 2007).

Second, once in an organization, an individual is likely

to get recruited into other organizations and civic activities

(Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). Thus, engagement as

a youth sets one on a recruitment trajectory, that is, in-

volvement in one group increases the likelihood of recruit-

ment into others.

Third, although social rewards are the reason that most

youth initially join organizations, over time they are likely

to develop an affi nity and identifi cation with the organi-

zation and its mission, and feel a sense of coherence be-

tween their own values and views and those of others in

the organization (Erikson, 1968). The public or collective

identity that they are forging is a necessary foundation for

sustained civic action insofar as such action benefi ts the

community, not just the self. We are more likely to forego

individual gain on behalf of the good of a group if we feel a

sense of solidarity with the group. Solidarity or identifi ca-

tion with a group or organization is related to a fourth rea-

son why organizational engagement in youth is related to

civic engagement in adulthood. By working with a group

to achieve a goal, particularly if they succeed, they may

experience a sense of collective effi cacy, that is, a belief

in the capacity of the group to achieve something together.

Since political goals are typically achieved through collec-

tive action, this is an important constituent for sustaining

their engagement.

Organizing and Activism

Youth organizing has been another way to bridge school

and community toward encouraging civic participation.

The importance of institutions and social relationships in

contemporary youth activism permeates research reports


on the topic. Kirshner (2007, p. 370) noted that “activism

groups typically embody cross-age collaborations in

which young adults (usually in their twenties) play criti-

cal roles as organizers and advisers.” Kirshner (2007)

also discussed the development of adolescent activism as

a process akin to apprenticing, with adults playing a cru-

cial role in transmitting skills and attitudes. Pearce and

Larson (2006) studied intensively a youth activism group

and found that the adult leader played a crucial role in

maintaining group cohesion and in organizing the group’s

activities. When youth participate in programs that en-

courage them to take action in addressing problems of

immediate interest to their lives (e.g., promoting neigh-

borhood safety, school reform, etc.), they feel connected

to the work and show capabilities for collaboration with

their peers. Both of these, in turn, contribute to effective

collective action among groups of young people. Addi-

tionally, youth demonstrate competence in establishing

relationships with offi cials such as school administrators,

police, or legislators (Ginwright, 2007; Larson & Hansen,

2005; Hart & Kirshner, 2009).

McAdam (1988) has argued that engaging in intense

political activism during the transition to adulthood

transforms identity in fundamental ways. He compared

young adults who participated in the Mississippi Freedom

Summer voter registration drives with a group of their peers

who volunteered to go but in the end did not participate.

Although the period of time was short, the actions in which

these volunteers were engaged were highly contested and

their lives were on the line. According to McAdam, these

facts, combined with the collective identity they experi-

enced as part of a group powerfully committed to a cause,

fundamentally transformed their identities and also dis-

rupted subsequent life trajectories.

Paige’s (1971) work reveals similarities between rioters

in Newark and participants in Freedom Summer, suggest-

ing that the various actions that are subsumed in everyday

notions of political activism are related to each other. For

example, the twelve forms of legal political action included

in the Roper survey, described earlier, are associated with

each other (these analyses are available from the authors).

This means that individuals who report attending political

rallies are more likely than those who did not attend ral-

lies to be members of committees, signing petitions, and

so on. Moreover, the various political actions all show the

same general historical declines. While McAdam’s (1986)

caution against assuming all forms of political activism are

identical in function and motivation is well made, the ten-

dency of different types of activist behavior to co-occur,

combined with at least broad similarities evident in the

psychology of disparate lines of activism such as Freedom

Summer participation and rioting, suggest that political

activism might be usefully considered as a single phenom-

enon (while simultaneously recognizing the value of in-

vestigations aiming to explicate the unique features of any

single incident of youth activism).

In important respects, the focus on individual and social

characteristics of activists, particularly those prominent in

the United States during the last half of the 20th century,

distorts our understanding of youth activism. This is so

because the very same characteristics that were linked to

political activism in youth of this era and in this political

context might not result in political activism in a differ-

ent context. Consider, for example, the long tradition in

the United States of encouraging and protecting political

expression. The historical record is replete with examples

in which political expression has been repressed in the

United States; nonetheless, in comparison to other coun-

tries in the same time period—for example, China or the

USSR—the social and legal climate of the United States

was relatively supportive of the forms of expression char-

acteristic of political activism. It is unlikely that the wave

of activism characteristic of American youth in the 1960s

could have occurred in countries with traditions of active

repression of political dissent.

Extracurricular Activities

There is also the possibility that simply being consistently

engaged in any kind of activity as an adolescent is associ-

ated with being engaged in positive citizenship activities

in young adulthood. Extracurricular activities provide stu-

dents with opportunities to learn civic and leadership skills,

such as giving speeches, coordinating efforts with others,

infl uencing others, writing formal documents, and holding

meetings (Kirlin, 2003a, 2003b; Youniss & Yates, 1997).

Extracurricular activities also may serve as a forum for in-

teractions with people from various backgrounds and with

adults who may serve as role models or mentors. These

discussions may promote civic knowledge and civic en-

gagement (Zaff, Moore, Papillo, & Williams, 2003). There

is some evidence that involvement in extracurricular activ-

ities in high school increases the likelihood of future civic

engagement. Analyzing the NELS data, Zaff et al. (2003)

found that, compared to individuals who only occasionally

participated in extracurricular activities, individuals who

regularly participated in at least one extracurricular activ-

ity in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades had higher levels of

both voting and volunteering 2 years after high school. In


a review of the literature, Kirlin (2003a) concluded that the

effects of participation in extracurricular activities on civic

engagement might depend on the type of activity. For adult

organizations, instrumental activities have been defi ned as

activities in which the primary objective is to “maintain

or to create some normative condition or change…to at-

tain goals that lie outside of the organizations themselves,”

whereas expressive activities are groups which provide ac-

tivities for members as their primary objective (Gordon

& Babchuk, 1959, p. 25). These defi nitions of adult or-

ganizations also have been applied to extracurricular ac-

tivities in school. Instrumental activities typically include

student government, student newspaper, yearbook, debate

club, political clubs, and vocational clubs. Expressive ac-

tivities encompass athletics, cheerleading, academic clubs,

band, chorus, drama, and hobby clubs. Some research fi nd-

ings suggest that in comparison to expressive activities,

instrumental activities are more likely to increase civic

engagement. For example, in analyzing the High School

and Beyond database, Glanville (1999) found that after

controlling for demographic, personality, and political

variables, individuals who participated in instrumental ac-

tivities as seniors were more likely to participate in politics

6 years after high school than youth who participated in

expressive activities. In fact, individuals in the expressive

group were no more likely to participate in politics than

individuals who were involved in no activities as seniors

in high school. Similarly, Hanks (1981) found in his analy-

ses of the National Longitudinal Study of the High School

Senior Class of 1972 that involvement in instrumental

activities predicted higher levels of political participation

1 to 2 years later than did involvement in expressive ac-

tivities. Another potential predictor of civic engagement

is leadership of an extracurricular activity (Kirlin, 2003a).

Leadership typically involves giving speeches, persuading

others, organizing people, and knowledge of larger issues.

Youth who are leaders of activities may be more prepared

to engage civically in the future. There is evidence that

participation in student government, a prominent leader

position, does lead to increased civic participation (e.g.,

Glanville, 1999).

Community Context: Youth Bulges

Youth bulge refers to a cohort of youth between the ages

of 16 and 25 that is unusually large relative to the adult

population in a society. Historical research has linked

youth bulges to revolutions in 17th-century England, 18th-

century France, and 20th-century Indonesia (Goldstone,

2002; Moller, 1968); to political activism in Western and

Middle Eastern countries (Huntington, 1996); and to the

prevalence of warfare throughout the world (Mesquida

& Wiener, 1999; Urdal, 2002). The associations of youth

bulges to activism, revolution, and warfare—the latter two

are particularly likely in societies experiencing simulta-

neous economic diffi culties (Huntington, 1996)—leads

national security analysts (e.g., Helgerson, 2002) and the

popular press (e.g., Zakaria, 2001) to classify countries

with disproportionately large cohorts of youth as at risk

for the emergence of political extremism. Hart and col-

leagues (2004) have hypothesized that the extraordinary

willingness to participate in political transformation that is

characteristic of youth in a youth bulge is a consequence,

in part, of community infl uences on civic development.

Countries with youth bulges have many communities in

which children and adolescents make up a large fraction

of the population. Communities affect civic knowledge

and civic participation through social infl uence. Knowl-

edge, attitudes, and behaviors are shaped in daily interac-

tions with other people (Latané et al., 1995). Compared

with other communities, child-saturated communities have

fewer adults with high levels of civics expertise that can

be transmitted through informal contact to children and

adolescents. Consequently, youth living in child-saturated

communities could know less about the political system

than youth living in adult-saturated communities. Child-

saturated communities are consequently more likely to

offer models of involvement in volunteer activities than

are adult-saturated ones.

Social infl uence theory explains the positive contribu-

tion of child saturation (an increase in volunteering) on

civic development, a fi nding not easily deduced from

other theories. For example, theoretical accounts of youth

bulges that focus on the poor economic prospects of mem-

bers of youth bulges (e.g., Huntington, 1996) and the pre-

dilection of young men in youth bulges to violence (e.g.,

Mesquida & Wiener, 1999) cannot readily accommodate

fi ndings concerning the benefi ts of child saturation for

volunteering. Hart and colleagues (2004) have offered

a second explanation for the relation of youth bulges

to warfare and activism. These authors suggest that the

economic theory neglects the consequences of growing

up from birth to adolescence in large cohorts of simi-

larly aged individuals. Hart et al. suggest that those who

grow up in communities and societies with large cohorts

of children (child-saturated contexts) are less infl uenced

by adults than are children who develop in communities

and societies in which adults constitute large majorities


(adult-saturated contexts). They hypothesized that grow-

ing up in adult-saturated contexts results in the transmis-

sion from adults to children knowledge of, and respect

for, the culture and society. This transmission is possible

because in adult-saturated contexts many of a child’s in-

teractions will naturally involve adults, who typically pos-

sess knowledge about society and culture. In contrast, in

child-saturated contexts, children interact frequently with

other children, and less transmission of cultural informa-

tion can take place because children typically have little

information about their societies. Hart et al. demonstrated

that children living in child-saturated communities in the

U.S. have less civic knowledge than do children living

in adult-saturated communities, and showed as well that

children in child-saturated countries possess less civic

knowledge than do children in adult-saturated countries.

Hart et al. suggested, but have not proved, that those who

possess little civic knowledge are more likely to become

involved in radical political and social activism than are

those who possess more civic knowledge. In summary,

then, Hart et al. argue that members of youth bulges have

less civic knowledge than youth of the same age who were

not socialized in large cohorts of children, and that a defi -

cit in civic knowledge can lead to participation in extrem-

ist political activities.

Adolescents should be more likely to volunteer in com-

munities in which many other people volunteer in child-

saturated communities than in communities in which

volunteering is less common (adult-saturated communi-

ties). In one analysis, Hart and colleagues (2007) found

that in low-poverty neighborhoods, the rate of participa-

tion in community service was nearly twice as high in

neighborhoods with a child-saturation quotient of 0.4

as in neighborhoods with a child-saturation quotient of

0.2. In moderate-poverty neighborhoods, child saturation

had little effect on participation in community service.

Extremely poor neighborhoods with a child-saturation

quotient of 0.4 had extremely low rates of participation

in community service. As predicted, child saturation was

negatively associated with civic knowledge. From the re-

gression equation, it was estimated that adolescents in a

community with a child-saturation quotient of 0.2 could

be expected to be about 0.2 SD higher in civic knowl-

edge than equivalent adolescents in a community with an

extreme child-saturation quotient of 0.4.

Together, the fi ndings suggest that the age structure of

communities and of countries infl uences the civic develop-

ment of youth. Other factors, such as other individual and

family-level factors cannot account for the pattern.

Classrooms

Conventional wisdom in political science has held until

recently that course-based civic education had little effect

on the civic development of students. However, based on

several large, empirical studies conducted since the 1980s,

positive correlations have been consistently found between

taking a class on civics, government, or American history,

on one hand, and possessing civic knowledge, confi dence,

and attitudes, on the other (Comber, 2003). These stud-

ies include the National Assessment of Education Progress

(NAEP) Civics Assessment (a test-like instrument created

by the federal government and taken by 20,000 students);

the IEA Civic Education Study (a detailed survey of 14-

year-olds conducted simultaneously in the United States

and in 27 foreign countries); and several polls of young

adults that ask them about their own civic education as

well as their current civic activities.

For example, Niemi and Junn (2000) carefully ana-

lyzed the NAEP Civics Assessment, which measures fac-

tual knowledge and cognitive skills (such as interpreting

political speeches and news articles). They found that

course-taking has a positive relationship with knowledge

and skills even after other factors were controlled. Using

their own Metro Civic Values Survey (conducted in Mary-

land in 1999–2000), Gimpel and colleagues found that

taking a government course raised students’ habits of dis-

cussing politics by 5%, their political knowledge by 3%,

and their “internal effi cacy” by 2%. (Internal effi cacy is a

person’s confi dence in his or her own political skills.) Tak-

ing a government course lowered students’ confi dence in

the responsiveness of government by about 2% (Gimpel,

Lay, & Schuknecht, 2003).

But civil climates for learning in which teachers en-

courage a respectful exchange of opinions, respect stu-

dents’ diverse opinions, and intervene to stop acts of social

exclusion or intolerance are positively and signifi cantly

related to ethnic minority (African-, Arab-, and Latino-

American) and ethnic majority (European-American)

students’ beliefs that America is a just society and the

motivations that these students hold about being contrib-

uting members of that society (Flanagan, Cumsille, Gill,

& Gallay, 2007).

Perhaps the strongest evidence supports civil, balanced

discussions of controversial events in classrooms, with

evidence suggesting that such discussions increase stu-

dents’ interest in politics and their knowledge of it (Hess,

2009). Some research fi nds that the whole positive impact

of civics or government classes on civic engagement is due


to the discussions that happen in these courses. Promoting

discussion in class can also send off interesting ripples,

such as such discussions contributing to conversations at

home and thereby increasing parents’ political awareness

(McDevitt & Kiousis, 2006).

These discussions need to be moderated, which is a

skill. It is especially challenging for younger teachers to

moderate current events discussions today, because the

examples that we see on television tend to be shouting

matches, and few of today’s teachers experienced discus-

sion in their own schools back in the 1980s and 1990s. By

that time, the once popular high school class called “Prob-

lems of American Democracy,” which involved reading

newspapers and debating issues, had largely disappeared

from the curriculum.

At the same time, we need to change reward structures

so that teachers can promote discussion of current events.

Skills and knowledge related to current events are not

measured on tests. And controversial discussions can get

teachers into hot water. They need support from adminis-

trators and leaders outside the schools.

Unfortunately, we tend to offer class discussions and all

the other engaging forms of civic education to our most suc-

cessful students, not to their less advantaged peers. As Mills

College researchers Joseph Kahne and Ellen Middaugh have

found, within a given high school, it is usually the college-

bound students who report service learning, classroom dis-

cussions of issues, fi eld trips, visiting speakers, and other

challenging and inspiring civic experiences. These students

tend to come from more privileged backgrounds.

Furthermore, when we compare suburban schools to

urban and rural schools, or schools with high and low av-

erage test scores, we fi nd that the more privileged schools

are the ones that offer interactive civic education.

Data, in fact, substantiate this rationale, indicating

that when service is connected conceptually to civics

instruction—what many call service learning—it can lead to

long-term involvement in volunteering and voting (Beane,

Turner, Jones, & Lipka, 1981; Hanks & Eckland, 1987; Hart

& Kirshner, 2009; Yates & Youniss, 1998). By providing

students with opportunities to address community problems

or issues, lead those initiatives, and refl ect on their experi-

ences, young people are able to build social and civic com-

petencies that equip them for life-long civic participation.

There is a disparity, however, between opportunities in

high- and low-poverty schools. A recent analysis of Current

Population Survey data shows a 7-point disparity in ser-

vice-learning opportunities between high- and low-poverty

schools (27 vs. 20%, respectively), as well as in schools

that recognize students’ civic actions (72% for low-poverty

vs. 62% for high-poverty), and arrange civic activities for

students (61% for low poverty and 54% for high poverty)

(Spring, Dietz, & Grimm, 2007).

Our study builds upon several decades of research that

demonstrates that civic knowledge, extracurricular partici-

pation in high school, and volunteering are related to civic

participation in adulthood (e.g., Delli Carpini & Keeter,

1996; Kirlin, 2003a; Krampen, 2000).

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: NON–COLLEGE-BOUND YOUTH AS AN EXAMPLE

As emerging adults, non–college-attending youth face more

challenges than their college-bound peers, not only in their

everyday lives but also in opportunities for civic participa-

tion. Many continue to live in neighborhoods with weak

civic infrastructures. Most employment available to them is

part-time with little or no prospect of having health or other

benefi ts—a stark contrast to jobs available to former genera-

tions, especially those with strong unions that historically

served as social and civic centers for blue-collar workers and

new immigrants. A lower level of job and fi nancial secu-

rity impedes buying a fi rst home and, therefore, developing

strong attachments to a broader community. And there are

few, if any, ready-made programs or initiatives such as those

that college-bound youth have available to them on their col-

lege campuses to “get involved” in civic or political affairs.

In short, what was the standard series of life events

for emerging adults has dissembled into diverse patterns,

with particular implications for non–college-bound youth

(NCBY). First, the events that had traditionally been im-

portant in connecting emerging adults to their families,

communities, fellow workers, and country are no longer

reliable in helping to fuel civic participation. Second,

the lack of strong civic associations and infrastructure in

communities where NCBY grow up and live as emerging

adults suggests that there will be little incentive or interest

in participating over the long term.

This generational change in engagement with civically

reinforcing institution has resulted in a civic gap between

college-attending youth and their non–college-attending

counterparts. Increases in voting, volunteering, and other

forms of civic engagement are driven disproportionately

by young people from higher-income families and commu-

nities, as well as youth who are college bound or already

enrolled in secondary institutions. In contrast, low-income

Putting It All Together: Non–College-Bound Youth as an Example 617

and NCBY are lagging far behind in their levels of civic

participation—a gap that threatens the health of a democ-

racy that depends on the full participation of everyone, not

just some.

Ample data underscore the stark differences in the civic

and political engagement of college-bound and NCBY in

the United States:

Nearly 60% of 18- to 24-year-old college students voted •

in the 2004 presidential election, while only one-third

of non–college-attending youth (aged 18 to 24) voted

(Lopez, Kirby, & Sagoff, 2005). That disparity also

emerged during the 2008 primaries, with college stu-

dents nearly four times more likely to have voted than

students not attending college (25 vs. 7%) (Marcelo &

Kirby, 2008).

The gap between college-educated and NCBY contin-•

ued during the 2008 presidential election. Although just

57% of U.S. citizens under 30 have ever attended col-

lege, 70% of all young voters in the 2008 election had

gone to college (Marcelo & Kirby, 2008).

The same disproportion emerged in young people with-•

out a high school diploma. Although the latter make up

14% of the general population, only 6% of young vot-

ers in the 2008 presidential election had no high school

diploma (Marcelo & Kirby, 2008).

According to the Current Population Survey, 8.3% of •

19- to 25-year-old NCBY volunteered in 2006, down

from 10.6% the previous year. In contrast, in 2006,

nearly one in three college students (31%) volunteered

(Marcelo et al., 2007a). Similar education-related dis-

parities were reported for all adults aged 16 years and

older (Foster-Bey, 2008).

A• recent survey found that college-bound youth had

higher rates of civic involvement across 16 of 19 indica-

tors of civic participation, including voting, volunteer-

ing, canvassing, boycotting, and “buycotting” (Lopez

et al., 2006).

Traditional measures of civic engagement for non-

college youth have declined substantially since the 1970s,

when unions, churches, and other religious congregations,

social movements, and voluntary associations provided

more opportunities for NCBY to attend meetings, work

on community projects, belong to groups, and meet politi-

cal offi cials (National Conference on Citizenship, 2006).

Whether musical culture or new forms of association that

use the Internet can compensate is still a question.

Today, 40% of the entire youth population under the

age of 18 come from low-income backgrounds (American

Community Survey, 2008), and are underexposed (or in

some cases, have no exposure whatsoever) to high-quality

civic education. They also lack opportunities to assume

leadership roles in their schools and communities and to

participate in civic activities, school-led or otherwise (Hart

& Kirshner, 2009; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; McFarland

& Starrmans, 2007).

Low-income youth or youth whose parents never at-

tended college also are less likely to attend postsecondary

institutions where much attention to youth civic engage-

ment occurs. The average educational attainment of those

growing up in poverty, for example, is less than a high

school diploma (Duncan, Kalil, & Ziol-Guest, 2008), and

approximately 40 to 50% of students from low-income

families drop out before graduation (Kauffman, Alt, &

Chapman, 2004).

This is a particularly severe problem in high-poverty

school districts (Neild & Balfanz, 2006). Conservative esti-

mates show that nearly half of young people from low-income

families do not attend college (Horn & Nunez, 2000),

although the rate is most likely lower in urban centers.

While civic knowledge among young people overall

continues to sag, it is particularly low among young people

who are less likely to go to college. The National Assess-

ment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics test, which is

periodically administered to 8th- and 12th-grade American

students, found that students whose parents had, at most,

a high school diploma, scored 30 points or more below

students whose parents achieved higher levels of educa-

tion. Only 10% of students with parents with high school

degrees or less were assessed as being profi cient (Lutkus

& Weiss, 2007).

Using the civic engagement framework that has guided

this chapter and the research base we have presented, we

describe the contextual civic opportunities available to

NCBY.

Family

Family is important in the cultivation of civic behaviors

and civic identity, whether through transmission of cultural

norms or modeling of behaviors and attitudes (Dunham &

Bengston, 1992; Flanagan et al., 1998; Fletcher, Elder, &

Mekos, 2000; Zaff, Malanchuk, & Eccles, 2008).

Data consistently show that adults with lower educa-

tional attainment have lower rates of voting and volunteer-

ing, suggesting that young people in those families may not


be receiving adequate civic socialization within their fam-

ily system. Lower numbers of NCBY also report having

fewer political discussions with parents, which is a strong

predictor of civic knowledge (McIntosh et al., 2007).

Schools

Schools are obvious vehicles for conveying civic knowl-

edge and stoking political interest and have, in many cases,

helped to compensate for parents’ lack of familiarity with

the political system, such as students of parents who have

emigrated from non-democratic settings.

Research, though, shows that students in high schools

where the majority of young people are not headed for col-

lege are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to having

access to civic education, which, in an environment of

scarce resources, is often viewed as less important than

core subjects such as math and reading. A recent study of

California public high schools, for example, reported a di-

rect correlation between the number and quality of civics

classes and the socioeconomic status of students these

schools served, with higher levels of poverty having fewer

civics classes (Kahne & Middaugh, 2008).

Teachers are also often reluctant to embrace civic edu-

cation because they see it as “yet another add-on” to an

already packed curriculum focused on science, math, and

reading. Standards and testing regulations only add to that

pressure to “teach to the test.”

Teachers interested in civic education are often left to

their own devices when trying to incorporate it into their

classrooms, and there are few opportunities for these edu-

cators to obtain substantive training and support. When

there are civics classes, these classes are less likely to in-

volve democratic procedures such as teachers encouraging

civil discussion of serious issues (Niemi & Junn, 1998).

It is not just civic classes that are frequently missing in

high schools serving NCBY, but an array of enriching sup-

plements that can facilitate learning and make civic-related

content interesting to young people (Kahne & Middaugh,

2008). Among these are opportunities to discuss contro-

versial issues, community service projects, participation

in simulated political processes, and use of technology,

among others (Gibson & Levine, 2003).

High schools serving NCBY also are less likely than

high schools serving college-bound youth to have student

governments, participation in which has been shown to

increase the likelihood of civic engagement later in life

(Hanks & Eckland, 1987; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady,

1995). Students in NCBY-predominant schools are also

less likely (or be asked) to participate in helping to cre-

ate school policy or rules. Students, for example, may

be permitted to raise funds for the senior prom, but they

are unlikely to partake in decisions regarding disciplinary

issues that may emerge during that event (McFarland &

Starrmans, 2007).

An analysis of New York City high schools underscores

the sharp divisions between institutions serving NCBY

and those serving college-bound youth (Devine, 1996).5

In NCBY schools, classroom-based academic learning is

formally segregated from the civic life occurring in public

spaces inside and outside the school building.

While classroom instruction is managed by administra-

tion and teachers, the rest of the school environment is

usually under the control of a non-teaching security force

that monitors students’ behavior and enforces disciplinary

codes. Students tend to have little, if any, say regarding the

disciplinary codes, and frequently fi nd themselves at odds

with a set of rules they perceive as arbitrary, impersonal,

and unrelated to “real life.”

This split between teaching functions and discipline of-

fers young people few, if any, opportunities to integrate

civic practice and learning into everyday social behavior.

It also results in a woefully defi cient civic atmosphere

(Devine, 1996; Fine, 1994).

Thus, when the connection is made between practice

and learning, it is hardly surprising that NCBY perform

well. When NCBY are given opportunities to participate

in school reform, they are able to focus on a host of issues

that would improve the educational context, such as fair

application of the disciplinary code, effective dealing with

sexual harassment, and limiting the use of high-stakes tests

that often penalize these students (Larson & Hansen, 2005;

Sherman, 2002).

Neighborhood and System-Level Factors

“Place”—and the conditions place provides for civic devel-

opment—has been relatively overlooked as an important

factor contributing to civic socialization. Neighborhood

wealth or poverty, the quality of municipal governance and

services, and whether systems are functional or dysfunc-

tional can and do encourage or impede civic engagement.

A study of the Baltimore-Washington region across sev-

eral congressional districts, for example, revealed surprising

5 The distinction between NCBY and CBY institutions was made

by calculating the proportion of students who score highly on

achievement scores and go on to college.


differences in young people’s political knowledge and in-

volvement in politics (Gimpel, Lay, & Schuknecht, 2003).

Districts were compared according to the degree of com-

petition in recent elections, which has been shown to be

directly associated with socioeconomic status.

Areas with a preponderance of less-wealthy and

less-educated citizens tended to have fewer contested

elections, that is, many districts have long-serving, un-

challenged elected offi cials, and are more prone to ger-

rymandering that ensures re-election of incumbents. Less

electoral competition was associated with less knowledge

about and involvement in politics. Young people living

in less-competitive districts also had less interest in dis-

cussing political issues with family members, teachers,

and peers.

Another factor associated with NCBY and lower SES is

an unfavorable distribution of adults relative to children. In

areas highly saturated with children, political knowledge

among youth tends to suffer, compared to areas with higher

proportions of adults (Hart & Kirshner, 2009). While one

reason may be the lack of attention schools in low-income

neighborhoods tend to pay to civic education, another is

that the relative absence of adults, especially politically

knowledgeable adults, diminishes opportunities for discus-

sion of issues and political processes, including elections

and campaigns (McIntosh, Youniss, & Hart, 2007).

In civic-defi cient environments such as those preva-

lent in low-income areas, government and governmental

institutions are often seen as uninviting and fraught with

tension. Elected offi cials may feel safe enough in incum-

bency so as not to invite citizen participation. City work-

ers representing the municipal government tend to act

bureaucratically or impersonally, rather than respectfully,

to community residents, whether the focus is motor vehicle

registration or garbage collection. Police treatment of com-

munity residents—perceived or actual—can also infl uence

whether and how people participate in civic life (Gimpel

& Pearson-Merkowitz, 2009; Bourgoise, 1995; Hagedorn,

1988).

Work and Income

“Churn” was already common for young adults in the

1970s. However, for men, the decade between age 30 and

age 40 has changed substantially; job “churn” is now much

more common. This means that obtaining a lasting, full-

time job—a traditional marker of full adulthood, at least

for men—now lies far in the future or may not seem pos-

sible at all for Americans in their 20s.

If obtaining a stable job is delayed or never occurs,

younger generations may be less likely to become stake-

holders in local communities, owning property and send-

ing their children to local schools. That could suppress

political and civic engagement, or it could mean that the

life cycle/local stakeholder model of political engagement

will be outdated and that younger generations will get en-

gaged in politics for causes or interest groups or via the

Internet—and likely more episodically.

Rosch, Brinson, and Hassel, (2008) presented some

sobering statistics about the growing numbers of 18- to

24-year-olds who are disconnected from society and its

institutions. In 2003, 8% in this age group, 1.9 million,

held no degree beyond high school, had no job, and was

not enrolled in school. According to the report, this rate

had increased to 8.7%, approximately 2.1 million young

people, by 2006.

This is particularly pertinent considering the shift of the

labor market—from middle to lower incomes, from career

track to career dead-ends, from full benefi ts to few or no

benefi ts, and from union to non-union jobs. This has had

profound effects on whether and to what extent NCBY are

able to connect to civic institutions.

Today, many NCBY have to take multiple jobs just

to meet basic needs, making civic participation an im-

plausible luxury (Gauthier & Furstenburg, 2005). Lack

of a college degree carries a larger income penalty today

than in the recent past. During the past three decades, the

average hourly wage of high school dropouts declined

by 16%.

Also, the income disparity between high school and

college graduates grew from 1.5:1 to 2:1 (Heckman &

Krueger, 2003). And, high school graduates’ incomes

have been hit harder than college graduates by periodic

recessions (Hacker, 2008). As a result, many NCBY be-

come part of the “working poor” whose top priorities

are putting food on the table and a roof over their heads,

rather than participating in community and national is-

sues.6

The economic picture for communities of color is even

more dire. Among African-American and Hispanic 18- to

24-year-olds, nearly 25% live in poverty. Less than 60%

of African Americans ages 20 to 24 are employed (Current

Population Survey, 2007). These income disparities present

6 The distinction between NCBY and CBY institutions was made

by calculating the proportion of students who score highly on

achievement scores and go on to college.


even more daunting barriers to civic participation among

African-American and Hispanic NCBY.

The national decline in union membership has been

especially debilitating to NCBY’s opportunities for civic

engagement. Historically, unions have done more than

guarantee living wages and benefi ts; they have created

common bonds among members that often led to shared

political goals and activities (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady,

1995). The demise of unions in traditional employment

sectors and their nonexistence in other parts of the labor

force has diminished these kinds of opportunities for em-

ployees to connect with one another, as well as with their

employers, and thus, make them less likely to feel a sense

of civic belonging.

Military

NCBY enlist in the military in far greater numbers than

their college-bound peers. Today, more than 90% of re-

cruits across branches are NCBY (Kane, 2006). Since

its inception in 1973, the all-voluntary military has been

attractive to NCBY for several reasons. It offers useful

employment in contrast to working on and off in a series

of dead-end jobs. It provides job training in mechanical,

electronic, culinary, and other fi elds that can help lead to

more lucrative employment (Bachmann, Freedman-Doan,

& O’Malley, 2000). And it offers opportunities for enlist-

ees to earn GEDs and college stipends.

The military also might be a particularly promising

milieu in which to encourage civic engagement among

NCBY. Civic lessons, for example, are part of the Initial

Entry Training required of every enlistee and, thus, have

the potential to be compensatory for NCBY who either

dropped out of high school or attended schools with no

civics classes (e.g., Kahne & Middaugh, 2008).

The effects of this training have not yet been proven

defi nitively, but some studies suggest that they may be ef-

fective in enhancing civic participation. Enlistees also are

provided with an introduction to what Boyte (2005) and

others call “civic work”—work that requires action in ser-

vice to one’s community and country.

These and other opportunities can help lead to the

likelihood of more civic engagement after active ser-

vice. Moskos and Butler (1996), for example, report that

African-American veterans have higher rates of marriage,

employment, and income—the very factors that enhance

civic attachment—than non-veterans. Teigen (2006) has

found consistently higher rates of voting by veterans com-

pared to non-veterans.

Integration into Community Life: Homeownership and Organizational Affi liations

Establishing permanent residency often leads to caring

about and being involved in community-related issues

(such as the quality of local schools and safety) (DiPasquale

& Glaeser, 1998). While some residential mobility is ex-

pected during emerging adulthood, signifi cant disparities

exist between NCBY and college-bound youth regarding

homeownership, and these disparities continue to grow

(Gyourko & Linneman, 1997).

Communities of color, in particular, have substantially

lower rates of homeownership than white households. Only

26% of African-American and 36% of Hispanic 25- to 34-

year-olds own their homes, compared to 53% of whites in

the same age group.

One of the central concerns about recent generations

of emerging adults, especially NCBY, is their aversion to

membership in traditional value-bearing institutions such

as churches, affi nity groups, social movements, and the

like that play important roles in inculcating civic engage-

ment (Settersten, Furstenburg, & Rumbaut, 2005).

Churches, in particular, have experienced membership

declines among emerging adults who shy away from de-

nominational “truths” they fi nd exclusionary and, instead,

gravitate toward what they believe are more inclusionary

spiritual practices and beliefs (Arnett, 2005; Roof, 1993;

Smith, 2007). Young adults, especially those who are

NCBY, also are less likely to attend religious services on a

regular basis,7 further weakening their ties with these kinds

of community institutions.

Continuity in service engagement during the young

adult years shows a positive and signifi cant relationship

with the likelihood that youth, including those from eco-

nomically disadvantaged families, will make educational

progress over a 4-year period. Finlay and Flanagan (2009)

conducted secondary analyses of a national study of

young people who participated in AmeriCorps programs

and their peers who investigated the program but did not

join AmeriCorps. They found that over the 4 years of the

study, those youth who increased their educational attain-

ment were more likely than their peers who made no prog-

ress to have consistently engaged in service, whether in

AmeriCorps or not.

7 Based on original analysis of Monitoring the Future data by

staff at Child Trends. For more information, see http://www.

childtrendsdatabank.org.


Technology and New Media

Some believe that focusing on declining participation in

traditional institutions fails to account for new civic ven-

ues to which emerging adults are gravitating, most notably,

Internet-based forms of social life. Today, emerging adults

are using cell phones, websites, Facebook/MySpace, and

other media tools to connect with peers and the world

around them.

Among college- and non–college-attending youth, there

were smaller gaps in certain forms of online engagement.

For example, 57% of young adults with college experi-

ence, and 52% of young adults without college experi-

ence, said that they had used social networking sites such

as MySpace or Facebook to address social issues. On six

measures of online engagement, college youth were ahead

of non-college youth, but these gaps were notably smaller

than the gaps in traditional forms of engagement that were

observed in the same survey (see Figure 15.9). Use of so-

cial media is already extremely high and this usage crosses

racial/ethnic and socioeconomic lines. Thus, the Internet

holds a potential path for all Americans to be involved

in the democratic process, even when traditional avenues

for such participation are not as clearly marked or open

to all.

These forms of interaction are, in turn, driving changes

in the way people communicate, stay connected, and obtain

information. A “digital divide,” however, still exists. Only

59% of those with a high school diploma and 36% of those

with less have access to any form of the Internet at home

(Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2008).

These groups also are less likely to have broadband

access—34 and 21%, respectively (Horrigan & Smith,

2008). And while some reports conclude that Internet

access at schools is helping to close this gap among pri-

mary and secondary school students (DeBell & Chapman,

2003), there is still no indication that non-school time with

computers and the Internet will be focused on academic or

civic-related activities.

For those who do have Internet access, there are increas-

ing venues through which to engage in civic or political

efforts—for example, Causes on Facebook, Change.org,

Razoo, and political blogs, as well as cell phones and

texting. Young people, for example, used online social net-

works and tools to “engage in one of the most contentious

techno-political issues today, with more than 17,000 of them

signing up as ‘friends of network neutrality on MySpace’”

(Rheingold, 2007; Montgomery, 2007). The thousands of

young people who left their offi ces and schools in early

2006 to participate in immigration marches were fueled

less by formal organizations and more by the buzz created

among peers using cell phones, text messaging, and blogs

(Fine, 2006).

Moreover, young people’s participation through tech-

nology is highly interactive, with more than 50% of today’s

teenagers creating their own digital media through blogs,

wikis, RSS, tagging, mashups, podcasts, videoblogs, and

virtual communities (Rheingold, 2007; Lenhart & Madden,

2006). This penchant for media production, some argue,

can and should be used to generate more political and civic

involvement, but it will require the cooperation of tradi-

tional institutions such as schools to facilitate this process

Figure 15.9 Online civic engagement, 18- to 30-year-olds.

100

80

60

40

20

0Use electronic

devices tocommunicatewith friends

Emailing/textingat least

once a day

Use socialnetworking

site forcivic purposes

Use Internetto gather

civic informationweekly

Haveown blog

Commenton blog

College

Non-College


since the latter are where the majority of young people

learn about democracy and other political processes.

Given that NCBY are less likely to have access to new

technologies in schools—especially those that allow for

self-expression—and/or curricula and programs that encour-

age the use of these technologies, there are serious questions

about whether and to what extent NCBY will be able to en-

gage as fully as they might through the relatively low-cost and

accessible venues that these tools provide (Rheingold, 2007).

Others maintain that the jury is still out about whether

these new media have enhanced (or have the potential

to replace) traditional avenues of engagement for young

people in general, or whether they will continue to be used

primarily for socializing with friends and others (Fine,

2008). There are also questions as to whether these social

media will attract only the “usual suspects,” that is, emerg-

ing adults who are already predisposed to political engage-

ment (Stolle & Hooghe, 2005; Levine, 2007) and who are

more likely to be college-bound youth.

Agency and Opportunity for College Attenders

Among NCBY, many perceive the political system and pol-

itics to be profoundly irrelevant and unresponsive to their

needs and to those of their communities. A recent nationally

representative study, for example, showed that two-thirds

of NCBY surveyed said they believed they could “make

little difference in politics,” compared to only one-third of

college-bound youth. Fewer NCBY than college-bound

youth also considered voting to be important or a duty

(Lopez, Kirby, & Sagoff, 2005). The result is a circular

problem: NCBY are not tapped for political participation

so they are less likely to be involved or vote. In turn, the

political parties and other political organizations are much

less likely to engage NCBY because they are less inclined

to vote. The mutually reinforcing set of institutions (e.g.,

family, schools, workplace, churches, civic organizations,

and informal community networks) that used to help instill

a sense of civic identity has become fractured for NCBY.

Family ties have weakened. Schools have pared down cur-

ricula to convey basics, neglecting the civics curriculum

and opportunities for service-learning experiences. Jobs

increasingly have become impermanent, non-unionized,

and low paying. Membership in voluntary associations

has waned. And, informal networks have clustered so that

NCBY interact more narrowly with one another rather than

being extended outward to people with more resources.

On the other hand, for those who are in college, they are

more likely to be in settings where (1) they accrue resources

(knowledge about issues and the wherewithal to take ac-

tion); (2) they are recruited (someone asks them to join an

organization or invites them to a community meeting); and

(3) there are normative pressures to participate in commu-

nity affairs (because others around them are participating). But the growing social class divide in civic participation in

recent years is due in part to the loss of institutions where

members of the working class get recruited into political

action. In young adulthood it is more incumbent on indi-

viduals to identify those opportunities; and for those who

do not go on to 4-year colleges, there are fewer institutions

where they can garner resources and get recruited.

Importantly, it is not the mere fact of being in college

that produces civic benefi ts but rather the exposure to

different perspectives and the pressure to come to grips

with them that helps youth crystallize their own views. As

social movement literature has documented, for civic en-

gagement in one’s youth to have lifelong effects, one has

to actively wrestle with the issues rather than watch from

the sidelines. Citizenship fi gures prominently in most col-

lege mission statements and, in recent years, courses with

a community service component have been on the rise.

At the same time, universities have enacted policies that

restrict the range of backgrounds and perspectives their

students will naturally encounter. For example, computer

matching services to help new students fi nd roommates

who are similar to them are now common practice. To

improve their standing with peer institutions, universities

seek students with high standardized test scores and attract

them by increasing the proportion of merit versus need-

based scholarships and providing small “honors” colleges

within the larger public university.

Nonetheless, being in college (or other institutional

settings such as work, faith-based organizations, etc.) en-

hances the likelihood of recruitment into civic activity.

Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995) show that variation

in civic participation among American adults can be ex-

plained by three factors: the fact that citizens who have

resources can be active, those who are engaged are mo-

tivated or want to be active, and those who are recruited often say yes when asked. College plays a role in at least

two and perhaps all three of these: Youth with more re-

sources are more likely to attend college, and additional

political contacts and resources accrue with education.

A wide range of organizations, clubs, and associations

also are a typical part of student life, and participation in

such groups has both social and civic pay-offs. Student

members of organizations are likely to get recruited into

community volunteer work or political activity even if the

Conclusions 623

primary purpose of their organization is social. Civic skills

and dispositions may accrue as a consequence of their vol-

unteer work. It is less clear that college attendance impacts

the motivation for civic participation. However, college at-

tendance does seem to sustain the civic engagement of the

highly motivated by offering structured opportunities for

staying engaged.

CONCLUSIONS

There are several points to consider from the available

research on the development of civic engagement. The

available literature suggests that there are associations

between civic engagement and individual, parental, and

societal-level factors. Also, programs that are effective, at

least in the short term, use multiple strategies. Therefore,

programs should consider using strategies that address the

multiple contexts of an adolescent’s environment in order

to maximize effectiveness. Examples of points of inter-

vention could be adolescents’ motivation to act as positive

citizens, adolescents’ values, adolescents’ role models, and

adolescents’ socialization (i.e., the community and culture

in which youth are raised). A fi rm appreciation for an in-

dividual’s cultural context is important to ensure that the

programs are relevant to the individual’s life and therefore

more likely to engage the individual substantively.

Individuals need to feel engaged in activities. Having

youth who are placed into boring volunteer positions will

inevitably ensure that they probably will not want to vol-

unteer again. Allowing youth to be part of the planning

process of programs and providing ongoing input into the

workings of organizations is one strategy that research sug-

gests helps to engage youth. In addition, providing youth

(and adults) with easy opportunities to become involved

appears to increase greatly the likelihood that they will be-

come involved.

Programs should continue over the long term. Encour-

aging civic engagement is not a “one-shot deal.” The inten-

sity and duration of programs is important, as well—not

just how many hours per week, but also how many weeks

or months of participation.

Basic measurements of civic engagement need to be de-veloped that capture the breadth of behaviors, attitudes, and skills that represent all backgrounds. There is no con-

sensus on how to defi ne or measure civic engagement for all

individuals. For this chapter, we focused on volunteering/

community service, political participation, and activism as

broad indicators of political engagement and community

service. However, the quality of these broad indicators

might very well vary based on an individual’s context

and personal values. For instance, the peaceful activism

of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi is just as

civic as the violent revolution of George Washington or the

force used by Winston Churchill. Even within categories of

civic engagement, defi nitions and measurement can be an

issue. Community service, for instance, can include play-

ing within a given system, such as working with schools to

improve the educational instruction, or can include playing

against the system, such as youth from low-income com-

munities voicing their opposition to the way that schools

are treating them. Both provide an important service to a

given community, but the latter is often neglected in civic

measurement.

Non-participation in civic activities can deepen the cycle of civic exclusion. For example, considerable data

indicate that when parents don’t vote, their children are

much less likely to vote (Plutzer, 2002), resulting in a cycle

of voter apathy unless intentional efforts are made to bring

young people into the booth. If, for instance, NCBY do not

become civically involved now, there is a high likelihood

that their children will not be involved later.

Youth is a critical period for civic and political social-ization. Although the ages of 16 to 24 are not the only

time period during which political and civic identities are

shaped, they are a particularly fertile window in which

lifelong civic habits are formed (Mannheim, 1952; Flana-

gan & Faison, 2001). If this developmentally opportune

moment is missed, it is highly likely that compensatory

steps will need to be taken to ensure the same results.

Starting even earlier with age-appropriate programs, such

as in the elementary and middle school years, could pro-

vide a strong base for later involvement. More research is

needed to understand how such early experiences benefi t

later civic engagement.

Civic engagement opportunities contribute to youth development overall. Much research indicates that young

people will not achieve their full potential as adult citi-

zens if they are not given the support and opportunities

needed to encourage their civic and political participation

during childhood and adolescence (Lerner, 2002). Dis-

advantaged environments are often unable to provide or

support fi rsthand experiences in public discussion of com-

munity issues, meeting with public offi cials, participation

in student government, or having one’s views sought out

by municipal offi cials. In the United States, for exam-

ple, African-American youth have lower average levels

of income and education than their white counterparts;


yet, they surpass whites on most measures of civic en-

gagement, due, at least in some part, to traditions, norms,

and institutions that promote participation in the black

community (Lopez et al., 2006; Levine, 2007). Research

could provide a deeper understanding about how these

civic experiences further promote positive developmental

trajectories.

Data resources need to be developed that enable a more robust longitudinal analysis across the life span. Aside

from a select few studies (e.g., Jennings, 1993), there are

few studies on civic engagement development that have

followed youth from adolescence into later adulthood.

Even fewer, or none, have consistently tracked the con-

texts and civic development across time. Without such data

sources, researchers are left with a piecemeal picture of the

developmental process. We do not know, for instance, why

there is a decrease in a generational gap in civic involve-

ment once cohorts reach their 30s. Having such studies

across nations would enable analyses that could start to

disentangle national-level effects on individual engage-

ment.

More rigorous experimental studies are needed on the impact of civic engagement interventions, especially for NCBY and non–college-attending youth and adults. As

seen in this chapter, there is much known about the factors

that predict the development of civic engagement. There is

not, however, a fi rm understanding about converting these

predictors into actionable programs, especially programs

that address the unique needs of groups at a higher risk for

not becoming civically engaged. For any program evalu-

ation, we recommend for long-term follow-ups since the

effects of most programs that we mention in this chapter

dissipate after relatively short periods, such as a 1-year

post-program. Following program participants over time

would also enable researchers to understand whether the

effects have fully dissipated or whether there is a civic

moratorium at certain developmental periods, possibly fol-

lowed by an upswing in civic activity.

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., Rutland, A., & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of

group dynamics: Children’s judgments of normative and deviant

in-group and out-group individuals. Child Development, 74, 1840–1856.

Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political

orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.

Allahyari, R. A. (2000). Visions of charity: Volunteer workers and moral community. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Allen, J., Philliber, P., Herrling, S., & Kuperminc, G. P. (1997).

Preventing teenage pregnancy and academic failure. Child Development, 64, 729–742.

Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington Women after fi fty years.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Aging, cohorts, and the stability

of sociopolitical orientations over the life span. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 169–195.

Arnett, J. (2005). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.

Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (1999). Resilient,

overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality prototypes in

childhood: Replicability, predictive power, and trait-type issue.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 815–832.

Astin, W. A., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of

volunteerism during the undergraduate years. Review of Higher Education, 22, 187–202.

Avrahami, A., & Dar, Y. (1993). Collectivistic and individualistic

motives among kibbutz youth volunteering for community service.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 697–714.

Bachmann, J. G., Freedman-Doan, P., & O’Malley, P. M. (2000). Should

U.S. military recruits write-off the college-bound? Armed Forces and Society, 27, 461–476.

Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental

psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline.

Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–625.

Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (2006). Life

span theory in developmental psychology. In R. M. Lerner & W.

Damon (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 569–664). Hoboken,

NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Barrett, M., Wilson, H., & Lyons, E. (2003). The development

of national in-group bias: English children’s attributions of

characteristics to English, American, and German people. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 193–220.

Batson, C., & Shaw, L. (1991). Encouraging words concerning the

evidence for altruism. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 159–168.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire

for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Beane, J., Turner, J., Jones, D., & Lipka, R. (1981). Long-term effects

of community service programs. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 143–155.

Bennett, D. (2003). Doing disservice: The benefi ts and limits

of volunteerism. The American Prospect, 14. Available at: http://www.prospect.org.

Bennett M., Barrett, M., Karakozov, R., Kipiani, G., Lyons, E.,

Pavlenko, V., & Riazanova, T. (2004). Young children’s evaluations

of the ingroup and of outgroups: A multi-national study. Social Development, 13, 124–141.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant

youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303–332.

Bourgeois, P. (1995). In search of respect: Selling crack in el barrio.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Boyte, H. (2005). Everyday politics: reconnecting citizens and public life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Brandtstädter, J. (1998). Action perspectives on human development.

In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 807-863).

Editor in chief: W. Damon. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brandtstädter, J. (2006). Action perspectives on human development.

In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Theoretical models of human

References 625

development: Vol. 1. Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.,

pp. 516–568). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or

outgroup hate. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1993). Heredity, environment, and

the question “how?”: A fi rst approximation. In R. Plomin & G. E.

McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture & psychology (pp. 313–324).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Calabrese, R., & Schumer, H. (1986). The effects of service activities on

adolescent alienation. Adolescence, 21, 675–687.

Caspi, A., & Silva, P. (1995). Temperamental qualities at age three

predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence

from a birth cohort. Child Development, 66, 486–498.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffi tt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington,

H. L., et al. (2003). Infl uence of life stress on depression:

Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science 301, 386–389.

Center for Human Resources. (1999). Summary report national

evaluation of Learn and Serve America. Waltham, MA: Brandeis

University Center for Human Resources.

Chang Weir, R., & Gjerde, P. F. (2002). Preschool personality

prototypes: Internal coherence, cross-study replicability, and

developmental outcomes in adolescence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1229–1241.

Chapman, B. (2002). A bad idea whose time is past: The case against

universal service. The Brookings Review, 20, 10–13.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations:

Findings from a national survey. Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485–505.

Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1995). The development of extraordinary

moral commitment. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives (pp. 342–370). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Comber, M. K. (2003). Civic curriculum and civic skills. CIRCLE Fact Sheet. Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic

Learning and Engagement.

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1982). The impact of experimental education

on adolescent development. Child and Youth Services, 4, 57–76.

Conway, M. M. (2000). Political participation in the United States (3rd

ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Crystal, D. S., & DeBell, M. (2002). Sources of civic orientation among

American youth: Trust, religion, valuation, and attributions of

responsibility. Political Psychology, 23, 113–132.

Current Population Survey. (2007). Table 1. Reported Internet usage

for households, by selected householder characteristics: 2007.

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available at: http://www.

census.gov/population/www/socdemo/computer/2007.html.

Dalton, R. J. (2006). Citizenship norms and political participation in America: The good news is ... the bad news is wrong. Occasional

Paper 2006–01. Washington, DC: Center for Democracy and Civil

Society, Georgetown University.

Davis, M., Mitchell, K., Hall, J., Lothert, J., Snapp, T., & Meyer,

M. (1999). Empathy, expectations, and situational preferences:

Personality infl uences on the decision to participate in volunteer

helping behaviors. Journal of Personality, 67, 469–503.

Dawson, R. E., & Prewitt, K. (1969). Political socialization. Boston:

Little, Brown.

DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2003). Computer and Internet use by

children and adolescents in 2001. Washington, DC: National Center

for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Delli Carpini, M. (1989). Age and history: Generations and

sociopolitical change. In R. S. Sigel (Ed.), Political learning in adulthood (pp. 11–55). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Devine, J. (1996). Maximum security: The culture of violence in inner-city schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

DiPasquale, D., & Glaeser, E. L. (1998). Incentives and social capital:

Are homeowners better citizens? Working Paper 6363. Cambridge,

MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer groups, social identity, and

children’s bullying behavior. Social Development, 18, 121–139.

Duncan, L. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1995). Still bringing the Vietnam war

home: Sources of contemporary student activism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 147–158.

Duncan, G. J., Kalil, A., & Ziol-Guest, K. M. (2008). Economic costs of early childhood poverty. Washington, DC: Partnership for

Success.

Dunham, C. C., & Bengtson, V. L. (1992). The long-term effects of

political activism on intergenerational relations. Youth & Society, 24,

31–51.

Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). The impact of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills. Chicago:

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

Available at: http://www.casel.org.

Easton, D., & Dennis, J. (1969). Children in the political system. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfi eld, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman,

D., Flanagan, C., & Iver, D. M. (1993). Development during

adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fi t on young

adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.

Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.

Eisenberg, N. (2003). Empathy, sympathy and prosocial behaviors. In

M. Bornstein, C. Keyes, K. Moore, & L. Davidson (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the lifespan (pp. 253–265).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. (1998). Prosocial development. In N.

Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 701–778). New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: W. W.

Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1966). Eight ages of man. International Journal of Psychiatry, 2, 281–300.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W.

Norton.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fendrich. J. M. (1993). Ideal citizens: The legacy of the civil rights movement. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Fendrich J. M., & Lovoy, K. L. (1988). Back to the future: Adult

political behavior of former student activists. American Sociological Review, 53, 780–784.

Fine, A. (2006). Allison Fine, interview, June 21, 2006.

Fine, A. (2008). Social citizens, beta. Washington, DC: Case

Foundation.

Fine, M. (1994). Charting urban school reform: Refl ections on public high schools in the midst of change. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Finlay, A., & Flanagan, C., (2009). Making educational progress: Links

to civic engagement during the transition to adulthood. CIRCLE

Working Paper. Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research

on Civic Learning and Engagement.


Finn, C. E., & Vanourek, G. (1995). Charity begins at school.

Commentary, 100, 46–53.

Fisher, K., Yan, Z., & Stewart, J. (2003). Adult cognitive development:

Dynamics in the developmental web. In J. Valsiner & K. J. Connolly

(Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Flanagan, C. (2003). Trust, identity, and civic hope. Applied Developmental Science 7, 165–171.

Flanagan, C. A., Bowes, J., Jonsson, B., Csapo, B., & Sheblanova, E.

(1998). Ties that bind: Correlates of adolescents’ civic commitments

in seven countries. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 457–475.

Flanagan, C. A., & Campbell, B. (in press). Social class and

adolescents’ beliefs about justice in different social orders. Journal of Social Issues.

Flanagan, C., Cumsille, P., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. (2007). School and

community climates and civic commitments: Processes for ethnic

minority and majority students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 421–431.

Flanagan, C., & Faison, N. (2001). Youth civic development. Policy

Report. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development.

Flanagan, C., & Gallay, L. (1995). Reframing the meaning of “political” in

research with adolescents. Perspectives on Political Science, 24, 34–41.

Flanagan, C. A., Gallay, L. S., Gill, S., Gallay, E., & Nti, N. (2005).

What does democracy mean? Correlates of adolescents’ views.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 193–218.

Flanagan, C., Levine, P., & Stettersten, R. (2008). Civic engagement and the changing transition to adulthood. Medford, MA: The Center

for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement,

Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, and

Tufts University.

Flanagan, C. A., & Stout, M. (in press). Developmental patterns of

social trust between early and late adolescence: Age and school

climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence.Flanagan, C., A., Syvertsen, A. K., Gill, S., Gallay, L. S., & Cumsille,

P. (2009). Ethnic awareness, prejudice, and civic commitments in

four ethnic groups of American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 500–518.

Flanagan, C. A., & Tucker, C. J. (1999). Adolescents’ explanations for

political issues: Concordance with their views of self and society.


Fletcher, A., Elder, G., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental infl uences

on adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 29–48.

Foster-Bey, J. (2008). Do race, ethnicity, citizenship and socio-economic status determine civic engagement? CIRCLE Working

Paper #62. Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on

Civic Learning and Engagement.

Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). The genetic basis

of political participation. American Political Science Review, 102, 233–248.

Fowler, J. H., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Two genes predict voter turnout.

Journal of Politics, 70, 579–594.

Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2002). Life-management strategies of

selection, optimization and compensation: Measurement by self-

report and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 642–662.

Friedland, L. A., & Morimoto, S. (2005). The changing lifeworld

of young people: Risk, resume-padding, and civic engagement.

Working Paper 40. Medford, MA: Center for Information and

Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Available at: http://

www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP40Friedland.pdf.

Galston, W. A. (2001). Political knowledge, political engagement, and

civic education. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 217–234.

Garvey, J., McIntyre-Craig, C., & Myers, C. (2000). Youth voice: The

essential element of service-learning. In C. Myers, & M. Bellener

(Eds.), Embedding service-learning into teacher education: Issue briefs. Indianapolis, IN: Center for Youth as Resources.

Gauthier, A. H., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (2005). Historical trends in

patterns of time use among youth in developed countries. In R. A.

Settersten, F. F. Furstenberg, Jr., & R. G. Rumaut (Eds.), On the frontier of adulthood (pp. 150–176). Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Gibson, C., & Levine, P. (2003). The civic mission of schools. Report

for Carnegie Corporation. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Gimpel, J. G., Lay, C., & Schuknecht, J. E. (2003). Cultivating democracy: Civic environments and political socialization in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Gimpel, J. G., & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. (2009). Policies for civic

engagement beyond the schoolyard. In J. Youniss & P. Levine

(Eds.), Engaging young people in civic life. Nashville, TN:

Vanderbilt University Press.

Ginwright, S. A. (2007). Black youth activism and the role of critical

social capital in black community organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 403–418.

Glanville, J. (1999). Political socialization of selection? Adolescent

extracurricular participation and political activity in early adulthood.

Social Science Quarterly, 80, 279–290.

Goldstone, J. A. (2002). Population and security: How demographic

change can lead to violent confl ict. Journal of International Affairs, 56, 3–23.

Gordon, C. W., & Babchuk, N. (1959). A typology of voluntary

associations. American Sociological Review, 24, 22–29.

Green, D. P., Gerber, A. S., & Nickerson, D. W. (2003). Getting out the

vote in local elections: Results from six door-to-door canvassing

experiments. Journal of Politics, 65, 1083–1096.

Gyourko, J., & Linneman, P. (1997). The changing infl uence of

education, income, family structure and race on homeownership by

age over time. Journal of Housing Research, 8, 1–25.

Hacker, J. S. (2008). Income volatility: Jacob Hacker responds to the

CBO. Economist’s View, January 19, 2008.

Hagedorn, J. M. (1988). People and folks: gangs, crime, and the underclass in a rust belt city. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.

Hahn, A. (1994). Extending the time of learning. In D.J. Besharov (Ed.),

America’s disconnected youth: Toward a preventative strategy (pp.

233–266). Washington, DC: CWLA Press and American Enterprise

Institute for Public Policy Research.

Hahn, A., Leavitt, T., & Aaron, P. (1994). Evaluation of the quantum opportunities program: Did the program work? Waltham, MA:

Brandeis University.

Hanks, M. (1981). Youth, voluntary associations and political

socialization. Social Forces, 60, 211–223.

Hanks, R., & Eckland, B. K. (1987). Adult voluntary associations.

Sociology Quarterly, 19, 481–490.

Hart, D. (2005). The development of moral identity. In G. Carlo & C. P.

Edwards (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Vol. 51: Moral motivation through the lifespan (pp. 165–196). Lincoln: University

of Nebraska Press.

Hart, D., Atkins, R., & Fegley, S. (2003). Personality and development

in childhood: A person-centered approach. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68 (1, Serial No. 272).

Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development.

Hart, D., Atkins, R., & Ford, D. (1999). Family infl uences on the

formation of moral identity in adolescence: Longitudinal analyses.

Journal of Moral Education, 28, 375–386.

Hart, D., Atkins, R., Markey, P., & Youniss, J. (2004). Youth bulges

in communities: The effects of age structure on adolescent civic

References 627

knowledge and civic participation. Psychological Science, 15, 591–597.

Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High school

community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering.

American Educational Research Journal, 44, 197–219.

Hart, D., & Gullan, R. (in press). The sources of adolescent activism:

Historical and contemporary fi ndings. In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-

Purta, & C. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy on civic engagement in youth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Hart, D., Hofmann, V., Edelstein, W., & Keller, M. (1997). The

relation of childhood personality types to adolescent behavior and

development: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 195–205.

Hart, D., & Kirshner, B. (2009). “Promoting civic participation

and development among urban adolescents.” In J. Youniss & P.

Levine (Eds.), Engaging young people in civic life. Nashville, TN:

Vanderbilt University Press.

Hart, D., Yates, M., Fegley, S., & Wilson, G. (1995). Moral

commitment in inner-city adolescents. In M. Killen & D. Hart

(Eds.), Morality in everyday life (pp. 371–407). New York:


Harvard Family Research Project. (2007). Findings from HFRP’s study

of predictors of participation in out-of-school time activities: Fact

sheet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Hashway, R. (1998). Assessment and evaluation of developmental learning: Qualitative individual assessment and evaluation models.

Westport, CT: Praeger.

Heckman, J.J., & Krueger, A. (2004). Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Helgerson, J. L. (2002). The national security implications of global

demographic change: Proposed remarks to the Denver World Affairs

Council and the Better World Campaign, Denver, CO, April 30.

Available at: http://www.dni.gov/nic/speeches_demochange.html.

Hess, D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York: Routledge.

Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Moral internalization, parental power, and the

nature of the parent–child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 11, 228–239.

Horn, L., & Nu–ez, A. M. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students’ math track, planning strategies, and context of support. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Horrigan, J., & Smith, A. (2008). Home broadband adoption, 2008.

Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hyman, H. H. (1959). Political socialization: A study of the psychology of political behavior. Glencoe, NY: Free Press.

Jennings, K. M. (1993). Education and political development among

young adults. Politics & the Individual, 3, 1–24.

Jennings, M. K. (2002). Generation units and the student protest

movement in the United States: An intra- and inter-generational

analysis. Political Psychology, 23, 303–324.

Jennings M. K., & Stoker, L. (2002). Generational change, life cycle

processes, and social capital. Paper prepared for a workshop on

Citizenship on Trial: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Political

Socialization of Adolescents. McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Jennings, M. K., & Stoker, L. (2004). Social trust and civic engagement

across time and generations. Acta Politica, 39, 342–379.

Jensen, L. A., & Flanagan, C. A. (2008). Immigrant civic engagement:

New translations. Applied Developmental Science, 12, 55–56.

Johnson, M., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J., & Snyder, M. (1998).

Volunteerism in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 309–331.

Johnston, L. D., Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1999). Monitoring the future: Questionnaire responses from the nation’s high school seniors. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute for Social

Research.

Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic

opportunity gap in high school. Working Paper. 59. College

Park: Center for Information and Research in Civic Learning and

Engagement, University of Maryland.

Kahne, J. E., & Sporte, S. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact

of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic

participation. American Educational Research Association Journal. Article 10.3102. Available at: http://www.aerj.aera.net.

Kane, T. (2006). Who are the recruits? The demographic characteristics of U.S. military enlistment. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

Kasser, T., Ryan, R., Zax, M., & Sameroff, A. (1995). The relations of

maternal and social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic

and prosocial values. Developmental Psychology, 31, 907-914.

Katula, M. C. (2000). Successful characteristics of service-learning:

Results from the fi eld. In C. Meyers & M. Bellner (Eds.),

Embedding service-learning into teacher education: Issue briefs.

Indianapolis, IN: The Center for Youth as Resources.

Kauffman, P., Alt, M., & Chapman, C. (2004). Dropout rates in the U.S. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics.

Kauffman, S., & Poulin, J. (1994). Citizen participation in prevention

activities: A path model. Journal of Community Psychology, 22,

359–374.

Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997).

Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1491–1498.

Kirlin, M. K. (2003a). The role of adolescent extracurricular activities in adult political engagement. Medford, MA: Center for Information

and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Available at:

http://www.civicyouth.org.

Kirlin, M. K. (2003b). The role of civic skills in fostering civic engagement. Medford, MA: Center for Information and

Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Available at:

http://www.civicyouth.org.

Kirshner, B. (2007). Introduction: Youth activism as a context for

learning and development. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 367–379.

Krampen, G., (2000). Transition of adolescent political action

orientations to voting behavior in early adulthood in view of a

social-cognitive action theory model of personality. Political Psychology, 21, 277–297.

Larson, R., & Hansen, D. (2005). The development of strategic

thinking: Learning to impact human systems in a youth activism

program. Human Development, 48, 327–349.

Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Benevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995).

Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795–805.

Leahy, R. L. (1983). Development of the conception of economic

inequality: II. Explanations, justifi cations, and concepts of social

mobility and change. Developmental Psychology, 19, 111–125.

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2006). Teen content creators and

consumers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life

Project. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_

Content_Creation.pdf.

Lerner, R. M. (1991). Changing organism–context relations as the basic

process of development: A developmental contextual perspective.


Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd

ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerner, R. M. (2006). Editor’s introduction: Developmental science,

developmental systems, and contemporary theories. In R. M. Lerner

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 1–17). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Lerner, R. M., Alberts, A. E., & Bobek, D. (2007). Thriving youth,

fl ourishing civil society: How positive youth development

strengthens democracy and social justice. In Bertelsmann Stiftung

(Ed.), Civic engagement as an educational goal (pp. 21–35).

Guterslöh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998). Student politics: The new localism.

Review of Higher Education, 21, 137–150.

Levine, P. (2007). The future of democracy: Developing the next generation of American citizens. Medford, MA: Tufts University

Press.

Levine, P., & Lopez, M. H. (2002). Youth voter turnout has declined by any measure. Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research

on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Levine, P., & Youniss, J. (2006). Youth and civic participation:

Introduction. In P. Levine & J. Youniss (Eds.), Youth Civic Engagement: An Institutional Turn. Circle Working Paper 45

(pp. 3–6). Baltimore, MD: Center for Information and Research on

Civic Learning and Engagement.

Lopez, M. H., Kirby, E., & Sagoff, J. (2005). The youth vote 2004.

CIRCLE Fact Sheet. Medford, MA: Center for Information and

Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Lopez, M., Levine, P., Both, D., Kiesa, A., Kirby, E., & Marcelo, K.

(2006). The 2006 civic and political health of the nation: A detailed look at how youth participate in politics and communities. Medford,

MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and

Engagement.

Lopez, M. H, & Marcelo, K. B. (2007). Volunteering among young

people. CIRCLE Fact Sheet. Medford, MA: Center for Information

and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A. K., Townsend, T. N., & Taylor, A. S. (1996). An

outcome evaluation of across ages. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 116–129.

Lutkus, A. D., & Weiss, A. R. (2007). The nation’s report card: Civics 2007 (NCES 2007–476). U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Offi ce.

Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecshevich

(Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul [1928].

Marcelo, K. B., & Kirby, E. H. (2008). The youth vote in the 2008

Super Tuesday states. CIRCLE Fact Sheet. Medford, MA: Center

for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Marcelo, K. B., Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007a). Civic

engagement among young men and women. CIRCLE Fact Sheet.

Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic

Learning and Engagement.

Marcelo, K. B., Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007b). Civic

engagement among minority youth. CIRCLE Fact Sheet. Medford,

MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and

Engagement.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.),

Handbook of adolescent psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Matsuba, J. K., Hart, D., & Atkins, R. (2007). Psychological and

social–structural infl uences on commitment to volunteering. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 889–907.

McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high–risk activism: The case of

freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 64.

McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom summer. New York: Oxford University

Press.

McDevitt, M., & Chaffee, S. (2000). Closing gaps in political

communication and knowledge: Effects of a school intervention.

Communication Research, 27, 259–292.

McDevitt, M., Chaffee, S., & Saphir, M. (2001). Student-initiated

discussion as a catalyst to citizenship: Kids voting in Lubbock.

Miami, FL: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

McDevitt, M., & Kiousis, S. (2006). Experiments in political socialization: Kids Voting USA as a model for civic education reform. College Park, MD: The Center for Information & Research

on Civic Learning & Engagement.

McFarland, D. A., & Starrmans, C. (2007). Student government and

political socialization. Teachers College, 111, 27–54.

McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How

youth voluntary associations infl uence adult political participation.

American Sociological Review, 71 (June), 401–425.

McIntosh, H., Youniss, J., & Hart, D. (2007). The infl uence of family

political discussion on youth civic development. PS: Politics & Political Science, 40, 495–500.

Mesquida, C. G., & Wiener, N. I. (1999). Male age composition and

severity of confl icts. Politics and the Life Sciences, 18, 181–189.

Metz, E., & Youniss, J. (2003). A demonstration that school-based

required service does not deter but heightens volunteerism. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36, 281–286.

Michelson, E., Zaff, J. F., & Hair, E. C. (2002). Civic engagement programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Moller, H. (1968). Youth as a force in the modern world. Comparative Studies in Sociology and History, 10, 238–260.

Montgomery, K. (2007). Youth and digital democracy: Learning how

digital media can engage youth. In L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth. The John

D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media

and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Moore, C., & Allen, J. (1996). The effects of volunteering on the young

volunteer. Journal of Primary Prevention, 17, 231–258.

Morgan, W., & Streb, M. (2000). Effecting effi cacy through service learning. Chicago: Midwest Political Science Association Conference.

Moskos, C., & Butler, J. S. (1996). All that we can be. New York: Basic

Books.

National Conference on Citizenship. (2006). America’s civil health index: Broken engagement. Washington, DC: National Conference

on Citizenship.

Neild, R. C., & Balfanz, R. (2006). Unfulfi lled promise: The dimensions

and characteristics of Philadelphia’s dropout crisis, 2000–2005.

Philadelphia, PA: Project UTurn.

Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Omoto, A., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation:

Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change

among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671–686.

Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493–535.

Paige, J. M. (1971). Political orientation and riot participation.

American Sociological Review, 36, 810–820.

Pearce, N. J., & Larson, R. W. (2006). How teens become engaged in

youth development programs: The process of motivational change

in a civic activism organization. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 121–131.

Penner, L. (2002). Dispositional and organizational infl uences on

sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447–467.

References 629

Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. (1998). Dispositional and structural

determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 525–537.

Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995).

Measuring the prosocial personality. In J. Butcher & C. D.

Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10,

pp. 147–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perkins, D., Brown, B., & Taylor, R. (1996). The ecology of

empowerment: Predicting participation in community organizations.

Journal of Social Issues, 52, 85–110.

Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D.

M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of

residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83–116.

Perlmutter, P. (2002). Minority group prejudice. Society, 39, 59–65.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2008). Pew

Research Center biennial news consumptions survey. Washington, .

DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Philliber, S., Williams, K., Herrling, S., & West, E. (2002). Preventing

pregnancy and improving health care access among teenagers:

An evaluation of the Children’s Aid Society-Carrera Program.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34, 244–251.

Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup

attitudes among ethnic minority adolescents: A causal model. Child Development, 68, 955–969.

Piliavin, J. A., Grube, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (2002). Role as resource

for action in public service. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 469–485.

Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and

growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96, 41–56.

Poulin, J., & Kauffman, S. (2006). Citizen participation in prevention

activities: Path model II. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 234–249.

Pratt, M. W., Arnold, M. L., Pratt, A. T., & Deissner, R. (1999).

Predicting early adolescent moral reasoning from family climate: A

longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 148–175.

Pred, A. R. (2000). Even in Sweden: Racisms, racialized spaces, and the popular geographical imagination. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Lindholm, J. A., Korn, W. S., &

Mahoney, K. M. (2006). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2005. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute,

University of California.

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

Rahn, W., & Transue, J. E. (1998). Social trust and the value change:

The decline of social capital in American youth. Political Psychology, 19, 545–566.

Raskoff, N., & Sundeen, R. (1999). Community service programs in

high schools. Law and Contemporary Problems, 64, 73–111.

Reinders, H., & Youniss, Y. (2006). School-based required

community service and civic development in adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 2–12.

Rheingold, H. (2007). Using participatory media and public voice to

encourage civic engagement. In L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth. The John D. and

Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and

Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Risch, N., Herrell, R., Lehner, T., Liang, K. Y., Eaves, L., Hoh, J.

et al. (2009). Interaction between the serotonin transporter gene

(5-HTTLPR), stressful life events, and risk of depression: A meta-

analysis. Journal of the American Medican Association, 301, 2462–2471.

Robins, R. W., John, O. P., Caspi, A., Moffi tt, T. E., & Stouthamer-

Loeber, M. (1996). Resilient, over-controlled, and under-controlled

boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 157–171.

Roof, W. C. (1993). Generation of seekers: The spiritual journeys of the Baby Boom generation. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.

Rosch, J., Brinson, D., & Hassel, B. (2008). Youth at high risk of disconnection. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Saguaro Seminar (2001). Social capital community benchmark survey executive summary. Cambridge, MA: Author. Available at: http://

www.cfsv.org/communitysurvey/results.html.

Sears, D., & Valentino, N. (1997). Politics matters: Political events as

catalysts for pre-adult socialization. American Political Science Review, 91, 45–65.

Sentencing Project (2008). Felony disenfranchisement laws in the United States. Available at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/

publications/fd_bs_fdlawsinus.pdf.

Serow, R., & Dreyden, J. (1990). Community service among college

and university students: Individual and institutional relationships.

Adolescence, 25, 553–556.

Settersten, R. A., Furstenberg, F. F., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2005). On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, R. F. (2002). Building young people’s lives: one foundation’s

strategy. In B. Kirshner, J. L. O’Donoghue, & M. McLaughlin,

(Eds.), Youth participation: Improving institutions and communities

(pp. 47–64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Skocpol, T. (2000). The missing middle: Working families and the future of American social policy. New York: W. W. Norton.

Smith, C. (2007). Getting a life: The challenge of emerging adulthood.

Christianitytoday.com. Available at: http://www.christianitytoday.

com/bc/2007/2.10.html.

Smith, E. S. (1999). The effects of investments in social capital on

political and civic behavior in young adulthood: A longitudinal

analysis. Political Psychology, 20, 553–80.

Soule, S. A., & Earl, J. (2005). A movement society evaluated:

Collected protest in the United States, 1960–1986. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 10, 345–364.

Spring, K., Dietz, N., & Grimm, R. (2007). Leveling the path to participation: Volunteering and civic engagement among youth from disadvantaged circumstances. Policy Report. Washington, DC:

Corporation for National & Community Service.

Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J. M. (1989). Linking individual development

and social changes. American Psychologist, 44, 30–42.

Stewart, A. J., Settles, I. H., & Winter, N. J. G. (1998). Women and the

social movements of the 1960s: Activists, engaged observers, and

nonparticipants. Political Psychology, 19, 63–94.

Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2005). Shifting inequalities: patterns of

exclusion and inclusion in new forms of political participation.

Paper presented at annual meeting of American Political Science

Association, Washington, DC, September 1.

Stukas, A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. (1999). The effects of “mandatory

volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer. Educational Horizons, 77, 194–201.

Syvertsen, A. K., Flanagan, C. A., & Stout, M. (2009). Breaking the

code of silence: How school climate infl uences students’ willingness

to intervene in a peer’s dangerous plan. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 219–232.

Tang, F. (2006). What resources are needed for volunteerism? A life

course perspective. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25, 375–390.

Tang, F. (2008). Socioeconomic disparities in voluntary organization

involvement among older adults. Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 57–75.


Teigen, J. M. (2006). Enduring effects of the uniform: Previous military

experience and voting turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 601–607.

Torney-Purta, J. (1992). Cognitive representations of the political

system in adolescents: The continuum from pre-novice to expert.

In H. Haste & J. Torney-Purta (Eds.), The development of political understanding: A new perspective. (pp. 11–25). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Torney-Purta, J., Wilkenfeld, B., & Barber, C. (2008). How adolescents

in 27 countries understand, support, and practice human rights.

Journal of Social Issues, 64, 857–880.

Turiel, E. (2003). Morals, motives and actions. BJEP Monograph Series II, No. 2: Development and Motivation, 1, 29–40. Leicester:

British Psychological Society.

Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics and what they

mean. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 160–164.

Urdal, H. (2002, March). The devil in the demographics: How youth

bulges infl uence the risk of domestic armed confl ict. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New

Orleans, LA. Available at: http://www.prio.no/publications/papers/

YouthBulgesUrdal.pdf.

Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York:


Uslaner, E. M., & Brown, M. (2005). Inequality, trust and civic

engagement. American Politics Research, 33, 868–894.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (2000). Rational activity

and political activity. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12, 243–268.

Volling, B. L. (2003). Sibling relationships. In M. H. Bornstein, L.

Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, & K. A. Moore (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 205–220). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Walzer, M. (1989). Citizenship. In T. Ball, J. Farrand, & R. Hanson,

(Eds.), Political innovation and conceptual change (pp. 211–219).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wentzel, K., & McNamara, C. (1999). Interpersonal relationships,

emotional disturbance and prosocial behavior in middle school.

Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 114–125.

Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.

Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated

theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62,

694–713.

Wilson, J., & Musick, M. A. (1999). Attachment to volunteering.

Sociological Forum, 14, 243–272.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Community service and political

identity development in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 495–512.

Youniss, J. (2006). Reshaping a developmental theory for political-

civic development. In P. Levine & J. Youniss (Eds.), Youth civic engagement: An institutional turn. Medford, MA: Center for

Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Youniss, J., McLellan, J., Su, Y., & Yates, M. (1999). The role of

community service in identity development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 248–261.

Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999). Youth service and moral-civic identity:

A case for everyday morality. Educational Psychology Review, 11, 361–376.

Zaff, J.F., Boyd, M. L., Li, Y., Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2010).

Active and engaged citizenship: Multi-group and longitudinal factor

analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, www.10.1007/310964–010–9541–6.

Zaff, J. F., Malanchuk, O., & Eccles, J. S. (2008). Predicting positive

citizenship from adolescence to young adulthood: The effects of a

civic context. Applied Developmental Science, 12, 38–53.

Zaff, J. F., & Michelsen, E. (2002). Background for community-level work on positive citizenship in adolescence: A review of antecedents, programs, and investment strategies. Report prepared

for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Washington, DC:

Child Trends.

Zaff, J. F., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Promoting well-being among America’s teens. Report prepared for the John S. and James L.

Knight Foundation. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003).

Implications of extracurricular activity participation during

adolescence on positive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 599–630.

Zaff, J. F., Youniss, J., & Gibson, C. M. (2009). An inequitable invitation to citizenship: Non-college-bound youth and civic engagement. Denver, CO: Philanthropy for Active Civic

Engagement.

Zakaria, F. (2001). The politics of rage: Why do they hate us?

Newsweek, p. 22.

Documents

The Handbook of Life-Span Development || Developing Civic Engagement within a Civic Context