The idea of measuring the health of our communities, states, and nation is not new. Many of the urban observatories formed in the late 1960s and early 1970s sought to develop systematic quality of life indicators that would help chart our progress toward a revitalization of urban America.

Building on that same theme, the National Civic League developed a Civic Index in 1990 to assess what they called “civic infrastructure,” those characteristics that communities possess to effectively solve problems.” Applied by hundreds of cities across the U.S., the index includes 10 components: (1) civic participation; (2) community leadership; (3) government performance; (4) volunteerism and philanthropy; (5) intergroup relations; (6) civic education; (7) community information sharing; (8) capacity for cooperation and consensus building; (9) community vision and pride; and (10) intercommunity cooperation.

In the mid-1990s, Robert D. Putnam’s seminal article, Bowling Alone, re-introduced the idea of social capital and argued that it is a precondition of both effective government and economic development.[3] Putnam’s work stimulated considerable research and discussion on the question of the extent of citizen engagement – both socially and politically – and on the factors that shape that engagement. It also led to a renewed interest in the development of a civic health index that would permit, as economic indicators do, periodic assessment of the state of the nation’s civic health. One of the first efforts was undertaken by the National Commission for Civic Renewal. The Commission’s Index of the National Civic Health consisted of 22 variables including political components (such as turnout), trust components (such as trust in others and confidence in the federal government), membership components (such as membership in groups, church attendance, and charitable contributions), security components (such as crime rates), and family components (such as divorce rates). The Commission was able to amass consistent data from 1972 through 1994. Their central finding was that the nation’s civic health had declined significantly during that period. Based on their analysis, the Commission warned that America was becoming a “nation of spectators” rather than the engaged participants that are essential to democracy.

As described in the Preface to this report, the NCoC assumed the mantle in the effort to build a continuing national civic health index beginning in 2006. The Civic Health Index developed by NCoC and its partners is based on some 40 measures across nine component areas, including: connecting to civic and religious groups; trusting other people; connecting to others through family and friends; giving and volunteering; staying informed; understanding civics and politics; participating in politics; trusting and feeling connected to major institutions; and expressing political views. NCoC’s initial results echoed those of the National Commission for Civic Renewal, documenting a 30 year-long decline in the nation’s civic health.

Florida’s Civic Health Index
In assessing the condition of Florida’s civic health, we will consider four key indicators – the same indicators examined in the 2008 Index. They include voting, volunteering to serve in community organizations, attending public meetings such as school board or city council meetings, and working with others to address a community issue. These indicators are drawn from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The most recent data on voting turnout was collected in November, 2008, just after the presidential election. The most recent data for the remaining indicators was collected in September 2008. To improve the reliability of our estimates, we report a three year average for each indicator – 2004, 2006, and 2008 for voter turnout and 2006, 2007 and 2008 for the remainder.

In 2008, the CPS began collecting data on a new indicator of charitable giving. Respondents were asked if they had donated “money, assets, or property with a combined value of more
than $25 to charitable or religious organizations” during the preceding year. We report those data for Florida the first time this year. Since data are available for only a single year, however, charitable giving will not be incorporated as a component of the overall Civic Health Index for 2009. As they are released by CPS, new indicators such as charitable giving will add richness to our understanding of Florida’s civic health. They will be incorporated into Florida’s Civic Health Index as estimates for multiple years become available. While the addition of new indicators will help us understand various aspects of Florida’s civic health, we do not expect that they will change the fundamental picture suggested by the results presented here.

We begin consideration of Florida’s civic health with the simple act of voting. A bare minimum of civic engagement in democratic systems requires that citizens participate in the opportunity to exercise choice in selecting those who will govern. Indeed, citizen participation in free elections is arguably the sine qua non of representative democracy. Without it, a critical link in the chain of accountability is broken and citizens relinquish control over the choices made by their leaders. Figure 1 shows the average turnout across the past three elections (2004-2008) by state. Setting a standard for the nation, an average of over 71 percent of Minnesota’s registered citizens turned out to vote in the last three elections. In another 13 states, an average of more than 60 percent of registered citizens voted. At the other end of the spectrum, there were two states – Hawaii and Texas – in which fewer than half of the registered voters went to the polls. Ranked at number 34, Florida fell closer to the bottom of the list than to the top, with an average of slightly more than half (55.1 percent) of registered Floridians voting. The measure of turnout increased slightly this year compared to last year’s report, with the three-election average moving from 52.3 percent to 55.1 percent. This is no doubt due to the increased interest in the 2008 presidential election. Increased turnout in 2008 was, however, a national phenomenon affecting virtually all of the states. Thus, while turnout increased in Florida, it did not increase as much as many other states and the state’s ranking fell from 32 to 34. It should also be noted that only about 56 percent of adults over 18 are registered to vote; this means that less than 30 percent of the Florida’s eligible population can typically be expected to participate in a general election.

Alexis de Tocqueville observed of America in 1834, that “in no country of the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objectives than in America.”[4] Indeed, voluntary associations are at the heart of citizen engagement. It is in associations that we build arts centers, advocate for and against ideas, feed the homeless, solve community problems, provide recreation for our children, and hundreds of other purposes. By aggregating citizens with common interests and articulating them in the decision-making process, associations give voice and power to ordinary citizens.
The viability of voluntary associations depends, however, on the willingness of citizens to contribute their time and other resources to associational goals.

Figure 2 shows, averaged by state for 2006 through 2008, the second indicator of Florida’s civic health. It is the percentage of citizens who reported that they had undertaken any volunteer activity during the preceding year. Utah tops the list with more than 43 percent of its citizens volunteering. That voluntary action would be so widespread in Utah is undoubtedly attributable in large measure to the strength and vitality of Mormon churches. Putnam and others have pointed to the important role that churches play in facilitating and supporting social networks that are essential to the development of social capital and civic engagement and we shall have more to say on that point later in this report.[5] Several other states are within striking distance of Utah’s impressive rate. Nebraska, Minnesota and Alaska stand out with more than 38 percent of their citizens volunteering. In fact, the top 13 states show strong cultures of voluntary action with more than one out of three of their citizens engaged in some sort of voluntary activity. At the other extreme are three states – Florida, New York, and Nevada – where the voluntarism rate is less than half the rate of the top-tier states. With fewer than one out of five Florida citizens – 19 percent – engaged in any form of volunteering, the state ranks 49th in the nation. There was essentially no difference in the state’s rate of volunteering compared to last year’s report. As we concluded then, something is amiss in this aspect of the state’s civic health, and we see no evidence of movement in a positive direction.

The third indicator of Florida’s civic health considers the extent to which citizens choose to involve themselves directly in the process of governing. Figure 3 shows the percentage of citizens who reported that they had attended a public meeting during the past year – averaged for 2006 through 2008. With historically strong traditions of participatory local governance, Vermont tops the list with more than one out of five – 20.2 percent – of its citizens reporting that they attended a public meeting. Alaska falls only slightly behind with over 19.7 percent of its citizens joining in public meetings. In fact, at least one out of every 10 citizens reported that they had been involved in a public meeting during the preceding year in fully half of the states. At the bottom of the list, Florida joins a group of states – Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee – where only about one of every fifteen citizens participated in a public meeting. Ranked at 48th, Florida’s culture of citizen engagement with public officials in public meetings appears to be less than robust. Indeed, the state’s rate of public participation in public meetings is less than one-third of the top two states and is half or less of the rates of another dozen states.

The final indicator of Florida’s civic health considers collaborative problem solving. Arguably, communities with strong civic cultures are those in which citizens have the networks, skills, and inclination to join together to address issues of common concern and to improve the community. Figure 4 shows the average percentage – for 2006 through 2008 – of citizens who report that they have worked with other people in their neighborhood to fix a problem or improve a condition in their community. Once again, Utah stands out at the top of the list with almost 18 percent of its citizens reporting that they have worked collaboratively to address community issues.

At the bottom of the list, such collaborative community problem solving appears to be almost non-existent. Only about four percent – fewer than one out of twenty – of New Jersey’s citizens reported that they have worked with others in their neighborhood to address community issues. Florida ranks better on this indicator than others and, at 34th in the nation, shows rates of citizen engagement similar to several other states, including Delaware, Texas, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. In all of these states slightly more than six percent of citizens reported that they collaborated with others to address community problems. Florida’s score on this indicator is slightly higher than last year – 6.3 percent in 2008 vs. 5.3 percent in 2007. Thus, the state’s ranking increased from 40th to 37th. Since several states are clustered close together and the differences are quite small, it would probably be unwise to take much comfort in the apparent improvement in ranking. The key point is that the top ranked states show citizen engagement rates that are two and a half to three times higher than in Florida.

Figure 5 shows Florida’s Civic Health Index for 2009. It reflects the average of the four measures described above. Ranked 46th in the nation, Florida earns a civic engagement score of 21.9 and it is only 1.1 points from the bottom ranked state – New York. It is 11.8 points from the top ranked state, Minnesota. In fact, the top three ranked states – Minnesota, Alaska, and Vermont – all earned civic engagement scores that are over one and a half times that earned by Florida. Once again, these results underscore the point that there are substantial differences in civic cultures across the states. They also reinforce the conclusion of last year’s report: Florida’s civic health is among the worst in the nation.

It was noted earlier that the CPS included charitable contributions as a new measure of citizen engagement in 2008. Although we believed that a single year of data was insufficient to include in our overall measure of Florida’s civic health, Figure 6 shows the 2008 result, which should be taken as a preliminary estimate. Utah again stands out as the nation’s leader with almost 70 percent of citizens reporting that they made charitable contributions of at least $25 during the preceding 12 months. Connecticut and Minnesota follow closely with more than 60 percent of their citizens donating. Florida, once again, was near the bottom. At 44th in the nation, only 46.1 percent of citizens reported contributing at least $25 to charity. Thus, even though charitable contributions were not used in calculating this year’s index, the results are consistent with the conclusion that in virtually all respects, Florida’s civic health needs a great deal of attention.