Civic engagement does not occur in a vacuum. It happens in places and times where we and those around us care about outcomes. It happens in places where we raise and educate our children, where “soccer moms” get together to discuss common concerns, in garden clubs, in churches and synagogues, in the neighborhood tavern, on the street where we are met by volunteers campaigning for presidents, governors, or city council members, and in the myriad other places where people connect with one another and undertake public work. In short, much of what we understand as civic engagement takes place within the context of the communities where we live, work, and play. This means that communities play a critical role in the development and implementation of strategies to address shortcomings in Florida’s civic health. Ultimately, it is the civic destiny of Sopchoppy, Miami Lakes, Madison, Tampa, Winter Garden, Jacksonville, and of all the other 400 plus places that Floridians call home that will shape the future of the state.

To focus on the contribution that communities make to the state’s civic condition, we will this year take the first steps toward measuring their civic health. It would, of course, be desirable to be able to measure and compare the civic health of each of Florida’s communities. Empowered with such information, communities could understand the nature of the civic challenges that they each face and work toward the goal of developing local strategies to meet them. This is exactly the idea that underlies the National Civic League’s Civic Index. It was intended to measure key aspects of civic infrastructure and to help community leaders and organizations understand what aspects of that infrastructure were deficient and in need of community attention.

Unfortunately, there is no database that will sustain civic engagement measures for all of Florida’s communities and, as desirable as it might be, the cost of developing one would be prohibitively expensive. However, the CPS has samples that are sufficiently large to support reliable estimates for the state’s nine larger “Metropolitan Statistical Areas” (MSAs) – particularly when results are averaged over a three-year time frame.[6] Examination of even this limited set of communities helps us understand where our communities fit within the national picture and to begin to understand the roles that local communities play in determining the state’s civic culture. Thus, even though it is not possible to measure the condition of all of Florida’s communities, we are hopeful that the measurements that we can make will encourage community leaders and citizens alike to reflect on their civic condition and the steps that might be needed to improve it.

The same civic health indicators used to compare states were used to examine the condition of the state’s communities. Table 1 shows results for the first indicator – voting – for each of the nine selected communities. Since previous work on volunteering has shown that engagement rates are generally quite different in smaller cities compared to large urban areas, we have reported large and medium-sized communities as distinct groups.[7] For
each group, we have also provided a national benchmark – the community ranked first – for each measure. To complete the comparison, national rankings of Florida communities are provided. For large cities, ranks reflect a comparison of Florida’s communities to the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the nation. For medium-sized communities, ranks reflect a comparison of Florida’s communities to the 75 medium-sized metropolitan areas included in the CPS sample.[8]

Reflecting Minnesota’s generally strong and vibrant civic culture, Minneapolis tops the national voter turnout list for large metro areas. An average of almost three out of four registered Minneapolis citizens participate in the electoral process. Jacksonville tops the list of large Florida communities with an average voter turnout rate of 58.7 percent, putting it at 31st in the nation. Thus, more than 60 percent of the nation’s large urban areas exceed Jacksonville in turnout rates. Jacksonville is followed by Miami-Ft. Lauderdale – at 56.6 percent and ranked 36th – and Tampa-St. Petersburg – at 55.9 percent and ranked 40th. The Orlando region, with an average turnout rate of 51.1 percent is at the bottom of Florida’s large metro area list. It also ranks 46th among metropolitan areas nationally, which means that 90 percent of the nation’s metro regions have higher rates of electoral engagement.

Among medium-sized communities, Madison, Wisconsin is at the top of the national list with almost three out of four (73.5 percent) of its registered voters going to the polls. On the whole, Florida’s medium-sized communities have higher turnout rates than its large metro areas. In addition, they compare more favorably to the national benchmark than do Florida’s larger communities. The Lakeland area ranks 17th in the country, with an average turnout rate of 65 percent. It is in the top one-quarter of similarly-sized communities. Similarly, Cape Coral-Ft. Myers and Palm Bay–Melbourne, with identical turnout rates of 62.4 percent, are ranked 27th and 28th respectively, and are within striking distance of the top one-third of similar communities in the nation. Results are less positive in the Deltona-Daytona Beach and Sarasota-Bradenton areas. At 59.2 percent, the voting rate in Deltona-Daytona Beach results in a national ranking of 45th. This means that about 60 percent of similarly-sized communities have electoral engagement levels that exceed those found in the Deltona region. Sarasota-Bradenton, with less than a majority voter turnout, ranks 70th out of 75 communities examined.

Table 2 shows results for our second civic health indicator – volunteering. Once again, Minneapolis sets the standard for large cities in the nation with 35 percent of its citizens engaged in some form of voluntary action. Among Florida’s large communities, the Tampa-St. Petersburg area ranks at the top with 21.4 percent of its citizens volunteering. Tampa–St. Petersburg is followed by Jacksonville, at 20.9 percent, Orlando, at 17 percent, and Miami-
Ft. Lauderdale, at 13.2 percent. These volunteerism rates put all of Florida’s major cities at or very near the bottom of the national rankings. In fact, more than 80 percent of the nation’s
large urban areas show higher rates of citizen volunteering than did any of Florida’s large cities. Recalling that Florida ranks 49th among the states in voluntary action, it should be noted that the state’s largest metro area – Miami-Ft. Lauderdale – anchors the bottom of the national list among sister metropolitan regions. It is thus – with respect to voluntary action – the least engaged community in one of the least engaged states in the nation.

No doubt due to the social networks that are sustained by the Mormon community in Utah, the Provo area leads the nation’s medium-sized communities in volunteering with fully 55 percent of its citizens engaged. Though not meeting Provo’s high standard, the Palm Bay-Melbourne area, with 29.4 percent of its citizens volunteering, ranks 27th nationally and is at least close to the top third of medium-sized cities across the nation. All of the remaining medium-sized cities in Florida fall in the bottom half in comparison to sister communities. With fewer than one out of five citizens volunteering, the Sarasota and Deltona areas are at the bottom of the Florida list. They rank 70th and 73rd, respectively, out of 75 mid-sized metro communities across the nation.

With the exception of the Palm Bay-Melbourne area, Florida’s communities appear to be quite weak in this aspect of their civic health. That said, there are differences within the state
that deserve further exploration. About one of five Tampa-St. Petersburg residents volunteer, which is over one and one-half times the rate found in Miami. Similarly, the Deltona area and the Palm Bay area are in neighboring Volusia and Brevard counties, yet their rate of citizen engagement in volunteering differs quite sharply. Understanding whether differential opportunity, differential demand, or differing citizen orientations account for those differences would be an important first step toward helping communities shape their own civic destiny.

Table 3 provides data on citizen engagement through participation in public meetings. Among large metropolitan areas, the Seattle area sets the national standard with 14.3 percent of its citizens attending public meetings. As is the case with volunteering, all of Florida’s large communities, except for Tampa-St. Petersburg, are near the bottom of the list. With only 4.5 percent of its citizens attending public meetings, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale anchors the Florida rankings and is next to last among large metro areas across the nation. Seattle’s rate of public participation is over three times larger than Miami’s. In fact, once again reflecting within state differences, the rate of public participation in Tampa-St. Petersburg is about double that found in Miami.

Provo-Orem sets the national standard on this indicator among medium-sized communities with over one out of every four of its citizens reporting involvement in public meetings. In Florida, the Palm Bay-Melbourne region stands out with a citizen participation rate of 13.6 percent. Although it achieves only half of the standard set by Provo, Palm Bay-Melbourne’s participation rate exceeds that of the lowest ranked Florida community – Cape Coral-Ft. Myers – by a factor of about three and, at 13th in the nation, the Palm Bay community is easily in the top 20 percent of similarly-sized metro areas. Deltona-Daytona Beach, at 11 percent and ranked 26th, shows a relatively higher level of citizen engagement on this indicator than on volunteering. The remainder of Florida’s middle-sized communities fall well into the lower half when compared to others across the nation. Ranked 70th in the nation, Cape Coral-Ft. Myers has one of the lowest levels of citizen participation in public meetings in the nation.

Finally, Table 4 provides data on the extent to which community residents work with others to improve the community and address community issues. Undoubtedly reflecting the herculean tasks involved in bringing the city back after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans sets the national standard for large metro areas with more than 12 percent of its citizens reporting working with others on community issues. In a now familiar pattern, Tampa-St. Petersburg occupies the top of the Florida list (with 8.2 percent of its citizens working together) and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale anchors the bottom (with 4.1 percent of its citizens working together).

Interestingly, Florida’s large communities rate a little better on this civic health dimension than on others. At 15th in the nation, Tampa-St. Petersburg is easily in the top third and Orlando – at 22nd – is in the top half. Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, with only 4.1 percent of citizens working together is, once again, in the lower reaches of collaborative citizen engagement. Among middle-sized communities, Provo-Orem continues to establish the standard with over a third of its citizens working together to address community issues. Here in Florida, Palm Bay-Melbourne citizens stand out once again, with about 13.4 percent of them working together on community issues. In fact, the Palm Bay area ranks seventh in the nation on this civic health measure.

In sharp contrast, Sarasota-Bradenton and Cape Coral-Ft. Myers both have very low levels of citizen engagement in community problem solving. Ranked 70th and 73rd, respectively, more than 90 percent of similarly sized communities have higher citizen engagement levels on this measure of civic health. Comparing communities within the state, it is worth noting that citizens in Palm Bay-Melbourne are more than four times more likely to work collaboratively on community issues than are citizens from Cape Coral-Ft. Myers. Similarly, among the state’s large metro areas, Tampa-St. Petersburg citizens are twice as likely to engage as are citizens from Miami-Ft. Lauderdale.

Figure 7 shows the average of the four civic health indicators – our overall civic health index – for each of the eight Florida communities. Also shown are the national benchmarks – communities rated number one overall – for middle-sized (Provo, Utah) and large (Minneapolis, Minnesota) metro areas. There are several points worth noting.

First, all of Florida’s communities – large and small – are far below the benchmarks of the most engaged communities in the nation.

Second, with the notable exception of Sarasota-Bradenton, the civic health of Florida’s larger communities is generally somewhat worse than in smaller communities.

Third, even though the overall condition of Florida’s civic health is weak, there are indications that some communities have been able to rise above the statewide norm. Among mid-sized metro areas, the Palm Bay-Melbourne area stands out as one of Florida’s more engaged communities. Among larger metro areas, Tampa-St. Petersburg shows evidence of a healthier civic culture than other large communities in the state. Sarasota-Bradenton and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, in sharp contrast, stand out as models of weak civic cultures in a state whose overall civic health is among the worst in the nation.

Work by the Corporation for National and Community Service suggests several factors that may be important in understanding differences in citizen engagement among communities in Florida as well as differences between Florida and other parts of the nation. Reporting on an extensive analysis of volunteering rates – one of our principal measures of civic health – Volunteering in Cities offered four key findings. They found, first, that greater attachment to the community encourages volunteering. As the report suggests, it is likely to be “…more challenging to build citizen engagement in communities where residents do not have a long-term commitment to the community, where densely populated communities create a sense of anonymity making it difficult to know one’s neighbors, and where there is an influx of newly arrived residents.”[9] Second, the study found that long commutes can curtail opportunities to volunteer. Building and maintaining the networks that are at the core of civic action requires that citizens spend time with one another. Activities, such as commuting for long periods, “…are more likely to reduce social capital and reduce volunteer rates.”[10] The third major finding indicates that volunteering rises with education and is less common in high poverty areas. As we emphasized in Florida’s Civic Health 2008 and will echo in results presented below, education is a key component of civic engagement. In the Corporation’s words, “Education fosters organizational and communication skills necessary for successful civic engagement and leadership. Because more educated individuals also tend to have higher incomes, they often have more opportunities to practice and hone their skills in a variety of settings, including their place
of employment.”[11] A high incidence of poverty, on the other hand, is associated with lower rates of engagement. Finally, the report argues that the capacity of a community’s associations and organizations expands or limits volunteering opportunities. Simply put, for individuals to volunteer in their communities, “…there must be an infrastructure that can recruit, place, and manage prospective volunteers.”[12] Communities that are relatively lacking in such an infrastructure are likely to show lower rates of citizen engagement.

Each of these findings is important to consider as we seek ways to strengthen Florida’s civic health. The condition of our state is rooted in our communities and meeting the goal of an improved civic culture must be met in those communities, one-by-one. Attending to that challenge requires that local citizens and their leaders work together to shape their civic destiny in much the
same way that local economic development commissions seek to realize a vision for economic prosperity and community self reliance.

There is clearly much to be done. The civic health of most of Florida’s communities falls well below national averages and is far from benchmarks set by communities like Minneapolis, Seattle, and Provo. At the same time, there is evidence that some Florida communities have developed stronger civic cultures than others. Palm Bay-Melbourne and Tampa-St. Petersburg both demonstrate that it is possible – even with all of the challenges wrought by rapid growth and high levels of diversity – to do better and, in some cases, even excel in the goal of fostering more engaged communities. Moving Florida forward will require communities to be conscious of their civic health and to set explicit, intentional goals that will foster citizen collaboration and engagement through a variety of mechanisms. Community goals will no doubt reflect the unique characteristics and settings of Florida’s varied communities. But, if we are to improve the condition of the state’s civic health, the common thread must be to encourage Florida’s citizens to join hands and take responsibility for our collective future.