This “in lieu of” a substantive post, since today was a long day of teaching and meetings. But I would like to recommend a conversation on a new blog called The Civic Development Network. Several scholars, including me, had an elaborate email discussion last spring about whether people can have “identities” as active citizens. My colleagues were mostly developmental psychologists who are sophisticated about what identities are, in general. The whole discussion is now being posted (with our permission) as a series of blog posts. This is the link to save if you want to follow the discussion or join in by commenting.

Investing in Democracy is Carmen Sirianni’s extremely important book about how governments at all levels can help citizens and communities to collaborate in addressing public problems. Sirianni argues that “collaborative governance” can address problems that elude regulation and government spending or service, but it can’t be done on the cheap. It takes investment in the form of meetings, training, evaluation, tools, methods, and experiments. A great example of how this can work is Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE), a program within the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CARE makes grants to communities that have formed local partnerships to address environmental issues and determined their local needs. CARE also provides training and technical assistance and puts an interdisciplinary EPA team in partnership with each community. The leadership of CARE rotates among the major departments of EPA so that it doesn’t become a mere subsidiary of one department. According to Sirianni and the EPA’s Hank Topper, CARE has built a culture of collaboration and has obtained very energetic and enthusiastic support from EPA staff.

However, as I understand it, CARE’s funding has been cut by the Obama Administration. I don’t see any external pressure for this kind of work, which is not “service,” nor “deliberation,” nor “transparency,” nor online “interactivity.” It is long-term governmental investment. CARE was supported by the environmental justice movement, but they cannot push for this kind of investment across the federal government–their interest is limited to environmental issues. In the conversations that I follow, this kind of work is largely overlooked because it involves the executive branch of government (specifically the federal government) and its regulatory and administrative functions. There is much more interest in discussions of legislative issues, in civic education, in grassroots community organizing, and in service.

I still feel inspired by last weekend’s gathering of 270 people who are committed to a better democracy. “No Better Time” was an open meeting, and not everyone knew about it or was able to come. But those who attended were talented and committed and they had incredible collective assets. They included distinguished scholars, leaders of strong nonprofits, experienced civil servants, clever young technologists, and passionate advocates. They met at a time of exciting opportunities, with the new White House Office of Public Engagement, local communities that are trying innovations such as “participatory budgeting,” and the Council of Europe and the World Bank committing to civic engagement.

And yet many of my private conversations were about nonprofits in severe financial stress, even considering the possibility of closing. Both of the convening organizations–the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and The Democracy Imperative–have tight budgets and unstable funding, although they have much potential to flourish. The death of organizations is by no means just a theoretical possibility. For instance, I used to work a lot with the Council for Excellence in Government, a major nonprofit whose size and stability was symbolized, for me, by its large suite of offices on K Street in Washington. CEG is gone. So are the JEHT Foundation and the Beldon Fund, two sources of money for my work over the years. A much bigger period of extinction is about to begin.

Meanwhile, the commitment of major institutions to our cause is both promising and perilous. I have no doubt that the people involved in “civic engagement” in the White House and the World Bank have good intentions and talent. I do have doubts about whether they will be successful, because they face many obstacles. If they fail, phrases like “civic engagement” could be set back for decades. And we are not in the strongest position right now to help them succeed.