In 2005, I wrote three consecutive posts that later became a published article:

• The Civic Renewal Movement (1) listed the main types of work that are happening under the heading of “civic renewal,” from deliberative democracy to the defense of the “commons.”
• The Civic Renewal Movement (2) identified essential principles, such as open-endedness and the combination of deliberation with action.
• The Civic Renewal Movement (3) argued that there is an increasingly well networked and strong overall movement that links these types of work and principles.

Today’s post asks what we still need, and how we will know when we succeed.

I believe we need:

• An effective advocacy effort at the federal and state levels. This wouldn’t mean one centralized organization; therefore, it would not subsume or replace existing advocacy groups like the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools. Instead, it would be a broad, strong, yet diverse advocacy coalition. It would not only lobby professionally but also encourage effective grassroots action.
• What Carmen Sirianni and Lew Friedland call (in their book The Civic Renewal Movement) “expansive civic careers.” It should be possible for people to move intentionally from one job to another, and from one venue to another, within the movement. There should be educational programs that prepare people to enter these careers, and investment in professional development once you have a job. We need a strong “bench”–people who are ready to assume leadership positions within important organizations that are part of the movement.
• Broad gatherings in which people share ideas and inspiration. The recent No Better Time conference was a great example, as is the annual National Conference on Citizenship. But we need more regular and larger opportunities for interaction. Some of this can happen online if we develop more interactive and better websites.
• “R&D” for the movement, including more practically oriented research and experimentation; more federal data on civic engagement and youth civic development; and more “theory” that’s appropriate for various audiences and interests.
• A coordinated strategy for spreading the news. One-way, mass communication is problematic, in general, but there is an important need for messages (in various media) that stimulate interest and attention. Jeffrey Abelson is working on this skillfully and pro bono; there is much more to do.
• More money, of course, but that really means a larger and more diverse set of funders, including major foundations, community foundations, wealthy individuals, and government agencies at all levels.

How would we know if we had what we needed? Some examples:

When the Obama Administration decided to cut Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE), a model program for collaborative governance within EPA, civic advocacy groups would go ballistic. Groups concerned about civic education, transparency, community organizing, and other aspects of the movement would jump on this issue because CARE would seem important to them all.

Whenever a major institution–a government agency, foundation, university, or media company–expressed openness to civic engagement, we’d be ready with models, stories, potential partners, and experienced individuals who could help in the specific circumstances.

Hampton, VA has probably the best structure in the United States for involving young people in governance. It also has a very strong tradition of adult engagement in municipal government. Imagine (though heaven forbid this should actually happen) that some powerful politician decided to end Hampton’s programs. We would know we had a strong movement if people from other cities that also have good civic engagement programs–like Chattanooga, TN–got on buses and came to defend their peers in Hampton. That sounds far-fetched, but it does happen when civil rights violations or environmental crises occur–because the civil rights and green movements are strong.

Today, conservatives in Texas are trying to remove César Chávez, Anne Hutchinson, and Thurgood Marshall from state standards in the social studies. There are already liberal groups, such as People for the American Way, that will defend mandatory teaching of such progressive heroes in public schools. (Cultural liberals may be weak in Texas, but they are stronger in California and elsewhere). The result is standards that are enormous lists of miscellaneous topics. If we had a strong civic renewal movement, there would be an organized effort to reform Texas standards so that kids could actually learn to be effective citizens. The civic movement would demand meaningful experiences, not lists of people to study. It would challenge left and right alike.