Introduction
Many assume that young Americans are apathetic, self-absorbed, and
indifferent to civic matters. It is a turned-off generation, we are
told. But nothing could be further from the truth. A host of data
suggests young Americans give their energy, time, and money to their
schools, community, and nation. A recent report by the Center for
Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), for
example, suggests young Americans volunteer at higher rates than do
older Americans (Lopez 2005). The frequency of
pitching-in has also increased: In 1990 some 65% of college freshman
reported volunteering in high school, and by 2003 that figure had risen
to 83%. Rates of volunteer work for those under 25 are now twice as high
as for those over 55. Perhaps this is the activist
generation.
Today's youth activism is both perplexing and a bit disconcerting,
however, as it does not extend to political involvement. The decline in
election turnout among young Americans has been stunning. In 1972, when
18 year olds were first granted the right to vote, nearly 50% did so. In
the 2000 election only about 35% of this age group went to the polls.
During the 2002 midterm congressional elections a scant 20% of this age
group turned out. Youth voting (18–29 year olds) increased to 51% in
2004, as reported by CIRCLE, but few would suggest that we are out of
the woods with low rates of youth political engagement.
Moreover, the problem runs much deeper than nonvoting. The same report
finds the rate of participation for younger Americans at similar or
higher levels than that for the overall population for every type of
volunteer organization except those political, such as
political parties. Here the rate of participation is just one-third the
overall rate. According to the American National Election Study,
published by the University of Michigan every two years, the number of
young Americans (less than 25) “very much” interested in campaigns stood
at roughly 30% from the 1950s to the 1980s. Since then, the decline has
been steady and by 2000 this figure had dropped to just 6%. In 2002, 67%
of all Americans cared “very much” or “pretty much” about the outcome of
congressional elections in their area. Just 47% of those younger than 25
felt the same. The withdrawal of young citizens from politics has been
rapid, deep, and broad.
Some might suggest young voter withdrawal is an expression of
contentment, and thus no big deal. Arguments refuting this perspective
stretch from the theoretical to the pragmatic. Surely Derek Bok, former
president of Harvard University, made good sense when he noted,
“Democracy is a collective venture that falters or flourishes depending
on the efforts citizens invest in its behalf” (2002, 14). As for
pragmatic implications, the departure of a generation of Americans from
the electoral sphere will have a profound influence on the outcome of
elections, as the presidential race in 2000 demonstrated. Many would
agree with University of Maryland scholar William Galston that the
“withdrawal of a cohort of citizens from public affairs disturbs the
balance of public deliberation—to the detriment of those who withdraw,
and to the rest of us as well.” Yes, a generation removed from politics
is something to fret about.
What Can Be Done?
Much effort has been spent searching for the root of youth withdrawal
from politics and on finding solutions. Most have assumed that the
decline is due to changes in attitudes. Increased levels of apathy,
cynicism, and alienation are often dubbed the culprits. Although
negative attitudes exist in individuals of all ages, young peoples'
mistrust of politics “has translated into a reduced tendency to vote”
(Patterson 2002, 89). One of the authors
of this study has also suggested that changes in mobilizing institutions
(local party organizations) are partly to blame (Shea
and Green 2004). As political parties neglect young people,
they are further driven away from politics.
Still another line of inquiry has focused on changes in civic education.
High school programs have “traditionally been seen as mechanisms by
which young people can be socialized to more participatory lifestyles”
(Eagles and Davidson 2001, par. 2). Yet,
only 64% of young people ages 15 to 26 report they have taken a high
school course on civics or American government (Kurtz, Rosenthal, and Zukin 2003). A report by the Campaign
for the Civic Mission of Schools (2003), for
example, found that one-third of high school seniors lacked a basic
understanding of how government works. The solution, then, is to better
tool the young citizen for civic life. Indeed, many high school and
college programs have been developed to promote knowledge, interest, and
involvement in politics. MTV's Rock the Vote is based on the
logic that more information and a greater sense of efficacy can spur
involvement.
Studies have shown that high school level civics programs can improve
political knowledge. Niemi and Junn, for example, found that while the
effects are modest, civics curriculum taken by high school seniors does
“enhance what and how much they know about American government and
politics” (1998, 147). They found a 4%
increase in “overall political knowledge attributable to the amount and
recency of civics coursework” and suggest the influence of civics
education on civic knowledge is “above and beyond individual motivation
and family socialization influences” (148).
But will more traditional courses prove to be a panacea? Two studies in
the early 1990s painted a “very disturbing picture” of the failure of
civics classes in America (Cogan
1997). While civics education may be able to better socialize
students into the democratic processes, it seems that they are not as
effective in creating participatory citizens. These reports conclude
that “this generation is ill-prepared to keep democracy alive in the
1990s and beyond” (22). In fact, many of the students interviewed “cited
their poor civics education as a primary reason for their apathy”
(22).
The problem, many speculate, may well be in the content of these courses.
A report entitled “The Civic Mission of Schools,” by the Carnegie
Corporation and CIRCLE (2003), illustrates how
the curriculum of civics courses has become diluted. The standard civics
class only describes and analyzes government “in a more distant way,
often with little explicit discussion of a citizen's role” (14). The
authors of the report suggest that “teaching only rote facts about dry
procedures is unlikely to benefit students and may actually alienate
them from political participation, such as voting” (20).
Peer-to-Peer Learning
Beyond enhancing the content of traditional courses, another innovative
avenue for reaching young citizens in recent years has been peer-to-peer
learning. Boud, Cohen, and Sampson define this process as “teaching and
learning strategies in which students learn with and from each other
without the immediate intervention of a teacher” (1999, 414). The goal is to train a contemporary or near
contemporary to introduce a curriculum (Irish et al.
2003). Among the many benefits often attributed to peer-based
learning are the development of skills related to collaboration, a
deeper level of reflection and exploration of new ideas, and the
relatively modest costs for such programs. While the research on its
potential to engage students in civic life is a bit sketchy, some
studies suggest peer-to-peer programs can prove effective (see, for
example, Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik 1982).
Helen Sonnenberg Lewis (1962) examined the “peer-associated determinants
of adolescents' feelings of political competence and interest in
political participation” (as cited in Orum 1978, 222). These are two
characteristics that are likely not acquired directly from parents, so
they can be strongly influenced by peers. Her evidence shows that young
people who interact and work with others their age are more likely to
express political competence and interest in political participation. By
simply interacting with peers in an organized setting, young people are
more likely to become involved in politics.
There is some contemporary evidence that young people working to engage
other young people in the democratic process have the effect of
increasing political participation. Nickerson, Friedrichs, and King
(2004) conducted a study of the Michigan
Democratic Party's outreach to young voters. Known as the Michigan
Democratic Party's “Coordinated Campaign” of 2002, they focused on the
future of the party as well as the state of young voters. This “Youth
Coordinated Campaign” (YCC) that was led by the party's newly formed
youth caucus reached out to 98,000 voters between the ages 18–35 through
24,000 phone calls, 14,000 door knocks, and 60,000 door hangers. It is
important to note that the majority of the volunteers involved in this
effort were young themselves, usually under-30 year olds from colleges
or high schools. The post election results illustrated that the 18–35
cohort had turned out in greater numbers than in past elections. In
1998, they were 9% of the electorate, while in 2002 they represented
17%.
Another technique with great potential is called “super-treatments,” or
intensive voter education seminars. Donald Green and Alan Gerber have
researched and written extensively on the impact of various voter
mobilization techniques, and are optimistic about super-treatments. In
their path-breaking book, Get Out The Vote (2004), they mention one program aimed at high school seniors
in five Connecticut schools. In the program, small groups of high-school
seniors were given brief, intensive voting seminars stressing the
importance of voting and giving the opportunity to register to vote and
cast a mock ballot using an actual voting machine. The seminars produced
a statistically significant 14% rise in turnout. They write: “Looking at
the effects of ‘super treatments’ represents an important new frontier
in this line of research” (93).
Why Bother? Our Peer-to-Peer Civic Engagement Program
The Center for Political Participation (CPP) began working early in the
summer of 2004 to design a peer-to-peer curriculum to encourage high
school seniors to get involved in the political process. A
youth-friendly program called Why Bother? The Importance of Voting
in America was created by Allegheny students Adam Fogel and
Sarah Schmitt. It took the form of a PowerPoint presentation that
delivered exciting animations and images, popular music, important
historical information, and current-events examples to motivate young
adults to get involved in politics. By answering the question “Why
Bother?” the goal of the program was to allow college students to
explain to high school students how their generation can have a voice in
the political process.
Why Bother? covered five elements during a 45-minute
presentation. First, it addressed how political issues can directly
affect young people. For example, they learned about young activists in
Seattle who reversed an ordinance that limited their access to popular
music concerts. Second, to combat the notion that “all candidates are
the same,” the program discussed key party differences in the 2004
election. Third, it provided examples of how a small number of votes can
decide an election—particularly in swing states—as the 2000 presidential
election demonstrated. Fourth, the presentation moved to a discussion of
the rights and obligations of citizens in a democracy, and finally it
explained the mechanics of voting; how to register and how to pull the
levers in the voting booth (the mechanism used in northwestern
Pennsylvania in 2004). Roughly 15 minutes of presentation time was saved
for questions and answers.
From September to October 2004, the presentation was given to 468
students at eight different high schools in northwestern Pennsylvania.
Four college students were trained to give the presentation—and each did
so at two different high schools. Great care was taken to ensure that
material was presented the same way at each school (an exact script was
carefully constructed, for example).
Testing the Effectiveness of the Program
Part of the purpose of the Why Bother? program was to test the
effectiveness of super treatments. Would college students be able to
effectively encourage high school students to get involved in the
political process? We designed a split-half experiment to measure
behavioral and attitudinal changes. Two groups of students were
established at each school—an experimental and a control group. Great
care was taken to assure that there was no systematic bias regarding the
types of students in the different groups. For example, the “best kids”
were not selected for the treatment.
Shortly after the 2004 election we returned to six of the participating
high schools to survey student political attitudes and behavior. An
exact survey was administered to both groups in each school. In all, 370
students participated in the written post-election survey. Responses to
behavioral and attitudinal questions were then compared to ascertain the
effects of the presentation. Given that the selection of the groups was
random, any differences could be attributed to the treatment.
The survey asked students about several areas of political behavior. We
asked students: to gauge the amount of attention they pay to politics,
hoping to find that the presentation had increased student awareness and
consumption of political news; how much they and their family follow
politics; how much they discussed “the election or politics” with their
family and their friends; if they had tried to persuade someone to vote
a certain way this year; and if they were registered and if they voted
in the election.
In terms of attitudes, the subjects were asked questions about their
feelings toward government and elections. Did they believe that
government pays attention to what young people think, and how much
difference do they think young people can make in elections? We also
asked them how often they could trust the government to do the right
thing.
Findings
Of the 370 respondents, nearly one half (45%) heard the presentation. Our
sample was 50% male and 50% female, with 89% of the students classified
as seniors. Thirty-four percent of the respondents were over 18. For a
description of respondents see Table 1.
Results of Why Bother? The Importance of Voting in
America Peer-to-Peer Curriculum
Both behavioral and attitudinal differences were detected between the
control and the treatment groups. (Likely due to the small sample size,
most results did not quite reach statistical significance—as noted
below). Results for behavioral measurements are presented in Table 2. We found that eligible students in the
experimental group (51%) were more likely than students in the control
group (38%) to report that they were registered to vote (Chi-square
4.810, significance .090). Of the registered students, those in the
experimental group were much more likely to actually vote than were
those in the control group; 74% to 58% (Chi-square 7.853, significance
.097). Put a bit differently, those who took part in our one-hour
presentation were roughly 40% more likely to go to the polls than those
who did not (provided they were eligible and registered).
Behavioral Differences: Results of Why Bother? The Importance
of Voting in America Peer-to-Peer Curriculum
Students who heard the presentation (44%) were more likely than the
control students (34%) to report “quite a bit” of discussion with their
friends about the election. Behaviors apparently unaffected by the
presentation were likelihood to discuss the election with family and
likelihood to persuade someone else to vote a certain way.
In terms of attitudes, here too the presentation seems to have made a
difference. Students who heard the presentation expressed higher
feelings of political efficacy than those in the control group, as noted
in Table 3. Students in the experimental group
(59%) were more likely than students in the control group (44%) to share
the opinion that government listens to young people “a good deal of the
time” or “some of the time.” Put another way, students in the control
group (56%) were more likely than students who heard the presentation
(41%) to feel that government does not pay much attention to what young
people think. Attitudes unaffected by the presentation concerned youth
political power and trust in government. Over 90% of both groups felt
that young people can make a difference in elections, and the majority
of students in both groups (over 70%) felt they could trust the
government to do the right thing at least some of the time.
Attitudinal Differences: Results of Why Bother? The
Importance of Voting in America Peer-to-Peer
Curriculum
Conclusion
Practitioners, scholars, and those generally concerned with the state of
civil society are searching for explanations for the decline in voting,
and for potential solutions. Our research suggests peer-to-peer programs
and “super treatments” can encourage civic engagement in younger
populations. By combining peer influence with civic education, the
Why Bother? program provided a convincing rationale for
greater involvement. Especially encouraging is the ability to teach
young people the importance of voting and the ways in which they can
make a difference. The Why Bother? program not only changed
behavior, but it instilled new attitudes about the ability of young
people to make their voice heard in government. Clearly, we expect these
attitudinal changes to lead to lasting behavioral changes based on new
perceptions of youth efficacy in politics.
We might note an unexpected rationale for undertaking such projects. The
college students that were pulled into the development, implementation,
and analysis of the project expressed excitement about the endeavor.
While there was certainly a self-selection bias at work (that is, more
“political” college students are more likely to get involved in such a
project), we suspect their interest in the voting process was enhanced
by their involvement. Our guess is that many peer-to-peer programs
provide similar ancillary benefits.
Biographies
Daniel M. Shea is director of the Center for Political Participation and
professor of political science at Allegheny College. He has written
extensively on political parties, elections, congressional dynamics, and
youth engagement in the political process. His forthcoming book, with
John C. Green, is Fountain of Youth: Strategies and Tactics for
Mobilizing Young Voters (Roman and Littlefield, 2006).
Rebecca C. Harris is assistant professor of politics at Washington and
Lee University. She was the 2004–2005 Civic Engagement Pre-Doctoral
Fellow at the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College.
Her research interests include American politics, public policy,
judicial process, and bio-policy.
