Social Service and Public Trust: An Antidote to Indifference
Remarks by Ford Foundation President Susan Berresford at the John C. Whitehead Forum, Washington, D.C., February 9, 2000
I am pleased to be here at the Whitehead Forum. It is an honor to join the many exceptional people who have addressed this group. And I'm especially pleased since these meetings celebrate John Whitehead's distinguished career as a public servant. John gave me good advice when I first became President of the Ford Foundation, for which I am very grateful. I am also happy to be part of an event sponsored by The Council for Excellence in Government, and Pat McGinnis, the Council's talented leader. The Ford Foundation is a partner with Pat and her colleagues in programs designed to build trust in all levels of U.S. government.
Building trust in our government. This is, of course, an important task. A healthy democracy requires citizen trust and rising cynicism and distrust of elected officials are disturbing trends. These negatives dampen citizen involvement in public affairs and can create a vacuum later filled by anti-democratic demagogues. Public disinterest in government also affects the behavior of our leaders, who need public support to confidently offer bold proposals. And public alienation drives many talented people away from careers in public service, further weakening the bonds between citizens and government.
Perhaps the most visible indication of that disengagement is the steady decline in voter turnout, especially among young people. In the last presidential election, for example, only a third of young adults voted. And even that dismal figure looks good against voter turnout for all age groups in non-presidential election years and in local elections.
This situation represents a stark break from a past characterized by strong participation. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835: "The cares of political life engross a most prominent place in the preoccupation of a citizen of the United States." Who would say that today?
It is important to consider how in modern times we got to this point of mistrust. Some would remind us that our country grew out of a disaffection and break from a distant monarchy in England. Our founders sought to contain government's power and intrusiveness. So it is right to say that the current malaise may have historical roots. But only a few generations ago, many people saw our government as the engine that helped revive a depressed economy. It helped win a World War. And it launched millions of families into the middle class through the GI Bill, guaranteed home mortgages and the like.
However, by the 1960's, things were shifting in a negative direction again. Growing numbers of people felt that government failed in important ways: it failed to address blatant segregation and racial discrimination. Many questioned government policies that involved us in a questionable war in Asia. Then in the 1970's and 80's we were bombarded with messages about what government, especially the federal government, did badly. This was also the period for devolution of many important governmental functions from Washington to state and local bodies, possibly confusing perceptions of government's proper role. And negative political campaigns have continued to tire and alienate us.
This history leads me to two conclusions and a reflection that is at the heart of my message today. First the two conclusions: One, what was lost can be regained—distrust of government may be rooted but it is not genetic. Second, trust can grow when people believe their government acts constructively on issues that they care about deeply.
Now the reflection: I think trust in government can be a byproduct of people's voluntary efforts to solve society's problems. And I believe this last point suggests a long-term strategy to help restore trust in government.
Most of us would readily agree that a government that works well has a better chance to earn trust than one that doesn't. So, many people strive to improve government's functions. This approach could be called "fixing the clockworks." The idea is that an honest and efficient government will be trusted, just as people are confident about a clock that keeps accurate time. Fixing the governmental clock includes efforts to improve policy formulation and budgeting, root out waste and corruption, reform campaign finance and negative campaigning. Ford and many of you in this room conduct work in a number of those areas.
But the more I think about the problem of trust, the more convinced I am that these efforts will fall short. They are essential but incomplete approaches to building trust in government. That is because respect for efficiency seen at a distance is not the same as trust.
Trust requires a personal basis. Trust often comes from caring about something, being engaged with it, and becoming so familiar with it that you feel you have a personal stake in it. If this is true, I would like to suggest again that personal involvement in social problem solving can help build trust in government in four ways:
First, seen from afar, a problem can be considered "their" problem. But when you are personally engaged in seeking solutions, it becomes "our" problem. In other words, working in the social problem-solving process moves you from being distantly objective to close-up and personal where you are more likely to care what happens.
Second, trust can grow when men and women gain first-hand knowledge of the problem they are concerned about. This happens because their practical work in problem solving sensitizes them to complexity. For example, they often come to recognize the limitations of one-on-one voluntarism. They see that multiple approaches, often involving government action at different levels are needed to solve our most serious problems. And they work to get government's approach right.
Third, when people's own problem-solving efforts yield personal satisfaction and success, they become confident about their ability to make a difference and influence change. These experiences can spur faith that institutions, including government, can also have positive impacts.
Fourth, engaged individuals are likely to be better informed about ways that government already affects issues that concern them. Whether this leads to positive or negative reactions to government is an open question. But they will care about what government does because they see it in action and know both its failures and its potential for good.
So along with "fixing the clock" to make government work better, I believe that to build trust in government we should stimulate increased citizen engagement in social problem solving. We can and should be encouraging more participation in social problem solving across the life cycle. This could begin at an age much earlier than most of us might expect.
How early? Let me share with you a recent experience that makes me answer: the earlier the better.
A friend asked me to come to her daughter's school to talk about my job as president of the Ford Foundation, and I readily agreed without giving it much thought. When the day rolled around I found myself in front of a steeply banked auditorium filled with small children—tiny first graders in the front, second graders behind them, and so on up to the fifth grade in the farthest, highest rows. They were all squirming, whispering and doing what small children do in these circumstances.
One look at that group and I realized that talking about the role of philanthropic institutions in our society would not exactly capture their attention. So I tried to get the kids to put themselves in my job. The best way I could think of doing that was to say: "Imagine that every Monday when you come to school, you are given $100 and have to spend that money by Friday on things that will make your life, your school, your family, your community better." After repeating that a few times so it would sink in, I asked them to raise their hands when they thought of a problem on which they would like to spend time and money.
Soon hands appeared, waving urgently. Lots of kids had a problem that concerned them. And they were not just issues they heard their parents talk about. Some wanted to fix up the park they played in; some wanted to help find the lost children they saw on milk cartons; some wanted to stop violence in the neighborhood; others wanted to make the city prettier. On and on it went. There really was no stopping them.
Then I changed the question—to: "Now that we have some problems to work on, what would you do about those things you care about?" Again, an avalanche of ideas rolled down from the highest seats to the front row—practical, interesting and imaginative ideas from students of all ages, even the tiny first graders. Toward the end I asked them how they might raise funds for the parts of the work they wanted to do that cost money. Once more, there was no shortage of energy; wonderful ideas flowed with ease and enthusiasm.
Afterwards, some of the teachers told me they were surprised by the exchange. They had not realized that these kids, especially the very little ones, had such strong feelings and good ideas about helping to fix what they see around them. I imagine that since many of the teachers never recognized those impulses, they never tried to transform them into practical projects related to civic life.
This was both revealing and disappointing. Most children are naturally altruistic. But we fail to encourage their caring behavior or reinforce it with other activities that could later develop into actions that lead to trust in government.
I told several people about that experience and a number of them pointed me to an organization that works systematically to develop civic engagement among very young people. It is called Common Cents—that's cents as in the penny coin. Last year the Common Cents staff helped organize groups of children in 500 New York City schools. The kids spent several weeks collecting idle pennies in old milk cartons. These are the pennies we all keep on our desk, our bureau, in a box, etc. On a given date, all the pennies were brought to New York's Javits Convention Center, sorted, weighed and banked. Believe it or not, 120 tons of pennies were collected in this one campaign—that's hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Each school group was credited with the total of its penny harvest, and then over the next few weeks many of the students who had collected the money held roundtable discussions in school to decide how to spend it to address problems in their chosen community. That process meant that kids went out to determine the community's geographic boundaries, to identify needs that might be met with the money the group collected. Ultimately, they made funding decisions and got the money or goods to the needy. Common Cents finds that young students often want to know if the money from the penny harvest really made a difference. So many kids later pursue service and learning related to the original gift. And parents, especially those with young children, often become involved as well.
The founder of Common Cents, Ted Gross, says that the penny campaigns teach us a lot about children's' emotional capacity. From the simple task of collecting pennies, the children become doers and decision-makers involved in community problem solving. They develop confidence, new relationships and healthy inter-dependencies. The process also helps bind communities and their schools closer together. This is very different from the more common school age giving activities that mobilize children to collect money which is turned over to a worthy but distant organization. And Common Cents's personal involvement in philanthropic decision-making is a far cry from conventional civics education classes, which children often find dry and boring.
Unfortunately, most of our institutional efforts to provide service opportunities and civic engagement for youth are delayed until the teenage years when many young people are at their most cynical and self-absorbed. Starting much earlier, as in the Common Cents example, would give us a head start in overcoming resistance to civic involvement.
Now let's advance along the age continuum a bit to teens and college age kids. Interviews indicate that teenager's negative attitudes toward government are really aimed at politicians. High school and college age kids often complain that politicians are talkers, not doers. They say politicians are remote from young people's concerns. Kids are turned off by media discussions about employment and the economy that fail to say how young people connect to jobs and how their kind of entry-level work fits into the economic scheme of things. On the other hand, when politicians speak to issues that directly concern young people, the response is more positive.
This observation squares with a thoughtful analysis that appeared in last August's Atlantic Monthly by Ted Halstead, president of the New America Foundation. He says young people's disengagement reflects their perception of the difficult economic, social and environmental prospects they face—prospects that are especially bleak for those without a college education.
But he also says that while today's youth seem apolitical, many are active in unconventional forms of political participation, ranging from demonstrations and boycotts to volunteering on issues they care about. The reason, he says, is that they see direct results when they protest local policies, assist the homeless or AIDS patients or do clean up after an environmental disaster.
E.J. Dionne, writing in the Washington Post, reports much the same impression from work around the New Hampshire and Iowa primary campaigns and recent teaching at Dartmouth College. Commenting on a study by Public Allies he says: "This disenchanted generation is a volunteering generation. Many in its ranks are civic-minded without being political. There's an abundance of hope and charity, but not much faith in conventional politics. The young are socially concerned, but lack confidence that government or political action can lead to the social improvement they're seeking."
Both authors seem to be suggesting that the alienation of young people from government and public issues may be exaggerated. A recent poll conducted by the Panetta Institute suggests that the young are less disaffected from government than adults. For example, 49 percent of students polled think government is run for a few big interests rather than for all the people. That is a high percentage, but not nearly as high as the 71 percent of adults who felt that way. More positively, 64 percent of the students said they would consider spending some part of their lives working in education. This reinforces the point that students are responsive to issues of direct concern to them. Many polls show that the younger generation cares a lot about education and is willing to invest in improving it. Since most education is a governmental function, we must conclude that young people are willing to work in at least some sectors of government or public service.
The success of the youth service movement in the U.S. also suggests the appeal of hands-on involvement for young people. Some schools now make community service a requirement for graduation. The Department of Education's research tells us that nearly 50 percent of all schools have service-learning curricula; 64 percent of all public schools and 83 percent of public high schools have community service activities organized by the schools.
Service opportunities like the national program called AmeriCorps have strong appeal. AmeriCorps has about 40,000 in service this year and over 100,000 alums. These young people work with the elderly, tutor young children, rehabilitate homes in poor communities, and perform other vital human services that are cost-efficient for society. Early hints from new research on AmeriCorps indicate that helping others makes young people feel useful and valued. Participants have lower rates of drug abuse, teen pregnancy, and other troubles compared with similar youngsters who do not take part in service programs. We don't know enough about long term effects of service on civic engagement and trust, so we should support longitudinal research on these matters.
There is interesting evidence from the experiences of Peace Corps veterans. Since its inception 39 years ago, 152,000 Peace Corps volunteers have worked in local communities overseas to improve living conditions, education, agriculture, and much more. They live in unfamiliar settings and learn firsthand about the hardships in low-income communities.
They carry their experiences into later life, as shown by a 1996 survey of a random sampling of returned Peace Corps volunteers. Seventy percent said their service had a major impact on their future careers. Almost four out of five are involved in community volunteer work. An even higher percentage is engaged in cross-cultural or interracial issues in their communities. And a majority pursue careers in government or nonprofit institutions, many in education.
This makes me wonder whether we may interpret the trust in government issues too narrowly. We may be missing opportunities to encourage a deeper base for trust and a firmer understanding of government's role. I also wonder why we always take anti-government sentiments as inalterable. A more nuanced analysis would indicate that they are often susceptible to experience-based change.
For example, government service is not the only way to serve society. An alternative for many young people is the nonprofit sector. This sector has grown enormously in the past two decades to several hundred thousand organizations registered as public charities that account for 8.7 percent of the nation's GDP. These non-governmental organizations may be drawing in people who might otherwise have gone into government, but that is not necessarily bad for society. It simply means there are more entry points for young people to become engaged in civic affairs.
Many young people seek careers in nonprofit organizations rather than government because they offer rewarding, important work that seems closer to the people than government. Once on the job, they realize that many nonprofits get government funds to do this work. So even if young people start from a position critical of government, they can come to realize that government performs valued community functions, indirectly through the nonprofit sector. Today, government is often less about direct services than about managing contracts with service providers and setting standards for service delivery. One way of thinking about this is to say: Just as young people are gravitating to the non-profit sector, so is government through contracting and privatization.
So I am hopeful and not despairing about citizens' trust in government. I certainly recognize the problem of cynicism and the threat to democracy when people feel they cannot influence policies that affect their lives. I share the distaste of many for unthinking government-bashing and I believe we can make government more efficient.
But I also believe that the problem of trust goes deeper and requires more concentrated and long-term efforts. As with other problems, there is no quick fix, simple solution or silver bullet. So we all have to operate on hunches.
So to summarize: I have five hunches about this problem:
- Perceived patterns of distrust in government can change.
- Trust in government grows best out of personal engagement.
- We can do more to stimulate personal involvement in community problem solving.
- We can do this across the lifecycle, especially with the very young whom we often overlook.
- This renewed social activism has a good chance of leading to more engagement with and trust in government.
These are my hunches. I am anxious to hear your views on these and your own hunches. In fact, perhaps a good way to begin our discussion at this point is to ask you:
- Do you see, as I do, opportunities we have overlooked to get people—especially very young people—more involved in local problem solving?
- Do you think it is possible that their local problem solving efforts across the life span can lead to greater awareness of government's role, and then perhaps to greater trust?
- Do you see other more promising hunches you think we ought to be talking about?
Thank you. I look forward to hearing your views.
The Ford Foundation is an independent, nonprofit grant-making organization. For more than half a century it has been a resource for innovative people and institutions worldwide, guided by its goals of strengthening democratic values, reducing poverty and injustice, promoting international cooperation and advancing human achievement. With headquarters in New York, the foundation has offices in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and Russia.