Civic Engagement in Washington, DC
A Report and Recommendations
by DC Agenda
with assistance from the
National Civic League
April 2001
This report was made possible by generous grants from the Naomi & Nehemiah Cohen Foundation and Trellis Fund. The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the funders.
1825 K Street, Suite 710
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-223-2598
Fax: 202-223-2604
e-mail:
Acknowledgements
DC Agenda wishes to thank the employees and members -- too numerous to name individually -- of the following agencies and institutions, who provided invaluable assistance to us during our research:
Office of the Superintendent of DC Public Schools
Members of DC-based Parent Teacher Associations
Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia
Members of Metro Orange Coalition and Orange Hats
DC Office of Zoning
DC Office of Planning
DC Agenda also wishes to thank the following individuals, who provided input and feedback through our community leaders’ focus group:
James D. Berry, Jr., Metropolitan Police Department Chief’s Advisory Council
Thomas M. Blanton, Metropolitan Delta Adult Literacy Council
Sandy Dang, Asian American LEAD
Steve Gewitz, Potomac Investment Property
EugeneDewitt Kinlow, Washington East Foundation
Wilhemina Lawson, Trinidad Concerned Citizens for Reform
Joy Majied, Majied and Associates
Gloria Mobley, DC Voice
Felix Patterson, Washington Gas
Arnoldo Ramos, Council of Latino Agencies
Vince Spaulding, Clean City Coordinator
Iris Toyer, Washington Lawyers Committee Legal Services Project
DC Agenda is grateful to our partners at the National Civic League, who worked with us through each stage of the project; and to our funders, the Naomi & Nehemiah Cohen Foundation and Trellis Fund, whose generous support made this report possible.
And finally, many thanks to the citizens who took the time to respond to our confidential Citizen Involvement Survey.
Introduction: Civic Engagement in Washington, DC
Over the last decade, much has been made about the decline of civic life in American communities. Commentators often cite statistics of low voter turnout, recount stories of paralyzing local political conflicts, and express concern about the lack of civic engagement in all sectors of the country’s communities. While these concerns are not without merit, they are not reflective of the widespread changes that have been occurring at the community level in how the public’s business is conducted. In the past ten years, even cities and counties hardest hit by economic disinvestment, internal conflicts, and related troubles have managed to turn the corner to create truly successful and sustainable communities.
Washington, DC is such a place. Since the beginning of Mayor Anthony William’s administration in 1999, great strides have been made to revitalize the local economy, strengthen the capacity of the local government to provide effective and efficient services to citizens, and reengage neighborhood residents in civic life. Such success stories as the thriving downtown Business Improvement District and the popular Neighborhood Action initiative are only a few of the examples of the inroads DC has made in a very short period of time. However, few would disagree that despite this progress towards a stronger and thriving District of Columbia, more work remains to be done.
The purpose of this report is to support efforts to revitalize the economy, neighborhoods and civic life of the nation’s capital. A collaboration between the local nonprofit DC Agenda and the National Civic League, this report focuses on the “civic infrastructure” that supports the active involvement of citizens, which is essential to the success of current and future community building initiatives. The first section catalogues some of the current civic resources to support this important work, including those found in the boards and commissions created by the local government, the school system, agencies and organizations involved in public safety and the planning and zoning processes of the local government. These issue areas were the focus of a survey commissioned by DC Agenda to solicit the feedback of citizens active in the city’s civic life.
Taking a step back, the second section summarizes the results of a national scan conducted by the National Civic League of promising practices used by other communities to improve outcomes in planning and zoning, public safety and education. As mentioned, while significant efforts such as the Neighborhood Action initiative are already underway, the lessons learned by other communities engaged in similar work can offer a wide range of models to support all sectors of the community in their efforts to revitalize the neighborhoods of Washington, DC. Without expecting that the experiences and efforts of other communities can be transferred “whole cloth” to the District, they do provide a sample of cutting edge work from around the country that can help inform both current and future initiatives.
The final section provides recommendations for strengthening the civic infrastructure of Washington, DC. These recommendations and this report as a whole should be useful not only to those working with local government, but all sectors of the community such as community-based organizations, the faith community, the private sector, public and private schools and nonprofits. The National Civic League drafted the preliminary recommendations, which DC Agenda staff fleshed out with input from a focus group of community leaders who reviewed a summary draft of the report.
In a short period of time, the District has already improved aspects of all areas of community life. We hope that this report makes a contribution to the ongoing efforts of the people from all parts off the city who care so deeply about the quality of life and quality of services in their community.
I: Processes and Institutions for Civic Engagement in DC
Summary of the Survey on Civic Engagement
Local civic engagement practices in Washington, DC run the gamut from participation in neighborhood events to serving on Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. There is an abundance of civic associations in the Washington, DC area that address every conceivable issue: economic development, faith, culture and arts, public safety, advocacy, and others. The Washington Council of Agencies, an association of Washington-based nonprofits that addresses a myriad of issues, boasts a membership of more than 777 organizations – and this list is far from exhaustive. A recent DC Federation of Civic Associations roster lists 49 neighborhood-based members and pending members, not including the organizations that fall under the umbrella of the Federation of Citizen Associations. The following scan reviews the processes and institutions that support civic engagement, including:
- DC Government-based Initiatives
- Civic Engagement Practices in Education
- Civic Engagement Practices in Public Safety
- Civic Engagement Practices in Planning and Zoning
As mentioned in the introduction, these areas were the focus of a survey commissioned by DC Agenda to solicit the feedback of citizens active in the civic life of their communities. Before reviewing the catalogue of existing civic resources in specific areas, it is important to briefly describe the survey and summarize its results. The survey was designed and conducted by DC Agenda and its partners at a time when interest in citizen involvement was running high—in November 1999, shortly before the Mayor’s first Neighborhood Action Citizen Summit. The survey not only capitalized on the heightened awareness created by the summit, but provides, in our opinion, a complementary piece with emphasis on particular issue areas and government bodies. Approximately three hundred citizens were selected at random from a list of roughly 800 civic leaders and activists from all eight wards. The list included individuals active in their local Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, Parent Teacher Associations and other civic organizations identified by Council members. Each respondent was asked to rate the effectiveness of citizen-government involvement overall and specifically in the areas – education, public safety, planning and zoning. Forty-one individuals responded, for a response rate of about 14%. Mark Popovich of the Public’s Work designed the survey with extensive input from the partners, and performed the analysis of the results. DC Agenda supported the administration of the survey. A copy of the survey instrument is included in the appendix of this report.
The respondents themselves were a diverse group of activists with long-term roots in the District. About two-thirds reported that they had lived or worked in the District for more than 20 years, and responses came from every ward, with slightly lower participation from east of the river (of the surveys received, wards 1 through 6 each averaged 14% of the responses, and wards 7 and 8 each averaged 9%). The group was split evenly between male and female, with slightly more than half being male. Respondents reported that they were active in the full range of issue areas tested in the survey. About half considered themselves “active” or “very active” in our three key issues – education, crime/public safety, planning and zoning. Open ended responses suggest that there is also attention to transportation, traffic and mass transit related issues.
Overall, the respondents were almost exactly divided in their opinions about the opportunities for citizen engagement in the District of Columbia. One half rated the opportunities for residents to be involved in important government decisions as “good” or “excellent,” and the other half, rated these opportunities as “fair” or “poor:”
Attitudes differed somewhat according to geography. Respondents from areas east of the river (wards 7 and 8) and in the northwest residential areas (wards 3, 4 and 5) rated overall opportunities more negatively, while residents from the central city/Capitol Hill region (wards 1, 2 and 6) rated them significantly more positively. Length of residency did not appear to be a factor.
While the even division of opinions about the citizen engagement opportunities most likely represents a significant improvement from only a few years ago, it also indicates that there is significant work that remains to be done to increase opportunities for participation in deciding the public’s business and increasing citizen confidence in those opportunities.
The responses to trends in citizen involvement reflect this dynamic: three quarters saw citizen improvement as “greatly improving” or “somewhat improving,” one quarter saw it as unchanged, and less than one percent saw it as declining:
Ratings were more positive in the northwest residential areas (wards 3, 4 and 5), and in the central city/Capitol Hill region (wards 1, 2 and 6).
Another question addressed in the survey is how meaningful activists feel their involvement is. On the whole, the respondents feel their involvement is meaningful, but they are somewhat dissatisfied with the impact they have on results. Three quarters said their involvement in the issues they consider important has been “meaningful” or “somewhat meaningful,” ten percent said it had not, and about one third said they were not sure. When asked about the impact of their involvement, i.e., whether citizen involvement contributed to progress or better results on the issues most important to them, less than one third reported that they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied.” Just over one third were dissatisfied, and about one quarter were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Whatever their feelings about their activities, these respondents were clearly committed to staying involved in the issues most important to them. Two thirds reported that they “will definitely” stay involved, and another 20% reported that they “will probably” stay involved. Again, these responses support the assertion that citizens are encouraged and see potential for even greater improvement in citizen engagement.
District officials get a dual message from our respondents. They are doing reasonably well in engaging citizens, but there is a need to do better or much better in a number of areas. About two thirds or more of the respondents identified the need for District officials and agencies to do “better” or “much better” in all of the nine categories (see below) we tested. When we arrange the nine areas from the greatest need for improvement to the least, priorities emerge:
- Using effective methods to resolve disputes
- Keeping people informed throughout the decision-making process
- Using training/development to support community participation
- Making sure the public knows about opportunities in which to be involved
- Sharing important information on issues and options
- Ensuring that all parts of the community are engaged
- Using appropriate technology/meeting space
- Providing different kinds of opportunities in which the public can be involved
- Engaging the media in providing information to citizens
What these responses indicate is that as a whole, all the pieces needed to continue improving citizen participation in the District are already in place. However, citizens strongly emphasize that future improvements depend on making the existing elements of the city’s civic infrastructure work better. The following section lays out the elements already in place; the second section details how other communities have made the improvements cited by the survey as being most important to residents.
DC Government Initiatives to Involve Citizens
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions
Within the structure of DC Government, citizen representation in a variety of official contexts has been the formal purview of elected Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs), created in 1976 to act as liaisons between the District government and District residents. There are 37 advisory neighborhood commissions, divided into about 300 Single Member Districts (SMD).
The intent of ANCs is to ensure input from the residents of the neighborhoods that are directly affected by government action. ANCs advise various District government entities on a wide variety of public policy matters, including zoning changes, variances, public improvements, licenses and permits of significance to neighborhood planning and development.
ANC Commissioners are elected by the registered voters who reside in their community, i.e., their Single Member District (SMD). Any registered DC voter who meets the residency requirement (60 continuous days in their SMD), holds no other public office and obtains the minimum number of signatures on their nominating petition may run for office.
ANCs have had an imperfect track record, however. Over the years, some ANCs have experienced attendance problems, operational difficulties and financial reporting difficulties. City Council member David Catania, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Local and Regional Affairs, set out to address their troubles in February of 1999 through a series of oversight hearings designed to identify issues and concerns and provide assistance to “troubled” ANCs. As a result of this process, Council member Catania drafted legislation designed to shore up the operations and influence of the ANCs.
The legislation (in a modified form) was passed by the City Council in January 2000. It includes provisions for the creation of a central office to provide Commissioners with technical, administrative and financial reporting assistance. It also gives ANCs more time to respond to government actions before they go into effect. Perhaps most importantly, it strengthens the requirement that government entities give ANC recommendations “great weight” by requiring the government entity to state clearly the reasons why the ANC’s recommendation was or was not followed, and to provide their decision and rationale in writing and on the record.
Boards and Commissions
The Office of the Mayor affords citizens a plethora of ways in which to get involved through over 100 Boards and Commissions. They cover a wide variety of areas of interest, including economic development, education, libraries and recreation, finance and revenue, human services, government operation, public works and the environment, consumer and regulatory affairs, the department of health, the judiciary and local and regional affairs.
Appointments to boards and commissions are made by the Mayor and the City Council. Any resident who would like to be considered for an appointment can send a cover letter and resume directly to the Office of the Mayor. Various boards and commissions have different eligibility requirements, but all applicants must be registered to vote in the District of Columbia. Information on upcoming vacancies, applications and fact sheets on the individual boards and commissions are available from the Office of the Mayor, Boards and Commissions (202-727-1372). Much of this information is also available on the Boards and Commissions website (
The Office of the Mayor
The Office of Mayor Anthony Williams has been active in fostering better communication with the public and inviting their input. As we mentioned earlier, in the fall of 1999, the Mayor launched Neighborhood Action, an initiative designed “to empower citizens to improve their communities by mobilizing and coordinating the resources of government, businesses, nonprofits, the faith community, neighborhood leaders and citizens themselves.” On November 20, 1999, almost 3,000 citizens gathered at the Washington Convention Center for the Citizen Summit—a day-long working session in which participants discussed their vision and priorities for the District and their neighborhoods. The input was processed by the Mayor’s staff and incorporated into a revised City-Wide Strategic Plan.
At a Post-Summit Forum on January 27, 2000, citizens gathered to learn how their input had changed the Strategic Plan, and to continue the more neighborhood-specific work that they had begun at the first summit. They were provided with the data generated at the first summit by their neighborhood groups and asked to continue their discussions on priorities, vision and strategies. At future forums, citizens will be asked to create neighborhood strategic action plans that will draw from the Mayor’s current citywide plan and inform future plans and budgets. In April, the Mayor dedicated his Annual Prayer Breakfast to “exploring new opportunities for faith-based neighborhood revitalization and economic development.” The Mayor’s office held a Youth Summit on November 20, 2000, during which youths between the ages of 14 and about 20 came together to talk about what young people need to thrive and what commitments the community must make to develop those conditions.