Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century

The Changing Landscape of Local Governance and Citizen Communications

Theresa Monroe



ABSTRACT
Historically, political participation has been gauged by voter turnout. In recent years, scholars
have seen a decrease in turnout, especially among young adults. According to the Center for
Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 45% of young people age 18-29
voted in 2012, down from 51% in 2008 (Millennials in Adulthood) For many, these statistics
provide a grim picture of the future of democracy in the United States. However, when looked at
closely, Millennials, those ages 28 and under, are engaging in civic life, but just in new ways.
The nature of their activities is, in most cases, far removed from what is typically constituted as
political participation. Community service, petitioning, and voicing opinions online are just a
few examples of the activities in which millennials are participating. Why then is this shift in
civic life occurring?

A variety of historical, psychological and societal factors can be attributed to the gradual shift in
civic life in the 21
st
century. Millennials have ushered in a new concept of citizenship. In
response to the new citizen of the 21
st
century, governance and citizen engagement must be
approached in new ways.

To stay relevant in this changing landscape, governments on all levels are innovating and are
trying to connect with citizens in more meaningful ways. The rise in e-government and open
government practices have further accelerated changes in citizen engagement well beyond what
was previously possible.

This paper will further explore the Millennial Generation and their impact on municipalities.
Ultimately, this paper will provide recommendations for local governments on how to more
effectively engage todays citizen.
Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 3


CITIZENSHIP IN CONTEXT
FROM THE GI GENERATION THROUGH THE PRESENT
It was an era of turmoil and hardship. Born in 1905 through 1925, the GI generation experienced
both depression and war in their lifetime. Yet, the generations patriotic spirit and optimism is
unparalleled. Several characteristics set them apart from previous generations in American
history. Most notably, their word was their bond (Gronbach). It is this sense of honesty and
trust that made this generation one of the most admirable. The cohort also strongly believed in
the value of hard work and frugality. During WWII, many men and women fought for their
country not for fame or recognition, but because it was the right thing to do.

The GI Generations can-do spirit has given them the label of the Greatest Generation. In his
book The Greatest Generation Tom Brokaw wrote, The young Americans of this time
constituted a generation birth-marked for greatness, a generation of Americans that would take
its place in American history with the generations that had converted the North American
wilderness into the United States and infused the new nation with self-determination embodied
first in the Declaration of Independence and then in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At
the end of the twentieth century the contributions of this generation would be in bold print in any
review of this turbulent and earth-altering time. It may be historically premature to judge the
greatness of a whole generation, but indisputably, there are common traits that cannot be denied.
It is a generation that, by and large, made no demands of homage from those who followed and
prospered economically, politically, and culturally because of its sacrifices. It is a generation of
towering achievement and modest demeanor, a legacy of their formative years when they were
participants in and witness to sacrifices of the highest order. They know how many of the best of
their generation didn't make it to their early twenties, how many brilliant scientists, teachers,
spiritual and business leaders, politicians and artists were lost in the ravages of the greatest war
the world has seen (Brokaw).

Nearly fifty million Americans were born into the Silent Generation from 1925 through 1942. It
is speculated that the name Silent Generation originated from a TIME Magazine article written in
1951, In which the children of the generation were described as 'unimaginative', 'withdrawn',


'unadventurous', and 'cautious'. Time Magazine used the name 'Silent Generation' to refer to
these individuals. The name has been there ever since (The Silent Generation Revisited).

This generation faced not only the hardships of the Great Depression and WWII, but also the
Korean War. Members of the generation are characterized as being very ambitious and power
seeking. Perhaps, this is due to the circumstances in which the cohort was raised. During the
Depression, social class was wiped away and there was a collective feeling that we are all in the
same boat (The Characteristics of the Silent Generation). As a result, childrens identities
during this time were not clearly defined. Table A-19 shows that the higher the economic
depravity a child experienced during the Depression, the greater the individuals need for
achievement, power and prestige (The Characteristics of the Silent Generation).

(Table Children of the Great Depression: Social Change in Life Experience by Glen Elder)

The Baby Boomer Generation is portrayed in many lights. With increased educational, financial
and social opportunities, the Boomer Generation is often portrayed as a generation of optimism,
exploration and achievement. Compared with previous generations, more young adults pursued
higher education or relocated away from family to pursue career and educational interests ("The
Baby Boomer Generation).
Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 5


During the late 1940s and early 1950s, post-war optimism inspired this cohort providing a sense
of stability and opportunity. This era was comprised of space exploration, more accessible travel
and prosperity for the majority Americans. Many factors including increasing racial tensions in
the United States, the emergence of the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, the Womens
movement and the rise of hippies, made the Boomer Generations identity even more complex
(Campbell).

Sandwiched between 80 million baby boomers and 78 million millennials, Generation X
roughly defined as anyone born between 1965 and 1980 has just 46 million members, making
it a dark-horse demographic" (The Silent Generation Revisited). Generation Xers were brought
up on personal computers and television. The term Generation X came from Douglas
Couplands1991 book by the same name. The fictional book follows the life of three strangers
who decide to distance themselves from society in order to get a better sense of themselves as
individuals. He describes the characters as "underemployed, overeducated, intensely private and
unpredictable (Generation X Defies Definition). The letter X was used to describe the label
the generations random, ambiguous and contradictory ways. Due to the influence of the media,
this label, Generation X, stuck. Typically Xers are characterized as being cynical, frustrated
slackers. However some scholars and authors are working to debunk this stereotype.

As Jeff Gordinier puts in his book X Saves the World, "I don't really understand the tyranny of
the boomer moment," Gordinier says. "Great, you had a party in Haight-Ashbury in 1967, I'm
thrilled for you. Can we hear about the flappers in the 1920s instead? How about the Great
Depression? There's other times in history that are interesting" (Gordinier).

A TIME Magazine review of Gordinier's book says that at times Gordinier himself is
contradictory, ambiguous and random. Gordinier's book conveys a far different message.
Shirking the media myth that Xers are slackers, Gordinier argues that Generation X has to
borrow a '60s term changed the world. Citing Gen-X icons like Quentin Tarantino and Jon
Stewart, along with Gen-X triumphs like Google, YouTube, and Amazon, among others,


Gordinier argues that not only are Xers far from over, they might be the most unsung and
influential generation of all time
(Stephey).

THE FOURTH TURNING THEORY
ARE MILLENNIALS THE NEW CIVICS?
These four recent cohorts, the GI Generation, Silent Generation, Baby Boomer Generation and
Generation X together create a cycle that has been repeated in American history since the
Revolutionary War. In their book Generations, William Strauss and Neil Howe found that
throughout Americas generational history, the nation has experienced a cycle of four types of
groups including:

Adaptives: They tend to be risk averse, like to conform to existing norms, and try to live up to
the high standards of the powerful generation that preceded them. The most recent Adaptive
cohort includes those born from 1925-1946.

Idealists: They often inspire a spiritual awakening. Their strengths include visionary leadership
and their shortcomings can include a tendency toward narcissism. The most recent Idealistic
cohort was the Baby Boomer generation, born 1946-1964.

Reactives: They tend to be alienated and highly individualistic and are skeptical of existing
institutions and of the Idealists who preceded them. The most recent Reactive cohort, commonly
referred to as Generation X, was born between 1964 and 1980.

Civics: This group is called an institution building generation. Like the Idealists, they tend to
set the social agenda for the country. They respect authority, are comfortable working within the
system, and set very high goals. The most recent Civic cohort was born between 1980 and 2000
(Strauss, Howe).

Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 7

Today, Millennials fit into the civic group, much like their GI Generation predecessors. To
gage the potential of Millennials, first one must understand their characteristics, values and
beliefs.

THE 21ST CENTURY CITIZEN
DEFINING THE MILLENNIAL GENERATION
As Americans we can solve our problems and get what we want (Pew Research).

There are many differing opinions on what characteristics are dominant in Millennials. Many
scholars see Millennials as disengaged and self-important. Others believe that Millennials are
destined for greatness, just as the GI generation was said to be. Before these differing opinions
are discussed, one must look at the demographics of this group.

What makes the Millennial Generation so different demographically from other generations?
Millennials are the first Digital Natives, those who grew up with technology. This cohort grew
up on the Internet and had iPhones by high school. 81% of Millennials are on Facebook with a
median of 250 friends, much higher than older demographics. Interestingly, 55% of Millennials
have posted a selfie online; no other generation is inclined to do so (Millennials in
Adulthood).

Millennials are also the most diverse cohort in Americas history. Approximately 36% are non-
whites (Millennials in Adulthood). Perhaps, this is why the group is very tolerant and
accepting, for example of gay marriage. The generation also touts the label of being the most
educated and hence most affluent group of individuals. One third of Millennials hold a higher
education degree. Along with this, of course, comes an increased rate of personal debt due to
student loans (Millennials in Adulthood).

Many academics, however, are unimpressed with Millennials. As Zukin, Keeter, Andolina,
Jenkins and Delli Carpini found when interviewing Millennials, some were uninterested in
staying informed and upholding certain responsibilities of citizenship (Zukin, Keeter, Andolina,
Jenkins, Delli Carpini Pg 99). A study conducted in 2012 by the American Psychology


Association found that, Since the baby boomer generation, there has been a significant decline
among young Americans in political participation, concern for others and interest in saving the
environment (Siriani). The study found that 75% of Millennials surveyed ranked wealth as
being very important, a significant increase from boomers and slight increase from Generation
Xers response.
In fact the American Psychological
Association stated, These data suggest that
the 'Me Generation' label affixed to the baby
boomers was unwarranted. In comparison to
the proceeding generations, the boomers
look significantly more selfless. The
generational trends toward more political
disengagement, less environmental concern
and more materialistic values could have a
meaningful impact on society. It will be
interesting to see how millennials are
affected by the recent recession and whether
future generations will reverse the
trends (Siriani).

Many other characteristics of this group are
seen as problematic, especially in the
workforce. In general, Millennials demand
instant gratification. In a survey conducted by MTV, 80% of Millennials say they want constant
feedback from their managers, and 75% of Millennials yearn for mentors (How Civically
Engaged are Millennials). As Forbes writer Ty Kiisel wrote in Gimme, Gimme, Gimme-
Millennials in the Workplace, For the most part, the millennial generation is responding to the
workforce in the way weve trained them tothey question, they challenge and they want to do
it better. Sure, sometimes it makes their older colleagues a little uncomfortable. We probably
want the same level of respect we gave our bossesback when dinosaurs roamed the earth. With
that said, the challenge for business leaders today is harnessing the talent and drive of the
Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 9

younger workforce to create the products and technology that will change the world. As the
times, and the workforce changes, we need to reconsider how we lead people and get work done
along with it (Kiisel).

A handful of scholars, authors and community leaders see promise in this generation, and
recognize the complexities in characterizing the group. Peter Levine director of CIRCLE, The
Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, said that data actually
show that young people differ (from each other) an awful lot in their civic engagement, and are
engaging in new ways. He stresses that the 95-million strong Millennials, like generations before
them, are large and complex, and resist easy caricature (How Civically Engaged are
Millennials). In 2004, Howe and Strauss predicted that Millennials will be known for their,
Hard work on a grassroots reconstruction on community, teamwork, and civic spirit (Howe
Strauss).

Perhaps, the critical view of Millennials stems from the era in which the generation was raised.
Winograd and Hais, two scholars focused on under-30s research, are very dismissive of the data
portraying Millennials as self-absorbed, power-seeking individuals. They fault such data for,
Stressing psychological methodology, when young people have been buffeted by external
forces affecting the thinking of all generations, for example the added pressure to make a good
living in a weak economy (How Civically Engaged are Millennials).

One cannot deny that the cohort holds the potential to drive change in todays society. For
example, more than any other generation, Millennials believe that they can work along-side
government to create change. While the publics trust in government is at an all-time low (19%),
Millennials trust in institutions is very high. 49% of Millennials say that the countrys best years
are ahead of it (Millennials in Adulthood). Their willingness to collaborate with institutions
makes positive change possible. Furthermore, they fundamentally believe in an activist
government that protects the welfare of all people.

In Governing Magazine, Russ Linden wrote an article entitled The Promise of the Millennial
Generation, which details how governments can leverage the characteristics of Millennials to


improve governance. He wrote, At a time when most government agencies need to find new
ways to engage their citizen-customers as active partners, Millennials are able and eager to
redefine citizen engagement by harnessing the power of Web 2.0. In a discontinuous age of
incredible global changes, Millennials aren't unsettled by the turbulence; on the contrary, they
are energized by it. In an era when we must tear down organizational walls, collaborate and share
information, this generation has been doing exactly that since they were given group projects in
elementary school (and were graded for how well they worked in a group) (Linden).

Along the same lines in Millennial Momentum Winograd and Hais use both generational
attributes and the rise of technology to explain Millennials civic participation, and its effect on
governance. They write, The technologies Millennials utilize so often and so well, from social
networks to mobile smart phones, will provide communication capabilities that will undermine
hierarchical organizational structures in government and business, modifying, if not entirely
eliminating, the topdown, command-and-control structures built by members of the GI
Generation during and after WWII (Winograd Hais Pg 1).

Before discussing in more detail the potential to change governance, one must have knowledge
of what citizen participation and engagement means to governments, how this achieved and the
barriers to and benefits of such.

WHAT IS CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT?

Photo Credit Trinity College, Dublin

Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 11

To put it simply, citizens of a community are engaged when they play an effective role in
decision-making. That means they are actively involved in defining the issues, identifying
solutions, and developing priorities for action and resources (Pennsylvania General
Assembly).

Today, the words participation and engagement are often used interchangeably and are used to
gauge citizens interactions with government. I argue that participation is inherently different
from engagement. For one to participate, there is not necessarily an active element. One can
participate just by being present. To engage means to play an active role. Therefore, this paper
will use the term engagement to mean citizens actively participating in government, one step
beyond mere participation. The distinction between these two terms must be made more clear in
future literature.

One must also consider the distinction between political engagement and civic engagement. In
todays society one can see a shift in the attitudes of Millennials away from political engagement
and more towards civic engagement. Activities that are civic in nature include, organized
voluntary activity focused on problem solving and helping others (Zukin, Keeler, Adolina,
Jenkins, Delli Carpini Pg 53). Civic engagement helps to build communities. Millennials are
leading the way in civic engagement. In fact, 40% of the cohort has volunteered their time in the
past year, a sharp increase from Xers and Boomers. In contrast, political engagement is
predominantly electoral in nature (Zukin, Keeler, Adolina, Jenkins, Delli Carpini Pg 53).

Naturally, there are many different levels of engagement. As Arnsteins ladder of participation
depicts, engagement can range from government manipulation, or no engagement, to citizen
empowerment, high engagement. Today, governments aim to reach citizen empowerment
through both their policies, initiatives and communications efforts.



Photo Credit GovLoop

Maslows hierarchy of needs also illustrates the activities that citizens participate in, and what
level of engagement such activities constitute. These activities range from basic transactions to
citizen problem solving, where citizens are actively engaged in decision-making and activities
that help to propel the community forward.


Photo credit GovLoop

Both political engagement and civic engagement call for citizens to utilize public voice and be
cognitively engaged. Public voice is the way in which citizens give expression to their views on
Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 13

public issues (Zukin, Keeler, Adolina, Jenkins, Delli Carpini Pg 54). This includes signing
petitions, engaging in e-mail campaigns, starting or contributing to blogs, contacting public
officials or writing letters to the editor, to name a few. Cognitive engagement requires paying
attention to politics or government initiatives. This includes activities such as reading the
newspaper and talking about issues in the community with others. Cognitive engagement is
necessary, though not sufficient, for effective citizenship (Zukin, Keeler, Adolina, Jenkins, Delli
Carpini Pg 54).

So how do governments engage citizens? As the Center for Rural Pennsylvania outlined in their
guide on developing effective citizen engagement, there are five criteria for determining if a
government activity is fostering engagement. First it must be considered, does the activity
increase citizens knowledge about a community issue? Secondly, does the activity encourage
citizens to apply that knowledge? If citizens use that knowledge, will it help to improve the
community? Does this create opportunities for citizens to engage each other? Lastly, are these
opportunities regular and ongoing? (Pennsylvania General Assembly).

In my own experience in the public sector, I have found that the following criteria are also
necessary for fostering a higher level of engagement. I believe that governments must respond to
citizens on a human level and in a timely manner. Especially in an era of social media,
communicators must be available 24 hours seven days a week to respond to citizens
interactions. Secondly, a wealth of information must be both accessible and convenient for
citizens to access. Local government websites should include even information about services in
the community in which it does not have a direct role. Such sites should be a rich resource for
citizens and a curator of all relevant and necessary information, in order to satisfy citizens
needs. Moreover, governments need to respond to citizens demand for new services and policy
implementation. This is one of the most important elements for fostering engagement. Citizens
must feel that they are being heard, or engagement will wane. Lastly, governments must
constantly solicit feedback, be it positive or negative. While this criteria is difficult, it allows
governments to constantly improve and adequately represent the public.



To achieve a higher level of citizen engagement, local governments must create more points for
engagement by transforming the must do, should do and can do moments of citizen
interactions, as Govloops guide Innovating at the Point of Citizen Engagement: Making Every
Moment Count suggests. Especially when engaging Millennials, governments must now have
services and information available when and where the citizen needs it. During must do or
compulsory interactions, such as paying taxes, municipalities must seize the opportunity to
inform and invite citizens to other opportunities for engagement (Krzmarzick). Should do
moments are those in which citizens voluntarily participate, for example by attending a council
meeting. During these interactions, governments must consider how to make these interactions
more accessible to the public. Should do moments are citizen driven, where citizens have self-
organized around a cause. The challenge for governments in this instance is to support and
appropriately fuel the initiative, while propelling the mission and initiatives of their organization
as well (Krzmarzick).

Citizen engagement is something that takes conscious effort and a degree of risk-taking. Creating
such engagement requires time and money. Also, engagement becomes even more challenging
when trying to reach underrepresented groups or those who have little knowledge or interest in
their municipalities (Bassler, Fogle, Taverno). This presents a challenge for governments to
continue to draw in these citizens.

Creating engagement can be challenging, but the rewards of increased engagement are
numerous. First, the more engaged citizens are, the more satisfied they feel with local
government services, elected officials and public servants. By engaging citizens, local
governments also expand potential for innovation. No one organization can harness the full talent
in a community. By creating more transparency, governments allow citizens to innovate on
behalf of the community. Lastly, when citizens play an active role in decision-making, decisions
become more representative of the needs of the community, and the overall quality of decisions
significantly increases (Bassler, Fogle, Taverno).

One of the most candid sources relating to citizen engagement and government innovation is
Gavin Newsoms Citizenville: Connecting People and Government in a Digital Age. He
Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 15

writes, Weve got to simplify, pull back all these layers of supposed complexity, and get down
to the essentials. If we want people to engage with government, we should use the same tools
that are getting them engaged with companies and institutions in private life. If we want people
to care about political issues, we should give them a way to understand and get involved with
them (Newsom).

Creating engagement also has implications for policy creation. Torfing, Peters, Pierre and
Sorensen write, Making appropriate public policy has never been easy, but it has become all the
more difficult (Torfing, Peters, Pierre, Sorensen Pg 1). To make effective policy, they highlight
a growing trend, a shift toward governance without government. They believe that the
instruments of New Governance, Depend more on bargaining and negotiation to achieve their
policy goals than on authority so that interaction shapes these more proximate connections to the
delivery of public services and may make them more effective (Torfing, Peters, Pierre,
Sorensen Pg 3).

Governments are now working to steer society through collective action instead of top-down
efforts, engaging both the private sector and citizens. Often, this is referred to as Collaborative
Governance. As Frank and Denie Weil, benefactors of Harvards Weil Program on Collaborative
Governance, said, The essence of Collaborative governance is a new level of social/political
engagement between and among the several sectors of society that constitutes a more effective
way to address many of societies needs beyond anything that any of the several sectors have
heretofore been able to achieve on their own (Donahue).

LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY
ENGAGING MILLENNIALS AND INNOVATING TOGETHER



Photo Credit- City of Burlington CA

As Eric Ken Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs said, If you dislike change, youre going
to dislike irrelevancy even more. Governments, ready or not, are being pulled into the digital
sphere. To stay relevant, local municipalities are exploring the realm of social media, mobile,
cloud computing, open data and much more; all of which involve risk and a shift in
organizational culture. In many instances, local governments are embracing these technologies
and using them in ways to increase efficiency, transparency and citizen engagement.

Since the late 1990s, all levels of government have been working to increase effectiveness and
transparency, through an initiative that has been coined, open government. Open government and
governments implementation of technology, often called e-government go hand-in-hand.
Technological innovations have helped governments on the national, state, county and local
levels alike to improve their communications with the public and implement programs to
increase transparency and effectiveness. The outcomes are very promising. Approximately 72%
of Americans agreed that, By 2020, innovative forms of online cooperation will result in
significantly more efficient and responsive governments (The Impact of the Internet on
Institutions of the Future).

Beth Simone Noveck, former White House CTO turned NYU professor, is a leader and
innovator in open government practices. In her book Wiki Government she writes, Open
Governmentgoes beyond improving citizen participation to address the emerging opportunity
for meaningful collaboration- as distinct from participation- across all levels of government and
between government and citizens. Collaboration catalyzes new problem-solving strategies, in
which private and public sector organizations and individuals solve social problems collectively
(Noveck Pg 1).

Of course, change is never easy. The biggest barrier to innovation is often the difficulty of
predicting what is involved, and therefore of managing the risks. Predictability makes everything
safer. If you run a standard workshop, or treat 300,000 people for cancer, it is relatively easy to
set the budget, manage the process, and show the difference you have made. Trying something
Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 17

new always involves stepping out of your comfort zone (Gibson, Courtney, Ward, Wilcox,
Holtham).

Take for example local governments use of social media. For municipalities, the move to use
social media was not an easy one. Policy needed to be created for appropriate social media use
and citizen interaction. Also, as part of public records law, social media records must be retained,
which posed several barriers for municipalities. This is just one example of how the use of
technology is not always simple for the public sector. In some instances, this is why adoption
often lags for governments.

Nevertheless, local governments today have been stepping outside their comfort zones and
embracing innovation, through harnessing the power of new technologies. Many of these
innovations would not be possible without the efforts of citizens. Some of the best innovations
are citizen-driven projects that governments do not have the resources to complete alone. For
example, a nonprofit, Code for America, has helped governments on all levels to create useful
apps for their organizations. How does Code for America achieve this? Through multi-day
hack-a-thons, governments open up their data to citizens and allow them to create whatever
apps they desire (Apps).

Photo credit Tech Crunch

Some of the bi-products of these hack-a-thons include apps such as Adopt-A-Hydrant. This app,
created for the City of Boston, allows citizens to take responsibility for shoveling out fire


hydrants when a snowstorm hits. Although this may seem like an unimportant issue, fire fighters
had difficulties accessing hydrants that were buried by snowplows. This app empowers citizens
to fix the issue, without relying on City services to handle the problem. This is just one example
of successful citizen-driven initiatives utilizing technology.

Photo credit Code for America
One of my personal favorite apps created through Code for America, Mindmixer uses a crowd-
sourcing platform to allow citizens to give their input on community issues and share their ideas.
Participants can vote on ideas they like, and ideas that get the most traction receive points that go
towards redeemable rewards. All of this takes place with key figures listening, be it elected
officials or administration. These individuals can provide feedback to citizens and let them know
if the idea is feasible and if it will be implemented (Apps).

Photo credit Mindmixer
Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 19


Code for America is just one by-product of citizens driving innovation. There are countless more
examples of innovations that are changing local governance and citizen engagement, some of
which are happening right in Elons backyard. Recently,
the City of Burlington opened up its crime data providing
citizens with an interactive map of crime activity, and
allowing citizens to submit tips, all in one convenient
location. Another program Burlington utilizes,
Connecting Burlington Communities (CBC), allows
citizens to anonymously report concerns within their
community through a portal, accessible by iPhone app or
online. Complaints are then forwarded to the appropriate
City department and addressed in a timely and effective manner. Citizens can even track the
progress of their complaint and any action that was taken. These innovations have not only given
citizens a greater voice in their communities, but they have helped to address some of the issues
in the Burlington community, all in a streamlined and effective manner.

CONCLUSION
There is no doubt that generations will continue to push institutions forward in the future. With
every fourth turning, more progress will be made. As Millennials take on leadership roles within
society, it will be interesting to see the progress made in communities around the country. As
local municipalities continue to adapt to the new citizen of the 21
st
century, it is certain that
one will see a shift in the way governance is approached, favoring more collaboration, openness
and citizen empowerment. Though some remain unconvinced that Millennials will be a catalyst
for change, such change is already occurring. Every day citizens are collaborating with their
municipalities and working side-by-side to create innovations that will benefit their communities.
All that is left for debate is this; will Millennials replace the GI Generation as the Greatest
Generation? Only time will tell.



WORKS CITED

"Apps." Code for America. N.p., n.d. Web. <www.codeforamerica.org>.

Bassler, Allan, Neil Fogle, and Ron Taverno. "Developing Effective Citizen Engagement: A How-To
Guide for Community Leaders." Pennsylvania State Cooperative Extension, Apr. 2008. Web. 24
Apr. 2014.
<www.learningace.com%2Fdoc5316369%2F3c225fe7a31a0a554773d3a1be02eed4%2Feffective
_citizen_engagement>.

Brokaw, Tom. "The Greatest Generation." New York: Random House, 1998.

Campbell, Kim. The Many Faces of the Baby Boomers. Christian Science Monitor. Jan. 26, 2005.


"Characteristics of the Silent Generation." Characteristics of the Silent Generation. Trinity University,
n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trinity.edu%2Fmkearl%2Fsocpsy01%2Fmusic%2Fsilent%2520social%2520i
dentity.htm>.

Donahue. John 2004 On Collaborative Governance Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative
Working Paper No. 2. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University.

"Generation X Defies Definition." Generation X Defies Definition. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.jour.unr.edu/outpost/specials/genx.overvw1.html>.

Gibson, Andy, Nigel Courtney, Amy Sample Ward, David Wilcox, and Clive Holtham. Social by
Social. Print. <http://www.socialbysocial.com/book/social-by-social>.

Gordinier, Jeff. X Saves the World: How Generation X Got the Shaft but Can Still Keep Everything
from Sucking. New York: Viking, 2008. Print.

Gronbach, Kenneth W. The Age Curve: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Storm. New
York: American Management Association, 2008. Print.

"How Civically Engaged Are Millennials?" PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-civically-engaged-are-millennials/>.
Citizen Engagement in the 21st Century 21


Howe, Neil, and William Strauss. Millennials Rising: The next Great Generation /by Neil Howe and
Bill Strauss ; Cartoons by R.J. Matson. New York: Vintage, 2000. Print.

Kiisel, Ty. "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme -- Millennials in the Workplace."Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 16
May 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2012/05/16/gimme-
gimme-gimme-millennials-in-the-workplace/>.

Krzmarzick, Andrew. "Innovating at the Point of Citizen Engagement: 7 Government
Stories." GovLoop. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/innovating-the-point-of-citizen-engagement-7-
government-stories>.

Linden, Russ. "The Promise of the Millennial Generation." The Promise of the Millennial Generation.
Governing Magazine, 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.governing.com/columns/mgmt-insights/The-Promise-of-the.html>.

"Millennials in Adulthood." Pew Research Centers Social Demographic Trends Project RSS. N.p., 07
Mar. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2014. <http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-
adulthood/>.

Newsom, Gavin Christopher, and Lisa Dickey. Citizenville: How to Take the Town Square Digital and
Reinvent Government. London: Penguin, 2013. Print.

Noveck, Beth Simone. Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy
Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2009. Print.

"Recent Generations Focus More on Fame, Money Than Giving Back. American Psychological
Association, 15 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2012/03/fame-giving.aspx>.

Sirianni, Carmen. "Untitled Response." Contemporary Sociology- A Journal of Reviews 39.6 (2010):
764-765.

Stephey, M.J. "Gen-X: The Ignored Generation?" Time. Time Inc., 16 Apr. 2008. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0%2C8599%2C1731528%2C00.html>.

Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069. New
York: Morrow, 1991. Print.



"The Baby Boomer Generation (Born 1946-1964)." Untitled Document. Value Options, n.d. Web. 02
May 2014. <http://www.valueoptions.com/spotlight_YIW/baby_boomers.htm>.

"The Impact of the Internet on Institutions in the Future." Pew Research Centers Internet American
Life Project RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2014. <http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/03/31/the-
impact-of-the-internet-on-institutions-in-the-future/>.

"Essay: The Silent Generation Revisited." Time. Time Inc., 29 June 1970. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
<http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C878847%2C00.html>.

Torfing, Jacob. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.

USA. Pennsylvania General Assembly. Center for Rural Pennsylvania. Developing Effective Citizen
Engagement. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web.
<http://www.rural.palegislature.us/effective_citizen_engagement.pdf>.

Winograd, Morley, and Michael D. Hais. Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking
America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2011. Print.

"Youth Voting." CIRCLE RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2014. <http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-
facts/youth-voting/>.

Zukin, Cliff, Scott Keeler, Molly Andolina, Krista Jenkins, and Micheal X. Delli Carpini. A New
Engagement?: Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 2006. Print.