Youth Lack Community Connections that Are Critical to Civic Engagement

Past CIRCLE research has examined the importance of community connections to civic and political participation. We’ve also heard directly from young people about how valuable opportunities to connect are, especially in the absence of third spaces where young people can build community. Civic life is tied up in young people’s social and community lives, and understanding how young people are building community is vital for mapping pathways to civic participation and belonging.

At the same time, social structures and norms are still recalibrating in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which interrupted important periods of development for today’s youth. To understand the impact that may be having on youth civic engagement, we asked young people in our 2024 post-election survey about their in-person interactions with their community. While online communities and interactions have been important ways for young people to explore their identities, develop civically, and use their voices, online and in-person interaction don’t have equal and universally positive effects on well-being. Notably, some research suggests that in-person connections have stronger positive impacts (Kroencke et al, 2023).

This analysis furthers our understanding of young people’s in-person interactions and how they intersect with their civic behaviors and attitudes, ultimately demonstrating the urgency of supporting pathways for young people to build these connections and communities.

Half of Youth Are Not Spending Time in Community

We asked young people (ages 18-34) how often they spent time with people in their community in-person (neighbors, local groups, etc.) The results highlight a crisis of connection: half of all young people never or rarely spend time in person with their community and only 16% of youth do so often or very often. This aligns with what we’ve heard from young people about a lack of third spaces in communities, especially ones that are free, accessible, and welcoming at a time when so many youth are struggling financially. Without a place to gather safely and easily in their communities, young people may not know where to turn to interact with their local community.

Interestingly, young people report slightly higher rates of taking concrete action to support their community: 22% say they help their neighbors out in-person often or very often, such as by lending tools, providing childcare, or offering advice. A third say they sometimes do this, while 45% rarely or never have these types of interactions. Unsurprisingly, young people who interact with their community more often have more regularly engaged in such neighborly favors.

While in theory these types of in-person interactions would also be reflected in the response to the question about youth spending time with their community, it may be that young people think of “spending time,” as more informal, relationship-building moments instead of one-time favors or support. While lending a helping hand to community members is a key measure of civic engagement, in young people’s minds it seems to be distinct from interactions that build community.

As with other civic actions and outcomes, the regularity of in-person interaction differs by socioeconomic status. Wealthier youth tend to have more in-person contact with their communities than young people who consider themselves merely financially stable or who say they are struggling. A quarter of young people who self-report having significant resources and wealth are spending in-person community time often or very often, compared to just 18% and 14% of youth, respectively, who report being stable or struggling financially. Some research suggests that factors related to lower socioeconomic status, like less safe or connected neighborhoods and less leisure time, can contribute to this trend. 

Notably, there were only small differences in rates of in-person interactions by race and gender. White youth were somewhat less likely to say they rarely or never have these sorts of interactions, but otherwise no racial/ethnic group stood out as more connected. Overall differences between young men and women were also not significant, but young Latinas and Black women were the most likely to report rarely or never having in person interactions, particularly compared to young white men and women.

Nonbinary or gender non-conforming young people stood out as reporting less in-person exposure to community: almost 60% report rarely or never having in-person interactions. The same is true for non-heterosexual youth (58%) compared to straight youth (48%). This may partly stem from the sense of community isolation that some LGBTQ+ youth may feel. When offline communities can feel unsafe or unaccepting, many queer and nonbinary youth can turn online to build community, possibly leading to more limited in-person interactions.

One other key difference emerged: by party identification. Young people who identify as Republican are more likely to spend time in person with their community: 22% do so often or very often, compared to only 12% of Democrats. Youth who identify with third parties, like the Green and Libertarian parties, also report more in-person interaction than Democrats.

In other cases, we were surprised to see very little difference in rates of in-person interactions. The youngest members of the age cohort (18-24) report spending in-person community time at similar rates than their older (25-34) peers. There were also no significant differences between urban and rural youth and between young people with and without college experience. The fact that assets and environments like a college campus or a densely populated neighborhood don’t appear to significantly move the needle on in-person communities suggest that the issues may run deeper than the basic accessibility of spaces or opportunities. As researchers and practitioners continue to study the impact of experiences like the COVID-19 pandemic or the proliferation of AI, it is critical to understand that a wide range of youth are feeling disconnected from the social and cultural fabric of their communities.

Less In-Person Interaction Linked to Lower Civic Engagement

Low levels of in-person interaction are associated with poor civic participation across multiple measures. Among young people who did not vote, 61% said they rarely or never interacted in-person with their community, compared to 47% of those who did vote. Beyond the ballot box, for all 17 civic activities we asked about in our survey, youth who never or rarely spend in-person community time were less likely to participate in civic life. Notably, this includes activities that don’t necessarily require in-person interaction, such as making a donation or signing a petition, which suggests that the consequences of community disconnection are more far-reaching.

In-person interactions are also associated with positive civic dispositions and mindsets. Seventy percent of young people who interact in-person often or very often say they believe they can make a difference in their community, compared to 45% of youth who rarely spend in-person time and just 29% of those who never do.

These feelings extend beyond their own sense of power in their communities to their attitudes about American democracy as a whole. Overwhelmingly, young people don’t believe current American democracy is working well for their generation: only 16% agree or strongly agree that it is. But among young people who are spending time in community, that number is higher—up to 24% among youth who have in-person interactions often or very often. That trend is mirrored in young people’s institutional trust: on average, youth who have more frequent community interactions trust more civic and political institutions.

The association between lower in-person interaction and lower civic engagement is not surprising. Spending time in community can help young people feel tied to it, understand their role in it, and feel a sense of responsibility to it. That can add up to developing a civic mindset that promotes participation. In addition, being connected to local institutions and community groups—and seeing them work firsthand—may drive higher trust in those institutions. A recent CIRCLE analysis found that high trust in institutions is associated with higher voter participation. In-person interactions may also directly lead to opportunities for civic participation, especially as data continues to show that young people rely heavily on their personal networks for information about civic life.

It’s also likely that this dynamic plays out in the opposite direction: that young people who are actively participating in civic activities are more likely to spend meaningful time with community members at protests, community events and meetings, while canvassing, etc. Our research has also shown that, when young people are connected to their community in this way, they’re able to engage in politics in a healthier and more sustainable way. In fact, our data suggests that these community connections can help mitigate some of the potential harm of political participation on young people’s mental health.

Investing in Disconnected Youth Is Key to Democracy

Not all of young people’s civic lives will be lived out in-person. Social media and digital spaces have had a positive impact on how youth engage with each other and with democracy. At the same time, our research suggests that online spaces and engagement are not adequately making up for the lack of in-person interactions. In fact, young people who rarely or never interact with people in-person are also less likely to participate in online events, discussion, or groups. So it's not the case that young people are choosing between engaging online or offline; these young people aren’t connecting at all.

Reaching out to them through social media or giving them digital tools to engage may not be enough to break through that disconnection. Instead, young people need deeper and more substantive support to find political homes that can provide connection, empowerment, and concrete opportunities for civic participation.

As the country troubleshoots the dual crises of youth mental health and youth distrust of democracy, it is vital to understand that there is a wide range of young people who are being left behind. The disconnection they feel from democracy and their communities isn’t merely a matter of access to opportunities or dissatisfaction with the political system. They lack connection to their communities at all, within or outside of a political context. 

Documenting and tackling other logistical and motivational barriers to voting remains critical, but Gen Z demands a more nuanced understanding of the problems that are creating gaps in civic life and reimagining the solutions to address them. New models may be needed to engage those who are already struggling to get by, whether financially or due to their mental health. These youth may not be ready to be “targeted” as a voter or activist, but rather first as a person who needs respect, care, and their basic needs met—including the need for community connections. Revitalizing third spaces and creating on-ramps to local community life for young people are key first steps for building connection and welcoming youth, and many of the same practices necessary to achieve that can be mapped on to subsequent civic engagement work.