Stronger Civic Access, Support, and Culture Address Engagement Gaps by Rurality and Education

Our landmark CIRCLE Growing Voters report, released in 2022, offered a new framework for analyzing the civic ecosystem that can support young people’s engagement or—when it’s lacking—serve as a barrier to participation.

For a long time, the youth civic engagement field has focused on addressing gaps in access. Our 2016 research on civic deserts underscored this approach: vast disparities existed (and still do) in young people’s access to civic life and learning opportunities in their communities. By listening closely to young people, however, we realized that these barriers to access are just one part of a larger picture that can hinder youth. Even when opportunities existed, young people sometimes lacked the support necessary to take advantage of them or were steeped in a culture that did not make youth civic participation valued, equitable, or appealing. The CIRCLE Growing Voters (CGV) framework introduced a three pronged approach to supporting young people’s civic development:

• Access to opportunities for civic learning and engagement
• Support to take advantage of those opportunities
• A culture that embeds those opportunities with meaning 

In subsequent work, we have investigated and outlined the inequities that exist across these elements for different demographic groups. We have also focused on some of the unique challenges of youth in rural communities, where outcomes like youth voter turnout have been historically lower.. 

In our 2024 post-election survey, we operationalized these three elements for the first time, resulting in a 13-point scale measuring young people’s exposure to 13 total assets across each element. 

In this new analysis, based on our post-2024 election survey data, we take a deeper look at how Growing Voters assets differ across demographics and impact youth engagement with a focus on rural youth. We find that, overwhelmingly, young people have low to moderate access to these assets, averaging only six affirmative responses out of the 13 elements we examined. Moreover, the impact of these assets differ across demographics. Our analysis offers an important lesson in how to improve gaps in civic life. 

Demographic Gaps Highlight Inequitable Access and Support for Growing Voters

On the 13-point CGV scale, there are significant differences between demographic groups, highlighting inequities in access to the assets and support that CIRCLE data has found increase likelihood to vote. Although the differences seem small, each point on this scale represents a whole asset that one group enjoys and another doesn’t. Each asset, in turn, has a significant positive effect on voting and civic engagement, so even a small point difference on the CGV scale can indicate large disparities in access. It is also important to note that CGV scores, despite the demographic differences, are low across the board, indicating potential to increase access for all groups. 

There are differences in CGV scores across racial, educational, and socioeconomic lines. White youth score .7 higher than POC youth, college-educated youth score 1.1 higher than non-college youth, and financially stable youth score .8 higher than financially struggling youth. These differences represent inequities in assets that contribute to disparities that POC youth, non-college youth, and financially struggling youth face. Additionally, the disparity between financially stable and financially struggling youth is even more significant among rural youth: a 1.3-point difference, indicating the increased need for resources for financially struggling youth in rural areas.

Growing Voters is Associated with Positive Civic Outcomes

Among other factors, CGV scores are associated with positive civic outcomes for young people. For all youth, there is a strong association between CGV scores and voting. For every point increase in a CGV score (meaning, for every additional ‘asset’ a youth has), youth are 8% more likely to vote—a significant increase. We see the same 8% increase for young people in rural areas.

However, rural youth (according to their self-selection of rural, suburban, and urban) have significantly lower civic participation rates—including actions beyond voting. Of the 17 civic behaviors we asked about in our survey (e.g., attending protests, boycotting products, volunteering, talking to friends about politics, etc.), urban youth said they have done an average of  5.5, suburban youth 4.8, and rural youth participate in just 4. This is a significant gap. Notably, rural youth were more likely than non-rural youth to say they have volunteered for a political campaign, but that is the only civic action in which they participate at a higher rate. 

However, the CIRCLE Growing Voters assets emerge as potential pathways to improve civic participation among rural youth. An increase of 1 point in the CGV score for rural youth is correlated with a 5% increase in civic behavior. 

Growing Voters May Help Narrow Educational Gaps

Another major driver of civic inequity is educational attainment. In the past half century, there has been a large, persistent gap in voter turnout between young people with and without college degrees. All else equal, youth (aged 18-34) with a college degree were nearly four times more likely to self-report that they voted. Educational attainment was a higher driver of turnout inequity than other factors like race or financial well-being. In rural areas, the relationship between education and voting was even stronger. Rural youth with college experience were 4.7 times more likely to say they voted in 2024 than rural non-college youth.

Beyond the ballot box, compared to rural youth who do not have a college degree, those who do are 75% more likely to be civically engaged across the 17 behaviors we asked about. 

As with youth overall, CGV assets support the engagement of young people without college degrees. For these young people, the impact of having access, support, and a culture of civic participation is even higher. A one-unit increase in CGV score is associated with a 7% increase in civic participation among rural youth who do not have a college degree. However, it is only 3% for rural youth who have a college degree or higher educational attainment. 

Conclusion and Takeaways

Our analysis strongly suggests that improved  civic access, support, and culture—the key elements of our CGV framework—is most impactful on rural youth who do not have a Bachelor’s degree; meaning, on one of the groups that is most underserved and underrepresented in elections and democracy. 

Increasing access to CGV assets, especially for young people whose background and identity make them less likely to be engaged, could help to overcome some of the gaps in participation that plague our democracy. In communities that have long faced different levels of access, such as rural communities, increasing access, support, and culture for young people are even more important. CIRCLE’s existing research and resources emphasize the many stakeholders who ought to be involved in bringing more resources to rural youth, from the K-12 education system to vital community infrastructure:

• CIRCLE has examined differential access to CGV in schools by rurality, with additional research highlighting best practices for building civic support and democratic culture like positive school climate and youth voice. 
• We’ve also looked at how broadband access serves as civic infrastructure, offering insights into how broadband expansion efforts, which often take place in rural communities, can strengthen civic life. 
• Political homes where young people can explore their political identities can be a powerful source of CGV elements, and CIRCLE’s recent report and toolkit helps organizations to evaluate to what extent they serve as a political home to young people, and how they can improve. 
• Additionally, our work with rural youth-serving community organizations has outlined strategies and opportunities for growing voters in rural communities that actively work to counteract the challenges of a civic desert.