institutions

Rising Where We’re Rooted: How Local Organizations Are Rebuilding Youth Trust

amedin02 — Wed, 28 May 2025 17:28:03 +0000

Rising Where We’re Rooted: How Local Organizations Are Rebuilding Youth Trust

May 28, 2025

amedin02 Wed, 05/28/2025 - 13:28

Part of the "Our Take" series of young leaders' perspectives on engaging in democracy.

By: Hannah Botts

Rural youth trust their neighbors more than they trust Congress. That’s not disengagement, it’s discernment: and it should change how we think about civic trust.

Too often, national civic institutions design campaigns in conference rooms far removed from the communities they’re trying to reach. They assume that youth engagement is a matter of better messaging, cleaner design, or more streamlined programming. This approach misses the point entirely: trust isn’t scalable, at least not in the ways these institutions imagine. It doesn’t travel well through toolkits or targeted ads, particularly among already-marginalized communities.

The data seems to support this. According to CIRCLE, 77% of rural youth trust their peers and neighbors, which is the highest trust rating of any group surveyed. Sixty-five percent trust nonprofit organizations and 61% trust their local government. But this trust drops off sharply when institutions get bigger, more abstract, or more politicized. The President. Congress. Both major political parties. These institutions routinely fall below 50% trust among rural youth. This suggests a civic culture rooted in proximity and personal relationship, not budget or institutional infrastructure.

While rural youth are often portrayed as disengaged, the data suggests something different: not apathy, but selective trust. Young people know who’s showing up for them, and who isn’t. And more often than not, it’s local actors, not national ones, who’ve earned that trust.

We’ve seen this disconnect play out for years. National groups pour millions into voter outreach campaigns, civic education platforms, and digital organizing strategies, especially during election years when youth become a target demographic in get-out-the-vote efforts. But after the votes are cast, these same organizations disappear. The engagement feels fleeting at best and transactional at worst. For many rural young people, this is the only interaction they’ll ever have with national-level civic efforts: a reminder to register, a prompt to show up at the polls, a one-time message framed as empowerment. And then, silence. This kind of drive-by engagement isn’t just ineffective, but extractive. It sends a clear message to young people from any marginalized group: your voice only matters when it serves our goals.

While national institutions may understand this argument in theory, they too often approach youth engagement as something that can be engineered from the top down. It’s not. Civic trust isn’t a product of slick branding or newly-launched toolkits. It grows as a result of consistent presence, proximity, and participation. It grows when youth are seen not as a demographic to target or a problem to solve, but as partners.

Seeing Firsthand What Works

As a proud Kentuckian, I’ve only seen that kind of trust being built at the local level.

Organizations rooted in the communities they serve are succeeding where national organizations fall short, not because they have more funding or visibility, but because they show up with humility and stay long enough to matter. They don’t ask for youth engagement on their own terms, they create space for young people to lead on theirs.

That ethos is captured well by the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky, which describes its work with a simple but powerful phrase: rising where we’re rooted. It’s a reminder that meaningful change requires proximity, relationships, and a deep respect for place. And it’s this spirit that defines the organizations I highlight below: each grounded in community, led by those who know it best, committed to building civic trust from the ground up.

Appalshop, a cultural institution based in the heart of Appalachia, offers one of the clearest examples of this. For decades, they’ve supported local youth in creating films, radio programs, and multimedia storytelling rooted in their own communities. It’s not just about teaching media skills, it’s about showing young people that their voices matter, that their history has value, and that they have the power to shape public narratives about where they come from. For rural youth. especially, the ability to speak from their experience and to their community is something that national institutions rarely allow.

Then there’s CivicLex, based in Lexington, Kentucky. While federal civic education efforts struggle to compete with misinformation online, CivicLex focuses on demystifying the political process at the local level, helping community members understand how local decisions get made, who makes them, and how to show up and participate. It’s not just about teaching people to vote. It’s about building them a roadmap to real civic involvement. By breaking down local government in plain language and engaging youth in the issues that directly impact their neighborhoods: zoning, budgets, public safety, CivicLex builds not only civic literacy, but a sense of agency.

Perhaps the most inspiring is the Kentucky Student Voice Team, a youth-led organization where students across the state are empowered to advocate for more equitable and responsive education systems. Their work doesn’t rely on adult gatekeepers to speak on their behalf: the students themselves lead research, develop policy recommendations, and hold decision-makers accountable. In a context where schools are often under-resourced and students are rarely invited to the table, this model reimagines what youth civic power looks like. It creates new norms for who belongs in decision-making spaces, rather than asking for permission.

These organizations succeed because they treat young people as full participants in civic life, not future citizens waiting in the wings. They don’t parachute in with pre-packaged solutions. They listen. They adapt. They co-create infrastructure that reflects the values, histories, and lived realities of the youth they work with. And in doing so, they restore something that’s been lost in many national conversations: trust, grounded in care and mutual respect.

This is the philosophy behind a summer fellowship I’m directing with the help of Campus Compact. The Rural Youth Voices Initiative is supporting young people from rural areas who want to reshape the national narrative around rural youth engagement. These fellows aren’t being trained to fit into existing civic frameworks, they’re being supported to lead from their own experience. That means highlighting both the excellent work and the struggles already occurring in their communities.

This project isn’t just about representation, it’s about shifting power. Too often, rural youth are treated as invisible in civic discourse, or reduced to caricatures in political debate. But when we trust them with leadership, with funding, and with space to tell their own stories, they become not just participants in democracy, but architects in its future.

National civic institutions have a role to play, but only if they’re willing to listen. Funding, following, and learning from local institutions and youth-led organizations already doing the work. The solutions to civic disengagement won’t be found in think tanks or national task forces. They’ll come from the margins, from communities that have learned how to engage with power even when power didn’t engage with them.

As Rev. Jen Bailey reminds us, “Social change happens at the speed of relationships. And relationships move at the speed of trust.” This kind of trust isn’t built through campaigns or top-down strategic frameworks. It’s built slowly and intentionally, in classrooms and community centers, in town halls and cultural hubs, in the voices of young people who’ve been told too many times that civic life isn’t meant for them unless their vote happens to be politically convenient.

If national civic institutions want to matter to the next generation, they’ll have to meet youth where they are, listen to and invest in them, and trust them enough to lead.

Trust thrives where institutions are willing to grow roots, not just plant flags.

The Rural Youth Voices Initiative is currently recruiting rural youth (ages 18–22) for a paid ($1,000) community engagement fellowship this summer. If you’re a young person with lived experience in a rural community, apply here to join the cohort by June 13th, 2025. If you're a rural-serving individual interested in learning more about this program or contributing to our report’s findings through an interview, fill out this form.

Hannah Botts is a Gen Z civic leader working to reimagine how institutions engage young people, especially communities too often left out of national conversations. A native of Kentucky, Hannah has advised foundations, local governments, and cultural institutions on youth engagement, and has worked with organizations including the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 18by Vote, and the Kentucky Student Voice Team. As Program Director of Campus Compact’s Rural Youth Voices Initiative, Hannah leads efforts to expand access to civic action for rural youth and to challenge the dominant narratives around rural disengagement. Her work centers proximity, power-sharing, and the belief that young people are not a demographic to reach, but partners in building what comes next.

Display in Home Page Bundles

Off

Tags

our take

youth expertise

institutions

community organizations

rural communities

Add Share On Links to the bottom of the content

Youth Trust Peers, Local Government, and Institutions They See Taking Action

amedin02 — Tue, 27 May 2025 20:16:34 +0000

Youth Trust Peers, Local Government, and Institutions They See Taking Action

May 27, 2025

amedin02 Tue, 05/27/2025 - 16:16

On the other hand, social media companies, major political parties, and Congress are among young people’s least trusted institutions.

Author: Ruby Belle Booth
Contributors: Alberto Medina, Sara Suzuki, Katie Hilton, Riya Rahman

At A Glance: Major Findings

74% Trust Peers; 19% Trust Big Tech

The vast majority of youth trust their personal networks, while only 1 in 5 trust major social media and tech companies.

8% Trust No Institutions

Almost 1 in 10 young people don't trust any of the 14 institutions we asked about—a major challenge to engaging these youth.

Trust Is Linked to Voting

Youth who voted in 2024 were more likely to trust institutions like political parties, nonprofits, and even their peers and neighbors

Young people’s lack of trust in institutions is one of the major challenges to maintaining or strengthening their connection to democracy. It can also be an opportunity: as threats to democratic institutions and values build in the U.S. and around the world, it is vital to outline strategies that can reignite young people’s connections to institutions and understanding of their civic power ahead of the 2026 elections and beyond. CIRCLE’s new data on youth trust in institutions paints a complicated picture of youth distrust, how it relates to civic action, and what we can learn from it to inform future efforts.

CIRCLE’s recent report, How Does Gen Z Really Feel About Democracy?, published in partnership with the nonpartisan nonprofit Protect Democracy, highlighted the precarious relationship between trust in institutions and young people’s civic development. One major finding: the most civically engaged young people, who we say show a Hostile Dissatisfaction toward democracy, tend to be less trusting of institutions. This aligns with past CIRCLE research, that highlights a connection between young people who are paying attention to and engaging with institutions and a certain degree of cynicism and disillusionment. Our research also found that only 16% of 18- to 29-year-olds believe democracy is working well for young people.

On the other side of the spectrum, our report finds that youth who display Dismissive Detachment toward democracy may feel burned by many civic and political institutions, driving their distrust. In between is the largest group of young people, those with a Passive Appreciation of democracy, whose shrug-their-shoulders attitude toward civic life includes relatively higher trust in institutions. However, while these youth participate in elections at the same rate as their peers, that is often the extent of their political engagement, so they may not encounter the same sources of frustration and disillusionment as their more activist peers.

These three profiles of democratic attitudes highlight one of the core questions driving youth trust: Are civic and political institutions listening to and serving the needs of young people?

Youth Trust their Peers and Nonprofits, Distrust Social Media and the GOP

The institutions trusted most by young people are their peers and neighbors (74% have “some” or “a great deal” of trust), nonprofit organizations (65%), the military (61%), local government (60%), police (57%), and state government (52%). All other institutions we asked about are trusted by less than half of youth.

Young people’s least trusted institutions are social media companies (19% trusted), the Republican Party (33%), and Congress as an institution (37%)—as opposed to young people’s own members of Congress, whom 42% of youth trust.

It is notable that many of the groups or institutions young people trust most are those they are more likely to see up close and potentially have personal experience with. In addition to peers and neighbors, trusted nonprofits may include groups that youth see taking action and having an impact in their communities. Local and state governments may also feel much closer and tangible to youth than the federal government, as can the police they see in their neighborhoods.

On the other hand, institutions like social media companies, Congress, and major political parties may feel like remote and opaque organizations to youth. The higher trust for young people’s own members of Congress, as opposed to the institution itself, also suggests that the closer youth feel to a civic leader or institution, the more they may trust it. Other research has also highlighted that young people tend to trust institutions more when they perceive them as caring about issues that matter to them.

Most Youth Trust At Least a Handful of Institutions

While young people’s trust for many individual civic and political institutions may be relatively low, it is not the case that youth are inherently distrustful. Sixty-eight percent of young people trust at least five of the institutions we asked about, which is an encouraging indicator that there are avenues and opportunities to get more young people involved in civic life. Our CIRCLE Growing Voters framework highlights the importance of having multiple pathways to engagement for youth with diverse perspectives and experiences with democracy; for instance, not every young person will trust their local government, but for those who do, it can be a valuable way to deepen or expand their civic engagement.

On the other hand, the 8% of young people who trust no institutions are cause for concern, and the stark differences by race (17% of Black youth trust no institutions, compared to just 5% of white youth) paints a dire picture of inequities in trust that can turn into inequities in participation. There are also major differences by other demographic factors like education (38% of youth without college experience trust 0-4 institutions, compared to 28% of those with college experience) and gender (37% of young women vs. 26% young men).

Black and Latino Youth Less Trusting of Institutions and Less Likely to Vote

With the exception of social media companies and the Republican Party, young people who voted were significantly more trusting of institutions than those who did not vote. Interestingly, the difference was largest for peers and neighbors (+22 trust among young people who voted), local government (+22), and nonprofit organizations (+19).

Differences in trust by race and education suggest some underlying dynamics shaping this outcome. Averaging trust across the fourteen institutions we asked about, Black youth had the lowest trust (37%), followed by Hispanic/Latino youth (44%). These two groups also had the lowest turnout in the 2024 election, highlighting how lower levels of trust in certain racial/ethnic communities, which likely is driven in part by historical and current marginalization or mistreatment by some of these very institutions, may be serving as a barrier to electoral participation.

A similar trend emerges when it comes to education: young people without college experience were less trusting than those with college experience. The difference was largest in young people’s trust of their peers and neighbors, nonprofit organizations, and state and local government. As with race/ethnicity, this mirrors the data on youth voter turnout, as youth with college experience are much more likely to vote.

These findings raise a red flag for some common best practices of youth voter engagement. Peer-to-peer relational organizing is often considered one of the most effective approaches for motivating young people to vote and participate in other forms of civic action, but some of those who are already least likely to vote are also least likely to trust their peers.

Additionally, community organizations often play a vital role in filling gaps in access and outreach, especially for young people who have lacked other forms of civic support from institutions like higher education. In fact, our research has previously shown that community organizations can be more effective in reaching Black youth and providing information about issues and elections, seemingly contradicting the lower trust Black youth have of nonprofits. However, both can be true – and the gaps in trust highlight the need to ensure that all youth, including youth of color and those who don’t have college experience, have trust in these organizations and are primed for engagement when contact is made.

Lastly, particularly in a moment of intense political polarization and upheaval in the federal government, the distrust of local government among nonvoters and low-turnout groups is important to understand when crafting pathways to youth engagement. The accessibility and visibility of local government may be driving trust and even engagement among some young people; rebuilding trust locally among low-propensity young voters could be a first step towards fostering engagement at all levels of democracy.

White Youth Driving Distrust of Social Media

Our new data on institutional trust reveals other major racial and gender dynamics.

Young people’s distrust of social media companies is noteworthy, especially since 77% of young people report getting election information from at least one social media site, and many of these companies’ leaders are becoming increasingly influential figures in American politics. This distrust is primarily driven by white youth who, despite being more trusting of institutions overall, were the least trusting of social media companies (14%), while Black youth were the most trusting (26%). A recent CIRCLE analysis highlighted differences in youth media usage, including by race, finding that young people of color were more likely to use social media as a top source for political information, which may be reflective of, or contribute to, their higher level of trust.

Averaging across all institutions, young men were more trusting of institutions than young women. The Democratic Party and social media / technology companies are the only institutions that young women trusted more than young men. Young men’s disconnection from American political life has been a major conversation topic since the 2024 election, and this data complicates common perceptions of distrusting and disconnected young men.

This may be a symptom of a broader engagement gap between young men and young women, following our findings that young people who are more engaged tend to be more distrusting. Ensuring that young women don’t become so distrustful that they disengage with democracy is vital, especially as two of the three biggest drops in youth turnout between 2020 and 2024 by race and gender were among young Latinas (19 points) and young Black women (7 points). Young men’s relatively higher trust may also be an indication of how institutions may be wielded as tools to support deepening young men’s participation in civic life.

What Makes Youth Trust Institutions?

To better understand what drives young people’s trust, we asked 18-34 year olds who said they trusted or strongly trusted the office of the President and Congress which factors contributed to their trust. For both Congress and the office of the President, young people who trust these offices tend to do so because “They are working to improve the conditions of all citizens.” This tracks with much of our other data on what motivates youth to vote and take political action: the desire for action on the issues they care about.

Other reasons for trusting institutions, such as honesty, lack of corruption, accessibility, and high-quality services, were rarely cited by youth as reasons to trust institutions. For example, less than 20% of young people who trust Congress said they do so because Congress is honest or not corrupt. Young people are also unlikely to say that “it is easy for someone like me to contact them.”

These insights from youth point to a path for improving trust in civic and political institutions. Lean into what is already working for youth who show trust: help more young people see that the government is working to improve the conditions of all citizens. When youth see the role and impact of the government on issues they care about, and on the lives of their peers and community members, they connect the dots on how institutions can be a force for good that deserve their trust. When political realities make it difficult to show youth that government and its institutions do lead to positive impact, it’s important to commit to changes and reforms—ideally with input from youth themselves—that can make institutions more effective and responsive.

This finding aligns with other major CIRCLE research on young people’s feelings about democracy more broadly. In our recent report on Gen Z’s democratic attitudes, we found that though a majority of young people believe in the core principles and values of democracy, they don’t see American democracy today living up to those ideals, especially in a way that works well for young people.

We also found that trust – or lack thereof – in institutions and political processes was often cited by young people as one of the reasons for their views of democracy. Among those who don’t believe that democracy is working well for youth, many pointed to a lack of representation of young people in political institutions, a lack of trust in the electoral system, or discontent with political parties and government policies.

Their Take: Youth Tackle Institutional Trust in their Own Words

As part of our ongoing exploration of youth trust in institutions, we asked four young leaders to write short essays and/or analyses based on our data and their own experiences. Their perspectives, part of a series called “Our Take,” tackle both problems that can contribute to institutional distrust, and potential efforts to mitigate it. For example, one young activist writes about how the potential impact of registration and voting restrictions on his community can hinder trust in democracy. Another young leader makes the case for capitalizing on young people’s high trust in local government and community organizations to deepen youth engagement.

Read young people’s takes below!

Explore "Our Take"

Display in Home Page Bundles

Off

Tags

institutions

youth expertise

Add Share On Links to the bottom of the content

Report: How Does Gen Z Really Feel about Democracy?

amedin02 — Thu, 03 Apr 2025 20:40:03 +0000

Report: How Does Gen Z Really Feel about Democracy?

April 7, 2025

amedin02 Thu, 04/03/2025 - 16:40

Our new study finds three distinct profiles of democratic attitudes among youth, with major implications for strengthening youth engagement and protecting democracy.

Authors: Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) and Protect Democracy

A major new report, produced jointly by CIRCLE and Protect Democracy, provides a nuanced examination of diverse attitudes about democracy among Gen Z, with major implications for youth civic engagement and pro-democracy efforts in the years to come.

How Does Gen Z Really Feel about Democracy? uses data from a nationally representative poll of youth conducted after the 2024 presidential election to paint a complex and worrisome picture of young people's relationship to democracy in this moment. Our main finding is that the majority of young people (ages 18-29) support democracy in principle, but believe that the democracy they are experiencing today cannot solve the nation's problems and is not working well for their generation.

Read the Full Report

Using advanced statistical analyses, we identify three distinct profiles of Gen Z attitudes toward democracy, each of which presents unique challenges and will require distinct efforts to strengthen democratic engagement. These profiles are:

Passive Appreciation: The majority of youth (63%) value the basic values and practices of democracy, but they are relatively disengaged from civic action and may be passive in the face of current threats to democracy.
Dismissive Detachment: Nearly a third of young people express lower support for core democratic principles; they are "checked out" of a democracy that has not served them well or met their needs.
Hostile Dissatisfaction: A small (7%) but significant number of young people believe in the principles of our system of government, but are extremely dissatisfied with our democracy as it exists today, and they are willing to consider political violence in order to achieve change.

The report examines how various dimensions of civic access and support relate to democratic attitudes, thereby identifying potential avenues for action to improve young people's relationship to democracy. It calls on stakeholders to center the multifaceted diversity of Gen Z, including in its views toward democracy, in order to strengthen a democratic system that must meet young people where they are and fulfill their expectations.

Read the Full Report

Display in Home Page Bundles

Off

Tags

democracy

institutions

growing voters

Add Share On Links to the bottom of the content

Youth Are Interested in Political Action, but Lack Support and Opportunities

amedin02 — Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:06:53 +0000

Youth Are Interested in Political Action, but Lack Support and Opportunities

January 30, 2023

amedin02 Mon, 01/30/2023 - 11:06

Young people continue to believe in their—and their generation's—political power, but some don't feel qualified to participate.

Lead author: Ruby Belle Booth
Contributors: Alberto Medina, Kelly Siegel-Stechler, Abby Kiesa

Following a 2022 election cycle in which youth (ages 18-29) played a critical role, our exclusive survey reveals that more than half of young people still believe the country is on the wrong track, and many express major concerns about American values and institutions. At the same time, a majority of young people see politics as important to their personal identity, and more than three in four youth say they believe they can get involved and improve things in their communities.

Some youth are putting that belief into action through various forms of civic and political engagement, and many more say they might do so if given the opportunity. But too many young people—often those from historically marginalized groups—continue to say they don’t feel well-informed or qualified enough to participate in political life. That points to ongoing challenges in ensuring the equitable civic preparation and participation of all young people.

Major findings from our youth survey include:

55% of young people (ages 18-29) say the country is going in the wrong direction and only 16% believe it’s on the right track.
76% of respondents believe young people have the power to change the country, and 77% believe there are ways for them to get involved.
A third of youth (32%) have signed a petition or joined a boycott, and 1 in 7 youth have participated in a march or demonstration, with even more youth (28%) saying they plan to protest or would do so or would if presented with the opportunity.
Half of youth say they’re “as well-informed as most people” and only 40% say they feel well-qualified to participate in politics.

Concerned and Distrustful—but Hopeful

The majority of young people (55%) believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, with 16% saying it’s on the right track and the rest (28%) saying they’re not sure. There are some differences among groups of youth: for example, youth of color are more likely than white youth to say the country is on the right track or that they are unsure. Some of that may be partially explained by young people’s partisan preferences, since youth of color are more likely to support Democrats and their view of the current presidential administration may shape their view of the country’s direction. Young people who reported that they didn’t vote in 2022 were more likely to say they weren’t sure how they felt about the way things are going in the United States.

When asked why they feel the way they do about the direction of the country, many young people who say the country is on the wrong track cite inadequate action on issues they care about like inflation and cost of living, crime, and inequality. Some youth who are pleased with the country’s direction cited progress on some of those issues or the results of the 2022 election as reasons for their optimism. Crucially, while some young people who stated they weren’t sure how they would characterize the direction of the country said they weren’t following politics, others said they had mixed feelings because they saw both good and bad things happening in the country.

Many youth are also concerned about the country’s values and distrustful of major institutions. Nearly two-thirds of young people (62%) expressed concern about the values of the American people, and 45% said they believe that the country is failing to live up to its promises of freedom and fairness, compared to just 18% who believe the country has lived up to these promises.

Less than a third of young people said they trust either of the two major political parties, their state government, Congress, or the President. Among political institutions, the GOP and Congress garnered the highest levels of distrust from youth: 49% and 41%, respectively.

Youth also expressed distrust in large corporations (53%) and major news media (46%); the latter is especially concerning given the important role of news organizations in young people’s electoral learning and engagement. As with the direction of the country, there are important differences by race/ethnicity (51% of white youth distrust major news media, compared to 43% of young Latinos and 35% of Asian and Black youth) that may also correlate with differences in partisan leaning.

With regard to many institutions in American life, about a third of youth said that they neither trust nor distrust the institutions. As with young people who said they’re not sure how they feel about the direction of the country, their ambivalence may reflect a lack of access to/information about a particular institution, or complicated feelings about institutions in which youth see both negative and positive elements.

Young people also have mixed feelings about democracy itself. Only a quarter of young people said they feel confident about democracy in the United States, compared to 31% who are not confident and 43% who said neither. But even as they have major doubts about the democracy they see around them, youth are more optimistic about the potential of democracy: 50% agree (and only 13% disagree) that the democratic system “is capable of creating change” in the country. Similarly, 75% agree that voting is an important way to have a say in the future of the country.

That may be one reason why, despite the tensions between young people’s ideals and the realities of American democracy, more than half of youth (53%) said they are hopeful things will get better in the country.

Youth Know they Have Power, but Need Information and Support

Young people’s hope for the future may also be a reflection of their belief that their generation can and should engage in civic life and effect change. At the same time, there appears to be a gap between young people’s interest in political participation and whether they feel prepared and qualified to do so.

Young people have a strong sense of both individual and collective efficacy: 74% said that there are things they can do to make the world a better place, and 76% believe that their age group has the power to change things. Even more (83%) recognize the potential of young people working with other generations to create change.

In addition, almost two-thirds of young people (62%) say that their political views are a somewhat or very important part of their personal identity. Young women of color, LGBTQ youth, youth with college experience, and the older segment of the cohort (ages 25-29) are all more likely to say that politics are an important part of their identity, indicating both how marginalized identities and educational and lived experience can contribute to the formation of such political identities.

However, while a majority of youth have a strong sense that they could achieve change and a strong personal political identity, many don’t feel informed or qualified enough to participate in politics. Only half of youth say they feel they’re “as well-informed as most people,” which underscores our previous finding that 1 in 5 youth who did not vote in 2022 said they did not have enough information about the candidates or the voting process.

Even fewer youth in our survey (40%) say that they feel well-qualified to participate in politics, and youth from groups that have historically held less political power were even less likely to feel qualified. For example, 34% of youth of color say they feel qualified to participate in politics, compared to 44% of white youth. Young people ages 22-29 were also more likely to feel qualified than youth ages 18-21, who are often neglected by parties, campaigns, and organizations.

Whether a young person feels qualified can have a strong impact on participation at the ballot box and beyond, as evidenced by the fact that 53% of youth who voted in 2022 said that they felt well-qualified, compared to just 22% of those who didn’t vote in the midterms.

Some Youth Are Taking Action, Others Want More Opportunity

Young people’s sense of whether they’re well-qualified to participate in politics may be shaping, not just their voter turnout, but their willingness and ability to engage in other forms of political action. Young people’s participation in activities like volunteering for political campaigns, donating money, attending protests, or joining boycotts has risen in recent years, and our 2022 survey finds that youth are engaging in these efforts at rates similar to 2018—a year that was marked, in part, by youth-led gun violence protests after the Parkland school shooting.

That said, relatively few young people are participating in some of these political activities, perhaps owing to a majority of youth feeling they’re not qualified to do so. However, with regard to nearly every type of political engagement we asked about in our survey, far more young people said they plan to do it in the future or would be interested in doing it if they were presented with the opportunity. That suggests it may not be a lack of interest, but a lack of access, that is preventing a significant number of youth from engaging in political life.

Among the types of political engagement we asked about in the survey, signing a petition/joining a boycott, following candidates on social media, and attending demonstrations were the actions most frequently taken by youth. More than 1 in 7 young people said they’ve been to a protest or demonstration, and an additional 28% who haven’t yet done so said they plan to do it, or would do so given the opportunity. That means more than 40% of youth are interested in this type of political engagement.

Notably, while just 7% of youth said they have volunteered for a campaign, three times as many (21%) expressed interest in doing so, which suggests there is strong untapped potential for campaigns and candidates to recruit young people. Similarly, while only 2% of young people say they’ve run for office, more than 1 in 10 said they might do so. Our research has recently explored how young people are increasingly interested in running for office but face various barriers that must be addressed through explicit encouragement and support.

This new survey data underscores ongoing trends in young people’s civic engagement: youth are interested in getting involved and understand they have the power to effect change, but they sometimes lack the information, support, and explicit opportunities to do so. The fact that less than half of youth feel well-qualified to participate in political life also speaks to a lack of systemic, developmental support for young people to develop as voters and civic actors and find their voice within democracy.

Addressing these issues will require a commitment to the work we describe in our CIRCLE Growing Voters framework: multiple institutions working together to create diverse pathways for all youth to enjoy electoral learning and engagement opportunities.

CIRCLE Growing Voters

Released in 2022, the CIRCLE Growing Voters report introduces a new framework to transform how communities and institutions prepare youth for democracy. It includes major recommendations for organizations across sectors to do this work more equitably and effectively.

Read the Report and Learn More

About the Survey: The survey was developed by CIRCLE at Tufts University, and the polling firm Ipsos collected the data from their nationally representative panel of respondents and a sample of people recruited for this survey between November 9 and November 30, 2022. The study involved an online survey of a total of 2,018 self-reported U.S. citizens ages 18 to 29 in the United States. The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points. Unless mentioned otherwise, data are for all 18- to 29-year-olds in our sample.

Survey Data: Issues + Outreach

Display in Home Page Bundles

Off

Tags

Add Share On Links to the bottom of the content