Appendix

Methodology

For this paper, we used a multi-phase approach, which began with reviewing documentation such as grant agreements and reports provided by the Knight Foundation. We went on to conduct phone interviews to survey grantees to assess the work that they were conducting in Philadelphia. We gathered background materials about the grantees, the history of civic spaces in Philadelphia, and the overall political ecosystem. Finally, we conducted several in-depth site visits and dozens of interviews to assess the progress, challenges, and successes of the projects on local communities.

Some of the limitations on our research include constraints in the amount of time we had to interview Philadelphia residents who have been participating in Rebuild, since Rebuild is still in its initial phase; the number of city officials who were willing to be interviewed on and off the record; and funding constraints of the project, which limited the research to examining processes rather than actual projects.

We used the following guiding questions:

• What approaches have grantees taken to promoting civic engagement?
• What is their theory of change? In other words, how do these organizations understand why and how people engage?
• To what extent does the theory of change conform with the socio-political reality of the communities where those organizations operate?
• How do these efforts sit within the context of other civic engagement initiatives in Philadelphia? What is the broader ecosystem they are in dialogue with, both in the city and beyond?
• What has been the reach and diversity of residents engaged through these projects? Along which criteria?
• How have these projects influenced attitudes and behaviors of residents (e.g., propensity for future engagement, feelings of efficacy, trust in local government, etc.)?
• Are there effective approaches or models with the potential to scale up or be replicated in other communities?
• What is the relationship of the grantee to governance institutions and policymakers?
• How effective are these grantees in building civic voice as well as deepening institutional capacity within government? Effectiveness includes ensuring residents’ voices are translated into improved policy outcomes, not merely in a consultative or advisory position.
• How are grantees creating “hooks and levers” between civil society and decision making within the City of Philadelphia?

Based on our answers to the guiding questions above, our hope was that we would be able to test some assumptions about how, why, and when people engage:

• Investments in physical capital yield higher levels of social, human, and economic capital.
• Community and group involvement lead to residents with higher levels of efficacy; active participation is crucial to the survival and maintenance of American democracy.
• Individuals want to engage in governance and to take part in community-oriented activities.
• Individuals will get involved if the costs and barriers to engagement are lowered.
• Barriers to engagement can be lowered with the creation of better tools and processes of engagement.
• Technology is a tool for positive change and an asset to civil society organizations and other forms of engagement and social entrepreneurship.