From Beyond Prince and Merchant:
Citizen Participation and the Rise of Civil Society.

© Copyright 1997 by John Burbidge, ed. and The Institute of Cultural Affairs International
Chapter 10: Local Community: Seedbed of Civil Society
by Monte Roulier

Civilizations come to birth and proceed to grow by successfully responding to successive challenges. They break down and go to pieces if and when a challenge confronts them which they fail to meet.

- Arnold Toynbee

Toynbee's quote, written in 1948, aptly describes the experience of numerous communities around the world as they enter the 21st century. Too many communities seem to be "breaking down and going to pieces" because of an inability to meet their challenges. Citizens are losing faith in their collective ability to shape or control their futures. Any sense of community, of connectedness, of personal responsibility, or ownership toward the community is quickly slipping away.

Unprecedented change in the last two decades has brought about an impotence that pervades communities worldwide. This impotence can be attributed in part to the rapid globalization of markets which has helped precipitate ecological crises, international organized crime groups, urbanization, and a booming global underclass. The mega-corporations have effectively dominated international and national policies in order to fulfill their charge to maximize profit in the short-term, while absolving themselves of responsibility for lingering, complex social problems. As a result, there is a diminished sense of community identity and of personal security. Human interests and the interest of the "common good," once the jurisdiction of community, seem to be no match for corporate interests. The full promise of an increasingly technologically advanced and globalized society has not been realized by communities. Writer and social commentator Peter Drucker underscores this point:

We are learning very fast that the belief that a free market is all it takes to have a functioning society - or even a functioning economy - is pure delusion. Unless there's first a functioning civil society, the market can produce economic results for a very short term. For anything beyond a few years, a functioning civil society - based on community organizations like churches, independent universities, or peasant cooperatives - is needed for the market to function in its economic role, let alone its social role [1].

Concomitantly, government, too, has largely failed to serve the needs and aspirations of its people and their communities. The greatest portion of every developed country's budget is devoted to entitlements or social services, while all of these countries' social problems seem to be quickly rising [2]. The endless debates between national and global policy makers about the right balance between, or formula for, government intervention and market autonomy are missing the point. Society's most pressing problems have not been resolved by the welfare state or consumerist capitalism; instead, both have played a major role in eroding the vital middle ground that exists between the poles of government and the market - civil society and its institutions, the places where we take ownership and responsibility for one another and our communities.

The numbing daily reminders of the social pathology that has gripped communities on every continent leaves many searching for answers. Perhaps this accounts for so much renewed interest in "civil society." This growing sense of community helplessness should motivate us to re-examine the substance behind this concept that recently seemed only relevant to academics and philosophers. The sense of community, of belonging, of common bonds and trust which appeared effortless in past generations is difficult to imagine in most communities today. The decrepit state of civil society is self-evident. However, it is within that same civil society - revitalized - that we can find solutions. This chapter points to some of those solutions and provides a framework that may be instructive in thinking about strengthening civic capacity and civil society.


Although countless communities have "given up," there are many others that give cause for hope. The local level - cities, villages, towns, and city-regions - is the leverage point for civil society. As Daniel Kemmis, author and former mayor of Missoula, Montana, USA, states, "It's only in cities [local levels] that we will form basic human ties to create the sense of wholeness, of intimate association, of social health, needed to offset a politics of universal anger and mistrust, to recreate a democratic order in our time" [3]. "Civility" and "citizenship" derive their meaning in the context of local community, and often in the most unlikely places.

Karelia, Russia

The northwestern Russian republic of Karelia faced many of the seemingly insurmountable challenges of other former Soviet regions after the break-up of the world power. The collapse of the Soviet Union, its economy, and its institutions produced rampant inflation, extraordinary unemployment or employment without pay, and tremendous social distress. The centralized government that had taken care of almost every basic need of the Russian people from "cradle to grave" was now absent. Suddenly, local and regional Russian communities with little or no prior experience were struggling to create new governance structures.

The resource-rich Karelian republic had long been known for mining iron, copper and coal to maintain the military-industrial complex of the Soviet Union. Forestry was another source of employment and revenue. By 1991, a handful of opportunistic government officials and regional Mafia groups were preparing to exploit insufficient laws and sell plentiful natural resources to foreign countries at rock-bottom rates for short-term gain. Meanwhile, collective farms were quickly folding; the capital city of Petrozavodsk was unable to provide basic needs for young and elderly residents; prostitution, drug use, and crime were increasing; and the self-esteem of residents was declining. In stunning contrast, some citizens of Karelia decided to view their precarious circumstances as an opportunity.

Thirty year-old Oleg Vasilievich Chervyakov was one of the those who saw more favorable possibilities. Oleg had a vision for creating the largest national park in Russia, and for saving other pristine areas of this remarkable region. He and an unlikely group of idealists, people who had never enjoyed real decision-making power in the past, were able to bring together government leaders, heads of collective farms and fisheries, newly emerging businessmen, and educators to dialogue about the most desirable future for the region. They developed alternative solutions that met the interests of the greater community, rather than playing "zero-sum" politics over extremist positions to retain the old system which was not working or to sell off the bulk of their resources to foreigners.

One outcome was the designation of the half-million hectare Vodlozero National Park. The new park includes a significant tributary of the largest watershed in Europe, and provides protection to the dense, coniferous forest with a wide variety of berries, mushrooms, and medicinal plants, as well as extensive wildlife, including many endangered species. The park authorities agreed to take responsibility for providing jobs to unemployed people, to assist many collective farms develop better management practices, and to provide needed financial support to surrounding communities.

Also contained and preserved within the park are the remains of early Russian settlements - old village structures, peasant houses, and spectacular ancient churches. Students in Karelia now have opportunities to learn about their proud history which had been lost during the Soviet period. Summer camps give students volunteer opportunities to learn about their unique natural environment and to appreciate the natural and historical heritage they are now able to inherit.

Using a concept which is new to their region - dialogue between various sectors and interests - has proven effective in achieving mutually acceptable approaches to balance employment and financial needs along with protecting a cherished environment. In the process, they are involving people and giving skills to their youth for the future. Karelia is still a long way from overcoming its Soviet legacy; however, it is a markedly different region from the one that complacently sat back and waited for answers from Moscow.

Senegal and Zaire

The worldwide microcredit movement has focused renewed attention on the role of microenterprise development in bringing hope to some of the world's most desperate communities. The movement has been extraordinarily successful in fulfilling its mission to support human and economic development of families mired in severe poverty, while creating healthier, more sustainable communities. It is a truly community-driven approach. Microcredit systems vary from community to community but share these similarities:

  • Provide working capital loans to finance self-employment opportunities
  • Promote family and community savings
  • Develop skills
  • Encourage mutual support and self-worth

The purpose of giving credit to the world's impoverished people is to help poor communities achieve long-term solutions to pressing challenges that reflect the fundamental interrelationship between prosperity, social equity, and a healthy environment. In the process, it is having a major impact on individual lives.

Khady Ding of Senegal survived day by day while trying to find food for her four children. Her only long-term hope was that aid from relief agencies would keep coming. In 1990, members of Khady's community established a village bank. Khady received her first loan of $US 40 which she used to purchase livestock. Joining the village bank significantly improved Khady's life. She now raises healthy cows, chickens, and sheep. Selling her livestock provides Khady and her family with a steady income, and her ability to repay early loans allows her to assume larger loans, repaid in monthly installments. Khady's family has become self-reliant. In addition, she is learning to read in the village bank literacy program. People in Khady's village now perceive her as a leader in community affairs [4].

Ali Alibirighi of Zaire has also benefited from microcredit. After spending several years organizing women into farming collectives, Ali talks about the civic benefits of microcredit: "First the women would buy chickens and raise them together. Later they became active in village politics. They would attend meetings and talk about what they wanted to make their lives better. People began to respect them and listen to them" [5].

Microenterprise development is much more than providing capital to the impoverished. It is about building community, cultivating skills for collaboration, seeing human potential, and gaining control over the future. Communities whose economies are developed and controlled locally, where the impoverished have access to capital, are vibrant places looking inward for solutions rather than outside themselves. The predicament of the world's poor is not being solved by paternalistic mega-development organizations, no matter how noble their intentions. Microenterprise development is a reminder that a community's greatest asset is its people, regardless of educational attainment and social position.

Lawndale, USA

In recent years, the teen pregnancy rate of high school girls in the Chicago suburb of Lawndale has exceeded 30 percent. Some might assume this is to be expected from an impoverished community like Lawndale where over 50 percent of the population live below the national poverty line. These babies, born to unwed, welfare-dependent, teenage mothers, stood a statistically slim chance of breaking out of the crushing cycle of poverty in their community.

This story has taken a surprising turn, however. Leadership emerged from churches, schools, hospitals, civic organizations, and local government to reclaim responsibility for their young people and the future of their community. Lawndale neither waited for nor begged the federal government or foundations for money to solve their problem. Lawndale decided to tap into existing community assets rather than focus on its needs and deficits.

These assets and resources came in the form of volunteers - from retired seniors to local business people. The community developed a comprehensive mentoring program in which every teenage girl and boy in high school was teamed with an adult in the community. The program required few financial resources. It connected young people with their dreams, ideas, jobs, and as a result, a brighter future. The community began to re-establish a culture of embracing its young people. Within two years, Sinai Hospital, one of the partners in the mentoring program, confirmed that teenage pregnancy had been reduced nearly 100 percent. Lawndale's problem with teenage pregnancy has been solved through the time, talent, and energy of its citizens, not by outside relief.

Perhaps Arnold Toynbee's quote should be amended to say: Civilizations come to birth and proceed to grow by successfully responding to successive challenges. They break down and go to pieces if and when a challenge causes them to give up and quit taking ownership for their destiny.

Karelia, Lawndale, and the two communities in Senegal and Zaire are good examples of the many communities around the world that have chosen not to give up and are discovering ways to build healthier futures. These communities are taking action on immediate problems and strengthening their civic infrastructure at the same time.


Entering the 21st century, every community will continue to meet successive challenges that will require repairing and strengthening its civic infrastructure. Civic infrastructure is the complex interaction of people and groups through which decisions are made and problems resolved - how the community as a whole works or does not work together to set priorities and confront challenges. The quality of this interaction determines the a community's health, both economic and social.

As such, civic infrastructure is similar to the term "social capital." Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam uses social capital to explain civic capacity when he defines it as networks of trust and reciprocity that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit [6]. Social capital, then, is the currency of a healthy community. While civic infrastructure and social capital use different metaphors to convey meaning, the terms are interchangeable. Putnam would argue that the long-term success of a community is determined by the amount of social capital, a currency built up over time.

Communities have witnessed the onslaught of social change and the corresponding deterioration of their civic infrastructure. Like physical infrastructure, the civic infrastructure must be maintained, and sometimes rebuilt, if a community hopes to assert control over its future.

In addition, the quality of the civic infrastructure will determine if and when a community "breaks down and goes to pieces." The US-based National Civic League, an organization that assists communities to improve their governance by vigorously promoting citizen participation and collaborative problem-solving, has developed a theoretical framework called the Civic Index for communities to evaluate and improve their civic infrastructure [7]. The ten components of the Index describe the types of skills and capacities that must be present for a community to effectively confront a multitude of challenges, whether it be a village that has lost critical, arable land to a natural disaster or a metropolis that must find adequate low-income housing. Communities around the world - the Czech Republic, the Republic of Georgia, Rwanda, the United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan - have used the index to evaluate and develop strategies to improve their civic infrastructure.

The following section contains excerpts and brief descriptions of five of the ten components of the Civic Index, along with some questions for communities to answer:

Citizen Participation

Citizen participation is required to create and maintain a healthy, vibrant community. Without regular interaction among citizens, community ceases; it becomes merely an area with a random collection of people. In many countries, citizen participation involves becoming active in local organizations and affairs, engaging in public forums, serving on community boards and commissions, belonging to social and religious organizations, and voting in local elections. Citizen participation is asking questions and involving oneself in working toward solutions.

Meaningful citizen participation has become more difficult than ever. Most of the world's population now lives in urban areas where participation is inhibited by the anonymity that leads to mistrust of fellow citizens, perceived enormity of problems leading to feelings of futility, and excessive work demands on families and their time.

While voting in local elections is an important act of citizen participation, it is only one measure and aspect of citizen participation. Low voter turnout around the world is often misconstrued as apathy or indifference toward community affairs. More typically, it represents cynicism and feelings of futility about individual action. There is much evidence to suggest that people are as eager as ever to participate in their community and to connect with their neighbors. The problem is there are few obvious and meaningful avenues for participation.

In the last decade of this century, citizens in a number of formerly non-democratic countries from Russia to Nicaragua have been given the right to participate in relatively free elections. Voting in legitimate elections initially proved to be an important and symbolic act of citizenship. However, the people of Russia, Nicaragua, and other countries soon learned that the privilege to vote is seldom accompanied by the change for which they hope. Voting alone does not suffice for citizen participation. Communities need to find creative and meaningful ways for citizens to deliberate on important decisions and to be a part of building a stronger community.

Sample Civic Index questions on Citizen Participation:

  • Is participation proactive or reactive?
  • Are there formal (public hearings) and informal (town/village square discussions) mechanisms for dialoguing about pressing issues?
  • How visible and active are local civic groups, associations, clubs, and churches?
  • Do citizens know how local government works?

Community Leadership

Meeting challenges in the 21st century will require that communities develop leaders who are representative and results-oriented, who are willing to take risks, and who are willing to be self-critical. The skills and attitudes of effective leadership for the next century may be different from those often associated with effective leadership today.

Relying on a handful of key decision-makers in a community to make all decisions and resolve all problems does not work well now and will become even more futile in the future. According to Paul Lorentzen:

Leadership . . . increasingly resides in the many rather than the few; in joint rather than individual endeavors; and in the empowerment rather than the control of others . . . Improvement [in leadership] will occur as positions are attained by more persons who have a strong sense of self, a large philosophical value system, and the ability to empower others to learn and contribute individually and together as co-leaders [8].

Leaders in communities that are moving in positive directions strive to create win/win solutions. These new-style leaders use their power to convene and bring people together. They listen as often as they talk. They set examples for others by behaving in ways consistent with their stated values.

Business is an important part of community leadership and will continue to be challenged to carve out a larger leadership role for itself. The private sector must find more inventive ways to work to improve community. Business has a huge bottom-line interest in healthy employees who are largely a by-product of healthy living conditions. Maximizing profit in the short-term as a leadership credo no longer works.

At the same time, local government is struggling to find an appropriate role. The devolution of problems and responsibilities from central government to local government places greater importance on the integrity and effectiveness of local government. Effective local government leadership will embrace and encourage citizen involvement and input rather than be threatened by it. The lack of faith in government at all levels underscores the importance of local governments holding themselves to the highest ethical standards and working in creative and entrepreneurial ways.

Community leadership, whether from non-profit, business, government or unaffiliated citizens, will be challenged to develop the trust of the broader community. Trust, a central element of a strong, robust civil society, is the lubricant that makes action possible. Trust implies accountability, predictability, and reliability.

Sample Civic Index questions on Community Leadership:

  • Is there active leadership from all three sectors?
  • Is government willing to share decision-making power?
  • Are there effective traditions and programs for nurturing new leaders, especially for those segments of the population not traditionally involved in decision-making?
  • Is leadership results-oriented?
  • Do leaders take a long-term view?
  • Do leaders consider the common good for the entire community?
  • Do leaders from the three sectors work well together?
  • Is there trust and respect for leadership in the three sectors?

Intergroup Relations

Perhaps the greatest challenge to communities and nations is intergroup relations. Most wars occurring in second half of this century have been waged within borders, not across borders. Extra effort will be needed to ensure that young people break the tendency of hatred toward neighbors of different color or religions.

Most communities are composed of organized ethnic, racial, or religious groups formed to express and protect their members' interests. The degree to which these different solidarity groups co-exist in relative harmony and cooperate in resolving shared problems is an essential and key measure of civic health.

As communities continue to diversify ethnically, racially, socio-economically, and religiously, programs are needed to increase communication and appreciation among groups and within the community as a whole. Communities must provide all groups with the skills and opportunities to become actively involved in community affairs.

The value of community groups as a vehicle for peer modeling, self-esteem enhancement, and cultural pride cannot be overstated. Equally valuable is the group's capacity for peaceful conflict expression, mediation, and resolution. Healthy intergroup relations results from an openness to, and respect for, diversity.

Sample Civic Index Questions on Intergroup Relations:

  • Is the community dealing with ethnic and racial diversity?
  • Does the community promote communication among diverse populations?
  • Do all groups have the skills to become involved in the community?
  • Do groups cooperate in resolving broad disputes?
  • Is the community dominated by narrow special-interest groups?

Community Vision and Pride

Communities deal successfully with the challenges they face when they develop a clear picture of where they want to go and when they take pride in their past. When citizens are brought into a community vision-creation process they become invested in that vision. It is theirs and they become stakeholders in their community's future.

Communities that take time to create and revisit their common vision develop a vastly different mindset than those without any sense of direction. A community with a meaningful, compelling vision spends more time deciding how to make things work than it does deciding who to blame. A vision enables a community to consider taking a longer-term approach to problem-solving which addresses root causes. Communities without vision become stuck in the rut of creating short-term "quick fixes" to problems. Communities need to spend more time focusing on the assets they have to build on and less time analyzing what is not working.

Articulating aspirations for the future is an empowering experience that raises a community's collective self-esteem. Greater community pride is a natural consequence of citizen participation in vision creation. The work of Robert Fritz, an expert on organizational and system change, provides evidence that communities and organizations that spend energy working toward shared visions are better able to catalyze and sustain action than those focusing on short-range problem-solving [9].

Sample Civic Index questions on Community Vision and Pride:

  • Is there a shared sense of a desired future for the community?
  • Does the community have a positive self-image?
  • Does the community preserve and enhance what is special and unique?

Capacity for Cooperation and Consensus Building

The public, private, and non-profit sectors, along with the broad spectrum of citizens, need to cultivate leaders who can cooperate with one another to improve their communities. The challenges to improve educational attainment, increase employment opportunities, cut crime, or any other issue faced by most communities around the world requires all sectors to work together. Communities experiencing success are erasing the boundaries between government, business, non-profit sectors, and citizens.

In addressing complex community issues, the way a community makes decisions is as important as the actual decisions made. There is no shortage of strategies or approaches to solving a community problem. The challenge is to find a means of getting the whole community to agree on an approach and move forward with it. Many communities realize they must pay greater attention to the formal and informal processes through which people talk, learn, decide, and act together [10]. These communities realize that no group will succeed unless the diverse needs of the entire community are addressed.

Most communities find there are few spaces available for interaction to take place across sectors, socio-economic lines, neighborhoods, and racial divisions. This precludes their coming together and developing agreement on direction - a requisite for shared ownership and sustained action. As disagreements arise in the community, neutral forums and processes are needed where all opinions can be heard and consensus cultivated. The ability to manage conflict is a key defining feature of community life.

Sample Civic Index questions on Capacity for Cooperation and Consensus Building:

  • Are there neutral forums and processes where all opinions are heard?
  • Are there informal dispute resolution processes?
  • Do community leaders have regular opportunities to share ideas?
  • Are all major interests and perspectives included in collaborative processes?
  • Do all sectors work together to set common goals?
  • Do leaders reach collective decisions and implement them?

KEY success factors

The components of the Civic Index are interrelated and synergistic. If one component is especially weak, it will diminish the strength of the others. The Civic Index is a tool to help communities address their ability to solve problems; in using it, many communities develop additional questions to help them better understand how to improve their civic capacity. The five additional components of the index not described here are Government Performance, Volunteerism and Philanthropy, Civic Education, Community Information Sharing, and Inter-Community Cooperation.

By strengthening their civic infrastructure or generating social capital, communities are investing in their long-term health. A number of communities making a serious effort to do this are part of the worldwide Healthy Communities/Healthy Cities movement [11]. Director of the Coalition for Healthier Cities and Communities, Tyler Norris [12], has played a key role in the Healthy Communities movement. Norris has isolated "success factors" from more than 100 communities which are successfully meeting their challenges. These factors reaffirm the relevance and significance of the Civic Index components, while adding further insights for communities to consider as they strengthen their infrastructure. According to Norris, successful communities [13]:

Recognize that a community's health and sustainability is a product of the whole community working together, not isolated interventions in any single sector. A community is more than the sum of its parts. In considering business strategies, public policies, buying decisions, and other issues, we need to ask, "How will a given approach simultaneously build and maximize economic, ecological, social, and human capital?" Rather than investing in narrow "fix-it" projects, successful communities orient themselves toward the allocation of resources and the equitable distribution of decision-making and power.

Engage everybody and build ownership across divisions. A commitment must be made to widespread community ownership and civic engagement. Effective collaborations recognize that mobilization of all parts of the community is essential in getting away from the typical "react to the problem" and "fight the enemy" approach. They embrace processes which mobilize all citizens and institutions of civil society for continued improvement

Take both a regional and a neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach. We need to embrace multiple definitions of community and solve challenges at different levels simultaneously.

Know how they are performing. Citizens demand accountability. Performance information is needed to create baseline data, to measure any progress toward or away from a community's desired future, and to track the impact of community initiatives and policy choices. Continuous quality improvement is becoming a standard objective and effective measurement is the key to its success. Strained budgets and limited public resources have exacerbated the need to maximize our return on social investment. Effective community indicators provide clear, understandable information on the status of the community as a system and assist communities to make well-informed choices. They are developed by the whole community which enables businesses, individuals, organizations, and governments to take action simultaneously toward a common agenda.

Start with shared values and a shared vision. In recent decades, many community efforts have started with needs assessments chronicling a litany of problems to be solved. While these efforts can uncover and quantify problems, they often do little to mobilize action and achieve desired results. Values provide the thread for the fabric of our communities. A vision, basically a statement of values projected as a future reality, can articulate where a community wants to go and what it desires. Effective communities identify their values and generate a shared vision of the ideal future of their community. They follow this visioning with a specific action plan and implementation strategy.

Build on existing resources within the community. Rather than decrying deficiencies and shortcomings, effective collaborations generate local power by clearly articulating how each person, group, organization, company, or agency can be part of the solution. They make explicit links between the work that needs to be done and those who can do it. They look at how they can do better with what they have rather than waiting for another program, grant, or other bail-out.

Move beyond "quick fixes" to systemic change. They look at ways of re-allocating existing assets and resources to more productive ends. Veterans of community mobilization know that complex issues cannot be solved with categorical programs, single-sector initiatives, and dollars alone. They know the only true locus of fundamental change is people's choices grounded in their cultures, not in dollars and programs.

Communities that are successfully responding to successive challenges in the ways indicated above do so by choice, not by chance. In these communities, citizens look to one another for answers, not to external supports such as governments or the global marketplace. As these communities meet their challenges head on, they maintain and strengthen their civic infrastructure and increase their social capital. They demonstrate once again that the local level is the seedbed of civil society.

  1. Peter Drucker. "A cantankerous interview with Peter Schwarz and Kevin Kelly." Wired. August 1996. p. 184.
  2. Peter Drucker. "The Age of Social Transformation." The Atlantic Monthly. November 1994. p. 74.
  3. Quoted by syndicated columnist, Neal R. Peirce, "Coping with 'Flamers' and Building a Good City." The Washington Post Writers Group: 21 January 1996. Advance copy.
  4. Microcredit Summit, Washington DC, February 1997. Promotional materials.
  5. Lynn Marie Bell. "Microlending: Advancing Human Rights Around the Globe." Surviving Together. Volume 4, Issue 4, Winter 1996. p. 6.
  6. Robert Putnam. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of Democracy. Volume 6, Number 1, January 1995. p. 67.
  7. National Civic League. The Civic Index: A New Approach to Improving Community Life. Denver, CO: NCL Press, 1993. See also Chris Gates. "Making A Case for Collaborative Problem Solving." National Civic Review. Spring 1991. pp.105-113. For further information, contact the National Civic League at: 1445 Market Street, Suite 300, Denver CO 80202-1728, USA. Phone: (303) 571-4343, fax (303) 571-4404, e-mail: Their websites are: and
  8. Paul Lorentzen. "Leadership: Changing Contexts, Flexible Concepts." The Bureaucrat. Fall 1986. p. 3.
  9. Robert Fritz. Creating. New York: Ballantine Books, 1991.
  10. Mirja Hanson makes the point that method matters in her chapter "Facilitating Civil Society." pp. xx-xx.
  11. The Healthy Communities/Healthy Cities movement, which was catalyzed by a World Health Organization (WHO) conference in Toronto, Canada in 1984. According to WHO, healthy cities/communities are based on a commitment to health, require political decision-making for public health, generate intersectoral action, emphasize community participation, work through processes of innovation, and create a public health policy.
  12. For further information, contact Tyler Norris, 2119 Mapleton Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80304, USA. Phone (303) 444-3366, fax (303) 444.1001, e-mail
  13. Adapted from an article by Tyler Norris. Introduction to the National Civic Review. Volume 86, Number 1, Spring 1997. pp. 3-10.