Blog Archives

Blog

How Is Philanthropy Working to Rebuild Trust in the Public Square?

Josh Stearns

September 27, 2017

In August, my colleague Srik Gopal wrote about the work Democracy Fund has been doing to understand the contours of trust in democratic institutions from elections to journalism and the public square. We have much more to share from that research and the grant making strategy that it is informing. However, even as we were undertaking that research, Democracy Fund and other foundations were investing in people and projects related to these issues.

For example, the Knight Foundation recently unveiled a new commission on “Trust, Media and Democracy,” which will meet around the country over the next year looking for new ideas and solutions to issues of trust. What follows is a snapshot of some of the efforts underway to combat misinformation, strengthen truthful reporting and create more trusting relationships between people and the press. Later this month I’ll be participating in a series of briefings on trust and misinformation for funders organized by Media Impact Funders in partnership with the Hewlett Foundation and the Rita Allen Foundation.

A version of this piece originally appeared in the May edition of Responsive Philanthropy, the journal of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

✩✩✩Today there is real concern about the spread of misinformation and issues of basic trust in our democratic institutions, including the press, our fourth estate. From viral hoaxes disguised to look like news to propaganda spread by automated bots online, we are witnessing a sustained attempt to spread misinformation, generate uncertainty and undermine objective truth. When paired with the kinds of political attacks journalists have faced in recent months these trends raise troubling questions for a free and open society. However, despite the new contours of our current political climate and technological developments, issues of trust in journalism extend far back into our nation’s history. According to polls, trust in the media has been eroding since Watergate, but the impact of misinformation has been experienced unevenly for a long time. Communities of color in particular have been grappling with inaccurate reporting and outright false stories that have had real and damaging consequences.

As such, we have to understand that the challenges we face today are not just technological, but also economic, cultural and political. The scholar Danah Boyd has called this an information war that is being shaped by “disconnects in values, relationships and social fabric.” They are fundamentally human struggles and have as much to do with our relationships with each other as our relationship with the media.

Given this complex web of forces, it can be difficult to determine the best role for philanthropy. This is the kind of wicked problem that systems thinking is designed to help untangle. At Democracy Fund, we have invested in systems approaches because they help us develop multi-pronged strategies that reinforce one another in a complicated and dynamic world. Systems thinking helps us see the often hidden and tangled roots of the issues we care about.

In response to these issues some foundations are organizing rapid response grants and programs designed to invest in new ideas and projects. Some donors are investing in investigative journalism and local news to expand the capacity of trustworthy newsrooms. Others are taking a measured approach, adjusting their current grantmaking or planning with their grantees for the ongoing engagement these challenges demand. The reality is that we need both long- and short-term strategies.

For all the concern about “fake news,” there is still a remarkable amount we don’t know about trust, truth and the spread of misinformation online or the impact it has had on politics and public debate. So much news consumption and distribution happens on private platforms whose proprietary data makes it hard for researchers to study.

Defining the Problem Without All the Data

And yet, organizations like the American Press Institute, Engaging News Project, The Trust Project and Trusting News Project as well as a number of academic researchers are testing real-world strategies for building trust and probing the reach and influence of mis- and disinformation.

Foundations should expand their support for research in this area but should do so strategically and in coordination with other foundations to ensure that lessons are being shared and translated into actionable intelligence for the field.
At the start of this year, New Media Ventures launched an open call for media and technology projects from “companies and organizations working to resist fear, lies and hate as well as those focused on rebuilding and using this unprecedented moment of citizen mobilization to shape a better future.” In about a month, they received more than 500 applications, an unprecedented number for them.

Open Calls as a Call to Action

A few days later, the Knight Foundation, Rita Allen Foundation and Democracy Fund announced a prototype fund for “early-stage ideas to improve the flow of accurate information.” That fund received 800 applications in a month. Finally, the International Center for Journalists just launched a“TruthBuzz” contest, funded by the Craig Newmark Foundation.

These open calls are a way for foundations to catalyze energy and surface new ideas, bringing new people and sectors together to tackle the complex challenges related to misinformation.
Trust is forged through relationships, and for many, the long-term work of rebuilding trust in journalism is rooted in fundamentally changing the relationship between the public and the press. For the last few years, foundations like Democracy Fund, Knight Foundation, Rita Allen Foundation and others have been deepening their investments in newsroom community engagement efforts.

Negotiating New Relationships Between Journalists and the Public

Organizations like Hearken, which reorients the reporting process around the curiosity of community members, and the Solutions Journalism Network, which encourages journalists to report on solutions, not just problems, help optimize newsrooms for building trust. The Center for Investigative Reporting, ProPublica and Chalkbeat have also pioneered exciting projects in this space.

Making journalism more responsive to and reflective of its community demands culture change in newsrooms and an emphasis on diversity and inclusion. If we want communities to trust journalism, they have to see themselves and their lived experiences reflected in the reporting. Too often that is still not the case, and foundations can play a vital role in sustaining the ongoing work to renegotiate these relationships.

In December, Facebook announced that it was enlisting fact-checking organizations around the globe to help assess the veracity and accuracy of stories flagged by Facebook users on the platform. Google is working with Duke University’s Reporter’s Lab on how to surface fact checks in their search results and is trying to give more weight to authoritative sources.

This typology of misinformation by Claire Wardle of First Draft News identifies the spectrum of fabricated stories and the motivations behind them.

Weaving Fact-Checking Into a Platform World

The growth of the fact-checking field in recent years has been fueled by strategic investments from a number of foundations, including Democracy Fund. These investments have helped strengthen the practices and infrastructure for fact-checking making these platform partnerships possible. However, new challenges demand new kinds of fact checking.

Foundations should not wait until the next election to increase support for these efforts. Now is the time to invest in learning and experimentation to make fact-checking work even better, engage an often critical public, and adapt to the new realities we face.

While fact-checkers hone the science of debunking official statements from politicians and pundits, we need to develop new skills for combating the wide array of unofficial and hard-to-source falsehoods that spread online. A leading organization working on these issues is First Draft News, which combines rigorous research with practical hands-on training and technical assistance for newsrooms, universities and the public. (Disclosure: I was one of the founders of First Draft News.)

Cultivating New Skills for Combatting Misinformation

Other efforts include Storyful, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab and On The Media’s “Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook” series.

Most of these efforts work not only with newsrooms, but also human rights organizations, first responders and community groups who are on the front lines of confronting misinformation. Foundations should help connect their grantees to these resources and support First Draft and others to scale up their work in this critical moment.

In April, five foundations and four technology companies launched the News Integrity Initiative at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. Designed to advance a new vision for news literacy, this global effort is rooted in a user-first approach to expanding trust in journalism. Today, we the people are the primary distributors of news. As such, it is critical that the public be adept at spotting fakes and debunking falsehoods, and that we cultivate the skills to track a story to its source and the motivation to hold each other accountable.

A New Era for News Literacy

With support from MacArthur, Robert R. McCormick, Knight and other foundations, projects like The News Literacy Project, Center for News Literacy and The LAMP have been working with students for years to address these issues. Similarly, youth media groups like Generation Justice in New Mexico, Free Spirit Media in Chicago and the Transformative Culture Project in Boston, are working with diverse communities on becoming active creators, not just consumers of media. And libraries across the country are hosting workshops and trainings for people of all ages.

In the past, foundations funding health, climate change and racial justice have recognized the need to help people sort fact from fiction. Today, foundations can help expand the field by investing in engaging models of news literacy and supporting efforts to get news and civic literacy into state education standards.

James Madison wrote in an 1822 letter that “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both.” We are increasingly facing an information ecosystem flooded by misinformation and disinformation being strategically deployed to spread uncertainty and distrust. Those efforts are being amplified by the speed with which information is shared across social media, algorithms tuned for viral views and emotional impact and filter bubbles that increasingly divide us into silos.

Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to address the challenges of eroding trust and the spread of false and misleading information. The interventions discussed above are largely focused domestically but there is more that can and should be done to confront these issues on the global stage. Foundations and donors should invest in approaches that focus on making change across three interconnected areas: the press, in the public square and social platforms.

Given the diverse strategies foundations can pursue in their response to this moment, it is critical that we work together to share what we are learning, invest strategically in what is working, and put the people most impacted by these issues at the center of our funding.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Sneak Peek: New Data on What Americans Think About Voter Registration

Natalie Adona

September 22, 2017

In 2016, the Democracy Fund participated in the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) in partnership with Reed College. (1) Through this partnership, we sought to gain a better understanding of public opinion about election administration and voting, use the data to inform Democracy Fund’s strategic priorities, and add to the growing body of knowledge in election policy. The Reed/Democracy Fund module, which was administered pre- and post-election, includes several questions, grouped in the following categories:

Voting behavior and the voter experience;
Election administration;
Election integrity, fairness, and trust; and
Policy preferences.

As National Voter Registration Day approaches, I’d like to offer a preview and some initial thoughts about our findings—specifically, those covering certain aspects of the registration process. As I explain below, our findings suggest that voters need ongoing education to understand key aspects of the voter registration process. The data also suggest that election officials are well positioned to provide clear, easy-to-understand information about registration and to continue educating the public about the availability and benefits of online voter registration.

Public perceptions of the voter registration process

States have a long history of requiring registration before a person may vote. However, voters and potential voters might not be completely familiar with, and may even be confused by, certain aspects of the process. Missing the state registration deadline or experiencing a significant life change like a marriage or a move without updating registration can lead to a person being unable to cast a valid ballot.

In our survey, we asked participants about some key aspects of the registration process so that we could better understand and then address potential gaps in voter education. Because it’s available in 35 states and DC, and is a relatively recent change in election policy, we included questions about respondent’s knowledge and use of online voter registration (OVR). (2) We also wanted to know whether people understand when to update their registration and how respondents find out about voter registration deadlines.

1) Knowledge and use of OVR

When asked about whether their states offer OVR, about 51 percent of respondents did not know. Over 17 percent answered incorrectly; of those respondents, 56 percent believed that their state did not offer OVR, and 44 percent believed that the state does offer it. (3) Of the third of respondents who provided the correct answer and had access to OVR, over 60 percent of them had not registered or updated their registration using the state’s online system.

At first glance, these data may be discouraging and reflect the need for stronger efforts to educate voters about the availability and benefits of OVR. There are, however, some caveats to these results that prompt the need for further study:

Many respondents were already registered. Almost 86 percent of CCES respondents answered that they were registered to vote. Though questions of this type are sometimes susceptible to social desirability bias, we assume that CCES respondents answered truthfully, and might not have had the need to use OVR at the time they completed the survey. So, while we encourage states to offer OVR to their citizens, some groups of voters may not use it for several years.
Some respondents prefer the paper form. While 49 percent of respondents answered that they would prefer to use OVR, 35 percent indicated that they preferred a paper form. It is unclear whether those answers reflect a lack of trust in using OVR or were motivated by some other reasons. However, these data make it clear that states should not completely phase out paper—at least, not while a significant number of people prefer paper or lack access to the Internet.
Some respondents may have been registered at DMV. Even though the CCES does not ask about the manner in which respondents registered to vote, we assume that some may have registered through their state department of motor vehicles (DMV). Data from the United States Election Assistance Commission shows that, between 2014 and 2016, election officials received 33 percent of registrations from DMVs, which is the largest single source of registration applications compared to in person (12 percent), by mail (17 percent), online (17 percent), and other sources (15 percent).

2) Updating registration upon moving

Most respondents knew that they need to register or update their registration after a move; however, a significant percentage of people did not. To challenge our respondents on the basics of registration, we presented them with various scenarios that may trigger registration updates, e.g., moves across town, other counties, or other states.

There were varied responses to our scenarios about moving. While most of our respondents understood that a move to another state requires them to change registration, 46 percent of respondents either did not know or said “no” when asked if an across-town move triggers this need. Nearly 30 percent of respondents answered incorrectly when asked about an out-of-county move, and about 23 percent erroneously thought that they did not need to re-register after an out-of-state move.

We do not yet know what role the DMV might play in shaping the public’s understanding of the registration process, and whether DMV interactions may explain the difference in these responses, if at all. Given the large percentage of people who register through DMVs, we look forward to using these CCES findings as a jumping off point for future analysis.

3) Finding voter registration deadlines

When asked about the top three resources that they turn to for voter registration deadlines, about 70 percent of our respondents said that they rely on their county election website; about as many rely on their state’s election website for the same information. Over 60 percent of respondents also use search engines like Google to look up voter registration deadlines—and very likely receive reliable information from the states, thanks to our friends at the Voting Information Project.

In contrast, relatively fewer respondents get information from other sources such as campaigns or friends and family. There may be a chance that some respondents chose these government websites as socially acceptable alternatives to admitting that they rely on other sources for registration information. But if it’s true that voters prefer the county or state website, then election officials have significant influence over how people understand voter registration requirements.

The need for voter education

From this snapshot of our findings, the need for information about key aspects of voter registration is clear. The good news is, state and local election administrators are well positioned to educate voters about these aspects of the voter registration process and to communicate the availability and benefits of OVR. As the data indicates, voters pay attention to information from state and local election officials and would benefit from existing voter outreach and educational services.

However, simply building a website and expecting people to use it is not enough—ongoing voter education is needed to keep voters up to speed with voter registration processes and deadlines. Fortunately, election officials are not alone in this effort. Events like National Voter Registration Day are a wonderful opportunity for election officials, advocates, and community-based groups to engage with voters and potential voters, offer up-to-date information about the registration process, and provide the tools and resources that voters need to complete their registration forms and keep them updated—and well in advance of the next election.

This is the first in a series of blog posts that showcase our findings from the CCES. We look forward to sharing more in the coming months.

This blog was updated February 2018. It was first published in September 2017.

Sources

(1) The Cooperative Congressional Election Study is a survey administered by YouGov that includes Common Content and invites participation from up to 50 academic teams The Reed/Democracy Fund pre-election survey was administered to 1000 respondents, and our post-election survey includes answers from 845 respondents. More information about the CCES and its methodology is available at the Harvard Dataverse, found at: https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/data.

Paul Gronke is the Principal Investigator of the Reed College/Democracy Fund team module. Natalie Adona is the Research Associate for the Democracy Fund’s Elections Program and manages the roll out of these findings, with support from Jack Santucci, the Elections Research Fellow. Please direct any questions about these survey findings to nadona@democracyfund.org.

(2) Though 38 states and DC have authorized online voter registration, 3 states have yet to implement it. See “Online Voter Registration,” from the National Conference of State Legislatures, updated September 11, 2017. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-or-online-voter-registration.aspx.

(3) Data on states with online voter registration as of the 2016 primary elections come from the National Conference of State Legislatures (see source #2).

Back to Ideas

Blog

Elevating Constructive Voices to Disrupt Polarization

Laura A. Maristany

September 12, 2017

Today when people think about entrepreneurship and innovation, they tend to associate those concepts with the private sector. Maybe they think about Steve Jobs or Elon Musk—leaders whose big ideas revolutionized an industry. Or maybe they think about the legions of small business owners fueling the American economy. If you search for the word entrepreneur online, most of the results are about people who have opened their own businesses or developed new products or technologies. The bottom line is that entrepreneurship has become synonymous with the private sector.

Yet, our great nation was built by political entrepreneurs—visionaries who innovated new tools of governance and pushed the boundaries of what is possible. America today is radically different than the America of 1789, and while our founding fathers developed a forward-looking model of governance, we need their modern counterparts to help us think through how democratic institutions evolve and survive in the modern world.

At Democracy Fund, we understand this and actively seek out people and organizations who are working to disrupt the existing polarized political climate by promoting civil dialogue, sharing unbiased research, collaborating on breakthrough ideas, and embracing common-sense steps to strengthen our democracy. As Associate Director for Constructive Politics at Democracy Fund, I had the opportunity to travel across the country this summer learning about a new generation of leaders who are doing just that. My journey took me from D.C. to Chicago to Dallas to Malibu, where I attended several events by organizations focused on fostering a more constructive politics in the United States.

The Millennial Action Project (MAP) is working directly with leading young policymakers on both a national and state level to spur bipartisan legislation and innovative policy solutions. Defined by diversity, technology, pragmatism, and collaborative attitude, the millennial generation refuses to see the world in traditional ideological terms. Through projects like the Future Caucus, the State Future Caucus Network, the James Madison Fellowship, and the Millennial Policy Forum, MAP is elevating fresh ideas and building a network of cooperative millennial thought leaders.
At a convening by the Harris School of Public Policy’s Project on Political Reform, I watched a bipartisan group of political consultants discuss the rise of political polarization and how increasing distrust in our institutions could impact the future of our political system. During campaign season, you could never imagine these folks sitting in one room, much less swapping stories and collaborating on pragmatic solutions. Yet, here they were, focused on developing pragmatic solutions to our nations’ most difficult challenges. They might not have agreed on every policy solution, but constructive dialogue is the first step toward positive action for the American people.
The National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ (NALEO) Annual Conference brought together Latino elected officials from across the political spectrum to engage in dialogues about their role in the future of our country. In many cases using their personal time and funding to attend the conference, Latino elected officials were able to take advantage of informative sessions about subjects like how communities prepare for an emergency, how education policy changes at the federal level are implemented locally, and evolution of media and its impact on American politics.
Pepperdine University’s American Project convened conservative thought leaders and academics to talk about the issues and challenges impacting the future of the conservative movement. The conversations served as a reminder that while we will always have differing views, even within the parties, we are all Americans and want our country to succeed. Policy disagreements will continue to challenge us, but healthy democracy requires partisans who are committed to promoting their views constructively.

Overall, this summer I was reassured and inspired by the events I attended. Healthy democracy requires spaces for civil conversations where individuals can learn about each other, hear different points of view, and discuss their differences respectfully and productively. In each city I visited, I met Americans of all ages, races, and political ideologies who share these values and are brimming with ideas to make our democracy stronger. It leaves me with no doubt that America’s future is bright.

To learn more about our grantees who are working to ensure that Americans come first in our democracy, visit www.democracyfund.org/portfolio.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Tackling Challenges in Election Administration and Voting Using an Ecosystem Approach

Adam Ambrogi

September 11, 2017

Democracy Fund’s Elections Program is excited to share our Election Administration and Voting systems map! The map, which was a collaboration involving advocates, academics, election officials, and policy experts, informs our thinking about American elections and our strategies for improving them. Below, you’ll read about our mapping journey, about potential leveraging opportunities within the system, and a request for your help as we continue to learn.

Though many aspects of the past election cycle were unique, there are ongoing challenges in election administration that pre-date 2016, as well as emerging opportunities for change. We hope that our work in elections will inform and support election officials, policy experts, advocates, peer funders, and most importantly—the American electorate.

Before diving in, our team would like to recognize all our colleagues who provided valuable feedback, and poured their time, energy, and perspectives into pulling this map together. Our collaboration stretched across the political spectrum, which generated robust conversations that inspired us as we created the map and used it to plan our strategy. We extend special thanks to Professor Paul Gronke, who provided support and academic consultation that was vital to the completion of this map.

Mapping the Election System

In December 2014, we convened a group of elections and voting experts to help us more deeply understand the U.S. election system. We began with the framing question, “to understand the election system in the United States, you need to understand…” A core story and key dynamics that drive the election system emerged through several follow up workshops, small group conversations, and internal research.

Because our initiative focuses on election administration, as well as the difficulty of comprehensively describing every aspect of the system, we predicated map construction on two assumptions—that mistakes in election administration:

Are indicative of actionable problems, for which election officials require strong support to resolve; and
Have serious downstream impacts on voters, who do not always have the time or knowledge needed to address issues before Election Day.

As shown in our core story, when elections are run ineffectively, there’s high potential for decreased public trust in the system, either because a voter heard about or personally experienced a problem. Sometimes those real or perceived barriers to voting have a deterring effect on voter engagement. These factors—“effective election administration,” “public trust in elections,” and “decision to vote”—appear relatively larger on the map because they are the key factors that drive the system and inform our work.

Low public trust in elections and low turnout increase pressure on lawmakers to change election laws and processes. Sometimes, those proposed changes lead to laws that, when well-implemented and voter-centric, improve elections. However, election administration is uniquely prone to election law gamesmanship, i.e., political actors who attempt to manipulate the rules or pressure officials to act in a partisan fashion. If policy changes are either intended or perceived to influence an election outcome or otherwise shift political power, then such changes can be caught up in a vicious cycle of gamesmanship—ultimately leaving election officials stuck with policies and processes that do not lead to better run elections.

The rest of the map illustrates the key dynamics that drive the core story. Key dynamics appear in 11 cyclical loops, which are:

Voter Registration
Election Official Education
Election Management
Technology Innovation
Voting Equipment
Integrity and Security
Ease of Voting
Voter Engagement
Education About Elections
Barriers to Voting
Election Law Gamesmanship

We binned each of the factors (i.e., dots) within these loops into one of four major categories:

Politics, law, and policy (green),
Elections process (light blue),
Voter engagement (yellow), and
“Other” (orange) for any one factor that does not neatly fit into any of the above categories.

We invite you to take a closer look at our map and its narrative, here and in Kumu – the tool we used to visualize the map. While reading the map, please note that pluses (+) and minuses (-) on connections (i.e., arrows) represent an increase and a decrease of that factor, respectively; the direction of the connections provides more information on the relationship between factors. (For example: when looking at the core story—as effective election administration decreases, public trust in elections decreases.)

From Map to Strategy

Our election and voting process can and should be improved; many election officials and voter advocates are already heading in that direction. After consulting with experts in the field and through much deliberation, we found several bright spots and potential points of leverage in the election system that could avoid political gamesmanship through bipartisan appeal and which present a high potential for impact, including:

Reducing stress on voter registration systems: States are rapidly adopting online voter registration and are becoming members of the Electronic Registration Information Center. There is also significant momentum around improving registration processes at motor vehicle departments and other state agencies. Improving voter registration systems could potentially result in tens of millions of newly registered, eligible citizens.
Improving the quality of election planning and execution: The growing community of civic technologists seeking to improve elections presents new opportunities for collaboration. Cost savings generated by new technology allows election officials to solve complex problems with few funds. Improving election processes has the potential to have positive downstream impacts on the voter experience, increasing the public’s confidence in election outcomes.
Increasing election officials’ capacity to adopt and implement new technology: Adoption and evaluation of tech tools that support election officials are gaining momentum. There is increasing interest among election community leaders in using and iterating these tools. Improving support for election officials using technology could have a transformative effect on the way elections are administered and on the way voters interact with the system, and without feeling overwhelming for the election official.
Increasing the public’s trust in elections: unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud are damaging and undermine the legitimacy of those in elected office. To foster trust in the system, voters must, at minimum, have a better understanding of the system’s key security features. Increased attention to security presents an opportunity to educate the public about election processes and to show how their election officials protect the integrity of the ballot. Given the new concerns about attempted interference in our election system by foreign actors, policy and practice must allow for officials’ ability to defend against potential attacks.

It will not be easy to improve the election system, nor will challenges be solved by any one organization alone. We understand that officials, advocates, experts, and voters all play a role in improving and promoting a healthy election system. Now that we have a framework, we can more easily identify where actors and activities occur within the elections and voting ecosystem, and have a better sense of where we should address problems.

How You Can Help

The map reflects our current understanding of the elections system in the United States and we hope that it captures key cyclical patterns that occur at the federal, state, and local levels. Of course, we are not able to capture every aspect of the system; we hope that we can rely on our larger community of stakeholders (you!) to help. As you navigate the map, please feel free to provide us with any feedback, questions, or comments by emailing us at electionsmap@democracyfund.org.

Thanks for viewing! We look forward to hearing from you.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Remembering Michael Cromartie

Joe Goldman

September 5, 2017

This post was co-authored by Chris Crawford, Program Associate for the Governance team.

In this age of intense polarization, Americans have a habit of retreating to their comfortable political corners. Our institutions of government and our media both suffer from low approval ratings. In an era of cynicism, teamsmanship, and distrust, The Faith Angle Forum has shined brightly as an example of civility, understanding, and deeper learning. Its leader, Michael Cromartie, was a champion of democratic values.

For three years, Democracy Fund has been a lead investor in the Faith Angle Forum, a project of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Twice per year, Faith Angle Forum gathers the nation’s top journalists to discuss the issues facing the nation – an opportunity for journalists to engage with religious experts on topics of the day. Shortly after the election of Pope Francis, Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute and John Carr of Georgetown University’s Initiative on Catholic Social Thought discussed the ways in which Catholic teaching responds to poverty, from the political Left and the Right. Last spring, journalists gathered with author Kate Bowler to discuss the Prosperity Gospel, the faith tradition in which President Donald Trump was raised. And each election year, Faith Angle Forum has gathered polling experts to discussed the way in which voters from different faith traditions voted in the election.

It is obvious to all observers why this project is important. But to the participants, the project was made especially important by its leader. Michael Cromartie was deeply dedicated to democratic values. In addition to his deep religious faith, Michael had faith in the ability of the American people to process information when presented with the facts. He dedicated his career to creating a deeper understanding between the American media and the American people.

On August 28, Michael Cromartie died after a heroic battle with cancer. He was the rock on which a significant segment of our political class rested. He valued deeper understanding. He exuded joy. And he never tired of forging partnerships to strengthen our collective institutions.

Memorials have been pouring in from our nation’s stop media outlets, praising Michael for his life’s work. Carl Cannon of Real Clear Politics, a frequent attendee of Faith Angle Forum, wrote an especially precise summary of Michael’s impact on American politics:

“Mike Cromartie did more to ensure that American political journalism is imbued with religious tolerance, biblical literacy, historical insight, and an ecumenical spirit than any person alive. No one is a close second. This man was one of a kind.”

Peter Wehner, Michael’s colleague at EPPC, wrote that Michael “enriched the public dialogue and helped shape American culture.” In addition, he noted that Michael, “was a man who left a deep imprint on people’s hearts and souls.”

Peter’s word are appropriate and accurate. His understanding of Michael both as a human being and as a leader in his field have prepared Peter to continue the Faith Angle Forum project this fall in Miami.

Michael’s genuine desire to learn from others, and to bring the rest of us along with him, made him an ideal convener. His good nature was evident whether talking with titans of the media industry, think tank presidents, or with the hotel staff at Faith Angle Forum, all of whom he knew by name. In addition to his work with Faith Angle Forum, Michael was a central part of Democracy Fund’s Voter Study Group. With Michael’s help and unique ability to bring people together, we gathered researchers and analysts from a broad section of the political spectrum to collaborate on a project designed to listen to the American people.

With the passing of Michael Cromartie, Democracy Fund has not just lost an incredibly valuable grantee; we have suffered from a death in the family. Our thoughts are with Michael’s wonderful wife Jennifer, his EPPC colleagues, and the countless people who were honored to call him a friend. Our work would be unnecessary if our country was filled with men and women like Michael Cromartie.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Understanding Trust to Strengthen Democracy

Srik Gopal

August 21, 2017

This blog was co-authored by Francesca Mazzola, Associate Director at FSG.

Three Important Lessons About Trust

At Democracy Fund, we have been exploring questions of trust. Trust in institutions is at an all-time low. In 2016, for example, only 32% of Americans said they had a “Great Deal” or “Fair Amount of Trust” in mass media, the lowest level of trust in Gallup polling history.

Meanwhile, research suggests (1) that higher levels of trust lead to: a) greater confidence in trusted individuals or institutions and b) a willingness to act based on that confidence. In the context of our national relationship to the news media, for instance, this implies that a significant majority of Americans may not be willing to act civically or otherwise based on the information provided by mass media outlets.

Given that democracies function best when individuals participate in the civic process (e.g. voting, running for office, volunteering), it is clear that the current low level of trust in public institutions (including, but not only, the media) is a problem in need of attention. A healthy democracy requires institutions that are both trustworthy and trusted.

As we’ve been investigating the notion of trust, three important lessons have become apparent to us:

1. Trust has both cognitive and affective dimensions

Think about someone you trust. Now think about the reasons why you trust that person. More than likely, they have a good “track record” of having been there for you when you needed them. In addition, you probably have an emotional bond with them that allows you to be vulnerable. This exemplifies the two dimensions of trust – cognitive and affective. (2)

Cognitive trust has been described as “trusting from the head.” It includes factors such as dependability, predictability, and reputation. Affective trust, on the other hand, involves having mutual care and concern or emotional bonds. This has been described as “trusting from the heart.” Most trusting relationships have both cognitive and affective aspects that often reinforce one another.

2. Trust and trustworthiness are not the same

One way to understand trust is that it is a firm belief (cognitive and affective) in the goodness of something (we use the word “goodness” deliberately here, as dictionary definitions of trust tend to use descriptors of trustworthiness instead). We are often willing to trust people, companies, and institutions because we believe they are good, at least in the context in which we trust them.

Trustworthiness is a related, but different notion. Trustworthiness is defined as the perceived likelihood that a particular trustee will uphold one’s trust. (3) Like trust, it also has cognitive dimensions (such as competence, credibility, and reliability) and affective dimensions (such as ethics and positive intentions) that signal that the trustee “has what it takes” to meet the trustor’s needs and uphold their trust.

Imagine your interaction with your bank. Though you don’t necessarily need to trust the bank (i.e. believe in its “goodness”) as you would trust a spouse or a close friend, you must believe that the bank is trustworthy – i.e., it completes your transaction as intended, obeys laws, and follows a code of ethics. But you have to have trust in the overall monetary and financial system to even feel safe opening a bank account – something that was adversely affected after the financial crisis.

3. Trustworthiness and trust have a counter-intuitive relationship

A rational point of view of the relationship between trustworthiness and trust would suggest that when you first encounter a system, you make an assessment of its trustworthiness (e.g., competence, predictability), and then you calibrate your level of trust accordingly.

But, alas, human beings are anything but rational. The evidence around human cognition and reasoning increasingly points to a counter-intuitive relationship: often, we enter into a new relationship (with a person or a system) with a level of trust that is influenced by the “bubbles” (i.e. communities and networks populated by like-minded folks) that we inhabit.

From there, we look for information to confirm our initial instincts (often referred to as “confirmation bias”). The type of information we look for or prioritize (e.g., cognitive vs. affective factors) varies by individual and by situation. This phenomenon help us understand, for instance, why individuals trust a news source that is perceived to be more aligned with their political views.

What this means

In the light of these dynamics, improving the trustworthiness of a system is often necessary and vital, but perhaps insufficient as a way to build public trust. Of course, we want to prevent a crisis of trustworthiness from eroding trust. For instance, public trust in Japan’s institutions suffered a severe blow as a result of the government’s bungled response to the Fukushima disaster in 2011. But, ensuring trustworthiness on its own may not be enough to overcome the contextual forces that undermine trust in the first place.

Furthermore, some efforts to improve trustworthiness, such as technical improvements to a system, are shown to decrease trust in the short-term, by introducing unpredictability as people have to navigate an unfamiliar tool or process. As we will discuss in the next part of this post, these complicated dynamics will have to be kept in mind as one tries to navigate the work of re-building trust in democratic institutions.

How We Are Strengthening Trust and Trustworthiness

For the Democracy Fund, and anyone else working on improving American democracy, it is hard to ignore the fact that trust in institutions is remarkably low by historical standards. This is especially true for Democracy Fund’s three main areas of focus – media and journalism, Congress, and elections. There are several factors that have led to this. For instance, our Congress and Public Trust systems map explores how the actions of members of Congress and their staff, the media, and the public interact to create the current state of Congress.

Previously, we talked a bit about why this decline in trust matters. The question now becomes, “can anything be done about it?” And in our efforts to do something about it, do we focus on trust, trustworthiness, or both?

The “trust matrix”

As we discussed previously, level of trust and assessment of trustworthiness are related, but different notions, and each has cognitive and affective dimensions. These concepts are organized below into what we’ve come to call the trust matrix. The matrix also provides labels (e.g., “personal affinity”) to help readers easily navigate the differences among categories of concepts.

Implications for Democracy Fund

We recognize that in order to restore trust in democratic institutions, we need to work on multiple fronts. This by no means an easy task. Philanthropy, in general, tends to focus on solutions that address trustworthiness. For instance, an effort to improve education may focus primarily on educator competencies, or work to create a set of proficiency standards.

This may be because it can be a lot harder to affect people’s personal affinity for individuals or institutions, or public perceptions of individuals’ or institutions’ characters. While there may be few “tried and true” methods to address these factors, they are nonetheless important pieces in affecting individuals’ trust in systems and institutions. At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge that there are potential ethical implications with influencing people’s belief systems, and hence a responsible framework needs to be considered.

As we grapple with the myriad of intricacies here, we are beginning to come to terms with what types of approaches may fit under each quadrant of trust matrix. Below are some early hypotheses:

Trustworthiness: We must increase the trustworthiness of institutions by equipping key stakeholders with better tools and practices (cognitive), and the promulgation and adoption of better standards and ethics (affective). For our elections work, this might mean identifying standards and promoting security in election systems, and providing election officials with the resources they need to maintain system integrity. Any failure within our election system could seriously undermine public trust. For our media and journalism work, this may mean re-thinking how we make the case for fundamental facts and combat misinformation, as well as working on practices around transparency and corrections.
Level of Trust: We also need to tackle the trust deficit through strategies that speak directly to the public through engagement tools (cognitive) and the use of bonding and identification (affective). For our elections work, this may mean empowering the right messengers with tools and tactics to improve voter confidence. For our media and journalism work, this may mean having specific strategies that emphasize improving trust among historically marginalized communities, and other groups with special attention to increasing the diversity and inclusion of sources, stories and staffing.

At a time when our democratic norms are often undermined, we hope that our work to strengthen trust in trustworthy institutions will help build public confidence and participation in our democracy. As we continue to develop and hone our approach, we look forward to learning and sharing more with the field.

Thanks to Marcie Parkhurst, Nikhil Bumb, and Jaclyn Marcatili from FSG for supporting the research that informed this piece.

Works Cited:

1. Kelton, Kari. “Trust in Digital Information.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (2008): 363-74.

2. McAllister, D. J. “Affect- And Cognition-Based Trust As Foundations For Interpersonal Cooperation In Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 38.1 (1995): 24-59

3. Colquitt, Jason A. “Justice, Trust, and Trustworthiness: A Longitudinal Analysis Integrating Three Theoretical Perspectives.” The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 54, no. 6, 1 Dec. 2011, pp. 1183–1206. JSTOR.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Inaugural Election Sciences Conference Kicks Off in Portland, Oregon

Natalie Adona

August 9, 2017

The first conference on Election Sciences, Reform, and Administration* (ESRA) took place July 27-28, 2017 in the lovely and laid-back City of Portland, Oregon. Before I describe the conference, I’d like to take a moment to explain this “election science” thing I’m referring to, and why this conference is timely and important.

Defining election science

Election science is, in essence, the study of election administration and related matters. Studying election administration is important because it’s where the rubber meets the road; where election laws and regulations, organizational decision making, administrative efficiency, technology, voting rights, politics, and academic theories are put to the test on Election Day (or for many states, the voting period). Specifically, election scientists seek to better understand the following elements that election officials grapple with:

The policies and processes affecting the cost of elections;
The balance between efficiency, access, security, and voting rights;
The impact of technology on election conduct; and
The relationship between laws, rules, administration, and voter behavior.

Scholars who take part in this emerging discipline frequently partner with and provide support to election officials, as well as help policy experts, advocates, and other stakeholders better understand the way elections are run and the impact of policy changes on the electorate. Can administrative practices improve voter confidence? Who was added to the Oregon registration rolls when the state implemented automatic voter registration? How can local election officials reallocate resources to mitigate long lines at polling places? – This is a sample of the types of questions election scientists seek to answer and share with others.

Studying election administration and the importance of establishing networks

In the meetings that the Democracy Fund co-organized prior to this event, I gained a better understanding of the incentive structures in academia that motivate political scientists and inform their research agendas. I was surprised to find out that the number of academics studying election administration is small, and too few to successfully create an organized section. To make a long story short, this results in election scientists presenting their work at conference panels that don’t always fit neatly into established organized sections, and in front of an audience of peers that are not always able to provide nuanced feedback on the subject matter.

Providing election officials and academics the space to get to know each other on their own is key to enriching our shared understanding of election administration. In my work with the Elections team, I’ve had the opportunity to hear from several election officials from all parts of the country and the people who support improvements in elections. I’ve been fortunate enough to learn from them, celebrate their successes, and listen and think carefully about their shared pain points. Because election scientists present primarily at academic conferences, it leaves little opportunity for election officials, who don’t often have the time or resources to attend, to inform research agendas and add richness and nuance to the existing body of research. And while those of us in philanthropy and in the advocacy space can serve as bridges, our networks remain fairly small. When connected with this academic community, election officials benefit from the analytical rigor and perspective on administrative processes that election scientists provide — a provision that helps administrators learn and take steps to improve their processes.

The ESRA conference

The purpose of the ESRA conference is to feature academic work in election science, not only for the benefit of scholars, but also to familiarize election officials with the work these scholars present. The conference organizers successfully brought together a mix of primarily election scientists and election officials, and also advocates, civic tech experts, and small (but mighty) group of bright young students interested in establishing their careers in academia. Because the ESRA conference was located in the West, studies about vote-by-mail, vote centers, and automatic voter registration were prominently featured – a timely regional theme that I hope will be replicated next year when the ESRA conference is held in the Midwest.

The ESRA conference included a healthy mix of panels and breakout sessions, all of which kept this group of about 50 people engaged and inspired. The sessions over the two days covered:

Administering Elections and Evaluating Capacity
Voter Registration Records and Data Administration
Assessing the Effectiveness of Voter Registration List Maintenance
Turnout in Mayoral Elections (the “Who Votes for Mayor” study)
Voter Identification Laws and Elections
New Approaches to Voter Registration and Turnout
Evaluating Elections Under Pressure (i.e., contingency planning and recounts)
Election Administration Professionalization
Modernizing Voter Registration (breakout session and plenary)
Intersection of Election Administration, Nonprofits, and Advocates
Alternative Polling Places of the Future (breakout session and plenary)

This inaugural conference was an enormous undertaking and was artfully planned and executed by Paul Gronke (who’s also a trusted consultant for the Democracy Fund’s Elections team) and Phil Keisling (who I hear knows a thing or two about elections) – a huge congrats to them and their team for successfully pulling off this important event. Also, it’d be remiss of me if I forgot to give a shout out to Paul Manson, Charles Stewart, Bernard Fraga, and Lonna Rae Atkeson, all of whom played a vital role in making the conference a success. I’m so grateful that I had the opportunity to attend, meet some smart and awesome election geeks who continue to teach me new things, represent Democracy Fund as dinner host, and speak at one of the panels. I’m encouraged by the enthusiasm and passion everyone has invested so far, and seriously hope that the heart of this scholarly effort continues to beat for years to come as new and useful research emerges.

*The ESRA conference was made possible with support from the National Science Foundation, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Early Voting Information Center, the Center for Public Service at Portland State University, and the Democracy Fund.

** Photo credit goes to Cameron Wimpy, Research Director for the MIT Election and Data Science Lab.

Back to Ideas

Blog

New Report Highlights Challenges to Congress’ Capacity to Perform Their Role in Democracy

Chris Nehls

August 7, 2017

Imagine having a job that requires you to master complex subject matter thrown at you at a moment’s notice in rapid fashion. Now imagine that you have practically no time, training, or resource support to learn that material with any real depth. Nobody else around the office knows anything about what’s on your plate either to even point you in the right direction. Oh, and you’re using a 10-year-old computer and work practices are such that you’re still literally pushing paper around much of the day.

How would you feel about the job you were doing in that situation? How long would you stay?

Unfortunately, for many congressional staffers, this description is all too apt of their workplace. New research authored by Kathy Goldschmidt of the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) reveals how dissatisfied congressional staff are with their ability to perform key aspects of their jobs they understand are vital to the function of the institution as a deliberative legislative body. The dysfunction that the public sees in Washington, the report reveals, really is the product of a Congress that lacks the capacity to fulfill its obligations to Americans.

CMF researchers performed a gap analysis of surveys they took of senior-level House and Senate staffers, measuring the distance between how many respondents said they were “very satisfied” with the performance of key aspects of their workplace they deemed “very important” to the effectiveness of their chamber. The largest gaps appeared in the three areas most closely connected to the institution’s ability to develop well-informed public policy and legislation and with Congress’s technological infrastructure to support office needs.

Although more than 80 percent of staffers though it was “very important” for them to have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to support members’ official duties, only 15 percent said they were “very satisfied’ with their chamber’s performance.

CMF found similar yawning gaps in satisfaction with the training, professional development, and other human resource support they needed to execute their duties, access to high-quality nonpartisan policy expertise, and the time and resources members have to understand pending legislation. Just six percent of respondents were “very satisfied” with congressional technological infrastructure.

These findings reflect a decades-long trend by Congress to divest in its own capacity to master legislative subject material. Just last month, more than a hundred members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted to slash funding for the Congressional Budget Office, despite its integral role in the legislative process.

But as the report concludes, opening the funding spigot and hiring more legislative staff alone will not solve the challenges to the resiliency of Congress as a democratic institution.

The Democracy Fund’s Governance Team has taken up ranks with a growing community to push for a more systemic approach to improving the operations and functions of our 240-year-old national legislature struggling to adapt to the forces of modernity. Certainly, Congress can do much more to support its own internal culture of learning and expertise: but civil society has a critical role in rebuilding congressional resiliency, too. Congress has just started to bring the vast technical and subject area know-how that exists outside its marble edifices to assist a process of institutional transformation. The work of establishing trusted modes of communications with constituents in this digital age, meanwhile, barely has begun.

The CMF report performs a critical pathfinding role, illuminating where the places of most dire need within the institution exist. I read it as an optimistic document: congressional staff know that their deepest deficiencies are critically important to the institution’s health. Energy is on the side of reform. The challenge ahead is not to be discouraged by the scale of the problems but to work systemically so that change can build upon itself and ripple through the system.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Key to Public Trust: A Congress that Looks Like America

Laura A. Maristany

July 12, 2017

Let me tell you a quick story.

As a young political science major at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, I always dreamed about working in the policy space. While my great grandparents on both sides were involved in politics in Cuba, no one in my family had pursued a career in U.S. politics until me. Needless to say, I didn’t have a robust network of well-connected people who could help me get my foot in the door. So in 2005, when my mother heard about a paid congressional internship program, she immediately encouraged me to apply. Fortunately, I was accepted into the program and given the opportunity to work in the office of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico – one of the busiest offices in the House of Representatives. This experience offered me a once in a lifetime opportunity to learn how Congress functions from the inside and build a network of peers and mentors, which eventually led me to a full time job on Capitol Hill.

In “this town” it is difficult to climb the Washington D.C. career ladder without having done your time on Capitol Hill. My paid internship opportunity and subsequent experience working in Congress is a staple of my resume that continues to open doors for me. But while internships continue to be a reliable path towards working for Congress, many are unpaid jobs – and there are very few young people with the means or ability to move to Washington, D.C. for a semester or summer to work for free. This is an especially acute problem for young people from low income and minority communities.

The result? A Congressional staff that currently does not represent the diversity of our nation.

At the Democracy Fund, we believe that healthy democracy demands vibrant public discussion and participation in our nation’s civic life. Robust public participation signals that people believe their voice and the institutions of our democracy matter. So we support programs and projects aiming to put people back at the center of our democracy in ways that give them the visceral experience of feeling heard and included.

Because it is the institution tasked with elevating the voice of all Americans to the national stage, Congress must make an effort to incorporate all the communities it serves. To truly represent the diverse people of this great nation, Congress should be committed to hiring the diverse people of this great nation.

It’s Time for Congress to Take a Long, Hard Look in the Mirror

In 2015, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (Joint Center) took the first steps to quantify the lack of diversity in Congressional staff through a study focusing on top staff leadership in the U.S. Senate. The results confirmed what is visible to anyone visiting their Member of Congress; minorities are grossly underrepresented in the institution tasked with representing all of us.

The Joint Center report found that of 336 top Senate staffers (Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Directors, Communications Directors, and Staff Directors), only 24 staffers were people of color – 12 Asian Americans, 7 Latinos, 3 African Americans, and 2 Native Americans.

The Joint Center’s chart shows the disconnect between what our country looks like in comparison to the top leadership in U.S. Senate offices.

Importantly, this is a problem for both Democrats and Republicans. For example, although African Americans account for 22% of Democratic voters, they account for less than 1% of Democratic top staff. Of the 6 Black top staffers in the U.S. Senate, only two are Democrats (the other four are Republicans).

As you digest these numbers, keep in mind that, aside from its duty to work with the House of Representatives on legislation, the U.S. Senate has the final word on who sits on our Supreme Court and on who leads the agencies in charge of implementing our national policy. Therefore, lack of diversity in Congressional staff has long lasting ripple effects throughout our nation’s institutions, and pretty much every facet of our lives. (The Joint Center plans to release similar information related to the House side in 2017.)

To correct the imbalance found by the Joint Center and to ensure Members of Congress are responding to the communities they represent, seeking out and hiring more diverse staff is more crucial than ever.

The Path Forward: Congressional Staff That Looks Like America

Regardless of your views on size and scope, when it comes to government, we as citizens long for institutions that carry out the will of the people, for policies that help our communities thrive, and for systems that improve our daily lives. As the representative institution in our system of government, Congress is in a unique position to elevate our voices, but to do that, it must continue to listen to us – all of us.

A Congress that looks like the people it represents is a crucial part of the strategy to rebuild public trust. Understanding that diversity is key to healthy organizations and institutions, Democracy Fund plans to make significant investments to organizations uniquely positioned to tackle these challenges and, hopefully contribute to breaking this vicious cycle.

Two of these organizations – the Joint Center and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund – are already leaders in this space and, with support from the Democracy Fund, will be able to scale their programs to ensure Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle prioritize diversity in their teams. New funding will allow these organizations to expand programs that help Congress recruit, train, and place qualified candidates for positions in congressional offices that better reflect the demographics of the constituencies they represent. They will also work to modernize congressional hiring practices, collaborate with existing diversity efforts to foster more relationships across the aisle, and promote professional development resources that help congressional staffers learn new skills, deepen their understanding of issues, and succeed in their careers.

Ultimately, we believe these programs can begin to move the needle towards a more representative Congress and help Members of Congress become more responsive to the communities they represent.

To learn more about these projects or to get involved, please email us at info@democracyfund.org.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Mapping the Legislative Ecosystem

Chris Nehls

July 5, 2017

Few things about Congress are simple: even different types of information it generates as a legislative body – from bill language and roll call votes, to members’ press releases and statements into the official record – are processed and maintained by a myriad of offices. Over the last half-dozen years, public servants of those offices and citizens invested in open access and easy use of the data Congress produces have gathered annually at the Legislative Data Transparency Conference, hosted by the Committee on House Administration. Originally held as an opportunity for the various stewards of legislative data to discuss collective challenges, in recent years the conference also has become a moment to herald the unappreciated success of the legislative data community in standardizing and releasing datasets that help the American people understand congressional efforts and hold elected representatives accountable.

On June 27, I joined OpenGov Foundation Executive Director Seamus Kraft and Demand Progress Policy Director Daniel Schuman on stage at this year’s conference. Our panel discussed how the legislative data community can use Democracy Fund’s Congress & Public Trust systems map to contextualize its efforts in the broader congressional reform movement.

WATCH: Mapping Congress to Power Meaningful Reform & Innovation

Successes like publishing bill text in machine-readable formats or creating common xml schema are not going to end up on the nightly news. But a proper legislative data infrastructure makes it possible for bill histories and vote records to become evident with a few clicks of a mouse or for instant visualization of how a bill would change existing law. These types of innovations make it easier for members of Congress and their staff and to do their jobs and keep congressional conduct transparent for the electorate. In the broader transformation it encourages, in other words, legislative data reform efforts help strengthen congressional capacity and support a more informed citizenry.

It’s important from a systems perspective to remember that even work on small-scale projects can create ripples of change in a complex environment like Congress. As Schuman reminded the audience, every new dataset that comes online opens possibilities for techies to build new tools that help fill knowledge gaps people within the system can use to solve common challenges.

The panel suggested ways that individual organizations can utilize the systems map to think strategically about their contributions to institutional change. For example, Kraft said that the OpenGov Foundation drilled down on the map in the context of their product design, discovering in the process that constituent engagement was a vitally underserved focus area they could impact with a new project to transform congressional offices’ processing of voicemail and constituent calls.

The systems map also helps remind narrowly-focused communities like the one we addressed Tuesday that their collective efforts also impact the work of similar communities focused on different types of challenges. Washington is full of such groups, whether they focus on government ethics and transparency, the rules and procedures of Congress, of the ways in which advocacy groups make their case to lawmakers. Actions by one community change the dynamics of the system in significant ways for others. The challenge for those across such communities who care about a healthy congressional system is working in concert with one another to amplify efforts.

For our part, our team recently revised our systems map to represent our new thinking on congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. These changes better reflect the importance of government watchdog organizations, transparency and government oversight groups, whistleblowers, the media, and others in holding Congress accountable to its Constitutional responsibility to oversee the conduct of federal offices and the White House.

To learn more about our systems map project, please visit democracyfund.org/congressmap or email us at congressmap@democracyfund.org to sign up for email updates.