Who Do We Reach, Who Can We Reach, and Who Should We Reach

1. Who Do We Reach, Who Can We Reach, and Who Should We Reach Dhavan V. ShahAssociate Professor

2. Programming and Outreach • Programming and outreach — in combination — work together to create opportunities to connect • Extend the program experience • Provide mobilizing information and activities • Encourage deliberation and civic action • Forge partnerships that tighten community connections • Educate the public, individually and collectively • Need to understand how they work together

3. The Effects of Media • Contrasting claims about the socio-political effects of television and Internet use • Provide enriching information, dramatize social problems, highlight community value, tighten social linkages, and foster coordinated actions • Displace time from civic activities, replace meaningful social relationships, cultivate perceptions of a “mean world”, and discourage sense of shared responsibility

4. “Experience is not what happens to you; it what you do with what happens to you.” Aldous Huxley, Author

5. The Effects of Outreach • Encourage reflection about media content • Foster discussion and deliberation about issues • Build understanding across social groups • Create connections among community members • Highlight the value of community resources • Emphasize obligations over rights in public life … All of which encourage civic engagement

6. Research Insights • The “Connecting” and “Disconnecting” Project • Study of Civic and Political Participation examining Media Use, Social Networks, Outreach, and Social Attitudes • Funded by the Ford Foundation, Benton Foundation, Digital Media Forum, Public Broadcasting Service, University of Wisconsin, University of Michigan, and Ohio State University • Community Engagement through Public Television Project • Study of the “Coming Together” Listening Sessions around “Two Towns of Jasper • Funded by Wisconsin Public Television, National Center for Outreach, Corporation for Public Broadcasting - Future Fund, and University of Wisconsin

7. Guiding Questions • Who is most likely to embrace and support a goal of community engagement? • Are their other latent or potential supporters? • How can we make groups more active and engaged? • What are their preferences and practices? • How do these groups connect with mass media? • How do they connect with public broadcasting, its programming, web content, and outreach?

8. Methods and Analysis • Surveyed 971 respondents across four waves • Feb. ‘99, June ‘00, Nov. ‘00, and July ‘01 • Over 70% response rate to each panel wave • Used a combination of analytical tools • Cluster and discriminant analysis • Comparison of standardized means

9. High Social/Cultural Engagement Community Socialites - 22% Active Engaged Citizen - 9% Low Civic/Political Engagement High Civic/Political Engagement Casual Connectors - 50% Civic Stalwarts - 19% Low Social/Cultural Engagement

10. Active Engaged Citizens • Most engaged in community life • Highest in civic and political participation • Also socially and culturally active • Baby Boomers and older • College educated • Affluent homeowners • Live in Larger Metros

11. Civic Stalwarts • High civic and political engagement • Lowest in social and cultural involvement • More women than men • Older, in their 40s or 60+ • Live in less densely populated areas

12. Community Socialites • Most socially and culturally active • Below average in civic and political activities • Younger group, 20-40 • Many parents with kids • Live in larger metros and suburban areas

13. Casual Connectors • Least engaged in community life • Occasional social and cultural involvement • Very little civic and political participation • More men than women • Youngest group - 20-30 • More racially and ethnically diverse • Many renters

14. Even if there are large differences in community engagement, there is considerable civic potential across all groups

15. Engaged prefer social dramas, Socializers watch sitcoms, Connectors favor reality TV, Stalwarts low on all three

16. Public affairs program viewing is tied to community engagement

17. Small differences in certain categories of Internet use suggest opportunities to reach casual connection in new ways

18. Online services and outreach activities concentrated among the engaged citizens and community socialites

19. “Even if you are on the right track, you will get run over if you just sit there.” Will Rogers, Philosopher

20. Understanding Outreach • Do outreach events that involve disengaged groups have an impact the communities that public television serves? • Do these efforts have an effect on attitudes and actions beyond viewing public television programming?

21. Coming Together • Outreach effort around Two Towns of Jasper • A special preview screening of the P.O.V. documentary followed by a facilitated discussion about race and diversity issues • Over 300 participants, with minority over-representation • Core of diversity and justice organizations • Served as information resources, hosted event booths, provided engagement opportunities

22. A Model for Evaluation • Conducted a survey of randomly selected WPT members and participants from local partners • This permitted comparisons between four groups • Event Participants (Saw program followed by discussion) • Home Viewers (Saw program at home, possibly other content) • Outreach Users (Online or Allied content, but not the program) • Unexposed to Two Towns (No exposure to any content)

23. Effects of Programming and Outreach • Dramatic effects on civic attitudes, community perceptions and civic engagement • Outreach puts local perspective on larger problems and provides opportunities for involvement • Connects viewers with other members of society, including those disengaged from public television • Directs the civic potential of viewers toward pressing social problems, serving the underserved • Creates a context for convening community change