Citizen Engagement Statistics 2024 - Everything You Need to Know

Are you looking to add Citizen Engagement to your arsenal of tools? Maybe for your business or personal use only, whatever it is – it’s always a good idea to know more about the most important Citizen Engagement statistics of 2024.

My team and I scanned the entire web and collected all the most useful Citizen Engagement stats on this page. You don’t need to check any other resource on the web for any Citizen Engagement statistics. All are here only 🙂

How much of an impact will Citizen Engagement have on your day-to-day? or the day-to-day of your business? Should you invest in Citizen Engagement? We will answer all your Citizen Engagement related questions here.

Please read the page carefully and don’t miss any word. 🙂

On this page, you’ll learn about the following:

Best Citizen Engagement Statistics

Best Citizen Engagement Statistics

☰ Use “CTRL+F” to quickly find statistics. There are total 252 Citizen Engagement Statistics on this page 🙂

Citizen Engagement Market Statistics

These variations may reflect the difficulties that university educated immigrants experience in the labour market, such as the fact that they are less likely to be employed in professional occupations. ^[0]

Citizen Engagement Latest Statistics

According to the 2006 National Civic and Political Health Survey, seven percent of 15to 25year old Americans participated in 10 or more community engagement or political activities within the previous year. ^[1]
For example, according to the 2006 National Civic and Political Health Survey, approximately a quarter of youth who had not participated in civic engagement activities within the last year did not answer any questions regarding current politics correctly. ^[1]
Nearly 30,000 youth aged out of foster care in Fiscal Year 2009, which represents nine percent of the young people involved in the foster care system that year. ^[1]
While youth are more likely to register to vote in school, only about 1 in 10 of them does. ^[1]
The number of social networking site users has grown from 33% of the online population in 2008 to 69% of the online population in 2012. ^[2]
First, 48% of adults directly take part in a civic group or activity. ^[2]
The first finding is that half (48%). ^[2]
35% of American adults have recently worked with fellow citizens to solve a problem in their community. ^[2]
In the second category of public engagement, we found that 39% of American adults have recently contacted a government official or spoken out in a public forum about an issue that is important to them via offline means. ^[2]
In the third category, we found that 34% have done so via online methods. ^[2]
22% of American adults have recently signed a paper petition; 17% have signed a petition online. ^[2]
21% of American adults have recently contacted a government official about an issue that is important to them in person, by phone, or by letter; 18% have done so online, by email, or by text message. ^[2]
7% of American adults have recently called into a live radio or TV show to express an opinion about a political or social issue; 18% have commented on an online news story or blog post about this type of issue. ^[2]
3% of American adults have sent a letter to the editor to a newspaper or magazine by regular mail; 4% have done so online, by email, or by text message. ^[2]
In the fourth category, 39% of American adults took part in some sort of political activity in the context of a social networking site such as Facebook or Twitter in the 12 months preceding our survey. ^[2]
In total, nearly three quarters (72%). ^[2]
On the other hand, when it comes to the 60% of American adults who use social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter, political participation is more balanced between lower and higher income Americans. ^[2]
So, although nearly six in ten SNS using seniors are politically active on these sites, that works out to just 13% of all Americans in the 65+ age group. ^[2]
In 2008, 11% of social networking site users said that they used these sites to post political news for others to read — at the time that worked out to just 3% of all adults. ^[2]
In 2012, 28% of SNS users (representing 17% of all adults) said they posted links to political stories or articles and 33% (representing 19% of all adults). ^[2]
In 2008, 12% of social networking site users (representing 3% of all adults). ^[2]
In 2012, 20% of users (representing 12% of all adults). ^[2]
In 2008, 13% of users (representing 3% of all adults). ^[2]
By 2012, the proportion of social networking site users who do this had risen to 21% (12% of all adults). ^[2]
18% of social networking site users say they have decided to take action involving a political or social issue because of something they read on those sites. ^[2]
As noted above, 39% of Americans performed some sort of political activity on a social networking site in the 12 months preceding our survey. ^[2]
60% have expressed their opinion about a political or social issue viaonlinechannels — for example, by sending an email to a government official, or signing an online petition. ^[2]
53% have expressed their opinion about a political or social issue via offline channels, for example, by sending a letter to a government official, or signing a paper petition. ^[2]
20% have made a political contribution of some kind. ^[2]
This is statistically similar to the 16% rate within the population as a whole. ^[2]
Adding these four categories together, some 83% of political SNS users also get involved in political or social issues in one way or another outside the bounds of social networking sites themselves.4. ^[2]
Of course, this also means that 17% of political SNS users — representing 8% of the total adult population — engage in political activity on social networking sites but in no other online or offline venues. ^[2]
Some 23% of political donors made only online contributions in 2012, yet the substantial majority of political donors (60%). ^[2]
Email is particularly notable in this regard 21% of email users regularly get asked on email to take some action around a political or social issue — that works out to 18% of all Americans who regularly receive mobilization messages via email. ^[2]
Social network users also tend to receive relatively frequent calls to action within the context of these sites, as 13% of SNS users (representing 8% of all adults). ^[2]
25% have delayed making a rent or house payment. ^[2]
Compared with the 44% of Americans who have not experienced any of these impacts The “economically affected” are no less likely to own a cell phone, to use the internet, or to use social networking sites. ^[2]
They are equally likely to publicly speak out about issues that are important to them in online forums, and a bit more likely (by a 41% 36% margin). ^[2]
They are equally likely to take part in political actions or discussions on social networking sites, and are in fact a bit more likely (by a 35% 27% margin). ^[2]
Some 13% have made a campaign contribution in the year preceding our survey (compared with 20% of those who have not experienced any of these impacts). ^[2]
For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. ^[2]
For results based Internet users , the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. ^[2]
Citizenoriented design 100% of IPFs approved in FY21 had a citizen oriented design, meaning, they had at least one citizen engagement mechanism included in the project design. ^[3]
This represents significant progress from the baseline of 60% in FY14 as the percentage of IPF operations with CE mechanisms has totaled 99% or 100% from FY18 to FY21. ^[3]
Beneficiary Feedback indicator in the Results Framework 98% of IPFs approved in FY21 included a indicator in the Results Framework, compared to the baseline of 27% in FY14. ^[3]
While the total percentage of IPFs with BF indicators hovered around 94 to 95% from FY16 to FY19, there has been a further jump to 99% and 98% in FY20 and FY21, showing a near full mainstreaming of BF indicators in IPF operations. ^[3]
Reporting on BF indicators by the third year of implementation 69% of IPFs approved in FY18 reported on BF indicators by their third year of implementation, compared to the baseline of 20% of projects approved in FY14. ^[3]
Also, if the projects that did not include BF indicators in the Results Framework in the PADs are excluded, the compliance rates are 80%, 92%, and 74% for FY15, FY16, and FY17 portfolio projects respectively. ^[3]
Quality of CE tools is steadily improving 14% of CE mechanisms used in FY21 IPF operations were those for “thick” CE, such as participatory/community monitoring, and citizen/user membership in decision. ^[3]
After a year of the KIAT Guru program, student learning outcomes improved from a baseline of 37% to 49% in math, and from 37% to 50% in language. ^[3]
For example, survey respondents from ESAP target communities were 10% more likely to indicate that their local community can contribute to improving service delivery. ^[3]
Fully 63% of all adults have done at least one of the following eleven activities over the previous twelve months. ^[4]
2 Taken together, 34% of all adults did one or two of the above activities this year, while an additional 16% took part in 3. ^[4]
A highly engaged 13% of Americans have taken part in five or more of these activities in the last year. ^[4]
Fully 83% of those who are involved in such groups have communicated with other group members in the past 12 months and they use a range of approaches to keep in touch. ^[4]
Some 51% indicated that they communicated with other group members online as well as offline. ^[4]
An additional 5% communicated using only online tools such as email, and another 28% interacted with group members using only offline means in person, by phone, or through letters or newsletters. ^[4]
Among those individuals who are involved in a community or political group 63% have communicated with other group members by havingfaceto face meetings 60% have done so bytelephone 35% have done so throughprint letter or group newsletter. ^[4]
Fully 57% of wired members of a community or political group communicate with other group members via email — making email nearly as popular as faceto face meetings and telephone communication. ^[4]
Furthermore, among those who are involved in a political or community group 32% of internet users have communicated with group members by using the group’swebsite, and 10% have done so viainstant messaging. ^[4]
24% of social networkers have communicated with group members by using asocial networking site. ^[4]
17% of cell phone owners have communicated with group members bytext messagingon a cell phone or PDA. ^[4]
Over this time period 32% of all adults have signed a petition. ^[4]
One quarter (25%). ^[4]
30% of all adults have contacted a national, state, or local government official about an issue that is important to them. ^[4]
One quarter (24%). ^[4]
10% of all adults have sent a “letter to the editor” to a newspaper or magazine. ^[4]
Five percent of all adults have sent a physical letter to the editor through the US Postal Service, while 10% of internet users have done so via email. ^[4]
8% of all adults have called into a live radio or TV show to express an opinion. ^[4]
among those who sent a letter to the editor using any delivery method, fully 49% did so online or via email, and an additional 22% did so both electronically and via the US Postal Service. ^[4]
Among those who contacted a government official in person, by phone, or by letter, 67% said they received a response to their query, a rate little different from the 64% who received a response after sending a government official an email. ^[4]
Similarly, 66% of individuals who contacted a government official by phone, letter or in person were satisfied with the response they received, once again little different from the 63% who were satisfied with the response to their email communication. ^[4]
Indeed, 15% of internet users (representing 11% of all adults). ^[4]
One in eight internet users (12%). ^[4]
In addition, 31% of bloggers have used their blog to explore political or social issues. ^[4]
Since 13% of internet users maintain an online journal or blog, that means that 4% of internet users have blogged about political or social issues. ^[4]
That works out to 10% of all internet users who used a social networking site for some form of political or civic engagement. ^[4]
Taking these two activities together, fully 19% of all internet users can be considered members of the online “participatory class”. ^[4]
Two in five adults received at least occasional requests to take part politically via email, telephone, or letter, while an additional 25% were asked to do so in person. ^[4]
Although very few (just 3%). ^[4]
Five percent of email users say they receive emails on a daily basis asking them to get involved in a political activity, and an additional 7% receive such emails every few days. ^[4]
Far fewer Americans receive phone calls (1% get phone calls on a daily basis, and 3% do so every few days), letters (1% daily, 3% every few days) or in person requests (1% daily, 1% every few days). ^[4]
As of August 2008, just under one in five (18%). ^[4]
Among these political donors, more than two thirds (69%). ^[4]
Three in ten went online to make a political donation—15% donated money only over the internet, while an additional 15% donated both online and offline. ^[4]
Put another way, 7% of internet users (representing 6% of all adults). ^[4]
In our August sample, Democrats and Republicans were equally likely make a political contribution—23% of Republicans and 24% of Democrats did so. ^[4]
In total, 39% of Democrats who donated money this election cycle did so online, compared to 18% of Republicans. ^[4]
Indeed, fully 21% of Democrats who donated money this election cycle did so only online. ^[4]
Just 4% of Republican donors relied exclusively on the internet to make political contributions. ^[4]
Fully 80% of all Americans have made a contribution to a political, religious, or charitable organization in the past year, with religious and charitable giving being particularly widespread. ^[4]
Among those who contributed to a non profit or charitable organization in the past year, just 12% did so online. ^[4]
(In comparison, 30% of political donors gave money online.). ^[4]
Still, because there are a large number of charitable donors within the population, this means that fully 11% of internet users (representing 9% of all adults). ^[4]
Among those who made at least one political contribution online, 35% contributed a total of $50 or less while 26% contributed between $50 and $100. ^[4]
This is nearly identical to the rates for those who made an offline political donation within this group, 35% donated less than $50, and 27% donated between $50 and $100. ^[4]
Among political donors who gave money online, just 3% said they had contributed more than $500 online in the past year. ^[4]
By contrast, 8% of those who had donated money to a candidate or campaign offline said they had contributed in excess of $500 in the preceding year. ^[4]
Among those who made charitable donations online about one in six (17%). ^[4]
For offline charitable donors, the analogous figures are nearly identical—18% of offline charitable donors contributed more than $500 and 10% contributed in excess of $1000. ^[4]
According to some political scientists, the higher the number of citizens who participate and the more varied their backgrounds, the greater the likelihood that the principle of equality—essential in a democracy—will be respected. ^[0]
In 2013, nearly two in three Canadians were members or participants in a group, organization or association (65%). ^[0]
This proportion was the same as that recorded in 2008, but was slightly higher than in 2003 (61%). ^[0]
From 2003 to 2013, the increase in the rate of participation in groups was twice as high for women as for men. ^[0]
As a result, women were just as likely as men to be members of a group in 2013, while they were less likely in 2003. ^[0]
The proportion of seniors aged 75 and over who were members or participants was up 14 percentage points between 2003 and 2013, from 45% to 59%. ^[0]
In 2013, the three types of groups that Canadians were most likely to participate in were sports or recreational organizations (31%), unions or professional associations (28%) and cultural, educational or hobby organizations (20%). ^[0]
In comparison, only 4% of people aged 15 and over were members of a political party or group and 3% of an ethnic or immigrant association or club. ^[0]
Those that posted a slight increase in participation include unions or professional associations (from 25% to 28%), sports or recreational organizations (from 29% to 31%) and cultural, educational or hobby organizations (from 18% to 20%). ^[0]
For women, it rose from 22% to 27% during the period. ^[0]
However, decreases in participation rates were recorded for religious affiliated groups (from 17% to 14%) and service clubs (from 8% to 6%). ^[0]
In the case of service clubs, the decrease was especially pronounced for men 65 and older 15% of men were members of such clubs in 2013 compared with 21% in 2003. ^[0]
Reflecting their participation in the labour force, adults aged 25 to 64 were most likely to belong to a union or professional association—reaching a high of 37% among those aged 35 to 44 in 2013. ^[0]
In 2013, the participation rate of seniors aged 75 and older (11%) in service clubs was nearly three times higher than that of people aged 25 to 34 (4%). ^[0]
In that age group, the proportion of people who were members of a religious affiliated organization fell from 20% in 2003 to 15% in 2013. ^[0]
In 2003, seniors aged 65 and over represented 20% of members of religious affiliated groups, a proportion that increased to 25% in 2013. ^[0]
Moreover, the percentage of members of a political party or group who were aged 65 and older rose from 18% in 2003 to 29% in 2013. ^[0]
In 2013, 58% of Quebeckers were members or participants in a group or organization, compared with 66% of Ontarians and 73% of British Columbians. ^[0]
There is in fact a degree of association between the percentage of people who were members of a group, organization or association and the volunteer rate recorded in a particular province. ^[0]
According to the 2013 GSS, people who had a higher level of education were much more likely to be civically engaged. ^[0]
In 2013, 78% of those with a university degree aged 25 to 64 years were members or participants of a group, compared to 56% of those with a high school diploma and 41% of those without a high school diploma. ^[0]
For example, among university graduates aged 25 to 64, the participation rate rose from 69% for those whose personal income was under $40,000 to 86% for those earning $80,000 or over. ^[0]
Reflecting the type of employment they held, university graduates (49%) were four times more likely to be members of a union or professional association than those without a high school diploma (12%). ^[0]
While 7% of people aged 25 to 64 whose personal income was $80,000 or over were members or participants in a political party or group, this was the case for 3% of those whose personal income was under $40,000. ^[0]
Viewed from a different angle, 34% of members of a political party or group had a personal income of $80,000 or over, compared with 20% of those who were not part of such a group. ^[0]
Among people aged 25 to 64, those whose personal income was $80,000 or over (46%) were approximately twice as likely to be members of a sports or recreational organization as those whose income was less than $40,000 (22%). ^[0]
In 2013, among the 25to64 age group, 59% of recent immigrants were members or participants in a group, compared with 63% of established immigrants and 67% of non. ^[0]
The differences between immigrants and nonimmigrants were especially pronounced with regard to participation in sports and recreational organizations . ^[0]
While 36% of non immigrants were members of a union or professional association, this was the case for 30% of established immigrants and 28% of recent immigrants. ^[0]
Among university graduates, the differences were even more substantial 55% of non immigrants were members of a union or professional association, compared with 41% of established immigrants and 32% of recent immigrants. ^[0]
Immigrants were also more likely than non immigrants to volunteer and donate to religious organizations. ^[0]
In 2013, 77% of immigrants reported that their religious or spiritual beliefs played a very important role in the way they lived their lives, compared with 62% of non. ^[0]
Moreover, 26% of immigrants participated in religious activities or attended religious services or meetings on a weekly basis, compared with 14% of non. ^[0]
In 2013, 73% of participants had taken part in the activities of the various groups they were part of at least once a month. ^[0]
People whose main organization was a union or professional association were least likely to participate in group activities at least once a month (38%). ^[0]
In comparison, this was the case for 87% of people whose main organization was a religious affiliated group and for 84% of those for whom it was a sports or recreational organization. ^[0]
For example, 54% of members of a sports organization stated that they had taken part in group activities or meetings every week, compared with 10% of members or participants in a union or professional association. ^[0]
In response to this question, most people reported that their level of engagement was the same (59% in 2013). ^[0]
The proportion of respondents whose level of engagement had decreased and that of people whose level had increased over the previous five years were the same (21%). ^[0]
More specifically, 31% of young Canadians had seen their level of engagement with organizations increase over the previous five years, compared with 6% of seniors aged 75 and older. ^[0]
A good number of older people maintained their involvement, since nearly two in three seniors had retained the same level of engagement compared with what it was five years earlier (64% for those aged 65 to 74 and 63% for people aged 75 and older). ^[0]
For example, a growing proportion of members (44%). ^[0]
The participants most likely to use the Internet for their activities were those whose main organization was a political party or group (53%) or a cultural, educational or hobby organization (53%). ^[0]
Conversely, those whose main organization was a religious affiliated group (35%) or a seniors’ group (15%). ^[0]
Seniors aged 65 and over were nearly two times less likely than people aged 15 to 64 to be involved by using the Internet in 2013 (26% and 47% respectively). ^[0]
In 2013, the most frequent types of use were email, blogs, forums or social networks (59%), sharing knowledge and information (58%) and organizing and scheduling activities (53%). ^[0]
In 2013, more than half of members or participants in a group (57%). ^[0]
In 2013, people who were mainly involved with school groups or neighbourhood, civic or community associations were those most likely to have reported that their main form of involvement was volunteering (86%). ^[0]
In addition, 57% of people who participated monthly in group activities had met, within the past month, at least one new person they intended to remain in contact with. ^[0]
In comparison, this was the case for 43% of respondents who participated less frequently in group activities and 36% of those who never took part in them. ^[0]
More specifically, the voting rate fell from 79% for the 1963 federal election to 61% for the last election in 2011. ^[0]
An all time low of 58.5% was recorded in 2008. ^[0]
It is recognized that voter turnout rates, as measured in surveys, tend to be overestimated when compared with official rates. ^[0]
This was also the case in the 2013 GSS among the people eligible to vote in the last federal election, 81% reported having voted. ^[0]
Conversely, the people most likely to have voted were seniors, university graduates, people whose personal income was higher and who were homeowners, and people who were married or in a common. ^[0]
In 2013, for example, the proportion of young adults aged 25 to 34 who reported having voted in the last federal election was 70%, compared with 92% of seniors aged 75 and older. ^[0]
By comparison, the difference in the voting rate between people without a high school diploma (77%) and university graduates (89%). ^[0]
Among older Canadians aged 65 to 74, 86% of those who had not completed high school reported having voted in the last federal election, a proportion higher than for university graduates in the 25to 34 age group (81%). ^[0]
Also, the difference in the voting rate of seniors who had graduated from university compared with those with less than a high school diploma was relatively low. ^[0]
Among people aged 25 to 34, however, the voting rate was 44% for those without a high school diploma compared with 81% for university graduates, a difference of 37 percentage points. ^[0]
For people who were very interested in politics, the probability of having voted was 30 percentage points higher than for people who were not very interested or not at all interested. ^[0]
That difference remained significant, at approximately 20 percentage points, when the other individual characteristics were kept constant in a regression model .Note 10. ^[0]
Among seniors aged 75 and older, the difference in voting rates between those who were very interested in politics and those who were not very or not at all interested was only 14 percentage points (respective rates of 98% and 84%). ^[0]
Among young adults aged 25 to 34, the difference was 37 percentage points. ^[0]
People who followed the news and current affairs on a daily basis were also more likely to have voted in elections (88% compared with 63% of those who rarely or never did, representing a difference of 25 percentage points). ^[0]
The reason given most often was not being interested (21%), followed by being too busy (10%) or not being informed on the issues (10%). ^[0]
Men (11%) had a stronger tendency than women (8%) to report that they were too busy and that they felt that voting would not make a difference (9% compared with 5% of women). ^[0]
Conversely, 13% of women reported that they had not voted because they were not informed on the issues; the corresponding proportion for men was 8%. ^[0]
For young people in the 25to 34 age group, 14% reported that the main reason they had not voted was that they were not informed on the issues. ^[0]
In comparison, this was true of 3% of people aged 55 and over who had not voted. ^[0]
A second reason given more often by young adults aged 25 to 34 was that they were too busy (11% compared with less than 5% of people aged 55 and over). ^[0]
Conversely, older Canadians aged 55 and over who had not voted were more likely to state that illness or disability was the reason . ^[0]
Among people aged 75 and older who had not voted, the proportion was 20%. ^[0]
In this context, it is not surprising to see that the proportion of Canadians who searched for information about a political issue increased significantly, from 26% in 2003 to 39% in 2013. ^[0]
The increase was especially pronounced among young adults aged 25 to 34 half of them (50%). ^[0]
A similar increase was recorded for the 15to 24 age group (53% in 2013 compared with 36%). ^[0]
In fact, the only type of activity for which a slight increase in participation was recorded was boycotting or choosing a particular product for ethical reasons (22% in 2013 compared with 20% in 2003). ^[0]
For example, in 2013, 15% of Canadians reported having attended a public meeting, compared with 22% a decade earlier. ^[0]
In 2013, 12% of Canadians had expressed their views on a political or social issue on an Internet forum or news website, and 11% had worn a badge or T shirt or displayed a lawn sign to support or oppose a political or social cause. ^[0]
In general, women expressed a level of interest in politics that was somewhat lower than that of men (16% said they were very interested in politics compared with 24% of men). ^[0]
In 2013, for example, women were just as likely as men to have voted in the last federal election, to have signed a petition or to have participated in a demonstration or march. ^[0]
However, women did differ from men in that they were less likely to have attended a public meeting (13% compared with 17% of men). ^[0]
In 2013, young people aged 15 to 24 were approximately five times more likely to have participated in a demonstration or protest march compared with seniors aged 65 to 74. ^[0]
Moreover, while 17% of young people aged 15 to 24 had expressed their views on a political or social issue on the Internet, this was the case for 9% of people aged 45 years and over. ^[0]
For example, while 9% of people aged 25 and over who did not have a high school diploma attended a public meeting in 2013, this was the case for 21% of university graduates. ^[0]
As well, university graduates were approximately three times more likely than people without a high school diploma to have expressed their views on an issue by contacting a newspaper or a politician (16% and 5% respectively). ^[0]
In 2013, for example, 10% of people who had no confidence in major corporations had participated in a demonstration or protest march, compared with 2% of those who did have confidence in such corporations. ^[0]
In 2013, for example, 71% of respondents who had no confidence in the Canadian media reported having voted in the last election, compared with 81% of those who had a higher level of confidence in the media. ^[0]
In fact, 65% of people aged 15 and over were members of a group, organization or association, compared with 61% in 2003. ^[0]
In 2013, young voters, people with lower levels of education, people who were less interested in politics and who had lower levels of education and recent immigrants were less likely to have voted in the last federal election. ^[0]
Moreover, seniors who did not have a high school diploma were more likely to have voted in the federal election than people aged 25 to 34 with a university degree. ^[0]
Voter turnout in OECD countries has remained relatively stable since 201013, and was around 69% between 2016. ^[5]
84% of people who have finished tertiary education say they voted, compared to 78% of those educated to secondary level. ^[5]
Voter turnout in 2016 19 ranges from 91% in Australia, where electoral participation is compulsory, to 46.5% in Chile. ^[5]
On average, about twothirds of people registered to vote in OECD countries cast a ballot in the last election (68.7%). ^[5]
The share of people who feel that they have a say in what the government does ranges from 9.6% in France to almost 70% in Lithuania and Greece, and is 34% for OECD countries on average. ^[5]
Conversely, 46% of people, on average, feel they have no say, and the remaining 20% are ambivalent. ^[5]
The OECD average includes both England and Northern Ireland, and a simple average of the 2012 14 (41.6% for have a say, 35.2% for have no say, not shown here). ^[5]
The gender gap in favour of women is largest in Nordic countries and Korea, with Sweden recording the largest difference (where 47.9% of women, and 41.3% of men, feel they have a say in government). ^[5]
In half of the 24 OECD countries for which data on self reported voter turnout is available, slightly more women report going to the polls, ranging from less than 1 percentage point difference in Australia, Israel and Hungary up to 9 points in Lithuania. ^[5]
In all countries for which data are available, young people aged 15 24 have the lowest share of voter turnout 68% for OECD countries on average, versus 85% for people aged 54 or more. ^[5]
In 20 out of 24 OECD countries, people with higher levels of education are more likely to vote. ^[5]
On average, 84% of people who have completed tertiary education say they voted, compared to 78% of those educated to secondary level only. ^[5]
According to oneestimate, less than 1 percent of federal nondefense discretionaryspending goes toward programs that are backed by evidence.7. ^[6]
But data gathered by the city’s Fetal Infant Mortality Review team showed that this factor accounted for only 15 percent of deaths and that more than 60 percent of deaths were the result of premature births. ^[6]
Previously, the City of Milwaukee and the United Way had partnered on an initiative that reduced teen pregnancy by 57 percent in seven years. ^[6]
Amidst all the pandemic disruption, 52% of Gen Z didn’t believe the government had the necessary tools to help them. ^[7]
Born after 1996, eration Z is a diverse group of postmillennial young adults on track to be among the most welleducated, racially and ethnically diverse generation we’ve seen thus far, according to a recent Pew Research Center report. ^[7]
28% of Gen Z’ers surveyed said they turn to social media to seek out information about public services. ^[7]
For example, when managing tax returns, 33% of Gen Z respondents completed the process online via a laptop or desktop computer, while another 16% did so online via mobile device or tablet. ^[7]
Seventy two percent of American Gen Z believe the public sector industry changed the way it delivers services as a result of the pandemic — 38% say that it has changed “a lot.”. ^[7]
Amidst all the disruption, though, 52% of American Gen Z’ers believe the government did not As it stands, only 55% of Gen Z’ers feel that it’s easier to get help from the government online than in person. ^[7]
As it stands, only 55% of Gen Z’ers feel that it’s easier to get help from the government online than in person. ^[7]
The interventions were also effective in increasing health consequences (d = .16, 95% CI .06, .27); health behaviour self efficacy (d = .41, 95% CI .16, .65) and perceived social support (d = .41, 95% CI .23, .65). ^[8]
In summary, it seems that community engagement is likely to have a positive effect on social inequalities [6,9], which might in turn reduce health inequalities [8], although the direct effect on health inequalities is still uncertain [6,9]. ^[8]
Of the post test effect size estimates, 81 studies (42.4%). ^[8]
Of the 131 studies included in the meta analysis, 113 (86.3%) were conducted in the USA, five (3.8%) were conducted in the UK, five (3.8%) were conducted in Canada, and eight (6.1%). ^[8]
In terms of publication date, 63 (48.1%) were published in the 1990s, 62 (47.3%) in the 2000s, and 6 (4.6%). ^[8]
The largest group of studies was classified as being primarily targeted at or delivered to ethnic minority groups (n = 56, 42.7%), followed by socioeconomic position (n = 34, 26.0%). ^[8]
There was also a large group of studies (n = 21, 16.0%). ^[8]
The majority of the studies (n = 79; 60.3%). ^[8]
and/or adults (age 22–54 years; n = 65, 49.6%). ^[8]
For sex, 79 (60.3%) studies had mixed sex samples, 49 (37.4%) had predominantly female samples, and three (2.3%). ^[8]
The most common setting for interventions was in the community (n = 56, 42.7%). ^[8]
Many interventions were also conducted via media tailored to the participants’ needs (e.g., tailored newsletters or information sheets, n = 53, 40.5%) or mass media (n = 21; 16%). ^[8]
The most common strategy was education provision (n = 105, 80.2%). ^[8]
Advice (n = 71, 54.2%), social support (n = 58, 44.3%), and skill development training (n = 51, 38.9%). ^[8]
Interventions were most commonly delivered by peers (n = 49, 37.4%) and by community members (n = 58, 44.3%). ^[8]
Fifty nine (45%). ^[8]
Twentysix (19.8%). ^[8]
On this basis, sixty nine (52.7%) trials were considered to have an overall low risk of bias and 62 (47.3%). ^[8]
95% CI = 95% confidence interval; n = number of effect sizes, τ2 = between studies variance. ^[8]
The pooled effect size estimate across interventions is positive and statistically significant (as indicated by the p values and 95% confidence intervals). ^[8]
CI = −.23, .34), although significant variation (I2 = 94.43%). ^[8]
95% CI n Average sample size . ^[8]
ES = effect size estimate, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval of the pooled effect size estimate; n = the number of effect size estimates in the subgroup; SD = standard deviation. ^[8]
ES = effect size estimate, 95% CI = 95% confidence interval of the pooled effect size estimate; n = the number of effect size estimates in the subgroup; CE = community engagement. ^[8]
95% CI n Health behaviours a Health risks .24. ^[8]
n = the number of effect size estimates in each category, of the predictor variable; ES = effect size; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. ^[8]
n = the number of effect size estimates in each category of the predictor variable; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. ^[8]
Intervention setting Pooled effect size estimate 95% CI n Community setting .25. ^[8]
95% CI = 95% confidence interval; n = the number of effect size estimates in each category, of the predictor variable. ^[8]
95% CI n Health consequences a Less than 6 months .36. ^[8]
ES = effect size; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; n = the number of effect size estimates in each category, of the predictor variable. ^[8]
n = the number of effect size estimates in each category of the predictor variable; ES = effect size; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. ^[8]
95% CI n General population .22. ^[8]
The results indicated that, although sample size was not a significant predictor of the effect size estimate , it explained about 10% of the variance in the effect size estimates. ^[8]
In support of previous research and proposals [6,8,9], however, there was some evidence to suggest that community engagement interventions improve social inequalities (as measured by social support in seven studies d = .41, 95% CI .23, .65). ^[8]
In the vast majority of interventions synthesised in the meta analysis (118 out of 131; 90%). ^[8]
For studies which are not trials, this question should simply read ‘Is the attrition rate less than 30% of the original participants?’. ^[8]
Yes difference in attrition rates of the groups is <10% and <30% overall. ^[8]

I know you want to use Citizen Engagement Software, thus we made this list of best Citizen Engagement Software. We also wrote about how to learn Citizen Engagement Software and how to install Citizen Engagement Software. Recently we wrote how to uninstall Citizen Engagement Software for newbie users. Don’t forgot to check latest Citizen Engagement statistics of 2024.

Reference

statcan – https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2015006-eng.htm.
youth – https://youth.gov/youth-topics/civic-engagement-and-volunteering.
pewresearch – https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/.
worldbank – https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/citizen-engagement.
pewresearch – https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2009/09/01/the-current-state-of-civic-engagement-in-america/.
oecd-ilibrary – https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/2797cfd9-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/2797cfd9-en.
ssir – https://ssir.org/articles/entry/community_engagement_matters_now_more_than_ever.
salesforce – https://www.salesforce.com/blog/public-sector-gen-z-citizen-engagement/.
nih – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374501/.

How Useful is Citizen Engagement

On the surface, citizen engagement seems like an ideal concept. It promotes transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in decision-making processes. It enables individuals to have a voice in issues that matter to them and promotes their active involvement in shaping their communities. From town hall meetings to online forums, there are countless ways for citizens to engage with their government and share their perspectives.

But moving beyond the theory, we encounter various challenges and limitations when it comes to the effectiveness of citizen engagement. One major concern is the issue of access and inclusion. Not all citizens have the same level of opportunity to engage in civic processes. Factors such as socioeconomic status, education level, and location can significantly impact an individual’s ability to participate in decision-making. As a result, certain groups may be marginalized or underrepresented in discussions that directly affect them.

Furthermore, even when citizens do have the opportunity to engage, their input is not always taken into consideration by decision-makers. There may be instances where citizens feel that their voices are dismissed or that their feedback does not lead to meaningful action. This can lead to frustration and disillusionment among the public, which in turn can undermine the legitimacy of the entire engagement process.

Additionally, there is the issue of expertise. While citizen engagement is valuable for gathering input from a diverse range of perspectives, it does not always account for the expertise needed to make informed decisions. In many cases, complex policy issues require a level of technical knowledge or experience that may be beyond the scope of the average citizen. As a result, there may be limitations to how much citizens can contribute to certain decision-making processes.

Despite these limitations, citizen engagement remains a crucial pillar of democracy. It provides individuals with a sense of agency and empowerment, fostering a culture of active citizenship. When done effectively, citizen engagement can lead to more responsive and accountable governance, as well as policies that better reflect the needs and desires of the population.

Ultimately, the usefulness of citizen engagement depends on how it is implemented and integrated into the broader governance framework. Governments and policymakers must strive to create inclusive, transparent, and meaningful opportunities for citizen engagement, taking into account the diverse perspectives and needs of their constituents. Only then can citizen engagement truly fulfill its potential as a tool for promoting democratic values and improving decision-making processes.

In Conclusion

Be it Citizen Engagement benefits statistics, Citizen Engagement usage statistics, Citizen Engagement productivity statistics, Citizen Engagement adoption statistics, Citizen Engagement roi statistics, Citizen Engagement market statistics, statistics on use of Citizen Engagement, Citizen Engagement analytics statistics, statistics of companies that use Citizen Engagement, statistics small businesses using Citizen Engagement, top Citizen Engagement systems usa statistics, Citizen Engagement software market statistics, statistics dissatisfied with Citizen Engagement, statistics of businesses using Citizen Engagement, Citizen Engagement key statistics, Citizen Engagement systems statistics, nonprofit Citizen Engagement statistics, Citizen Engagement failure statistics, top Citizen Engagement statistics, best Citizen Engagement statistics, Citizen Engagement statistics small business, Citizen Engagement statistics 2024, Citizen Engagement statistics 2021, Citizen Engagement statistics 2024 you will find all from this page. 🙂

We tried our best to provide all the Citizen Engagement statistics on this page. Please comment below and share your opinion if we missed any Citizen Engagement statistics.

Citizen Engagement Statistics 2024 – Everything You Need to Know