Understanding Civic Engagement in Houston
How residents participate in their community to build a vibrant Houston region with opportunity for all.
Civic engagement includes a variety of different activities an individual can take to shape the future of their community and to improve the condition of the community members. A civically-engaged resident is invested in their community’s overall well-being, that of its most marginalized groups, and actively works toward its betterment by engaging in the political process, participating in civic institutions and giving back. When Houstonians stay connected and engaged, we cultivate trust and achieve more as a region. Places with high levels of civic engagement have lower levels of unemployment, better schools, stronger health and more responsive governments. However, widespread participation is ultimately dependent on the levels of the perceived extent to which that community, society or government has held up its end of the social contract and developed trust among members. Since not all residents participate at the ideal levels, the needs and concerns of our most marginalized residents may go unheard and unaddressed.
The more we can build trust and connection among our neighbors to ensure that the needs of all our residents are being met, levels of civic engagement in the Houston region will rise.
Vote for what matters to you
What issues do you think need attention, resources, and collaborative action?
0 votes
There are three subtopics for
civic engagement in Houston
Social Connectedness
46%
of residents in Harris County said most people can be trusted in 2020.
Communities with higher levels of trust and connectedness are better able to meet the needs of their residents. And while progress is being made, Houston still lags behind the rest of the country in this important area.
In this page we talk about the following:
Social Connectedness in Houston
Despite national trends, levels of trust in our community and local government are on the rise
Social connectedness and trust — foundational to a well-functioning society — are on the rise in our region, though loneliness levels remain high.
Why social connectedness matters to civic engagement in Houston
Social connectedness is the feeling of belonging — not only in the quality and quantity of our personal relationships, but also in our professional ones, our broader social network, our neighborhood, our community, and beyond (e.g., I’m from the Fifth Ward, I’m a Houstonian, I’m a Texan, I’m an American, I am a citizen of the world). It’s about having an identity, social support system, and community — however that is defined — by the number of close friends we have, our familial relationships, our race or ethnicity, religion, gender identity, profession, alma mater, or even favorite sports team. It’s the sense of belonging and well-being we feel when we are members of a community, we trust society in general and our government, and we have people we can turn to for help.
Why is social connectedness important? People with high levels of social connectedness have strong social support networks;1, 2 have better physical and mental health;3 are less likely to be derailed by negative or stressful events like job loss,4 death,5 or impacts from disasters;6, 7 and are less likely to die prematurely.8, 9 Social connectedness builds social trust — the feeling when you have faith that most people can be trusted — and is correlated with higher volunteer rates and charitable giving levels.10 At the society and economic level, macroeconomists have shown that as trust improves, economic prosperity grows.11 Ideally, we would all have high levels of trust for others in our community and in our government, but the degree to which we feel socially connected and trustful is affected by historical and present circumstances. Historically marginalized groups that have faced discrimination and systemic barriers tend to have lower feelings of connectedness and trust.12, 13 This makes fostering collaboration and effecting positive change all the more difficult.
The more we understand the strengths and links among social networks across the three-county area, the more we can do to bridge gaps and foster the connections necessary to improve our region’s collective well-being and level of civic engagement.
The data
Access to civic and social organizations in Houston increases
Membership in civic and social organizations (non-profit organizations, charities, advocacy groups, meetup groups, social support groups, etc.) in our region is one of the best measures of social connectedness.14 Social connectivity is enhanced when people belong to volunteer groups or civic clubs and organizations because people who belong to such groups tend to trust others who belong to the same group.15
There are fewer organizations relative to the population in Houston’s three-county region than in Texas and the U.S. overall despite access steadily increasing in our region and declining at the state and national level. Across the three-county area, there are 3.2 civic and social organizations for every 100,000 residents, a figure that lags the state (5.2 per 100,000 residents) and nation (7.8 per 100,000 residents).
Historically, Harris County has had the highest rate of civic and social organizations per 100,000 residents than Fort Bend and Montgomery counties, but in 2019, the rate in Montgomery County grew significantly and is now on par with Harris County. Fort Bend has the lowest rate with 2.0 civil-society organizations per 100,000 residents.
Access to these organizations is critical, but whether we participate in them is a different measure of social connectedness.
According to data from the 2018 Houston Civic Health Index, about 35% of residents in Greater Houston say they participated in an organized group between 2013 and 2016. This is about two percentage points lower than the national average, though Greater Houston ranked 24th out of 50 large metro areas in the U.S.
Residents participated in religious organizations at a rate of 18.4%. This was followed closely by neighborhood and community groups. Greater Houston residents are comparatively more active in religious institutions and sports organizations compared to other large metros at 15th and 14th out of 50, respectively, but in each case, participation rates are less than one percentage point off from the national average.
Feelings of loneliness affect more than half of Houstonians
Social connection’s benefits are far reaching. The diversity, quality, and depth of our various social connections can protect us from feelings of isolation and loneliness. Our risk for loneliness is increased by lack of participation in social groups, among other behaviors.16 Loneliness is linked not only to mental health issues like depression and anxiety, but also physical health impacts.17 People with high rates of loneliness are more likely to experience heart disease and stroke,18 compromised immune systems,19, 20 and even premature death.21
Levels of loneliness are difficult to measure, but the industry-standard is the UCLA Loneliness Scale which uses a series of statements to calculate a loneliness score based on responses.22 As part of a national study, Cigna created a Loneliness Index based on a survey of this assessment.23 The index stipulates that the higher the score, the lonelier people are. Possible loneliness scores range from 20 to 80.
According to the Cigna Loneliness Index, the average loneliness score for the nine-county Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) ticked up slightly between 2018 and 2019, suggesting that Houstonians have not become significantly lonelier. Loneliness scores in Houston have been slightly higher than in the nation overall.
According to the Cigna Loneliness Index and Survey, about 53% of Houstonians sometimes or always felt lonely in 2019 — about five percentage points higher than in 2018; and the share who felt they have people to talk to and are part of a group of friends declined about eight percentage points to 72% and 65%, respectively.
Nationally, the study found that younger generations are lonelier than older generations, individuals from low-income households are lonelier than their higher-income counterparts, and those living in rural areas are lonelier than those in urban and suburban communities.
Growing levels of trust in Harris County
Social trust is generally about having faith that most people in society play by the rules, the rules are fair and the same for everyone, and everyone has a fair shot to pursue the life they want. Established research has found that corruption,24 segregation,25 and economic inequality26 are the factors most closely linked to distrust, meaning as levels of corruption, segregation, and inequality fall, social trust will increase. More recently, research is emerging that suggests social trust is increasingly influenced by the degree of political polarization within a community.27
Countries that have high levels of social and government trust tend to have stronger democracies,28 richer economies,29 and better health.30 Neighborhoods that have high levels of social trust are more likely to work together on important projects to improve their community.31 However, the percentage of residents in the greater Houston area who report working with their neighbors to improve something in the neighborhood in 2018 (latest available) was 2.5 percentage points below the national average.32
The 2020 Kinder Houston Area Survey (KHAS) asked residents of Harris County whether most people can be trusted or whether you can’t be too careful with people, and 46% believe they can trust most of their neighbors.
While 2020 data for Fort Bend and Montgomery counties aren’t available, historical data shows that levels of trust were on the rise after a dip in 2015. Between 2015 and 2018, residents’ level of trust has increased from 32% to 43% across the three-county area. Levels of trust in the U.S. overall appear to be higher than levels in our region. The Pew Research Center reported that 52% of Americans in 2018 believe that most people can be trusted — nine percentage points higher than in the Houston area. Levels of trust in 2018 were highest in Fort Bend County, which is also among the most racially/ethnically diverse in the nation.
Levels of trust differ by demographic characteristics. Asian American and white respondents who live in Harris County reported the highest levels of trust in the 2020 KHAS, whereas Black and Hispanic residents reported the lowest trust levels. Disparities in levels of trust by race/ethnicity — also evident in the 2018 survey and consistent with national trends — signal that more can be done to facilitate connectedness within and among our diverse communities. The low levels of trust by Black and Hispanic residents may be explained by historic and contemporary discrimination suffered by those groups.33 Black and Hispanic residents in Houston’s three-county region are more likely to live in low-income communities that tend to be less trusting as these neighborhoods have historically been marginalized and received limited public investment for community and economic development.34
Just over half of residents trust their local government
Social capital has been shown to influence the extent to which residents trust their government.35 When residents trust their governments to do the right thing and work in the best interest of our communities, they are more likely to comply with rules and policies, particularly during natural disasters or times of crisis.36
When asked whether their local government can be trusted to do what’s best for the community, Harris County residents responded mostly positively (56%) in 2019, a marginal increase since 2014. At the national level, public trust in the federal government remains low with only 17% of Americans who said they trust the government in Washington in 2019 to do what is right (in 2020, that rate jumped to 24%).
Historical data on the three-county region shows that the majority of residents in Harris and Fort Bend counties believed in 2014 that local government can be trusted to do what’s best. Montgomery County reported less trust with only 48.8% of residents responding they believe in local government to do what is best for the community.
Helpful Articles by Understanding Houston:
- Houston is Engaged
- Key Insights From Our Mental Health Data Dive + Workshop
- Houston is Resilient
- How Community Gardens Fight Against Food Insecurity in Greater Houston
- Three Facts About Natural Disasters in Houston
References:
- Jose, P. E., Ryan, N., & Pryor, J. (2012). Does social connectedness promote a greater sense of well‐being in adolescence over time?. Journal of research on adolescence, 22(2), 235-251.
- Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. The gerontologist, 37(4), 433-440.
- Kawachi, Ichiro, Bruce P. Kennedy, and Roberta Glass. “Social Capital and Self-Rated Health: A Contextual Analysis.” American Journal of Public Health 89, no. 8 (1999): 1187-1193.
- Gush, K., Scott, J., & Laurie, H. (2015). Job loss and social capital: The role of family, friends and wider support networks (No. 2015-07). ISER Working Paper Series.
- Norris, F. H., & Murrell, S. A. (1990). Social support, life events, and stress as modifiers of adjustment to bereavement by older adults. Psychology and aging, 5(3), 429.
- Kaniasty, K. Z. (1991). Social support as a mediator of stress following natural disaster: A test of a social support deterioration model using measures of kin support, nonkin support, and social embeddedness (Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville).
- Nitschke, J. P., Forbes, P. A., Ali, N., Cutler, J., Apps, M. A., Lockwood, P. L., & Lamm, C. (2021). Resilience during uncertainty? Greater social connectedness during COVID‐19 lockdown is associated with reduced distress and fatigue. British Journal of Health Psychology, 26(2), 553-569.
- Seeman, T. E., Kaplan, G. A., Knudsen, L., Cohen, R., & Guralnik, J. (1987). Social network ties and mortality among tile elderly in the Alameda County Study. American journal of epidemiology, 126(4), 714-723.
- Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109(2), 186-204.
- Wang, L., & Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 23.
- Conal Smith, “Trust and total factor productivity: What do we know about effect size and causal pathways? ,” Victoria University of Wellington, 2020.
- Rothstein, Bo, and Eric M. Uslaner. “All For All: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust.” World Politics 58, no. 1 (2005): 41-72.
- Uslaner, Eric M. “The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
- Putnam RD. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2001
- Rupasingha, Anil, Stephan J. Goetz, and David Freshwater. “The Production of Social Capital in US Counties.” The Journal of Socio-Economics 35, no. 1 (2006): 83-101.
- Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, The Potential Public Health Relevance of Social Isolation and Loneliness: Prevalence, Epidemiology, and Risk Factors, Public Policy & Aging Report, Volume 27, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 127–130, https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prx030
- Yanguas, J., Pinazo-Henandis, S., & Tarazona-Santabalbina, F. J. (2018). The complexity of loneliness. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 89(2), 302.
- Valtorta, N. K., Kanaan, M., Gilbody, S., Ronzi, S., & Hanratty, B. (2016). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart, 102(13), 1009-1016.
- LeRoy, A. S., Murdock, K. W., Jaremka, L. M., Loya, A., & Fagundes, C. P. (2017). Loneliness predicts self-reported cold symptoms after a viral challenge. Health Psychology, 36(5), 512.
- Kroenke, C. H., Michael, Y. L., Poole, E. M., Kwan, M. L., Nechuta, S., Leas, E., … & Chen, W. Y. (2017). Postdiagnosis social networks and breast cancer mortality in the After Breast Cancer Pooling Project. Cancer, 123(7), 1228-1237.
- Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS medicine, 7(7), e1000316.
- Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(3), 472.
- Bruce, L. D., Wu, J. S., Lustig, S. L., Russell, D. W., & Nemecek, D. A. (2019). Loneliness in the United States: A 2018 national panel survey of demographic, structural, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics. American Journal of Health Promotion, 33(8), 1123-1133.
- Richey, S. (2010). The impact of corruption on social trust. American Politics Research, 38(4), 676-690.
- Uslaner, E. M. (2012). Trust, diversity, and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom. In Trust (pp. 69-97). Brill.
- Rothstein, Bo, and Eric M. Uslaner (2005).
- Vallier, K. (2020). Trust in a polarized age. Oxford University Press.
- Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2008). Social Trust and Attitudes toward Democracy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(4), 706–724. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25167660
- Beugelsdijk, S., De Groot, H. L., & Van Schaik, A. B. (2004). Trust and economic growth: a robustness analysis. Oxford economic papers, 56(1), 118-134.
- Subramanian, S. V., Kim, D. J., & Kawachi, I. (2002). Social trust and self-rated health in US communities: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Urban Health, 79(1), S21-S34.
- Uslaner, E. M. (2002).
- Lappie, John, Jeff Coates, and Lisa Matthews. “2018 Houston Civic Health Index.” (2018).
- Uslaner, Eric M. “Where You Stand Depends Upon Where your Grandparents Sat: The Inheritability of Generalized Trust.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72, no. 4 (2008): 725-740.
- Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky, and Shana Pribesh. “Powerlessness and the Amplification of Threat: Neighborhood Disadvantage, Disorder, and Mistrust.” American Sociological Review 66, no. 4 (2001): 568.
- Keele, L. (2007). Social capital and the dynamics of trust in government. American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 241-254.
- OECD, O. (2013). Trust in government, policy effectiveness and the governance agenda. Government at a Glance, 2013.
Voter & Non-Electoral Participation
831,000+
Houston’s three-county region added over 831,000 registered voters from 2008 – 2020.
Voting is essential to a democratic society, and while more people are registering to vote throughout our region, that doesn’t always lead to increased turnout on election day.
In this page we talk about the following:
Voter & Non-Electoral Participation in Houston
Voter registration and turnout levels in the region have risen while non-electoral participation lags
The 2020 election inspired the biggest increase in voter registration and turnout in the region’s recent history, but Houston has more work to do on other measures of civic engagement.
Why voter and non-electoral participation matters to civic engagement in Houston
Of the various ways in which citizens can engage in a civil society, the act of selecting our representation at the local, state and federal levels is one of the most obvious and basic. Research has shown that Americans are more likely to vote if they know and understand the process, if the rules and regulations are easy to navigate, and if they believe their vote “matters.” In October 2020, the Cost of Voting Index found that Texas makes the process of registering to vote, finding where to vote and casting a ballot the most challenging among all states in the nation by having a restrictive voter registration process, fewer polling sites, and voter ID laws. Contacting officials once they have been elected is also an important indicator of civic engagement as it requires citizens to remain up to date on issues and to voice opinions and preferences on public policy.
By coming together with an informed perspective on civic participation in our region, we can do more not only to address barriers to higher voter turnout but also continued engagement between elections; thereby, increasing civic engagement in Houston communities and accountability in the political process.
The data
Houston’s voter registration rate continues to grow
In the United States, citizens 18 and older can vote in an election. The U.S. Constitution grants the states the responsibility of overseeing federal and local elections. This means the way in which elections are administered differs from state to state. For example, in all but one state a person must register to vote before they are allowed to participate in an election. In Texas, voting requires registration at least 30 days prior to an upcoming election. The applicant must submit an application to the county registrar and meet several requirements in order to become a registered voter.
The total number of registered voters in the three-county area has grown steadily over the past 12 years in parallel with the growth in the overall population. Since the 2008 presidential election, Harris County has gained over half a million registered voters. Since 2008, Fort Bend and Montgomery counties have increased their number of registered voters by 61% and 52%, respectively, compared to 27% for Harris County.
Texas saw its number of registered voters decline immediately after the 2008 presidential election, but the number of registered voters has steadily increased since 2010. As of 2020, Texas now has nearly 17 million registered voters. At the national level, the change in registered voters has fluctuated over the past 12 years. However, it reached a new high of 168 million registered voters in 2020.
Registering to vote is the first step to voting in Houston and national elections. All three counties have higher shares of eligible voters who are registered voters than both the state and the nation. Despite this strength, there is still a large number of people who are eligible to vote but who are not yet registered.
In Fort Bend, 95% of the eligible population is registered to vote, as is 93% in Montgomery. Combined, this represents approximately 50,000 people who could be registered. The Harris County voter registration rate is 88%, reflecting about 320,000 eligible voters who are not yet registered. Harris County’s voter registration rate fell from 88% in 2008 to 82% in 2014 and did not fully rebound to its 2008 level until the 2020 presidential election.
Research shows that voter registration rates vary by demographic characteristics. For example, educational attainment plays a role in the likelihood of registering to vote. In the nine-county Houston metropolitan area in 2020, citizens of voting age with lower levels of education were less likely to be registered voters than their more educated counterparts. The registration rate for residents with at least a bachelor’s degree was 25 percentage points higher than those with a high school diploma only.
In 2020, Black citizens had the highest voter registration rate among selected racial/ethnic groups (82%). Additionally, Hispanic citizens were 13 and 22 percentage points less likely to be registered to vote than white or Black residents, respectively. Between 2016 and 2020, Black voters made the most gains in registration (11-point increase), while Hispanic registered voters increased 7 percentage points. Between 2016 and 2020, the share of citizens who registered to vote increased for all groups including Hispanics but estimates indicate their voter registration rates remain the lowest of the three racial/ethnic groups in this data set.
While not represented in the data set above, nationally, Asian Americans increased their turnout rate by more than any other racial or ethnic group between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, with 59% of Asian-American citizens of voting age voting. Voting rates vary depending on Asian-American ethnic group with Indians (71%), Japanese (66%), and Koreans (60%) voting at the highest rates (and much higher compared to 2016). Furthermore, naturalized citizens were more likely to register to vote than native-born citizens.
2020 election turnout sets records, still lags behind U.S. participation rates
Voting in the U.S. is not mandatory and is considered both a right and a privilege. Depending on eligibility criteria, which states determine, voting can be done in-person or by-mail and conducted early or on election day. As Houston’s population grows we expect to see more voters in our region, and voter turnout in presidential elections typically exceeds that in midterm elections. Nearly 2.3 million people in our region cast a ballot In the 2020 Presidential Election. About 72% were cast in Harris County (1.6 million), 16% in Fort Bend (357,000) and 12% in Montgomery County (271,000).
Voter turnout rates can be measured in two ways: by the number of people who cast a ballot among those who registered to vote; and the number of people who cast a ballot among those who are of voting-age U.S. citizens. The former indicator tells us the level of participation among those who are eligible, whereas the latter tells us something about the levels of interest in the political process in a region overall.
The 2020 presidential election inspired the highest levels of voter participation in each of the three counties, as well as in Texas and the U.S., despite occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Voter turnout increased almost 10 percentage points in Fort Bend between 2016 and 2020, compared to a 7.8-point increase in both Harris and Montgomery counties. This high voter turnout continues the trend that started with the 2018 midterm election, in which voter turnout rose more than 20 percentage points in all three counties compared to 2014. However, our region’s presidential and midterm turnout rates continue to lag considerably compared to those of the U.S. overall.
The region and state’s lag in voter turnout does improve when comparing the citizen voting age population turnout instead of the registered voter population turnout. For example, 71% of Fort Bend’s citizen voting age population voted in the 2020 election. Montgomery saw 68% of its voting age population cast votes in 2020 as well. These turnout rates are higher than the U.S. rate of 67%. In Harris County, 59% of those eligible to vote in the 2020 election did so. In other words, over 40% of Harris County’s eligible voters didn’t participate in the most recent election. Even in Fort Bend and Montgomery counties, one in four eligible voters sat out the 2020 election. Although Houston’s voter registration rate is higher than the national average, the turnout rate still lags.
While there are many ideas on how to improve turnout for Texas voting, including same-day voter registration and automatic registration for 18-year-olds, some political analysts believe the lack of competitive races at the higher levels of government dissuade potential voters in Texas from exercising their right to vote. Encouraging more people to run is an important aspect of the electoral system that can lead to an increase in voter participation.1
In addition, given the racial/ethnic diversity of our region, targeted voter registration and voter turnout efforts among the Hispanic/Latino population and less educated populations are necessary to increase voter participation in the region overall. Research has shown campaign or “get out the vote” outreach efforts can promote voter turnout. Nationally, while most eligible voters reported that they received a campaign contact before the 2020 election, lower shares of Hispanic/Latino and Asian-American voters reported being contacted across various methods (e.g., mail, flyers, text message, email, phone call, home visit).
Early voting in Houston is an increasingly popular choice
One aspect of the states’ responsibility in overseeing elections is to decide if, when, and how to allow voting opportunities prior to Election Day. Research indicates early voting is an effective approach to increasing voter turnout — particularly among women and those of working age — by allowing increased time and flexibility to cast a vote.2
Early voting in Texas takes place in one of two ways: by showing up in person during the prescribed early-voting period or by voting by mail. Early voting has been a consistently popular choice with voters in the three-county area. In fact, for every November election in the past 12 years, more than 50% of the total votes were cast during the early-voting period. The 2020 election saw an even greater increase in early voting, with more than 88% of the votes in the three-county region being cast before Election Day, likely because of the pandemic and a desire to avoid crowds.
Access to early voting in Texas varies by method. Any registered voter may vote in person at early voting locations, but to vote early by mail, the registered voter must complete an application for the ballot by mail (previously referred to as “absentee voting”) if eligibility criteria are met. In Texas, voting in the 2020 election was most likely to happen in-person — 90% of early ballots were cast at early voting locations — rather than by mail. Fort Bend and Montgomery follow a similar pattern, with 91% and 90%, respectively. In Harris, in-person early voting was slightly lower at 88%.
It is not possible to compare early-voting methods across the U.S. as there are significant differences in election laws. For example, five states conduct all elections entirely by mail: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah.
Contacting public officials is a rare occurrence in Greater Houston
The ability to contact elected officials to discuss our concerns is one of the trademark features of American democracy. However, few in our region take advantage of this right.
In 2019, 6.5% of the population in Houston (MSA) contacted a public official at least once a year. This is similar to the state rate but lower than the national rate of almost 9%. When people don’t reach out to their elected officials, not only do they lose the chance to advocate for their position, the elected official loses the ability to understand how a policy will directly affect their constituents.
Census participation is an important component of civic health
Another constitutionally designated civic activity is participation in the decennial census. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a count of every person living in the United States. The importance of an accurate count cannot be overstated. Not only does it determine how many seats a state has in the House of Representatives, it is also used to distribute hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds. In 2016, Texas received an estimated $44 billion from the 10 largest census-guided programs. An undercount can affect the distribution of federal money for the next 10 years. For example, according to a study by the George Washington Institute of Public Policy, a 1% undercount in Texas’s 2010 population would have cost the state almost $300 million in tax-payer dollars returned to Texas in 2015.3
Being proactive in responding to the census count ensures states continue to receive the correct amount of federal dollars for health clinics (and other similar entities within the healthcare industry), funding for school lunch programs, recovery initiatives for natural disasters in Houston and other critical programs. Households that don’t return their census forms are counted by census workers walking neighborhoods and visiting households, which increases the chance of not being counted. In fact, CUNY’s Center for Urban Research has found that low self-response rates correlate to lower census quality where people are not counted.4
While most states set up a statewide commission to help ensure an accurate count, Texas was one of three states that did not support this initiative. Given the lack of coordination at the state level, local governments tried to fill this role. Fort Bend created a Complete Count Committee, while Harris County and the City of Houston teamed up to create their own Complete Count Committee with a website, outreach program, and toolkit.
With those efforts, over 75% of households in Fort Bend County self-responded to the 2020 Census online, by phone, or by mail. This was a three-point increase from the 2010 Census and is above both the state and national rates. Montgomery County’s self-response rate was 67% for both the 2010 and 2020 census. Despite the outreach efforts, Harris County’s rate fell by two points from 65% in 2010 to 63% in 2020.
Continue reading about social connectedness and volunteering in Houston
Helpful Articles by Understanding Houston:
- Houston is Generous
- Houston is Engaged
- Greater Houston Area Sets Record Numbers in 2020 Voter Participation
- A Look at Electoral Participation in Houston: Past and Present
- The Importance of the Census in COVID’s America
References:
- Marschall, Melissa and John Lappie. 2018. “Turnout in Local Elections: Is Timing Really Everything?” Election Law Journal 17 (3): 221-33
- Kaplan, Ethan, and Haishan Yuan. 2020. “Early Voting Laws, Voter Turnout, and Partisan Vote Composition: Evidence from Ohio.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 12 (1): 32-60. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20180192 (Viewed on 6/14/2021)
- Reamer, A. (2018). Counting for dollars 2020: the role of the decennial census in the geographic distribution of federal funds. Report 2: estimating fiscal costs of a census undercount to states. George Washington Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from https://gwipp.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2181/f/downloads/GWIPP%20Reamer%20Fiscal%20Impacts%20of%20Census%20Undercount%20on%20FMAP-based%20Programs%2003-19-18.pdf
- Center for Urban Research at The Graduate Center of City University of New York (2020). Census Self-Response Rates Mapped and Analyzed: 2000, 2010, and (soon) 2020. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Centers-and-Institutes/Center-for-Urban-Research/CUR-research-initiatives/Census-2020/Census-Self-Response-Rates-Mapped-and-Analyzed-2000,-2010,-and-(soon)-2020
Philanthropy & Volunteering
$3.6 Billion
Houstonians reported $3.6 billion in charitable contributions to the IRS in 2018.
Charitable giving via time or money is a key component of any engaged community and the Houston area is generous. But how do we compare to the rest of America?
In this page we talk about the following:
Philanthropy and Volunteering in Houston
Volunteer activity and financial donations are a force of good throughout our region
Nonprofits in Houston’s three-county region advance civic engagement not only by improving the condition of our residents and their communities but also through the strengthening of social ties among those who actively participate.
Why philanthropy and volunteering matter to civic engagement in Houston
A strong local nonprofit sector plays an essential role in building healthy communities — the ultimate goal of civic engagement. Not only do they provide critical services and resources to meet residents’ needs, but they also strengthen social connectedness across and among donors, volunteers and clients.1 The nonprofit sector provides opportunities for residents to actively participate in the betterment of their communities by volunteering time, talent, treasure or ties. Giving back to one’s community fosters a sense of community and has personal benefits. Studies have shown that participating in volunteer opportunities or making charitable donations can increase general life satisfaction, happiness, self-esteem and overall psychological well-being.2
The more we understand how Houstonians improve their communities through the nonprofit sector, we can work to create a region where everyone gives back.
The data
Almost half of residents donate $25 or more to nonprofits
When people feel connected to their community, they take action to protect and improve it.3 They work to better the condition of their neighbors. One way to do that is through donations to nonprofit organizations. According to the GivingUSA 2021 Report, Americans gave $471.4 billion in 2020. Individuals gave the most ($324 billion), followed by foundations ($89 billion). The region’s giving spirit has supported recovery efforts after multiple natural disasters in Houston, but on average, about half of residents give $25 or more to nonprofit organizations.
In the greater Houston region, nearly half of residents (48.8%) said they donated at least $25 to a charitable organization(s) in 2019. This is similar to the national average (50.5%) and slightly higher than the Texas state average (45.3%). When looking at other large metropolitan areas, Greater Houston is in the middle of the pack when it comes to charitable giving. A larger share of Houstonians donated to nonprofits compared to metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, New York and San Antonio, but Houston lagged in giving rates compared to regions like Austin, Atlanta and Chicago.
Residents of Houston’s three-county region have given an average of $4.4 billion a year to charitable organizations between 2011 and 2018. This is about roughly one-fourth of the donations made by Texans. Charitable giving tends to increase in times of disaster.4 Consequently, charities in Houston topped the list for the highest total contributions out of 30 major metros in 2017.
Most recently, reported giving levels have fluctuated widely, and are $3.6 billion in the 2018 tax year — down 37% from $5.7 billion in the year before. This decline can be attributed, in part, to a change in federal legislation that year that increased the standard deduction for charitable donations — total itemized deductions, as of 2018, must exceed $12,000 for individuals (up from $6,350 in 2017) and $24,000 for married couples (up from $12,700 in 2017). This change likely resulted in significant declines in the number of individuals who claimed contributions on their tax returns, and the overall amount — a trend seen nationally as well.
Households with higher incomes are more likely to make charitable contributions than their lower-income neighbors. Yet, fewer than half of households that earn more than $200,000 annually in Houston’s three-county region claimed charitable contributions in 2018.
While the aforementioned 2017 tax law decreased the total number of people who itemized, top earners still had an incentive to itemize. This could help explain why top earners have such a higher share of filers with charitable givings itemized.
Not surprisingly, reported levels of giving vary greatly by household income, with higher-income households donating more money than low-income households. But, giving also varies across the region. Households that earn $200,000 or more in Fort Bend County gave an average of $20,000 in the 2018 tax year. This is nearly half the average in Harris County ($38,661) and slightly lower than the average in Montgomery County ($24,301).
While the aforementioned 2017 tax law decreased the total number of people who itemized, top earners still had an incentive to itemize. This could help explain why top earners have such a higher share of filers with charitable givings itemized and the amount they gave.
Nonprofits in Houston are robust and provide critical services
Nonprofit organizations provide a variety of critical services, and therefore include a multitude of different types of organizations — private hospitals in the healthcare industry, chambers of commerce, private universities or organizations focusing on funding for schools, philanthropic foundations, and established charitable organizations who provide services to people and animals. Public charities in particular tend to play a vital role in strengthening communities as they have strong relationships with the people they serve — typically low-income and other historically marginalized communities — and possess unique understanding and knowledge of their community and their needs,5 particularly when the organization is led and staffed by people who share similar experiences with those they serve.
How many nonprofits are in Houston? Across the three-county area, there are a total of 15,660 nonprofit public charities — classified under section 501(c)(3) organizations by the IRS. The vast majority (12,509) are located in Harris County, with far fewer in Fort Bend (1,788) and Montgomery (1,363) counties. Religion-related organizations comprise the majority of nonprofits in Houston, followed by human services organizations that provide a broad range of social services. Overall, the three-county region has a higher share of religious nonprofit organizations and a smaller proportion of human services organizations compared to the state and nation.
Houston’s three county region has a reputation for being home to a large number of charitable organizations that provide important services to residents in need. However, the number of public charities per 10,000 residents is lower in each of our region’s three counties when compared to the state and national rates. This disparity may suggest that nonprofits in Houston are overwhelmed with demand, particularly when they are needed most — during times of crisis.
COVID-19 disrupts steady rates of volunteering in Houston
The act of volunteering one’s time to better their community is a key behavior of civic engagement. Volunteering strengthens community ties and can spur additional forms of civic engagement such as advocating for public policy change or by inspiring Houston voters to get out and vote. Taking advantage of volunteer opportunities is not only important to organizations and communities, but also has a number of benefits for the volunteer. Volunteering can increase overall mental and physical health and have a positive effect on psychological well-being when done consistently and regularly.6
Between 2012 and 2020, at least 50% of residents in the three-county area had volunteered at least once in the last 12 months, according to the Kinder Houston Area Survey. However, between 2020 and 2021 the proportion of Harris County residents who volunteer fell 14 percentage points to 39.5%. This decline in volunteer rates is consistent with national trends as well. A study conducted by Fidelity found that two-in-three Americans surveyed either reduced or stopped previous volunteer activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic.7
Among those who volunteered in 2019, residents of the Houston metropolitan area volunteered at slightly lower rates than in Texas the U.S. overall. Of those who did participate in volunteering opportunities in Houston, over 60% do so at least once a month compared to roughly 70% for the state and the nation.
Continue reading about civic engagement in Houston
Helpful Articles by Understanding Houston:
- Houston is Generous
- Houston is Engaged
- Greater Houston Area Sets Record Numbers in 2020 Voter Participation
- A Look at Electoral Participation in Houston: Past and Present
- The Importance of the Census in COVID’s America
References:
- Schneider, J. A. (2007). Connections and disconnections between civic engagement and social capital in community-based nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 572-597.
- Konrath, S. (2014). The power of philanthropy and volunteering. Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, 1-40.
- Wang, L., & Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 23.
- Dietz, Nathan, and Grimm, Robert T., Jr. 2020. Community in Crisis: A Look at How U.S. Charitable Actions and Civic Engagement Change in Times of Crises. Research Brief: Do Good Institute, University of Maryland. Retrieved fromhttps://dogood.umd.edu/research-impact/publications/community-crisis-look-charitable-activity-and-civic-engagement-times.
- Handy, F., Shier, M., & McDougle, L. M. (2014). Nonprofits and the Promotion of Civic Engagement: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the “Civic Footprint” of Nonprofits within Local Communities. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 5 (1), 57-75. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/spp_papers/176
- Piliavin, J. A., & Siegl, E. (2007). Health benefits of volunteering in the Wisconsin longitudinal study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48(4), 450-464.
- Fidelity Charitable (2020). The Role of Volunteering In Philanthropy. Retrieved from https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/insights/the-role-of-volunteering-in-philanthropy.html.