A 2015 Pew Research Survey found that about 65 percent of adult Americans use social media – a far cry from the single-digit figures just a decade ago. The same poll found that among young adults, meaning individuals aged 18-29, 90 percent are active on social media. Connecting with younger segments of the population is something that local government has long struggled with, so the question arises: why aren’t more community boards making better use of social media?
“For me social media is communication, it really is, I think sometimes people get caught up in social media [as] something new, but it’s what we’ve always been doing, which is finding a way to communicate with another human being,” said Professor Joyce Sullivan, a Baruch College Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Public Affairs and CEO of SocMedFin, a social media strategic planning firm.
With the research data in mind, it is easy to see why different levels of government, from federal departments to locally elected leaders, have a social media presence. Candidates running for the presidency over the last few elections have had extensive, and often robust, social media campaigns in order to spread their viewpoints, find supporters and sway public opinion. This was arguably most popularized by President Obama’s 2008 election campaign. A quick search engine query will reveal analyses by news organizations, academics and think tanks alike on how social media was used to shape then-candidate Obama’s public image, campaign, and ultimately his victory. That being said, it’s largely known that much of his success was attributed to the generations of voters who have learned to use social media platforms as they came into existence. The use of technology to engage and otherwise gain the support from a generation of voters known for lackluster election turnout rates is a feat that should not be taken lightly.
Nonetheless, campaigns and national viewpoint aside, the Mayor and local government entities like Council Members use social media and email-blast tools to keep constituents informed of the happenings within their respective communities.
One of the most local, direct tools of civic engagement that New Yorkers have at their disposal is their local community board. Community boards are designed to give the residents of a neighborhood say in their local government, and serves as a platform for people to get in touch with local services. Community boards hold meetings at a set date every month, where all members of the public are invited. In terms of political power and clout, perhaps community boards are best known for the key roles that they play regarding land use and zoning, alongside their ability to grant alcohol licenses to local businesses.
Despite the advantages of community boards, one thing they are not known for is their popularity among younger people. Community board members and board meeting attendees are typically stereotyped as older, often middle-aged or retired, neighborhood residents. As such, there are entire age demographics that have been traditionally underrepresented in local government. It’s only two years ago that a resolution was passed calling for 16-year olds to gain the right to serve official roles within community boards, a trend that has been slowly growing since.
Andrew John Windsor II, a freshman student at Baruch College studying political science, joined Brooklyn Community Board 11 when he was 17.
“16 and up you can be on the community board, which is great, because you can’t even vote yet!”
When asked about his own community board’s social media presence and demographics, Windsor II mentioned that members of his CB fell within older age groups, fitting with city trends. He explained that reason as why his community board had an official Facebook page, but no Twitter account, as Facebook was more popular with older users. He went on to mention that CB11’s Facebook page had 339 Likes – 339 constituents that would receive updates on events and information about the neighborhood. Upon visiting the page, it’s important to note that all the post are displayed in English, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese, reflecting the demographics of the neighborhoods.
In any case, CB11 is one of of 59 different community boards across the five boroughs. Of those 59, the way that each board uses technology varies as much as how each individual New Yorker uses social media on a typical subway car. In other words, some use them quite well, a few have a presence in-name only, while others are conspicuously absent.
Take the case of Manhattan Community Board 8, the community board for portions of the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island. CB8M has a Facebook page where the most recent post, as of December 8th, is a link to recruit new members. The profile is updated fairly often. The CB’s Twitter profile features a line of tweets filed in a specific format: by date, issue and a condensed link leading to an attachment on their website, where more information can be sought out. Speaking of the website, the homepage is well organized – a calendar prominently features community board and committee meeting dates. Links to more resources are featured on a clearly labelled series of dropdown menus. In addition, CB8M also features of minutes of their general community board meetings up to April 2015, while several committees have up-to-date minutes on their own meetings. With most information being sought out digitally, these minutes present a resource that those interested in becoming more involved with community boards, or at the very least become more knowledgeable about the issues affecting their own neighborhoods, can use.
Compare the state of the CB8M’s presence to that of Queens Community Board 3, representative of Jackson Heights, East Elmhurst and parts of Corona. The community board does not have a Facebook presence, and the closest thing to it is an unofficial profile page. The community board’s Twitter page, as of December 11th, 2015, has not been updated since March 23rd. Looking back on the account’s post history, it’s apparent that despite its establishment on July 2010, the account is seldom used, with gaps spanning months in between.
As for the website itself, CB3Q’s homepage features a ‘coming events’ section that lists upcoming meetings and events, with a calendar available from a weighty list of side tabs. The website’s document archive was last updated sometime in 2011, but the last community board minutes document was posted sometime in 2003.
Of the majority of Community Board websites, the two are among the unique. CB8M’s website falls outside of the traditional domain link: it’s a ‘.com’ rather than a ‘.nyc.gov’ website, the implications of which remain unclear. CB3Q’s website format is unique among the route many of its contemporary community boards have chosen, in terms of information provided and layout.
As for other boroughs, a large part of the community boards in The Bronx have their own website system, ‘Bronxmall.com,’ though at the same time they also have separate links to their own ‘.nyc.gov’ pages. Even within the Bronxmall hub, there are large differences as to what resources each provides to the website visitors. On another note, several community boards in the Bronx do not have social media pages.
Brooklyn Community Boards seem to do well as a whole, in terms of both social media presence and website structure, though meeting minutes are not always easily available to the public.
Of course, there are community boards in virtually all the boroughs that do not have a website nor any sort of social media presence, effectively making it that much more difficult for constituents to learn about and get in touch with them.
There’s a lot to be said about this discrepancy. As exemplified by Windsor II’s case earlier on, the number of available staff, population demographics, funding, and other resources do indeed play a role in each community board’s social media strategy.
When asked about his views on government and social media, Windsor II thoroughly expressed his belief that political organizations should use social media to inform as many constituents as possible. At the same time, he did admit that many people within his own age demographic were not interested in national politics, let alone what happens on a local level. Though he mentioned he would support efforts of his community board to take on outreach efforts for younger members, he remained skeptical of how successful such efforts would be.
“Personally I think it is for all political affiliations or any type of organization. So that definitely applies from federal, to state, to local levels. That should definitely be utilized to reach every corner,” he said.
For bringing change to community boards and their social media presence, Sullivan urged volunteers who felt passionately for local politics to physically go to the office and, if there was a need, to offer their assistance and support to them. Depending on staffing, Sullivan mentioned that groups with small paid staff can become inundated with other vital tasks, leaving no one to monitor social media profiles and non-urgent emails.
“It is, in some ways, of a false start to think well I’ll just go online and tweet at them. That’s just a way to begin the conversation. But if somebody’s willing to roll up their sleeves…that is the best way to find out,” she said.
Sullivan often emphasized the power of the individual, both for staff inside the organization and those who were willing to help.
“I’ve worked with for-profit and not-for-profit, and in some cases, there’s no difference. The effectiveness of the social program is effective depending on the person who is running it.”
Windsor II suggested that local elected officials, like council members and even community board staff, take the time to perform physical outreach by visiting students in high schools and telling them know about their roles in government.
The benefits of effective social media use by government goes beyond better connecting with and informing constituents – it can even be used to save lives. Over the last five years or so, an entire body of research has been dedicated to observe the links and benefits between government and social media usage during times of crises, such as natural disasters. The timing has much to do with Hurricane Sandy; like with the 2008 Presidential Elections, the warning and relief efforts during Hurricane Sandy through social media proved to be another pivotal point in the communication method’s history.
An article published earlier this year in the academic journal Public Relations Review conducted a survey of nearly 300 local government officials to assess their social media use during crises situations, while also conducting a review of the literature currently available.
“Efficiency, convenience, accountability, transparency, citizen involvement, and improved trust and democracy are among the cited benefits of social media use in government,” the research stated.
The research results found that nearly 70 percent of the government officials surveyed turned to social media to pass information during times of crises, though most used two or less platforms.
The Department of Homeland Security has published numerous studies post-Sandy, with several documents outlining how different local communities, aid organizations, and federal authorities throughout the world have made effective use of social media through natural disasters.
When asked if she possessed any direct experience with social media consultation during disaster situations or crises, Sullivan took a moment to think. She went on to say that she did not have direct exposure, but has gone through the motions as an observer.
“So not directly, however, having been an earlier adopter of Twitter, I’ve used Twitter for seven to eight years now. In times of crisis, this is the first place I go. I go. I have a number of trusted sources and I get my information at least an hour before everyone else,” she mentioned.
Sullivan also recalled a brief anecdote about a small town on Long Island; when the power went out, the local representative took to Twitter to update the town residents on the situation.
By the end of the interview, her views towards social media and local government were clear: “It’s an interesting way of communication, and I think for governments or agencies or groups that are trying to reach constituents, using it or learning how to use it I really think should be required.”