University of California

Project engages culturally diverse parents in Proposition 10 decisions


David Campbell
Joan Wright

Authors Affiliations

D. Campbell is Cooperative Extension Specialist, Community Studies, and Director, California Communities Program; J. Wright is Cooperative Extension Specialist, Emeritus, Department of Human and Community Development, UC Davis. The authors thank UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) personnel who served as local observers on the evaluation team: Gloria Brown, County Director, San Francisco and San Mateo counties; Rebecca Carver, past 4-H Youth Development Advisor, Yolo County; Faye Lee, 4-H Youth Development Advisor and Home Economist, San Francisco and San Mateo counties; Fe Moncloa, 4-H Youth Development Advisor, Santa Clara County; Shelley Murdock, 4-H Youth Development Advisor, Contra Costa County; Estella West, Family and Consumer Sciences Advisor, Santa Clara County; Martha Weston, Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program Statewide Program Manager, Nutrition Department, UC Davis (formerly with UCCE San Diego). Other local observers were Yvonne Ricketts and Anne Sanchez in Monterey County, and Sue Pierce in Santa Cruz County. Cathy Lemp conducted interviews with public participants in English and Claudia Sandoval and Gloria Widener interviewed Spanish-speaking participants. Foundations sponsoring the CEP included the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, James Irvine Foundation, Miriam and Peter Haas Fund, Peninsula Community Foundation and Walter and Elise Haas Fund.

Publication Information

Hilgardia 58(1):28-34. DOI:10.3733/ca.v058n01p28. January 2004.

PDF of full article, Cite this article


California's Proposition 10, a tax on tobacco products passed in 1998, provides counties with funds to improve the health, education and school readiness of children up to age 5. A foundation-sponsored Civic Engagement Project (CEP) seeks to promote inclusive participation in Proposition 10 decisions by engaging a broad spectrum of parents and other community members. Based on our systematic evaluation of the CEP's initial years of work, we describe six different civic engagement tools adopted by counties, strengths and weaknesses of each, and what we learned about the conditions under which they are most effective. The results illuminate a key public challenge — how to welcome culturally and linguistically diverse Californians as active and valued participants in local civic processes while obtaining meaningful guidance for decision-making.


Baldassare M. California in the New Millennium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape. 2000. Berkeley, CA: UC Press.

Button M, Mattson K. Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation. Polity. 1999. 31(4):609-37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235238

California Department of Education. English-Learners in California Public Schools, by Language and Grade, 1999–00. 2002. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Finance. Race/Ethnic Population Estimates: Components of Change for California Counties, April 1990-July 1997. 1997. Sacramento, CA: Demographic Research Unit.

California Department of Finance. County Population Estimates and Components of Change, 1998–99. 1999. Sacramento, CA: Demographic Research Unit.

California Legislative Analyst Office. County Allocations of Proposition 10 Revenues Based on LAO Estimated Revenues, 1999–00 Amounts. 2002. Sacramento, CA:

Crosby N, Kelley JM, Schaefer P. Citizen panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Admin Rev. 1986. 46(2):170-8. https://doi.org/10.2307/976169

Denhardt R, Vinzant J. The new public service. Public Admin Rev. 2000. 60(6):549-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117

Epstein P, Wray L, Marshall M, Grifel S., Newcomer K, Jennings E, Broom C, Lomax M. Engaging citizens in results that matter: A model for effective 21st century governance. Meeting the Challenges of Performance-Oriented Government. 2002. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration. p. 125-60.

Fishkin JS. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. 1991. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Pr.

Fishkin JS. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. 1995. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ Pr.

Kathlene L. Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives and policy formation. J Policy Analysis Manage. 1991. 10(1):46-63. https://doi.org/10.2307/3325512

Mathews D. Politics for People: Finding a Responsible Public Voice. 1994. Urbana, IL: Univ III Pr.

Nagel JH. Combining deliberation and fair representation in community health decisions. Univ Penn Law Rev. 1992. 140(5):1965-85. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312438

Renn O, Webler T, Rakel H, et al. Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sci. 1993. 26:189-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999716

US Census Bureau. Current Population Survey. Poverty rates for 1998, reported in March 1999. 2001. Washington, DC:

US Department of Commerce. Personal Income and Per Capita Personal Income by County, 1995–97. 1997. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Weeks EC. The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials. Public Admin Rev. 2000. 60(4):360-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00098

Campbell D, Wright J. 2004. Project engages culturally diverse parents in Proposition 10 decisions. Hilgardia 58(1):28-34. DOI:10.3733/ca.v058n01p28
Webmaster Email: sjosterman@ucanr.edu