Civic service is well established in North America, where the United States and Canada are among the world leaders. The evolution of civic service has not been a story of continuous growth but rather one of episodic and cyclical development. The past decade’s events indicate that civic service is in a new cycle of growth and innovation. Among the reasons for the health of civic service in North America are the institutional structures there that define it. Civic service institutions in Mexico, largely because of its status as a developing country, are less accessible and less supportive of the service role than institutions in the rest of North America, where civic service is widely accessible to all types of servers and all social sectors are legitimately perceived as civic service providers. Open access is complemented by incentives and support for servers and organizations providing service opportunities. Several priorities are identified for further research.
Benn, S. I., & Gaus, G. F. (1983). The public and private: Concepts and action. In S. I. Benn & G. F. Gaus (Eds.), Public and private in social life. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
2.
Bowen, P. (1997, Spring). Trends in volunteerism: A Canadian perspective. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 15, 4-17.
3.
Checkoway, B. (1997). Institutional impacts of AmeriCorps on the University of Michigan. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 2(1), 70-79.
4.
Grantmaker Forum on Community and National Service. (2000). The state of service-related research: Opportunities to build a field. Berkeley, CA: Author.
5.
Gusfield, J. R. (1981). The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Hill, E. G. (1990). In the shadow of the mountain: The spirit of the CCC. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
7.
Hirschman, A. O. (1982). Shifting involvements: Private interest and public action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Katimavik. (2001). Katimavik: Annual report, 2000-2001. Retrieved July 24, 2002, from http://www.katimavik.org/
9.
McBride, A. M., Benitez, C., & Sherraden, M. (2003). The forms and nature of civic service: A global assessment. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University.
10.
McMullan, B. J., & Snyder, P. (1986). Katimavik: The Canadian Youth Corps. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
11.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Service-learning and community service in K-12 public schools. Statistics in Brief. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
12.
Newmann, F. M., & Rutter, R. A. (1985, Fall). A profile of high school community service programs. Advances in Education Research, 3, 7-23.
13.
Niebla, G.G. (2000, January). Youth service in Mexico. Paper presented at the meeting of the Worldwide Workshop on Youth Involvement as a Strategy for Social, Economic, and Democratic Development, San Jose, Costa Rica.
14.
Perry, J. L., & Imperial, M. T. (2001). A decade of service-related research: A map of the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 462-479.
15.
Perry, J. L., & Katula, M. (2001). Does service affect citizenship?Administration & Society, 33(3), 330-365.
16.
Perry, J. L., & Thomson, A. M. (2003). Civic service: What difference does it make?Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
17.
Points of Light Foundation. (2001). Volunteering in low income communities. Retrieved July 24, 2002, from http://www.pointsoflight.org/programs/programs_casey.html
18.
Rymph, D. B., & Wilson, L. (2001). The future of service research: The results of the first annual forum on national and community service research. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.
19.
Sagawa, S. (1998). Ten years of youth in service to America. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
20.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (Eds.). (1999). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Initial comparisons. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 43-65.
21.
Sherraden, M. (2001). Youth service as strong policy (Working paper 01-12). St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University.
22.
Sherraden, M., & Eberly, D. (1990). Canada: Katimavik and cultural integration. In D. J. Eberly & M. Sherraden (Eds.), The moral equivalent of war? A study of non-military service in nine nations (pp. 7-18). New York: Greenwood Press.
23.
Sherraden, M. S., & Sherraden, M. (1990). Mexico: Social service by university students. In D. J. Eberly & M. Sherraden (Eds.), The moral equivalent of war? A study of non-military service in nine nations (pp. 87-99). New York: Greenwood Press.
24.
Verduzco, G., et al. (1999). Mexico. In L. Salamon & H. K. Anheier (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (pp. 429-443). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies.
25.
Wolf, W. C., Leiderman, S., & Voith, R. (1987). The California Conservation Corps: An analysis of short-term impacts on participants. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
