�鶹������ý

Across the country, community colleges are running civic experiments — finding innovative ways to foster nonpartisan participation on their campuses and in their broader neighborhoods.

The (CGCS) leads this mission at Austin Community College, striving to “train and empower students to be impactful civic leaders.”��

Established in 2024 and led by 30-year government veteran Bryan Port, the CGCS is equipping students with hands-on skills through experiential learning, civic simulations, and collaborations with Austin’s city government, local nonprofits, and international organizations. What sets the CGCS apart is the scale and ambition of its student-led initiatives, as the center has a staff composed predominantly of student leaders. In these roles, students pitch ideas, manage operations, and build relationships with senior leaders inside and outside academia. They’ve organized a summit on climate resilience; acted as a monitoring body to report on the City of Austin’s open government commitments; and participated in civic leadership simulations that put students in the roles of mayors, police chiefs, and community activists. Through the center, students can also earn free badges and micro-credentials on topics like technology and society.��

To date, the CGCS has put on more than 130 events, reaching nearly 10,000 participants. In doing so, ACC is strengthening pathways for students who are — or hope to become — leaders in their communities.

To understand how this model works in practice, the Political Reform program spoke with the center’s director, Bryan Port, as well as two student employees: Austin Wells, a philosophy student and the strategic planner for community relations and environmental affairs, and Marisela Perez Maita, the center’s deputy director, who started her education at ACC and is currently a journalism student at the University of Texas at Austin.

Their interviews have been combined and their responses lightly condensed and edited for clarity.

Can you tell us more about how the center was established and where it sits inside the community college?��

Bryan: A grant from the State of Texas allowed for the renovation of a space [that was] initially conceptualized as a Defense Technology Acceleration Center. ACC made the decision, in consultation with the granting authority, to take a broader approach, inclusive of working on defense-related matters but broadening out to encompass the full range of government and civic affairs. [Note: Today, the center is part of the Office of Strategic Initiatives at ACC��.��

What have the strengths and limitations been of having the center set up in this unique way?��

Marisela: Being a new center has its pros and cons. The pros are that you’re setting the tone of what you are, your philosophy, what you stand for. It comes with innovation, with doing things differently. And doing things differently is usually the con as well, right? If you have an institution that is really into doing things the traditional way, that can cause a lot of friction. As a center, we have that kind of tension — we’re doing things differently because we are different. So we have to do a double thing: explaining what we are, and even within that, defining the terms [like civic engagement].

So students have been a big part of figuring out what the center is and what the mission is?

Austin: Yeah. Bryan thought the best way to get involved with the student body was by hiring students and having them run their own programs.��

How are students at the heart of the process at the Center for Government and Civic Service? Can you speak to the autonomy and agency given to student staff?��

Bryan: The CGCS is itself a learning platform and the students who work there are authorized to make decisions on [my] behalf. The primary limitations are that decisions must be ethical and resource-informed (money, time, capacity). Within those limitations, the students work in consultation with me to conceptualize projects. Students are trained and mentored in relevant skill sets like strategic planning and project management and from that point on, they set forth on the design and implementation of their projects with regular check-ins to seek advice and, when needed, to gain assistance in surmounting obstacles. We do not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the excellent, good, or even good enough. Provided learning is occurring, relationships are being built, and/or the public is being served, we forge ahead. The students are encouraged to make “responsible mistakes” as it facilitates learning and improving faster.

Austin: This is a place where my skills have been able to speak the loudest. That autonomy I’m given to just build programs from scratch, come up with my own ideas, and be able to pitch them to a direct line of command in the college — it’s just an experience I will forever cherish and I know not everyone will have. The origin of [this space], the way we operate, the student autonomy, the vibe… it’s really special. ��

What do you hope students learn by engaging with the center and attending events? For example, what are the skills that students learn through the simulations, which practice civic scenarios like dysfunctional family dinner discussions?��

Marisela: I would love every student who comes here to gain confidence in themselves. That’s our main thing: you are able to drive meaningful change right now, with who you are, with the skills you have, your experiences. You can start something and you can mobilize people. That’s civic leadership. It’s not something in the future, not something you need 10 years of experience for. For example, a student came here who was interested in government — she had done all her academic journey online, it was her first semester at ACC, and she just wanted to learn. I said, we can find a way to put you in a leadership position here. We can have something you lead and be part of, or we can create something new that you care about. That’s why we want the center to be there — something that students use to amplify their voices and their confidence.

Bryan: The CGCS is working to develop a ‘catalogue’ of leadership skills and attributes to inform the development of Civic Leadership Simulations. We have three simulations and corresponding skill-building workshops developed to date. They focus on strategic communication, ethical decision-making in crisis, and conflict management, respectively. From that point, each skill set is broken down into a finite number of very specific learning objectives. This enables us to develop a scenario and specific roles for students to play, each role with one or more very specific and measurable objectives tied to the skill sets in focus. Playing roles allows the students to practice the skills with less of their personal identity at stake. The roles allow them to step outside of themselves, which also facilitates the reflective discussions held at the end of the simulations, which are designed to enable the participants to package up ‘lessons learned’ in a manner that is portable and that enables them to apply and scaffold lessons in the future.

How do you make sure that events are accessible to a broad range of students, including those who may not have much free time to participate because they’re juggling classes, jobs, caretaking roles, or other responsibilities?

Marisela: Our model is quality over quantity. Engagement is the hardest part. In a [recent] simulation, we had 25 students registered and only three showed up. We know that the engagement rate is always going to be low, but those three people who show up have to have a great experience, no matter what. Even if you connect with one person, that’s what matters. If someone [wants to get involved and] can only commit three hours a week, that works because at the end of the day, it’s their idea and they own that process. But it’s also about transparency: if a student comes and says, “Hey, I can only work one hour a week on this project,” we work with that. We try to be flexible because we know we are a community college, and our purpose is to serve students where they are. It just has to be a conversation from the beginning.

You’ve created some ambitious projects and partnerships, such as having students act as a monitoring body for the under the Open Government Partnership, an international multilateral initiative focused on strengthening democracy and improving governance. How do you build and implement these kinds of collaborations? What recommendations would you make to other schools who want to pursue similar projects?��

Bryan: A great deal of relationship building and experimentation is required. One of the biggest challenges is that local governments are swamped and under-resourced. We are trying to position ourselves as a way to bring “free” resources to bear. Implementation is easier than building. Building requires that we first locate a government partner that is open and available to the collaboration. This is the hardest part.��

The other challenge on our side is continuity. As a community college, many of our students are here for a limited time and have many other commitments. Most of our students face economic challenges. Most work and many have significant family responsibilities. So, we have to construct our initiatives in a tiered manner that allows for different levels of commitment and that allows for the departure of existing members and the incorporation of new members mid-project. We rely on student volunteers to assume leadership roles, as well as to be the boots on the ground. This model has proven very successful in the open government partnership work we are currently doing.

��The civic process can be challenging. How do you approach failure and how do you help other students navigate the ups and downs of organizing and engagement?

Marisela: I think the question is really important, because everything that leads to an initiative has the opportunity to succeed or fail — but how do you define that failure? That’s something I learned from Bryan, and hope to share with other students. [After an initiative didn’t gain traction], I remember being extremely discouraged and telling Bryan, “I feel like I failed at this.” And Bryan said, “That’s an opportunity for a conversation. What percentage of what you wanted to accomplish did you achieve? Why didn’t it work? That also tells you something important about what you’re building.” It’s about the opportunity to change your mindset about your outcomes. If I had a student with a really ambitious idea, I’d be honest: “This is what we can probably accomplish.” If you want to bring 1,000 people to your first event, that’s not going to happen — maybe five students will come. That’s good, because they’re already seeing the reality, their expectations change, and their definition of success and failure changes too. That’s what helped me and what I hope to mentor students on. It makes you more resilient about what you do.

Austin: I’ve had students be really enthusiastic [about big ideas] and I’ve had to let them down softly or direct them to places where they could fit in and get some experience. Even for me, I came in here and was like, “I see all these amazing things I want to do, the world’s my oyster.” It’s kind of humbling when another student or an advisor can be like, “Well, what if we started here [instead]?” I think in those moments that’s where real courage can shine through, instead of just blindly being like, “Yeah, let’s do it.” Sometimes you’ve got to be direct [when something is unlikely to work out]. We’re in a unique spot to be like, “Well, guess what, we have all of these initiatives you could help out with.” Or if they’re not interested in our initiatives particularly, we now have the experience to point people toward nonprofits, organizations, different departments throughout ACC — experience we wouldn’t really have without the center.

What are some of the biggest obstacles that you’ve come across in doing this work and what are the most effective solutions that you’ve found?��

Bryan: As is the case with so many organizations, our biggest challenge is funding. ACC is attempting to generate new sources of funding overall as we contemplate a more fiscally constrained future. The CGCS was [also] started with the notion that it would become self-sufficient. We are already ‘monetizing’ our beautiful facilities in downtown Austin. In the coming year, we will be applying for grants and, in the long term, we will attempt to convert some of our projects into workforce training and professional development offerings to local and state government, as well as nonprofits and the private sector. We have yet to find solutions, but feel we are making progress.

If philanthropy, city, or federal government wanted to meaningfully support what you’re doing, what would actually be helpful?��

Bryan: Funding is critical. Access to senior leaders and experts is also important and not just access, but consistent partnership over time. This can be as little as a couple of hours per month. We would appreciate notification and advice on applying to specific grants. We would also greatly benefit from getting the word out and from dedicated and documented partnerships with government, academic, nonprofit, and private sector organizations to enhance our credibility and thereby attract more funding and more participants in our initiatives. We believe we are a very cost-effective option to enhance the health of our communities and civil society.

Marisela: There’s a lot of talk about supporting student leadership and education, but at the end of the day, are [community leaders] actually engaging with students? Are you actually attending events, staying the whole event, and talking to people? If community leaders and organizations come and actually connect with this generation, I think that will make a huge difference.

Do you have visions on how your current model of engagement could be scaled?��

Bryan: We are currently scaling with our existing team and resource base. Our operating costs are very low. Our current operating budget is approximately $160,000 per year, which provides for seven part-time student staff and the implementation of our various initiatives, which are already enabling us to directly impact hundreds of students. We anticipate, at our current resource level, to scale that to thousands of students in fiscal year 2027.��

We are also impacting over 10,000 community members per year and hope to double that in fiscal year 2027. This year, we expanded our Civic Leadership Simulations to high schools and middle schools. Next year, we will create at least one or two new simulations and hope to run at least 24 iterations of our various simulations. We will also expand our Central Texas Issue Series, which currently has three ongoing projects concerning climate, journalism, and law. We’ll take on a fourth issue, probably related to the future of voting or artificial intelligence. From our existing issues, we have also conceptualized community-focused workshops, the first of which we will design this fall with the intent to bring AI to our local communities to ‘democratize AI.’ Every one of these efforts can be readily scaled by adding staff. Effectively, hiring one additional student allows us to double capacity in any of the specific areas we are operating in.��

Austin: I can see [the center] in the future being a place where there’s more rallying, more art, more community services — maybe like a library, or a food pantry, or even a place where we’re able to guide people to different resources based on all the connections we’ve made across town. I also see us having our own types of scholarships, if we get the proper funding, and mini-grants that we can get out to people for community endeavors.

Marisela: For me, I think about doing our work across other universities outside of Texas, as well: going to universities and running simulations there, teaching their students to be civic leaders, training students to run simulations and design civic engagement programs at other universities. Being a hub for learning not just at ACC, but everywhere. We want to share the resources. We want this to be a model that any center can use to teach their students to be leaders. Something any university could do.

If there’s someone who’s interested in building something like the center on their campus, what would you want them to know?

Marisela: Reach out! We would love to have conversations with anyone who wants to do the same thing or learn from our philosophy — what do we mean by civic practice, by civic readiness. These are things we can happily share. For example, the continuing cycle of learning, doing, and reflecting… You’re learning the skills: what is strategic communication? You’re doing it, taking on a role and practicing. And then you’re reflecting: did you actually use the techniques, what went wrong, what went right? That cycle could be replicated across any kind of event or initiative. Sometimes what we need is just a framework. If you can see yourself embracing that kind of perspective, you’re going to be able to see solutions more clearly with the resources you already have. It could be an event space, a part of the university you hadn’t thought of before, or a group of people who share the same values. Someone has to reach out. The CGCS can be the place that helps you have more resonance with this work and gives you the confidence to replicate it.