Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the change leaders: Rich Harwood

Rich Harwood
Harwood Institute

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

After working on more than 20 political campaigns and two highly respected nonprofits, Rich Harwood set out to create something entirely different. He founded what is now known as The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation in 1988, when he was just 27 years old (and is now its president). Soon after, he wrote the ground-breaking report “Citizen and Politics: A View from Main Street,” the first national study to uncover that Americans did not feel apathetic about politics, but instead held a deep sense of anger and disconnection.

Over the past 30 years, Rich has innovated and developed a new philosophy and practice for how communities can solve shared problems, create a culture of shared responsibility and deepen people’s civic faith. The Harwood practice of Turning Outward has spread to all 50 states and is being used in 40 countries.


Amid the division that often overshadows dialogue and the discord that drowns out understanding, a beacon of hope shines through Harwood’s current "Enough. Time to Build" campaign, a rallying cry for change and a blueprint for building the beloved community we aspire to be. It is a testament to the power of collaboratively turning outward towards each other, creating spaces where every voice is listened to and valued.

This campaign is a response to the many challenges that disturb the soul of our society. It is an acknowledgment that we have had enough of the status quo, enough of the division and enough of inaction.

Harwood's approach to community engagement is a breath of fresh air in the stifling atmosphere of apathy that can sometimes prevail. The Harwood Institute champions the idea that communities are people, not problems to be solved. The "Enough. Time to Build" campaign is a clarion call to reimagine how we come together to create change. It is not merely about community engagement as an end but about re-engaging with our humanity. It is a commitment to the idea that change does not happen in silos or echo chambers but in the fertile ground of shared experiences and collective aspirations.

Harwood's strategy is rooted in what he terms "turning outward" – looking beyond the walls of our institutions and the boundaries of our comfort zones to see and engage with our neighbors truly. It is about listening deeply, not responding or fixing, but understanding and being present with one another. In turning outward, we acknowledge the interconnectedness of our lives and the strength that lies in our diversity.

The campaign urges participants to consider the public narrative we want to create. It pushes citizens to ask, "What are the shared aspirations of our community?" rather than "What is wrong here?" This shift in perspective is powerful. It moves us from a deficit mindset, which focuses on weaknesses and gaps, to an asset-based approach, which builds on the strengths and resources present within our communities.

The "Enough. Time to Build" campaign embodies this by fostering inclusive spaces where individuals from all walks of life can contribute to shaping their community's future. It recognizes that the wisdom to address our most pressing challenges does not lie in the hands of a few experts but the many who live and work within the community.

Harwood emphasizes that as we progress with this initiative, we must remember that building a community is not a project with a start and end date. It is a process, a journey that requires patience, persistence and a willingness to be transformed by the experience. The Harwood Institute's approach is not about quick fixes but about cultivating the conditions for sustainable change.

The "Enough. Time to Build" campaign is an invitation to act with intentionality and purpose. It is a commitment to build trust, bridge divides, and create a shared story of hope and possibility. It is a recognition that the time to build is now and that we are the architects of the future we wish to see.

I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Harwood for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of his remarkable work and perhaps you’ll become more civically engaged as well.

The Fulcrum interviews Rich Harwood, President of The Harwood Institutewww.youtube.com


Read More

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep ReadingShow less