2011 annual-survey-executive-summary
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

2011 annual-survey-executive-summary

on

  • 919 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
919
Views on SlideShare
609
Embed Views
310

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 310

http://www.ohiocampuscompact.org 310

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

2011 annual-survey-executive-summary Document Transcript

  • 1. Deepening the roots of civic engagement p aI P SU RV E Y2 011 A N N UA L M E M BE R SH p | E X E C U T I V E SU M M A RY
  • 2. Service to Introduction DE C A DE S OF E F F ORT Y I E L D F RU I T F U L R E S U LT S Campus Compact has supported the efforts of The 2011 annual survey shows a deepening campuses to develop an engaged academy and of engagement work as campuses increas- promote the public purposes of higher educa- ingly put in place measures such as including tion for more than 25 years. As demonstrated service and civic knowledge in strategic plans, by the annual survey of Campus Compact’s providing resources and rewards for faculty nearly 1,200 member colleges and universities, involvement, increasing the community’s voice this effort continues to pay off: Each year more in decision making, and considering service in students on more campuses are engaging with admissions and scholarships. their communities in ways that create strong These measures combine to create a culture of partnerships and encourage growth and devel- engagement that facilitates meaningful cam- opment. These experiences reinforce academic pus-community connections and reinforces learning and encourage lifelong civic habits. higher education’s role in preparing future Tracking leaders to tackle pressing issues. To ensure that Institutional the numbers this role is fulfilled, however, campuses need to of civically focus not only on the extent of this work, but commitment is engaged stu- also on its effectiveness.essential for engaged dents—and the faculty This year’s survey has identified a major gap in campuses’ ability to assess the impact ofwork to take hold. and staff who support engaged work on the community and on student learning. Putting in place assessment them—is a measures will deepen the roots of engagement great starting point for understanding campus by allowing campuses to identify strengths and activity. However, Campus Compact believes weaknesses in their current programs. Formal it is more important to know how this work processes can ensure continuous improvement is changing the fabric of institutions and of and bolster both internal and external support higher education. for this work. Planting THE SEEDS To view Institutional commitment is essential for These figures represent a significant rise inprevious years’ engaged work to take hold. A key measure of institutional commitment over the past twosurvey results, this commitment is the inclusion of commu- years. In 2009, 87% of responding institu-see http:// nity engagement in campus mission statements tions included service or civic engagement inwww.compact. and strategic plans. In 2011, 91% of Campus their mission and just 83% in their strategicorg/about/ Compact member schools indicated that plan. Particularly heartening is the increasedstatistics. their institution had a mission statement that recognition that a strong mission or purpose included service, service-learning, or civic statement must be backed by an equally strong engagement; 90% noted that their strategic plan of action. plan explicitly addressed these areas. p2p
  • 3. o the community (local, national, global) 88% FIGURE 1: C I V I C L E A R N I N G O U T CO M E S A D D R E S S E D I N S T R AT E G I C P L A N S , 2 011 Education for global citizenship 80% Student civic engagement 78% Student leadership development 73% Student civic learning 68% 31% 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of responding campuses 20% 13% Among types of schools, faith-based (97%) and service to the community, education for global minority-serving (92%) institutions reported citizenship, student civic engagement, student above average rates for missions that purposely leadership development, and student civic drive the work of engagement. They also have learning, all noted by more than two-thirds of strategic plans with a focus on service, civic respondents (Figure 1). engagement, and/or service-learning at 93% Another indicator of institutional commitment For more and 95%, respectively. These findings reflect to engagement is the Carnegie Community on Campus the historic focus of these schools on linking Engagement Classification, which recognizes Compact leadership with community development, community engagement as demonstrated and the which has resulted in a pervasive culture of through curricular and partnership activi- Carnegie engagement. ties. Among campuses that responded to this Classification, Among general student learning outcomes question, 39%, or 277 institutions, had been see addressed in strategic plans, civic knowledge selected for this classification—an astounding http://www. and engagement were cited figure, given that only 311 institutions nation- compact.org/ by 83% of responding ally have received the classification since it was initiatives. campuses in 2011, instituted in 2006. The overlap between insti- second only to criti- tutions that are Campus Compact members cal thinking (88%). and those that have received the Community The most com- Engagement Classification confirms that Cam- monly included pus Compact institutions are at the forefront of learning outcomes engaged work. that are specifically related to civic knowl- edge and skills are p3p
  • 4. Figur4, Community Partner involvement FIGURE 2 : CO M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R I N V O LV E M E N T I N S T U D E N T L E A R N I N G A N D E N G A G E M E N T, 2 011 Come into the class as speakers 91% Provide feedback on the development/ maintenance of programs 81% Provide reflection on site in community setting 67% Serve on campus committees 51% Act as uncompensated co-instructors 39% Participate in the design and delivery 31% of community-based courses Assist in creating the syllabus and designing the course 20% Act as compensated co-instructors 13% 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of responding campuses Fertile ground F OR G ROW T H A commitment to building deep, reciprocal, munity work is effective requires that partners and sustainable community relationships is have an equal voice, and that they help deter- essential to strengthening engaged institutions. mine which projects are to be undertaken on In 2011, members reported having an average their behalf. This year’s survey looks beyond of 125 community partnerships per campus. the numbers to gauge community involvement Nearly all members—98%—have at least one in campus decision making, which indicates partnership with a community-based organi- both a willingness to build truly reciprocal zation. Most also have partnerships with K-12 relationships and a commitment to developing schools (95%), faith-based organizations (82%), policies and practices that help prepare stu- and government agencies (69%). dents to address actual community needs. Although these numbers are impressive, Campuses offer a variety of mechanisms for quality is more important than quantity when community members to have a voice in cam- it comes to partnerships. Ensuring that com- pus decision making. Most (78%) offer formal opportunities for community members to dis- cuss concerns with the administration. Nearly Many campuses involve three-quarters (74%) include community members on the Board of Trustees. Commu- community partners nity members may also serve on committees in guiding student learning. overseeing academic (29%), hiring (26%), or budgetary (12%) matters. p4p
  • 5. In addition, most campuses committees (74%), or assistinvolve community partners (74%) or lead (58%) effortsin at least some aspects of in service, service-learning,student learning (Figure 2). or civic engagement offices.Involvement at the academic On the academic front,level is most often limited to students again are mostserving as classroom speakers active in recruiting, with(reported by 91% of campuses) 55% of schools report-or as uncompensated co- ing that students recruitinstructors (39%), while more faculty to participate informal roles are uncommon. civic engagement activi-We were pleased to find 81% ties. Many students alsoof campuses report that expand their roles beyondcommunity partners provide learners in service-learningfeedback on engagement courses, serving as guestprograms. All community speakers at 41% of respond-engagement programs benefit ing campuses, as coursefrom feedback mechanisms to assistants at 39%, and as co-ensure that they are achieving instructors at 14%. Studentstheir goals. help design service-learning courses and syllabi at 15%Preparing students for lives of of campuses.active and effective civic par-ticipation also requires giving Providing mechanisms control over how finances arestudents themselves oppor- for student voice in other allocated at 75%. Studentstunities to take on leadership decision-making matters on also have a presence on keyroles. Students most often lead campus promotes student committees, including aca-campus engagement efforts civic learning and leadership. demic (69%), hiring (58%),by recruiting their peers Students at nearly all schools and budgetary committees(reported at 93% of campuses), (92%) have formal oppor- (39%), as well as on the Boardbut they also commonly act tunities to discuss concerns of Trustees (43%).as liaisons to community with administrators, andsites (75%), serve on relevant the student government hasBranchingOU TCampus Compact member a resounding yes. In 2011, average national volunteerinstitutions clearly view civic students at Campus Compact rates among college studentsengagement as a priority. member schools served at declined from a peak of 31%A key question is whether record-high levels, even while in 2004 to 26% in 2010.this commitment translates corresponding figures for all At Campus Compact memberinto greater opportunities college students declined. schools, 37% of students werefor students to engage with According to the federal engaged in service, service-their communities. In terms Corporation for National and learning, or civic engagementof quantity, the answer is Community Service (CNCS), activities during the 2010– p5p
  • 6. mmunity Partner involvement FIGURE 3 : VA L U E O F S T U D E N T S E R V I C E AT C A M P U S CO M PA C T M E M B E R I N S T I T U T I O N S , 2 0 0 8 –2 011 ($ B I L L I O N S ) $10 $8 $9.1 $6 $8.0 $7.4 $ Billions $5.7 $4 $2 $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 academic year, contributing an estimated Types of engagement programs range from $9.1 billion1 in service to their communities one-day service projects to internships, cap- (Figure 3). stone courses, and international service and service-learning opportunities. The prevalence Compared with the prior year, more schools of one-day projects, offered by 91% of cam- are addressing virtually all areas of need puses, is encouraging, especially if these serve (Figure 4). The most broadly targeted area is as stepping stones to more deeply embedded K-12 education, addressed by 92% of respond- commitments to civic engagement. Nonprofit ing campuses. In addition, 2011 saw a renewed internships/practica are the next most com- focus on areas affected by the ongoing reces- mon programs, cited by 80% of respondents. sion, including hunger (addressed by 89% of Alternative service breaks are offered by 73% responding schools), poverty (88%), housing/ of campuses, up from 67% in 2009. homelessness (88%), and health care (85%). Campuses are also placing a greater emphasis Service-learning, already offered by the vast on expanding college access (77%, up from majority of member campuses, continues to 72% in 2010). That emphasis was echoed and gain acceptance, with 94% of respondents supported at Campus Compact’s 2010 Presi- offering these courses in 2011. This figure has dents’ Leadership Summit, where the focus risen slightly in recent years, from 92% in was on connecting civic engagement to college 2009 and 93% in 2010. The average number access and success. of service-learning courses per campus has climbed more quickly, reaching 69 in 2011— 1 Based on a 32-week academic year, reported average service times of 3.62 hours/week, and Independent Sector’s 2010 value of volunteer time of $21.36/hour. p6p
  • 7. Figure 4, Top issues FIGURE 4 : T O P I S S U E S A D D R E S S E D T H R O U G H C A M P U S P R O G R A M S , 2 010 A N D 2 011 K-12 education 92% 88% Hunger 89% 83% 88% Poverty 83% 2011 88% Housing/homelessness 82% 2010 Mentoring 85% 81% Tutoring 85% 83% Health care, general 85% 80% Environment/sustainability 84% 82% Reading/writing 81% 77% Senior/elder services 77% 73% Access and success in higher education 77% 72% 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of responding campuses up from 55 in 2009 and 64 Not surprisingly, the cam- colleges, which is indica- in 2010. This increase comes puses that stand outside of tive of the challenges these despite a very steady 6–7% this trend are the same as institutions continue to face of faculty per campus teach- those that show stronger- regarding funding, faculty ing these courses, indicating than-average support for civic development, and changing a small number of faculty engagement in their institu- student demographics. Other members consistently taking tional mission and strategic types of schools show average on an increased service-learn- plan. Among both Tribal or near-average rates. ing course load. This trend schools and HBCUs, 15% of indicates a need for stronger faculty members teach at faculty support measures to ensure broader adoption least one service-learning course, more than twice the Campuses are of service-learning, as well as for greater value put on national average. Faculty at faith-based schools are close placing a greater empha- service-learning in the merit, behind at 13%. Only 3% of sis on expanding college tenure, and promotion process faculty teach service-learn- throughout the academy. ing courses at community access through civic and community engagement. p7p
  • 8. Support S T RUC T U R E S Support for campus engagement for 2011 and 2010. Among responding cam- efforts can take many forms, from puses in 2011, 29% said they consider service presidential involvement to alloca- formally in the admissions process, up from tion of staff and funding to incentives 24% in 2010; 70% consider service in award- for community work. This year’s survey ing scholarships, a major increase over 2010’s explored areas that demonstrate campuses’ figure of 63%. These measures both ensure an willingness to provide meaningful resources engaged student body and signal to students, and rewards for doing the work that institu- prospective students, faculty, alumni, and the tions say they promote through their strategic public that the institution is committed to this plan. work. Among institutional types, faith-based schools are the most likely to consider service As with any campus work, support from the in admissions (46%), while Tribal schools are top demonstrates the strength of commitment most likely to consider service in awarding to engagement. Among survey respondents, scholarships (80%). 89% said that their president publicly supports civic engagement, up from 86% in 2009 (the Academic support is another important last time this question was asked). In addi- measure of commitment. More than half of tion, 75% said the president provides fiscal campuses surveyed (55%) require academic support for community-based work, up from service-learning as part of the core curriculum 72% in 2009 (Figure 5). Presidents at 43% of in at least one major, up from 51% in 2010. campuses write publicly about service or civic Types of campuses most likely to do so include engagement. faith-based colleges and universities (61%) as well as business, professional, and Tribal Support measures that help build a culture of schools (all 60%). Notably, more than a third of engagement include those that encourage and schools within every institutional type has this Fig reward community work. Figure 6 shows com-Figure 5, Presidential involvement requirement—another indication that service- parison figures for a range of these measures FIGURE 5 : T O P 5 A R E A S O F P R E S I D E N T I A L I N V O LV E M E N T I N C I V I C E N G A G E M E N T, 2 011 Publicly promotes service/civic engagement 89% Provides fiscal support for community-based work 75% Serves on community boards 75% Participates in campus service/ 72% civic engagement activities Meets regularly with community 71% partners/representatives 0 20 31% 40 60 80 100 % of responding campuses p8p
  • 9. learning is continuing to gain acceptance as a engage in community work. A well-trained valuable pedagogy. and adequately staffed administrative team is essential. According to this year’s survey, an The only area of academic support that average of 27 staff members per campus bolster declined in the past year is among campuses student service or civic engagement activi- that offer a service/civic engagement major ties, while an average of 11 staff members per or minor, which dipped slightly from 14% in campus work with service-learning. Increasing 2010 to 13% in 2011. The longer-term trend staff support is especially important to ensure is upward, however, with 2009’s figure at broader adoption of service-learning. Making 10% and 2007’s figure at just 6%. Land-grant sure that staff, administrators, and faculty have institutions stand out from the pack on this resources available to be able to provide quality measure, with 27% offering a related major or learning experiences is key. A well-trained Financial support includes direct funding for service and civic engagement activities Community and adequately (reported by 64% of all responding campuses, up from 61% in 2010) and student grants for work by faculty and staff can staffed support team is service initiatives (39%, up from 34%). Profes- sional and business schools are among the be another indicator of essential. leaders in these categories. Among professional institutional support. See schools, 73% offer funding for student engage- ment and 47% offer mini-grants; business more data at minor, more than twice the national average. http://www. schools follow closely at 72% and 46%, respec- Research/comprehensive universities were next compact. tively. Research/comprehensive universities at 20%, followed by business schools (19%) and org/about/ (71% and 54%) and land-grant schools (67% professional schools (18%). statistics. and 46%) also report above-average numbers Institutional support for engagement can also on these measures.gure 6, Key measures of other forms, including staff- take a variety ing, financial support, and opportunities to FIGURE 6 : K E Y M E A S U R E S O F I N S T I T U T I O N A L S U P P O R T F O R E N G A G E M E N T, 2 010 A N D 2 011 Considers service in awarding scholarships 70% 63% Requires service-learning as part of core 55% curriculum in at least one major 51% Considers service formally 29% 2011 in admissions process 24% Offers service/civic engagement 13% 2010 major and/or minor 14% 13% Requires service for graduation 12% 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of responding campuses p9p
  • 10. Promoting S U S TA I NA BI L I T Y This year’s survey introduced several new are failing to capitalize on a huge opportunity questions aimed at gauging institutional to highlight not only the value their own work, capacity for assessing engagement activi- but also the role of higher education as an ties and their impact. Just as campuses track agent of positive change. factors such as graduation rates and faculty Tracking the impact of engagement work performance to understand whether they are is as important as tracking the work itself. meeting their goals, it is important to track Survey results show that half of Campus engagement activities. Assessment is the most Compact member campuses do not yet have powerful mechanism available for ensuring mechanisms in place for systematic assess- quality, boosting impact, and communicating ment of community impact (Figure 7). Only a the value of this work. small portion of those that track impact do so Nonetheless, relatively few campuses track across the institution. The figures for tracking activity in a systematic way, and even fewer impact on student learning are only slightly have mechanisms in place for assessing better, with more than a third of institutions impact. Only 32% of responding campuses not tracking this measure at all, and just 17% track engagement activity campus-wide, while tracking it institution-wide. specific campus units track activity at another Campus Compact member institutions are 55%. On 13% of campuses, there is no mecha- uniquely positioned to monitor and improve nism in place to track engagement efforts at all. engagement activities. The stakes are high, If campuses do not have a firm grasp of what since the benefits of more effective engagement they are accomplishing in the community, they Figure 7,FIGURE 7: D O Efor H E I N S T I T U T I O N Mechanisms S T Assessment H AV E M E C H A N I S M S I N P L A C E F O R S Y S T E M AT I C A L LY A S S E S S I N G T H E I M PA C T O F E N G A G E M E N T ? Mechanisms for Measuring Mechanisms for Measuring Impact Impact in the Community on Student Learning Yes, the institutions does Yes, the institutions does 14% 17% No No 38% 50%Yes, units within the institutions do 36% Yes, units within the institutions do 45% % of responding campuses p10p
  • 11. Assessment is a that can be communicated widely to students, faculty, staff, alumni, community members,powerful mechanism funders, and legislators, as well as to the public at large.for ensuring quality, At Campus Compact, we applaud and supportboosting impact, and the work being done to advance comprehen- sive assessment by the Carnegie Foundationcommunicating value. through its elective classification for com- munity engagement. We also value recogni- tion programs such as The President’s Higherinclude immediate and long-term learning Education Community Service Honor Roll,advances for students, as well as social gains sponsored by the Corporation for National &such as lower dropout rates, reduced pov- Community Service. These programs shine aerty, and the economic revitalization of our light on institutions that are devoting signifi-communities. cant resources to civic engagement, and whoseThe majority of colleges and universities that efforts are bearing fruit.are recording engagement and its impact are Campus Compact is dedicated to support-doing so in pockets across their campuses. To ing its members with technical assistance,ensure that the roots of engagement take firm programs, and materials that will help themhold, we encourage colleges and universities deepen their engagedto focus on measuring the effectiveness of work. For more informa-this work institution-wide. Doing so will helpcampuses identify strengths in their cur- tion about the Carnegie “Assessing the im- classification, recogni-rent programs and put in place processes for tion opportunities, and pact of civic engage-continuous improvement. The result will be available resources, visit ment throughouta positive message on the value of this work www.compact.org. an institution may feel daunting, givenConclusion the magnitude ofR E AC H I NG DE E PE R the task. We hopeWe celebrate the continued work that our about ways to institu- that the results ofmembers are doing to expand and deepen tionalize their assess-engagement. This year’s survey demonstrates ment measures. This this annual surveythat campuses are increasingly committed to will lead to sustainable reinforce the com-establishing and fulfilling a mission of civic practices that have a mitment to rigorousengagement that benefits communities while real and lasting impact reflection and en-educating students for social responsibility. on campuses and in the communities they serve. courage continuedWe urge campuses to take the next step bythinking systematically (and systemically) steps toward com- prehensive analy- sis of campus civic engagement efforts.” — MAUREEN F. CURLEY PRESIDENT CAMPUS COMPACT p 11 p
  • 12. A B OU T C A M PU S C OM PAC T A B OU T T H I S S U RV E YCampus Compact is a national coalition of The findings in this report reflect responsesnearly 1,200 college and university presidents— to Campus Compact’s online member-representing more than 6 million students— ship survey, conducted in the fall of 2011 towho are committed to fulfilling the civic purposes gauge civic engagement activity and sup-of higher education. As the only national port during the 2010–2011 academic year.higher education association dedicated solely Of the 1,185 members surveyed, 716 responded,to campus-based civic engagement, Campus for a response rate of 60%. Of respondingCompact promotes public and community campuses, 47% were private four-year institu-service that develops students’ citizenship skills, tions, 34% were public four-year institutions,helps campuses forge effective community 18% were public two-year institutions, andpartnerships, and provides resources and 1% were private two-year institutions.training for faculty seeking to integrate civic andcommunity-based learning into their curricula.Campus Compact comprises a national officebased in Boston, MA, and 34 state affiliates inCA, CO, CT, FL, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, ME, MD,MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK,OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, and WV.For more information, please contact:Sue C. KelmanDirector of CommunicationsTel: 617.357.1881 x 207E: skelman@compact.orgCitation information:Campus Compact. (2012). Deepeningthe Roots of Civic Engagement:Campus Compact 2011 AnnualMembership Survey ExecutiveSummary. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.For past years’ survey results,visit www.compact.org/about/statistics. 45 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 Tel: 617.357.1881 www.compact.org Visit us on Facebook at Campus Compact p12 p