Campus Compact 2012 Annual Member Survey


Published on

Campus Compact has conducted an annual membership survey since 1987 with the goal to help the organization and its member campuses track the extent of civic engagement activity in order to implement ongoing improvements. Campus Compact members should be proud of their role in educating students for responsible citizenship, strengthening communities, and fulfilling the public purpose of higher education. This year's results tell a story of continued growth in support structures for campus engagement, leading to notable levels of engagement with students, faculty, and community partners.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Campus Compact 2012 Annual Member Survey

  1. 1. C H A R T S & G R A P H STop 5 support mechanisms forfaculty engagement . . . . . . . . .3Support for student civic andcommunity engagement . . . . . .4Support for alumniengagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Value of community work andstudent participation levels . . . .6Top 10 issues addressed throughcommunity programs . . . . . . .6Engagement office/centerannual budget . . . . . . . . . . . .8Annual salary of engagementcenter leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Institutional uses of informationgathered for this survey . . . . . 10Creating a Cultureof AssessmentRRA N N U A L M E M B E RS U R V E Y2012CAMPUSCOMPACTMEMBERSHIPGROWTH,1985–PRESENT
  2. 2. 2Campus Compact has conducted an annual membership survey since 1987.The purpose of this survey is to help the organization and its member cam-puses track the extent of civic engagement activity in order to be able toimplement ongoing improvements as well as to report outcomes to variousconstituencies.The Opportunity of AssessmentThis year’s numbers tell a story of con-tinuing growth in support structures forcampus engagement, leading to notablelevels of engagement with students, faculty,and community partners. Where possible,comparisons with prior years have beenprovided to highlight areas of growth aswell as those where more work is needed.1Campuses have an ideal opportunity touse these findings not only to guide prac-tice and communicate the value of thiswork, but also to bolster their own internalassessment measures.Although there is no magic bullet forassessment—no single tool or methodthat will work for everyone—this surveycan be used in conjunction with informa-tion gathered for processes such as thePresident’s Higher Education CommunityService Honor Roll and the Carnegie Com-munity Engagement Classification to helpcampuses think more deeply about how touse assessment effectively.This analysis presents the latest findings onengagement activity, institutional supportmechanisms for this activity, and the roles,structure, and funding of coordinating cen-ters on campus. It also offers insight intohow campuses can make the most of thesurvey’s processes and results to guide theirown work.Institutional Support for EngagementCampus support is key to making civic andcommunity engagement part of the cul-tural landscape. This support takes manyforms, from building engagement into thecurriculum through service-learning, toproviding logistical and financial supportfor community work, to engaging alumni.Faculty SupportFaculty involvement is important bothfor creating a culture of engagement oncampus and for connecting communityand academic work in ways that enhancestudent learning. Service-learning as apedagogy has become well established; ofthe member campuses that responded tothis year’s survey, 95% offer these courses.Campuses offered an average of 66 coursesper campus in 2012, up slightly from 64in 2010. Some 7% of faculty teach service-learning courses; this figure is up from 6%in 2009 but has remained steady at 7% forthe past three years.1Note that different years are used in comparing some measures because not all questions are asked every year.
  3. 3. 3Institutional support for faculty encom-passes training and materials, release time,funding, and other measures. Campusesare increasing efforts in all of these areas(Figure 1). In one of the most importantmeasures, 68% of campuses reward facultyfor service-learning and community-based research, up from just 42% in2008 and 64% in 2010. Sabbaticals forservice-learning research, scholarship, andprogram development have become muchmore prevalent, offered by 33% of membercampuses in 2012, up from 19% in 2008and 24% in 2010.Although support for faculty engagementhas surged, it is important to ensure thatthe measures in place best reflect facultyneeds. Given the static figures for adoptionof service-learning, it may be that a shiftin focus is warranted. Engagement centerdirectors may want to examine whethersupport for faculty focuses on the mosteffective areas.Support for Student EngagementThis year’s survey results show across-the-board increases in policies that encourageengagement as well as in direct support forthis work. Notably, 62% of member cam-puses require service-learning as part of thecore curriculum of at least one major, upfrom 51% in 2010 (Figure 2). Direct sup-port measures such as transportation andliability management have also seen largejumps.Alumni EngagementWorking with alumni confers multipleadvantages, including maintaining con-nections with a key constituent group andencouraging ongoing development of socialresponsibility among graduates throughpublic service careers, community work,and support for campus efforts. CampusCompact started tracking alumni informa-tion relatively recently; responding to thesequestions may help campuses considerinnovative ways to reach this importantgroup.Campus support for those entering publicservice includes informational programson public service careers, offered by 83% ofcampuses (up from just 41% in 2010); net-working channels, offered by 58% (up from23% in 2010); and student loan defermentor forgiveness, offered by 17% and 14% of0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Encourages and supports faculty financially toattend and present at service-learning conferencesRewards service-learning and community-basedresearch in tenure and reviewProvides reflection and assessment materialsProvides curricular models and sample syllabiProvides faculty development workshops/fellowships% of responding campusesFIGURE 1: Top 5 Institutional Support Mechanisms for Faculty Engagement,2010 and 2012
  4. 4. 40 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Coordinates service days or weekends for alumniGives awards to alumni for serviceCultivates alumni donors to support service activitiesCommunicates service opportunities to alumniRecognizes alumni for service in publicationsInvites alumni to serve as speakers or mentorsfor current students65%62%79%52%46%61%40%49%33%42%40%30%% of responding campusescampuses, respectively (up from 9% and 6%in 2010).Other forms of alumni engagement haveseen similar increases (Figure 3). Onemeasure that offers a major opportunityis cultivating alumni support for campusservice activities, reported by 49% ofrespondents (up from 40% two years ago).Enlisting alumni for this purpose canbenefit students, campuses, and communi-ties alike.FIGURE 3: Institutional Support for Alumni Engagement, 2010 and 20120 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Requires service for graduationConsiders service formally in the admissions processRequires service-learning as part of core curriculumin at least one majorProvides funding for student service, service-learning,and/or civic engagementProvides/coordinates transportation to andfrom community sitesManages liability associated with service projectsDesignates a period of time to highlight studentcivic engagement and/or service-learningGives awards to students for serviceHosts and/or funds public dialogues on current issues% of responding campusesFIGURE 2: Institutional Support for Student Civic and Community Engagement,2010 and 2012
  5. 5. 5Impact of Student Work in the CommunityStudent participation in service, service-learning, and civic engagement activitiescontinues to increase at Campus Compactmember colleges and universities even asthe Corporation for National and Com-munity Service and other federal sourcesreport a decline in overall student servicelevels. This continued rise demonstratesa deep commitment to community onthe part of students, provided that strongsupport mechanisms are in place to makecommunity work accessible.Across the 557 member campuses thatresponded to this year’s survey, an averageof 44% of students participated in someform of community engagement duringthe 2011–2012 academic year, contributingan estimated $9.7 billion in service to theircommunities.2Both of these figures rep-resent new highs following a steady climbover the past five years (Figure 4).The issue areas addressed by student servicefocus mainly on education, poverty (includ-ing hunger and housing issues), health care(including mental health, elder care, andnutrition), environmental sustainability,and service to children and others in need.A review of the top areas addressed by stu-dent service shows an impressive increasein activity across issue areas (Figure 5).Two areas that fall just outside of the top 10but that have seen particularly acceleratedgrowth are programs to promote accessHIGHLIGHTING THE COMMUNITY IMPACT OF CAMPUS ENGAGEMENTImpact is not just a question of numbers; engagement changes people’s lives for thebetter. Keeping this end result in mind can help both in creating effective assessmentmeasures and in communicating impact to external constituencies (e.g., communitypartners, funders, and the public at large). Following are a few examples of how activitiesmay translate into impact:• At-risk youths receive tutoring, mentor-ing, and after-school support, leading tobetter school attendance and perfor-mance.• Economic development and other initia-tives work to address the root causes ofpoverty while the hungry and homelessreceive immediate help.• Environmental programs reduce theeffects of pollution and improvesustainability.• Mental and physical health programsprovide treatment and put preventivemeasures in place, leading to betteroverall health.• Multicultural and diversity work increas-es cultural understanding while pre-paring students for success in a globaleconomy.• College students gain leadership skillsand knowledge of community andsocietal issues—lessons they will takeinto their professional and civic lives.2Based on a 32-week academic year, a reported average service commitment of 3.6 hours/week,and Independent Sector’s 2011 value of service time of $21.79/hour.
  6. 6. 6Value of Community Work and Student Participation Levels atCampus Compact Member Institutions, 2008–2012%ofStudentBody0246810201220112010200920080102030405020122011201020092008Value of student servicein $ billions% of student bodyparticipating incommunity work$Billions0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Multiculturalism/diversityReading/writingHealth careTutoringEnvironment/sustainabilityMentoringPovertyHousing/homelessnessHungerK-12 education2012201067%66%Top 10 Issues Addressed through Campus Programs, 2008–20122008% of responding campuses with one or more programs in this areaFIGURE 4: Value of Community Work and Student Participation Levelsat Campus Compact Member Institutions, 2008–2012FIGURE 5: Top 10 Community Issues Addressed throughCampus Programs, 2008–2012
  7. 7. 7and success in higher education, offeredby 79% of campuses (up from 56% in 2008and 72% in 2010), and programs to fostereconomic development, offered by 69% ofcampuses (up from 48% in 2008 and 61% in2010). This shift accentuates higher educa-tion’s ability to innovate to meet emergingsocietal needs and exemplifies CampusCompact’s efforts to promote civic engage-ment as an important tool for making animpact in these areas.Campus Centers: The Hub of EngagementGiven the recent intensification of engage-ment activity, there is evidence that centersare being asked to take on increasingresponsibility relative to their budgetsand staffing. Assessment is important fortracking the extent and impact of risingworkloads on the institutionalization ofengagement efforts; internal data collec-tion can point out inefficiencies as well asprogram or budget gaps. Assessment alsoallows centers to demonstrate their role infulfilling the institution’s mission and stra-tegic plan with regard to student learningand community outcomes. Finally, examin-ing center structures, roles, and fundingcan help campuses benchmark progressagainst national norms and explore issuessuch as internal coordination and alloca-tion of work.Nearly all members—96%—have at leastone center devoted to community andcivic engagement, and more than 60% havemore than one center. Although campuseshave indicated an increasing focus onco-development of knowledge with com-munity partners, centers remain rooted oncampus, with just 3% of respondents notingthat centers are partially or wholly locatedoff-campus.Member campuses report that an average of20 staff members play some role in support-ing service and/or civic engagement efforts,CAMPUS COMPACT RESOURCES TO GUIDE ISSUE-BASEDCAMPUS PROGRAMSIn response to demand for evidence-based assessment of civic engagement work aimedat two key issues—access and success in higher education and economic development—Campus Compact has produced white papers examining best practices in these areas:A Promising Connection: Increasing CollegeAccess and Success through Civic Engage-ment. Available at Learning Economies: Aligning CivicEngagement and Economic Development inCommunity-Campus Partnerships. Availableat
  8. 8. 8and 11 staff members provide supportfor service-learning. These figures do notrepresent full-time positions in these areas,as staff often work part-time or acrossfunctions. The role of the civic engagementcenter is crucial in coordinating effortsacross the institution to ensure both thequality and the efficiency of work in thecommunity.Average budgets for campus engagementcenters continue to climb, albeit slowly,despite the overall climate of economichardship. The most movement is at thehigh and low ends of the spectrum: in 2012,18% of centers reported annual budgetsof $250,000 and higher, compared with15% in 2010, while 37% reported budgetsbelow $20,000, compared with 39% in 2010(Figure 6).Similarly, although the median salaryrange of center leaders remains at $40,000–60,000, campuses report fewer salaries atthe low end and more at the high end. Just4% of campuses reported that the centerleader earned less than $20,000, comparedwith 8% in 2010; 7% reported an annualsalary of more than $100,000, up from 5%in 2010 (Figure 7).Center staff are bringing increasing levelsof education and experience to the job aswell as assuming greater responsibility. Afull 82% of center leaders have an advanceddegree (57% with a master’s degree and25% with a PhD), up from 79% in 2010;nearly all of the remainder have a bachelor’sdegree. Leaders are most often categorizedas directors—71% in 2012, up from 68% in2010. Another 6% are associate or assistantdirectors, and 20% are program managersor coordinators. Leaders have been at theircurrent positions for an average of 6 years,and have been with the institution for anaverage of 10 years.% of responding campuses89%50%Less than $20,00037%$100,000–$249,99920%$50,000–$99,99913%$20,000–$49,999$250,000+12%18%Engagement Office/CenterAnnual Budget, 201275%89%75%72%72%50%Less than $20,0004%$60,001–$80,00022%$20,000–$40,00017%$40,001–$60,000$80,001–$100,00038%11%More than $100,0007%% of responding campusesFIGURE 6: Engagement Office/CenterAnnual Budget, 2012FIGURE 7: Average Annual Salary of EngagementCenter Leaders, 2012
  9. 9. 9Using Assessment to Improve (and Communicate) ValueResponses to questions about this year’ssurvey process provide insight into theextent to which campuses are prepared totrack information as well as how they usethe results. This report is a good start-ing point for guiding internal assessmentefforts, including evaluation of overallactivity as well as of individual programs.Such assessment can enhance the effective-ness of engagement efforts while provid-TIPS FOR USING ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO CONVEY THE VALUEOF CAMPUS WORK IN THE COMMUNITYTracking the impact of engagement efforts allows the program, center, and institutionto tell a compelling story about the value of this work on campus and in the commu-nity. Following are tips for using assessment results to communicate effectively withinternal and external audiences.Quantitative data is ideal, but qualita-tive information is also valuable, espe-cially when paired with quantitative data.Try to get stories from students and fromcommunity partners and/or those theyserve to show what your work means tothe individuals affected.Track what you can. Do not let the lackof a perfect tool or a response rate thatfalls below 100% deter you from collect-ing and reporting information.Make use of internal resources; for ex-ample, faculty with research or statisticsexpertise can help compile and evaluatedata, journalism students can interviewcommunity members and write articles,campus photographers can snap photosof students and others in action.Focus on outcomes, not just processes.For communication purposes, it is impor-tant to look not just at what you are do-ing but also at why it matters. If you havea tutoring program, by all means trackthe numbers of students tutoring and be-ing tutored, but try also to track changesin test scores, grades, or attendance.Think about who should hear yourresults. Of course you need to reportback to community partners and thefaculty and students involved in engage-ment efforts, but it can also be valuableto talk with other campus staff aboutgetting the word out to groups such asalumni, prospective students, legislators,and the media.Consider alternative forums for com-munication. Centers that have good re-lationships with campus public relationsstaff often think in terms of press releasesonly. It is equally important to make useof internal media such as the campuswebsite, newspaper, or alumni magazine,as well as social media outlets.Inform your own leadership. Be sureto give campus leaders, including thepresident or chancellor, information onthe institution’s engagement efforts sothey can incorporate findings into theircommunication. Create talking pointswith key areas of impact to assist in thiseffort.Use Campus Compact to gain state andnational exposure for your work. If youcommunicate your assessment results toyour state Compact affiliate’s office and/or the national office, Campus Compactcan share your story widely through printand online media.
  10. 10. 10ing opportunities to communicate thevalue of this work to internal and externalaudiences.Uses of This SurveyMore than half of this year’s respon-dents (55%) said they have the necessaryresources to answer all survey questions onbehalf of their institutions, up from 36% in2010. This jump indicates a conscious effortto create mechanisms for collecting dataacross the institution.Campuses most frequently note difficultyin acquiring information about alumni.Already campuses have shown a sharpincrease in attention to this constituencysince these questions were added to thesurvey. Campus Compact anticipates thatthis interest will spur further efforts togather data as well as to enlist alumni asactive supporters.Surprisingly, 21% of respondents saidthat they do not specifically track service,service-learning, or civic engagement activ-ity. Although staff may be very knowledge-able about this activity, in failing to adopttracking mechanisms these institutions aremissing out on a huge opportunity to mea-sure, evaluate, and report on their results.Most campuses (62%) track service-learn-ing separately from other forms of engage-ment. There is nothing wrong with thisapproach, but it is important to coordinateefforts both to achieve efficiencies and to beable to communicate about the institution’sfull body of work.A full 97% of campuses use the informationgathered for this survey to communicatewith their stakeholders about the impact ofengagement work. Most common are inter-nal uses, including sharing with campusFIGURE 8: Institutional Uses of Information Gathered for This Survey0 20 40 60 80 100Use to complete the Carnegie CommunityEngagement Classification applicationShare with prospective studentsShare with alumniShare with current and/or prospective donorsUse to inform accreditationShare with relevant community contactsShare with current studentsUse to complete the President’s Higher EducationCommunity Service Honor Roll applicationUse to inform strategic planningShare with relevant campus contacts 93%78%55%48%52%43%41%40%42%52%% of responding campuses
  11. 11. 11contacts, reported by 93% of respondents,and informing strategic planning, reportedby 78% (Figure 8).Campuses also use the data to inform keyexternal constituencies such as commu-nity contacts (52%), current and potentialdonors (43%), alumni (42%), and prospec-tive students (41%). The most growthhas been in using data from the CampusCompact survey to inform processes suchas accreditation (48%, up from 43% in 2010)and the Carnegie Community EngagementClassification (40%, up from 23% in 2010).Showing the Big PictureThe institutional data collected for this sur-vey can be combined with national resultsto convey a larger picture of the socialimpact of higher education’s civic mission.As part of this larger movement, CampusCompact members can highlight theirrole in educating students for responsiblecitizenship, strengthening communities,and fulfilling the public purpose of highereducation.Institutions in states for which the surveyhad a high enough response rate also canget state-level data from their state Com-pact affiliate office. This will allow them tocommunicate their role in bolstering com-munities locally, statewide, and nationally.Examining the broad impact of engagementis just one piece of the assessment puzzle.Program assessment is essential both forpiecing together the larger picture andfor ensuring that program efforts providemaximum benefit for all involved.The questions and measurements uti-lized in this survey can provide a basisfor such evaluation, although campuseswill of course need to put in place assess-ment measures that best suit their specificsituation. Factors to consider include thetypes of programs under evaluation, theroles of community partners, the individu-als served, and the students and facultyparticipating.Maximizing BenefitsTo get the most out of assessment, the keyis to begin with the end in mind: that is, tointegrate assessment into program designand execution. The up-front work requiredto establish evaluation measures and pro-cedures will pay off later when results canbe seen in real time. Planning with assess-ment in mind also provides an impetus fordiscussing priorities and desired outcomeswith community partners before workbegins. This will help ensure that all par-ties’ interests are aligned.Focusing on impact throughout the processwill help to create a culture of assessmentand continuous improvement. The resultwill be real and rising benefits for students,campuses, and communities.R
  12. 12. 12About Campus CompactCampus Compact advances the publicpurposes of colleges and universities bydeepening their ability to improve com-munity life and to educate students forcivic and social responsibility.Campus Compact envisions colleges anduniversities as vital agents and architectsof a diverse democracy, committedto educating students for responsiblecitizenship in ways that both deepentheir education and improve the qual-ity of community life. We challenge allof higher education to make civic andcommunity engagement an institutionalpriority.Campus Compact comprises a nationaloffice based in Boston, MA, and stateaffiliates in CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, IL, IN,IA, KS, KY, ME, MD-DC, MA, MI, MN,MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH,OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA,WI, and WV.For contact and other information,please visit our This SurveyThe findings in this survey reflectresponses from Campus Compact’sonline membership survey, conducted inthe fall of 2012 to gauge campus-basedcivic engagement activity and supportduring the 2011–2012 academic year.Of the 1,120 member institutionssurveyed, 557 responded, for a responserate of 50%. Of responding campuses,47% were private four-year institutions,34% were public four-year institutions,18% were public two-year institutions,and 1% were private two-year institu-tions. Although the survey pool doesnot remain entirely constant from oneyear to the next, these proportions haveremained stable over the past decade,allowing meaningful comparisons overtime.Citation information: Campus Compact.(2013). Creating a Culture of Assessment:2012 Campus Compact Annual MemberSurvey. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.Visit view past years’ survey results.45 Temple PlaceBoston, MA 02111Tel: