Initial curators: Tabitha Underwood, Missouri Campus Compact & H. Anne Weiss, Indiana Campus Compact

Introduction

The next step after signing the Action Statement, is to develop a meaningful and strategic civic action plan. To do so, a campus must first understand its current state of engagement; to plan for future action, one must understand their starting point. This entails a self-assessment of engagement across a variety to indicators, putting tracking and monitoring into place, and utilizing national data and trends to inform the plan and future practice. An institutional self-assessment will include a comprehensive examination of the following themes and best practices of an engaged campus (Campus Compact, n.d.): institutional culture, curriculum and pedagogy, faculty roles and rewards, mechanisms and resources, and community-campus exchange.

If you know of resources that you would like to contribute to this knowledge hub, please contact Clayton Hurd at churd {at} compact(.)org

Key resources

A) Indicators of an Engaged Campus

• Campus Compact’s Indicators of Engagement: Themes and indicators

• Indicators of an Engaged Campus

B) Self-Assessment Tools

These assessment tools walk campuses through determining where they are in the process of institutionalization of engagement as expressed in themes of an engaged campus.

Institutionalization Rubrics

• Furco, A., Weerts, D., Burton, L., & Kent, K. (2009). Assessment Rubric for Institutionalizing Community Engagement in Higher Education.

• Gelmon, S.B., Seifer, S.D. Kauper-Brown, J. & Mikkelsen, M. (2005). Building Capacity for Community Engagement: Institutional Self-Assessment.

• Holland, B.A. (2006). Levels of Commitment to Community Engagement. Adapted from Holland, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Vol.4, Fall 1997, pp. 30- 41.

• Jamison, J.R., & Stevens, M. (2013). Embedding Service Engagement in Higher Education: A Rubric for Institutional Planning.

• Kecskes, K. (2008). Creating community-engaged departments: Self-assessment rubric for the institutionalization of community engagement in academic departments.

• National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement (2012). A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future. Washington, DC: AAC&U.

Anchor Strategies

• The Democracy Collaborative (August 2013). The Anchor Dashboard: Aligning Institutional Practice to Meet Low-Income Community Needs. (see Figure 1, p. 16 for outcomes and examples of indicators.

Compilation of Rubrics

• Assessment Tool Cover Sheet
• Benchmarking Tool
• North Carolina Campus Compact has developed a Campus Planning Guide that combines Carnegie indicators, the Holland matrix, SACS requirements, and the President’s Community Service Honor Roll.

• Missouri Campus Compact used this NC Campus Compact tool as a starting point to create a benchmarking tool that contains a similar complication of indicators from institutionalization matrices, the Carnegie framework, and anchor strategies.

• Gelmon, S.B., Holland, B.A., Driscoll, A., Spring, A., & Kerrigan (2001). Assessing service-learning and civic engagement: Principles and techniques. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Provides matrices for assessing impact on students, faculty, community, and institution.

• Carnegie Foundation For the Advancement of Teaching- Community Engagement Classification Application
  While not an actual assessment rubric, the Carnegie application for the community engagement classification can be a useful tool in conducting a self-assessment since it follows the themes of Campus Compact’s Indicators of Engagement.

C) Tracking & Monitoring

The assessment tools provided here indicate whether certain aspects of engagement are in place; however, they will not illustrate the outputs of engagement. Campuses may want to consider tracking the following within their comprehensive assessments (also outlined in the Carnegie Framework and the NC Campus Compact Campus Compact Planning Guide):

1. Number of: service-learning courses; faculty teaching service-learning or community-based learning courses; students participating in some form of community-based learning/activity; community-based research projects or courses; faculty/staff involved in community service.
2. Percentage of: the curriculum that is service-learning or community-based; faculty teaching service-learning or community-based learning courses; cbr projects in relation to total undergraduate research; graduates who took one community-based course while at your institution; graduates who entered the public sector.
3. Hours of service-learning & co-curricular service.
4. Number, length, and type (tax status, scope of work, etc.) of community partnerships.

Overviews & Guidance for Developing Tracking & Monitoring Systems

• Serve, Track, Report Webinar
  This webinar was sponsored by CCMW, MNCC, and CACC. Provides an overview of available tracking software. For the full spreadsheet, click here.

• Strategies for Monitoring Toolkit
  This toolkit was developed by Campus Compact. Lists suggestions on implementing tracking and monitoring practices

• Iowa Campus Compact’s Measurement Strategies
  Comparison of major data collection methods, developed by Iowa Campus Compact.

• North Carolina Campus Compact’s Campus Planning Guide
  This planning Guide can be used for continual monitoring of indicators.

• Weiss, et. al. (2016). Overview of Home-Grown and Vendor Options for Tracking and Monitoring Community Engagement in Higher Education. Indiana Campus Compact. Retrieved from TBA.

• Gelmon, S.B., Holland, B.A., Driscoll, A., Spring, A., & Kerrigan (2001). Assessing service-learning and civic engagement: Principles and techniques. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Provides tools for assessing strategies and examples.

• Collaboratory: Comprehensive data collection across the institution

• Example of Campus Scan from Duke University

• Optimal College Town Assessment: measuring town-gown relations

D) National Surveys

• National Survey on Student Engagement- Civic Engagement Module
• Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA- CIRP Freshman Survey

• Personal and Social Responsibility Index- Iowa State University & AASC&U

• National Campus Compact Annual Membership Survey

• Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership

• National Study of Learning, Voting and Engagement (NSLVE)

• Civic Learning and Engagement Assessment Instruments (AAC&U Civic Working Group)

Organizations

• Association for the Assessment of Learning in Higher Education (AALHE) – professional membership association

• Assessment Commons – Resources for higher education outcomes assessment

• American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) – Assessment tools and practices

• NASPA – Assessment and evaluation resources

• National Conference on Citizenship (NCoC) – Civic Health Index for national trends

• Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education – Civic Engagement and Service Learning Programs Standards

• Community of Practice on Tracking & Assessing Community Engagement Activities Across your Institution – Sponsored by Indiana Campus Compact

Exemplars

Institutionalization

• University of North Carolina-Greensboro
  Emily Janke, Director, Institute for Community and Economic Engagement. A leader in supporting, sustaining, and enhancing how higher education can be an inclusive, collaborative, and responsive community member.

• Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis
  Amy Conrad Warner, Vice Chancellor of Community Engagement. This newly formed position spawned during the campus’s process of completing the application for Carnegie’s Community Engagement Classification.

Tracking & Monitoring Community Engagement

• Home Grown Example: Michigan State
  National Collaborative for the Study of University Engagement, (Burton Bargerstock, Director) have developed a unique system (the Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument- OEMI).

• Vendor Product Example: Ball State University
  Delaina Boyd, Director of Building Better Communities, Business Development Division presents a utilization of Digital Measures Activity Insight- an annual reporting tool for faculty activities.

Other Useful Information

• Recognition for Institution’s Community Engagement: Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, President’s Community Service Honor Roll, various state’s Engage Campus Award from Campus Compact (Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Mountain West, and many others).

• Accreditation: Many accrediting bodies have standards or requirements for community engagement at an institutional level. Find regional accrediting organizations at the link below.

• Community Impact: In order to understand how effective the engagement may be on a campus, one must assess both the campus’ outcomes as well as the community outcomes and impact.

Kellogg Foundation – Logic Model Development Guide

Neighborworks America community outcome measurement toolkit

Examples of higher education/CDFI partnerships

• Asset Mapping: When telling the story of an engaged campus and planning for future action, one must consider the assets or resources available at the institution and in the community. Asset mapping should be a part of any comprehensive assessment plan.

ABCD Institute

Participatory Asset Mapping Toolkit by Community Science

Identifying Community Assets and Resources