Institutional Assessment

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 Maggie Grove at mgrove {at} compact(.)org


 

Key resources

A) 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

Anchor Strategies

Compilation of Rubrics

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

D) National Surveys


Organizations

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

 

  • update-img-new

    Get updates on what's new in the Campus Compact Network