Capacity development: Research rooted in community partner voice September 24, 2012 Patrick M. Green, Ed.D. Director, Center for Experiential Learning Clinical Instructor of Experiential Learning Loyola University Chicago

Overview of Presentation Framework of research Context of institution and program Methodology Data Collection and Analysis Implications of research

Framework of Research Literature on partnerships in service-learning and community engagement focused on “reciprocity” (Jacoby, 1996, 2003; Schiebel, Bowley, & Jones, 2005) –Partner as co-educator Asset-based community development approach (ABCD Model) –Stoecker in Research Methods for Community Change (2013) claims that “community development is about building the capacities of the communities to solve their own problems” –Purpose is capacity development

Context of Experiential Learning at Loyola University Chicago Center for Experiential Learning Service-Learning Academic Internships Student Employment Undergraduate Research ePortfolios

Service-Learning Courses 2,780 Loyola students provided over 106,914 hours of service to the Chicago community Over 100 faculty 103 courses in 34 different academic programs 300 community partner organizations

Academic Internships Over 2300 students participated in academic internships and field work Academic internships offered in 22 disciplines across 6 schools

Student Employment Program Over 600 students working in over 90 organizations; Over 1,750 students working on campus Students working in internship-quality experiences

Undergraduate Research Program 140 Students engaged in funded research with a faculty mentor Over160 students presented their research at the spring symposium

ePortfolio Program 3,152 Students engaged in building an ePortfolio 64 Loyola faculty and staff members used ePortfolio technology in their courses and programs

Research Questions How are organizations’ capacity built through the work of students in service-learning and community engaged progams? How does the voice of the community partner organization become structurally embedded into the partnership to identify the organization’s capacity development?

Methodology Survey of community partners (spring) Focus groups (Community Partner Gathering, other events) Semi-structured interviews (phone)

Data Collection and Analysis Surveys Web-based survey sent electronically via to community partner representatives Focus Groups Invitation to community partner representatives at events; self-select in to meetings Semi-structured interviews Conducted for 30 – 60 minutes via phone Data was analyzed through categorization and thematic analysis. Themes from community partner organizations emerged

Capacity Development The analysis of data demonstrated significant themes of capacity development, including: Expansion of volunteers and staff support Increased the number of beneficiaries served Improved service utilization by beneficiaries (e.g. more beneficiaries stay in a program long enough to experience significant benefits) Developed new programs and services or expanded existing programs and services Gained collaborative partnerships with other community organizations (not including Loyola) Diminished cost of services available to community

Opportunities for Partnership Growth Suggestions for implementation of reciprocal relationships that build upon the strengths of higher education and local institutions and that can catalyze long- term impact through collaboration: 1)Request for more community-based research projects 2)Facilitate more research connections with faculty 3)Support for longer duration of work 4)Develop multi-dimensional relationships between CBOs and higher education institutions

Implications Students contribute more than volunteer services to organizations; they aid in community development through building organizational capacity Students are the emerging workforce; training next generation of leadership and conversion to employment is potential outcome Need for longitudinal studies on community impact to identify long-term impact and capacity development

Implications Criticism in literature to the “unheard voices” of community partners in service-learning and community engagement (Stoecker & Tryon, 2009). How do we address community voice structurally in our partnership and our programs? Capture community voice through our programs and institutional structures. Embed community partner-focused programs throughout the year (e.g. Community Partner Gathering each summer; Community Engagement Forum) Intentional communication to document and collect partner voices (survey, focus groups, interviews) Develop outlets (blogs, website) to collect stories from community partners on how students are contributing to community work Develop NEW programs that respond to community voice (community-based research courses, Social Justice Internship Program, CRASH interdisciplinary course, CCCRI)

“Any situation in which some men prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence;…to alienate humans from their own decision making is to change them into objects” — Paulo Freire