1. The monitoring and evaluation of community engagement activities at universities: The case of the North-West University
Prof Hendri Coetzee (presenter)
and
Prof Werner Nell
North-West University

2. Outline Background / problem statement NWU's communities
NWU's CE activities
NWU's approach to monitoring and evaluating CE
Proposed database
Demonstration of database
Examples of outputs (x2)
NWU's impact (2016 results)
Conclusion and recommendations

3. Background / problem statement
Integration of Community Engagement (CE) in research, teaching-learning and outreach (perceptions, challenges and implications)
Required by DOE
Support risk management
Can also inform the strategic direction of universities
The case of North-West University (NWU)

4. NWU's communities

5. Community Impact Model
NWU's CE activities
Community Impact Model

6. NWU's approach to monitoring and evaluating CE
Theory of practice (what it is that they want to change)
Theory of change (how they plan to change it)
Logic-frame model
Data on all aspects are needed
Community needs/assets
Inputs
Outputs
Outcome
Impact

7. Category linked to logic frame Rational for inclusion
Proposed database
Category linked to logic frame
Activity detail
Rational for inclusion
Community needs/Assets
Baseline
To identify theory of practice
Feasibility/Sustainability
Funding
To determine the potential feasibility/sustainability of the activity
General information
Engagement nr
To keep tract of the number of activities
Campus
To develop and institutional profile of all CE activities
Faculty, school, department or entity
Name of engagement leader (EL)
To identify a relevant contact person
Contact details of EL
To improve communication
Engagement name
To document activities
Activity description
To provide additional information (if needed)
Geographical location of activity
To monitor/manage risk
Type of engaged research activity
Type of engaged teaching-learning activity
Type of outreach activity
Status
To monitor activities
Ethical clearance
General information (inputs)
Names and contact details of main external collaborators
Inputs
Nr of staff involved
To report on
Nr of students involved
Frequency of engagement
Time spend
What else are you investing in the project?
Outputs
Who do you reach (nr of and contact details of partners/beneficiaries)
Outcome/impact
What are the short-term results?
What are the medium-term results?
What are the long-term results (ultimate impact)?
What are the benefits for the NWU? (provide your internal impact)
How often do you report on the project?
Legal-matters – do you have any agreement in place?
To manage risk
Additional documentation (upload here)
To add value to reports/access additional information
Photographs or visual materials or links (upload here)

8. Demonstration of database

9. Example of output

10. Example of output

11. NWU's impact (2016 results) Item Do not know (%) Negative impact (%)
Answers were recorded on an ordinal scale ranging from a ‘negative impact’, to ‘no impact’, and a ‘positive impact’, with another option allowing participants to indicate that they ‘do not know’.
Item
Do not know (%)
Negative impact (%)
No impact (%)
Positive impact (%)
Behaviour of contractors linked to the NWU (as service providers)
Total
47.5
14.8
24.1
13.6
Tlokwe
43.8
11.4
29.5
15.2
Emfuleni
60.7
8.8
21.1
9.4
Mahikeng
30.6
25.8
24.8
18.7
Professional (discipline based) advice
42.6
16.4
19.5
21.5
33.6
16.6
22.3
27.5
56.9 11
15.4
16.7
27.7
24.2
23.5
24.5
Professional (discipline based) support
38.1
16.3
20.6 25
30.3
12.8
29.4
53.8
9.3
15.3
21.7 29
28.1
Broad-based black economic empowerment strategy
37.3
12.5
19.9
35.1
31.7
20.7
51.3
10.4 20
18.2
18.4
15.5
44.2
21.9
Community projects
34.5
7.4
18.8
39.4
24.9
4.7
22.1
48.4
45.9
7.5
14.9
31.6 9
44.5
Community services
29.9
8.3
24.0
37.8
13.7
6.6
52.1
47.8
8.4
15.6
28.2
14.7
33.9 42

12. Law clinics for the public Total 34.3 10.3 21.9 33.5
Item
Do not know (%)
Negative impact (%)
No impact (%)
Positive impact (%)
Law clinics for the public
Total
34.3
10.3
21.9
33.5
Tlokwe
25.4 7
22.1
45.5
Emfuleni
Mahikeng
18.2
14.6
26.8
40.4
Non-discipline based volunteerism by staff
37.1
12.6
26.4
23.9 30
12.2
32.4
48.3
10.7
23.6
17.4
25.6
15.6
31.2
27.6
The social behaviour of NWU students (after hours)
33.6
13.8
31.5
21.1
32.7
10.9
33.2
23.2
44.1
14.3
26.1
18.8
15.3
38.3
The general behaviour of NWU students
36.4
11.2
29.1
23.3
32.1
7.5
26.9
43.9 13
23.8
19.2
28.2 11
33.8
The general behaviour of NWU staff 37
8.4
27.9
26.6
32.2
7.1
29.4
31.3
45.7
8.8
24.3
21.2
The availability of the NWU’s infrastructure/facilities for use by the public.
41.4
8.7
26.7 34
8.5 25
32.5
49.8
6.8
18.1
25.3
34.1
11.7
29.5
24.7

13. Results: Further impact/ contributions
5-point scale ranging from 1 (don’t agree at all) to 5 (fully agree)
Results: Further impact/ contributions

14. Conclusion and recommendations
The NWU's current database includes a number of very relevant (reportable) aspects. This is in line with what is required by the DOE and institutional management. Additional aspects will however have to be included to increase the impact of its engaged activities.
In order to do so:
Theories of practice and change will have to be clarified.
Measurable (specific) indicators of change will have to be added.
Standardised categories for inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact will have to be created.

15. Contact details
Prof Hendri Coetzee