1. Where Are We Now?

2. Overview Team self-assessments Initial review of RPT criteria Initial review of websites and documentation

3. Self-Assessment Process Goal: To identify present status and build team knowledge about present and future opportunities Two assessments for each institution -- team and provost’s representative Identical methods Assigned scores based on level Computed average and percentage scores

4. Summaries Provided For your own team: Detailed responses by team/provost’s representative for each indicator Summary of “raw” scores for both by level Adjusted average score by dimension Average score expressed as percentage For all teams: Aggregate of average score by dimension

5. Some Preliminary Insights Provosts’ representatives and teams often had differing perspectives on level In some cases could not assess the other due to lack of information/experience Some expressed that process useful for team-building and enhancing knowledge Provides basis for work of Collaborative

6. Summaries of Data: Aggregate For each dimension, average score of all teams (blue bars) and of all provosts’ representatives (plum bars) Aggregate of all 10 sites (Teams, N=10, Provosts Representatives, N=9) Refer to handout summarizing dimensions, indicators, and levels

7. Average Scores by Dimension

8. Summaries of Data: Dimension By dimension: comparison of team and provosts’ representative scores Team rating of the school (blue bars) Provost’s representative rating University as a whole (plum bars) Team and provost’s representative’s scores should be discussed by teams

9. Further Use of Self-Assessment First input to developing team strategy Serves as reference over next 12 months Will be repeated in late 2005, with comparisons of Years One and Two results Will be repeated in late 2006, with comparisons of all three years as well as change from beginning to end of Collaborative

10. Feedback on Self-Assessment Framework based upon existing methods and key concepts from relevant literature We welcome your feedback on the self- assessment framework Informal conversation during the meeting with Sherril or Megan Formal feedback on the meeting evaluation form

11. Analysis of Review, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) Criteria

12. A goal of most Collaborative participants: To make changes in RPT process to recognize community-engaged scholarship Know from other institutions that reward and recognition essential to support community- engaged scholarship Modified RPT criteria are clear statement of institutional commitment

13. Why Is This Important? A goal of the Collaborative is to help institutions in the change process Kotter Step 1: Establish a sense of urgency Kotter Step 2: Form a powerful guiding coalition Kotter Steps 3/4: Create and communicate vision Know these steps are necessary from experiences of various institutions

14. Proposed Strategy for RPT Analysis Goal: To identify role model practices Method: Apply a series of indicators derived from self-assessment metrics For each indicator, could assess recognition of community-engaged scholarship Evaluation team tested nine indicators on RPT criteria available on team websites

15. Next Steps: RPT Analysis Discussion topic for cross-Collaborative work group Value to Collaborative as a whole Discussion topic for teams Useful to review your current criteria? Action steps for making change locally Relevant peers/role models In order to monitor change over 3 years, useful to have analysis of starting point

16. Resources for Role Models: Specific Schools/Institutions IUPUI Portland State University UNC School of Public Health UNC Department of Family Medicine UW School of Public Health and Community Medicine

17. Resources for Role Models: National Resources CCPH National Review Board on the Scholarship of Engagement National Service-learning Clearinghouse Campus Compact www.compact.orgwww.compact.org Also

18. Website Analysis

19. Analysis of Institutional and School Websites Websites present opportunity for easy review of public information Would expect to see: Mission/vision/values statements Strategic plans/directions RPT criteria and procedures Descriptions of engagement activities Examples of projects, centers, areas of effort

20. Why Is This Important? Goal of Collaborative is to facilitate information-sharing Identification of promising practices to build knowledge and facilitate learning Websites may be used in selection process by potential students, faculty, staff Demonstrates what is important to you to specific external groups and general public

21. Proposed Strategy for Analysis Goal: To identify role model practices Method: Apply series of indicators organized by six dimensions For each indicator, could assess quantity and quality of accessible information Evaluation team reviewed websites to test set of indicators

22. Next Steps: Website Analysis Discussion theme for cross-Collaborative work group Value for identifying promising practices Discussion topic for teams Importance at your site for using website as dissemination vehicle Action steps for making change locally Relevant peers/role models In order to monitor change over 3 years, useful to have analysis of starting point

23. Questions? Clarifications … Insights … Points for discussion …

24. Small Group Discussion Randomly split into groups of 4 Make introductions What are the most important “take home” points from this morning for you? What are your strengths/opportunities for advancing CES in your school? Who else needs to be involved in your change effort? What resources/initiatives will support this project’s goals?

25. Where Do We Want to Be? Results of Team Action Planning

26. Team Action Planning Summary reflects completed action planning document of nine of the teams Handout of “Where do you want to be?” Six months One year End of three years Some valuable ideas relevant and/or applicable to all -- review what others have articulated

27. Common Elements of Plans Ensure credit for community-engaged scholarship (CES) Change RPT policies to support CES Definitions, examples of CES Workshops, discussions about CES Engage consultants to assist Engage community partners to support Increase funded CES research

28. Analysis of S.W.O.T. Handout summarizing Q.1.9 -- teams’ statements of: Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Useful in context to help understand experience of others and apply to self

29. Common Elements of S.W.O.T. Strengths of faculty, leadership, policy arena, interdisciplinary practice Weaknesses of culture, practice, institutional, resource barriers Opportunities presented by communities and collaborations Threats of bureaucracy, competition, funding, politics, lack of recognition

30. Some Successes to Date Community-based student learning projects with potential for scholarship Some examples of scholarly work (CE) Support of the “spirit” of community engagement Students are engaged, faculty are creating opportunities for engaged scholarship

31. To Move Forward: Have a Plan Concrete Identifiable as a coherent plan Able to disseminate Supported by relevant leadership

32. Team Plans Initial work done prior to this meeting By participation in Collaborative: Increased discussion and recognition Strengthen community-based teaching and research New language/terminology will emerge Faculty will build their careers on this work Formal recognition of community-engaged scholarship with resources to support it

33. How Will Collaborative Participation Help? Being part of national collaborative gives credibility Learn from other schools Serve as clearinghouse for resources Collective wisdom of group better than that of individuals Benefit from learning together Access results of assessments and monitoring over time to see progress

34. Planning for the Future Collaborative represents three year commitment Work towards individual school and institutional goals for change Link self-assessment to plans -- select dimensions with high leverage potential Seek to: Document change process Develop evidence of change process

35. Future Assessments Comprehensive annual review of action planning documents Provide updates/modifications Assess progress towards goals Document evidence of accomplishments, challenges, barriers to change Identify critical events

36. Critical Events in Change Process “Accelerators”: Those events that help you progress towards your goal(s) “Inhibitors”: Those events that create barriers towards accomplishment of your goal(s) “Hurdlers”: Those events that help you to break down the barriers and make progress towards your goal(s) Will ask you to chronicle these via email at six month intervals

37. The Biggest Barriers to Change (Kotter) Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency -- why change now? Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition -- need leadership Lacking a vision -- why is this important? “Under” communicating the vision -- let everyone know Not removing obstacles to the new vision -- support, leadership, resources

38. More Barriers to Change Not systematically planning for and creating short-term wins -- each step counts Declaring victory too soon -- changes must be in place for institutionalization Not anchoring changes in institution’s culture -- what works for you may not be relevant to another Be attentive to all of the steps!

39. Planning is good, BUT Action is better!

40. How Are We Going To Get There? Look at “Where do you want to be?” What are the most significant challenges? Which of these are cross-cutting? What are the most significant barriers? Which of these are cross-cutting? What are the strategies for change? What resources can the Collaborative offer through workgroups?

41. Refreshment Break