1. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES, PERCEIVED BENEFITS, AND PERCEIVED COSTS IARSLCE, CHICAGO, NOVEMBER 3, 2011 Marcie A. Simpson Lorilee R. Sandmann The University of Georgia

2. Research Questions  To what extent are institutions conducting community- engagement practices?  What is the perceived relative benefit of community- engagement practices for the institution?  What is the perceived relative benefit of community- engagement practices for the community?  What is the perceived relative cost of community- engagement practices to the institution?  How does institutional type impact community- engagement practices?

3. Methodology  Logical Framework  Input – institutional characteristics  Output – community-engagement practices  Outcome – benefits of community engagement  Study Population  2006 and 2008 recipients of the Carnegie community- engaged classification  196 institutions in the population

4. Methodology  Instrumentation  Researcher designed online survey instrument designed to answer the research questions by collecting data relevant to the following: Variety of practices Perceived relative benefits to the institution Perceived relative benefits to the community Perceived relative costs to the institution Perceived institutional support

5. Methodology  Concept clarification Analysis of the Carnegie application and literature review provided 78 potential instrument items.  Item Pool Development 50 items were identified from the 78 as practices or outputs 19 items once all duplicates were removed and over- reaching engagement practice concepts were identified.  Item Pool Refinement 12 items or 12 community-engagement practices were established with input from an expert panel.

6. Methodology – 12 Practices 1. Offered for-credit engagement courses to students (e.g., for-credit service learning) 2. Offered extra-curricular community-engagement activities to students (e.g., non-credit, school- facilitated student volunteerism) 3. Integrated community engagement into student leadership development opportunities 4. Involved students in conducting community-based research (to include action research and applied research)

7. Methodology – 12 Practices 5. Provided students the opportunity to participate in community-based internships 6. Involved students and faculty in community tutoring programs 7. Provided the community with faculty consultation services (e.g., faculty expertise to solve problems) 8. Conducted community-based research in and with the community (to include action research and applied research)

8. Methodology – 12 Practices 9. Maintained reciprocal and scholarly community- campus partnerships 10. Offered non-credit workshops, training, and courses to community members (on or off campus) 11. Sought input from the community in planning engagement activities 12. Permitted community members to use the campus library

9. Methodology  Response Scales Frequency of practice January – June 2008 July – December 2008 January – June 2009 July – December 2009 Assessing Benefit to Institution and Community Four-point Likert scale of little or no benefit to high benefit Assessing Cost to the Institution Four-point Likert scale of little or no cost to high cost Assessing Institutional Support Five-point Likert scale of poor to excellent

10. Methodology  Data Collection  Confidential, self-administered, web-based survey  Multiple, individualized contacts with the last contact directly from Dr. Sandmann’s professional email address  119 useable responses; 13 unusable responses  Response Rate Raw – 67.3% Adjusted – 69.1% Useable – 62.3%

11. Methodology  Data Preparation  Exported from Survey Monkey ® to Excel ®  Cleaned and Standardized  PASW ® was used to calculate: Mean item Means for Variation of Practice, Benefit to Institution, Benefit to Community, Cost to Institution, and Support for Community Egnagement Index measures alpha coefficients were all above.80 with a range of.82 to.89

12. Methodology  Description of Respondents  26 to 76 years of age with a mean age of 51  14.75 years at their current institution  6.29 year in current position  60.2 percent were female  Over 90 percent Caucasian, 6.4 African-American, 1.8 Latino, and.9 Asian  96.3 percent Administrator or Directors; 57.6 of these identified community engagement, outreach, or service learning in their title.

13. Methodology  Description of Institutions  94 percent four-year schools  6 percent two-year schools  61.5 percent public funding  38.5 percent not-for-profit  No for-profit  43.6 percent granting doctorate degrees  40 percent granting master degrees  17 percent granting bachelor degrees

14. Methodology Institutional Characteristics N % Institutional Level Four-Year Institution110 94.0 Two-Year Institution 76.0 Funding Control Public Institution72 61.5 Private, Not-for-Profit 45 38.5 Type of Degree Granted by Institution Doctorate University 51 43.6 Master’s College or University40 34.2 Baccalaureate College17 14.5 Associate College 8 6.8 Special-Focus Institution 1 0.9 Note. n varies slightly due to missing data.

15. Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement Practices Two sets of calculations were conducted:  Frequency, frequency percent, and frequency ranks for each individual half-year time period across the two-year time frame for each practice.  Frequency of practice for the two-year period

16. Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement Practices Frequency Practice N% 1.Offering for-credit engagement courses to students (e.g., for- credit service-learning) Number of institutes offered for 4 of 4 half-year periods Number of institutes offered for 3 of 4 half-year periods Number of institutes offered for 2 of 4 half-year periods Number of institutes offered for 1 of 4 half-year periods Number of institutes offered for 0 of 4 half-year periods 114 0 1 0 2 97.4 0 0.9 0 1.7 Frequency of Participation in Four Half-Year Time Periods Institutions typically conduct the practice during all four time frames or not at all

17. Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement Practices Frequency of practice for the two-year period The frequency of practice for each item was relatively high – not one practice falls below 80 percent and several approach 100 percent. Practice During 2008 – 2009 N PercentRank 2. Offered extra-curricular community engagement activities to students (e.g., non- credit, school facilitated-student volunteerism) 1171001 1. Offered for-credit engagement courses to students (e.g., for-credit service-learning) 11598.32

18. Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement Practices Top four ranked practices were:  Offered extra-curricular community engagement activities to students (e.g., non-credit, school facilitated-student volunteerism)  Offered for-credit engagement courses to students (e.g., for-credit service-learning)  Provided students the opportunity to participate in community-based internships  Integrated community engagement into student leadership development opportunities

19. Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement Practices Bottom four ranked practices were:  Involving students in conducting community-based research  Allowing community use of the public library  Providing faculty consultations to the community  Offering non-credit workshops to the community

20. Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the Institution  The means ranged from 3.13 to 3.91on a 4 point scale  There was a tie for the 4 th and 5 th rank

21. Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the Institution The top three ranked practices were:  Offering for-credit engagement courses to students  Providing students the opportunity to participate in community-based internships  Maintaining reciprocal scholarly community-campus partnerships The top two institutional benefits are student oriented.

22. Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the Institution The bottom three ranked practices were:  Providing the community with faculty consultation services  Offering non-credit workshops, trainings, and courses to community members  Permitting community members to use the library

23. Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the Community  3.36 to 3.72 mean range on a scale of 1 to 4  Two ties occurred – 5 th and 9 th ranks

24. Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the Community The top three ranked practices were:  Providing students the opportunity to participate in community-based internships  Maintaining reciprocal and scholarly community-campus partnerships  Offering for-credit engagement courses to students

25. Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the Institution The bottom four community benefits were:  Involving students in conducting community-based research  Offering non-credit workshops, trainings, and courses to community members  Permitting community members to use the library  Integrating community engagement into student leadership development opportunities

26. Cost of Community-Engagement Practices for the Institution  1.58 to 2.54 mean range on a scale of 1 to 4  No ties occurred

27. Cost of Community-Engagement Practices for the Institution The top three ranked practices were:  Offering non-credit workshops, trainings, and courses to community members  Conducting community-based research in and with the community  Offering for-credit engagement courses to students

28. Cost of Community-Engagement Practices for the Institution The bottom three ranked practices were:  Integrating community engagement into student leadership development opportunities  Seeking input from the community in planning engagement activities  Permitting community members to use the campus library

29. Institutional Support Institutional Support Means on a 4 Point Scale:  Administrative Support 4.03  Student Support 3.94  Staff Support 3.79  Faculty Support 3.61  Mean Item Mean was 3.84 (good to very good) Five-point response scale of 1 equal to poor and 5 equal to excellent.

30. Analyses – Benefit/Cost Ratios Institutional Benefit-Cost Ratio  Seeking input from the community in planning engagement activities holds the highest benefit to the institution in relation to the cost. 3.65 Institutional Benefit = 2.28 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.60 Cost  Offering non-credit workshops, etc has the lowest benefit for the cost with a 1.31 Benefit-Cost Ratio

31. Analyses – Benefit/Cost Ratios Community Benefit-Cost Ratio  Seeking input from the community in planning engagement activities holds the highest benefit to the community in relation to the cost. 3.55 Community Benefit = 2.22 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.60 Cost  Offering non-credit workshops, etc. has the lowest benefit for the cost with a 1.37 Benefit-Cost Ratio

32. Conclusions  Prevalence of Practice - Exemplary institutions conduct community-engagement practices with high prevalence.  Faculty Research Support - Faculty research related variables received low ranks.

33. Conclusions  Decision Making - Administrators do not make decisions to conduct community-engagement practices based on the efficiency of benefits and costs.  Benefits and Costs - Community-engagement practices produce equally high levels of benefit for both the institution and the community, with low levels of cost.

34. How this study informs service-learning and civic engagement…  Vetted list of community-engagement practices and frequency data  Providing insight into answering the question “what is community engagement?”  Researcher developed survey instrument  The prevalence of instruction- versus research- oriented practices contributes to discussions regarding faculty roles and acceptance

35. How this study informs service- learning and civic engagement…  Provides input and direction for further research regarding decision making and the practice of community engagement  Fist step toward collecting cost-benefit data  Contribution to the fields of innovation and institutional theory

36. How this study informs service- learning and civic engagement…  Baseline of practices in the form of a robust yet concise list  Professional development subject matter

37. Questions/Discussion

38. Contact Information Marcie A. Simpson, Ph.D. Coordinator Org. Development & Accountability College of Agricultural & Environmental Science Cooperative Extension The University of Georgia 318 Hoke Smith Building Athens, Georgia 30602 Phone: 706-542-7786 Email: simpson@uga.edu Lorilee R. Sandmann, Ph.D. Professor Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy 413 River’s Crossing Athens, Georgia 30602 Email: sandmann@uga.edu