community engagement practices, perceived benefits, and perceived costs iarslce, chicago, november...
TRANSCRIPT
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES,
PERCEIVED BENEFITS, AND PERCEIVED COSTS
IARSLCE, CHICAGO, NOVEMBER 3, 2011
Marcie A. SimpsonLorilee R. Sandmann
The Universityof Georgia
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?
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
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
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.
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)
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)
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
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
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%
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
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.
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
Methodology
Institutional Characteristics N % Institutional Level
Four-Year Institution 110 94.0 Two-Year Institution 7 6.0
Funding Control Public Institution 72 61.5 Private, Not-for-Profit 45 38.5
Type of Degree Granted by Institution Doctorate University 51 43.6
Master’s College or University 40 34.2 Baccalaureate College 17 14.5 Associate College 8 6.8 Special-Focus Institution 1 0.9 Note. n varies slightly due to missing data.
Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement PracticesTwo 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
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 periodsNumber of institutes offered for 3 of 4 half-year periodsNumber of institutes offered for 2 of 4 half-year periodsNumber of institutes offered for 1 of 4 half-year periodsNumber of institutes offered for 0 of 4 half-year periods
1140102
97.40
0.90
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
Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement PracticesFrequency 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 Percent
Rank
2. Offered extra-curricular community engagement activities to students (e.g., non-credit, school facilitated-student volunteerism)
117 100 1
1. Offered for-credit engagement courses to students (e.g., for-credit service-learning)
115 98.3 2
Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement PracticesTop 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
Frequency of Institutions Conducting Community-Engagement PracticesBottom 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
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 4th and 5th
rank
Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the InstitutionThe 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.
Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the InstitutionThe 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
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 – 5th and 9th ranks
Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the CommunityThe 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
Benefit of Community-Engagement Practices for the InstitutionThe 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
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
Cost of Community-Engagement Practices for the InstitutionThe 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
Cost of Community-Engagement Practices for the InstitutionThe 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
Institutional Support
Institutional Support Means on a 4 Point Scale:Administrative Support 4.03Student Support 3.94Staff Support 3.79Faculty Support 3.61Mean Item Mean was 3.84 (good to very good)
Five-point response scale of 1 equal to poor and 5 equal to excellent.
Analyses – Benefit/Cost RatiosInstitutional Benefit-Cost RatioSeeking 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 Ratio1.60 Cost
Offering non-credit workshops, etc has the lowest benefit for the cost with a 1.31 Benefit-Cost Ratio
Analyses – Benefit/Cost RatiosCommunity Benefit-Cost RatioSeeking 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 Ratio1.60 Cost
Offering non-credit workshops, etc. has the lowest benefit for the cost with a 1.37 Benefit-Cost Ratio
Conclusions
Prevalence of Practice - Exemplary institutions conduct community-engagement practices with high prevalence.
Faculty Research Support - Faculty research related variables received low ranks.
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.
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
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
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
Questions/Discussion
Contact Information
Marcie A. Simpson, Ph.D.Coordinator Org. Development & AccountabilityCollege of Agricultural & Environmental ScienceCooperative ExtensionThe University of Georgia318 Hoke Smith BuildingAthens, Georgia 30602Phone: 706-542-7786Email: [email protected]
Lorilee R. Sandmann, Ph.D.ProfessorDepartment of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy413 River’s CrossingAthens, Georgia 30602Email: [email protected]