Documenting Engagement and Service

1. Documenting Engagement and Service Susan Kahn Director, Office of Institutional Effectiveness, IUPUI Campus Compact Engagement and Service: Focusing on Criterion 5 November 10, 2005

2. Definitions • What do “engagement” and “service” mean on your campus? Through what activities are they enacted? (e.g., service learning, work with PK-12, contributions to community economic development, collaborations, etc.)

3. Why engagement and service? Why now? • Higher education as a public, rather than a private good (NCA) • Return to land grant ideal • Emphasis on higher ed’s responsibility to educate leaders and citizens (service learning as powerful pedagogy) • Changing ideas about faculty roles (“Scholarship of engagement”)

4. Organized around • Mission • Goals • Performance indicators • Evidence (from individual, unit, and institutional levels)

5. Portfolio audiences • Accrediting agencies • Community leaders and members • State governments • Prospective/current students • Prospective/current faculty, administrators, staff • Employers

6. Why institutional portfolios?Why now? Current ideas about organizing for learning and accountability: • Focus on learning as a primary mission of the whole institution • Emphasis on continuous assessment and improvement • Emphasis on specific institutional mission and circumstances • Interest in integrating accountability with ongoing internal improvement

7. Urban UniversitiesPortfolio Project(UUPP) • California State University, Sacramento • Georgia State University • IUPUI • Portland State University • University of Illinois at Chicago • University of Massachusetts Boston Sponsor: AAHE Funded by: The Pew Charitable Trusts (1998-2001)

8. IUPUI • Founded 1969 • Commuter campus, with strong local mission • 30,000 students • 22 schools • Structured planning and assessment processes • Well-developed IR function and technology infrastructure • Open information environment

9. Assessment at IUPUI • 1992: Division of Planning and Institutional Improvement • 1998: Principles of Undergraduate Learning (PULs) • 1998: UUPP • 2000: Campus-wide study of PULs • 2001: Decision to use portfolio as self-study platform • 2002: HLC/NCA Accreditation visit • 2002-present: Annual performance report published in institutional portfolio

10. External Pulls towards Engagement • Federal and State policy, funding • Nonprofit organizations, funding • Educational Associations, programs • Community conditions/context • Institutional rankings • Accreditation standards • (Brukardt, 2005)

11. Internal Push towards Engagement • Campus mission (differentiation) • Campus leadership • Deep, active, relevant learning • Expanding view of scholarship • Public accountability • Accreditation standards

12. Accreditation Process • Focuses institution-wide attention • Assures public of institutional quality • Supports institutional improvement • Creates critical data sets • Facilitates decisions, planning • Spurs institutional, strategic change • (Brukardt, 2005)

13. Assessment of Civic Engagement • Increased ownership of the work • Increased understanding of the work for variety of stakeholders • “Goldsmith” factor • Faculty Council “ah-hah” • Additional resources (internal and external) to support the work

14. IUPUI Pivotal Events • 1993 Office of Service Learning • 1995 Campus Task Force on Service • 1996 I.U. Def./Doc./Eval. Prof. Service • 2001 Center for Service and Learning • 2002 P & T Guidelines approved • 2002 Civic Engagement NCA Self-Study • 2003 “Civic Collaborative” Tuition Funds • 2004 Council on Civic Engagement • 2005 Carnegie Classification Pilot Project

15. Civic Engagement Task Force • Prepare for NCA accreditation, 2002 • Establish efficient institutional mechanisms • Document CE activities in centralized way • Identify ways to evaluate quality of CE • Envision a “Civic Agenda” for Indianapolis and Central Indiana • Ongoing, post-accreditation activities (e.g., campus dialogue series, reports)

16. Faculty Work “In and With” the Community

17. Civic Engagement • Teaching, research, and service in and with the community • Occurs in profit, nonprofit, and government sectors • Has no geographic boundaries

18. Definition of Civic Engagement Civic engagement is • active collaboration • that builds on the resources, skills, expertise, and knowledge of the campus and community • to improve the quality of life in communities • in a manner that is consistent with the campus mission…and • demonstrates democratic values of participation for all participants. (IUPUI, 2002)

19. Performance Measures for CE Enhance Capacity for Civic Engagement • Advocacy and support in all aspects of institutional work • Internal resources and infrastructure • External funding for civic engagement • Documented quality and impact Visit http://www.iport.iupui.edu

20. Performance Measures for CE Enhance Civic Activities, Partnerships, and Patient Client Services • Academic community-based learning in variety of settings • Community-based research, scholarship and creative activity • Professional service “in and with” • Participation in community service

21. Performance Measures for CE Intensify commitment and accountability to Indianapolis, Central Indiana, and Indiana • Campus participation in …. • Regular forums on the campus community agenda • Contributions to the climate for diversity

22. Civic Engagement Inventory • Document/categorize CE activities • Topical issues (e.g., homeless) • Increase understanding of CE • Internally (e.g., planning, collaboration) • Externally • Provide recognition for CE • Schools/campus reports • Individual faculty • Contribute to quality and impact

23. Post-NCA • Who is responsible? • What’s the carrot? • Tied to institutional planning, budget • Deans annual reporting on CE • Chancellor’s Doubling Initiative • Council on Civic Engagement • Carnegie Classification Pilot

24. Council on Civic Engagement • Assessment (student learning, community impact, institutional portfolio) • Academic Affairs (curriculum, Faculty Roles & Rewards, academic policy) • Strategic Planning (“civic agenda”) • Publicity/Communications • International Civic Engagement

25. Carnegie Classification Pilot • Twelve diverse institutions • Definitional issues • “Community Engagement” • Types of information most easily gathered • Reconvene Fall 2005 • Voluntary classification

26. With Academic Leadership • Value the perplexity of the task • Focus on literacy – definitions • Involve faculty – scholarly work • Tie to institutional assessment • Link to planning and budget • Prod the elephant

27. Without Academic Leadership • Align to campus mission • Know accreditation (e.g. NCA Criterion 5) • Conduct activities to meet criteria • Count what you can – measure if you can • Meet with faculty, campus leaders • Produce and circulate reports • “Peanuts for the elephant”

28. Discussion of IUPUI Case-Study • What appears to be the benefits of having an electronic institutional portfolio? • What appears to be the challenges of having an electronic institutional portfolio? • Is it worth the effort?

29. Benefits • Can foster ongoing conversation about learning, improvement, and assessment • Catalyst for making improvement efforts more continuous, coordinated, collaborative, and complete • Promotes faculty development in ways compatible with institutional needs • Enhances stakeholder understanding of institution’s special mission, roles. and accomplishments • Demonstrates accountability and credibility

30. Disadvantages • More work than a paper self-study or report • Need for infrastructure • Accreditation in transition—associations/teams may need to be oriented to this approach • Blurs “boundaries” of self-study

31. On the Internet… • IUPUI institutional portfolio: www.iport.iupui.edu • Susan Kahn skahn@iupui.edu