Service-Learning Research: Toward an Exploration of Links Between Student and Community Outcomes

1. Service-Learning Research: Toward an Exploration of Links Between Student and Community Outcomes • Symposium Chair: Roger N. Reeb, Ph.D., University of Dayton • Presenters: • William S. Davidson II, Ph.D., Michigan State University • Gretchen E. L. Suess, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania • Theo Majka, Ph.D. & Linda Majka, Ph.D., University of Dayton • Discussants: • Brother Raymond L. Fitz, S.M., Ph.D., University of Dayton • Stacey Langsner, M.A. & Brigitte Beale, M.A., University of Dayton Presented at the Tenth Annual International Research Conference on Service Learning and Community Engagement

2. IntroductionRoger N. Reeb, Ph.D.Professor of PsychologyUniversity of Dayton • Relative to the wealth of research on student outcomes, there is a lack of published research on community outcomes of service-learning. • The following presentations focus on ongoing projects that demonstrate positive outcomes for both students and community. • The need for future research to examine links between student and community outcomes will also be explored in this symposium.

3. Michigan State University Adolescent Project William S. Davidson II University Distinguished Professor

4. Adolescent ProjectWhat’s the University Doing Here Anyway? Research Teaching Community Collaboration University Unique Role

5. Adolescent ProjectModel of University Outreach Scholarship Stages of Program Development Collaboration on important issues Development of alternative approaches Testing of the alternative – science is skeptical Replication – science remains skeptical Continuation of successes – ongoing monitoring

6. Adolescent ProjectTimeline of Implementation 1976 /1990 - NIMH Funded (3 Grants) 3 Longitudinal Experiments Impact on Adolescents, Students, and Community 1985/Present – Community/MSU Funded Impact on Students Replicate Outcomes

7. Adolescent Project Historical Context Leading to Program Development • Crime a major issue • Crime largely a adolescent issue • Ineffectiveness of existing programs • High cost of residential treatment • Led to search for alternatives

8. Adolescent Project What Did We Bring to the Collaboration • MSU • Faculty and student time • New Course • Theory and research acumen • Community • Community Board • Referrals and Access • Experiential Expertise

9. Adolescent Project Key Community Partners • Community Partners • Chief Judge, Administrator, P.O.’s, Intake staff • Chief of Police • County Board of Commissioners • School Administrators

10. Adolescent Project • How do the adolescents get involved? • What are the characteristics of the adolescents? • What does the program involve? • How does it affect future crime?

11. Adolescent Project Illegal Behavior Complaint/ Arrest System Location Warn & Decision by Release Juvenile Officer Petition to Court Dismiss Refer to Probation/ Placement MSUAP

12. Adolescent Project Who Are the Adolescents • Over 4100 since 1976 • Average Age - 15; Range 9-16 • Gender – 74% Males 26% Females • Ethnicity – 60% White 40% African American • Average Grade Completed - 8th • Average # of Arrests - 2.16 • Common Offenses • Larceny in Building; B & E

13. Adolescent Project Program Model • Two semester Course • 10 Wks of Manual Based Training -18 Wks of Intervention (8 Hrs/Wk) • One-on-one Student/Adolescent Match • Student Change Agents/Weekly Supervision & Training • Cognitive Behavioral and Environmental Resources Theories • Transfer/Self Advocacy Component

14. MSU Adolescent Project –Effect on Crime – 30 Month Follow-up

15. MSU Adolescent Project – Effect on School Attendance – 4 Semester Follow-up

16. Adolescent Project • How do the students get involved? • What are the characteristics of the students? • What does the program involve? • How does the experience affect students?

17. Adolescent ProjectHow do the students get involved? • Recruitment • College wide email • Contacts with advisors • Selection • Making it a challenge • Interviews

18. Adolescent ProjectWho are the Students? • Graduate Students • Doctoral students in Psychology, CJ, & Social Work • Undergraduate Students • Juniors and Seniors (Avg. Age = 21.5) • Psychology (41%), CJ (18%) • Plan graduate school or human service career

19. Adolescent ProjectWhat’s the Student Experience • Graduate Students • Year long assistantship • Course instructor (In pairs) • Weekly supervision – 3 hours per week • Undergraduate Students • Two semesters • 2.5 hours class meeting per week • 8 - 10 hours of work in community per week

20. Adolescent ProjectWhat’s the Effect on Students • Graduate Students • 34 years – 208 grad assistant years (119 Individuals) • 42 in Faculty Positions w Outreach/Engagement focus • Undergraduate Students • 34 years – over 4100 involved • Compared to randomized control group • More likely to work in human services • More positive evaluation of undergraduate education • Greater sense of political efficacy and commitment

21. Adolescent ProjectWhat’s the Effect on The Community Partner • Partnership with University • Benefit of 3 five year federal grants • Safer community – recidivism cut in half • Over 4000 youth diverted (saving $5000 per) • More efficient targeting of court resources

22. Adolescent ProjectLinks Between Student Outcomes and Community • Direct effect of program outcomes • Students involved in social improvement efforts • Graduate School • Jobs • Bridging the town-gown chasm

23. Adolescent ProjectWhat’s the Effect on The University Partner • Partnership with Community for 34 yrs • 3 five year federal research grants • 25 year fiscal collaboration • Impact on students • Scholarly productivity • Book, 44 Articles, 41 presentations • Awards

24. Academically-Based Community Service – University of Pennsylvania Gretchen E. L. Suess, PhD Director of Evaluation Netter Center for Community Partnerships 10/29/2010 Other contributors: Ira Harkavy, Matt Hartley, Frank Johnston, Moelis Access Science partners, and a host of Penn student and faculty researchers.

25. ABCS at Penn • Effects on Penn Students • Benefits for Public School Partners • Evaluation Framework • Discussion Overview 

26. ABCS at Penn • “Service rooted in and intrinsically tied to teaching and research” (Harkavy, 1996) • Collaborative Community-University Partnerships • Research, Participation and Action • Focus on helping to solve significant structural problems [at Penn and] in the community • e.g., elitist, nondemocratic schooling, failing public schools & poor health care • Harkavy, I. (1996). Service Learning as a Vehicle for Revitalization of Education Institutions and Urban Communities. APA Meeting Paper. 

27. A Model of ABCS

28. Effects on Penn Students • ABCS versus non-ABCS Students • Problems that impact society as a whole • Individual concerns • Moelis Access Science Students • Communication skills/public speaking • Communicating science/math to non-academicians and children • Career in teaching • Public education

29. Benefits for Public School Partners • Academics • Attendance • Health and Nutrition • College and Career Guidance

30. Evaluation Framework • Longitudinal Evaluative Research • Context/Community • Implementation/Process • Impact/Outcomes • Data Management and Capacity

31. Discussion • Linking: • Research/Theory • Teaching & Learning • Practice • Service • Evaluation

32. Tell me and I’ll forget, show me and I may remember involve me and I’ll understand (Chinese Proverb)

33. Challenging Institutional Disadvantage in an Inner-city Neighborhood: Service-Learning Projects and their Community Outcomes Theo Majka, Ph.D. & Linda Majka, Ph.D. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work University of Dayton

34. Service Learning: Relevant Characteristics • Students perform a valuable service which has real consequences for the community. • The goal of service-learning is to empower students and those being served, with the needs of the community dictating the service being provided.

35. Service-Learning project • 17-year project in two mostly lower-income neighborhoods of predominantly (98%) African-American residents in west Dayton – the Roosevelt & Westwood neighborhoods.

36. Background • Dayton typical of older industrial upper Midwestern cities with loss of manufacturing jobs in past 35 years. • Dramatic reduction in population from 262,000 (1960) to 182,000 (1990) to 155,460 (2007) (41% decline since 1960). • Decline in median income of City households relative to metro area.

37. Roosevelt neighborhood(2000 Census) Population: 1073 (98% black) (nearly 100% native born) Household income: 34% below $10,000 33% between $10,000 & $25,000 Median income: $19,630 Poverty: 37% of households (11.3% nationally in 2000) Disability: 38% reported – sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home & employment

38. Roosevelt neighborhood(2000 Census) Education (ages 25 and over): No H.S. diploma: 43%; H.S. grad/G.E.D: 35% Employment status (ages 16 and over): Males: Unemployed: 14% Not in labor force: 48% Females: Unemployed: 15% Not in labor force: 44%

39. Roosevelt neighborhood(2000 Census) Housing: Owner occupied: 39% Renter occupied: 38% Vacant: 23% (many dilapidated and unkempt) 56% in same house for previous 5 years Households with residents under 18: 3-1 ratio of non-married households to married ones

40. Service-learning project • Service-learning project of annual door-to-door neighborhood surveys begun in 1992 in response to the neighborhood association beginning to explore strategies to reverse decline. • Survey asked about neighborhood problems and businesses needed. • Problems most frequently mentioned have been crime-safety, drug trafficking, and vacant houses & unkempt lots.

41. Accomplishments and improvements Answers served as guides for neighborhood leaders to prioritize goals & focus energies. Results leveraged with local public & private officials. Helped achieve needed businesses: laundromat, drug store, gas station with convenience store, and sit-down restaurant.

42. Accomplishments and improvements • Construction of a recreation center (opened 10/10) and adjacent K-8 all-boys school (opening 1/11) • Potential to serve as a community center or at least a locus for community events, projects & programs.

43. Accomplishments and improvements • Plans by the City to remove 80 vacant & mostly derelict houses in several block radius of new school with 40 new houses in their place. • The area where drug dealing has been concentrated.

44. Recognition • Neighborhood won the grand prize of “Neighborhood of the Year” award for 2001 & 1st place in the “Multi-Neighborhood Project Partnerships – Physical Revitalization” category at the Neighborhoods USA (NUSA) organization. • Neighborhood Assn. president whom we worked with, Annie Bonaparte, received Univ of Dayton’s Community Builders Award in 2005.

45. Two “Learning Incidents for Students”:Corporate Power • National drug store chain reneged on commitment to open drug store  community mobilized for protests  survey results used to demonstrate residents support for a pharmacy  drug store built (but closed summer 2008 due to corporate strategy of closing a number of urban stores). Note: independent pharmacy recently opened nearby.

46. Two “Learning Incident for Students”:Applicability of Assets-Based Approach • Potential Neighborhood Asset Not Utilized: Dayton School Board left former Roosevelt high school vacant  surveys in past 5 years showed overwhelming residents’ support for a community center  School Board voted (1/08) to demolish building and construct all-male K-8 school (to open 1/11)  Dayton Parks & Recreation opened this month (10/10) a Rec Center adjacent to school.

47. New Recreation Center: pool, gym, senior room, fitness room, computer lab, etc.

48. New Recreation Center: Pool

49. Central-City Neighborhood Projects: Student Outcomes • Several consequences for achieving goals of service learning. • These projects can illustrate for students: A. The larger context of neighborhood decline. Can connect with readings.

50. Central-City Neighborhood Projects: Student Outcomes B. Community engagement can result in beneficial changes. • Shows how grass-roots initiatives undertaken by residents can make some differences that can contribute to neighborhood livability.