Conference Report
For Community's Sake:
Maximizing the Community Impact of Service Learning
June 6th, 2008, 8:30-4:30
University of Wisconsin-Baraboo/Sauk County
Report by Randy Stoecker and Charity Schmidt
Comments welcome. Please send comments to rstoecker@wisc.edu
Contents
Introduction
Theme 1: Developing a Mission and Principles for Service Learning Programs
Theme 2: Practical Strategies for Pursuing the Principles
Theme 3: Faculty Roles in Service Learning
Theme 4: The Role of Cultural Diversity in Service Learning
Theme 5: Communication and Relationship Building Principles
Theme 6: Community Voice in Project Development
Theme 7: Evaluating and Document Service Learning
Introduction
Approximately 40 people, three-quarters of them representing higher education institutions (from Wisconsin and Iowa), and the rest representing nonprofit organizations, gathered for a day of focus on how to maximize the community impact of service learning. Using facilitated group processes, eight breakout groups discussed the following questions:
- How do we design projects with community impacts in mind?
- How do we build relationships with community groups and organizations?
- How do we balance and negotiate campus and community needs?
- How do we design service learning programs for maximum community impact?
- How do we support community organizations to fully partner in service learning?
- How do we document community impact?
- How do we build community capacity through service learning?
- How do we restructure higher education to support service learning that maximizes community impact?
Randy and Charity then analyzed the notes from each of those sessions, along with the output from the final discussion session, and looked for common themes. This report presents those themes and leads to recommendations for higher education institutions on how to maximize the community impact of service learning. You can view the individual notes from each session on the project website at http://comm-org.wisc.edu/sl. This report develops ideas that cut across the breakout sessions.
Theme 1: Developing a Mission and Principles for Service Learning Programs
One group talked about how, in the somewhat haphazard development of service learning, we have perhaps “created a monster.” And much like Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, service learning’s relations with the community are not as good as they should be. Thus, we need to begin at the beginning, and consciously develop a mission for service learning programs. Three of the breakout groups discussed the importance of developing a clear mission for the service learning program. Such a mission should integrate the missions of higher education institutions and community organizations, have clear values and goals, and be reviewed regularly. The focus, according to one group, should be on promoting better service learning before promoting more service learning.
What is the process for developing a mission for service learning programs? One group discussed using a visioning process. Another discussed the role of an assets and needs assessment. Overall, there seem to be four principles that could guide the mission development and review process:
- Increasing community benefits: there was recognition across the groups that we have not focused enough on community partner assets, needs, issues, or benefits.
- Balancing community and higher education outcomes: while it may seem contradictory to the point above, this principle is more about finding a good fit between the two parties. Some desired community organization benefits may not fit well with higher education’s limitations. And while we need to overcome those limitations, we also need to recognize them.
- Supporting program sustainability: two groups talked about the importance of sustainability. Service learning programs are often funded out of temporary soft money, or built on the backs of AmeriCorps*VISTA members, and build expectations in the community that can’t be fulfilled when those resources end.
- Understanding service learning models and theories: understanding the difference between community service, service learning, community-based research, and charity versus change models of community engagement is important for understanding what community impacts are possible.
- Building relationships: one group discussed the need for the community to understand the university and another group discussed the need for those within the higher education institution to connect to each other.
One group emphasized that this all needs to be done in “baby steps.” The process of transforming service learning needs to be done with an eye to the participation of community partners and accountability to the above principles. This also means, according to one group, shifting the emphasis in service learning from getting more people to do it, to getting people to do it better.
Theme 2: Practical Strategies for Pursuing the Principles
How do we move toward implementation of the principles? The breakout groups came up with a variety of practical strategies for trying to build service learning programs that maximize community impact. It may not be practical to start with the strategies before going through the participatory mission development process, but the options developed by our breakout groups provides for a nice toolbox from which people can select those things that fit the mission they develop.
The process begins in the community. Five of the breakout groups talked about different aspects of a community-based process that could inform the development of service-learning programs. The first aspect is some kind of convening or visioning process that would bring community and campus together. Groups discussed the usefulness of conducting community needs assessments, “issue areas,” and asset assessments that would identify community expertise. Structures that could oversee such processes include leadership teams, advisory boards, task forces, and steering committees that include significant community participation. One group suggested that K-12 service learning should also be brought into this loop, so that all the service learning in the community could be coordinated for the benefit of the community rather than only from the interests of the institutional actors. From our groups’ perspectives, these steering advisory groups would not just be superficial feedback entities, but would be involved in regularly collecting community information to guide and direct the priorities of service learning programs. One could imagine an annual community-based needs and identification process collecting data across the community that then sets the service learning priorities of the community for the next year.
Three of the groups also discussed the importance of understanding how service learning is delivered in different places. There are many resources out there, such as Community-Campus Partnerships for Health and the Service Learning Clearinghouse, that could inform local efforts. It is also important to understand how service learning is working in one’s own community to avoid duplication of services and to find local best practices.
Ultimately, then it is important to create a structure to manage the service learning in the community, such as a service learning. A number of our groups began rethinking what such an office should look like. The science shop model, a model that acts as a matchmaker between community-generated needs and higher education resources in Europe, was one option discussed. Ultimately, for two of the groups, one crucial function of such an office should be to provide an easy gateway for community groups to access students and other institutional resources. Another crucial function is for the office to create and manage a service-learning infrastructure. The two groups that focused on developing such an infrastructure also came up with staffing recommendations. In one group this discussion started with the realization that trying to build service learning programs on the backs of AmeriCorps*VISTA leaders was ineffective. The task is too great, and requires too much expertise. A service learning office, then, requires an expert director and staff. At the same time, the groups also saw a role for students and AmeriCorps*VISTA leaders in such an office as service learning assistants.
Five groups came up with ways that service learning offices could support the community side of service learning. One category of strategies is to provide support directly to community groups. This could include developing an asset map of the campus that groups could use to more efficiently search for resources, or at least a web listing of the possible resources. One group also discussed whether it would be better to have a digital database of service learning opportunities and courses, or to instead have a human database managed by a real person. This group also discussed the challenges of maintaining the human dimension of service learning match-making at large institutions, perhaps making such web databases less problematic at small schools where they are more likely to be a complement to rather than a substitute for human relationships. Another group discussed the importance of providing logistical support to organizations hosting service learners, as well as to serve as a broker, guide or advocate for them. This includes supporting community organizations to reject service learning that will not benefit them. Four groups also talked about how to better prepare faculty for partnering with communities by training them in collaborative interaction skills, and supporting policies such as course releases to develop and manage service-learning courses, and revised tenure/promotion policies to recognize the work.
Finally, three groups talked about how to promote service learning. It is important to hold annual celebrations with full participation, provide awards for best practices, and find other ways to publicize and communicate accomplishments. One group also emphasized the importance of finding and highlighting projects that produced success in the community, and collect testimonials
Theme 3: Faculty Roles in Service Learning
The strategies in theme 2 are mostly relevant to service learning programs. The group discussions also talked about the principles and practices that should guide faculty in service learning.
The most important principle, discussed by three of the groups, is for the faculty person to actually be involved with the community organization and the service learning project. Syllabi and service learning assignments need to be developed with a consideration for community impact. Faculty need to actually visit the community organization to experience for themselves the setting in which their students will be working. Doing so helps expand the idea of partnership from the community serving the class to more of a mutual relationship.
Of course, with all the pressures on faculty to do things
other than service learning, they also need support if we are going to maximize community impact. The groups came up with a number of ideas. Two groups emphasized the development of institutes or seminars that would be led by, or at least attended by, community partners. Two other groups discussed ways of documenting a faculty member’s service learning involvement, such as through a portfolio, and then using that documentation to support tenure and promotion. A national peer review board could provide some of the clout needed to get such materials considered in tenure and promotion. One group also recommended that institutional staff could fill in when faculty were not available or when service learning projects needed to extend beyond the end of the semester.
Theme 4: The Role of Cultural Diversity in Service
Learning
One of the most important preparatory steps for maximizing community impact, recognized by four of the groups, is cultural diversity. Since service learners are often significantly different from the community members with whom they interest—especially in terms of race and class—we need to take steps to promote understanding across class and race divides.
p>All four groups emphasized the importance of cultural diversity training for students. These groups did not answer the difficult question, however, of what that training should include, and how intensive it should be. One group, however, did argue that it should not be a narrow training. Another groups discussed that cultural competency was not only about understanding different cultural backgrounds but also about understanding the community culture generally, including community calendars and timelines. A third group emphasized that it is important to also carefully and accurately identify different cultures in a community to inform student preparation. At the same time, another group talked about the importance of finding “global needs” across cultures in the community. And while not directed specifically at the issue of student cultural competency, two groups also discussed the importance of students engaging in service that had more depth, and more hours. These recommendations can also support an emphasis on effectively service unique cultural communities.Theme 5: Communication and Relationship Building Principles
The previous themes focused on building the infrastructure and skill sets needed to do service learning in a way that maximized community impact. Now we get to the principles for building relationships with specific community organization staff that can actually lead to impactful service learning.
The first and most important principle, discussed by four groups, is understanding and respecting the community partner. This means that those of us on the academy side need to be aware of some of the biases we often bring to service learning. We need to set aside our assumptions about the community, and listen in ways that help us understand not only the community needs but also its assets. One group suggested appreciative inquiry as a method for doing that.
Another principle of good communication and relationship building, discussed by three groups, is regular and consistent communication. The idea is to build long term committed and sustained relationships, not just to do a project and then shift to another group. One group emphasized the importance of face to face meetings in developing the depth of relationships required to accomplish that. Part of that communication is also sharing information back and forth.
Five groups also emphasized the principle of balance in communication. That sense of balance means that there is balanced participation of all parties, including faculty, community organization staff, and students. It also requires a shared language, and likely requires each party learning the languages of the other. Developing that shared language can come from holding meetings on each others’ turfs, which can help in understanding the assumptions, boundaries and limitations of each party. One group also mentioned that it is important to avoid acronyms in mutual communication, however. Balance also means sharing the responsibilities of managing service learning, rather than it falling mostly on the shoulders of the community organization. And it means reciprocity, so that community organizations don’t see themselves as providing more than they receive from service-learning.
Theme 6: Community Voice in Project Development
Our next theme moves into actual project development, and our groups had a lot to say about how to develop project to maximize community impact. Much of the focus here is on bringing the community voice into the project development process and avoiding what one group called “common mistakes.”
Bringing in community voice starts before there is any project. Three groups focused on laying the groundwork well in advance of any specific project by conducting either a community assets/needs assessment or a community organization assets/needs assessment. Such an assessment can be done as community-based research, involving faculty, students, and community residents and organization staff throughout the process. Two groups also discussed the importance of defining an area of impact—either in terms of issue or geography. A third group talked about the importance of having community members define their own community and its boundaries to guide service learning. This group developed an iterative model that moved from assessing needs to developing a structure for the service learning, choosing specific partners, and establishing specific outcomes, and then returning to the needs assessment at the conclusion. Another group expressed this strategy in terms of choosing an issue and then an agency partner that was working on that issue.
One group also developed recommendations for choosing projects. First, it is better to begin with small project and move up to larger ones, just in case a new partnership doesn’t work out. Second, it is important for community partners to set the agenda and to feel safe enough to say no to projects they do not believe will meet their needs, or offer critical feedback on ideas.
The next step is actually designing a project. All eight groups had recommendations for designing projects. They start with the idea of a true partnership. The principle of partnership is shared responsibility and buy-in from all parties. Such a partnership will involve community organizations and/or members in course design, the development of clear service learning outcomes, evaluation criteria, and trainings.
The next step, and this is quite contrary to usual practice, is to design the course. Normally, the course is put into place first. But one of the groups talked about the importance of developing the course to support the project as a way of maximizing community impact. Another talked about the importance of understanding that a “one size fits all” service learning course will not fit all communities. A third group talked about the importance of designing service learning courses to be multi-disciplinary, presumably because community issues are not limited to disciplinary boxes.
Finally, then is the process of managing the course and project. One group emphasized being clear on the difference between regular volunteering and service learning, so that the community organization understands how learning goals fit into the process. Another suggested establishing a steering committee for the project to meet at alternative locations and break bread together on a monthly basis. A third group focused on involving leaders of student organizations who could sustain projects beyond the semester, conducting a careful pre-orientation to the community in the class, effectively using trainings provided by community organizations, and creating written agreements so everyone knew what was expected. One of these groups also talked about the value of some kind of written agreement specifying all parties’ obligations to the project.
Theme 7: Evaluating and Document Service Learning
Four groups focused on the process of evaluating and documenting service learning. This is quite different from the usual way we have thought about evaluating service learning, however. All four groups focused not on evaluating only student outcomes, but also on community impact. For one group this meant evaluating the service learner in terms of their impact on community constituency members and/or the community. Two groups emphasized that the evaluation process presented the community and/or community organization’s perspective. A third group recommended evaluating the service learning project in terms of whether it built community capacity, rather than simply performed temporary service.
The methods for evaluating service learning came primarily from one group. They emphasized identifying the outcomes to be measured or documented at the beginning of the project, custom designing the evaluation to fit the project rather than using a stock form, and following up after the project to verify that the outcomes have been achieved or sustained. Another group talked about the importance of then clearly communicating the achievement of outcomes. Doing so can inform future practice and also promote effective practice.
