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

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

12. 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) Accreditation Process

13. 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 Assessment of Civic Engagement

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

19. 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.eduhttp://www.iport.iupui.edu Performance Measures for CE

20. 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 Performance Measures for CE

21. 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 Performance Measures for CE

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

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

26. 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 With Academic Leadership

27. 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” Without Academic Leadership

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