Transforming Campus and Community through Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship

Executive Summary Page 1

Topic Identification: QEP Vision: The Promise of Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship at TCU Page 1 Need for This QEP: Evidence from National and TCU Surveys Page 2 Literature Review Page 5

QEP Purpose, Goals and Desired Student Learning and Institutional Outcomes Page 8

Student Learning Outcomes

Institutional Outcomes

Implementation Page 9 Programs for Students

Co-Curricular Programs

Global Initiatives

Expansion of Service-Learning Coursework

Community-Based Fellowships for Students

Community-Engaged Internship Program

Certificate and Minor in Community Engagement Faculty/Staff Involvement Page 17

Incentives for Faculty o Awards for Excellence in Community Engagement o Community Engaged Faculty Fellows and Mentors o Course Development and Research Travel Grants o Tenure and Promotion

General Timeline Page 20

Student and QEP Assessment Page 22

Resources and Budget Page 24

Appendices List Appendix A: Examples of TCU Best Practices in Community Engagement Appendix B: Table of Student Outcomes and Measures Appendix C: Websites from Leading Institutions Consulted for Program Development Appendix D: Additional Details on Student Programs Appendix E: Budget Spreadsheet Appendix F: Budget Justification for New Programs Appendix G: References

QEP Committee: Dave Aftandilian (Sociology & Anthropology), Mary Kathleen Baldwin (Center for Community Involvement & Service-Learning), Rosangela Boyd (Center for Community Involvement & Service-Learning) Carolyn Cagle (Harris College of Nursing), Cynthia Chapa (Modern Language Studies), Harriet Cohen (Social Work), Lyn Dart (Nutritional Sciences), Melissa Gruver (Center for Community Involvement & Service-Learning), Becky Johnson (School of Geology, Energy & the Environment), Beata Jones (Neeley School of Business), Max Krochmal (History & Geography), Jacqueline Lambiase (Schieffer School of Journalism), Nina Martin (School for Classical & Contemporary Dance), Meg Mathews (Undergraduate Student, Child Development) Mary McKinney (Spanish & Hispanic Studies), Don Mills (College of Education), Joddy Murray (English), Marie Schein (Modern Language Studies), Liz Schmitt (Undergraduate Student, Social Work), Mike Slattery (School of Geology, Energy & the Environment), Yuri Strzhemechny (Physics & Astronomy), Keith Whitworth (Sociology & Anthropology).

1

Quality Enhancement Plan Transforming Campus and Community

through Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship

Executive Summary

TCU’s mission statement is ―to educate individuals to think and act as ethical leaders and responsible citizens in the global community.‖ A Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) that focuses on community engaged scholarship and learning will position TCU to live out its mission by offering every student the opportunity to be exposed to at least one quality experience with community-based learning and/or research before graduation.

By building and sustaining community engagement through university-wide curricular and co-curricular programs, TCU will better engage students as active citizens and foster inquisitive learning and innovative application of knowledge in real-life settings. Community Engaged Scholarship is an integrative learning model that provides opportunities for campus-community collaboration and combines key pedagogical components for fostering student learning outcomes in Applied Learning, Creativity, Integrated Learning, and Reflective Learning/Practice.

Among other initiatives, this QEP proposes the following action steps to achieve the goals outlined above:

rename and expand the scope of the current Center for Community Involvement & Service-Learning the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship and hire several new full and part-time staff members for the Center

create new co-curricular Forum on Community Engagement that will explore specific issues such as food insecurity, homelessness, and racial disparities, and that will also help coordinate existing issue-based seminars

create new Community Engaged Internship Program in partnership with Career Services

create new Student Fellowships in Community-Based Research and Learning

create new Certificate and Minor in Community Engagement

develop new Student Action Steps for core attributes in CA, GA, and CSV that incorporate service-learning pedagogies

revise tenure and promotion standards to appropriately reward faculty for community engaged teaching and research

expand and rename the existing Service-Learning Course Development Grants program

establish new Community Engagement Research Travel Grants

create new Community Engaged Faculty Fellows and Faculty Mentors programs

add new annual Awards for Excellence in Community Engagement for faculty and staff to existing awards for students

QEP Vision: The Promise of Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship at TCU

Benefits from TCU Students’ Perspectives

―Our Spanish service-learning project was better than any presentation or test I have ever taken. It gave us the opportunity to use what we were learning in the real world. It helped us think about the

possibilities for our future and how we can get involved and help our community now.‖ —TCU student enrolled in Spanish course working with Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

―By passing out fliers and working side by side with the members of the Fairmount community, I got the satisfying feeling that I was actually making a difference in the community and making a direct

impact on people’s lives. The outcome of our project was more than I had ever imagined....‖

2

—TCU student enrolled in Anthropology course working to help establish and publicize the Fairmount Community Garden

―This project was my first exposure to incorporating agriculture, community service, and nutrition. It served to alter my college choices as well as my future aspirations. I felt alive while I was working in

the community garden project! It inspired me to intern with an RD at a sustainable farm this last summer, where I could extend this learning.‖

—TCU alum from Coordinated Program in Dietetics who now works as Community Garden Coordinator at the Tarrant Area Food Bank

Benefits from TCU Faculty and Community Partners’ Perspectives

―Our students are better prepared for their future work, have identified a true passion about helping kids and families heal, and are getting accepted into graduate programs such as the University of

Texas Southwestern Medical Center.‖ —Professor from TCU Institute of Child Development, facilitating a five-week therapeutic summer

day camp for special needs adopted children with TCU Education students

―Since 2004, I have engaged in community-based participatory research with local cancer outpatient facilities to further understand the Mexican-American caregiver experience. My focus supports my identity as a TCU teacher-scholar: one invested in teaching and mentoring others about research

evidence that mandates attention to changing health care systems for more equitable care.‖ —Nursing Professor from TCU

―The Research Apprentices in Physics Program [RAPP] has truly fueled the interest of the Fort

Worth students that are participating. These doors of opportunity opened by TCU and FWISD have ignited the personal passion for science in each of these students.‖

—Science Content Specialist at FWISD, partnering with TCU on RAPP initiative

What if all TCU students were as excited about learning as the students quoted above, because they could easily see applications for the knowledge they were acquiring in the classroom? What if learning were not limited to the classroom? What if the knowledge and skills gained during their curricular and co-curricular experiences gave TCU graduates a ―leg up‖ in their future professional and civic lives? What if faculty found seamless ways to integrate their teaching, research, and service? What if the work of faculty, students, and staff contributed to positive social change in local, national, and global communities and earned TCU the reputation of a research institution that uses its knowledge to empower others? What if...? By implementing this QEP, we can bring the hypothetical scenarios described above to life, fulfill TCU’s mission statement for our students, and realize the promise of the teacher-scholar model. Need for This QEP: Evidence from National and TCU Surveys Why does TCU need a QEP on Community Engaged Scholarship and Learning? In this section, we will present evidence from both national and TCU studies to answer this question.

A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future For some time now, national studies have been warning us about the sad state of civic knowledge and education in the U.S. Most recently, a new report entitled A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future was commissioned by the Department of Education and released at a White House event in January 2012. The report calls for investing in renewing our nation’s social, intellectual, and civic capital and argues that we should not limit the mission of higher education to merely workforce preparation and training. The report states:

3

Civic learning that includes knowledge, skills, values, and the capacity to work with others on civic and societal challenges can help increase the number of informed, thoughtful, and

public‐minded citizens well prepared to contribute in the context of the diverse, dynamic, globally connected United States. (http://www.aacu.org/civic_learning/crucible/documents/highlights.pdf)

The report goes on to affirm that civic learning should prepare students with knowledge and for action in our communities, providing evidence of the anemic civic health of our nation and especially our youth (The National Taskforce on Civic learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012). For example, the report notes that:

US ranked 139th in voter participation of 172 world democracies in 2007

Only 10% of U.S. citizens contacted a public official in 2009–10

Only 24% of graduating high school seniors scored at the proficient or advanced level in civics in 2010, fewer than in 2006 or in 1998

Among 14,000 college seniors surveyed in 2006 and 2007, the average score on a civic literacy exam was just over 50% (an ―F‖)

Just over one-third of college faculty surveyed in 2007 ―strongly agreed‖ that their campus actively promotes awareness of US or global social, political, and economic issues (p.6)

Furthermore, according to A Crucible Moment, the longer students stay in college, the wider the gap becomes between their endorsement of social responsibility as a goal for college education–which increases throughout four years of college–and their assessment of whether the institution provides opportunities for growth in this area, which decreases between their freshmen and senior years. In order to equip students with both knowledge and the ability to act, the report recommends moving beyond civic education as the domain of certain disciplines and taught exclusively from a theoretical perspective. Instead, it calls on higher education institutions to: foster a civic ethos across all parts of campus and educational culture; make civic literacy a core expectation for all students; practice civic inquiry across all fields of study; and advance civic action through transformative partnerships, at home and abroad. Such an approach is also consistent with what employers expect from their workforce today. Data gathered by Hart Research Associates (2010) show that employers want to hire individuals who are not only proficient in technical skills. Among the other skills employers seek are: critical thinking and analytical reasoning, applied knowledge in real life settings, ethical decision-making, complex problem solving, and intercultural competence. As noted throughout this proposal, community engagement initiatives such as service-learning and community-based participatory research have been proven to help students better achieve desirable learning outcomes such as these, which employers highly value.

Evidence from National and TCU Surveys Other national studies also suggest that colleges and universities can be doing more to help our students become civically knowledgeable and engaged. According to the 2008 Profile of American College Students (PACS), of 13,448 students polled, more than 55% strongly agreed that it is important to make a difference in the world; however, close to 75% said they are not involved at all in political activism. In addition, less than 20% reported that they ―actively participate‖ in events/activities related to community service or service-learning projects http://www.ats.msstate.edu/assessment/docs/2008PACSBenchmarks.pdf. We can help narrow this gap between desire to make a difference and everyday behavior by exposing students to community engaged learning experiences that effectively integrate theory and practice.

4

The Profile of College Experiences administered to 836 TCU students indicated that less than 30% of TCU students took a course requiring community service hours during the 2011-2012 academic year. When asked how they were involved with service in a variety of social areas (e.g., environment, economic development, hunger and homelessness), more students reported engaging in short-term programs or events than being deeply involved with a given community project or organization for weeks or months (e.g., through an internship or service-learning course project). These data show that TCU could be doing much more to encourage long-term community engagement among our students both inside and outside of class. In addition, results from the 2010 National Survey of Student Engagement administered at TCU attest to the benefits of community engagement. Survey data show that students participating in community service scores significantly higher than those not participating in variables such as active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment. Furthermore, students who indicated having taken service-learning classes often or very often not only had statistically significant higher scores for these benchmark areas in comparison to peers who had seldom or never been in a service-learning class, but also scored higher (p < .001) in the benchmark category ―level of academic challenge,‖ which relates to challenging intellectual and creative work that emphasizes academic effort and high expectations for student performance (Taylor, A., 2011-2012, personal communication)

Profile of Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship at TCU Based on 2012 Surveys

In Spring 2012, in preparation for the QEP, Student Surveys were administered to gather information on current status of engagement, as well as perceptions of benefits and challenges. A total of 534 undergraduates and 36 graduate students completed the survey. Undergraduates were evenly distributed in terms of class standing, and all TCU colleges and schools were represented. Students were asked to evaluate the ways they learn best using a Likert scale. Five methods were listed and space was also provided for students to add their own answers. The results are presented in Figure 1 below. The highest rated learning method was ―participation by doing (hands-on work),‖ which of course is a hallmark of community-engaged scholarship.

Figure 1. Learning methods TCU students ranked highest in 2012 QEP survey. Data combine first- and second-ranked learning methods. (Data do not sum to 100% because all students ranked all five methods.)

When reporting on their community involvement in the past year, the majority reported having engaged in some volunteer work on their own, at least occasionally. However, over 40% had never taken a course that required community-based projects. A similar trend was observed for internships, community-based research projects and international projects with a community

5

component. When asked how community engagement impacted their learning and development, respondents ranked increasing self-awareness and social skills the highest, followed by enriching leadership abilities and expanding knowledge of local issues A Faculty Survey on Community Engagement was also administered in Spring 2012. Of the 160 faculty members who completed the survey, less than 15% reported engaging in service-learning, while 4% had required a community project for class and 14% had made it optional to students. Close to 25% had included site visits to the local community in their courses; however, less than 5% had conducted study abroad with a service component. The main reason given for lack of participation by those not currently engaging with the community was ―too time consuming.‖ Being unsure of how to connect, not seeing relevance to teaching and research agendas, and concern about how community engaged projects would be counted towards tenure were also mentioned. Finally, a Community Partner Survey was sent to contacts in various local organizations. Over 85% of the 81 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their relationship with TCU provided benefits in accomplishing objectives and serving their clients. Over 60% agreed or strongly agreed that the partnership contributed to increased social benefits and access to university resources, and 45% also saw economic benefits. Over half were in agreement that their involvement had helped increase university awareness regarding their organization and community needs. The majority believed that the benefits exceeded the challenges, and over 90% reported that previous involvement had enhanced interest in future collaboration. Community partners were also in agreement regarding benefits of community engagement for students. Over 95% agreed or strongly agreed that it enhanced civic engagement attitudes, skills, and behaviors, and increased students’ sense of self-efficacy. Over 90% agreed or strongly agreed that it enhanced problem-solving skills and prepared students for their future careers. Most of the respondents (90%) were also in favor of increasing the number of classes at TCU that include community engagement. Literature Review: Definitions and Benefits of Community Engaged Scholarship In recent years, more and more institutions of higher education have come to embrace community engagement as a powerful means to prepare students for active citizenship. The experiences of these institutions led to the concept of ―community engaged scholarship,‖ which includes guidelines for integrating community engagement initiatives into teaching, research, and service. Specifically, community engaged scholarship (CES) refers to ―scholarly activities related to research and/or teaching that involve full collaboration of students, community partners, and faculty as co-educators, co-learners, and co-generators of knowledge and that address questions of public concern‖ (Jameson, Clayton & Jaeger, 2010, p. 259). Currently, more than 300 colleges and universities share the prestigious Community Engagement Classification from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. To earn this classification, institutions must provide evidence of community engagement, which the Carnegie Foundation defines as ―the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity‖ (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php?key=1213). Integrative scholarly activities representative of the CES model include components of community-based learning, such as service-learning pedagogies and community-based participatory research (CBPR), each of which emphasizes addressing community needs and concerns. Service-learning and CBPR applications provide complementary approaches for developing campus-community partnerships and optimizing student learning outcomes. Both are experiential and

6

iterative processes in which students and faculty are called to collaborate with community representatives to devise creative solutions to existing challenges while experiencing the actualities of community life, and both utilize reflection as a way to process experiences and integrate theory and practice (Blundo, 2003). Service-learning and CBPR, whether conducted at home or abroad, offer a rich array of benefits to TCU students, faculty, and communities. The table in Appendix A includes a variety of examples of how these two approaches are being applied at TCU to benefit campus and community.

Enhancing the TCU Experience and Fulfilling Our VIA Cardinal Principles through Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship

TCU is well placed to pursue the transformational process just described by investing in a robust infrastructure to document, promote, support, and reward community engaged scholarship. Doing so would also help us achieve our VIA Cardinal Principles, indicated in italics below. By committing resources towards becoming a more engaged university, TCU would enhance its national and local reputations, attract innovative faculty members who wish to pursue the scholarship of engagement, and send a message to prospective students and their families about TCU’s commitment to building a vibrant and supportive learning community within and beyond the boundaries of the physical campus. Surveys show that Millennials are the most civic-minded Americans since the generation of the 1930s and 1940s; this is ―a generation of activist doers‖ (http://www.usatoday.com/news/sharing/2009-04-13-millenial_N.htm). Service-learning and CBPR offer a continuum of learning opportunities for students by giving them the chance to learn by doing, which not only helps them better achieve specific learning outcomes, but also gives them the opportunity to develop skills in good citizenship and a sense of personal empowerment to work together with others to strengthen a community. Furthermore, an increase in reciprocal campus-community partnerships through class, research projects, and programmatic initiatives would allow students to become better connected to the local community. Such connections are crucial to achieving not just the educational outcomes outlined in TCU’s mission statement, but also broader goals related to sustainability and social justice. Such integration of classroom and community-based education has the potential to expand “facilities” to incorporate community organizations as extended laboratories for exploration and learning. An additional benefit of community engaged scholarship lies in its potential for increasing external funding through research activity, particularly given the current push from federal grants for projects that demonstrate collaboration between universities and communities. Additionally, community engagement allows students to also build their professional skills and find opportunities to network with community organizations, which may develop into internships and employment opportunities. Research shows that students benefit directly in terms of future job placement from having real-world experiences such as service-learning and/or work-related internships on their resume. A 2010 survey of more than 30,000 students representing over 400 colleges and universities nationwide found that recent graduates who participated in an internship program were more likely to have received a job offer than their peers who had not (http://www.naceweb.org/Publications/Spotlight_Online/2010/0526/Interns_More_Likely_to_Have_Job_Off ers.aspx?referal=knowledgecenter&menuid=109). In another recent study of 266 business organizations, the National Association of Colleges and Employers reports that in 2011, employers offered 67% of their student interns full-time positions following graduation (http://www.naceweb.org/research/intern_coop/ 2011_survey/).

Benefits of Curricular and Co-Curricular Service-Learning According to the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (www.servicelearning.org) service-learning is a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities. Curricular (or academic) service-learning combines student learning in the classroom

7

with community-identified real world applications, allowing both the agency’s needs and the academic course objectives to be met. Community projects are integrated into the course through assignments that require reflection on the experience in light of course objectives. In contrast, co-curricular service-learning is not anchored in a specific course, but rather is a part of the students’ ―life experiences‖ (e.g., community service programs, student organizations, and residential life). Many TCU students are currently engaged in co-curricular programs with a community engagement focus. An emphasis on community engagement opens doors for integrating active discipline grounded learning with other arenas of student life, while capitalizing on potential for collaboration between Academic and Student Affairs. The implementation of curricular service-learning varies depending on the discipline and faculty leading the course. Appropriate community-based projects and experiences for students depend on the learning outcomes that faculty identify for each course or academic experience. Models tend to fall somewhere along a continuum between traditional and critical service-learning. Traditional models focus heavily on discipline-specific material, and tend to treat the community experience as a means to achieving the course objectives, thus often adopting a more short-term approach to campus-community partnerships in which the campus controls the experience. Critical service-learning, on the other hand, incorporates course learning objectives while also working on learning outcomes that include fostering awareness of community strengths and challenges, and/or social and economic diversity and disparities. It encourages students to develop a sense of civic responsibility and the personal and professional skills they will need to effect positive changes in their communities throughout their lives (Mitchell, 2008). In other words, critical service-learning seeks to create learning experiences that transform both individuals and communities. We hope this QEP will help catalyze a shift toward critical service-learning at TCU. Research studies documenting the benefits of service-learning attest to its contribution to student cognitive and academic development in two main ways: by increasing academic skills and by impacting psychological variables related to learning such as motivation to learn and better appreciating the value of the subject matter by applying it (http://www.compact.org/resources/downloads/ Student_ Learning_Retention.pdf). As a pedagogy, service-learning, or community-based learning, acknowledges the value of developing the metacognitive skills required for lifelong, self-directed learning that applied learning is so well suited to cultivate (Ash & Clayton, 2009). Service-learning has also been shown to enhance cognitive abilities such as depth of understanding, problem analysis, critical thinking, and cognitive development (Osborne et al., 1998; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Steinke, 2002). As noted above, these are also thinking skills employers are especially seeking today. Additional positive effects reported in the literature include performance and self-reported skill development, self-efficacy, leadership, choice of a service career, and future plans to participate in service (Astin et al., 2000; Driscoll et al., 1996; Eyler et al., 2001).

Benefits of Community-Based Participatory Research Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is often combined with student service-learning initiatives. The Kellogg Foundation Community Health Scholars Program defines CBPR as a ―collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community and has the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change‖ (http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/commbas.html). In CBPR, faculty and/or students develop a research agenda in partnership with a community organization. The research addresses an issue of practical concern in the community, but also provides learning and scholarship opportunities for those involved. CBPR exposes students to authentic settings, enhancing relevance of the experience and preparing students to work collaboratively while practicing inquiry and problem-solving skills (Israel et al., 1998; Rao et al., 2004).

8

Advocates of CBPR suggest that the very process of meaningful participation can be transformative. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that, compared to other kinds of studies, in CBPR, research designs showed greater rigor and ability to improve community capacity. This enhanced community capacity was reflected in the increased ability to secure grant funding, the jobs created by the collaboration, skills building, and enhanced capacity to conduct research (Viswanathan et al., 2004). Because relationship building is such a pivotal component in CBPR, the process not only strengthens ties between researchers and participants, but also promotes a more positive connection between the university and its surrounding community. QEP Purpose, Goals and Desired Student Learning and Institutional Outcomes The QEP’s overall purpose/mission, goals, and desired student learning outcomes and institutional outcomes are described below. Figure 2 on p.9 gives a visual overview of this information. The purpose of this QEP is to help TCU better engage students as active citizens and foster inquisitive learning and innovative application of knowledge in real-life settings. To achieve this purpose, the QEP will has two main goals: strengthening student academic and co-curricular service-learning and better supporting engaged scholarship throughout TCU

Student Learning Outcomes In developing student learning outcomes, the QEP team reviewed several documents, including TCU’s institutional priorities, QEP Emphasis Areas, Learning and Development Outcomes from the Center for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), QEPs from institutions The following competencies and learning objectives have been selected to guide the development of programs and activities related to this QEP: Competency 1: Integrate classroom and community-based experiential learning LO1: Apply knowledge gained in the classroom to propose informed solutions to community-identified challenges. LO2: Apply knowledge gained through community-based experiential learning to better understand theoretical perspectives and applications in class. LO3: Develop creative approaches to research inquiry and problem-solving that build upon both classroom and community-based experiential learning. Competency 2: Identify and articulate the assets, needs, and complexities of social issues faced by local and global communities LO1: Demonstrate the ability to assess community assets and needs using a variety of measures. LO2: Examine local and global social inequities and their root causes. LO3: Describe the impacts of social structures on individuals, communities, and societies. Competency 3: Evaluate personal strengths, challenges, and responsibility for effecting positive social change in local and global communities LO1: Evaluate personal capabilities through ongoing reflection about community-based experiences. LO2: Articulate the connection between personal capabilities and ethical responsibility to effect positive social change. Competency 4: Draw upon classroom and community-based learning to develop professional skills and socially responsible civic behaviors LO1: Work collaboratively with partners from diverse backgrounds to accomplish shared goals. LO2: Recognize and apply skills developed through community engagement in professional settings. LO3: Demonstrate civically responsible behaviors in campus and/or community settings.

9

LO4: Exercise leadership skills to mobilize others to work toward positive social change in campus and/or community setting. The table in Appendix B illustrates how these learning outcomes reflect institutional priorities and emphasis areas, lists what learning activities will be utilized to accomplish them, and provides examples of methods and assessment tools that can be employed to evaluate the success of the QEP in accomplishing each of them.

Institutional Outcomes The ultimate purpose of the QEP is to promote the institutionalization of community engagement. To do so it is crucial that supports and resources are available to faculty and staff developing and sustaining campus-community partnerships for learning. In order to measure the expansion of community engaged initiatives, the following outcomes will be tracked:

Growth in the number of faculty and staff engaging in community engaged scholarship, teaching, and service

Larger number and variety of service-learning courses available within each college

Increased number of products products/deliverables generated from community engaged scholarship efforts

Greater internal and external recognition of community engaged scholarship, teaching, and service (e.g., more external grants received in this area)

Figure 2. QEP purpose, goals, student learning outcomes, and institutional outcomes.

Implementation As suggested by Dr. Tania Mitchell, project consultant and nationally known expert in Community Engagement, the QEP team examined a 2010 book chapter by Strong, Green, Myer and Post that discusses the pro and cons of different institutional locations for an office overseeing service-learning and provides recommendations to promote sustainable engaged practices. According to the authors, the institutional commitment towards engaged learning may require reshuffling priorities,

10

offices and roles on campus, realigning academic curriculum with the necessary resources, personnel, and budgets, and involving all stakeholders in the process; but eventually it will allow for a growth in service-learning offerings for students, and sends a clear message about the desire to become an engaged campus. When addressing the decision to affiliate with Student Affairs or Academic Affairs the authors refer to research that suggests that when the office is linked to a chief academic officer, service-learning more often enjoys legitimacy and endorsement by faculty. They cite a recent report from The National Service-Learning Clearinghouse which states that ―many offices initially housed within Student Affairs have either shifted to Academic Affairs or developed a dual affiliation‖ (p. 13), and conclude that wherever the office is located, support from Academic Affairs is paramount for institutionalizing service-learning. They go on to note that ―offices that have student learning and community needs at the heart of their mission recognize the value of campus movements that involve both academic and student affairs educators‖ (p. 23). The authors also examine the benefits of centralization or decentralization, pointing to a current movement in higher education towards merging multiple areas of community engagement (e.g., community service, internships, leadership education, and international programs) under one single umbrella in order to create greater synergy and promote resource sharing. According to the authors, some institutions are beginning to rethink the boundaries between Student Affairs and Academic Affairs and are attempting to provide a more centralized and integrated approaches to campus-community partnerships that cross the divisional divide. The benefits of a centralized structure are many, including: a) a more visible point of entry for community agencies seeking to develop or expand partnerships with the campus, b) a central space for existing and potential partners to convene, network, and gather resources needed for their work, c) reduction of silos and duplication of resources, d) better coordination and tracking of program/ curricular development, and professional development opportunities, e) standard mechanisms for evaluation of outcomes, and f) enhanced dissemination of best practices internally and externally. Recognizing the value of keeping community engagement visible and central, a number of universities have gone beyond an office dedicated exclusively to service-learning, creating centers that oversee various functions related to the development and sustainability of campus-community partnerships for learning and scholarship. These centers work in close collaboration with other units on campus, promoting interdisciplinary work and providing community organizations with a clear entry point for collaboration. Some examples include institutions such as University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Carolina Center for Public Service (http://www.unc.edu/ccps/our-office-about.php), University of Georgia’s Public Service & Outreach (http://outreach.uga.edu/index.php/homepage/), Ohio State University’s Office of University Outreach and Engagement (http://outreach.osu.edu/aboutus.php), Michigan State University’s University-Community Partnerships (https://ucp.msu.edu/), and University of Minnesota’s Office of Public Engagement (http://www.engagement.umn.edu/university/ope/index.html). Reporting lines vary, but a number of the leading universities in community engagement initiatives in the nation have pared their efforts with an organizational structure that reflects the value placed on the institutionalization of engagement. Therefore, it has become more common to find centers such as the ones listed above under the offices of high-level administration, reporting directly or indirectly to the Chancellor or President of the university (e.g., University of Chicago, http://www.uchicago.edu/about/orgchart/). Senior officers overseeing such centers may have titles such as Vice- President for Public Service and Outreach (e.g. University of Georgia) or Associate Provost of University Outreach and Engagement (e.g. Michigan State University). Another pattern observed is the location of such centers under Government Relations/Affairs (e.g. University of Michigan, and Penn State University). The QEP team recommends the expansion of the current Center for Community Involvement & Service Learning into a Center for Community Engaged

11

Learning and Scholarship, affirming the university’s desire to focus on all components of community engagement. Ideally such a center should be placed in a more central location within the university hierarchy and serve as convener for faculty, staff and students seeking to strengthen connections with the local and global community. It is also important to legitimize the Center’s role as a facilitator for learning and scholarship by creating an official connection to Academic Affairs. As the University considers future directions for engagement, it may be helpful to establish dual-reporting mechanisms between Student Affairs and Academic Affairs (e.g., Michigan State University, http://outreach.msu.edu/orgchart.aspx) to allow for a more seamless integration between co-curricular and curricular programs.

Programs for Students In consultation with Dr. Tania Mitchell, the QEP team decided to propose an approach that does not make community engaged experiences mandatory; rather, the intent is to make engagement through service-learning and community based research inescapable. The QEP’s programs will impact students from all disciplines and academic levels. The goal is to offer all TCU students the opportunity to be exposed to the scholarship of community engagement at some point during their academic career. Both undergraduate and graduate students would benefit from such an approach. In order to intentionally design a learning environment that moves students along a continuum of engagement, a pyramid approach has been conceptualized (see Figure 3 below). As students advance through their co-curricular and curricular learning experiences, they will move from a broad exposure to many opportunities for engaging with the community to more focused and deeper experiences tied to their disciplines. . Focused CES Exposure

Upper-Level Curricular + Co-Curricular Experiences

Lower-Level Co-Curricular + Curricular Experiences

Broad CES Exposure Figure 3. Visual model of QEP implementation for students. This model allows students in their earlier academic career to be exposed to a broad base/large variety of experiences; many of them including co-curricular offerings. These experiences, rather than simply counting hours of community service, are to be enhanced by exploration of themes addressed through service and ongoing opportunities for reflection. They will also be connected with opportunities for academic learning, for those students opting to pursue more advance levels of knowledge and practice (e.g. courses addressing social issues being offered to augment issue-based trips). As students’ progress through their academic career, and must focus on their chosen disciplines, community engagement opportunities will become paired with coursework and/or global and study abroad programs. Graduate students will start developing an independent research agenda grounded on creative solutions to real life problems, designing their own CBPR projects, and/or collaborating with faculty. They will also be invited to play key roles as co-instructors to undergraduates in service-learning classes or mentors in research projects and internships.

12

Co-Curricular Programs: Issue-Based Seminars and Service Trips A number of seminars and workshops already exist at TCU. For example, through the Leadership Certificate, students are able to take a six-week course entitled Community Action. Various presentations have been developed and delivered in settings such as RA training, yearlong preparation for LEAPS community liaisons, and meetings of the Involved Service Network (leaders from student service organizations). More coordination of available initiatives is needed so that students seeking additional knowledge will have access to centralized approved listings of offerings. These seminars will compose the Forum on Community Engagement mentioned below. In the past few years, the Center for Community Involvement & Service-Learning (CISL) has already started to develop issue-based trips. These trips allow students to gain deeper knowledge of social justice topics while visiting with and engaging in service experiences at community organizations addressing the topic area and speaking with agency representatives, politicians and experts. Examples of such trips include the two Spring Break local immersion trips focusing on homelessness and women’s issues and the Winter Break Civil Rights Bus Tour to five states following the historical path of the Civil Rights Movement and learning about current struggles to protect civil rights for all. More opportunities for exploring issues impacting our local and global communities (e.g., housing instability, food justice, health access, educational disparities, and sustainability) would be made available through this QEP. These service trips might be connected to a course focusing on a specific theme, taught by faculty partners working in collaboration with staff to design the engagement and learning elements of the overall experience. Faculty members already involved in these thematic trips have expressed interest in augmenting them with curricular components. Global Initiatives Because global experiences are highly desirable in promoting TCU's mission, staff of the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship and Faculty Mentors (see below) would be available to work with faculty to design engaged global initiatives. The staff might work with faculty already teaching study abroad courses to identify opportunities for engagement, or they could support models, such as the one currently proposed by (1) the College of Education (Indigenous Peoples of the South Pacific and the Global Flow), in which students will travel to Papua New Guinea to learn about the challenges and opportunities of the global flow while participating in service activities; and (2) the Department of Modern Language Studies and the Anthropology Program, to create a Study Abroad initiative focusing on service-learning experiences with non-profit organizations serving immigrant communities in France. Faculty grants will be made available for course development (see below) and can be utilized for international service-learning and community-based research. Due to budget limitations, innovative approaches to providing global experiences also need to be considered. A strategy already embraced by other academic institutions involves utilizing the diversity of local communities to expose students to global realities. Courses such as one currently taught in the Spanish and Hispanic Studies Department, ―Service-Learning in the Hispanic Community,‖ are powerful tools for immersing students in diverse communities. Students enrolled in courses in ―French Composition‖ and ―Intermediate [French] Reading‖ also learned about French dialects and Francophone cultures in Africa through service-learning experiences with refugees from the Ivory Coast who have settled in Fort Worth. Such experiences provide students who cannot afford to study abroad with opportunities to interact and learn about global issues from local community members while also applying their classroom knowledge to benefit the local community. Another avenue worth exploring would be to utilize technology to keep students in close contact with international communities, a very feasible possibility. Given TCU online capabilities and the willingness of the Center for Teaching Excellence to work in partnership with this QEP team, new opportunities to bring the global community into the classroom can be introduced. Students can meet communities around the globe and engage in collaborative problem-solving.

13

Similar to the local issue-based trips discussed above, faculty could create courses around existing mini-immersion programs such as Questa Terra (offered by International Student Services) or International Service Immersion (offered by the Center for Community Involvement & Service-Learning). Students could participate in pre-trip chats with the international community’s they hope to serve and learn from, and continue communication upon returning from the trip. Furthermore, students who are not able to afford the trips could participate online and investigate opportunities to draw connections between international and local needs. Nursing, Education, and Social-Work students have already participated in such non-credit trips co-led by faculty members, engaging in intensive community-based learning; it would make sense to extend these short experiences into more rigorous credit-based opportunities from which larger numbers of students could benefit.

Expansion of Service-Learning Coursework Another mechanism to promote the concept of ―inescapability‖ would include assigning members of a QEP Advisory Council to work with faculty to design and revise core courses in areas such as CA, GA, and CSV to incorporate student Action Steps consistent with service-learning methodology, integrating classroom and community-based experiences. Because all students must take core courses, an increase in courses utilizing service-learning pedagogy would help ensure that students would be exposed to community engagement throughout their academic careers at TCU. To provide students with more advanced service-learning experiences, courses will need to be available within each College, and ideally within each major. Departments that have Senior Seminars will be encouraged to incorporate service-learning and CBPR into such courses. For example, students in the Honors College could also meet Upper Division program requirements by taking courses infused with service-learning pedagogy and/or conduct community-based research projects for their theses. The QEP Advisory Council will develop a set of guidelines for service-learning courses, after examining models already in existence at other institutions. Once courses have been reviewed and approved, they will receive a corresponding designation from the Registrar so that students registering for classes can identify them using the Class Search. Community-Based Fellowships for Students In designing the fellowships described below, a number of models from other higher education institutions were examined. These are listed in Appendix C. Student Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Fellowship Graduate and undergraduate students receiving this fellowship will engage in ongoing collaboration with faculty and community partners to design and implement community-based research projects (CBPR). This type of program would provide students with the opportunity to engage in scientific inquiry and creative problem solving while being supported by experienced faculty. Students who may not be attracted to traditional models of research, but drawn to hands-on interactive learning, will gravitate to this modality of research. Undergraduate CBPR Fellows will also acquire skills that will serve them well in graduate school and/or make them more marketable to future employers. Faculty will be able to expand their research agenda by working in collaboration with students. Community organizations will see an increase in the number of campus partners interested in collaborative projects that answer community needs. A stipend of $1,000 to $2,500 per student will be awarded each year to a cohort of 6 to 8 students from various disciplines. Students will earn 3 credits of directed studies coursework after completing all program requirements. Students applying will be required to submit a proposal outlining their collaborative research project (additional details in Appendix D). Fellows may take up to a year to conclude the project; if the proposal outlines comprehensive preliminary work and a solid research plan, they may be allowed to complete the project during a subsequent academic term or summer.

14

Student Community-Based Learning (CBL) Fellowship This program will encourage undergraduate and graduate students (6 to 10) who have a history of community engagement and leadership skills to act as peer mentors and community liaisons in service-learning initiatives. In a recent survey administered to TCU faculty, the biggest barrier preventing community engaged activities was lack of time. Service-learning, when implemented skillfully, demands ongoing interactions with community partners and may require more faculty time than traditional courses. Faculty members currently adopting this pedagogy take on the added work because of the enhanced learning they observe among their students. However, it is not unusual to hear untenured faculty comment on their desire to adopt the methodology but hesitating because it might take time away from investing in other scholarly activities expected for tenure and promotion. This type of fellowship represents a win-win for all constituents. It allows faculty to focus on classroom learning and delegate some of the day-to-day monitoring to student leaders. It also ensures ongoing communication with community partners. For students it presents several advantages. Students participating in the program will develop a one-on-one relationship with both faculty and community mentors and polish leadership skills by engaging peers in deeper learning. Students enrolled in the courses monitored by fellows will not only learn from faculty and community representatives, but also from their more advanced peers who have themselves experienced community engagement and are able to provide the individual support and role modeling necessary to integrate the classroom and community experiences. In addition to working with faculty on service-learning courses, students may also be selected to work with staff developing and delivering Issue-Based Seminars approved for the Minor in Community Engagement described below. Student CBL Fellows will receive a stipend of $2,000 a year ($1,000 after each semester) they participate in the program and earn up to 3 credits after completing all requirements. Students applying will need to provide evidence of experience in community-based learning. To be eligible to apply, students must be in their third or fourth years at TCU and have taken at least one service-learning course or participated in a community-based internship. Appendix D provides additional program details. Community-Engaged Internship Program A competitive Community-Engaged Internship program (CEIP) will be created for undergraduate and graduate students who wish to deepen their community engagement experience. Internship experiences sharpen students’ skills, help develop career interests and employer contacts, provide opportunities for assessing personal strengths, and connect classroom theories to practical, real world settings. Students will be able to apply to complete internships or practicums with community-based organizations or government agencies pre-approved by TCU as internship sites. In developing the CEIP described below, a number of models from other higher education institutions were examined; these are listed in Appendix C. Our QEP Team met with John Thompson (Career Services) to discuss collaborating with his office to implement this internship program. The CEIP will provide supervised work experience that combines critical thinking and intentional reflection within the student’s interests. The internship program will emphasize community engaged service that fosters (1) student growth as citizens, building their capacity to work in collaboration with others and build a more just society, and (2) student growth as scholars, enhancing their creative abilities and focusing their curiosity to discover the knowledge and the skills that will enable them to work effectively for change. Special effort will be devoted to securing internship placements with local nonprofit organizations or governmental agencies at all levels. The host organization and position must directly benefit the community, with services designed to improve the quality of life for community residents. Students may undertake part-time internships when he/she has declared a major, is a third or fourth-year student, is in good academic standing, and has completed departmental requirements for participation in internships.

15

Undergraduate and graduate students interested in the CEIP can either apply for Non-Credit Bearing Internships, or an Academic Internship Course for credit. Internships may be paid or unpaid and some internship sites require that the student earns academic credit in lieu of pay. Students may also meet requirements for a federally funded work study program. Federal Work-Study (FWS) provides part-time jobs for undergraduate and graduate students with financial need, allowing them to earn money to help pay education expenses. The program encourages community service work and work related to the recipient's course of study. Students can receive University recognition for an internship by enrolling in (1) Academic Internship Course – 4 credit hours/semester earned in the academic year. This is a part-time program in which students spend at least 160 hrs at the work site during 12 weeks of the academic year; (2) Summer Academic Internship Course – 4 credit hours earned at sites in the U.S. This is a part-time program in which students spend at least 160 hrs at the work site for 8 weeks in the summer. Summer Abroad programs may have additional specific requirements for obtaining credit; or (3) Non-Credit Internships throughout the year. This is a part- or full-time program in which students spend at least 160 hrs at the work site during the specified time frame. Non-Credit Internships will also be recognized by the University through Transcript Notation, a process whereby the Registrar’s office can record student’s internships on their academic transcript. Transcript Notation of an internship is an official note on the TCU transcript that describes where and when the student completed their internship. Students will be supervised by staff overseeing the program and be expected to engage in reflection activities and periodic meetings with peers. Certificate and Minor in Community Engagement For students who would like to deepen their experience of community engagement, TCU will offer an interdisciplinary certificate and minor in this area. Students enrolling in these programs will learn both practical and academic approaches they can later apply to whatever career path or graduate program they choose. We will launch the certificate first, and then begin the minor in the third year of the QEP to allow time for faculty to develop more service-learning courses. The certificate and minor will be administered by the staff of the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship. Additional discussion with University Administration will be necessary to determine appropriate academic placement and oversight for these programs. Certificate in Community Engagement The certificate program will combine curricular and co-curricular components. It is intended to provide an opportunity for students to deepen their experience with community engagement, but without the heavier coursework requirements of a minor. Undergraduates from any College or School at TCU may pursue this certificate. Students must complete the following requirements:

Introduction to Community Engagement course (3 hours course credit; please see below under Minor for description)

Semester-long participation in Forum on Community Engagement, which will include educational, service, and reflective components

Semester- or summer-long internship with community partner organization approved by the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship and completion of reflective essay at end of internship

15-20 minute oral presentation or poster presentation at annual TCU Community Engagement Conference

200 hours of documented service in the community (including service hours completed through participation in internship and forum)

Students will document their progress toward the certificate (e.g., for submission of required reflective essays) as well as written documentation of co-curricular activities (e.g., supervisor signatures verifying hours of participation) using ePortfolio. Student Community Engaged Learning

16

Fellows will assist with administering the certificate program, under the supervision of staff of the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship. Student Fellows will also run the Forum on Community Engagement each semester. The forum will consist of a series of seminars led by faculty, community partners, student Fellows, and/or student leaders of relevant organizations on specific topics of concern to local, national, or global communities. Specific topics will be selected by the student Fellows organizing the Forum and by seminar leaders. In each session, participants will read and discuss one or more scholarly articles and/or reflective essays by community members, as well as listen to presentations prepared by seminar leaders. Student Fellows will also prepare service opportunities related to each topic, in which forum attendees will be expected to participate. Additionally, attendees will be required to write several brief reflective essays over the course of the semester, including developing their own personal philosophy of community engaged service based on their knowledge and experiences. As a capstone requirement, students seeking this certificate must also give a 15-20 minute oral or poster presentation at the annual TCU Community Engagement Conference. One of the sessions in the forum will help students prepare for this capstone presentation. Students may base their presentation on their internship or any other significant experience of community engagement they have experienced at TCU. Minor in Community Engagement Unlike the certificate, the minor will be more focused on academic approaches to community engagement. Students will learn how to combine classroom study of academic topics with their hands-on experience in local, national, and/or global communities. Students’ experiences in the community will inform their academic understanding of course topics, and vice versa. Undergraduates from any College or School at TCU may enroll in this minor. Students must complete at least 18 hours of coursework for the minor. All minors will be required to take Introduction to Community Engagement, a new three-credit interdisciplinary course. Students will be encouraged to enroll in this course in their first or second years. This course will provide students with an overview of the social and economic inequalities that communities face, as well as civic knowledge and leadership skills, and will then give students an opportunity to deepen their knowledge of community engagement through practical application in service-learning projects. To provide breadth of knowledge in community engagement, minors must also take one course in each of three topic areas: Social Justice and Intercultural Engagement, Civic Knowledge and Leadership, and Service-Learning. And to provide depth of knowledge, students must also take a second course in any category. Courses must be selected from approved lists for each topic area that will be posted on the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship web site. Students may also petition to have a course counted that is not on the list of approved courses. Each course can be counted only once toward the minor; students may not, for example, take a service-learning course that is also listed as an approved course in the Social Justice category to satisfy both requirements for the minor. See Appendix D for suggested course listings. Minors must also complete a capstone requirement in their third and/or fourth year. Students may choose from two options to begin their capstone:

1) complete a community-based participatory research project under the supervision of a faculty member; this will require faculty approval of a research proposal and enrollment in a two-credit Reading and Research course with that faculty member, or

2) complete an internship with a community partner organization approved by the Center for Community Engaged Scholarship and Learning; this will require enrollment in a two-credit Internship course with a faculty member.

Finally, in the spring of their fourth year, students must enroll in a one-credit Community Engagement Capstone course. Students will meet several times during the semester to reflect on

17

what they have learned about community engagement at TCU and how they will put that knowledge to practice in their careers and/or personal lives. They will also prepare a 15-20 minute oral or poster presentation based on their capstone research project or internship, and present it at the annual TCU Community Engagement Conference. Programs consulted in developing the Certificate and Minor can be found in Appendix C.

Faculty and Staff Involvement Faculty, staff and community partners will contribute to education and research, working collaboratively to integrate learning inside and outside the classroom. Faculty members would intersect with QEP initiatives in various ways. Some will be invited to participate in the QEP Advisory Council and on committees for specific Community Engaged Scholarship (CES) programs. Faculty teaching courses with core attributes such as CA, GA, and/or CSV will be invited to discuss ways in which service-learning pedagogy could be introduced in order to enhance the course experience for students. Faculty members participating in the Faculty Mentors program will take a leadership role in their colleges, serving as community-engaged experts available to their peers for consultation and support. Similarly, faculty skilled at teaching service-learning courses and involved in CBPR will serve as mentors to less experienced faculty. Faculty serving on the Tenure, Promotion, and Grievance Committee of the Faculty Senate will help decide how best to count service-learning courses and other CES work toward tenure. Staff implementing co-curricular programs will support academic learning by helping students make connections to their academic disciplines through written reflection. They will also oversee student internships, working with faculty members to integrate community-based experiences with classroom learning. In addition, staff in the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship will support faculty by assisting with partnership development and by providing information and resources needed for creating an agenda for community-engaged scholarship initiatives based on received feedback. Staff in the Koehler Center for Teaching Excellence and the Office of Institutional Research will also be invited to work closely with this QEP, lending their expertise to faculty seeking assistance with teaching and research. TCU Career Services and QEP administrators/staff will coordinate efforts in developing and implementing the internship program. Extended Education, having already run internship programs with non-profits successfully in the recent past can collaborate in identifying and training community partners wishing to become approved internship sites. The Office of Assessment and Quality Enhancement and its counterpart in Student Affairs will play a crucial role in evaluating the effectiveness of QEP initiatives.

Incentives for Faculty Programs and incentives will also need to be instituted to encourage faculty to create new service-learning classes, incorporate service-learning into existing classes, and/or develop community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects with community partners, here and/or abroad. One suggested incentive is to designate approved service-learning courses as equivalent to 1.5 in the teaching load to account for the time taken for preparation and implementation, which may be particularly challenging for tenure-track faculty attempting to build a scholarship agenda. For faculty interested in CBPR, resources should also be made more readily available, including information on grant opportunities, venues for presentations and publications, and avenues for interweaving research and teaching agendas. Examples of faculty programs to be adopted through this QEP are listed below. Awards for Excellence in Community Engagement To recognize students, faculty, and staff who have excelled in Community Engagement, an award for one person in each category may be granted each year. Awards will be by nomination only; nominations will be evaluated by a committee appointed by the director and governing committee of the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship. The awards will be publicly announced at the TCU Community Engagement Conference each spring, as well as during

18

graduation ceremonies. (For a model of similar programs at another school, see the University of Georgia’s Public Service & Outreach Awards for Faculty and Staff, http://outreach.uga.edu/index.php/programs/faculty_programs/pso_awards/.) Student nominees must be Student Fellows, Minors, or participants in the Certificate Program who have demonstrated excellence in community engaged service and/or research. Faculty nominees must be full-time tenure-track faculty or lecturers who have demonstrated excellence in community engaged service and/or research. Staff nominees must be full-time employees of TCU who have demonstrated excellence in community engaged service and/or research. Faculty and Staff recipients will receive a $1,000 award and students will receive a $500 award. Faculty Fellows and Grant Programs Community Engaged Faculty Fellows and Grant programs will be created to encourage existing and new faculty to participate in community engaged teaching and research. These will include Community Engaged Faculty Fellows, Community Engaged Faculty Mentors, Community Engagement Course Development Grants, and Community Engaged Scholarship Travel Grants. Applications will be evaluated by a Grants Committee appointed by the director and governing committee of the Center for Community Engaged Scholarship and Learning. Community Engaged Faculty Fellows Programs consulted in developing TCU’s Community Engaged Faculty Fellows program are included in Appendix C. This two-year program will provide faculty with the opportunity to 1) design a new course or enhance an existing one with service-learning methodologies and/or 2) design a community-based participatory research project in collaboration with a group of peer faculty and with support from the TCU Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship. Faculty Fellows will learn the theory and practice of community engagement and how to integrate this methodology into their teaching and/or research and service. From 6 to 8 Faculty Fellows will be selected each year from among all the qualified applicants. To apply, faculty must be full-time tenure-track faculty or lecturers at TCU. The goals of the Faculty Fellows program are to:

encourage, reward and support TCU faculty in creating a new course or enhance an existing course that provides undergraduate and/or graduate students with the opportunity to engage in a community-based research and/or service-learning activity that provides a direct and tangible benefit to one or more community partners

build a faculty learning community to share best practices and support each other in community engaged teaching and/or research

link TCU’s commitment to excellence in teaching and research with service to local, national, and/or global communities

Fellows will receive a one-course reduction during their fellowship. This course reduction will be funded at $5,000-10,000 per year, with the goal of providing enough funds to the faculty member’s home department to allow them both to hire an adjunct to teach one course and to have a little money left over to spend at the department’s discretion. They can also apply for between $2,000 and $5,000 to support their course or research program development. Funds may be used to attend a relevant conference, hire a research assistant, purchase needed equipment, or support costs incurred by students involved in community-based work in class or research. These funds will be split between the first and second years of the fellowship; satisfactory progress during the first year must be demonstrated to receive continued funding in the second year. Previous and current Faculty Fellows, along with Faculty Mentors, will also be eligible to apply for competitive funding to present a paper about their community engaged pedagogy or research at an academic or community-based conference. See below under Travel Grants for more information.

19

Community Engaged Faculty Mentors Once a full-time tenure-track faculty member or lecturer at TCU has participated in the Faculty Fellows program (or demonstrates equivalent experience) and has also taught a successful service-learning course at least twice, or led a successful community-based research project to completion and publication, they may apply to be a Community Engaged Faculty Mentor. Up to 4 Faculty Mentorships will be selected to serve two-year terms, like the Fellows. Faculty Mentors will serve two-year terms, like the Fellows. During that time they will assist staff of the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship with teaching the Faculty Fellows workshop and mentoring Faculty Fellows one-on-one. They will also be available to answer questions from faculty on service-learning or community-based participatory research. Finally, they will also assist with evaluating student work related to the Certificate and Minor. Mentors will receive a one-course release in each year of their fellowship. (This course reduction will be funded at $5,000-10,000, with the goal of providing enough funds to the faculty member’s home department to allow them both to hire an adjunct to teach one course and to have a little money left over to spend at the department’s discretion.) They will also receive a stipend of $2,000, disbursed in two equal portions, $1,000 in each year of their fellowship. Like previous and current Faculty Fellows, Faculty Mentors will also be eligible to apply for competitive funding to present a paper about their community engaged pedagogy or research at an academic or community-based conference. Community Engagement Course Development Grants Full-time, tenure-track faculty or lecturers at TCU may also apply for Community Engagement Course Development Grants. These competitive grants are intended to help faculty create new or modify existing courses to include a service-learning component. Faculty may apply for $2,000 to $5,000. Funds may be used for direct course development costs, travel to relevant conferences, hiring research or teaching assistants, and/or to support direct costs involved in student service-learning work while the course is running. Each year, 8 to 12 Course Development Grants will be awarded. Current Faculty Fellows and Mentors may not apply for Course Development Grants during the term of their fellowships; however, they may apply after that. In addition to funding made available through this program, faculty will be encouraged to apply to funds from the Instructional Development Grants made available each year to faculty proposing innovative courses. Community Engagement Research Travel Grants Current and former Faculty Fellows and Faculty Mentors will be eligible to apply for Community Engagement Research Travel Grants. These small grants are intended to supplement departmental funds and facilitate faculty travel to academic or community-based conferences to present papers related to community engaged pedagogy and/or research. Faculty may apply for $500 to $1,000 which may be used for conference registration fees, air or auto travel, or lodging costs. They may not be used for food or other purchases. Up to 5 Travel Grants may be awarded each year. Tenure and Promotion TCU’s mission strongly aligns with the process of Community Engaged Scholarship (CES). TCU faculty, who serve as teacher-scholars, carefully mentor students to reach their full potential. In some cases, these activities include collaborative work with communities according to a rigorous model of research (CBPR) that discovers and then translates knowledge to improve the community and TCU’s ability to accomplish their missions. In many cases, CES provides invaluable opportunities for interdisciplinary work essential working in a future ethnically diverse and value-based environment. CES facilitates both groups’ ability to influence the future world through research/scholarship and creative activity of the highest quality, a goal aptly stated by Dr. Victor Boschini in his February 2012 email on ―TCU’s Vision for the Future.‖

20

In many college and university settings, faculty service-learning and CES serve as satisfactory evidence for faculty tenure and promotion (T&P) decisions. An initial 2011 survey shows at least fourteen universities address the value of CES in faculty performance evaluation (Ellison & Eatman, 2008). These institutions of higher learning include large public universities (e.g., University of Minnesota, University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, Medical University of South Carolina, and the University of Georgia),as well as smaller and private universities (e.g. Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, and Messiah College). Like TCU, many of these institutions have missions that include “accountability to the social good,” a strong component of the rationale for CES. Various resources already exist to help faculty redefine scholarship and to help T&P committees to understand CES in order to make informed decisions. Guidelines for evaluating a faculty member’s CES program of research have existed since 2007 from the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), a national organization focused on academic-community partnerships. (http:www.depts.washington.edu/ccph/healthcollab.html). CCPH has also coordinated the Faculty for an Engaged Campus Initiative, which developed an online process for peer-reviewing, publishing, and disseminating products of CES. Products developed through service-learning, CBPR, and other community-engaged work may be submitted, including videos, manuals, and curricula (http://www.ces4health.info). The intent is to broaden the opportunities for engaged faculty to display their scholarship and properly document community impact while ensuring the rigor sought during T&P deliberations. Another valuable resource for faculty undergoing tenure and promotion is the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement. Composed by pioneers and leaders in the field of community engagement, including administrators and tenured faculty representing different institutions and disciplines, this board was created to review and evaluate the scholarship of engagement of faculty who are preparing for annual review, promotion and tenure (http://www.scholarshipofengagement.org/members/index.html). The QEP Advisory Council will review national guidelines and utilize models from other engaged universities (http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/Developing%20Criteria%20for %20Review %20of%20CES.pdf) to present the Faculty Senate with a comprehensive resource packet to inform discussion. In addition, it will work with TCU faculty, deans and department chairs to raise awareness regarding existing resources for publishing and reviewing community engaged scholarship products. General Timeline A timeline for implementing the QEP is outlined below. Based on a review of existing QEP organizational/working structures, it is recommended that a QEP Advisory Council be convened in Fall 2012. This council should include representatives of all key stakeholders, including faculty, students, and staff from multiple units at TCU, as well as community partners. It should guide the initial planning of the QEP, and help coordinate all aspects of QEP implementation. Preliminary Year (2012-2013) - Preparatory Phase

Contact other institutions that have implemented similar QEPs

Implement focus groups and/or town hall meetings with faculty, students, staff, and community partners to publicize the QEP and seek feedback

Conduct a self-study to: (1) determine current resources and available organizational/institutional structures for implementing the QEP and providing administrative oversight, and (2) identify existing TCU courses and programs (including Core and Study Abroad) that align with the QEP

Based on the self-study, develop a QEP mission statement; revise program and learning objectives; finalize QEP activities/programs and conclude evaluation plan.

Conduct feasibility study for ePortfolio

21

Provide recommendations to the TCU administration regarding the need for additional resources needed for QEP implementation

Select an external consultant with extensive expertise in service-learning pedagogy and CBPR to serve as a resource during implementation and evaluation of the QEP

YEAR ONE: QEP Planning and Organization

Contact faculty teaching core courses regarding adoption of community engagement as action step

Develop criteria for evaluating student and faculty grant applications

Recruit faculty to apply for Faculty Fellows and Mentor Programs

Develop syllabus for introductory course for Certificate/Minor

Collaborate with CTE to develop professional development activities

Explore new opportunities for local, national, and global Issue-Based Trips for students

Develop ePortfolio if deemed appropriate

Coordinate with similar initiatives nationally and internationally, such as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s Community Engagement Classification and the International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership

YEAR TWO: QEP Program Implementation Phase I - Laying the Foundations

Implement Faculty Fellows and Mentor Programs

Announce and Award Faculty Grants

Implement Community Engaged Internships Program

Develop Issue-Based Seminars

Introduce new Issue-Based Trips

Lay foundation for Certificate in Community Engagement

Gather documentation to apply for Carnegie Classification of Engaged Institutions

Hold first annual Community Engagement Conference at TCU

YEAR THREE: QEP Program Implementation Phase II – Building Blocks

Implement undergraduate & graduate student Community-Based Fellowship Programs

Lay groundwork for minor in Community Engagement

Launch Introduction to Community Engagement course for lower division students

Introduce new service-learning courses

Implement Certificate in Community Engagement

Apply for Carnegie Classification of Engaged Institutions

Continue all previously implemented programs

Start implementing ePortfolio if deemed appropriate

Assess progress YEAR FOUR: QEP Program Implementation Phase III – Final Touches

Implement Minor in Community Engagement

Introduce Community Engagement Excellence Award

Continue all previously implemented programs

Assess progress

YEAR FIVE: QEP Program Implementation Phase IV – Working towards Sustainability

Continue all previously implemented programs

Work with external consultants to conduct summative evaluation of QEP

Prepare public documents summarizing outcomes of the QEP

Develop sustainability plan

22

Student and QEP Assessment The QEP assessment will adhere to the following guiding principles: (1) utilize a variety of direct and indirect assessment tools, (2) shape assessment according to expected learning outcomes and program goals, (3) measure both short-term and long-term impacts, (4) implement ongoing evaluation, and (5) gather feedback from all stakeholders (students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community). The QEP Advisory Council will continue to work with the Office for Assessment & Quality Enhancement in Academic Affairs and its counterpart in Student Affairs to refine formative and summative evaluation methods currently in place. Feedback about program effectiveness will also be requested from the different stakeholders through qualitative and quantitative means such as individual interviews, focus groups and town hall meetings, and specific assessment tools to determine evidence of intended outcomes. Additionally, easily documentable tracking data will be assessed each year to evaluate a number of engagement indicators, such as:

Number of SL courses, CBPR projects, and co- curricular community-based programs Number of students engaged in community engaged activities

Number of faculty and staff adopting community engaged practices

Number of CES products, such as publications, presentations, and grant awards

Publicity and endorsement given to community engagement activities at TCU (e.g. magazine articles, references in faculty reports, tenure and promotion guidelines revised to include CES products, Carnegie Classification)

Student Assessment

The table in Appendix B lists examples of quantitative assessment tools that can be used for each learning outcome. The following are some strategies proposed to assess student learning outcomes: Rubrics: Curricular and co-curricular student learning will be measured on a continuous basis

through classroom and community-engaged performance assessments designed to address outcomes identified for different courses and/ co-curricular programs. Performance assessment will utilize student work products, performances, and/or processes to evaluate students’ knowledge acquisition and application. Student work products will be evaluated by faculty, staff, and/or community members through course or program assignments and rubrics provided by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/index.cfm).

Standardized Instruments: A number of tools will be administered periodically to determine progress in specific learning outcomes. They include:

The Service-Learning Outcomes Scale, available from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACP), administered at the end of each semester to students enrolled in SL (Rowe & Chapman, 1999)

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) will be used with seniors to gather data on various student outcomes. This national survey provides participating universities with a series of reports that allow for comparisons with students across the nation. Survey analyses will also allow for comparison of engaged students with their non-engaged peers (http://nsse.iub.edu/html/about.cfm)

Freshman Survey and College Senior Survey are two useful instruments developed by the Higher Education Research Institute – CIRP –also available to compare cohorts of students on topics ranging from cognitive and affective development to career plans (http://www.heri.ucla.edu)

The Profile of American College Students (PACS), available from the National Association of Student Affairs Professionals, will be used to collect information, using a random sample of non-participating peers as a comparison group. This instrument provides data on categories such as academic involvement, campus involvement, diversity issues, values/beliefs, and future aspirations (http://www.naspa.org/divctr/research/profile/survey.cfm)

23

The Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRL), an online instrument based on the Social Change Model of leadership development, will be used to assess socially responsible behaviors (http://www.srlsonline.org/home.html).

Surveying TCU alumni may also provide information on lasting impacts of participation in engaged activities in college on professional and civic outcomes. The QEP Advisory Council will work with the Alumni Office to develop or adapt current alumni assessments. Graduate student work will be assessed by their faculty advisors and community supervisors utilizing rubrics. Instruments such as NSSE and PACS will also be used. In addition to the assessment strategies listed above, it is also recommended that the QEP Advisory Council consider implementing a centralized campus-wide electronic portfolio (ePortfolio) system to evaluate community engaged learning outcomes and enhance student self- assessment and learning across the curriculum. E-portfolios can provide a digital collection of student work, often referred to as artifacts. They enable students to collect, reflect on, and display their work in multiple ways, typically for the purpose of learning or professional development, assessment, or applying for employment positions. Collected artifacts and student reflections can also serve as a means for assessing learning outcomes at the course, program and/or institutional level. Our QEP Team met with Matt Riordan (Career Services) to discuss collaborative efforts in implementing an ePortfolio system based on his Team’s recommendations in the QEP preliminary proposal. Their proposal recommendations included implementing a campus-wide system that would ―serve as a multifaceted program to meet the ever-evolving needs of students, faculty, and university administrators.‖ The system was conceptualized as a student-focused resource that could be utilized for storing and displaying learning experiences, and also accessed by faculty and staff for evaluation purposes. The varying ways of typifying a portfolio all serve to emphasize the importance of deciding upon the purpose and audience of the portfolio prior to designing a system. A portfolio developed to show change and progress in student learning will not be appropriate for use when applying for a job, just as a portfolio displaying only exemplary pieces of work will not be useful for assessing reflective learning. Therefore, it is recommended that the QEP Advisory Council appoint a subcommittee to conduct a study on the feasibility of implementing an ePortfolio system at TCU to help identify existing and available resources (financial, hardware/software, technical support) in implementing a campus-wide system, and ensure that key issues are addressed prior to considering moving forward in implementing an ePortfolio system.

Faculty/Staff Assessment Faculty participating in professional development initiatives will be asked to rate the benefits of involvement; those receiving funding will also be required to submit reports documenting engagement outcomes identified at the onset of the project. In addition, through departmental reports, faculty will document scholarly products. Feedback surveys will be periodically administered to collect information from faculty implementing SL courses on perceived barriers and advantages to utilizing the pedagogy and in engaging in CBPR. Staff members will be asked to document data and to report outcomes on community engagement programs.

Community Partners Assessment Representatives from community organizations will be invited to provide input after partnering with an SL class or after a collaborative endeavor or CBPR project with university faculty or staff. Feedback will be requested on perceived satisfaction and benefits to the organization and its clients. Additionally, partners will be asked to provide information regarding products and contributions of faculty, staff, and students to overall community development.

24

Resources & Budget The attached budget is divided into personnel and operations costs. Under personnel, expenses related to salaries of full-time faculty and staff, stipends and student workers are listed and fringe benefits calculated. Under operations, expenses related to maintaining the center and new programs proposed are shown. In order to provide a clear picture of existing funds and new funds requested, the budget has been organized per year with columns for existing, new and total funding amounts. Existing funds come from CISL’s current budget and from potential sources around the campus (e.g. Research and Creative Activities Fund, Instructional Development Grants). The budget spreadsheet can be found in Appendix E. Personnel The various programs detailed in this proposal represent a significant expansion in the activities currently coordinated though the Center for Community Involvement & Service-Learning (CISL). Therefore, it will be crucial to secure the right personnel to ensure quality planning and delivery of new initiatives. The structure proposed for the Center for Community Engaged Learning and Scholarship has been modeled after that of other QEPs, particularly the one from our peer institution, Tulane University. After discussing potential organizational models with the QEP consultant, the team deemed it wise to bring a faculty member for 50% FTP as an Associate Director. While the Executive Director would have oversight of the center’s management, having an associate director splitting his/her time between departmental obligations and the Center would accelerate buy-in from other faculty members and ensure that an Academic Affairs representative is involved in decision making. In addition, other staff lines have been added to allow for all constituents--faculty, students and community--served to have a liaison on staff. Assistant Directors will help plan and manage programs related to each of the constituent groups. Additional lines are being requested for Coordinators who will oversee the day-to-day components of the new and existing programs on campus and in the community. An Administrative Assistant will assist with logistical and budgetary tasks. Work-study money is also included so that student leaders have an opportunity to take increased responsibility for co-curricular programs and become ambassadors on campus and in the community. Stipends for faculty to become liaisons to their colleges while participating in the Advisory Council for the center are also being requested. In existing funds, the amount available for CISL salaries is listed under total for FTP, representing the combined salaries of the three staff members currently running the center. The new lines show funds needed to complement salaries for the reconstituted center (CELS). Each year, a 3% cost-of-living salary increase is added to each full-time salary line. Fringe benefits were calculated at 39%. Operations For the operating budget, expenses have been broken down according to existing programs and new initiatives in order to highlight the need for new funding throughout the QEP implementation years. Expenses have been calculated according to the order of appearance of programs in the project timeline. They include funding for faculty course development and travel grants, student and faculty stipends, course release, and awards. A more detailed budget justification for programs is available in Appendix F. Increases in lines such as equipment, office operations, and travel take into consideration increased number of staff members and the need for replacement of computers on a regular basis. Similarly with more programs being offered, supporting expenses related to materials and food need to be taken into account since existing funds are primarily supporting co-curricular programs already being

25

run by CISL. The budget also includes funding for speakers and the organization of conferences and workshops, essential to many of the proposed initiatives. List of Appendices

Appendix A: Examples of TCU Best Practices in Community Engagement Appendix B: Table of Student Outcomes and Measures Appendix C: Websites from Leading Institutions Consulted for Program Development Appendix D: Additional Details on Student Programs Appendix E: Budget Spreadsheet Appendix F: Budget Justification for New Programs Appendix G: References Cited Acknowledgements

Consultant Dr Tania Mitchell, Service-Learning Director, Stanford University TCU Staff

The following individuals agreed to be interviewed to share insights on community engagement at

TCU and potential collaborations between their offices and CELS.

Karen Anisman – Civic Literacy Internship Coordinator, Political Science Department

David Grebel – Director, Extended Education

Beatriz Gutierrez – Admission Counselor, Admissions

Romy Hughes – Director, Koehler Center for Teaching Excellence

Scott Kull – Associate Athletic Director for External Operations, Athletics

Bonnie Melhart – Associate Provost of Academic Affairs Dean of University Programs

Matt Riordan – Assistant Director, Career Services

Shannon Sumerlin – Director, Fraternity and Sorority Life

John Thompson – Director, Career Services

Angie Taylor – Director, Student Affairs Quality Enhancement, provided valuable information on

student surveys administered at TCU

Community Partners

The following community representatives were interviewed to discuss perceived benefits of their

partnership with TCU. Their interviews were taped and included in the PPT presentation:

Bo Soderbergh – CEO Tarrant Area Food Bank

Heather Reynolds – CEO Catholic Charities of Fort Worth

Katie Rudd – TCU Alumnus & Community Gardens Coordinator, Tarrant area Food Bank

1

Appendix A. Examples of TCU Best Practices in Community Engagement Project Name/Participants Project

Type Description Student & Community Outcomes

Southside Revitalization Project Neeley School of Business and Samaritan House & Near South Side Tree Planting Project (2007-2008)

SL Course & CBPR

Neeley Fellow Juniors involved in (1) Near South Side Economic Development Project: market research, community needs assessment and financial analysis for Samaritan House; (2) Near South Side Tree Planting Project: develop a tree planting business plan for Fort Worth South, Inc.

Student involvement allowed Samaritan House and Fort Worth South, Inc. to complete a significant project that was difficult for the non-profit agencies to complete on their own.

The tree project established a long-term program originally envisioned in the 2003 consultant team study, which emphasized the importance of tree planting to beautify the Near Southside and help create a pedestrian-oriented environment.

Students strengthened business skills and community awareness.

Healthy Aging and Independent Living (HAIL) Dept. Nutritional Sciences and Meals on Wheels, Inc.(2010-Current)

SL Course & CBPR

Dietetics students and faculty collaborated with Meals on Wheels (MOW) in developing a service-learning model that actively engages dietetics students in an evidence-based community program targeting diabetes and nutritional risk screening and intervention strategies for aging homebound adults.

This is a 3-year initiative funded by United Way of Tarrant County.

Involving dietetics students in service-learning activities for the HAIL program has allowed MOW to expand their outreach and client services for the purpose of improving nutritional health outcomes and decreasing diabetes and related complications for seniors living in the community.

Students increased awareness of the characteristics of food insecure households, contributing factors, and the health consequences of poor nutrition and inadequate dietary practices.

Several grants and publications resulted from this initiative.

Food, Justice and Community in Fort Worth Dept Sociology & Anthropology and Fairmount Neighborhood Association, REAL School Gardens, Refugee Services, Tarrant Area Food Bank (2009-Current)

SL Course & CBPR

Students partnered with 1) the Fairmount Neighborhood Association to address the issue of the area’s insufficient access to quality, affordable produce, 2) REAL School Gardens to better educate elementary school children about agriculture and the global food system, 3) Refugee Services to help provide better access to affordable, nutritious food, 4) Tarrant Area Food Bank to assess whether and how to proceed with a community garden in the North Side neighborhood.

Students helped: 1) install and publicize a new community garden in Fairmount, a community on Fort Worth’s south side; 2) create elementary-school curricula based on school gardens; 3) establish a new food pantry in Refugee Service’s office; 4) conducted a survey to assess community interests in a North Side garden.

Students gained knowledge about food insecurity, social and economic diversity, benefits of sustainable food systems, and how to build them.

Several grants and publications resulted from this initiative.

2

Center for New Lives Harris College of Nursing and FWISD New Lives program (2011)

SL Course

Public health nursing (PHN) students partnered with an alternative school for pregnant and parenting adolescents (grades six through twelve) to help students develop parenting skills.

PHN students developed and implemented a health fair, Mommy and Me: As Healthy as We Can Be, based on a community assessment. Students improved teaching skills and intercultural sensitivity.

Several presentations resulted from this project.

Project Name/Participants Project Type

Description Student & Community Outcomes

Service-Learning for the Latino Community Dept of Spanish and Hispanic Studies and Boys and Girls Clubs, Campfire, NICA and Courtyards

SL Course

Students enrolled in Spanish course utilized advanced language skills to assist local non-profits with tasks such as teaching ESL classes to immigrants, tutoring youth in after school programs and providing activities for senior citizens at long-term care agency.

Results indicate that students improved fluency and vocabulary skills and self confidence and understanding of Latino Culture; Non-profits benefited from having steady presence of students to augment services over-stretched staff is not able to provide.

Several presentations resulted from this project.

Connecting French Speaking Refugees to Fort Worth Community Dept of Modern Language Studies and Refugee Services

SL Course

Students with advanced language skills worked with recently arrived refugee families from African origin to assist with transition into new community.

Students improved language proficiency and awareness of global issues. Refugee families learned about community resources and services, and found adjustment to unfamiliar community less stressful.

Public Awareness and Fundraising Benefiting Northern Uganda Dept of Communication Studies and TCU’s Invisible Children Movement

Group Dynamics Public Speaking and Intercultural Communication courses

SL Course

Students were introduced to the Invisible Children cause and broken into small groups to work on developing a unique public awareness campaign including a public service announcement; delivering the public awareness campaign to a segment of the TCU population; and developing and implementing a fund raising campaign to generate relief funds for the TCU Invisible Children Movement.

Students raised more than $6000 in less than two months. Several of the students have made long-term commitments to the Invisible Children Movement. In end of semester reports, students unanimously reported being forever changed by their exposure to the project with high levels of concept understanding and satisfaction.

Research Apprentices in Physics Program (RAPP) Dept of Physics and Astronomy and Fort Worth Independent School District

SL Course & CBPR

The program contributes to science education programs in local high schools by bringing promising students in underprivileged communities to work with TCU upper level undergraduate and graduate students at the university’s science laboratories.

Participation in the program has encouraged TCU students in their pedagogical pursuits and improved their leadership/teacher qualities. High school students have benefited from the peer-to-peer collaboration, showing increased interest pursuing careers in science and engineering. Several grants and publications resulted from this initiative.

3

Appendix B. Student Learning Outcomes, Learning Activities and Assessment Measures

Competency 1: Integrate classroom and community-based experiential learning

Institutional Priorities Emphasis Areas Learning Activities Assessment Tools

Apply knowledge gained in the classroom to propose informed solutions to community-identified challenges.

Act as Learner Act as Responsible Citizen Acts as Global Participant

Applied Learning Integrated Learning Creativity

SL courses Core courses with SL component Certificate/Minor Research $ Learning Fellowships Internships

NSSE 1, 2 & 11 SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Freshman & Senior Surveys PACS

Utilize knowledge gained through community-based experiential learning to better understand theoretical perspectives and applications in class.

Act as Learner Integrated Learning

SL courses Certificate/Minor Research and Learning Fellowships Co-curricular SL

SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics ePortfolio

Develop creative approaches to research inquiry and problem-solving that build upon both classroom and community-based experiential learning.

Act as Learner

Creativity Integrated Learning

Research Fellowships Honors Thesis Graduate Thesis

Inquiry and Analysis VALUE Rubric applied to CBPR projects NSSE 1, 2 & 11 Freshman & Senior Surveys PACS

Competency 2: Identify and articulate the assets, needs, and complexities of social issues faced by local and global communities.

Institutional Priorities Emphasis Areas Learning Activities Assessment Tools

Demonstrate the ability to assess community assets and needs using a variety of measures.

Act as Responsible Citizen Acts as Global Participant

Reflective Learning Integrated Learning

Co-curricular SL SL courses Certificate/Minor Research & Learning Fellowships

SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics

4

Examine local and global social inequities and their root causes.

Act as Responsible Citizen Acts as Global Participant

Reflective Learning Integrated Learning

Co-curricular SL SL courses Certificate/Minor Research & Learning Fellowships

SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics

Describe the impacts of social structures on individuals, communities, and societies.

Act as Responsible Citizen Acts as Global Participant

Reflective Learning Integrated Learning

Co-curricular SL SL courses First Year Seminar CBPR projects with faculty

SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics

Competency 3: Evaluate personal strengths, challenges, and responsibility for effecting positive social change in local and global communities.

Institutional Priorities Emphasis Areas Learning Activities Assessment Tools

Evaluate personal capabilities through ongoing reflection about community-based experiences.

Act as Ethical Leader Act as Responsible Citizen

Reflective Learning

Co-curricular SL SL courses Certificate Internships

SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics NSSE 6 & 11 ePortfolio

Articulate the connection between personal capabilities and ethical responsibility to effect positive social change.

Act as Ethical Leader Act as Responsible Citizen

Reflective Learning Integrated Learning

Co-curricular SL SL courses Certificate Internship

Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics Defining Issues Test (DIT) NSSE 11, PACS Freshman & Senior Surveys ePortfolio

Competency 4: Draw upon classroom and community-based learning to develop professional skills and socially responsible civic behaviors.

Institutional Priorities

Emphasis Areas

Learning Activities

Assessment Tools

Work collaboratively with partners from diverse backgrounds to accomplish

Act as Ethical Leader Act as Responsible Citizen Acts as Global Participant

Reflective Learning and Practice Applied Learning

Co-curricular SL SL courses Internships

SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Teamwork VALUE Rubric

5

shared goals. Creativity

Research & Learning Fellowships

applied to teamwork experience Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics NSSE 1, 6 & 11 PACS SRL Freshman & Senior Surveys Community Feedback

Recognize and apply skills developed through community engagement in professional settings.

Act as Responsible Citizen Act as Ethical Leader

Reflective Learning Applied Learning Integrated Learning

Community Internships SL courses Co-curricular SL Research & Learning Fellowships

SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics NSSE 11 PACS SRL Freshman & Senior Surveys Community Feedback

Exercise leadership skills to mobilize others to work toward positive social change in campus and/or community settings.

Act as Ethical Leader Act as Responsible Citizen

Applied Learning Integrated Learning

SL courses Co-curricular SL Learning Fellowship Internships

SL Outcomes Scale Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments Program Evaluation Rubrics NSSE 1 SRL Senior Survey

Demonstrate civically responsible behaviors in campus and/or community settings.

Act as Ethical Leader Act as Responsible Citizen Act as a Global Citizen

Applied Learning Creativity

Co-curricular SL SL courses Capstone CBPR projects with faculty Student Fellows

Program Evaluation Rubrics Performance Assessment Rubrics Classroom Assignments NSSE 9 & 11 PACS SRL Freshman & Senior Surveys

6

Appendix C Websites from Leading Institutions Consulted for Program Development

Community Engaged Internship Program

Programs consulted in developing the Community Engaged Internship Program:

Public Service and Outreach Student Scholars at the University of Georgia:

http://outreach.uga.edu/index.php/programs/student_programs/student_scholar_program

Brandeis University: http://www.brandeis.edu/hiatt/index.html

Citizen Scholars Program at the University of Massachusetts, http://www.honors.umass.edu/csp

Graduate Public Service Scholarship at Stanford University: http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/haas/students/gps)

Student Fellowships Programs consulted in designing the Community Engagement Learning and Research Fellowships:

Tulane University’s Public Service Fellows (http://tulane.edu/cps/students/psf/index.cfI

Rice University’s Century Scholars Program (http://www.centscho.rice.edu/)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Summer Research Fellowship (http://www.unc.edu/ccps/students-fellowships-surf.php)

University of Delaware’s Service-Learning and Community-Based Research Fellowships (http://www.servicelearning.udel.edu/service-learning-and-community-based-fellowships)

University of San Francisco’s advocates for Community Engagement (http://www.usfca.edu/centers/mccarthy/programs/aceprogram/)

Providence College’s Feinstein Institute for Public Service Community Liaisons (http://www.providence.edu/feinstein/Pages/Community-Liaisons.aspx)

Stanford University’s Graduate Public Service Fellowship (http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/haas/students/gps/fellows)

Certificate and Minor in Community Engagement Programs consulted in developing the certificate and minor options:

Service-Learning Leadership minor at Cal State Monterey Bay, http://catalog.csumb.edu/undergradeducation/minors/service-learning

Major or minor in Public and Community Service Studies at Providence College, http://www.providence.edu/academics/Pages/public-community-service-studies.aspx

Northwestern School of Education and Social Policy- http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/ugrad/civic-engagement-program/index.html

University of Massachusetts, http://cesl.umass.edu/certificate

Michigan State University, http://outreach.msu.edu/gradcert/default.aspx

Portland State University, http://pdx.edu/hatfieldschool/civic-leadership-minor

Illinois State University, http://americandemocracy.illinoisstate.edu/civic-engagement-responsibility/

Clearinghouse, Recognizing Service-Learning in Higher Education through Minors and Certificates http://www.servicelearning.org/instant_info/fact_sheets/he_facts/ minors__certs_he

Can I Major in Service-Learning? An Empirical Analysis of Certificate,, Major and Minors http://www.aacu.org/meetings/annualmeeting/AM11/documents/Butin_CanIMajorinSL.pdf

Community Engaged Faculty Fellows Programs consulted in developing TCU’s Faculty Fellows Program include:

University of Georgia -http://outreach.uga.edu/index.php/programs/faculty_programs/

North Carolina State University- http://ofd.ncsu.edu/community-engagement/nc-state-community-engaged-faculty-fellows/

Texas State University- http://www.provost.txstate.edu/sli/Faculty/Fellows.html

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis- http://csl.iupui.edu/osl/2b4.asp

Emory University-http://oucp.emory.edu/our_work/engaged_learning/faculty_fellows.html

7

Appendix D Additional Details on Student Programs

Community-Based Research (CBR) Fellowship: In order to apply to the program, student will be required to submit a proposal outlining the collaborative research project, including: • Letter from faculty member agreeing to mentor student through all stages of the process; • Letter from community partner, confirming prior discussion and agreeing to be a co-mentor; • Background information identifying community needs and assess related to the research topic; • Plan to acquire knowledge in parameters for CBPR and the issue addressed by the project; • Agreement to provide interim/final reports to update mentors and selection committee on progress; • Willingness to participate in cohort learning activities with other fellows • Record information into online portfolio in an ongoing basis for deeper levels of learning; • Commitment to present results in yearly Engaged Scholarship Conference.

Community-Based Learning (CBL) Fellowship: Students enrolling in the program will be expected to: • Provide a signed contract by faculty and student detailing expectations on both sides; • Dedicate an average of 5h/ week of direct support to faculty & community partners; • Assist in course logistics (e.g. coordinating background checks,; collect risk management forms) ; • Agree to function as a liaison between community partners and faculty, providing frequent updates; • Commit to communicating individually with students enrolled in the class to monitor learning; • Log experiences onto online portfolio and answering prompts created by QEP advisory committee; • Submit final report at the end of the semester detailing course outcomes, and provide reflective account of personal experience in terms of academic, leadership and civic outcomes; • Include evaluations from both faculty and community mentor in the final report.

Minor in Community Engagement (18 hours) Summary of Requirements for the Minor in Community Engagement

Introduction to Community Engagement (3 hrs)

Social Justice and Intercultural Engagement (3 hrs)

Civic Knowledge and Leadership (3 hrs)

Service-Learning (3 hrs)

Second course in any of the preceding three categories (3 hrs)

Community-based research project or internship (2 hrs)

Community Engagement Capstone course and final presentation (1 hr)

Examples of Potential Courses by Minor Category

Social Justice and Intercultural Engagement (one course required)

ANTH 30663: Human Rights, Environmental Justice, and Agriculture

ANTH 40433: Transnational Processes: Globalization, Migration, and Borders

SOCI 30233: Sustainability: Environmental, Social, and Economic Issues

SOCI 40803: Social Inequality

SOCI 30443: Social Movements and Protest

Civic Knowledge and Leadership (one course required) Approved courses might include:

SOCI 30923: Social and Cultural Contexts of Leadership

Service-Learning (one course required) Approved courses might include:

ANTH 30383: Qualitative Research & Ethnography

ANTH 30663: Human Rights, Environmental Justice, and Agriculture

ECON 30433: Development Studies

NTDT 30306: Supervised Practice in General Dietetics

SPAN 31803: Service-Learning in the Latino Community

8

*Appendix E Budget Spreadsheet (see Excel Spreadsheet)

Appendix F Budget Justification for New Programs Student Internships (Year 2): Calculated for 20 students in Year 2 - 16 federal work-study at $2.5/h ($6,400) and 4 regular student workers ($6,400) at $10/h - for 10 hours a week for up to 16 weeks each semester/summer session, this brings total in Year one to $ 12,800. The number of students increases up to 24 per year in Year 3 (20 federal work study and 4 regular student workers) for a total of $14,600. In Year 4, the program reaches capacity with 30 students per year (24 federal work study and 6 regular student workers), for a total of $19,200.

Faculty Scholar Stipends (Year 2): Calculated for 6 scholars during first two-year cycle (Years 2 and 3 and reaching 8 on second two-year cycle (Years 4 and 5). Course release (two courses per year) calculated at $7,500 per scholar in Year 2 ($45,000), $8,000 in Year 3 ($48,000), $9,000 in Year 3 ($72,000) and $10,000 in Year 5 ($80,000); increases reflect need to update adjunct faculty pay and variance from college to college. Also included in this budget line are support funds calculated at an average of $3,500 (range of $2,000 to $5,000)for 6 scholars for first two-year cycle ($21,000 divided by 2 years = $10,500 per year) and at $4,000 per 8 scholars during the second two-year cycle ($32,000 divided by 2 years = $16,000 each year). Year 2: $45,000 + $10,500 = $55,500; Year 3: $48,000 + $10,500 = $58,500; Year 4: $72,000 + $16,000 = $88,000; Year 5: $80,000 + $16,000 = $96,000.

Faculty Mentor Stipends (Year 2): Starting with 3 mentors for first cycle (Years 2 and 3) and reaching 4 mentors in the second cycle (Years 4 and 5). Course release (two courses per year) calculated at an average of $7,500 per/mentor (range of $2,000 to $5,000) for Year 2 ($22,500), $8,000 for Year 3 ($24,000), $9,000 for Year 4 ($36,000), and $10,000 for Year 5 ($40,000). A stipend of $1,000 will be offered per year of participation. Year 2: $22,500 + $3,000 = $25,500; Year 3: $24,000 + $3,000 = $27,000; Year 4: $36,000 + $4,000 = $30,000; Year 5: $40,000 + $4,000 = $44,000.

Faculty Grants (SL & CBPR) (Year 2): Funding is requested for Course Development Grants. It is expected that 8 to 10 grants will be awarded in Year Two, ranging from $2,000 to $5,000. If an average of $3,000 is awarded to 8 individuals during this first year, a total of $24,000 would be needed. Currently a total of $8,000 is available through CISL (each year grants of up to $1,000 have been offered for the past five years), leaving about $16,000 to complete the total funding amount needed in Year 2. By Year 4, still counting on the existing amount, $8,000 from the Center for Community Involvement & Service-Learning, the funding requested increases, reaching $28,000 to allow for the expansion of the number of grants awarded to 12 (still calculated on an average of $3,000 per grantee). In addition, it is expected that approximately 20% of the funding now allocated towards Instructional Development Grants will be earmarked for additional grants for service-learning course development each year ($12,000). Funding for CBPR grants would be made available from the Research and Creative Activities Fund. Again, approximately 20% could be allocated for CBPR projects ($20,000)

Travel Grants (Year 2): An average of $750 per each for the 5 grants awarded is requested for Year 2 ($3,750); the amount increases per year to reach a total of $5,000 for all grants in Year 5.

Student Research Fellowships (Year 3: Calculated at an average of $2,000 for 6 students in Year 3 ($12,000), and reaching 8 students on Years 4 and 5 ($16,000).

Student Learning Fellowships (Year 3): Calculated at an average of $2,000 a year ($1,000 per semester) for 6 students in Year 3 ($12,000), 8 students in Year 4 ($16,000) and 10 students in Year 5 ($20,000).

Awards (Year 4): Awards for one faculty member ($1,000), staff member ($1,000), and one student ($500) each year, with possibility for up to 2 student awards made available by Year 5.

9

Appendix G References Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009, Fall). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education 1, 25-28. Astin, A., Vogelgesang, L., Ikeda, E., & Yee, J. (2000). How service learning affects students. University of California, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute. Blundo, R. (2003). Participatory research and service-learning: A natural match for the community and campus. The Journal for Civic Commitment, Issue 2. http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue2/Blundo.pdf Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 66-71. Ellison, J., & Eatman, T. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the engaged university. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J., Giles, D., Stenson, C., & Gray, C. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities, 1993-2000. Washington, DC: Learn and Serve America National Service Learning Clearinghouse. http://servicelearning.org/ Hart Research Associates (June, 2010). Raising the Bar: Employers’ Views on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn, Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities. Israel, B.A., Schultz, A.J., Parker, E.A. & Becker, A.B. (1998). Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173-202. Jameson, J.K., Clayton, P.H., & Jaeger, A.J. (2010). Community-engaged scholarship through mutually transformative partnerships. In L.M. Harter, J. Hamel-Lambert, & J. Millesan (Eds.), Participatory Partnerships for Social Action and Research (pp. 259-277). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Spring, 50-66. Osborne, R. E., Hammerich, S., & Hensley, C. (1998). Student effects of service-learning: Tracking change across a semester. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 5-13. Rao, P., Arcury, T.A., & Quandt, S.A. (2004). Student participation in community-based participatory research to improve migrant and seasonal farmworker. Environmental Health: Issues for Success. Journal of Environmental Education, Winter, 35 (2), 3-15. Rowe, M. M., & Chapman, J. G. (1999). Faculty and student participation and perceptions of service-learning outcomes. In J.R. Ferrari and J.G. Chapman, Educating students to make-a-difference (pp. 83-96). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.

10

Steinke, P., & Buresh, S. (2002). Cognitive outcomes of service-learning: Reviewing the past and glimpsing the future. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(2), 5-14. Strong, E. Green, P. Meyer, M. & Post, M. ((2011). Future directions in campus-community partnerships: Location of service-learning offices and activities in higher education. In J. R. Strait & M. Lima (Eds.) The Future of Service-Learning (pp. 9-32). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. The National Taskforce on Civic learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012. A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future, Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities. Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Gartlehner, G., Lohr, K.N., Griffith, D., Rhodes, S., Samuel-Hodge, C., Maty, S., Lux, L, Webb, L., Sutton, S.F., Swinson, T., Jackman, A., & Whitener, L.Community-Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 99 AHRQ Publica. Wortis, N. & Quezada, R. (2010). Campus-Community Partnerships as a Strategy for Social Justice: Where We’ve Been & Where We Need to Go. Lessons Learned from the Evolution of UCSF’s University Community Partnerships Office, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health 15th Annual Conference, Houston, TX.

APPENDIX E

QEP BUDGET FY 2014Existing NEW

Salaries and FringeSalaries CELS Executive Director -$ 9,000.00$ 68,364.00$

CELS - Associate Director - Faculty@50%* -$ 37,500.00$ 37,500.00$

CELS -Assistant Director - FacultyPrograms -$ 4,500.00$ 47,735.00$

CELS -Assistant Director - Student Programs -$ 10,000.00$ 47,132.00$

CELS- Assistant Director - Staff/Community Liaison -$ 46,000.00$ 46,000.00$

CELS-Program Coordinator- Campus -$ 38,000.00$ 38,000.00$

CELS- Program Coordinator- Community -$ 38,000.00$ 38,000.00$

CELS- Administrative Assistant -$ 32,000.00$ 32,000.00$

CELS- Student Workers 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$

CELS- Faculty Liaison Stipends -$ 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$

Consultant -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$

Total salaries FTP** 139,731.00$ 215,000.00$ 354,731.00$

Total Salaries ALL 142,231.00$ 228,500.00$ 370,731.00$

Fringe Benefits (@39%) on FTPS 54,495.09$ 83,850.00$ 138,345.09$

TOTAL Personnel 196,726.09$ 312,350.00$ 509,076.09$

Operating BudgetOffice Operations (phone, copies, mailing,etc) 2,500.00$ 2,000.00$ 4,500.00$

Programming Expenses (food, materials, services) 20,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Student Internships (Year 2) -$ -$

Faculty Scholar Stipends (Year 2) -$ -$ -$

Faculty Mentor Stipends (Year 2)

Faculty Grants (SL & CBPR) (Year 2)*** 8,000.00$ -$ 8,000.00$

Travel Grants (Year 2)

Student Fellowships ( Research) (Year 3) -$ -$ -$

Student Fellowships (Learning) (Year 3)

Awards (Year 4) -$ -$ -$

Speakers 3,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 5,000.00$

Conference, Workshops, Meetings 10,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 15,000.00$

Professional Development and Student Travel 8,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 14,000.00$

Supplies and Equipment 6,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 16,000.00$

Marketing/Dissemination 5,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 8,000.00$

Assessment Tools -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$

TOTAL Operations 62,500.00$ 36,000.00$ 98,500.00$

TOTAL QEP BUDGET 259,226.09$ 348,350.00$ 607,576.09$

* Based on information provided by Provost Office for entry level Associate Professor salaries in College of AddRan (will vary depending on college affiliation)

** includes the combined salaries of the three staff members in the for Community Involvement & Service-Learning

*** includes $8,000 from CISL's budget and other existing funds from grant initiatives such as Instruction Developemnt Grants ($12,000) and Research and Creativiy Fund ($20,000)

FY 2015Existing NEW

Salaries and FringeSalaries CELS Executive Director -$ 11,050.92$ 70,414.92$

CELS - Associate Director - Faculty@50%* -$ 38,625.00$ 38,625.00$

CELS -Assistant Director - FacultyPrograms -$ 5,932.05$ 49,167.05$

CELS -Assistant Director - Student Programs -$ 11,413.96$ 48,545.96$

CELS- Assistant Director - Staff/Community Liaison -$ 47,380.00$ 47,380.00$

CELS-Program Coordinator- Campus -$ 39,140.00$ 39,140.00$

CELS- Program Coordinator- Community -$ 39,140.00$ 39,140.00$

CELS- Administrative Assistant -$ 32,960.00$ 32,960.00$

CELS- Student Workers 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$

CELS- Faculty Liaison Stipends -$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

Consultant -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$

Total salaries FTP** 139,731.00$ 225,641.93$ 365,372.93$

Total Salaries ALL 142,231.00$ 245,641.93$ 387,872.93$

Fringe Benefits (@39%) on FTPS 54,495.09$ 88,000.35$ 142,495.44$

TOTAL Personnel 196,726.09$ 333,642.28$ 530,368.37$

Operating BudgetOffice Operations (phone, copies, mailing,etc) 2,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 5,500.00$

Programming Expenses (food, materials, services) 20,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$

Student Internships (Year 2) -$ 12,800.00$ 12,800.00$

Faculty Scholar Stipends (Year 2) -$ 55,500.00$ 55,500.00$

Faculty Mentor Stipends (Year 2) 25,500.00$ 25,500.00$

Faculty Grants (SL & CBPR) (Year 2)*** 40,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 56,000.00$

Travel Grants (Year 2) 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$

Student Fellowships ( Research) (Year 3) -$ -$ -$

Student Fellowships (Learning) (Year 3) -$

Awards (Year 4) -$ -$ -$

Speakers 3,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 13,000.00$

Conference, Workshops, Meetings 10,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 18,000.00$

Professional Development and Student Travel 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 16,000.00$

Supplies and Equipment 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$

Marketing/Dissemination 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$

Assessment Tools -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$

TOTAL Operations 94,500.00$ 166,300.00$ 260,800.00$

TOTAL QEP BUDGET 291,226.09$ 499,942.28$ 791,168.37$

* Based on information provided by Provost Office for entry level Associate Professor salaries in College of AddRan (will vary depending on college affiliation)

** includes the combined salaries of the three staff members in the for Community Involvement & Service-Learning

*** includes $8,000 from CISL's budget and other existing funds from grant initiatives such as Instruction Developemnt Grants ($12,000) and Research and Creativiy Fund ($20,000)

FY 2016Existing NEW

Salaries and FringeSalaries CELS Executive Director -$ 13,163.37$ 72,527.37$

CELS - Associate Director - Faculty@50%* -$ 39,783.75$ 39,783.75$

CELS -Assistant Director - FacultyPrograms -$ 7,407.06$ 50,642.06$

CELS -Assistant Director - Student Programs -$ 12,870.34$ 50,002.34$

CELS- Assistant Director - Staff/Community Liaison -$ 48,801.40$ 48,801.40$

CELS-Program Coordinator- Campus -$ 40,314.20$ 40,314.20$

CELS- Program Coordinator- Community -$ 40,314.20$ 40,314.20$

CELS- Administrative Assistant -$ 33,948.80$ 33,948.80$

CELS- Student Workers 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$

CELS- Faculty Liaison Stipends -$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

Consultant -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$

Total salaries FTP** 139,731.00$ 236,603.12$ 376,334.12$

Total Salaries ALL 142,231.00$ 256,603.12$ 398,834.12$

Fringe Benefits (@39%) on FTPS 54,495.09$ 92,275.22$ 146,770.31$

TOTAL Personnel 196,726.09$ 348,878.33$ 545,604.42$

Operating BudgetOffice Operations (phone, copies, mailing,etc) 2,500.00$ 4,000.00$ 6,500.00$

Programming Expenses (food, materials, services) 20,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 35,000.00$

Student Internships (Year 2) 14,600.00$ 14,600.00$

Faculty Scholar Stipends (Year 2) 58,500.00$ 58,500.00$

Faculty Mentor Stipends (Year 2) 27,000.00$ 27,000.00$

Faculty Grants (SL & CBPR) (Year 2)*** 40,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 56,000.00$

Travel Grants (Year 2) 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$

Student Fellowships ( Research) (Year 3) -$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$

Student Fellowships (Learning) (Year 3) 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$

Awards (Year 4) -$ -$ -$

Speakers 3,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 15,000.00$

Conference, Workshops, Meetings 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Professional Development and Student Travel 8,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Supplies and Equipment 6,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 11,000.00$

Marketing/Dissemination 5,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 11,000.00$

Assessment Tools -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$

TOTAL Operations 94,500.00$ 211,100.00$ 305,600.00$

TOTAL QEP BUDGET 291,226.09$ 559,978.33$ 851,204.42$

FY 2017Existing NEW

Salaries and FringeSalaries CELS Executive Director -$ 15,339.19$ 74,703.19$

CELS - Associate Director - Faculty@50%* -$ 40,977.26$ 40,977.26$

CELS -Assistant Director - FacultyPrograms -$ 8,926.32$ 52,161.32$

CELS -Assistant Director - Student Programs -$ 14,370.41$ 51,502.41$

CELS- Assistant Director - Staff/Community Liaison -$ 50,265.44$ 50,265.44$

CELS-Program Coordinator- Campus -$ 41,523.63$ 41,523.63$

CELS- Program Coordinator- Community -$ 41,523.63$ 41,523.63$

CELS- Administrative Assistant -$ 34,967.26$ 34,967.26$

CELS- Student Workers 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$

CELS- Faculty Liaison Stipends -$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

Consultant -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$

Total salaries FTP** 139,731.00$ 247,893.14$ 387,624.14$

Total Salaries ALL 142,231.00$ 267,893.14$ 410,124.14$

Fringe Benefits (@39%) on FTPS 54,495.09$ 96,678.33$ 151,173.42$

TOTAL Personnel 196,726.09$ 364,571.47$ 561,297.56$

Operating BudgetOffice Operations (phone, copies, mailing,etc) 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$

Programming Expenses (food, materials, services) 20,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 38,000.00$

Student Internships (Year 2) 19,200.00$ 19,200.00$

Faculty Scholar Stipends (Year 2) -$ 88,000.00$ 88,000.00$

Faculty Mentor Stipends (Year 2) 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$

Faculty Grants (SL & CBPR) (Year 2)*** 40,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 68,000.00$

Travel Grants (Year 2) 4,500.00$ 4,500.00$

Student Fellowships ( Research) (Year 3) -$ 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$

Student Fellowships (Learning) (Year 3) 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$

Awards (Year 4) -$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$

Speakers 3,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 18,000.00$

Conference, Workshops, Meetings 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Professional Development and Student Travel 8,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 23,000.00$

Supplies and Equipment 6,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 14,000.00$

Marketing/Dissemination 5,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 12,000.00$

Assessment Tools -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$

TOTAL Operations 94,500.00$ 295,200.00$ 389,700.00$

TOTAL QEP BUDGET 291,226.09$ 659,771.47$ 950,997.56$

FY 2018Existing NEW

Salaries and FringeSalaries CELS Executive Director -$ 17,580.28$ 76,944.28$

CELS - Associate Director - Faculty@50%* -$ 42,206.58$ 42,206.58$

CELS -Assistant Director - FacultyPrograms -$ 10,491.16$ 53,726.16$

CELS -Assistant Director - Student Programs -$ 15,915.48$ 53,047.48$

CELS- Assistant Director - Staff/Community Liaison -$ 51,773.41$ 51,773.41$

CELS-Program Coordinator- Campus -$ 42,769.33$ 42,769.33$

CELS- Program Coordinator- Community -$ 42,769.33$ 42,769.33$

CELS- Administrative Assistant -$ 36,016.28$ 36,016.28$

CELS- Student Workers 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$

CELS- Faculty Liaison Stipends -$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$

Consultant -$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$

Total salaries FTP** 139,731.00$ 259,521.87$ 399,252.87$

Total Salaries ALL 142,231.00$ 279,521.87$ 421,752.87$

Fringe Benefits (@39%) on FTPS 54,495.09$ 101,213.53$ 155,708.62$

TOTAL Personnel 196,726.09$ 380,735.39$ 577,461.48$

Operating BudgetOffice Operations (phone, copies, mailing,etc) 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 7,500.00$

Programming Expenses (food, materials, services) 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 40,000.00$

Student Internships (Year 2) 19,200.00$ 19,200.00$

Faculty Scholar Stipends (Year 2) -$ 96,000.00$ 96,000.00$

Faculty Mentor Stipends (Year 2) 44,000.00$ 44,000.00$

Faculty Grants (SL & CBPR) (Year 2)*** 40,000.00$ 28,000.00$ 68,000.00$

Travel Grants (Year 2) 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$

Student Fellowships ( Research) (Year 3) -$ 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$

Student Fellowships (Learning) (Year 3) 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Awards (Year 4) 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$

Speakers 3,000.00$ 17,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Conference, Workshops, Meetings 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Professional Development and Student Travel 8,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 23,000.00$

Supplies and Equipment 6,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 14,000.00$

Marketing/Dissemination 5,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 12,000.00$

Assessment Tools -$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$

TOTAL Operations 94,500.00$ 316,200.00$ 410,700.00$

TOTAL QEP BUDGET 291,226.09$ 696,935.39$ 988,161.48$