1. Deepening the
roots of
civic engagement
p aI P SU RV E Y
2 011 A N N UA L M E M BE R SH
p | E X E C U T I V E SU M M A RY

2. Service to
Introduction
DE C A DE S OF E F F ORT Y I E L D F RU I T F U L R E S U LT S
Campus Compact has supported the efforts of The 2011 annual survey shows a deepening
campuses to develop an engaged academy and of engagement work as campuses increas-
promote the public purposes of higher educa- ingly put in place measures such as including
tion for more than 25 years. As demonstrated service and civic knowledge in strategic plans,
by the annual survey of Campus Compact’s providing resources and rewards for faculty
nearly 1,200 member colleges and universities, involvement, increasing the community’s voice
this effort continues to pay off: Each year more in decision making, and considering service in
students on more campuses are engaging with admissions and scholarships.
their communities in ways that create strong
These measures combine to create a culture of
partnerships and encourage growth and devel-
engagement that facilitates meaningful cam-
opment. These experiences reinforce academic
pus-community connections and reinforces
learning and encourage lifelong civic habits.
higher education’s role in preparing future
Tracking leaders to tackle pressing issues. To ensure that
Institutional the numbers this role is fulfilled, however, campuses need to
of civically focus not only on the extent of this work, but
commitment is engaged stu- also on its effectiveness.
essential for engaged dents—and
the faculty
This year’s survey has identified a major gap
in campuses’ ability to assess the impact of
work to take hold. and staff
who support
engaged work on the community and on
student learning. Putting in place assessment
them—is a
measures will deepen the roots of engagement
great starting point for understanding campus
by allowing campuses to identify strengths and
activity. However, Campus Compact believes
weaknesses in their current programs. Formal
it is more important to know how this work
processes can ensure continuous improvement
is changing the fabric of institutions and of
and bolster both internal and external support
higher education.
for this work.
Planting
THE SEEDS
To view Institutional commitment is essential for These figures represent a significant rise in
previous years’ engaged work to take hold. A key measure of institutional commitment over the past two
survey results, this commitment is the inclusion of commu- years. In 2009, 87% of responding institu-
see http:// nity engagement in campus mission statements tions included service or civic engagement in
www.compact. and strategic plans. In 2011, 91% of Campus their mission and just 83% in their strategic
org/about/ Compact member schools indicated that plan. Particularly heartening is the increased
statistics. their institution had a mission statement that recognition that a strong mission or purpose
included service, service-learning, or civic statement must be backed by an equally strong
engagement; 90% noted that their strategic plan of action.
plan explicitly addressed these areas.
p2p

3. o the community (local, national, global) 88%
FIGURE 1: C I V I C L E A R N I N G O U T CO M E S A D D R E S S E D I N S T R AT E G I C P L A N S , 2 011
Education for global citizenship 80%
Student civic engagement 78%
Student leadership development 73%
Student civic learning 68%
31%
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of responding campuses
20%
13%
Among types of schools, faith-based (97%) and service to the community, education for global
minority-serving (92%) institutions reported citizenship, student civic engagement, student
above average rates for missions that purposely leadership development, and student civic
drive the work of engagement. They also have learning, all noted by more than two-thirds of
strategic plans with a focus on service, civic respondents (Figure 1).
engagement, and/or service-learning at 93%
Another indicator of institutional commitment For more
and 95%, respectively. These findings reflect
to engagement is the Carnegie Community on Campus
the historic focus of these schools on linking
Engagement Classification, which recognizes Compact
leadership with community development,
community engagement as demonstrated and the
which has resulted in a pervasive culture of
through curricular and partnership activi- Carnegie
engagement.
ties. Among campuses that responded to this Classification,
Among general student learning outcomes question, 39%, or 277 institutions, had been see
addressed in strategic plans, civic knowledge selected for this classification—an astounding http://www.
and engagement were cited figure, given that only 311 institutions nation- compact.org/
by 83% of responding ally have received the classification since it was initiatives.
campuses in 2011, instituted in 2006. The overlap between insti-
second only to criti- tutions that are Campus Compact members
cal thinking (88%). and those that have received the Community
The most com- Engagement Classification confirms that Cam-
monly included pus Compact institutions are at the forefront of
learning outcomes engaged work.
that are specifically
related to civic knowl-
edge and skills are
p3p

4. Figur4, Community Partner involvement
FIGURE 2 : CO M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R I N V O LV E M E N T I N S T U D E N T L E A R N I N G
A N D E N G A G E M E N T, 2 011
Come into the class as speakers 91%
Provide feedback on the development/
maintenance of programs 81%
Provide reflection on site in community setting 67%
Serve on campus committees 51%
Act as uncompensated co-instructors 39%
Participate in the design and delivery
31%
of community-based courses
Assist in creating the syllabus and designing the course 20%
Act as compensated co-instructors 13%
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of responding campuses
Fertile ground
F OR G ROW T H
A commitment to building deep, reciprocal, munity work is effective requires that partners
and sustainable community relationships is have an equal voice, and that they help deter-
essential to strengthening engaged institutions. mine which projects are to be undertaken on
In 2011, members reported having an average their behalf. This year’s survey looks beyond
of 125 community partnerships per campus. the numbers to gauge community involvement
Nearly all members—98%—have at least one in campus decision making, which indicates
partnership with a community-based organi- both a willingness to build truly reciprocal
zation. Most also have partnerships with K-12 relationships and a commitment to developing
schools (95%), faith-based organizations (82%), policies and practices that help prepare stu-
and government agencies (69%). dents to address actual community needs.
Although these numbers are impressive, Campuses offer a variety of mechanisms for
quality is more important than quantity when community members to have a voice in cam-
it comes to partnerships. Ensuring that com- pus decision making. Most (78%) offer formal
opportunities for community members to dis-
cuss concerns with the administration. Nearly
Many campuses involve three-quarters (74%) include community
members on the Board of Trustees. Commu-
community partners nity members may also serve on committees
in guiding student learning. overseeing academic (29%), hiring (26%), or
budgetary (12%) matters.
p4p

5. In addition, most campuses committees (74%), or assist
involve community partners (74%) or lead (58%) efforts
in at least some aspects of in service, service-learning,
student learning (Figure 2). or civic engagement offices.
Involvement at the academic
On the academic front,
level is most often limited to
students again are most
serving as classroom speakers
active in recruiting, with
(reported by 91% of campuses)
55% of schools report-
or as uncompensated co-
ing that students recruit
instructors (39%), while more
faculty to participate in
formal roles are uncommon.
civic engagement activi-
We were pleased to find 81% ties. Many students also
of campuses report that expand their roles beyond
community partners provide learners in service-learning
feedback on engagement courses, serving as guest
programs. All community speakers at 41% of respond-
engagement programs benefit ing campuses, as course
from feedback mechanisms to assistants at 39%, and as co-
ensure that they are achieving instructors at 14%. Students
their goals. help design service-learning
courses and syllabi at 15%
Preparing students for lives of
of campuses.
active and effective civic par-
ticipation also requires giving Providing mechanisms control over how finances are
students themselves oppor- for student voice in other allocated at 75%. Students
tunities to take on leadership decision-making matters on also have a presence on key
roles. Students most often lead campus promotes student committees, including aca-
campus engagement efforts civic learning and leadership. demic (69%), hiring (58%),
by recruiting their peers Students at nearly all schools and budgetary committees
(reported at 93% of campuses), (92%) have formal oppor- (39%), as well as on the Board
but they also commonly act tunities to discuss concerns of Trustees (43%).
as liaisons to community with administrators, and
sites (75%), serve on relevant the student government has
Branching
OU T
Campus Compact member a resounding yes. In 2011, average national volunteer
institutions clearly view civic students at Campus Compact rates among college students
engagement as a priority. member schools served at declined from a peak of 31%
A key question is whether record-high levels, even while in 2004 to 26% in 2010.
this commitment translates corresponding figures for all
At Campus Compact member
into greater opportunities college students declined.
schools, 37% of students were
for students to engage with According to the federal
engaged in service, service-
their communities. In terms Corporation for National and
learning, or civic engagement
of quantity, the answer is Community Service (CNCS),
activities during the 2010–
p5p

6. mmunity Partner involvement
FIGURE 3 : VA L U E O F S T U D E N T S E R V I C E AT C A M P U S CO M PA C T M E M B E R I N S T I T U T I O N S ,
2 0 0 8 –2 011 ($ B I L L I O N S )
$10
$8
$9.1
$6
$8.0
$7.4
$ Billions
$5.7
$4
$2
$0
2008 2009 2010 2011
2011 academic year, contributing an estimated Types of engagement programs range from
$9.1 billion1 in service to their communities one-day service projects to internships, cap-
(Figure 3). stone courses, and international service and
service-learning opportunities. The prevalence
Compared with the prior year, more schools
of one-day projects, offered by 91% of cam-
are addressing virtually all areas of need
puses, is encouraging, especially if these serve
(Figure 4). The most broadly targeted area is
as stepping stones to more deeply embedded
K-12 education, addressed by 92% of respond-
commitments to civic engagement. Nonprofit
ing campuses. In addition, 2011 saw a renewed
internships/practica are the next most com-
focus on areas affected by the ongoing reces-
mon programs, cited by 80% of respondents.
sion, including hunger (addressed by 89% of
Alternative service breaks are offered by 73%
responding schools), poverty (88%), housing/
of campuses, up from 67% in 2009.
homelessness (88%), and health care (85%).
Campuses are also placing a greater emphasis Service-learning, already offered by the vast
on expanding college access (77%, up from majority of member campuses, continues to
72% in 2010). That emphasis was echoed and gain acceptance, with 94% of respondents
supported at Campus Compact’s 2010 Presi- offering these courses in 2011. This figure has
dents’ Leadership Summit, where the focus risen slightly in recent years, from 92% in
was on connecting civic engagement to college 2009 and 93% in 2010. The average number
access and success. of service-learning courses per campus has
climbed more quickly, reaching 69 in 2011—
1
Based on a 32-week academic year, reported average
service times of 3.62 hours/week, and Independent
Sector’s 2010 value of volunteer time of $21.36/hour.
p6p

7. Figure 4, Top issues
FIGURE 4 : T O P I S S U E S A D D R E S S E D T H R O U G H C A M P U S P R O G R A M S , 2 010 A N D 2 011
K-12 education 92%
88%
Hunger 89%
83%
88%
Poverty
83%
2011
88%
Housing/homelessness
82% 2010
Mentoring 85%
81%
Tutoring 85%
83%
Health care, general 85%
80%
Environment/sustainability 84%
82%
Reading/writing 81%
77%
Senior/elder services 77%
73%
Access and success in higher education 77%
72%
50 60 70 80 90 100
% of responding campuses
up from 55 in 2009 and 64 Not surprisingly, the cam- colleges, which is indica-
in 2010. This increase comes puses that stand outside of tive of the challenges these
despite a very steady 6–7% this trend are the same as institutions continue to face
of faculty per campus teach- those that show stronger- regarding funding, faculty
ing these courses, indicating than-average support for civic development, and changing
a small number of faculty engagement in their institu- student demographics. Other
members consistently taking tional mission and strategic types of schools show average
on an increased service-learn- plan. Among both Tribal or near-average rates.
ing course load. This trend schools and HBCUs, 15% of
indicates a need for stronger faculty members teach at
faculty support measures
to ensure broader adoption
least one service-learning
course, more than twice the
Campuses are
of service-learning, as well
as for greater value put on
national average. Faculty at
faith-based schools are close
placing a greater empha-
service-learning in the merit, behind at 13%. Only 3% of sis on expanding college
tenure, and promotion process faculty teach service-learn-
throughout the academy. ing courses at community access through civic and
community engagement.
p7p

8. Support
S T RUC T U R E S
Support for campus engagement for 2011 and 2010. Among responding cam-
efforts can take many forms, from puses in 2011, 29% said they consider service
presidential involvement to alloca- formally in the admissions process, up from
tion of staff and funding to incentives 24% in 2010; 70% consider service in award-
for community work. This year’s survey ing scholarships, a major increase over 2010’s
explored areas that demonstrate campuses’ figure of 63%. These measures both ensure an
willingness to provide meaningful resources engaged student body and signal to students,
and rewards for doing the work that institu- prospective students, faculty, alumni, and the
tions say they promote through their strategic public that the institution is committed to this
plan. work. Among institutional types, faith-based
schools are the most likely to consider service
As with any campus work, support from the
in admissions (46%), while Tribal schools are
top demonstrates the strength of commitment
most likely to consider service in awarding
to engagement. Among survey respondents,
scholarships (80%).
89% said that their president publicly supports
civic engagement, up from 86% in 2009 (the Academic support is another important
last time this question was asked). In addi- measure of commitment. More than half of
tion, 75% said the president provides fiscal campuses surveyed (55%) require academic
support for community-based work, up from service-learning as part of the core curriculum
72% in 2009 (Figure 5). Presidents at 43% of in at least one major, up from 51% in 2010.
campuses write publicly about service or civic Types of campuses most likely to do so include
engagement. faith-based colleges and universities (61%)
as well as business, professional, and Tribal
Support measures that help build a culture of
schools (all 60%). Notably, more than a third of
engagement include those that encourage and
schools within every institutional type has this Fig
reward community work. Figure 6 shows com-
Figure 5, Presidential involvement requirement—another indication that service-
parison figures for a range of these measures
FIGURE 5 : T O P 5 A R E A S O F P R E S I D E N T I A L I N V O LV E M E N T I N C I V I C E N G A G E M E N T, 2 011
Publicly promotes service/civic engagement 89%
Provides fiscal support for community-based work 75%
Serves on community boards 75%
Participates in campus service/ 72%
civic engagement activities
Meets regularly with community 71%
partners/representatives
0 20 31% 40 60 80 100
% of responding campuses
p8p

9. learning is continuing to gain acceptance as a engage in community work. A well-trained
valuable pedagogy. and adequately staffed administrative team is
essential. According to this year’s survey, an
The only area of academic support that
average of 27 staff members per campus bolster
declined in the past year is among campuses
student service or civic engagement activi-
that offer a service/civic engagement major
ties, while an average of 11 staff members per
or minor, which dipped slightly from 14% in
campus work with service-learning. Increasing
2010 to 13% in 2011. The longer-term trend
staff support is especially important to ensure
is upward, however, with 2009’s figure at
broader adoption of service-learning. Making
10% and 2007’s figure at just 6%. Land-grant
sure that staff, administrators, and faculty have
institutions stand out from the pack on this
resources available to be able to provide quality
measure, with 27% offering a related major or
learning experiences is key.
A well-trained Financial support includes direct funding
for service and civic engagement activities Community
and adequately (reported by 64% of all responding campuses,
up from 61% in 2010) and student grants for
work by faculty
and staff can
staffed support team is service initiatives (39%, up from 34%). Profes-
sional and business schools are among the
be another
indicator of
essential. leaders in these categories. Among professional institutional
support. See
schools, 73% offer funding for student engage-
ment and 47% offer mini-grants; business more data at
minor, more than twice the national average. http://www.
schools follow closely at 72% and 46%, respec-
Research/comprehensive universities were next compact.
tively. Research/comprehensive universities
at 20%, followed by business schools (19%) and org/about/
(71% and 54%) and land-grant schools (67%
professional schools (18%). statistics.
and 46%) also report above-average numbers
Institutional support for engagement can also on these measures.
gure 6, Key measures of other forms, including staff-
take a variety
ing, financial support, and opportunities to
FIGURE 6 : K E Y M E A S U R E S O F I N S T I T U T I O N A L S U P P O R T F O R E N G A G E M E N T,
2 010 A N D 2 011
Considers service in awarding scholarships 70%
63%
Requires service-learning as part of core 55%
curriculum in at least one major 51%
Considers service formally 29% 2011
in admissions process 24%
Offers service/civic engagement 13%
2010
major and/or minor 14%
13%
Requires service for graduation
12%
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of responding campuses
p9p

10. Promoting
S U S TA I NA BI L I T Y
This year’s survey introduced several new are failing to capitalize on a huge opportunity
questions aimed at gauging institutional to highlight not only the value their own work,
capacity for assessing engagement activi- but also the role of higher education as an
ties and their impact. Just as campuses track agent of positive change.
factors such as graduation rates and faculty
Tracking the impact of engagement work
performance to understand whether they are
is as important as tracking the work itself.
meeting their goals, it is important to track
Survey results show that half of Campus
engagement activities. Assessment is the most
Compact member campuses do not yet have
powerful mechanism available for ensuring
mechanisms in place for systematic assess-
quality, boosting impact, and communicating
ment of community impact (Figure 7). Only a
the value of this work.
small portion of those that track impact do so
Nonetheless, relatively few campuses track across the institution. The figures for tracking
activity in a systematic way, and even fewer impact on student learning are only slightly
have mechanisms in place for assessing better, with more than a third of institutions
impact. Only 32% of responding campuses not tracking this measure at all, and just 17%
track engagement activity campus-wide, while tracking it institution-wide.
specific campus units track activity at another
Campus Compact member institutions are
55%. On 13% of campuses, there is no mecha-
uniquely positioned to monitor and improve
nism in place to track engagement efforts at all.
engagement activities. The stakes are high,
If campuses do not have a firm grasp of what
since the benefits of more effective engagement
they are accomplishing in the community, they
Figure 7,FIGURE 7: D O Efor H E I N S T I T U T I O N
Mechanisms S T Assessment H AV E M E C H A N I S M S I N P L A C E F O R S Y S T E M AT I C A L LY
A S S E S S I N G T H E I M PA C T O F E N G A G E M E N T ?
Mechanisms for Measuring Mechanisms for Measuring Impact
Impact in the Community on Student Learning
Yes, the institutions does Yes, the institutions does
14% 17%
No
No 38%
50%
Yes, units within the institutions do
36%
Yes, units within the institutions do
45%
% of responding campuses
p10p

11. Assessment is a that can be communicated widely to students,
faculty, staff, alumni, community members,
powerful mechanism funders, and legislators, as well as to the public
at large.
for ensuring quality, At Campus Compact, we applaud and support
boosting impact, and the work being done to advance comprehen-
sive assessment by the Carnegie Foundation
communicating value. through its elective classification for com-
munity engagement. We also value recogni-
tion programs such as The President’s Higher
include immediate and long-term learning
Education Community Service Honor Roll,
advances for students, as well as social gains
sponsored by the Corporation for National &
such as lower dropout rates, reduced pov-
Community Service. These programs shine a
erty, and the economic revitalization of our
light on institutions that are devoting signifi-
communities.
cant resources to civic engagement, and whose
The majority of colleges and universities that efforts are bearing fruit.
are recording engagement and its impact are
Campus Compact is dedicated to support-
doing so in pockets across their campuses. To
ing its members with technical assistance,
ensure that the roots of engagement take firm
programs, and materials that will help them
hold, we encourage colleges and universities
deepen their engaged
to focus on measuring the effectiveness of
work. For more informa-
this work institution-wide. Doing so will help
campuses identify strengths in their cur-
tion about the Carnegie “Assessing the im-
classification, recogni-
rent programs and put in place processes for
tion opportunities, and
pact of civic engage-
continuous improvement. The result will be
available resources, visit ment throughout
a positive message on the value of this work
www.compact.org. an institution may
feel daunting, given
Conclusion the magnitude of
R E AC H I NG DE E PE R
the task. We hope
We celebrate the continued work that our about ways to institu- that the results of
members are doing to expand and deepen tionalize their assess-
engagement. This year’s survey demonstrates ment measures. This
this annual survey
that campuses are increasingly committed to will lead to sustainable reinforce the com-
establishing and fulfilling a mission of civic practices that have a mitment to rigorous
engagement that benefits communities while real and lasting impact
reflection and en-
educating students for social responsibility. on campuses and in the
communities they serve. courage continued
We urge campuses to take the next step by
thinking systematically (and systemically)
steps toward com-
prehensive analy-
sis of campus civic
engagement efforts.”
— MAUREEN F. CURLEY
PRESIDENT
CAMPUS COMPACT
p 11 p

12. A B OU T C A M PU S C OM PAC T A B OU T T H I S S U RV E Y
Campus Compact is a national coalition of The findings in this report reflect responses
nearly 1,200 college and university presidents— to Campus Compact’s online member-
representing more than 6 million students— ship survey, conducted in the fall of 2011 to
who are committed to fulfilling the civic purposes gauge civic engagement activity and sup-
of higher education. As the only national port during the 2010–2011 academic year.
higher education association dedicated solely
Of the 1,185 members surveyed, 716 responded,
to campus-based civic engagement, Campus
for a response rate of 60%. Of responding
Compact promotes public and community
campuses, 47% were private four-year institu-
service that develops students’ citizenship skills,
tions, 34% were public four-year institutions,
helps campuses forge effective community
18% were public two-year institutions, and
partnerships, and provides resources and
1% were private two-year institutions.
training for faculty seeking to integrate civic and
community-based learning into their curricula.
Campus Compact comprises a national office
based in Boston, MA, and 34 state affiliates in
CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, ME, MD,
MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK,
OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, and WV.
For more information, please contact:
Sue C. Kelman
Director of Communications
Tel: 617.357.1881 x 207
E: skelman@compact.org
Citation information:
Campus Compact. (2012). Deepening
the Roots of Civic Engagement:
Campus Compact 2011 Annual
Membership Survey Executive
Summary. Boston, MA: Campus Compact.
For past years’ survey results,
visit www.compact.org/about/statistics.
45 Temple Place
Boston, MA 02111
Tel: 617.357.1881
www.compact.org
Visit us on Facebook at
Campus Compact
p12 p