Where Are We Now?

Overview

Team self-assessments

Initial review of RPT criteria

Initial review of websites and documentation

Self-Assessment Process

Goal: To identify present status and build team knowledge about present and future opportunities

Two assessments for each institution -- team and provost’s representative

Identical methods Assigned scores based on level Computed average and percentage scores

Summaries Provided For your own team:

Detailed responses by team/provost’s representative for each indicator

Summary of “raw” scores for both by level Adjusted average score by dimension Average score expressed as percentage

For all teams: Aggregate of average score by dimension

Some Preliminary Insights

Provosts’ representatives and teams often had differing perspectives on level

In some cases could not assess the other due to lack of information/experience

Some expressed that process useful for team-building and enhancing knowledge

Provides basis for work of Collaborative

Summaries of Data: Aggregate

For each dimension, average score of all teams (blue bars) and of all provosts’ representatives (plum bars)

Aggregate of all 10 sites (Teams, N=10, Provosts Representatives, N=9)

Refer to handout summarizing dimensions, indicators, and levels

Average Scores by Dimension

2.6

2.3

3.0

2.52.6

2.2

3.1

2.7

3.1

2.6

2.9

2.4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 Dimension 5 Dimension 6

Summaries of Data: Dimension

By dimension: comparison of team and provosts’ representative scores Team rating of the school (blue bars)

Provost’s representative rating University as a whole (plum bars)

Team and provost’s representative’s scores should be discussed by teams

Further Use of Self-Assessment

First input to developing team strategy Serves as reference over next 12 months Will be repeated in late 2005, with

comparisons of Years One and Two results Will be repeated in late 2006, with

comparisons of all three years as well as change from beginning to end of Collaborative

Feedback on Self-Assessment Framework based upon existing methods

and key concepts from relevant literature We welcome your feedback on the self-

assessment framework Informal conversation during the meeting with

Sherril or Megan Formal feedback on the meeting evaluation

form

Analysis of Review, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) Criteria

Analysis of Review, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) Criteria

A goal of most Collaborative participants: To make changes in RPT process to recognize community-engaged scholarship

Know from other institutions that reward and recognition essential to support community-engaged scholarship

Modified RPT criteria are clear statement of institutional commitment

Why Is This Important? A goal of the Collaborative is to help

institutions in the change process Kotter Step 1: Establish a sense of urgency Kotter Step 2: Form a powerful guiding

coalition Kotter Steps 3/4: Create and communicate

vision Know these steps are necessary from

experiences of various institutions

Proposed Strategy for RPT Analysis Goal: To identify role model practices Method: Apply a series of indicators

derived from self-assessment metrics For each indicator, could assess

recognition of community-engaged scholarship

Evaluation team tested nine indicators on RPT criteria available on team websites

Next Steps: RPT Analysis Discussion topic for cross-Collaborative work

group Value to Collaborative as a whole

Discussion topic for teams Useful to review your current criteria? Action steps for making change locally Relevant peers/role models

In order to monitor change over 3 years, useful to have analysis of starting point

Resources for Role Models: Specific Schools/Institutions IUPUI <www.iupui.edu> Portland State University <www.oaa.pdx.edu> UNC School of Public Health

<www.sph.unc.edu/faculty/appointments> UNC Department of Family Medicine

<depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/UNC.pdf> UW School of Public Health and Community

Medicine <sphcm.washington.edu/gateway/handbook/ index.asp>

Resources for Role Models: National Resources CCPH <www.ccph.info> National Review Board on the Scholarship of

Engagement <www.scholarshipofengagement.org>

National Service-learning Clearinghouse <www.servicelearning.org>

Campus Compact www.compact.org Also

<depts.washington.edu/ccph/scholarship.html #Examples>

Website Analysis

Analysis of Institutional and School Websites

Websites present opportunity for easy review of public information

Would expect to see: Mission/vision/values statements Strategic plans/directions RPT criteria and procedures Descriptions of engagement activities Examples of projects, centers, areas of effort

Why Is This Important? Goal of Collaborative is to facilitate

information-sharing Identification of promising practices to build

knowledge and facilitate learning Websites may be used in selection process

by potential students, faculty, staff Demonstrates what is important to you to

specific external groups and general public

Proposed Strategy for Analysis Goal: To identify role model practices Method: Apply series of indicators

organized by six dimensions For each indicator, could assess quantity

and quality of accessible information Evaluation team reviewed websites to

test set of indicators

Next Steps: Website Analysis Discussion theme for cross-Collaborative

work group Value for identifying promising practices

Discussion topic for teams Importance at your site for using website as

dissemination vehicle Action steps for making change locally Relevant peers/role models

In order to monitor change over 3 years, useful to have analysis of starting point

Questions?

Clarifications …

Insights …

Points for discussion …

Small Group Discussion Randomly split into groups of 4 Make introductions What are the most important “take home” points

from this morning for you? What are your strengths/opportunities for

advancing CES in your school? Who else needs to be involved in your change

effort? What resources/initiatives will support this

project’s goals?

Where Do We Want to Be?

Results of Team Action Planning

Team Action Planning

Summary reflects completed action planning document of nine of the teams

Handout of “Where do you want to be?” Six months One year End of three years

Some valuable ideas relevant and/or applicable to all -- review what others have articulated

Common Elements of Plans Ensure credit for community-engaged

scholarship (CES) Change RPT policies to support CES Definitions, examples of CES Workshops, discussions about CES Engage consultants to assist Engage community partners to support Increase funded CES research

Analysis of S.W.O.T. Handout summarizing Q.1.9 -- teams’

statements of: Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Useful in context to help understand experience of others and apply to self

Common Elements of S.W.O.T. Strengths of faculty, leadership, policy arena,

interdisciplinary practice Weaknesses of culture, practice, institutional,

resource barriers Opportunities presented by communities and

collaborations Threats of bureaucracy, competition, funding,

politics, lack of recognition

Some Successes to Date

Community-based student learning projects with potential for scholarship

Some examples of scholarly work (CE) Support of the “spirit” of community

engagement Students are engaged, faculty are creating

opportunities for engaged scholarship

To Move Forward:Have a Plan

Concrete Identifiable as a coherent plan

Able to disseminate Supported by relevant leadership

Team Plans Initial work done prior to this meeting By participation in Collaborative:

Increased discussion and recognition Strengthen community-based teaching and research New language/terminology will emerge Faculty will build their careers on this work Formal recognition of community-engaged

scholarship with resources to support it

How Will Collaborative Participation Help? Being part of national collaborative gives

credibility Learn from other schools Serve as clearinghouse for resources Collective wisdom of group better than that of

individuals Benefit from learning together Access results of assessments and monitoring

over time to see progress

Planning for the Future

Collaborative represents three year commitment Work towards individual school and institutional

goals for change Link self-assessment to plans -- select

dimensions with high leverage potential Seek to:

Document change process Develop evidence of change process

Future Assessments

Comprehensive annual review of action planning documents Provide updates/modifications Assess progress towards goals

Document evidence of accomplishments, challenges, barriers to change

Identify critical events

Critical Events in Change Process “Accelerators”: Those events that help you

progress towards your goal(s) “Inhibitors”: Those events that create barriers

towards accomplishment of your goal(s) “Hurdlers”: Those events that help you to break

down the barriers and make progress towards your goal(s)

Will ask you to chronicle these via email at six month intervals

The Biggest Barriers to Change (Kotter)

Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency -- why change now?

Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition -- need leadership

Lacking a vision -- why is this important? “Under” communicating the vision -- let

everyone know Not removing obstacles to the new vision --

support, leadership, resources

More Barriers to Change

Not systematically planning for and creating short-term wins -- each step counts

Declaring victory too soon -- changes must be in place for institutionalization

Not anchoring changes in institution’s culture -- what works for you may not be relevant to another

Be attentive to all of the steps!

Planning is good,

BUT

Action is better!

How Are We Going To Get There? Look at “Where do you want to be?” What are the most significant challenges?

Which of these are cross-cutting? What are the most significant barriers?

Which of these are cross-cutting? What are the strategies for change? What resources can the Collaborative offer

through workgroups?

Refreshment Break