Pathways of Public Service and Civic Engagement

AD VA N C I N G T H E F I E L D T H R O U G H A SO C I A L CH A N G E FR A M E W O R K A N D C O L L A B O R AT I V E TO O L

A A C & U G E N E D C O N F E R E N C E , S A N F R A N C I S C O , F E B R U A R Y 1 5 , 2 0 1 9

Overview

•  Review of tool and framework

•  Preliminary data highlights

•  Small group discussion: Using the tool

•  Application with national initiatives

•  Closing and next steps

Pathways of Public Service and Civic Engagement

•  Evolution and rationale

•  Piloting and modifying a Pathways tool

•  Broad applicability across higher education

•  Relevance for students, faculty, and staff

Pathways of Public Service and Civic Engagement

Community Engaged Learning and Research: Connecting coursework and academic research to community-identified concerns to enrich knowledge and inform action on social issues.

Community Organizing and Activism: Involving, educating, and mobilizing individual or collective action to influence or persuade others.

Direct Service: Working to address the immediate needs of individuals or a community, often involving contact with the people or places being served.

Philanthropy: Donating or using private funds or charitable contributions from individuals or institutions to contribute to the public good.

Policy and Governance: Participating in political processes, policymaking, and public governance.

Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility: Using ethical business or private sector approaches to create or expand market-oriented responses to social or environmental problems.

Pathways Diagnostic Tool https://tinyurl.com/PathwaysTool2018-19

Pathways Diagnostic Tool

Pathways 3.0 Vision

•  Someop'ons:

•  Examplestailoredfordifferentinterests

•  Accompaniedbyac'vity

•  Comparestudentresponses

•  Pilotscheduledforspring/summer2019

8

Private Institutions Brown University Cedar Crest College Duke University Duquesne University Edgewood College George Washington University Gonzaga University Juniata College Lawrence University Loyola University Chicago Pacific University Pepperdine University St. Mary's College of California St. Norbert College Stanford University Tulane University University of Chicago University of San Francisco University of Southern California Whitworth University

Campus Compacts Iowa Campus Compact Utah Campus Compact Wisconsin Campus Compact

Public Institutions Bellevue College Dutchess Community College Gateway Technical College Oregon State University Palo Alto College Salt Lake Community College State University of New York at Binghamton University of California - Merced University of California - San Diego University of Delaware University of Maryland - Baltimore County University of Minnesota - Twin Cities University of Pittsburgh University of Texas at Austin University of Utah University of Wisconsin Colleges University of Wisconsin - Madison University of Wisconsin - Parkside University of Wisconsin – Stout Weber State University East China Normal University University of Western Australia

Past and Present Institutions

Preliminary Data Highlights – Participating Institutions (2017-2018)

•  Nine public institutions (n=320, 22%)

•  Fifteen private institutions (n=1078, 74%)

•  One state Campus Compact (n=57, 4%)

Female58%

Male28%

Declinetoanswer13%

Nonbinary/Nonconfor

ming1%

Distribu'onbyGender,n=1455

Profile of Respondents

Freshman39%

Sophomore23%

Junior13%

Senior13%

GraduateStudent

3%(blank)9%

Distribu'onbyYear,n=1455

Declinetoanswer18%

No36%

Yes46%

Distribu'onbyFaithTradi'on,n=1455

Limitations •  Students’ perceptions – self-reported

•  Uniform exposure

•  Imperfect typology

•  Multiple uses

•  Non-random sample

•  Not currently designed for pre and post (identifying students), focused on changes between cohort

•  Snapshot of trends in time

Data Trends •  Gender: F (685), M (295) o Females more experienced in 3 Pathways o Females more interested except 1 o Females perceived impact and expressed self-impact

Data Trends •  Faith: Y(665), N(531)

•  Y more interested and have more experience in Philanthropy than N

•  First Generation: Y(395), N/A(1060) •  Y recognize personal strengths in COA

•  Pell Grant: Y(234), N/A(1221) •  Y are more interested and consider COA more

impactful

Data Trends

Interest in Pathways Over Time

Data Trends

Perceived Impact in Pathways Over Time

Pathways Interest and Impact, 2017-2018

17%

3%

6%

3%

26%

34%

31%

23%

9%

3%

40%

37%

49%

46%

40%

49%

17%

26%

20%

26%

49%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Philanthropy

Social Entrepreneurship & CSR

Policy & Governance

Community Organizing & Activism

Community Engaged Learning & Research

Direct Service

Interest in Pathways, 2018 Branner (n=35)

None Very Little Some A Lot

Mean1-43.46

3.34

2.91

2.89

2.86

2.57

Stanford’s Branner Residence Hall

14%

9%

6%

9%

3%

46%

54%

46%

34%

46%

20%

40%

37%

49%

57%

51%

80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Social Entrepreneurship & CSR

Philanthropy

Community Engaged Learning and Research

Community Organizing & Activism

Direct Service

Policy & Governance

Perceived Impact of Pathways, 2018 Branner (n=35)

None Very Little Some A Lot

Mean1-43.80

3.49

3.49

3.43

3.29

3.26

Top 1 Mental Health 7 Inclusion / Access to Opportunities 6 Sexual Assault / Violence 5

Issues / Concerns Facing Your Campus (n=33)

Issues / Concerns Facing Your Local Region (n=34) Top 1

Housing / Gentrification 9 Economic Inequality 7 Racial Inequality / Racism 4

Top 1 Economic Inequality 10 Environment / Climate Change 9 Politics / Apathy 4

Issues / Concerns Facing the World (n=33)

Example of Use at Branner Residence Hall

Discussion

How do you think this framework might give students more agency?

How might you envision using this

tool at your campus to prepare students for self-directed civic life?

•  Student advising •  Program development •  Research

› Cohort – pre/post › Demographic differences ›  Institutional types › Longitudinal › Others?

•  Community partner perspectives

Current and Potential Uses

Pathways and National Initiatives •  AAC&U LEAP Initiative

•  AAC&U Civic Prompts: Civic Learning in the Majors

•  Campus Compact Civic Action Plans

•  Carnegie Community Engagement Classification

Join the International Working Group!

Contact Annabel Wong annabel.wong@stanford.edu

Questions?

•  Gail Robinson: gail@gailrobinsonconsulting.com

•  Tom Schnaubelt: thomas.schnaubelt@stanford.edu

•  Annabel Wong: annabel.wong@stanford.edu

•  Jo Wong: jowong@stanford.edu