Should We Develop a Service-Learning Center?

Who Should Be Involved?

I smiled as I posed the question of how we start, thinking of all the possibilities for who “we” could be. Does “we” refer to the president and cabinet? The provost or a staff member in the provost's office? Is “we” a task force formed to make recommendations regarding service-learning? A group of renegade faculty and/or students who think it's about time that “something be done” about service-learning? Or someone with no experience in the field appointed to start a service-learning program or center … . as I was? In any case, I believe that the following lessons I have learned through my journey to jump-start service-learning at the University of Maryland and my consultations with many types of institutions are transferable to other situations and will be useful to all of you who are involved in initiating a service-learning program or center.

There are a number of benefits to establishing a service-learning center to serve as the anchor, or foundation, for the development of high-quality service-learning initiatives, both academic and cocurricular. At a minimum, the creation of a center indicates that service-learning is more than an abstract concept, that it has legitimacy, and that it is an official and constituent part of the institution. It functions as a point of contact for individuals on campus and in the community who are interested in learning about and practicing service-learning. Its presence also serves as a reminder of the centrality of the fundamental practices of reflection and reciprocity.

As noted above, the inspiration to grow service-learning and to start a service-learning center may come from one or more interested faculty, students who realize how powerful service experiences can be, a provost who is attracted to the pedagogy and encourages faculty to try it, or a president who learns of its potential benefits for student learning and community enhancement (Campus Compact, 2013a). In any case, the process of developing a strong, sustainable service-learning center or program may take years and must engage the efforts and energies of many people who are dedicated to its success. In the enthusiasm to just get things going, it is often all too easy to forego some of the lessons and steps I have articulated below. I hope you will resist this temptation and embrace these lessons that I, along with many of you who have gone through this process, have learned.

What Functions Should It Serve?

What Services and Programs Should a Service-Learning Center Provide?

As indicated above, the establishment of a center can set the direction and focus of service-learning at the institution. Thus, the functions and components of a service-learning center depend on whether the focus of service-learning is curricular, cocurricular, or both. The institution's mission, availability of resources, and level of commitment to service-learning and community engagement are important factors in determining what a center can and should offer. Question 1.7 describes the range of curricular and cocurricular service-learning experiences that the institution should strive to offer, either by the center or by other units.

In any case, the center for service-learning should be able to provide certain basic functions or, at least, to supply referrals to sources where information and assistance can be obtained. At a minimum, the center should offer training and development for service-learning educators and student leaders, some means of community outreach and connecting potential community partners with campus personnel, assistance with assessment and tracking, guidance and support for engaging students in reflection, fundraising, publicizing service-learning opportunities, assistance with logistical issues and risk management, advocacy on behalf of service-learning, and recognition and celebration of individual and collective accomplishments and successes. In the curricular area, as enumerated in 4.11, other desirable offerings include more extensive faculty development, establishment of service-learning course criteria, faculty learning communities, mini-grants for course development, and assistance and support for engaged scholarship and highlighting service-learning in the tenure and promotion process. From the student perspective, the center could develop and implement a range of service-learning opportunities, assist students in finding the most appropriate experiences, and help service-learners handle any issues or conflicts that may arise. Additional supports for student-led initiatives include advising student organizations, helping students initiate their own service-learning projects, and promoting student-initiated projects. For individuals in the community, the center should coordinate and facilitate connections with potential campus service-learning partners; offer training on the principles, practices, and options of service-learning; and introduce the possibilities for additional partnerships and access to other institutional resources, such as community-based research and faculty and student expertise.

Should Service-Learning Be Located Under Student Affairs? Academic Affairs? Should It Have Dual Reporting Lines? Should It Report Centrally?

Does It Matter Where Service-Learning Is Located?

How Can We Make the Most of Our Organizational Location?

Service-learning in general, and centers of service-learning in particular, are found in various organizational locations. Among Campus Compact member institutions, 39 percent of the offices coordinating service-learning or civic engagement report to academic affairs, 36 percent to student affairs, and 11 percent to both. Three percent report to the president's office. The academic affairs–student affairs split has remained fairly even for the past several years (Campus Compact, 2011). In writing about future directions for service-learning, Elizabeth C. Strong, Patrick M. Green, Micki Meyer, and Margaret A. Post reflect: “Where does service-learning find its home in higher education? Does reporting structure and physical location increase or decrease the value of service-learning? The answers to these questions appear to depend on who responds” (2009, p. 11). The rubrics for institutionalization of service-learning that are described in 6.8 do not specify location, and the limited research on the subject of institutional location does not indicate a preferred location (Furco, 2002; Gelmon, Holland, Driscoll, Spring, & Kerrigan, 2001; Strong, Green, Meyer, & Post, 2009).

While service-learning may report centrally to the president's office, to campus ministry, or to an external relations area, most centers or programs report to student affairs—to the vice president or dean of students, student activities, or the director of the leadership or student success program—or to academic affairs—to the provost, a dean, or center for teaching and learning. The scant research on the subject and my personal experience indicate that there are distinct strengths and weaknesses that tend to characterize service-learning programs depending on whether they are located in student or academic affairs (Jacoby, 2010; Strong, Green, Meyer, & Post, 2009).

Programs housed in student affairs are usually more flexible in response to student needs and more open to student initiative and leadership than those located in academic affairs or other areas. However, they may not be as clear about their desired learning outcomes and may not provide as many opportunities for structured reflection. They may risk giving too much emphasis to service and too little emphasis to learning, may struggle to establish academic credibility, and may have lower institutional priority and less stable funding. Programs primarily based in academic affairs tend to be more directly connected with institutional mission, are viewed as more academically rigorous, and are more likely to involve faculty in community-based research. At the same time, however, they risk placing too much emphasis on learning and too little on service and may be less flexible and less open to student initiative.

No matter where service-learning centers or programs are located within the institution, they exist at a wide range of levels of institutional commitment and support. As a result, service-learning benefits substantially from partnerships between student affairs and academic affairs. Each partner has at its disposal knowledge, connections, and resources that enable it to make unique and critical contributions to the development of high-quality service-learning. Service-learning leaders within academic affairs find it easier to implement academic policy that supports service-learning and rewards faculty participation. They have more formal and informal opportunities to encourage faculty colleagues to adopt service-learning, can more readily integrate service-learning into ongoing faculty development programs, and are more likely to secure the support of senior administrators. Student affairs professionals are knowledgeable about student development theory and learning styles and have experience in group process that is useful in the design and facilitation of service and reflection. In addition, student affairs practitioners are experienced in administration and logistics, including scheduling, transportation, risk management, and conflict mediation. They can also contribute networking and relationship-building skills. Most service-learning leaders in both academic and student affairs are active members of professional organizations, participants in workshops and listserv discussions, and readers of higher education publications that reflect cutting-edge concepts and practices related to service-learning. However, because they usually participate in different organizations and discussions, they have much to share with one another (Jacoby, 2010). As I mentioned, a few examples of service-learning centers or programs report to both academic and student affairs. While this structure can most directly bring to bear the assets of both areas, dual reporting lines can be confusing and challenging to negotiate.

Cultivating relationships with individuals from all walks of campus life is critical to developing a strong service-learning center or program that is based in any organizational location. This can be done through in-person or email conversations or by creating structured ways to interact. Some examples of the latter are a service-learning advisory board or coordinating committee or a campus-wide team to work on a specific aspect of service-learning, such as assessment or marketing.

As George D. Kuh aptly reminds us, service-learning, as well as other ways of learning, should appear seamless to students: “The word seamless suggests that what was once believed to be separate, distinct parts (e.g., in-class and out-of-class, academic and nonacademic, curricular and cocurricular, or on-campus and off-campus experiences) are now of one piece, bound together so as to appear whole or continuous” (1996, p. 136). Learning and student development are no longer the exclusive domains of academic affairs and student affairs, respectively. The concepts are intrinsically intertwined and inseparable. Although higher education has traditionally organized its activities into “academic affairs” (learning, curriculum, classrooms) and “student affairs” (cocurriculum; student activities; personal, affective development), this dichotomy makes no sense to students or to anyone outside the academy and is antithetical to service-learning. In fact, service-learning offers an ideal avenue for student affairs and academic affairs to work together as partners to create environments that enhance student learning.

What Does It Mean to Institutionalize Service-Learning?

Establishing a viable center for service-learning is necessary but certainly not sufficient to ensure that service-learning will survive and thrive over time. Furco and Holland observe that the institutionalization of service-learning is necessary because service-learning should not be implemented with the goal of being a separate, distinctive program initiative. They further assert that it cannot survive as such because it requires a complex web of internal and external relationships. They argue that, unlike some initiatives, such as freshman seminars and capstone courses, that target particular students or serve a particular purpose, service-learning is a universal approach that can engage all students, through any discipline or the cocurriculum, in a wide range of activities with a multiplicity of potential outcomes. Thus, the goal of institutionalization is to capitalize on service-learning's inherent, unifying nature “as an integral strategy for advancing broader institutional goals” (Furco & Holland, 2009, p. 52).

Clear patterns across institutions have emerged that delineate the components of infrastructure that are essential if service-learning is to fulfill its potential and to ensure its institutionalization and sustainability (Furco, 2002; Furco & Holland, 2009). Colleges and universities where service-learning has a high level of sustained institutionalization share the following characteristics:

• A clear, consistent definition of service-learning exists and is well known across campus. There is widespread understanding and commitment to its underlying principles and fundamental practices of reflection and reciprocity.
• Service-learning is closely aligned with the institutional mission and desired student learning outcomes and is prominently featured in other key documents, such as strategic plans and broad institutional goals. It is explicitly linked to institutional priorities and institutional reform efforts, such as general education, undergraduate research, diversity and inclusion, and international education.
• Institutional leadership, including key administrators and faculty leaders, is strongly committed to service-learning. Besides integration into institutional priorities and secure funding, this commitment can manifest itself in many ways, such as prominence in presidential speeches, involvement of the president and other top administrators in campus-community partnerships and state and national organizations that support service-learning, and active support of student leaders.
• Service-learning is grounded in strong, reciprocal community partnerships. The partnerships have clearly stated outcomes for both campus and community constituents and means to assess their degree of success. The partnerships recognize the assets and needs of all parties and are designed to increase their capacities. Community partners and potential partners have access to campus resources and facilities other than service-learners. Section 3.2 profiles models of campus-community partnerships.
• Policies explicitly support service-learning. This can take many forms, including formal designation of service-learning courses; support for faculty interdisciplinary and collaborative work; recognition of service-learning teaching and engaged scholarship through the appointment, promotion, and tenure process; a variety of credit options for service-learning; and service-learning as a graduation requirement.
• A center for service-learning serves as the focal point for students, faculty, staff, and the community. It provides a variety of functions, as described in 7.2, supplies referrals to meet constituents' needs, helps with logistics and administrative issues, offers some level of coordination for service-learning initiatives, and ensures that service-learning is of high quality and based on reflection and reciprocity.
• Funding is adequate and secure. The program receives permanent funding through the institution's budget and does not rely solely or primarily on grants or other “soft” money. Expansion and enhancement of service-learning is a fundraising priority for the institution, with securing an endowment for the center as the ultimate goal.
• A broad range of service-learning experiences, both curricular and cocurricular, engage a majority of students and a high percentage of faculty and student affairs professionals. Faculty across disciplines teach service-learning courses, and service-learning activities are integrated into the work of multiple student affairs areas.
• There is strong encouragement and support for faculty and student leadership of service-learning initiatives. This includes financial assistance for faculty through overload pay, course release, and mini-grants for course development, as well as for students through fellowships, scholarships, and paid positions.
• Assessment and evaluation are ongoing and comprehensive. Reports of assessment findings are used in improving and refining courses and programs.
• Student and faculty involvement is recognized and rewarded. Examples include: institutional media regularly feature service-learning; student participation in service-learning is noted on curricular and cocurricular transcripts; outstanding students receive service-learning awards and distinctive commencement regalia; and faculty are eligible for awards for excellent teaching and research that involve service-learning.
• The institution has positive and sustained external relationships. Community-based organizations, schools, other nonprofit organizations, businesses, and government agencies have lasting relationships of trust and mutual benefit with the institution that are broader than service-learning.
• Service-learning has a conspicuous and consistent presence in campus media and press relations, including publications, websites, regular press releases, reports to state legislators, and board of trustees meeting agendas. Intentional communications to both the on- and off-campus communities raise awareness of service-learning opportunities and successes on a regular basis.

In summary, the institutionalization of service-learning does not simply happen and does not come easily. As Furco and Holland advise, “Service-learning leaders should analyze how other innovations at their institutions are gaining traction and administrative support, and then identify the particular leverage points that are helping those innovations succeed” (2009, p. 63). Institutional choices regarding the support and positioning of service-learning should be intentional and clearly justified. Service-learning should be integral to a coherent institution-wide set of priorities for which it is an essential means of achievement, and the commitment of institutional leaders should be firm and clearly articulated (Furco & Holland, 2009). Question 6.8 describes the process of assessing the degree of institutionalization of service-learning and provides additional resources for this purpose.

What Funding Is Required to Support Service-Learning?

What Are the Sources of Funding?

How Can Individual Faculty Members, Students, and Student Groups Find Funds for Service-Learning Projects?

As noted in the discussions of the creation of a center for service-learning in 7.1 and of the critical elements of institutional infrastructure to support service-learning in 7.5, sufficient and stable funding is essential. Service-learning centers and programs exist at many levels of funding. Budgets generally include some, most, or all of the following components: salaries and fringe benefits; student and faculty stipends and fellowships; operating costs such as telephone, technology, printing, copier, and office supplies; materials, supplies, food, participant transportation, and giveaways for service-learning activities; professional development such as subscriptions, conference registrations, and travel; and consultant services to assist with assessment, planning, and other functions (Lima, 2009).

Most viable service-learning centers receive funds from multiple sources, both internal and external to the institution. Institutional funds can be included in the annual or biannual budget allocation process or awarded on an ad hoc basis. While some centers rely on external or one-time institutional funding, it is challenging to develop a sustainable center and its component programs, to say nothing of strong community partnerships, without a stable funding base. Most funds to support service-learning usually come from the area to which the center reports, such as academic affairs or student affairs. However, there are many examples of centers that regularly receive funds from several units across the campus, especially if service-learning is closely aligned with institutional priorities. Some funds that support service-learning may never appear in the service-learning center's budget. Examples include the institution's Federal Work-Study allocation that pay the wages of students who do community service, overload pay or course release for faculty time, and the support of individuals across campus who serve as liaisons with community partners or assist with tasks like reflection facilitation, marketing, and assessment. Additional in-kind resources may include space, website development and other technology support, photography and videography, copying and office supplies, and transportation. A creative example of an in-kind resource is paraprofessionals like resident assistants and Greek organization community service chairs who are required to plan and implement a certain number of programs for their students each semester. They often have resources to cover nominal costs but may need ideas and inspiration. Providing training about how to plan and implement a service-learning experience can enable them to meet their own goals while introducing service-learning to many students.

It is rare indeed for leveraging resources not to be a priority of the service-learning center director and others who support service-learning. Generating resources is a complex and ongoing process. Intentionally linking service-learning to institutional priorities as identified in the strategic plan may make it possible to tap into funds earmarked for this purpose. As suggested in 7.1, advisory boards can be helpful in advocating for and seeking initial and ongoing funding. It is worth mentioning again that students can be effective advocates for funding for service-learning once they have experienced the positive differences it can make for them and the community. There are also funding opportunities that may be available to campus-community partnerships that are not available to colleges and universities alone.

Besides those cited above, sources of funding to consider include:

How Can We Justify the Costs of Service-Learning in Terms of Dollars, Time, Effort, and Institutional Priority?

How Can We Promote Service-Learning to Internal and External Audiences?

How Can Assessment Be Used to Gain Support for Service-Learning?

If service-learning is to take root and grow, it must be appreciated, valued, and supported by many key stakeholders, both inside and outside the institution. Furco and Holland call this “deindividualizing service-learning” (2009, p. 53). It is not uncommon for a few individuals to advocate for the start-up of service-learning. However, if it continues to be viewed as the agenda of a couple of people or a small group, administrators and colleagues may be “naturally cautious about appearing to support an idea that may be seen as a boutique program with few supporters” (Furco & Holland, 2009, p. 55). It is important that service-learning “morph from being an innovative idea for a distinct purpose into being a widely understood tool that has beneficial impacts on campus-wide institutional and community goals” (Furco & Holland, 2009, p. 57).

As noted in 7.1 and 7.5, service-learning proponents should quickly seek points of synergy between service-learning and institutional goals and priorities. We should demonstrate how service-learning can be integrated into the practices that individuals and units across the campus employ to achieve those goals. For example, if improving town-gown relationships is a priority, it would be important to show how service-learning can and does enhance community perceptions of the institution. If an institutional goal is to ensure that all students have an international, multicultural, or capstone experience, service-learning is an effective vehicle for developing and implementing those experiences (Furco & Holland, 2009).

In addition to knowing what, as a colleague of mine puts it, top administrators and board members think about just before they fall asleep, it is also worth knowing what major potential donors and local foundation directors are passionate about. This knowledge enables you to tailor your assessment strategies and reports to particular audiences and purposes. Most funders are interested in quantitative data supported by qualitative narrative (Hatcher & Bringle, 2010). Numbers that reflect participation in terms of people and hours, improvement in terms of achievement scores and graduation rates, and other measures such as quantities of trash removed or trees planted can be impressive, especially when depicted graphically. Campus Compact uses Independent Sector's calculation of the estimated value of an hour of volunteer time, $22.55 for 2013, to determine the monetary value of student service hours by multiplying the number of hours by Independent Sector's figure (Campus Compact, 2013f; Independent Sector, 2014). This calculation can yield some impressive numbers. In addition to numbers, quotes from open-ended questions, interviews, and focus groups round out the picture of how service-learning helps achieve institutional and funder-specified goals and priorities. Internal and external funders may likely also be interested in how well the institution's service-learning center and offerings compare to those at peer or aspirational-peer institutions. Institution-based funders may focus primarily on student outcomes, while external funders may be at least as interested in the community impacts of service-learning at other similar institutions. Early in the process of developing your assessment plan, it is also worthwhile asking key stakeholders what specific questions they would like to have answered. Chapter Six offers a wide variety of assessment methods and practical information on when and how to use them.

Once you have acquired data through formal or informal assessment, be sure to provide that information regularly to campus leaders. It is particularly helpful to supply concise talking points and tables or graphs to make it as easy as possible for them to use the information in speeches, reports, and conversations with colleagues and donors.

Personal stories that complement assessment data can be very impactful. Photos and videos of students engaged with community members in service activities provide vivid images that can be far more powerful than words in conveying the benefits of service-learning. Photos and quotes can be used in colorful brochures, websites, and social media for wide distribution. For both general purposes and for preparing tailored messages for potential funders, it can be persuasive to videotape students and community partners describing their service-learning experiences and how additional resources could enhance them, as well as provide experiences for future participants. These video messages should be posted to the service-learning website. However, they are also ideal to be included on the institution's home page, shown by development officers and service-learning advocates at “friend-raising” and fundraising events, and broadcast widely through social media.

How Can We Assess the Amount of Risk an Experience Involves?

Is Liability Different Depending on the Type of Service-Learning Experience, Such as Course-Based or Cocurricular? Required or Optional?

How Do We Exercise Due Care to Minimize Risk?

Disclaimer: The information on liability and risk management presented here is intended to serve as a basic guide to understanding these issues in the context of service-learning in higher education. It is not intended to be a legal document or to replace legal advice and consultation. Always contact your institution's legal counsel for additional information and in regard to specific situations.

Risk management and liability strike fear into the hearts of faculty and staff who engage, or who are even thinking of engaging, students in service-learning. They may even deter some individuals from becoming involved. What if a student is hurt? What if a student harms a community member? What is my personal liability? One of the most critical roles the service-learning center can play is informing participants of issues and procedures related to risk management and liability and providing guidance and assistance in assessing and managing risk. In the context of service-learning, risk management is the process of identifying and analyzing potential risks to participants and selecting and implementing measures to address risks in an organized and responsible way.

To get started, it is helpful to locate risk management policies and procedures for off-campus activities other than service-learning, such as internships, cooperative education, Federal Work-Study employment, student teaching, and other types of experiential learning. It is essential to consult institutional legal counsel early to inform them of what service-learning entails and to learn from them everything that is relevant to developing strong risk-management procedures. In regard to risk management for service-learning, the responsibilities of the service-learning center, or other campus unit designated to support it, include:

What Are the Options for Administering International Service-Learning?

Is It Advisable to Work with a Third-Party Provider of International Service-Learning Experiences?

What Special Policies and Processes Need to Be in Place?

In addition to the other administrative issues covered in this chapter, there is a range of issues that apply only or primarily to international service-learning. Some of these issues also apply to domestic service-learning that takes place far from the campus. One of the first issues that arises is whether the institution should design and operate its own international service-learning experiences or work with an external, or third-party, provider. Organizations such as Amizade Global Service-Learning, the International Partnership for Service-Learning, International Service-Learning, the International Service-Learning Alliance, and Cross-Cultural Solutions offer many experiences of varying length and focus around the world and domestically to both individual students and groups formed by the institution. Some of them also offer customized trips, designed to the institution's specifications. These experiences can be integrated into a course and may be credit-bearing.

A second option is to encourage students to enroll in international service-learning experiences offered by other higher education institutions. Many institutions encourage students from other colleges and universities to participate in their programs. For example, the Center for Global Education at Augsburg College in Minneapolis and the College of Global Studies at Arcadia University in Glenside, Pennsylvania, accept students from other institutions into their wide-ranging and well-established international programs. The Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA) is a consortium of seventeen colleges and universities that offer its programs to all qualified undergraduate students. HECUA's programs also operate in the United States and focus on urban affairs and social justice issues. Through a partnership with West Virginia University, Amazide offers international service-learning courses and several other options to faculty members and students from any college or university.

There are several advantages to these two options. Their operators have extensive experience and expertise in managing high-quality international experiences and well-established international partnerships. In most cases, they do not require a minimum number of students or a lengthy start-up period. Because they offer a wide range of opportunities, well-informed advisers can assist students in selecting a program that is affordable and meets their academic and personal goals. However, it is incumbent upon the institution to ensure that the experiences meet all standards promulgated by the institution. It is also important “to consider that however independent the institution officially views the work site or the third-party provider, the more the institution requires the experience, the more ‘blame' it may incur when things do not go well and the more oversight responsibility it should have had or may have” (Gallagher Higher Education Group, 2008, p. 12).

The third option is for the institution to design and operate experiences for its own students, either centrally through the centers of service-learning or international education or developed by individual faculty members. When the institution puts the required amount of effort into developing its own program to meet its specific goals, it has more control over the degree to which its desired outcomes for student learning and community development are likely to be achieved. Start-up time can be considerable, and the amount of effort is significant, both initially and on an ongoing basis (Chisholm, 2003; Jacoby & Brown, 2009). Planning and implementing international service-learning can be complicated if the service-learning center and the international education office are located in separate administrative silos. Successful programs require substantial cross-campus coordination and collaboration and involve working with multiple units, including registrar, health, bursar, financial aid, legal, and development (Jacoby & Brown, 2009). International service-learning involves dealing with several logistical concerns. Some of these may be handled, at least partially, by a third-party provider. Whether students seek service-learning opportunities abroad through their own institutions or external providers, these programs are costly. Financial aid officers can advise students as to whether tuition paid at the home institution or their scholarships cover tuition at an international institution. At any rate, travel and housing costs may be prohibitively high for many students. Students from low-income backgrounds or who have family or work responsibilities may find it difficult or impossible to participate in international service-learning.

Preparing students for living and working in international settings is critical and multifaceted. It involves pragmatic concerns, such as challenges students may experience related to language, food, health, climate, living arrangements, conditions at community sites, obtaining visas and inoculations, and safety and security. There are also considerations related to cultural differences. For example, most programs clearly specify zero tolerance for drug use, but program administrators must decide whether the experience will be alcohol free. Local laws may permit what is considered to be underage drinking in the United States, and drinking alcoholic beverages may be an important element of local culture. Thus, many program administrators must decide whether to forbid consumption of alcohol, based on the stereotype of the beer-soaked spring break, or to permit drinking in moderation for students of legal age when they are in-country (Mlyn & McBride, 2013; Rue, 1996).

Risk management and liability require special attention in distant settings, regardless of whether students are accompanied by a faculty or staff member. It is crucial that any materials that describe or promote international service-learning, whether offered by the institution or a third-party provider, accurately describe all aspects of the experience, including expectations, desired outcomes, and conditions at the site (Gallagher Higher Education Group, 2008). Liability associated with travel to and within other countries, housing, alcohol use, and the inherent dangers of specific situations and projects must be considered. In general, the risk management policies and procedures described in 7.9 can be modified and applied in international settings. Particular care should be given during training and orientation to ensure that students understand the specific potential dangers related to the experience. It is important to allow participants to exercise informed consent, so that they are aware of the risks they may face and have the opportunity to accept them willingly (Mlyn & McBride, 2013; Rue, 1996).

Institutions must also consider whether students should be permitted to travel, through institution-sponsored or -endorsed programs, to areas that are perceived to be particularly dangerous, including those that may be in political turmoil, threatened by violence, or unstable as a result of a natural disaster. It is important to be aware of U.S. State Department travel alerts and warnings, which can change quickly based on rapidly shifting situations and conditions. In these cases, it is important to know whether full-time staff members are on site, medical services are available, and how emergency evacuation could be effected.

How Should Students, Faculty, Staff, and Community Partners Be Recognized for Their Contributions and Achievements?

How Can We Receive Institutional Recognition for Our Work with Service-Learning?

How Should We Celebrate Our Successes?

One of the characteristics of all effective organizations is recognition and celebration of success. This is particularly true of service-learning because of the challenging nature of the work and the extraordinary individual and collaborative efforts that it requires. Ongoing recognition and celebration are also indicators of institutionalization. As is the case with all other aspects of service-learning, recognition also involves the fundamental element of reflection. Determining what successes should be celebrated involves reflection on questions such as: Did we achieve our desired outcomes? What individual achievements stand out? Whose contributions to the success of the group or partnership were especially helpful? How were the successful outcomes the result of collaborative effort? What are we particularly proud of? What did we work hard on that deserves recognition, even if all the desired outcomes were not achieved? Why did success elude us?

Recognition of individuals can occur in many ways. On its most basic level, it is common practice to reward student and community organization staff participants in one-day service-learning events with small tokens of appreciation, such as t-shirts, hats, or water bottles with the service-learning center, community organization, and institution logos. These items promote identity with the institution, organization, or student group as well as future involvement in service-learning. Reflection activities that are part of these and other experiences often provide opportunities for participants to respond to prompts such as, “I appreciate ____________ [insert participant name] because …” and “What (hypothetical) gift would you give each participant in your group to thank them for their contributions to today's project?”

Further recognition of student achievement takes multiple forms. At some institutions, the president or other institutional leader sends personal letters of appreciation to student participants involved in significant projects. In other cases, the center for service-learning runs a series of advertisements in the student newspaper or posts photos and highlights of the achievements of service-learners on the center's or institution's website and through social media. Some institutions have service-learning awards for outstanding work by individual students as well as student groups through courses, community-based research, or cocurricular experiences. When these are presented at campus-wide events, they have special significance. Other institutions offer scholarships or fellowships to students with substantial records of achievements in service-learning.

While they may be equally deserving of recognition and awards, service-learning faculty generally receive them less frequently. As is the case for students, recognition can be as simple as a letter of appreciation from the president or provost. Awards presented at campus-wide events, including formal convocations, that recognize service-learning teaching and engaged scholarship are important forms of acknowledgment. Sometimes these awards are accompanied by a financial stipend. As described in 4.12, the most crucial form of recognition and reward for faculty members is through the tenure and promotion process.

Community partners should also receive recognition by the institution for their multiple contributions to service-learning. It is well worth considering that what might seem to be a reward may, in reality, be a burden, such as invitations to evening or weekend events on campus. As a result, it is a good idea to offer several forms of acknowledgment. One example is bringing a tray of sandwiches from a local restaurant or home-baked brownies to the community organization's office for its staff to enjoy. Requesting the state governor or other official to make a proclamation or send a letter to community partners whose participation in service-learning made significant contributions are no-cost forms of recognition. Handwritten notes from students to individuals in the community whose contributions to their experience were especially meaningful are much appreciated, but often forgotten.

It is also important to recognize individuals who may not be directly associated with service-learning experiences but whose good work makes them possible. Such individuals include those who do budgeting and accounting, arrange transportation, provide publicity, and perform mundane administrative tasks. Invitations to receptions or small items like t-shirts and framed photographs are always welcome.

A wide variety of celebration events can be effective ways to recognize achievements through service-learning. These take many forms and include receptions, breakfasts, luncheons, banquets, and convocations. If community partners are invited to an event on campus, it is essential to provide parking and to cover any expenses associated with their attendance. While these events can be costly, planners often solicit financial and in-kind contributions from departments across campus.

A wise strategy available at no cost is to nominate outstanding students and faculty for awards offered by national and state organizations that support service-learning. Campus Compact offers the Newman Civic Fellows Award for students and the Thomas Ehrlich Civically Engaged Faculty Award annually. Some of its state affiliates offer awards for outstanding service-learning contributions by students and faculty of member institutions and their community partners, as well as awards for outstanding service-learning programs and partnerships. The New England Resource Center for Higher Education offers the Ernest A. Linton Award for the Scholarship of Engagement for Early Career Faculty on an annual basis. The International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement presents awards at its annual conference for distinguished, early career, and dissertation research. Student affairs associations such as ACPA—College Student Educators International and NASPA—Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education and their subdivisions make a number of annual awards to individuals as well as to programs. The MacJannet Prize for Global Citizenship, presented annually by the Talloires Network, recognizes exceptional student community-engaged initiatives and carries a cash award. Although not limited to service-learning or higher education, the Points of Light Foundation provides presidential recognition for individual, family, and group community service through the President's Volunteer Service Award Program. In some cases, the nomination must come directly from the college president, which provides an opportunity for recognition of the nominee at the highest level of the institution. Even if your nominees do not receive the award, runners-up are often recognized by the association. Their nominations can also be celebrated on campus and through campus and local media.

At the institutional level, the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll “annually highlights the role colleges and universities play in solving community problems and placing more students on a lifelong path of civic engagement by recognizing institutions that achieve meaningful, measurable outcomes in the communities they serve” (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2013b, no page number). Its award designation is the highest honor an institution of higher education can receive for its work in volunteerism, service-learning, and civic engagement. The honor roll recognizes institutions in four categories: general community service, interfaith community service, economic opportunity, and education (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2013b).

As mentioned in Chapter Six, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's Community Engagement Elective Classification is a prestigious acknowledgment of institution-wide commitment to community engagement locally and globally. The classification is not an award. Rather, it is an evidence-based documentation of institutional practice that is reviewed by the Foundation to determine whether the institution qualifies to be recognized as a community-engaged institution (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2013a).

Receiving recognition through the President's Honor Roll or the Carnegie Community Engagement Elective Classification is a reason to celebrate the accomplishment on campus and to offer thanks and appreciation to students, faculty, staff, and community partners for their contributions. These distinctions are also newsworthy and should be featured in campus publications, press releases, alumni newsletters, and on the institution's website.