Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument
2012 Administration
Report
April 2013
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 1 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3
History of OEMI ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Methodology and Sample ............................................................................................................................. 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Area of Concern ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Type of Engagement ................................................................................................................................. 8
Type of Initiative ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Duration .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Funded Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Participants and Partners........................................................................................................................ 11
Service Hours .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Service Area ............................................................................................................................................ 13
The OEMI................................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A: OEMI Invitations and Surveys................................................................................................. 18
Faculty Invitation .................................................................................................................................... 18
Staff Invitation......................................................................................................................................... 20
OEMI in Digital Measures........................................................................................................................ 21
OEMI Staff Survey ................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix B: List of Partners ........................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix C: Lists of Service Areas .............................................................................................................. 38
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 2 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Executive Summary
The Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI) created by Michigan State
University in 2003 was originally adapted by Texas Tech University (TTU) in 2009. The OEMI
was condensed and further adapted in 2012 for administration to TTU faculty via the Digital
Measures reporting platform. TTU staff were able to complete the OEMI in an online survey
designed in-house to match the OEMI screen as it appeared in the Digital Measures application.
Between September 1, 2011 and August 31, 2012, 174 TTU faculty and staff members reported
in formation for 363 unduplicated engagement projects. The two university academic
administrative units with the largest number of survey respondents, the College of Human
Sciences (41 respondents) and the College of Arts and Sciences (29 respondents), also reported
the highest numbers of projects (135 in the College of Human Sciences and 53 in the College of
Arts and Sciences).
The survey results suggest the following about the engagement activity at TTU:
Area of Concern: The most commonly reported areas of concern addressed were
“Education” (63.5%) and “Health and Human Well-Being” (37.2%). In the context of the
OEMI, area of concern refers to pressing issues addressed by outreach and engagement.
Type of Engagement: The most commonly reported types of engagement were “Engaged
Instruction: Public Events and Understanding” (24.9%) and “Engaged Research and Creative
Activity” (20.7%).
Type of Initiative: Most of the projects were reported as individual initiatives (42.6%),
followed by institutional initiatives (31.6%) and multi-institutional initiatives (25.8%).
Duration: The majority of projects were reported as beginning in 2011 or 2012 (76.9%) and
ending in 2011 or 2012 (70.2%).
Funding: The reported project funding ranged from $52.00 to $5.9 million, with a mean of
$686,378 and a median of $40,000. Considering that a few large grants were reported, the
data for the variable funding is skewed. As such, the median of $40,000 is the better
estimate for the amount of funding that might be expected for the average funded
engagement project at TTU. The total sum of reported funding is $44.6 million. This sum is
larger than the amount reported in the Strategic Plan 2012 Report ($40.5 million) because
the amount from the Strategic Plan 2012 Report excludes funding from individual initiatives.
The most commonly reported funding sources, excluding the “Other” category, were
“Private Business/Industry” (24.3%) and “Federal Grant” (22.3%).
Participants and Partners: The category with the most reported participants was “K-12 –
students, teachers, administrators” (118,002 participants). Overall, the total sum of
reported participants was 183,992, including 9,692 TTU participants and 174,300 non-TTU
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 3 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
participants. Respondents reported by name a total of 305 unduplicated institutions,
organizations, or agencies that they worked with.
Service Hours: The reported number of service hours spent by project leader or key TTU
personnel during the report year ranged from 1 to 2,860, with a mean of 290 hours and a
median of 40 hours. Given that a few projects reported a large number of service hours the
variable service hours is skewed. Thus, the median of 40 hours is the better estimate of the
time spent by the average project leader or key personnel on an engagement project at
TTU. The total sum of reported hours spent by project leader or key TTU faculty and staff
was 112,916.
Service Area: Outreach and engagement projects were reported as having global, national
and regional scope. The majority of the projects reported had a regional impact (i.e.,
Lubbock County and immediate neighboring counties). Projects that were reported for a
specific state or states were reported for states geographically located in the southern
regions of the United States. Lastly, most projects with global impact were reported for
countries in North America (i.e., Canada and Mexico), followed by Western Europe, and
India.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 4 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
History of OEMI
The Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI) is an online survey developed
by Michigan State University (MSU). It captures both quantitative and qualitative data about
outreach and engagement activities, defined as “professional activities conducted for the direct
benefit of audiences external to the academy” 1. The OEMI was first used at MSU in 2004 and
has been administered there every year since. Other universities that have used or adapted the
instrument are the Tennessee System, the University of Kentucky, the American Association of
Colleges of Pharmacy, and Kansas State University.
Methodology and Sample
In January 2013, two separate emails were sent out by TTU Provost Robert Smith to TTU faculty
and staff members, asking for their participation in the OEMI. The first email was sent to
faculty and gave instructions on completing the information in Digital Measures, while the
second email was sent to staff and gave instructions on completing the online survey. The
email to staff provided a link to the online survey instrument. Additional reminders about the
survey went out in February 2013. A copy of the invitation and survey can be found in
Appendix A. The online survey instrument was closed on February 15, 2013. Data received
from the staff survey and from faculty in Digital Measures was downloaded at that time. Some
respondents who had reported engagement projects with large numbers of participants in past
administrations were contacted after the closing date, so that their updated project numbers
could be included in this summary. TTU responses were aggregated and analyzed during the
months of March and April.
One hundred seventy-four TTU faculty and staff members reported information for 363
unduplicated engagement projects for the time period between September 1, 2011 and August
31, 2012.
Table 1, Respondents and Projects by Division, shows the number of respondents reporting any
O&E activity and the number of O&E projects reported by each TTU college, school, or
administrative unit.
1
https://oemi.msu.edu/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 5 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Table 1: Respondents and Projects by Division
Division
Respondents
Projects
Academic Affairs
Administration & Finance Auxiliary Services
Athletic Director
College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources
College of Architecture
College of Arts and Sciences
College of Education
College of Engineering
College of Human Sciences
College of Media and Communication
College of Visual and Performing Arts
Compliance
Economic Development
International Affairs
Multidisciplinary Research Centers and Institutes
Museum and Heritage
Office of Institutional Diversity
Operations
President’s Office
Procurement Services
Provost and SVP Academic Affairs
Rawls College of Business
Research Services
Student Affairs
TTUISD
University College
Unknown
4
3
2
8
3
29
9
11
41
2
17
1
4
2
1
3
10
3
1
1
10
3
1
2
1
2
-
4
3
2
27
4
53
25
13
135
2
34
1
4
2
1
3
10
3
1
1
15
3
1
2
1
2
11
TOTAL
174
363
The divisions with the most survey respondents were the College of Human Sciences (41
respondents) and the College of Arts and Sciences (29 respondents). The divisions with the
most reported projects were the College of Human Sciences (135 projects) and the College of
Arts and Sciences (53 projects).
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 6 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Results
The results section of the present report summarizes, in narrative and graphical depiction, the
outreach and engagement activiteis of faculty and staff at TTU.
Area of Concern
For each project reported, respondents indicated the areas or areas of concern addressed by
outreach and engagement. For the purpose of the OEMI, area of concern refers to specific
pressing issues which may be addressed by a complex and diverse academic body. Figure 1,
Projects by Area of Concern, shows the percentage of projects reported as addressing each of
the listed areas of concern. Note that respondents were asked to select as many areas of
concern as may have applied to their reported project.
Projects by Area of Concern
Business/Economic Development
11.0%
Area of Concern
Community Development
23.3%
Culture/Civic Life
20.3%
Education
Environment/Natural Resources
63.5%
5.0%
Global Issues
8.3%
Health and Human Well-Being
37.2%
Other
0.0%
14.3%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Percent of Projects with Reported Area of Concern
Figure 1: Projects by Area of Concern (n=301)
As shown in Figure 1, “Education” (63.5%) was the most commonly reported area of concern.
This category was followed by “Health and Human Well-Being” (37.2%), “Community
Development” and “Culture/Civic Life” (20.3%). Conversely, “Environment/Natural Resources”
(5.0%) and “Global Issues” (8.3%) were the least commonly reported areas of concern.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 7 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Type of Engagement
For each project, respondents reported the type of engagement that best described their
project or activity. Figure 2, Projects byType of Engagement, shows the percentage of projects
reported for each of the listed forms of outreach. Note that respondents were asked to select
as many types of engagement as applied to the reported project.
Type of Engagment
Projects by Type of Engagement
Clinical Service
Engaged Instruction: Credit
Engaged Instruction: Non-Credit
Engaged Instruction: Public Events and Understanding
Engaged Research and Creative Activity
Performance
Program Delivery
Program Development
Program Evaluation
Relationship Development
Service Learning
Service on Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Technical or Expert Assistance
Other
4.7%
5.6%
20.4%
24.9%
20.7%
11.5%
17.8%
17.5%
8.3%
20.1%
9.5%
14.5%
16.6%
6.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
Percent of Projects with Reported Type of Engagement
Figure 2: Projects by Type of Engagement (n=338)
As shown in Figure 2, “Engaged Instruction: Public Events and Understanding” (24.9%) and
“Engaged Research and Creative Activity” (20.7%) were the most commonly reported types of
engagement. “Clinical Service” (4.7%) and “Engaged Instruction: Credit” (5.6%) were the least
commonly reported types of engagement.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 8 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Type of Initiative
For each project, respondents reported whether it was an individual initiative (“not dependent
on any program, department, college, or university support beyond base salary”), an
institutional initiative (“a department, program, college, or the university has assumed
ownership and has committed sponsorship or support”), or a multi-institutional initiative
(“initiative led by multiple institutions”). Figure 3, Projects by Type of Initiative, shows the
percentage of projects reported for each type of initiative.
Type of Initiative
Projects by Type of Initiative
Individual
42.6%
Institutional
31.6%
Multi-institutional
25.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Percent of Projects with Reported Type of Initiative
Figure 3: Projects by Type of Initiative (n=291)
As shown in Figure 3, most of the projects were reported as individual initiatives (42.6%),
followed by institutional initiatives (31.6%) and multi-institutional initiatives (25.8%).
Duration
For each project, respondents reported the month and year that each project started. Two
hundred seventy-nine of the reported projects started in 2011 or 2012 (76.9%), 69 started in
the period 2006-2010 (19.0%), 8 started in the period 2001 – 2005 (2.2%), and 7 started before
2001 (1.9%). The earliest reported start year was 1967.
Respondents also reported the month and year that each project ended or was anticipated to
end. Two hundred fifty-five of the reported projects ended in 2011 or 2012 (70.2%), 4 were
anticipated to end in 2013 (1.1%), and 1 was anticipated to end in 2014 (0.3%). One hundred
and three projects were reported with no end date or anticipated end date (28.4%) because the
anticipated end date was unknown or because the respondent did not answer the question.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 9 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Funded Projects
Respondents reported whether their projects had been funded by a source outside of TTU.
Table 2, Summary Statistics of Project Funding from Non-TTU Sources summarizes the projects
that reported outside funding.
Table 2: Summary Statistics of Project Funding from Non-TTU Sources
65
Number of Projects Reporting Funding
$44,614,576
Sum of Reported Funding
$686,378
Mean of Reported Funding
$1,269,666
Standard Deviation of Reported Funding
$52
Minimum Reported Funding
$40,000
Median Reported Funding
$5,900,000
Maximum Reported Funding
As shown in Table 2, the reported project funding ranged from $52.00 to $5.9 million, with a
mean of $686,378 and a median of $40,000. As a few projects with large funding may have
skewed the data, the median of $40,000 should be considered as the better estimate of the
amount of funding that might be expected for the average funded engagement project at TTU.
The total sum of reported funding was $44.6 million. This amount is larger than the amount
reported in the Strategic Plan 2012 Report ($40.5 million), because the amount from the
Strategic Plan 2012 Report excludes funding from individual initiatives.
For each project, respondents also reported the sources of funding. Figure 4, Projects by
Funding Source, shows the percentage of funding sources reported for each project. Note that
respondents were asked to select all funding sources that applied to the reported project.
Projects by Funding Source
Funding Source
Private Business/Industry
24.3%
Federal Grant
State Grant
22.3%
6.8%
Other Non-Profit Organizations
21.6%
Event/Activities Fees
15.5%
Other
0.0%
38.5%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
Percent of Projects with Reported Funding Sources
Figure 4: Projects by Funding Source (n=148)
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 10 of 39
50.0%
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
As shown in Figure 4, the most commonly reported funding sources, excluding the “Other”
category, were “Private Business/Industry” (24.3%) and “Federal Grant” (22.3%). The least
commonly reported funding sources were “State Grant” (6.8%) and “Event/Activity Fees”
(15.5%).
Participants and Partners
For each project, respondents reported the number of participants involved for each of the following
categories: “TTU – Students”; “TTU – Faculty”; “TTU – Staff”; “Other 4-Year Institutions – students,
faculty, staff”; “Community Colleges – students, instructors, administrators”; “K-12 – students, teachers,
administrators”; “Private business & industry”; “Government and Other Non-Profit”; and “General
Public.” Table 3, Summary Statistics for Number of People Involved by Participant Category summarizes
the number of participants reported for each category.
Table 3: Summary Statistics for Number of People Involved by Participant Category
Participant Category
TTU – Students
TTU – Faculty
TTU – Staff
Other 4-Year Institutions
Community Colleges
K-12
Private business & industry
Government and Other Non-Profit
General Public
N
Sum
131
7,675
188
883
103
1,134
38
3,049
13
1,223
110 118,002
40
1,357
42 18,733
61 31,936
Mean
St Dev
Min
59
5
11
80
94
1,073
34
446
524
179
10
41
197
151
3,360
65
2,526
2,593
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Median
Max
14 1,515
2
100
3
400
10 1,000
25
500
75 26,914
14
400
6 16,368
50 20,000
As shown in Table 3, the category with the most reported participants was “K-12 – students,
teachers, administrators” (118,002 participants). Overall, the total sum of reported participants
was 183,992, including 9,692 TTU participants and 174,300 non-TTU participants.
For each project, respondents were asked to list institutions, organizations, or agencies that
they worked with by name. Respondents listed a total of 305 unduplicated partners (see
Appendix B for the list of partners).
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 11 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Service Hours
For each project, respondents reported the hours that they and other leaders/key personnel
spent on the project. In the context of the OEMI, leaders and or key personnel are those who
identify as project managers or are closely related to the organization, direction or
implementation of the project. Table 4, Summary Statistics for Hours Spent by Leaders/Key
Personnel summarizes the reported hours spent by the respondent and other leaders/key
personnel on the project.
Table 4: Summary Statistics for Hours Spent by Leaders/Key Personnel
Number of Leaders/Key Personnel with Reported Hours Spent
Sum of Reported Hours Spent
390
112,916
Mean of Reported Hours Spent
290
Standard Deviation of Hours Spent
587
Minimum Reported Hours Spent
Median Reported Hours Spent
Maximum Reported Hours Spent
1
40
2,860
As shown in Table 3, the reported hours spent by project leaders/key personnel ranged from 1
hour to 2,860 hours, with a mean of 290 hours and a median of 40 hours. Considering that a
few projects reported lengthy time investments, the variable Hours Spent by Leaders/Key
Personnel is skewed. As such, the median of 40 hours is the better estimate for the time spent
by the average project leader/key personnel on an engagement project at TTU. The total sum
of reported hours spent was 112,916.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 12 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Service Area
The OEMI included three related questions pertaining to whether a project or activity was
developed with or for institutions and individuals in particular geographic areas. Specifically,
the questions asked respondents to identify the Texas counties, the states other than Texas,
and the countries other than the U.S. that were impacted by their outreach and engagement
project. A single project may have had an impact on one, several, or all geographic areas within
the state, country or world. Therefore an Impact Unit refers to a specific geographic location
(e.g., county within a state) that was affected by TTU outreach and engagement. A summary of
the responses to these questions can be seen in Figure 5, Number of Impact units Reported by
project by Texas counties; Figure 6, Number of impact units reported by projects by U.S. States
other than Texas; and Figure 7, Number of impact units by projects by countries other than the
U.S.
206
Figure 5: Number of impact units reported by projects by Texas counties (n=572)
As shown in Figure 5, most of the projects were reported to have an impact on Lubbock County.
An additional 107 counties in Texas were impacted by one or more projects. See Appendix C
for a table summarizing the number of projects reported for each county in Texas.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 13 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Figure 6: Number of Impact units reported by projects by U.S. States other than Texas (n=63)
As shown in Figure 6, most of the projects that were reported for a specific state or states were
reported for States in the southern regions of the United States. There were a total of 93
projects that reported having an impact on specific states throughout the country. An
additional 44 projects were reported to have an impact on all States in the United States. See
Appendix C for a table summarizing the number of projects reported for each U.S. State.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 14 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Figure 7: Number of impact units by projects by countries other than the U.S. (n=91)
Figure 7 shows that a total of 71 countries were affected by TTU outreach and engagement
projects and activities. In addition, 18 projects were reported to have an impact on all
countries. The country which was most impacted by TTU outreach and engagement efforts was
Canada (11), followed by Mexico with five, and India and Sweden with four respectively. The
remaining countries reported were impacted by at least one project. See Appendix C for a table
summarizing the number of projects reported for each country.
The OEMI
The Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument, as administered for four consecutive
years by TTU, came to an end with the 2012 installment. Over the course of four years, the
instrument was not only a valuable asset for collecting data pertaining to outreach and
engagement, it also served to enhance the campus culture of outreach and engagement by
promoting education and scholarship, fostering collaborative partnerships with constituents,
and cementing faculty and staff commitment to serve the regional and global communities.
One of the most salient outcomes from the administration of the OEMI at TTU has been an
increase in understanding by faculty and staff on what constitutes outreach and engagement.
For example, at first glance it appears that outreach and engagement at TTU has decreased
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 15 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
over time but an in-depth analysis of trend data suggests otherwise. This may be demonstrated
when considering outreach and engagement funding data. Figure 8 demonstrates a declining
trend in outreach and engagement participation; however, figures 9 and 10 demonstrate that
funding reported remains fairly consistent over time (see figure 9). Further, evidence suggests
that the average amount of funding per project committed to outreach and engagement has
increased over the past four years (see figure 10). It may be then concluded that projects and
activities reported during the latter years of the OEMI at TTU are more consistent with the
Carnegie definition of engagement.
Number of Reports & Projects
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2009
2010
Reports
2011
2012
Projects
Figure 8: trend data for number of individuals reporting and projects reported.
Sum of Funded Projects
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
2009
2010
2011
Figure 9: Sum of funded projects in dollar amount per reporting year.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 16 of 39
2012
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Average Funding per Project
$140,000.00
$120,000.00
$100,000.00
$80,000.00
$60,000.00
$40,000.00
$20,000.00
$0.00
2009
2010
2011
Figure 10: Average funding per project by reporting year.
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 17 of 39
2012
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Appendix A: OEMI Invitations and Surveys
Faculty Invitation
January 14, 2013
RE: 2012 OEMI Survey in Digital Measures
Dear Texas Tech University Faculty Member,
As you may be aware, Texas Tech first introduced the Outreach and Engagement Measurement
Instrument (OEMI) in 2009 to capture its faculty and staff members’ administrative, research, teaching,
and service work that involve community partners in mutually beneficial ways – whether at the local,
regional, national, or international level. Data provided by you during the 2009 and subsequent annual
administrations of the OEMI have proven critical for the documentation of the institution’s investment
and progress towards TTU’s Strategic Priority 4 to “Further Outreach and Engagement” (see Making it
Possible…, TTU 2010-2020 Strategic Plan; 2010 Report; 2011 Report).
Since the first OEMI administration, we have worked diligently to streamline the survey and make it, in
particular, easier for faculty to report on their annual outreach and engagement activities. We are
happy to let you know that the Texas Tech Faculty Senate, in its meeting on November 14, 2012,
approved the use of Digital Measures as the official tool for the capturing of Texas Tech faculty outreach
and engagement. As you plan to use Digital Measures to report your scholarly work for the 2012
calendar year, we hope that you will take the time to highlight your outreach and engagement work on
behalf of Texas Tech as well. The Carnegie Foundation defines “community engagement” as:
Community Engagement describes 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. (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, Community Engagement Elective Classification definition)
In this context, “engagement” includes any projects or professional activities that you conducted with
non-university entities, including teaching, research, and service endeavors. The OEMI includes
definitions of major “engagement” categories, such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Engaged research and creative activity
Technical or expert assistance
Engaged instruction: credit courses and programs
Engaged instruction: non-credit courses and programs
Engaged instruction: public events and understanding
Service learning
Service on boards, committees, and commissions (with non-university partners)
Clinical service
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 18 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
You will find the respective section for inputting these data in Digital Measures under a new section
entitled “Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument.” If you have other colleagues from the
university reporting on the same project that you may have been involved in, Digital Measures will
automatically pull the project-specific data into the Digital Measures fields, thereby eliminating the need
for re-entering information. In addition, if you receive external funding for engagement activities, a
check box is included so that the information will populate in the grants as well as engagement sections,
simplifying data entry.
We will also be sending out via e-mail the OEMI survey to allow Texas Tech administrators and
professional staff to report on their annual engagement activities that are not included in faculty Digital
Measures reports. There will be no need for you to complete this survey, if you happen to receive it in
your Outlook inbox.
To be included in the Strategic Plan 2012 Report your OEMI data will need to be entered in Digital
Measures by January 31, 2013 at 5:00pm, so please enter the information before then. To help with
this process we have tried to upload all of the projects from the 2011 OEMI into Digital Measures. If any
of these projects are ongoing you can save time by copying the project and editing the copy to reflect
the information for the project in 2012. If you have any further questions about this new process,
please contact Elaina Cantrell, the Texas Tech Digital Measures Administrator at
elaina.cantrell@ttu.edu, or Dr. Birgit Green, Director, Engaged Research and Partnerships at
birgit.green@ttu.edu.
Sincerely,
Bob Smith
Provost
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 19 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Staff Invitation
January 9, 2013
RE: TTU 2012 OEMI Survey
Dear TTU Administrators and Staff Members,
Once again we ask for your participation in the University’s assessment of its annual outreach and
engagement activities. TTU first introduced the Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument
(OEMI) in 2009 to capture its faculty and staff members’ administrative, research, teaching, and service
work that involve community partners in mutually beneficial, reciprocal ways – whether at the local,
regional, national, or international level. Data provided by you during the 2009 and subsequent annual
administrations of the OEMI have proven critical for the documentation of the institution’s investment
and progress towards TTU’s Strategic Priority 4 to “Further Outreach and Engagement” (see Making it
Possible…, TTU 2010-2020 Strategic Plan; 2010 Report; 2011 Report).
Who Should Complete the 2012 OEMI?
TTU Administrators or professional staff members who, in their roles, have been involved in projects or
professional activities conducted for the direct benefit of AND in partnership with individuals or groups
external to TTU – for example, non-traditional students, pre-K through 12 schools, community
development and neighborhood associations, industrial firms and associations, health and welfare
organizations, government organizations - during Fiscal Year 2012 (September 1, 2011 through August
31, 2012) should complete the 2012 OEMI. TTU Faculty with a Digital Measures account should
complete the OEMI screen in Digital Measures and do not need to complete this survey. If more than
one individual from TTU have been involved in the same type of project or activity, ideally please have
only one individual from your team report on the activity to avoid duplication. Note: If you serve in a
faculty role, you will be able to provide OEMI related information now in Digital Measures under a new
section entitled “Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument” and will not need to complete
this online survey. On November 14, 2012 the Texas Tech Faculty Senate approved the use of Digital
Measures as the official tool for the capturing of faculty outreach and engagement.
We listened to your feedback on past OEMI administrations and continue to refine and streamline the
survey. The survey will close on January 31, 2013 at 5:00pm, so please complete the survey before
then. We hope that you will take the time to complete the 2012 survey on TTU’s outreach and
engagement activities and thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Birgit Green, Ph.D.
Director, Engaged Research and Partnerships
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 20 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
OEMI in Digital Measures
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 21 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 22 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 23 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
OEMI Staff Survey
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 24 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 25 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 26 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 27 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 28 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 29 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 30 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 31 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 32 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 33 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Appendix B: List of Partners
Number of Projects Reporting Specific Partners
4H Organization
1
Catholic Services
1
Abilene ISD
1
Cavazos Middle School
1
ABS Consulting
1
Center for Health Design
1
Accolade Hospice
1
Child Protective Services
1
Adult Protective Services
1
Children In Schools
1
AIChE
1
Children’s Home of Lubbock
1
AIFS
1
Children's Advocacy Center of the South Plains
2
Chambers of Commerce/ED groups in 95 county region
1
ChloroFilms
1
All Saints
1
Circle of Hope International
1
All Things Amazing Foundation
1
City of El Paso
1
Allen High School Fine Arts Department
1
City of Lamesa
2
Alliance of and for Visually Impaired Texans- AVIT
1
City of Lubbock
2
Amarillo ISD
2
City of Midland
1
American Art Resources
2
City of Odessa
1
American Association of University Women - Lubbock
3
Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL)
1
American Chemical Society
1
Communities in Schools
1
American Culinary Federation
1
Community Health Center of Lubbock
1
American Indian Program
1
Congressman Neugebauer's Office
1
American Institute of Architects
1
Cooper ISD
6
American Society for Plant Biologists
1
Cotton Inc.
1
American Society of Interior Designers
1
Covenant Health System
4
Amherst ISD
1
Crosbyton ISD
1
Anton ISD
1
Culver Academies
1
Arkansas State Department of Education
1
Custer Road United Methodist Church
1
Atldo Farms
1
Dartmouth College
1
Baylor College of Medicine
1
Denimatrix
1
BCFS Lubbock Transition Center (aka MAC Center)
1
Denver City ISD
1
Betenbough Homes
1
Department of Defense
1
Bodyworks
1
Desks, Inc.
1
Box Studios
1
Development Corporation of Abilene
1
Boy Scouts of America
1
Dunbar Elementary
1
Brigham Young University-Hawaii
1
Durham Transportation
1
Brownfield ISD
1
Dyess AFB
1
Buckner Children and Family Services
1
Early Childhood Intervention/DEBT program
1
Cannon AFB
1
Eastlake Studio
1
Canyon ISD
1
Eden ISD
1
Career and Technology Association of Texas
2
Educational Service Center 1
1
Carillon Community
1
Educational Service Center 12
1
Carpenter's Church
1
Educational Service Center 13
2
Catholic Diocese/St John Newman Catholic Church
1
Educational Service Center 14
1
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 34 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Educational Service Center 16
2
Huckabee Home rentals
1
Educational Service Center 17
2
Idaho School for the Deaf and Blind
1
Educational Service Center 18
1
Idalou ISD
1
Educational Service Center 20
1
IDEAL/TTU
1
El Paso AIA
1
Iles Elementary
1
El Paso Community College
1
Interior Architects
1
El Paso Modern Art Museum
1
Interior Design Advisory Board
1
Elizabeth City State University
1
Iowa State University
1
ELS Lubbock
1
Irving ISD
1
Environmental Design Research Association
1
Kelton ISD
1
Estacado High School
1
Knoll
1
Family and Consumer Sciences Teachers Assoc. of Texas
2
LaMesa High School
1
Family Counseling Services
2
Laura Bush Institute for Women's Health
1
Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America
1
League of Women Voters
1
Federal Government
1
LEARN
1
First United Methodist Church
1
Lee Lewis Inc.
1
Five Lea County New Mexico High Schools
1
Levelland High School
1
Floydada ISD
1
Levelland ISD
1
Foundation for Excellence in Education
1
Littlefield ISD
1
Frenship ISD
4
Lockney ISD
1
Friends of Music
1
Looney & Associates
1
Gary Lee
1
Lorenzo ISD
1
Gensler
1
Louise Hopkins Underwood Center for the Arts
5
Georgia State University
1
Louisiana State University Hurricane Center
1
Gettys Group
1
Lovejoy ISD
2
Government of Vietnam
1
Lubbock Chamber of Commerce
1
H2O Partners, Inc
1
Lubbock Christian University
1
Habermann Foundation
1
Lubbock City Parks & Rec
1
Habitat for Humanity
1
Lubbock Cotton Exchange
1
Hale Center ISD
2
Lubbock County Juvenile Justice Center
1
Halliburton
1
Lubbock Economic Development Alliance
2
Harmony Science Academy, Lubbock
1
Lubbock High School
2
Haworth Dallas
1
Lubbock ISD
Haworth Headquarters
1
Lubbock Lake Landmark
1
Hazard Minigation Associate
1
Lubbock Rape Crisis
1
HealingChoice
1
Lubbock Symphony
1
Health Environment Research & Design Journal
1
Lubbock Visitors Bureau
1
Heart of Lubbock Neighborhood Association
1
Lutheran Social Services
1
Herman Miller
2
Manor ISD
1
High Point Village
1
Meadow ISD
1
HKS Architects
4
Meadows Foundation
1
HOK
1
Midland College
1
Hospice of Lubbock
2
Montana School for the Deaf and Blind
1
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 35 of 39
15
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Mrs. Bairds
1
Sheppard AFB
1
National Federation of Music Clubs
1
Skidmore, Owings, Merrill
1
National Institute of Building Sciences
1
Slaton ISD
1
Natnl. Testing Agencies: ACT, ATI, Castle, ETS, Pearson
1
Smyer ISD
1
NCAR
1
Society of Human Resources Management
1
Nelson
1
Solomon, Cordwell Buenz
1
New Deal ISD
3
South Plains Closing the Gaps P-20 Council
1
New Hope Christian Counseling
1
South Plains College
4
NIST
1
South Plains Foodbank
2
NOAA Hurricane Research Division
1
South Plains Girls Fast Pitch Softball League
1
Odessa College
2
South Plains Workforce Board
1
Olton ISD
1
Southern Mississippi University
1
Osher Life Long Learning Institute
4
Southland ISD
1
OSU Energy Management Team
1
Southwest Institute of Addictive Diseases TTUHSC
1
Parkway Elementary School
1
Southwest Research Institute
1
Perkins and Will
1
STAR Health
1
Petersburg ISD
1
State Farm Insurance
1
Plains Cotton Cooperative Association
1
Sundown ISD
1
Plains Cotton Growers
1
Sunrise Canyon Hospital
2
Plainview ISD
1
Suzanne Lovell, Inc.
1
Plano West Senior High School Varsity A Cappella Choir
1
Tahoka ISD
1
Post ISD
1
Talkington School for Young Women Leaders
2
Presidio ISD
1
TAMU-Kingsville
1
Project Future/College of Ed, TTU
1
TDCJ - Montford Unit
1
Ralls ISD
1
Ted Moudis Associates
1
Red Buffalo Land Management LLC
1
TEEX
1
Region 17 public schools
1
Texas A&M University
3
Regional Public Defenders Office
1
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
1
Rhode Island Scientific, LLC
1
Texas Agrilife Extension
1
Richland College
1
Texas Alliance for Minorities in Education
1
Roosevelt ISD
2
Texas Bison Association
1
Ropesville ISD
1
Texas Boy’s Ranch
1
SACNAS
1
Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Services
2
Salvation Army
1
Texas Education Agency
6
Sams Club
1
Texas Family Program
1
Sandia National Labs
2
Texas Farm Bureau
1
SBA
1
Texas FCCLA
1
School districts in Hill Country
1
Texas Indigent Defense Commission
1
School districts throughout Texas
1
Texas Migrant Council
1
Science Spectrum
2
Texas National Guard
1
Service Learning Texas
2
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
5
Shallowater ISD
2
Texas Tech Alumni Association
1
Shalom Readers
1
Texas Tech Federal Credit Union
2
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 36 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Texas Tech Museum
1
University of Texas at El Paso
1
Texas Women’s University
1
University of Texas at Pan American
1
Texas Workforce Commission
1
University of Texas at Tyler
1
Texercise
1
University of Western Ontario
1
The Amazing Foundation
1
University of Texas Medical Branch
1
The Bair Foundation
1
UOP
1
The Hockaday School Choral and Drama Departments
1
Urban Tech
1
The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal
1
US Military Health System
1
The Ranch at Dove Tree
2
US National Archives
1
The Society for Financial Service Professionals
1
USDA
1
Tigerman & McCurry
1
UT MD Anderson Cancer Center
1
TNMO Transportation Services
1
Vernon College
1
Tokyo Polytechnic University
1
Veteran's Administration
1
Tornado Gallery
1
VOA
1
Tripoli Rocketry Association
1
Voices of the South Plains Community Coalition
1
TTUHSC
1
Volunteer Center of Lubbock
1
TVS Interiors
1
West Texas A&M
1
TXDOT
2
West Texas District Export Council
1
UC-Davis
1
West Texas Native American Association
1
UMC Health System
2
Whitharrel ISD
1
United Supermarkets Inc
1
Wilson ISD
1
University of California, Berkeley
1
Workforce Solutions of the South Plains
2
University of Hawaii
1
Wyoming Department of Education
1
University of Houston
1
Xcel Energy
1
University of Kentucky
1
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribal Empowerment Dept.
1
University of Texas at Arlington
1
YWCA After School Program
1
University of Texas at Dallas
1
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 37 of 39
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Appendix C: Lists of Service Areas
Number of Projects by Texas Counties other than Lubbock
All Texas Counties
9
Freestone
1
Johnson
1
Moore
4
Andrews
8
Frio
1
Jones
3
Motley
10
Archer
3
Gaines
9
Kaufman
1
Nacogdoches
Armstrong
3
Galveston
1
Kendall
1
Navarro
1
1
1
Stonewall
2
1
Swisher
7
Atascosa
1
Garza
Kenedy
1
Nolan
3
Tarrant
6
Austin
4
Gillespie
1
Kent
7
Nueces
2
Taylor
5
Bailey
12
Glasscock
1
Kerr
4
Ochiltree
3
Terry
17
Gray
2
Kimble
1
Oldham
4
Throckmorton
Bandera
1
18
Stephens
Sterling
1
1
Bastrop
5
Guadalupe
King
7
Palo Pinto
2
Tom Green
4
Baylor
1
Hale
20
Kinney
1
Parker
2
Travis
5
Bell
2
Hall
2
Kleberg
1
Parmer
5
Trinity
1
Bexar
8
Hamilton
1
Knox
1
Pecos
2
Tyler
2
Potter
Blanco
2
Hansford
3
La Salle
Borden
8
Hardeman
1
Lamb
14
Upton
1
20
Bosque
2
Harris
3
Bowie
1
Hartley
5
1
Presidio
1
Uvalde
2
Lampasas
2
Randall
10
Victoria
2
Limestone
1
Reagan
2
Ward
6
Brazos
3
Haskell
5
Lipscomb
2
Real
1
Webb
1
Briscoe
6
Hays
1
Live Oak
1
Red River
1
Wharton
2
Brown
2
Hemphill
3
Llano
2
Refugio
1
Wheeler
5
Burleson
1
Henderson
1
Lynn
17
Roberts
3
Wichita
3
Burnet
3
Hidalgo
2
Martin
4
Rockwall
1
Wilbarger
3
Caldwell
1
Hill
4
Mason
1
Runnels
2
Wilson
1
Brazos
3
Hockley
21
Maverick
1
San Jacinto
1
Winkler
1
Briscoe
6
Hood
2
McLennan
3
San Patricio
1
Wise
1
Brown
2
Houston
4
Medina
1
Burleson
1
Howard
5
Midland
10
San Saba
1
Yoakum
Scurry
5
Young
Burnet
3
Hutchinson
4
Milam
Caldwell
1
Jack
1
Foard
1
Jeff Davis
Fort Bend
2
Jefferson
4
1
Shackelford
2
Zavala
1
Mills
2
Sherman
3
2
Mitchell
5
Smith
4
1
Montague
1
Somervell
1
Note: Counties for which no projects were reported are not included in the table
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 38 of 39
15
Outreach & Engagement Measurement Instrument (OEMI): 2012 Administration
Number of Projects by U.S. States other than Texas
All U.S. States
Alabama
53
Georgia
2
Louisiana
5
New Mexico
20
13
2
Hawaii
2
Michigan
4
Oklahoma
Arizona
5
Idaho
1
Mississippi
4
Pennsylvania
1
Arkansas
4
Illinois
2
Missouri
4
Tennessee
3
California
5
Indiana
1
Montana
1
Virginia
1
Colorado
1
Iowa
2
Nebraska
1
West Virginia
1
Wyoming
3
Florida
4 Kansas
6 Nevada
1
Note: U.S. States for which no projects were reported are not included in the table
Number of Projects by Countries other than the U.S.
All Countries
18
Croatia
2
Italy
1
South Africa
3
Algeria
1
Czech Republic
1
Japan
2
South Korea
1
Angola
1
Dominica
1
Jordan
1
Spain
1
Arab Republic
1
Dominican Republic
1
Kuwait
1
Sri Lanka
1
Argentina
1
Ecuador
1
Liberia
1
Sweden
4
Australia
2
Egypt
2
Malawi
2
Switzerland
2
Austria
2
El Salvador
1
Malaysia
1
Taiwan
1
Bahrain
1
France
3
Mali
2
Tanzania
2
Bangladesh
2
Germany
3
Mexico
5
Thailand
1
Barbados
1
Ghana
3
Nepal
1
Turkey
2
Belgium
1
Greece
1
Nicaragua
1
Uganda
2
Brazil
1
Guatemala
2
Niger
3
Ukraine
1
Bulgaria
1
Guinea
1
Nigeria
3
US/Puerto Rico
1
Burkina Faso
2
India
4
Pakistan
1
Venezuela
1
Canada
Indonesia
1
Paraguay
1
Zambia
1
China
11
2
Iran
1
Peru
1
Zimbabwe
1
Colombia
1
Iraq
1
Philippines
1
Congo
1
Ireland
1
Scotland
1
Congo, Dem. Rep. of (Zaire)
1 Israel
1 Senegal
Note: Countries for which no projects were reported are not included in the table
TTU Office of Planning and Assessment
Page 39 of 39
1