Carnegie Community Engagement Classification Task Force
Meeting #13
June 10, 2014
Minutes
Present: Paul Vanderburgh, Kelly Bohrer, Dick Ferguson, Kathy Harmon, Amy Lopez Mathews, Grant Neeley
Excused: Maureen Anderson, Margie Pinnell, Katie Kinnucan-Welsch, Bro. Victor Forlani
1. The TF reviewed Richard Stock’s BRG March 2014 report, “Student Views of Community Engagement.”
Richard conducted four focus groups of 32 students total in February 2014 to determine the impact of community
engagement on students. The objective of the review was to determine key take-aways that might lead to action
items as part of a larger review that will include the focus groups report of faculty and staff, the 1:1 interviews
with community partners, and consultation with the Experiential Learning Task Force (ELTF).
2. Key take-aways from challenges noted and things UD could do to enrich community engagement
a) Transportation to community partners was a commonly cited challenge for students. UD might consider
enhancing the bus routes (currently shuttle between main campus and River Campus) to include stops at
key community partner locations in the City of Dayton. Beyond the practical benefits, such an initiative
would be a clearly visible sign of the importance the university places on community engagement, as part of
experiential learning.
b) Centers of Community Engagement were proposed to respond to the challenges associated with
accessibility to and relationships with community partners. For example five community partners and their
respective locations could be identified as UD Centers of Community Engagement. As such, they could
become part of a revised bus route for students who need daily access. Furthermore, their “Center” status
would enable more of a collaborative and equal partnership with UD, resulting in greater potential for highly
collaborative community-centric activities.
c) First Year Experience coursework (BAI, ASI, etc) could include substantial threads of community
engagement such that student learning outcomes include knowledge, skills and attitudes favorable to a 16
week community partnership. This would also crystallize, in first year students’ minds, the optimal
operational definition of community engagement, separate and distinct from service, or even service
learning. Grants could support pilot sections of such courses.
d) Upperclass Community Engagement Interns were proposed to extend the bandwidth of faculty members
who are deeply engaged in community engagement activities via teaching, service, and/or research. As
paid quasi-staff positions, interns could work in academic departments or at the community partner site.
They would not only be immersed in community engagement initiatives but could also mentor underclass
students who have vectors toward student leadership or intern roles.
3. The TF determined that monthly meetings would be scheduled between now and December 2014.
4. To ensure that the work of the TF dovetails well with that of the ELTF, we will invite Paul Benson and Deb
Bickford (co-chairs) to our next meeting. The agenda which will be to discuss how our work will intersect
optimally with theirs.
5. Next Meeting:
 July 21, 2-4 pm, SM 113B
 Meet with Paul Benson and Deb Bickford to discuss the Experiential Learning Task Force work.
 Homework: Please read the ELTF Report in advance of this meeting. It can be found on our TF website
(http://academic.udayton.edu/paulvanderburgh/ccec.html).