Advancing a Civic Engagement Agenda

Advancing a Civic

EngagementAgenda

A Guide to Marketing, Management and Money

American Association of StateColleges and Universities

ContEnts

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

I. Communications and Marketing .................................................................................. 5Establishing Productive External and Internal Relations ......................................................5Selling Your Programs: Audiences, Communications and Internal Marketing ...................8Selling Your Programs: Audiences, Communications and External Marketing .................24Creating Campus and System Partnerships .........................................................................27Partnering with Community-Based Organizations, Including Schools ..............................29

II. Tips for Developing Programs ................................................................................... 31Organization ..........................................................................................................................34Policy Adoption ......................................................................................................................36Strategic Planning ..................................................................................................................39Assessment..............................................................................................................................44

III. A Winning Proposal ................................................................................................... 51A Project Summary .................................................................................................................58Background and Context for the Project ..............................................................................60The Statement of Significance or Need ................................................................................61Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................62Plan of Activities for the Project ...........................................................................................64Outcomes and Assessment ....................................................................................................67A Budget .................................................................................................................................70Supporting Documents and Appendices ..............................................................................73

IV. Project Management ................................................................................................. 75Take Time to Reflect...............................................................................................................76Build a Team ...........................................................................................................................77Deal with the Big Picture .......................................................................................................78Develop Information Processing Skills ..................................................................................80Watch the Budget ..................................................................................................................81

V. Fundraising and Budgeting ........................................................................................ 83A Civic Engagement Budget ..................................................................................................84Internal (Working) and External (Funding) Budget Components .......................................85An External (Funding Request) Budget ................................................................................91

VI. Funding Sources ...................................................................................................... 107The Search for Funders: GrantSearch ..................................................................................107The Foundation Center ........................................................................................................115A Proposal Development Checklist .....................................................................................119

AppendicesAppendix A: Survey Results .........................................................................................................122Appendix B: Marketing Brochures ..............................................................................................142Appendix C: Project Concept Worksheet ....................................................................................143Appendix D: Selected Funding Opportunities ............................................................................146

Advancing a Civic

EngagementAgenda

A Guide to Marketing, Management and Money

Colleen Bentley • Richard Dunfee • Beth Olsen

Grants Resource Center

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt

iv / Advancing a Civic Engagement Agenda on Campus: A Guide to Marketing, Management and Money

ACknowlEdgEmEnts

Completion of this guide would not have been possible without

contributions of time and effort from Casey LaCore, Gregg

Kaufman, Linda Marsden, John Presley, Jennifer Dawn

Herrera, Cecilia Orphan, Trudy James and Kim Shibata. The authors

are also grateful to the leadership of the organizations they call

home: Chancellor Charles B. Reed for his continued commitment to

civic engagement across all 23 California State University campuses;

Provost and Executive Vice President David L. Carr at Richard

Stockton College of New Jersey, who has been enormously supportive

of this work and generous with ideas and spirit; and AASCU’s Vice

President for Membership Services Christina Bitting for her advocacy

of the important and vital contributions that universities make to their

communities and regions.

—Rich, Beth and Colleen

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt

Advancing a Civic Engagement Agenda on Campus: A Guide to Marketing, Management and Money / 1

introduCtion

George L. Mehaffy

“To everything there is a season, and a timeto every purpose under the heaven.”

—Ecclesiastes 3:1 (King James Version)

On rare occasions, a confluence of circumstances—a “season,”

as the famed Old Testament line suggests—enables change

to occur. For advocates of civic engagement, this is indeed

the season. The most singular event of this civic season has been the

election of Barack Obama, a committed public servant and the first

president trained as a community organizer. While giving his victory

speech in Chicago on November 4, 2008, President-elect Obama

defined this new era when he said, “So let us summon a new spirit of

patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to

pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each

other.”

The commitment to civic engagement, however, extends far beyond

the president. In higher education, faculty views have shifted

dramatically in recent years, providing an opportunity to extend the

work of civic engagement across the campus. In a recent study by the

Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 55.5 percent

of professors consider it “very important” or “essential” to “instill in

students a commitment to community service,” an increase of 19.1

percent since the last survey. Further, 71 percent believe that colleges

George L. Mehaffy is vice president for academic leadership and change at AASCU.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt

2 / Advancing a Civic Engagement Agenda on Campus: A Guide to Marketing, Management and Money

should be “actively involved” in solving social problems, up 4.1 percent

in three years.

And college students, who were activists in the 1960s but retreated

to a focus on their own material well-being by the 1990s, have

returned to a commitment to the larger community. Tracking entering

college freshmen since the 1960s, HERI reported in 2009 that college

freshmen are more politically engaged than at any point during the

last 40 years, with 89.5 percent reporting that they frequently or

occasionally discussed politics in the last year.

Programs at universities and colleges have anticipated, if not

stimulated, the emerging focus on civic engagement. Service-learning

requirements, Campus Compact programs, and a variety of other

civic engagement initiatives have fostered a climate of commitment to

civic outcomes. There has been no better time for students, faculty,

staff and, indeed, entire universities, to make a commitment to civic

engagement. Whatever form this expression of social responsibility

takes—civic/community/political engagement, community service or

service-learning—civic engagement has gained momentum across the

country.

But interest in or commitment to civic engagement outcomes for

undergraduates is not enough. How does a university become involved

in, and more importantly transformed by, a focus on civic engagement?

What are the strategies and approaches that can be used to develop

robust civic engagement programs? While engagement and service

programs are strongly supported in concept by many higher education

administrators, funding and related resources often do not follow that

support, both because of competing priorities and shrinking campus

budgets. The key question is how to design and operate programs that

will create civic outcomes for all undergraduates.

This guide draws its inspiration, and much of its practical advice,

from campus coordinators of the American Democracy Project (ADP),

a civic engagement initiative that began in 2003 as a partnership of

the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


and The New York Times. The ADP initiative now involves more than

228 public colleges and universities throughout the United States.

While there are a variety of national efforts underway in ADP, most

notably the Civic Engagement in Action series, much of the core work

of the project occurs on participating college campuses. An individual

designated by the provost or chief academic officer as the ADP campus

coordinator often leads that local effort.

From its inception, the American Democracy Project has had no

external funding. Its success comes from the commitment and passion

of hundreds of individuals on participating campuses. Much of the

credit for the development and support of the project goes to the ADP

leaders, many of whom serve as the campus project coordinators.

These extraordinary innovators have figured out ways to support the

project through inspired leadership, limited campus funding, and

occasional external support.

The goal of this monograph is to develop a broader, deeper

commitment to civic engagement in American higher education. To

do that, we wanted to document new ways to nurture and support

campus coordinators and civic advocates. Our starting point in this

quest was the analysis of the successes and failures of the talented

people who serve as campus coordinators. Throughout the monograph,

selected results from a 2008 AASCU survey of American Democracy

Project campus coordinators are reported (Appendix A). Learning from

the experiences of the 61 survey respondents, as well as many others,

this monograph is intended to help civic engagement and service-

learning program directors find internal and external champions,

sources of funding, and other resources to sustain and expand their

programs. The monograph focuses on issues such as defining and

marketing programs, assembling a project plan, funding the programs,

developing and writing successful grant proposals, and managing and

implementing resources and grants.

In addition to the great work of the campus coordinators, who have

done so much to develop and sustain the American Democracy

Project, a very special thanks is due the authors of this campus

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


guide. Richard Dunfee, Colleen Bentley and Beth Olsen, who come

from different perspectives and backgrounds, joined together to

produce this guide. Beth and Rich come from the world of sponsored

projects and university research; Colleen has a background in public

affairs and marketing; all three authors have a deep and abiding

commitment to social responsibility. Together, they have crafted an

outstanding resource for higher education, artfully weaving together

their own experiences with perspectives and data from the campus

coordinator survey. The result is an incredibly practical guide for

campus coordinators and directors interested in civic work. The guide

is filled with insightful comments and nuanced advice that grows out

of the authors’ rich set of experiences in many different roles in higher

education over the years.

This guide will be an invaluable resource for campus coordinators

and directors. But beyond serving individuals, this guide was written

in service to higher education, and ultimately, to our collective

future. For America to flourish in the years ahead, and at the same

time confront challenges of immense consequence, we must have an

informed, engaged citizenry, capable of understanding the issues we

face and willing to engage in the work of everyday citizenship. Higher

education plays an immensely important role in the work of preparing

future citizens. This guide, and the campuses that use it to create

civically capable graduates, are contributing to the promise of a bright

American future.

CiviC EngagEmEnt • markEting


Before seeking additional support or funding, a campus

program needs to be viable, strong and make a difference

in campus and community life. That kind of program then

needs to come alive to others with accurate, timely and exciting print

materials and a strong Web presence. Potential funders and supporters

need something in print to “take-away” for later review, and they can

use online resources to find additional information when needed.

Establishing Productive External and internal relations

This chapter provides examples of communication

techniques and strategies to help make a program

strong. Responses from the ADP survey indicated,

by a 40–7 margin, that most campuses say they

do well at marketing and networking within the

institution; some also mentioned strategies they

use in external marketing. This communications

and marketing chapter is useful for those who do

not have strong marketing efforts; it also can aid

those who want to improve their results.

1. The 30-second Elevator Message (first and foremost!). You

should be able to define what your students and faculty do in

30 seconds or less. If you are in that proverbial elevator with the

president, chancellor or a potential donor, can you tell them before

i. CommuniCAtionsAnd mArkEting

Photo provided by California State University, Dominguez Hills.



you reach the bottom floor what it is that makes your ADP or service

program critical to the campus and community?

This is similar to having a message ready if you go on television or do a

print interview; you know what you want to get across without hearing

any questions. Think of your audience and what they need to know,

not what you want to tell them. The difference is subtle, but it means

getting into their sphere of thinking, not just your own. Be compelling,

wow them, and make them think or say, “I didn’t know that.” You want

to hit it out of the ballpark on your initial effort, since you don’t get

that first chance again. It’s like the bottom line in the popular board

game Clue—“It’s Col. Mustard in the library with the pipe”—you’ve got

it all in one sentence, like the good lead of a story you read or hear.

An effective example of this would be something along the lines of,

“Fifty percent of our students spent 300,000 hours last year serving

our community, which equates to an economic impact of $2 million

dollars—what other department does that?”

2. Publications and Other Materials. Even in this age of electronic

communication, there is still a need for some print materials. Few

communications professionals would recommend doing away with all

print; a combination of print and electronic is the most effective way

to market most programs. A small, three-fold brochure, for example,

can give a potential supporter or donor a quick look at your program

and serve as a “takeaway” piece that they can later reference. Other

promotional, “giveaway” items could include a fact-card, magnet,

calendar, pen/pencil, mouse pad, lapel pin, coaster, lanyard, coffee

cup, hat, paperweight or bookmark with your office’s tagline—whatever

inexpensively promotes your program and reminds people who you are.

And always have your Web site address prominently displayed. Exhibit

these items at campus events and make sure they are in the office

that gives tours to prospective students—your material might swing a

student to enroll at your campus.

Also, make your publications perform double duty. With digital

printing and decent color copies, it is easy to make small changes in a

brochure so in one incarnation it will work for recruiting students and



faculty, and then with a few changes, attract community partners or

funders. While redundancy is problematic in some situations, in the

world of communications you need to get your ideas across several

times before they sink into people’s consciousness.

3. Electronic Communications. Today, most people turn to the

Internet (especially search engines such as Google) when looking

for information. As such, service and civic programs need to have a

strong Web presence so students, faculty, staff, community partners

and potential funders can easily locate the information they need.

It goes without saying that these Web sites need to be regularly

updated so that information is always current. Studies have shown

that people don’t return to sites if the material is out-of-date or hard

to find. A very informal snapshot was taken of campus Web sites in

one large university system to see what link would come up first if

“service-learning” or “community service” were put in the search box.

Interestingly, only one-third of results linked directly to the page of

the office, which is where you want your visitors to go. Some results

were listed on the second or third link, but under different names. It

is imperative to have the right words on your home page so that the

correct site will come up when people are searching for information

about your offices.

4. Social Media. Every day, it seems, someone imagines a new

way to communicate—personally and professionally—with different

audiences. From Facebook, MySpace and Twitter to blogs, podcasts

and YouTube, there’s hardly a place anymore where a person can get

away from communication. Social media usually involves technology,

telecommunications and interaction, and is often supplemented with

the use of audio and video.

It would be useful for service offices to have a presence on the Web

using Facebook and MySpace, for instance, so that people can become

virtual fans of your civic engagement program and “push” your

message to others in a very inexpensive and efficient way. For example,

the University of Northern Iowa reported that while it does well at

marketing, “we need to get on Facebook, students tell us.” Given how



rapidly this area is expanding, it would be fruitless to list much more

here than already cited. However, be cognizant of this growing way to

communicate your message and get your program on people’s radars.

The best way to begin, particularly if you know little about social

media, is to talk to students in your programs. They use social media

outlets and tools daily and often are eager to help teach and create

communication tools for others. Most public affairs/communications/

marketing offices are savvy about these options, so talk with them.

Admit you are a rookie and put yourself in the hands of others. Finally,

start the learning process now but remember that these tools take time

and must be monitored, so don’t take on too many at once.

selling Your Programs: Audiences, Communications and internal marketing

Many civic engagement and service-learning offices are small and

do not market themselves well since they are often busy recruiting

students and faculty, usually with limited budgets. This chapter

discusses working with internal and external audiences—including

the media—to get the message out, create buzz about your programs,

and partner with other organizations. These tips may or may not work

on your campuses, but many are worth a try. For those of you already

employing some of these tips, it is always useful to vary the approach.

Internal AudiencesStart with your internal audience—your own campus. An office could

be doing its most impressive work in the service area, attracting

students and faculty by the dozens. But if campus administrators,

especially those with the purse strings, don’t know about the

programs, then they might as well not exist. You might not think that

communications and marketing are part of your job description, but

they are—especially if you want to move your program forward. Why?

Because it often is the squeaky wheel, the one that generates the press

and publicity, that gets the glory, and ultimately, the money. Being

invisible is not recommended.



Many service and engagement departments are small and have limited

staff. Because time is often spent attracting and recruiting students,

staff and community partners to support the programs or attend

events, there is little time for communicating and marketing your

programs to others outside your small circle of committed supporters.

People work very hard with little money because they have so few staff

to spread both the work and the word. But effective communications

can be useful to build and expand the base of support. For example,

the University of Wisconsin-River Falls reported on the survey that

they do “an excellent job of sending out promotional materials and

getting campus members to attend our programs.”

Often, the marketing and communications materials you create

are geared toward student and faculty audiences familiar with civic

engagement, but those same materials are not as useful in promoting

your program to those less familiar with your activities. Thus,

programs can become hamstrung because they do not communicate in

ways that bring more resources and more help.

1. Remember that communication is essential. Staff members

need to spend time developing and implementing a communications/

marketing plan (with a strong Web presence) that ties in with the

department or division’s strategic direction and, importantly, the

campus’ overall strategic plan.

All should be in concert, which is especially critical when attempting

to secure internal funding for your programs. If you can demonstrate

that what you are doing fits with the president or chancellor’s strategic

vision, then you are illustrating the ways civic engagement activities

help move the campus in that direction. For example, the Center for

Community Engagement at the California State University (CSU) Office

of the Chancellor completed its strategic plan in 2008. Several of its

components tied directly to the CSU chancellor’s office’s new 10-year

strategic plan, Access to Excellence. In effect, the Center was showing

that it was a team player within the university system as the vision for

the future is realized. In the same vein, Clayton State University (Ga.)



reported that it is “in the process of increasing our presence by making

engagement central to our university.”

Developing a communications plan does not need to be done

in isolation. Work with your public affairs and marketing/

communications offices because they are the experts in this area. Plus,

once that office learns more about the extraordinary programs and

people you represent, they will want to write about them for internal

and external publications, or perhaps pitch a story to campus or

community broadcast stations. This can blossom into a great two-

way relationship, but if it hasn’t begun from their end, it needs to

be started from yours. Don’t wait for public affairs to come knocking

on your door—that’s like waiting for the perfect question in a media

interview because you have the perfect answer. Instead, take the

initiative. California University of Pennsylvania reported on the survey

that its office of public affairs “does outstanding work promoting

ADP programs.” And William Patterson University of New Jersey has

a good idea: the campus director of marketing and public relations

is on the civic engagement Coordinating Committee. “The institution

has been extremely helpful in promoting ADP events and programs in

institutional publications as well as with the press,” they wrote.

Finally, it is not enough to partner solely with the communications

gurus. You need to work with other directors, assistant vice

presidents/chancellors in advancement and student or academic

affairs, and up the line to the president or chancellor. The ultimate

goal is finding one or many internal champions, those who will sing

your praises and help you find additional supporters and resources.

Here are some internal marketing tips:

In General

w Have internal champions before approaching external audiences.

w Position yourself on people’s radars as a positive force in the

campus community.



w Arrange for the president or others to mention ADP, civic/

community engagement when talking to the campus community at

fall convocations, commencements or other campus-wide meetings;

your program needs to be “a bullet point” in these speeches.

Specifically

w Leave your physical offices and talk up your program to everyone

on campus. Find your allies and potential partners.

w Take students with you. They can be the selling point for your

program.

w Be more proactive. Your program may not be the most urgent issue

on the campus agenda, but civic engagement is an important issue.

w Create a “buzz” about what you do.

2. Make the president’s speechwriter (and chief of staff, if there

is one) your best friend. Like a chief of staff, the speechwriter has

the ear of the president/chancellor and can get your points on paper

for speeches or written presentations. People often seek good human

relations stories to enhance oral presentations or written materials.

Because service-learning and civic engagement offices are repositories

for such stories, use this as an opportunity to move the stories out of

just your publications and into a wider view. A good example comes

from Illinois State University, which reported, “There are multiple

public forums where ADP is cited and promoted, including the state of

the university address, strategic plan and convocation.”

3. Collect stories from your students, faculty and community

partners.

w Interview your students and use their quotes for newsletters,

brochures, the speechwriter, the public affairs office and your Web

site.

w Faculty members need to be interviewed, too. Because students

are usually more visible, faculty members are often overlooked and



under-recognized for their contributions to service or engagement

programs. Find a way to reward and acknowledge them publicly.

w Interview your community partners for quotes and story ideas.

w Create a blog on your Web site and ask all of the above to

contribute to it on a regular basis.

4. Work with your public affairs/communications office. As an

example, Middle Tennessee State University reported that it has “great

support from our news and public affairs office and has a competent

Web designer who has built a fully functional Web site for us. The local

paper will print anything we send them, and the student newspaper is

beginning to run stories about our activities.”

w Before approaching the public affairs office, collect student, faculty

and community partner stories (and contact information), several

facts about impact, and pertinent background information. Public

affairs will not be able to effectively promote your program without

this information.

w Public affairs and communication offices need your stories for their

internal print pieces, online campus newsletters, and external

pitches to the media. Show them that you can help generate

positive press for the campus.

w If public affairs is too busy to write the articles, draft them yourself

for the office to consider.

w Work with these offices to create print brochures and annual

reports and to order promotional items.

5. Do a quick online survey to solicit information from your

constituents about your program and its results. Publish the

results internally and externally—all media staff, wherever they sit,

love lists and statistics. The survey can also be used as an effective

accountability tool showing your worth; this is particularly valuable

during challenging budgetary times.



6. Document what you do with facts and anecdotes. These should

demonstrate what would happen to the community if students and

faculty weren’t assisting those in need, (i.e., providing help at libraries,

homeless shelters or registering voters). Show the loss in human

stories.

7. Work with your student newspaper, TV and radio stations,

as they all need news items. For instance, pitch your program to

student interview shows. Or, if your athletic department does half-time

spots, see if your program can get mentioned. You never know until

you ask.

8. If your campus is publishing an economic impact report, or

updating an existing one, make sure your programs are included.

This will highlight what your programs do economically, socially and

culturally to improve the quality of life for your community, region and

state.

w Your contributions are important benchmarks for the campus.

w With today’s focus on accountability and transparency, use

statistics that show that students who are more engaged tend to

graduate at higher numbers than those who are not.

9. Get involved in critical campus discussions and forums, such

as those that address budget cuts. For instance, in response to

the significant budget challenges in California, system and campus

administrators came together in 2007–2008 to form the “Alliance for

the CSU”—an unprecedented coalition with labor unions, alumni,

faculty, staff and students. Knowing that cuts were coming, the goal

was to keep the pain as manageable as possible. The system’s service-

learning programs were encouraged to participate front and center in

that system-wide advocacy effort—to be absent would have been quite

noticeable. You need to “be in the mix” on your campus when it comes

to issues such as these.



10. Get involved with other campus programs such as in the

student affairs office or elsewhere. People need to see that your

programs tie in with theirs or that you can bring new ideas to their

areas; conversely, ask them to be involved in your activities. Many

campuses reported on the survey that they partner with other

departments/divisions or student groups. Georgia College and State

University said, “The ADP has successfully fostered a collaborative

culture among College Republicans, Young Democrats and bi-

partisan student organizations. Student involvement has grown

significantly and student newspaper coverage has increased.” Fort

Hays State University (Kan.) has also worked to garner support

across the campus: “Within the institution there are many individuals

who participate. . . . This expands our network and helps with the

marketing of events. The wide array of projects that we offer speaks

to a larger audience, in return exposing them to all the ADP projects

which are marketed at each activity hosted by the institution.”

11. Get involved with campus strategic planning efforts, making

sure you are part of the process.

w Volunteer to work on the planning even if you think you have no

time. There is no one to blame if your programs aren’t a part of the

final plan if you aren’t in the room.

w You never know who will be an ally. Maybe the person leading the

effort or some participating committee members have been involved

in service or engagement programs, or maybe they have children

of their own in high school or college who are benefitting from

involvement.

12. Work with your outreach counselors and provide marketing

materials for them to distribute at high school and college fairs.

Students might be swayed to apply to your campus if they are looking

for such programs and see yours prominently displayed.



SummaryThe foregoing suggestions are crucial because if your internal

audiences don’t know and support you, it will be difficult to gain

external support. Internal support must be solid before approaching

members of the community.

It is useful to have an understanding of internal networking from

the chief academic officer’s perspective. Therefore, what follows is a

narrative by John Presley, professor of English and former provost

at Illinois State University. While some of the opinions expressed are

duplicated elsewhere in this guide (Chapters II, III and IV address

effective civic engagement program management and Chapters V and

VI deal with budgeting for internal and external audiences), all points

bear repeating as the civic engagement director networks and mobilizes

support across the campus.

SUPPorTInG A STronG CIVIC EnGAGEMEnTProGrAM ThroUGh ThE CAMPUS nETWork:

A ProVoST’S PErSPECTIVE

John Presley

George Mehaffy, vice president of academic leadership and change

at AASCU and founder of the American Democracy Project (ADP),

frequently emphasizes that the very successful project “began with

no funding whatsoever.” Campuses that undertake the American

Democracy Project will support most ADP initiatives through internal

funding. Senior administrators, provosts, deans or presidents must

allocate internal funds and create priorities for competing proposals

seeking to make the American Democracy Project a reality on their

campuses.

The first piece of advice for any provost looking to fund ADP on

a campus is to partner with the student affairs office. Student

organizations—many of which are already committed to civic

engagement in one form or another—and the campus’ student

affairs offices are highly relevant to the American Democracy Project.

Combining ADP coordination between academic affairs and student

affairs doubles the amount of money available and considerably



increases the personnel resources. Illinois State University, for example,

arranged for its earliest ADP task force to be led by the vice-presidents

of academic affairs and student affairs. Even today, these two staffs

work together to coordinate the program.

Any administrator setting up funding for the myriad of activities that

may comprise the American Democracy Project on his/her campus

would be well advised to respect current campus culture even as he/she

is attempting to change or add more ADP components to that culture.

An audit of already existing ADP-like activities will probably reveal

dozens of faculty already committed to the value of service-learning

for their courses and departments that already teach—and perhaps

even assess—civic skills in capstone courses or in other intriguing ways.

These existing activities must be respected, even funded, for further

development. The early adopters will be the foundation of a successful

ADP, and one cannot afford to ignore or alienate them. “Cherry-pick”

the most successful of these efforts and make funding available to

increase their number and effectiveness.

Encourage the civic engagement activities that are already in place—

from voter registration drives to Habitat for Humanity to Alternative

Spring Break—to be required, reflective internships and co-op

placements that are relevant to your ADP goals. Let a thousand points

of light shine through. Do everything at once and as soon as you can.

Use a very broad definition of civic engagement to hear as many ideas

from faculty and staff as possible.

In addition to respecting and building upon existing interests,

experienced administrators will make “motivators” available for faculty

and staff action. Undoubtedly, a great motivator is money; however,

equally effective motivators exist such as time for faculty planning,

project development or experimentation, or travel opportunities to

see civic engagement programs in action on other campuses. Lunches

for faculty interest groups, speakers, books for learning communities,

certificates, titles or funding for awards (followed by special treatment

of award winners in terms of time, teaching load or faculty development

funds) are possible motivators for more ideas and more innovation.

If the college or university has a center for faculty development that

coordinates such activities, making funding available for ADP in the

center’s accounts will create a campus focus for ADP once learning



communities, speaker series, workshops and faculty development

Web sites are available. This will encourage more faculty to involve

themselves with civic engagement and make it easier and simpler to do

so. At Illinois State University (ISU), summer support was made available

for faculty who designed generic, Web-based modules to make the

addition of ADP content to existing courses easier. ISU also created a

Web site that connects interested faculty with ADP-experienced faculty

and with community and campus resources. In addition, the Web site

highlights a list of other opportunities for campus engagement. After

one or two years of this facilitated networking, a coordinating effort

in the faculty development center has become a primary force for

development of the American Democracy Project.

A wise administrator will also weave ADP goals (and funding) into the

campus’ existing structures and governance protocols. If enough faculty

become involved with teaching civic skills and engagement, it may be

reasonably simple, when the time comes for mission statement revision

and strategic planning efforts, to make civic engagement of faculty,

staff and students one of the stated goals or strategies of the university.

Once that is accomplished, some questions asked of departments

during program review, for example, might focus on whether (and

how well) the department incorporates civic engagement into its

curriculum. As program review at ISU was modified in this way, all 17

departments in Arts and Sciences moved to require civic engagement or

reflective service-learning in their capstone courses. As is done at many

institutions, existing resources related to the program review process can

now flow to assessment of ADP activities in the curriculum, as well as

aid in the revision, addition or support of these efforts.

Furthermore, many institutions require that unit-based budget requests

are presented and discussed in open hearings or in “transparent”

processes. In such cases, it is not uncommon to require that these

requests address ways in which, if funded, the results would help

further the aims of the institution’s strategic plan. If fostering civic

engagement becomes a strategy or goal of the campus plan, then

ADP and its goals become part of the shared vocabulary of the campus

and budget hearings will foster further campus-wide discussion of

civic engagement. Arguing for increased funding will then, in many

cases, involve arguing for civic engagement. For example, consider

a request for funding professional development schools in minority

neighborhoods—already a perfectly reasonable possibility as a



high budget priority by any measure. But, at a campus where civic

engagement is part of the strategic plan, this proposed project for using

neighborhood schools for the preparation of teacher candidates is much

more likely to include teaching civic skills and requiring reflective service

in these schools and neighborhoods.

The systematic teaching of civic skills and civic responsibilities appeals

in a strong, basic way to lawmakers, public officials and even trustees.

Provosts should make sure that their presidents are well armed with

facts about ADP any time the presidents are heading to the state capitol

or to Washington. Provosts should also ensure that their university

media offices are kept up to date about ADP. In addition, provosts

should not forget about ADP and its natural connection with private

fundraising. The American Democracy Project, in detail, should be a

part of the portfolio that development officers have at their fingertips

when meeting with potential donors. Faculty, staff, student and alumni

recognition programs are excellent opportunities for external support,

as is support for all sorts of ADP-related speaker programs. Many local

foundations, businesses and state government agencies may not be on

the list for support of large systemic grants or individual research grants,

but are very interested in the promotion of civic engagement.

But what does all this imply for an individual faculty or staff member

who needs to seek internal funding for a new ADP-related course

revision, program or activity?

Say you have found several sources for external funding—foundations

and government agencies—but you’ll not hear from them about their

final decision for over a year because you just missed the deadline for

this year’s funding cycle. Or worse, you have heard from them and the

answer was negative, they only offered you partial funding, or they

suggested that you revise your proposal and submit it again next year.

What do you do in the meantime if you’re waiting for an answer or

still working with your grants office to find more potential funders and

sponsors? What if your grants office has told you that your idea, while it

is extremely worthy, is just not a candidate for external support?

Do not forget the possibility of internal funding. And don’t forget that

funding from campus sources may be easier if you have partial external

funding or even if you have simply already prepared a request for

external funding. Acknowledgement of the importance of your idea



from a federal, state or community agency frequently causes potential

campus sponsors to take your idea more seriously or rush to join a

prestigious primary sponsor (this effect is even more profound when

your primary sponsor is a well-regarded foundation). Thus, don’t forget

to mention any such partial success when you are approaching campus

offices for funding.

Funding sources arrayed by your institution’s structure and processes

are your best, and most obvious, sources of funding: What discretionary

funds are available to your department? What is their usual use? Is there

a process and a timetable in which to apply for these funds? Similarly,

what discretionary funds are available in your dean’s office? Can you

convince your department chair to support or present your request for

funding to your dean?

And so on “up the ladder.” Do not move your request to the office

of the dean without your department chair’s support, or at least, the

chair’s knowledge. These sorts of requests for discretionary funds are

appropriate for the funding of small projects when no other funding is

available. Such small projects might include funding a visiting speaker,

the costs associated with students doing research on a problem for the

local community (such as planning new or more efficient bus routes),

or the one-time cost of sending senior nursing students to a local

elementary school to perform free physical examinations. Discretionary

funding is quite appropriate for such one-time or temporary events.

But don’t forget about the possible support from departments and

offices that you may have thought of as “non-academic” or “service.”

For instance, there is a small private college where even the Career

Placement Office was funded by a very generous endowment that

included discretionary money for furthering knowledge of its mission

across campus, among other things. You might be able to tailor the

aims and goals of your project to those of the Career Placement Office

(you may know, for example, that many modern corporate employers

expect their employees to be civically engaged with their communities).

Does your university have a centralized office for faculty development,

a Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL)? If your project is aimed at

revision of a course or even an entire curriculum, your CTL might be

able—as they are in most universities—to help with a small grant. And if

your proposal involves a change in teaching mode (say a switch in your



advanced writing class to deliberative democratic debate as a heuristic

to generate topics and logical development of these topics), a CLT is

probably your most relevant source of funds.

Think about your international studies office if your idea involves foreign

students or even information about democracy and civic engagement

in other countries. Are you planning to use the Internet to link your

students with Russian students for a discussion about voting issues

in Russia’s democracy? If your college of education happens to have

a large number of Thai alumni, and many of them work in Thailand’s

proprietary or royalized system of higher education, how can you

connect with the international studies office (or with the college of

education, for that matter)? Or with your office of alumni relations,

which might also be interested? Think of this office, too, if you want to

consider beginning award programs for alumni who have been models

of civic engagement in their careers. And, by the way, the farther you

move from the support of your department or college, consider using

the term “sponsorship” instead of funding. This is a basic example of

adapting your proposal to its on-campus “audiences.”

Think very broadly. Consider registered student organizations, many

of which emphasize civic engagement, or at least community service,

for their members. Consider your campus’ co-op or internship office,

which may have leaders hoping to connect their work with ADP.

Consider academic departments other than your own. If the project

you’re planning involves reflective journal writing after service-learning

activities, think of your English department or your writing center for

help and support—or should that be “sponsorship?”

You should even think about your division of finance, the vice

presidential area almost never approached for internal funding. But

some vice presidents of finance (probably not all, but a number worth

mentioning) are more positively oriented toward academic issues (or are

required or expected to be) than you might expect. These vice presidents

are pleased to be listed in brochures, posters or invitations as sponsors.

In addition, these divisions frequently have funds in place to be used for

staff development. And here, your human relations office might be of

direct help, too. Many employees of these divisions are already civically

or politically engaged themselves and can be valuable resources. Many

others attend speaker events or symposia on their own initiative—and

many more might attend if specifically invited. Including these folks,



even in a classroom-based project, might be truly innovative and serve

to spread the civic engagement activities more completely throughout

the campus. You will probably already find a mix of faculty, staff and

students in any campus green or environmental group, for example, and

linking them to ADP will certainly spread the message quickly.

Keep a file for every symposium, speaker or other event that comes

to your attention. Look at the brochures or posters and look especially

closely for the list of sponsors, which will usually be a longer and more

varied list than you might expect. All these sponsors apparently have

discretionary funding, so note the sponsors whom you think might

be interested in helping develop the American Democracy Project

more fully on your campus. This exercise should help you realize that

many departments and offices, despite their ever-present and possibly

accurate complaints about funding, frequently have discretionary or

endowment funds which, even if limited in purpose and use, may be

very relevant for your ADP idea.

Now some advice for presenting your idea to potential internal

sponsors:

w First, do not phone or show up for a meeting without your potential

sponsor having seen your proposal ahead of time. Even a phone call

puts your sponsor on the spot, seemingly demanding an immediate

answer.

w E-mailing ahead of your meeting is probably preferable, but be sure

to make your e-mail formal and include your request in an attached

memorandum or letter, not in the text of the e-mail, which makes it

seem less impressive.

w As with external grant requests, be precise and concise. Most

administrators are more likely to read and quickly understand a

4-page request rather than a 10-page request (a 2-pager is even

better).

w Focus on benefits to the campus, not benefits to your teaching or

your research agenda—you’d be surprised how often this mistake

is made. Focus on concrete benefits to the students and to the

curricula, then, if relevant, on the development of faculty at large.

Never focus entirely on your own development as a faculty member

and the ensuing benefits to the institution.



w Finally, as with a grant application aimed externally, include a

specific budget—but a short budget in this context—with the

major categories of expenses summarized. Be very specific about

the amount of funding you hope to receive from the potential

sponsor. You may want to put this amount in the very first sentence

of your proposal, which, again, should be in the form of a letter or

memorandum. My advice is to present a specific amount of funding

that is necessary, not a range of possible funding. If you include a

range, any experienced administrator will offer you the minimum

you have listed, maybe with an extra $100 or so, to fund the start of

the project and at the same time maintain your goodwill. After this

gesture, you’ll not be able to negotiate a higher amount—after all,

you said the minimum was acceptable!

Give your potential sponsor time to read your proposal/request, and

then call for an appointment (don’t give him or her too long to e-mail

a negative answer). When you call, be sure to be very specific about

the nature and topic of the meeting, so the administrator is prepared.

This simple, courteous step is often overlooked, but when you are direct

about your purpose, you are making sure that the potential sponsor will

have read the proposal, checked the relevant accounts, and may even

have a fast, positive answer waiting for you. It also gives him/her the

opportunity to refer you to an assistant or associate who might actually

be the correct person with whom to speak about the relevant accounts.

But if, for example, you have a systemic change in general education

in mind, if you or your General Education Committee want to create

a developmentally based program of civic skills, information, service

and engagement that would range sequentially across all your

institution’s general education courses, you will be asking for additional,

“permanent” (read: multi-year) resources. If you want to create a

centralized Office of Civic and Community Partnerships by combining

all currently existing support services for service-learning, co-ops, and

internships under one roof, it is legitimately a campus-wide issue. If

your one-time visit by nursing students was so successful that your

health administration students want to work at the elementary school

in tandem with nursing, and your teacher education colleagues or

your health and safety colleagues want to infuse health education

throughout the curriculum of that elementary school, your resource

needs will be larger, and you will find yourself participating in the

campus budget priority-setting process.



Once again, you (or now your committee) will need to garner political

support from chairs, deans, eventually provosts, and maybe other vice

presidents. You must also be aware of the timetable for your university’s

budget process. At some institutions, this process and its public hearings

begin in March (so you need to have finished your proposal by January

or February) and other university processes begin in September. You

would be astonished at the number of proposals that never enter the

process simply because the idea came to the proposer too late for that

year.

To garner support, you will need to match your goals with campus-

wide plans and priorities (see my earlier paragraph about the campus

“vocabulary” of strategic planning). This bending and matching of goals

will be simpler if the American Democracy Project is already a priority

of your campus, and your job will be easier—all you need do is tie your

idea to ADP and make the case that it is an appropriate and promising

addition to the current array of ADP activities.

If ADP is not part of your institution’s campus vocabulary, you will

need to make a case for the importance of your idea and a case for

the importance of civic engagement for your students. Your chances

for success are greater if you can make your case parallel the campus’

existing goals and strategies with current directions the campus is

taking. You may want, for example, to institute deliberative polling as

a common pedagogical link in all your department’s major courses,

or across relevant departments such as English, communications and

political science. Can you relate your idea to a campus priority of

developing capstone courses, first-year seminars or better retention of

sophomores? If there is a growing interest or demand for assessment of

learning outcomes, can these courses be set up so that the addition of

deliberative polling makes them good first data sites for the assessment

of learning outcomes? By the way, if possible, try to always build such

assessments into your plans for new initiatives.

If your proposal is made under the aegis of a shared governance

committee or council, or if you can arrange to have it presented under

the flag of a department, school or college, you may still need to

approach potential campus supporters just as you would approach

potential campus funders or sponsors.



In Summary

All the ways (and places) in which funding may be made available for

American Democracy Project initiatives imply a certain search protocol.

Even at the rare campus where ADP funding is truly centralized and

concentrated in a single office or in the hands of a single coordinator,

committee or task force, the activities related to ADP are of interest

in many areas across campus, so possible sources of funding are still

diffused across campus, as well.

Plan your approaches. Are you seeking one-time funding or are you

seeking continuing, multi-year, permanent funding? How large, and

therefore how expensive, is it going to be to implement your idea?

Are you hoping to have students socialize with, and ask questions of, a

speaker from Accenture Development Partnerships one evening about

the company’s program that sends up-and-coming managers to work

on non-profit projects? Do you want to start an annual speakers series

for all college of business students so they can hear directly from the

sources that American corporations support (and many require) civic

engagement of their employees at all levels? Do you want to create

an international study option that would link students with non-profit

or civic organizations abroad? Or, do you hope to create a version of

VolunteerMatch for college students—a Web-based system to pair

volunteers and non-profits? Do you want to create your version for

your college of business, your university, or all U.S. students? Put your

proposal down on paper, or on institutional budget request forms.

Begin developing support, or begin approaching potential funders. And,

good luck!

selling Your Programs: Audiences, Communications and External marketing

External AudiencesTake everything discussed in the previous two sections of chapter I

about internal communications and apply the same principles

externally. Redundancy may not be good everywhere, but it is definitely

good in communications.



1. Write op-eds or letters to the editor for your local papers. These

can be authored by the director, or by your president and a community

partner. For example, in 2006 California State University (CSU)

Chancellor Charles B. Reed authorized funds to be used to create

short videos highlighting some of the service-learning programs at the

CSU campuses. Six of the 23 campuses were selected to be featured.

A film crew and staff members visited the six campuses and created

the campus videos plus an overall CSU video. In tandem with the

videos, op-eds were written by or for the presidents and the community

partners featured in the video. The op-eds ran in the newspapers

and the videos were simultaneously posted on the campus Web site,

on CSU Web sites and on YouTube. This multi-pronged promotional

effort is known as a “four-baser”: campus Web site, system Web site,

YouTube and newspapers.

Because each approach was linked they made a bigger impact than

they would have as stand-alone presentations (further, the videos won

a national cable television award, which presented another opportunity

for internal and external marketing). This is a good example of

partnerships. Your offices should be well versed in partnerships,

since you have to partner with faculty and community organizations.

Remember: Partner for publicity.

Things multiply, often serendipitously. Two years after the CSU video

partnerships, one member of the system’s board of trustees wrote an

article on what the students/faculty do in her area of the state and it

ran in the local paper. Another trustee saw that, and wanted to write a

piece for his area and it also ran in the local paper.

2. Start an awards lunch and present a couple awards to on-

and off-campus people. This can turn into strong good internal

and external news story, and will generate more student, faculty or

community partner interest in your program. Additionally, it is nice to

recognize people for what they do for your programs.



3. Create an online newsletter.

w A quality online newsletter has short briefs that link to longer

pieces so that a reader can choose to read more of the story or see

great campus photos. It should also link to national issues that

put your program in perspective. To increase circulation, push the

newsletter out by e-mail to the system leadership, president, vice

presidents, deans and the campus public affairs/marketing offices.

E-mail it to both the campus and professional media. Select other

offices that you might partner with and e-mail it to them; they

then have the choice of when and how much to read. The more

you send it out, the farther the ball rolls across the campus and

your community. Ultimately, more people will know about your

programs.

w Be bold. Don’t be afraid to get out there with what you are doing.

The recipients can always make a decision to ignore what you

send. But if you don’t send people information, they will have no

perspective on what they don’t know.

4. Invite the media to attend a service-learning class or a civic

engagement project. Let them experience what your faculty and

students experience in the classroom and out in the community.

Obviously, always get the proper clearances, especially if you take

them to a school or place with young children. The best reporters

do their work by telling stories. They get a story by being there,

experiencing it. They can make it come alive. Sitting in an office

hearing about something might spark an interest, but if that is all they

do, the story won’t be nearly as compelling. When the story is printed

or broadcast, make copies of it and circulate it to your students,

faculty, staff and your community partners. If “the world” doesn’t see/

hear it, it might as well not have happened.

5. Best Practices. If your campus is part of a system, consider

partnering with another campus and cooperate on a media story.

Editors, no matter the medium, like a story that includes other

elements or illustrates a national trend. If you can identify a trend—or

better yet, predict a potential trend—and your campus is active in this



program area, you have the makings to pitch an appealing story. In

addition, funders like trends—they want to fund the programs that are

forward-looking, not what has always been done. For example, “green”

programs are hot now. What can you find that will be the next hot

issue?

Creating Campus and system Partnerships

This section will look at multi-campus programs within a higher

education system. Also, it will give an example of a campus partnering

with community college campuses in the region.

Many systems of higher education and individual campuses have a

“Hill Day” in Washington D.C. and a “Legislative Day” in their state

Capitols. The chancellor, presidents, key staff, alumni and students

attend these days and visit with lawmakers, and also traditionally

have media visits at the same time. Rarely do civic engagement or

community service students or faculty attend; rather, the highly visible

campus federal relations staff fills the sessions.

But in this age when people are bombarded with material through

e-mail, faxes, news alerts, postal mail, phone calls and the like, it

is important in these usually short visits that lawmakers see “real”

students who aren’t only involved in their academic studies, but those

who are engaged with their communities. These students often can

relate to a lawmaker’s constituents in ways that a president might not

be able to. They work/volunteer in their communities and know the

needs of their community partners. They might be just the people who

can sway a lawmaker to the side of the university on an issue.

There are other ways for community service and ADP programs to

partner with other entities for the betterment of students and the

community. These partnerships, no doubt, can be used to market the

programs internally and externally. California State University Channel

Islands (CSUCI), located in Ventura County north of Los Angeles, has

five “feeder” community colleges. These two-year campuses had few, if



any, service-learning/civic engagement programs as significant parts of

their curriculum. Coincidentally, The New York Times, an early partner

with AASCU in the ADP program, was interested in working with the

CSU in a pilot program to get community college students civically

engaged before they transferred to a university. The thinking was that

if they are involved in their first few years of college, upon transferring

they will remain engaged in their campuses and their communities

and become active, participatory citizens throughout their lives (and

read newspapers!). One reason that The New York Times selected the

CSU and the California Community Colleges is that both systems are

extremely large and diverse, and therefore, could serve as a model for

the rest of higher education as it trends to similar demographics.

Over the course of three years, faculty and staff from the CSUCI

president’s office, civic engagement office and regional community

colleges worked together to get a collaborative effort off the

ground. Titled the “Partnering Community Colleges, Universities

and Communities Collaborative,” the institutions have created

interdisciplinary and inter-campus partnership opportunities. This

began with strong, visible support from the university president, who

involved his peers at the community colleges. While it is not absolutely

necessary that it involve top administrators, an inter-institutional

program like this goes further and gains support at the other

institutions when there is a firm commitment from the leadership.

The campuses conducted four joint faculty workshops that resulted in

new service-learning/civic engagement classes; they have discussed

ways to facilitate the transfer of courses from the colleges to the

university, and the development of co-curricular transcripts, all with

the aim of easing the path to the university and degree completion.

They also discussed having all the institutions (and the county and

some of the surrounding cities) read the same book and then come

together in a unifying experience for the entire region. Even with little

funding, they have created lasting relationships that will benefit the

students and faculty of the university and the community colleges.



Another example of the marketing role The New York Times has played

in ADP comes from the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO). The

newspaper offers its readership program, Coffee with the Times, on

campus, advertises in the student newspaper and hosts an annual

speaker. Other partners with the university include Mobilize.org

and The Case Foundation, both of whom participated in UCO’s civic

engagement workshop during Constitution Week 2008 and will

assist in their goal of increasing student civic engagement at the

university. In addition, Oklahoma Campus Compact helps announce

their conferences and workshops, and provides helpful resources and

support.

Partnering with Community-Based organizations, including schools

In addition to partnering with community colleges, universities have

ample opportunities to work with community groups to seek support

and joint funding. Many funders look favorably on these kinds of

partnerships. Again, part of the key to successfully securing resources

is to effectively market your programs externally so that community

groups and K–12 schools know about you and aren’t scratching their

heads when you approach them.

One way to do this is to use ADP and service-learning/community

service students in marketing/communications and business classes

to help put together materials and a business plan for these activities.

This gives the students a chance to do “real world” work that will

benefit them when they get into the workplace. It also helps schools

and community groups, neither of which traditionally has the extra

resources to hire consultants to create such materials. Funders tend to

like university departments collaborating, and that work can then be

linked to schools or community groups for a larger impact.

Summary of Communications and MarketingMuch of what has been written in this chapter centers on one word:

relationships. Building relationships internally and externally is a key



part of successful communications and marketing. As an administrator

at Ferris State University (Mich.) put it, “campus-wide faculty/student

involvement and excellent administrative support” results in successful

marketing and networking. Simply put, while your job description

often doesn’t specify such tasks, if your programs are to grow, sparkle

and attract attention and new champions/donors, you must make

building relationships a part of your job. Set aside a half-hour everyday

to think about how better to tell people what you do and why they

should support your office. Then get out of your office and dive into the

campus or community mainstream.

Campuses still tend to work in silos, for the most part. But if you get

out and talk about what your students and faculty do for student

success, the more others on campus may join in and either work with

you or spread the word about what you do. It is absolutely the job of

everyone on campus to ensure student success, so that when students

go out into the workforce they are prepared to meet challenges and

stay civically engaged.

Your programs will succeed if they have campus champions, but

that won’t happen if you aren’t communicating and marketing your

programs. Internal support will help generate external support. Go out

and promote yourself . . . and have fun doing it.

CiviC EngagEmEnt • managEmEnt


It’s no surprise that the vitality of any program hangs on its

evolutionary promise. Without some pace of change, any program

will become stagnant, less interesting and less compelling. Happily,

more than three times as many American Democracy Project (ADP)

programs that initially failed to progress reported on the AASCU

national survey that they had grown in the past few years. They

described their growth mostly in terms of numbers—more events

were staged and more people were involved—changes that resulted

in expanded and enriched programs. At first glance, the movement of

the majority of programs is definitely in the right

direction. And yet, more than half those reporting

on the national survey (61 percent) described

their programs as marginal or in flux. Put bluntly

by one director, “We cannot sustain this effort

without a paid staff coordinator. It is a lot of work

for a volunteer group of people.” This plea for help

is disturbing when it speaks for the majority of

programs: Only a third (37 percent) of respondents

reported that their ADP was “central to the

institution.” If we are serious about educating

our students to become responsible citizens, then

administrators and program coordinators need to

be bold, declaring that students’ development as responsible members

of their communities must be central to the educational mission.

ii. tiPs for dEvEloPing ProgrAms

Photo provided by California State University San Marcos.



Programs that experienced growth mostly referred to an increase in

numbers, activities, and/or faculty and students attending events.

While level of participation is one indicator of growth, more substantive

improvements in civic engagement seemed to be missing on the

campuses. Civic skills that deepen learning or cause a shift in values

toward the common good—such as public communication, organizing

others and collective decision-making—are all indicators of civic

engagement. These behaviors, along with the numbers participating in

activities, put civic engagement more solidly at the core of education.

However, there should be no illusions about the difficulty in improving

civic education in these areas since we collectively acknowledge

that these issues are complex and difficult to effect. But once we

acknowledge their importance, the academic community can press

on to search for approaches for strengthening these aspects of civic

education.

While scholars test ways to deepen civic engagement in more complex

parameters, our programs can adopt tactics that will give them

greater influence over the educational experiences of students so that

their civic development moves away from the margins and toward a

more central purpose within our institutions. For a majority of ADP

directors, just supporting their most basic needs would go a long

way toward fulfilling the institutional commitments to ADP goals.

As reported from the “front lines,” ADP directors identified several

areas that could support program development: 65 percent wished

for more dedicated staff and faculty commitments to build program

capacity and for funding to “do more.” Others were less pragmatic,

but saw a void in principles that pushed ADP work to the institutional

margins, creating a lack of a clear vision and sense of permanency

in the programs. In principle and in practical ways, our institutions

must adopt strategies to overcome these challenges to link teaching

and learning to a culture of civic engagement. With this support, civic

education becomes evident in the ethos of the students and faculty

members.



Without a doubt, significant challenges exist: faculty interests may not

support pedagogical reform, the administration may have competing

priorities, financial resources will continue to be stretched, and

the local community may continue to be seen as detached from the

mission of an institution. Regardless of whether we can apply these

descriptors to our own campuses, we all share the mandate to educate

and train our students for life. And, if we accept the purpose of ADP

and other civic engagement programs, our mandate must include

educating responsible citizens. So, what changes and strategies might

our institutions adopt to bring civic engagement programs away from

the margins and locate them solidly within the institutional mission?

Readers of this guide will have varying levels of responsibility so the

scope of change each of us can affect varies. Looking at our own

sphere of influence within our organizations (What can I really do?

How far does my authority extend?) helps us focus on achievable goals

and leads to realistic plans for short-term and long-term changes that

are within our reach. Each program is unique in its place within the

institution, and those that sit at the upper levels of administration

may have a mountain top view of the institution’s programs. From that

perspective, the civic engagement director is able to be inclusive about

the universe of civic education, pulling in programs and activities that

relate to the common purpose and thereby giving them coherence and

synergistic reinforcements. But all programs can move closer to the

core of the institution by intentionally working on several key factors

as vehicles for moving the program toward the center. Put simply,

these approaches involve making certain that civic engagement is

appropriately positioned in the organizational structures and included

as an issue in strategic planning decisions. Depending on where the

director sits, approaching these issues requires political sensitivity,

but the importance of organizational structures and planning for

continuous change at any level is fundamental.



organization

The organizational architecture of an institution affects the kind of

work one accomplishes, the communication lines, and the culture

surrounding the work. Furthermore, the symbolic power of office

placement affects the way civic engagement is valued within the

institution. For example, are the civic engagement activities scattered

throughout the institution or do they reside centrally through an office

located in upper administration? Is that office connected to student

services, academic affairs, a dean or a president? Based on survey

responses, the majority of the programs (83 percent) report to the

provost, vice president or president. For those who do not have a seat

at the upper management table, this placement is crucial for gaining

recognition and support. One director reported, “Changes in leadership

at the president, provost, and dean’s level have invigorated the ADP in

the last year. Administrative support is starting to occur with a vision

for ADP and civic engagement as a core mission of the university.” In

contrast, another coordinator stated, “Our institution is in leadership

transition with an interim chancellor and provost. This is not a high

priority initiative on campus at this particular time.”

Regardless of the reporting relationships for the civic engagement

office, its activities also must effectively function at the top level,

demonstrating that the civic engagement activities are valued within

the institution. Who supports the daily work and who decides on

the program’s budget? Even on campuses where the office reports

to the president, who attends meetings and what kinds of activities

are endorsed hold significance for the credibility of civic engagement

activities. Working and reporting within the top administrative levels

demonstrates that civic engagement is important within the institution.

From this vantage, the program may more easily coordinate and

promote service throughout the institution by tending to a holistic

approach to students’ learning.



Top administrators, of course, must reclaim the place of civic

engagement within the institution’s mission and policies. Similarly, the

directors and staff of civic engagement programs can more explicitly

dedicate their groups to a vision and mission of engagement. These

two sets of guiding principles typically found in institutional and civic

engagement office mission statements should reinforce one another

and make capacity-building a mutually shared goal. For the ADP

group, the process of talking about their own mission statement across

a wide group of interested faculty, students and community partners

might clarify its place and bring welcome attention to its purpose.

And since only 60 percent of the programs reported strong connections

to community partners, directors might consider organizing a broad-

based advisory group, campus-wide steering committee or faculty/

student/staff project team. Such groups bring opportunities for

collective wisdom, raise the visibility of ADP to a public forum, and

serve to spread the purpose and activities of civic engagement across

a wider audience. One director reported on the survey, “The ADP

Steering Committee is now the umbrella organization for all campus

activities that focus on engaging students with the community, state

and world. There is a wide net cast that includes volunteering at one

end and political engagement at the other—but all with the objective of

helping to develop good citizens for our democracy.” An advisory group

that includes representatives from municipal offices, chambers of

commerce, political parties, legislative offices, schools and community-

based organizations (CBOs) could also provide useful guidance from

community perspectives. Engaging advocates from these groups

strengthens support for students’ learning in off-campus settings.



Policy Adoption

Beyond organizational structures, a variety of institutional policies

can strengthen the foundation of civic engagement and assure the

academic community that high standards can still exist within

a context of excellence. Aligning institutional policies with civic

values elevates civic engagement within the institution. Regarding

faculty, policy changes that include recognition and rewards for civic

engagement in the hiring, tenure and promotion systems send a

powerful message. Providing incentives for course development and

set-aside funds for research and scholarship projects that target civic

engagement issues encourage faculty to pay attention. As crude as

it might seem, providing stipends obligates recipients to a certain

outcome. As one institution reported, “ . . . by providing stipends and

workshops to faculty to incorporate service-learning into their courses

. . . the number of courses has gone from 15 to 26.” Sometimes change

can be bought.

Similarly, when action/community-based, participatory and applied

research are supported in ways that complement traditional research

methods, civic issues are recognized as legitimate areas of scholarship.

Showcasing civic engagement projects in publications and events

creates interest, and advances best practices among faculty.

Even when an entire institution does not place civic engagement at its

center, smaller units within a college or university can demonstrate

leadership by taking this goal seriously. Faculty departments can

collectively declare their intentions by engaging in a common focus

where faculty members collaborate as a unit and pursue mutually

beneficial resources for community-based or civic goals. In doing

so, faculty groups demonstrate the importance of civic-minded

responsibilities and articulate these goals to their student majors and

community partners; thus, the relationship to civic-focused pedagogy

becomes more obvious.



Policies that change the culture of the faculty are critical, but

ultimately strong connections also must be established with students’

learning so the students are able to see their education as meaningful

preparation for becoming citizens of the world. Institutions play out

these connections differently, some offering stand-alone courses

scattered across the curriculum and others offering more tightly

integrated models that involve increasing complexity and depth in civic

education. For students, these ties between civic purpose and learning

might mean curriculum requirements for graduation that include civic

engagement experiences and service. Departments might require the

development of student engagement from activity-based experiences

to more theoretical and personal exploration of civic values. Individual

coursework could intentionally integrate civic goals, recognize when

these goals are met, and give academic credit for learning through

service and experience.

These academic goals also can be reinforced through extra-curricular

activities and programs that infuse student life with civic-minded

purposes. When a wide variety of events are purposeful in supporting

civic engagement, the events strengthen one another. Many campuses

reported holding special events—film nights, walk-a-thons, community

fairs, crossword puzzle competitions, Pizza, Policy & Politics parties,

reading groups, news talk, and café chats—all of which add to building

a culture of engagement. When these events are facilitated by trained

staff and student leaders who can guide students toward reflection, the

events become opportunities for intentional learning outcomes.

Such student-centered events were likely on the minds of directors

when they reported on positive program outcomes. Many chose to

highlight their students’ achievements:

w “Our first-year seminar Youth Voter Registration and Education

Project unit has become a regular feature for four years now and

this year branched off into a campus-wide campaign with more

than 50 student volunteers organizing voter-related events.”



w “Prove it! With support from faculty and staff, our student

government association conceived, developed, and implemented

Prove It!, an initiative that challenged students to create a novel

and innovative project, service or event that would make everyone

proud to be a member of the campus community. Students

competed for up to $50,000 in funding to support implementation

of their ideas and an additional $5,000 as a reward for coming

up with the winning plan. The contest inspired countless

conversations and group planning sessions, 22 student teams

submitted entries. . . .”

w “Civic Imagination and Social Entrepreneurship Course: launched

in fall 2008, cross-listed by department of political science,

American studies, education and sociology, with the goal of

empowering and preparing students to work effectively in their

communities, social groups and democracy to initiate and achieve

social change . . .”

As students learn about real-life challenges they will face—whether

in an academic or extra-curricular context—their own experiences

in the community give them practice and transferable skills for later

life. One director reported, “During the last two years, we have placed

student civic engagement at the center of our ADP programming. Last

year, we created the ADP student coordinator position and formed an

ADP student board. It has made all the difference in our visibility on

campus.” Connections such as these to student leadership programs

and clubs, and coordination with student events, give synergy to the

academic programs on campus and contribute to developing civic

engagement as a way of life. The big events are obvious opportunities

for publicity and marketing, which also helps promote the institution

as civic-minded and underscores its culture of engagement.

As programs organize themselves for growth along a wide front—

institutional placement, collaborations with community/faculty/staff/

student groups, alignment with academic goals, and participation in

extra-curricular activities—the mere increase in the number of events



and people involved has a summative effect that serves to highlight the

work of civic education.

strategic Planning

With a broad base of community/faculty/student participation, the

civic engagement program is ready to move from outcomes of activities

toward making a qualitative impact on the learning environment.

To step into this phase of development, the civic engagement

oversight group needs a deliberate plan for developing programs and

projects from their initial stages toward a period of growth leading

to institutionalization. Assuming everyone is busy and at capacity,

spending time on tasks that don’t immediately increase numbers

or don’t add activities to the reports may seem wasteful. However,

developing a plan for growth and writing it down to share with others

at the institution (especially administrators) can mean the difference

between status quo and a program energized by change and attention

to emerging needs. While the outcomes will help promote ADP, even

the process can be productive for a variety of purposes:

w Goal-setting assists in focusing activities and brings coherence to

the program;

w Polling stakeholders increases their interest in the program and

widens the intellectual capital committed to its goals;

w Critically reviewing needs and expenses makes the budget realistic

and credible; and

w Marketing the program gains attention from administration and

others to invest in its continuing successes.

What follows are steps for a detailed and methodical project, which

draws from a model for a community-based research project. The

model can be adapted by pursuing certain aspects of the process on

a smaller scale. At the very least, civic engagement programs can



accomplish an initial step by taking the time to reflect on the program:

What does it do now? Has it drifted from its original purpose? Has it

grown stale or does it still have energy? Who is involved? After thinking

about the current value and activities of the ADP program, a reality

check should follow. Based on a sense of where the program is now,

the director must establish a few short-term goals and then begin to

collect some data that validates and informs those goals. The easiest

starting point for busy program directors, as reported on the survey,

is to collect outcomes-based information, which shows numbers and

builds a quantitative report on participation and activities. Program

directors can keep logbooks of activities that reflect trends over time.

The information that is harder to gather, and time-consuming to

organize and analyze, involves a mixture of methods that dig for

progress toward lofty goals. Programs seldom participate in a thorough

planning process for good reasons; it is difficult and time-consuming.

The process for a full-blown self-study of the ADP program may take

six months, depending on its scope. Such a study may be beyond the

time and capacity for an ADP program, but even the initial stages of

identifying some goals can set in motion the program’s continuing

development.

Data-GatheringFollowing a period of reflection, but before the process of data

gathering begins, it may be helpful to seek guidance from an

assessment expert; most campuses have someone who routinely

consults and leads evaluation and analysis efforts. A multi-faceted

self-study for strategic planning may seem beyond the reach of a

small office, but there is likely help on any campus for data gathering

and analysis. Consider partnerships with activities and people

whose expertise will assist your goals: a business or market research

course, which adopts your program as a context for a class project;

a service-learning student placed with you as an assistant; or a team

of committed colleagues to share the assessment tasks of the project,

such as staff from the institutional research or analytic studies

department.



The process of data gathering is time-consuming and sometimes

cumbersome, but enlivens reports, adds credibility and enables

directors to show the trends of their programs over time based on a

factual history. Once the methods are organized, the process can be

repeated periodically more easily. The kinds of information collected

can be included on a survey form, preferably one page each, focused

on all the stakeholders. If critical information can be gleaned from

instruments or added to sources already in use, such as the Collegiate

Learning Assessment (CLA) or the National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE), civic engagement programs can more easily

become integrated into the institutional culture. However acquired,

the information gathered through this process will be useful to the

program for years.

For a more comprehensive approach to assessment, solicit assistance

from a representative group of “invested” colleagues and request

student work-study money to help manage the process. You will need

to gather information from all the stakeholders—students, faculty

and community—both those who participate in civic engagement and

those who do not. Collect their opinions, their advice and their needs

through focus groups, interviews and/or surveys.

Search for model programs of civic engagement at similar institutions.

You want to probe for information from a variety of perspectives on

the model program’s successes and barriers to growth. Mine all this

information for trends and markers, and analyze what has been

collected.

Goal Setting and Action PlansIn collaboration with your stakeholders, set some short-term and

long-term goals, each buttressed by the data gathered, and provide

compelling reasons for change. Once goals are established, brainstorm

about an action plan for taking steps toward the goals. The action

plan can be widely communicated to recruit supporters who join the

campaign for program development or change. Short-term goals often

can be easily attainable, making the quick success a bridge toward



the next steps. By setting goals, regularly checking on progress

toward those goals and staying alert to opportunities, a program can

be responsive and relevant. Continuously looking outward at the

landscape and observing the initiatives that are coming out of the

president and/or provost offices, the trendy issues in the news and

what students care about can serve to maintain the efficacy of the

programs.

The civic engagement programs that are involved in a broad variety

of projects—advocacy or service-learning courses, community-based

research, ADP Initiatives—reported receiving “buy-in from faculty and

administration” and were “ . . . well recognized both on campus and in

the community,” as reported on the survey. A breadth of opportunities

provides many points of connection for students and faculty such that

civic engagement gets defined in varied and valid ways. Traveling along

this path leads toward a more fully engaged campus. For example,

“The project is established as an ongoing part of work done by the

University. We have name cognition among students, faculty, staff and

community members and constituent groups anticipate programmatic

activities. . . . University officials note the project in public remarks,

referencing in a way that assumes audiences know about the project.

. . . We are established as an aspect of the commitment to the co-

curriculum in Learning Communities and other pedagogical practices.

. . . Our project is established, perceived as consistent and reliable,

but also maintains an activist posture.” This institution is a model

of a campus-wide program, and yet with intentional plans, all civic

engagement offices can take steps (even if only small) in this direction.

This process of self-study overlaps many of the fundamental steps in

writing a proposal for funding. The outcomes data, stories and details

gathered are all fodder for a request for funding support (see later

chapter). Meanwhile, program directors should continue to gather even

modest amounts of information regularly, encourage creative analysis

of the results, and share the findings with administrators and others

who have an interest. Sharing the outcomes from this assessment

can bring resources and recognition to the program, both within the

institution and from the community.



As part of the planning activities, remember to include outreach

activities in weekly or monthly agendas. Marketing of programs often

is neglected due to the press of responsibilities surrounding daily

activities, but it is one of the most important things for program

development. Keep marketing at the top of your “to-do” list and assign

someone to pay attention to this task. Try to include marketing and

outreach activities with every major event you do, if only as a reminder

within your own institution. Develop a template that details what is

happening, who is participating, expected outcomes, why others might

be interested, and contact names. Then each time an event or “story”

is planned, the template can be easily filled in and circulated to let

others know (see the Communications and Marketing chapter for more

details).

Consider the implications of this statement from the survey: “We have

institutionalized many of our ADP initiatives in our Institute for Civic

Engagement (ICE), which has three components: Service-Learning,

Community Outreach, and Community Research and Economic

Development. . . . We operate our civic engagement activities under the

ICE banner, yet we always add “affiliate of the American Democracy

Project.” Name recognition has helped this institution establish a

campus-wide identity.

Advertising events and programs is worth the investment, but if you

have a small budget, try printing flyers from your desktop. Even the

most common software programs now contain a publishing program.

With more time, consider developing a Web site that links to resources,

announces events and connects people on campus. Other technologies

like podcasts (one school reported creating podcasts of all ADP talks

and panels) and blogs, Twitter and electronic messaging, television and

radio broadcasts on campus networks, and special listserves spread

the ADP name. Writing, marketing or technology-focused courses

could provide expertise and opportunities for students to support these

marketing needs. Special events deserve publicity beyond the campus.

The public relations office on campus is often searching for human

interest stories.



Communicating what we do is one of our most important tasks, and

it is often the most neglected. Because it may not have immediate

or tangible results and is not required for the success of a program,

marketing can be easily overlooked. But its short- and long-term

effects are fundamental to developing a program. Spend the time and

energy marketing requires, and the program will receive attention and

opportunities for growth (read the Communicating and Marketing

chapter for additional helpful tips).

Assessment

Regardless of how long a program has been functioning, a

developmental change that will make an impact on the institution and

its students requires purposeful work. An assessment strategy will give

legitimacy to that work, and make it accountable to the institution and

the people served by the program. A productive assessment, though,

is difficult to organize and seldom fully accomplished. Our survey

respondents were equally divided in their judgment of whether or not

their institutions had done a good job of assessing civic engagement.

Generally scholars seem to agree that assessing civic engagement is

problematic, but nevertheless it is a process that will find weaknesses

and document realities, which inevitably will strengthen programs.

Before any meaningful assessment can happen, the program must

decide on goals. Once goals are established, then questions can be

asked as to whether a program is meeting its goals successfully. It may

be obvious, but one can’t know which direction to go, what marker

signs to watch for, or how to get from here to there if the end point is

not defined. Clear, intentional goals help determine what information

to look for to indicate a program is progressing on the right track.

Many institutions manage “assessment” through various means of

counting and recording activities. For example, if an institution has a

goal—even one that is unarticulated—to increase student activity in

civic engagement, then the number of students participating is one

valid indicator of success. But increased activity is likely a subset of



outcomes connected to a much deeper goal—developing good citizens.

The number attending an event becomes an indirect measure of this

loftier goal. Assessing progress toward the goal of educating students

to be responsible citizens is tricky, but can be accomplished through a

direct measure and an “authentic” assessment that is germane to the

goal.

Most directors reported on the survey that assessment was one of

their most difficult tasks, recognizing how critically important an

assessment strategy is for program growth. Taken together, the wide

variety of methods used by ADP directors and their mixed results,

all point to the difficulty of assessing the impact of civic engagement

on students and institutions. The challenge of valid assessment is

acknowledged and the ability to offer generic guidance is problematic.

But, the importance of assessment requires that everyone associated

with civic engagement contribute to the collection of appropriate

measures.

At the risk of over generalizing, the measurement tools of civic

engagement can be classified into three broad categories: individual,

programmatic and institutional. The breadth of information already

collected on civic education suggests scholars may be in the midst

of a paradigm shift. Research efforts are slowly gathering a body of

evidence that will better document the effects of civic engagement

on students’ gains in civic attitudes and thinking skills, their

understanding of intellectual issues, their civic behavior, and their core

values. And the backdrop for measuring students’ gains is to assess

ways the institution and the civic engagement programs might better

support social responsibility among students and faculty members.

Many organizations and researchers are contributing to this

assessment tool kit. A quick search yields thousands of references,

which point to the interest and the problem. Broadly applicable

and direct assessment tools for civic engagement are still under

development. Remembering that our authority and sphere of influence

are limited, a feasible assessment plan is likely one that has a well-

defined context. As ADP and civic engagement directors, it obviously



will be most feasible to start with your own program and define ways to

study its goals. Without these limits to guide the choice of assessment

strategies, one can easily get lost in the black hole of multiple points of

analysis.

The following is a short list of research-based strategies that are often

cited as useful:

w The Education Commission of the States, through its service-

learning project, the Compact for Learning and Citizenship, has

developed a database of assessment measures of individual civic

competencies including knowledge, skills and dispositions. Their

resources support standards (mostly for the K-12 community) of

civic education analyses, and their database includes assessment

questions for the competencies these standards are attempting

to advance. (See http://www.ecs.org/html/projectspartners/clc/

CLCCivicMissionSchools.htm.)

w The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) uses self-

reporting data to measure student’s individual civic engagement

activities and is widely used on campuses. (See http://nsse.iub.

edu/index.cfm.)

w Additional resources can be found at the Center for Information

and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE),

especially “The 19 Core Indicators of Civic Engagement,” which lists

measures of civic, electoral and political engagement. (See http://

www.civicyouth.org.)

w While primarily for service-learning coursework, the primer

published by Campus Compact, Assessing Service-Learning and

Civic Engagement: Principles and Techniques, includes a toolkit

for assessment measures and suggests a model to be used for

assessing continuous improvement of programs. (See http://www.

compact.org/category/resources/assessment/.)



w Campus Compact has supported other studies, including their

“Campus Assessment of Civic Responsibility” and “Indicators of an

Engaged Campus,” both of which offer categories for measuring

institutional baselines. (See http://www.compact.org.)

w Similarly, the Kellogg Foundation’s Forum on Higher Education

for the Public Good reports on the “Dimensions of Engagement”

on campuses through its National Leadership Dialogue Series

designed to measure the engagement of institutions. (See www.

kelloggforum.org.)

Other methodological tools also rely on self-reporting, a technique that

has its own inherent limitations. However, since these tools are valid

and reliable bases for reporting, perhaps they are more useful for the

institution because they allow for comparisons across the country.

Many of these survey instruments incorporate questions about civic

engagement. UCLA’s Cooperative Institutional Research Program

(CIRP), started in 1966, is likely the most comprehensive assessment

of student attitudes and plans, including voluntary activities like

voting. Because CIRP is a nationwide study of first year and senior

students utilizing longitudinal data, it can address fundamental

questions shared by many institutions: CIRP data answers questions

about trends in students’ civic engagement; the effects of students’

participation in community service during college, and ways in

which college impacts students’ civic values and behaviors after they

graduate. The data indicate that students who volunteer while in

high school have a 2:5 likelihood of continuing in college. But these

students, and those who did not participate in civic engagement

during high school, are no different in their likelihood of volunteering

after college: 50 percent of those who volunteer in college are likely to

continue. A recent CIRP report on student outcomes concluded that

students’ service positively impacted the following:

w Measures of life skills—including leadership, social self-confidence,

critical thinking, conflict resolution and understanding of national

and community problems;



w Educational achievements—including retention, grades, degree

aspirations, academic self-concept and general knowledge; and

w Civic responsibility—including a commitment to serve the

community, help others in difficulty, clean up the environment,

influence social values, and influence the political structure.

In fact, the longer a student was engaged, the stronger the effects of

service.

In the CIRP study of ways college impacts students’ civic values and

behaviors after graduation, researchers found similar positive results:

w Students were likely to continue their commitment to social

activism;

w Students believe that an individual can change society; and

w Students participate in volunteer work after college.

CIRP offers special services for ADP and Campus Compact institutions

that enable directors and their supervisors to gather comparative

data on community engagement practices and beliefs and maintain

an institutional record. Their services include survey formats for

faculty. While there is a fee, directors might wish to check with their

institutional information offices and administrators to consider this

opportunity for assessment. (See http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/

faculty.html for more information.)

The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), developed by the Council

for Aid to Education (CAE), is another standardized nationwide study

that surveys the “value-added” learning outcomes for students as

a result of their undergraduate experience. Thus, CLA provides a

summative evaluation of the institution’s educational programs to

assess whether students actually improve their learning outcomes as

a result of their time at the institution. The CLA is a “direct” measure

of students’ learning in that they require a student to actually perform



a task as opposed to “report” on one. The CLA surveys focus mostly on

critical thinking and reasoning, writing skills, analytical reasoning and

problem solving. The online survey is completed in real time, taking

into account the complex inter-relationship of students’ learning

outcomes in these cognitive areas. CLA is also involved in developing a

library of rubrics targeting more specific learning goals. For example,

students are invited to complete rubrics during their first and senior

years to gather benchmark information about the positive, negative

or neutral value of their participation in civic activities. Like most of

the institutional surveys, participation in CLA costs the institution a

subscription fee. (See http://www.cae.org/content/pro_collegiate.htm.)

Currently the American Association of Colleges and Universities

(AAC&U) is undertaking a collaborative project with the American

Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the

Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (A•P•L•U) to inform

the national dialogue on assessment of college student learning.

VALUE (Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education)

will gather information about student learning that cannot easily be

analyzed through standardized tests. This effort involves teams of

educator-researchers who are now developing specialized rubrics,

including one on civic engagement that will help assess student-

learning outcomes. Eventually the rubrics will be collected and used to

build student e-portfolios as evidence of learning.

Related to the work of civic engagement, and specifically the

development of core values, is the emerging attention given by

educational institutions to students’ ethical and moral reasoning.

Questions are surfacing about the role of education in preparing

students for higher stages of moral reasoning and actions, in which

they demonstrate an appreciation for social good as opposed to self-

interest. For just one example, studies which follow Kohlberg’s stages

of moral development attempt to engage students in developing

their own opinions about ethical dilemmas to involve them in deeper

reflection on what is ethical or right. Kohlberg’s technique involves



short scenarios that describe a situation with a number of possible

outcomes as a method to explore how choices and moral judgments

are made. This and other national dialogues, including institutional

goals related to diversity, suggest that institutions need to take a

more intentional role in the ethical development of their students—

something on which civic engagement programs should capitalize.

Summary of Tips for Developing ProgramsIn order to position your civic engagement program for continuous

improvements, adopting the following strategies will be helpful:

w Get access to and support from upper administration.

w Create a diverse advisory/steering group (faculty, staff, student,

community, PR) or project teams to spread responsibilities

and broaden base; meet regularly with all involved and have a

substantive agenda.

w Engage in programmatic self-study as on-going practice.

w Develop short bullet lists of near-term and longer-term goals based

on broad input.

w Collect and track data. Provide quarterly or periodic reports that

highlight accomplishments, works in progress, plans. Make it

simple. Be accountable.

w Tell the story that others need to hear.



Rarely can a program, even one that shows growth and manages

to be in the public eye, sustain itself through energy and

commitment alone. Eventually a plateau (or a wall!) will be

reached without the infusion of support. As one director candidly wrote

in response to a question on the survey, “There has been no funding

for the project. The lack of funding has hindered our progress.”

Another wrote, “We are still a bit disjointed . . . we have no $, nor

secretary, nor reassigned time for faculty coordination.” A budget

not only provides resources for a program’s activities; a budget gives

recognition and stability to a program, enables its

leaders to make plans, and offers tangible evidence

to the college community of the program’s value.

Administrators generally recognize this truth and

support most (88 percent) of the civic engagement

programs through basic internal funding.

American Democracy Project (ADP) program

budgets were established through a variety of

sources: an administrator’s budget, tuition-based

revenues, creative partnerships in sharing costs

for events and/or salaries, or occasionally even as

a line item on the institution’s budget.

While these internal sources are undoubtedly helpful, nearly all

the directors reported that they could use more funding. Without

the means to follow through, their ideas are constrained by scarce

resources. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (64 percent) reported

iii. A winningProPosAl

Photo: A Stockton student volunteer aids an elderly resident at local senior assisted living

center.



they had received no outside funding, so were relying on internal

support or commitments from colleagues. These resources, inevitably,

are inadequate to sustain a program over time, especially during

fiscally difficult times.

The barriers to finding support resonate across many programs, as

reported on the survey, with most directors citing these factors: a lack

of time to commit to grant-writing and/or fundraising; the perception

of fierce competition for a few dollars; a lack of potential funding

sources; and a limited institutional commitment or focused campaign.

Addressing these challenges requires thought and skills, and a process

for getting from here to a clearly stated goal. Learning the process—

whether it involves marketing programs, finding sources of funds,

writing a proposal, or positioning a program for growth—results in

taking steps along an organized path.

The 35 percent of the civic engagement programs that have received

outside funding exemplify possibilities for all institutions. It’s

worth noting, however, nearly half of those that are supported from

outside the institution have received funds from individuals, private

foundations and/or corporate managers. This funding is often based

on personal connections and not a competitive grant application and

review process. Private sources are often more difficult to find and

the means to access their funds is frequently vague. Private support

results not as much from skills in writing the argument and crafting

a proposal for a group of unknown reviewers; these funds often are

based on personal contact and conversations. And if a proposal is

requested, it will be short and in letter format. Memorize a few points

of data that have a “wow’ quality; know several stories of students

and programs that made a difference to drop these “bits” into the

conversations with administrators, community groups and corporate

leaders. Prepared directors never know when they will encounter

someone who would be willing to fund an activity.

The credibility of your funding request, whether from internal or

external sources, is based on the written proposal. And though it

may seem daunting to write, the task is a process and learning the



steps to the process will take you from a blank page to a full-blown

proposal. Think of the process as a slightly complicated recipe. Once

you are focused on the outcome and have clear goals in mind, writing

the proposal becomes a sequence of steps in a particular order. The

point is, once the steps for putting together a proposal are known,

information for each section can be collected over time. Eventually

data-gathering, researching best practices and assessing your

program’s capacity for growth all combine to pull the proposal together

into its final form. Becoming familiar with the process means that the

writer knows what the outcome will be and understands there are

specific things that must be done to realize a fundable project.

Finding a potential funder for a project or program comes after ideas

are developed and put into an organized format for others to review

and critique. Assume that with some persistence, someone—whether

within your own institution or through an external funding source—

will support a worthwhile project. Even before knowing exactly which

funder should be approached, begin down that path by writing a very

brief, brainstormed description of the project and giving some thought

to how those ideas can become activities. By answering some key

questions posed below, a writer will have laid out the sections of a

proposal, which can be circulated for responses and suggestions from

colleagues and critiqued by potential funders. A request for support

gains legitimacy when it is documented—when the needs are clarified

and given weight and strength through some written descriptions. A

mistake often made is to let the possibility of funding drive one’s initial

thinking. Only after ideas are put to paper should the grant-seeker

earnestly look for funding support. (Later in the process, when ideas

are clarified, the funder may wish to help shape the project to get it

closer to the funder’s interests.) This chapter of the guide will lay out

the sections of a typical proposal.

A Proposal Concept Worksheet is included here (Appendix C) to start

the development of a proposal so that the outline of the project can

be shared with others. The worksheet is a useful tool to begin the

conversation with supervisors, vice presidents, colleagues, grants office

staff and others who might be able to help move the project along. Use



bullet points and include only the essential points on the worksheet.

In this way you are not asking for excessive amounts of time and

attention from busy people, but are informing them of possibilities and

asking for their advice, ideas and even money! Completing the concept

worksheet achieves several purposes: gathering support for a project

in a wide variety of ways, providing others with the opportunity to join

in the effort, inviting their suggestions on ways to improve or change

the project, and, most importantly, demonstrating the seriousness of

your needs. Taking responsibility to get the writing process started also

makes it easier to share the writing tasks with others.

Project Concept WorksheetOne to two pages [see Appendix C]

w What do you want to do? Briefly describe the project.

w Why is the project important or needed? What will be

improved/ changed as a result? What are the benefits and

for whom?

w What are the main activities, the timeline for the project

and who will be involved?

w What are outcomes? How will these be assessed?

w What budget is needed for personnel and non-personnel

expenses?

w Who are the collaborators and partners already involved?

What are their contributions?

Once the Project Concept Worksheet has been completed and is

circulating within the institution, the next steps involve walking

down several paths at the same time. One path is a search for

compatible funders (see chapter VI) and the other involves gathering

the information to write a fully developed proposal to request financial

support. The grants office at your institution is a good resource for

ideas and help in finding funding sources.



When a draft is ready, approach the search for funds methodically.

Remember that no two projects and no two sponsoring organizations

are the same. Each project and sponsor brings together new sets

of circumstances, potential possibilities and results. It may be that

a search will find sponsors for certain parts of a bigger project and

through this piece-meal approach, it is possible to get the whole

project supported. (The general rule in combining funding sources is

that federal money can be matched with money coming from private

and state sources, but cannot be matched with other federal money;

whereas private and state funders generally can be matched with any

other source of funds.) When presented with a short list of funders

whose funding goals align closely with your needs, very carefully

match the proposal to the funder’s guidelines. At this step of the

process, it is critical to read every word of the funders’ guidelines

and application materials, noting specific requirements, deadlines,

exclusions, eligibility details, levels of funding and so on. Missing a

crucial detail considered important by the funder can mean a proposal

will not even be considered. When reviewing the funding guidelines,

look carefully at funding priorities and try to incorporate some of these

into the proposal. Doing this may stretch the project in new ways, but

the result will be a closer fit with the funder’s priorities, and thus, the

proposal will have a better chance for success.

While the search for funding sources continues with assistance from

grants offices and others, you are compiling the information that will

give the proposal its foundation. No matter what sources of funding

emerge as the most promising, proposals generally all have the same

basic format so a grant-seeker can begin to sketch out ideas and find

reference data even before a funding source is identified. A request

for funding (a proposal) includes the following sections, which become

subheadings for data collection. Using the subheadings as a way to

organize information, the results of brainstorming or discovery of a

supporting document can more easily be associated with the relevant

section. Eventually the information develops into a first draft of a

proposal. The parts of a proposal are more fully described later in



this chapter of the guide; they are summarized here in the order they

should appear in the preliminary proposal:

a. Summary or abstract—do this section last.

b. Background and context for this project—use statistics and

specifics whenever possible—this section can be refined

throughout the proposal process.

1. Description of what has already been accomplished

2. Description of what is already available in the community

and the needs this project fulfills

3. Capabilities and qualifications of key players

c. Statement of Significance or Need—use compelling and logical

writing that includes a rationale, which demonstrates a high

probability of success. Start with even a vague idea or hunch

and then document.

d. Goals are the broad strokes of the project, and objectives

focus the project with specific and measurable statements of

accomplishments. A goal statement may be the first concrete,

solid statement written in a proposal—begin here.

e. Strategies and plans for achieving goals and objectives. Lay out

the activities and describe who will be involved, when events

will occur and what outcomes are expected from the activities

proposed. Outline activities as the second task.

f. Assessment/evaluation of project may be extensive and may

require both formative and summative analyses by someone not

connected to the project:



1. Formative assessment plan is determined before initiation of

the project and includes data gathering at regular intervals

throughout the project period. This involves analysis of

information and reports that serve as feedback to the key

players in the project on ways to improve.

2. Summative assessment is scheduled after the project ends

and is done by an objective expert who analyzes all the

accomplishments and information from throughout the

project. This report gives feedback on the overall success of

the project in meeting its goals.

g. Project timeline and marker events for activities and outcomes.

h. Budget matches closely the activities and lays out costs for

the project to be implemented. Costs must be reasonable,

consistent with activities and explained with enough detail that

they can be justified. Sketch a budget as the third step.

i. Supporting documentation and signatures from those officers

of the institution who have the authority to sign on behalf of

the institution. Appendices should be limited and may include

resumes, letters of commitment (not support), partnership

agreements, etc.

If finding the time to write a proposal seems impossible, parse out

the sections and work on them in spurts. Even when not engaged in

writing, a writer can keep an intellectual diary on a computer or in

a desk drawer with folders labeled for potential projects. Every time

a good idea or practice is discovered, or data is found that supports

the project’s plans and vision, copy it into the folder as a resource.

When you can, write a little on one section of the proposal, or ask

that someone else do so. Most proposals are less than 20 pages,

some considerably less. Sometimes a complex project with multiple

partners and a huge budget may be longer. But more often than not,



the final proposal will be 10–15 pages. Knowing that reviewers must be

convinced in so few pages, the proposal should be focused, filled with

specific details and dense with information. There is no room to waste.

Approach this writing assignment knowing that the choice of

information will lead readers toward a conclusion and convince

them of the worth of the project. During the second or third draft

of a proposal, ask that someone else read it with the review criteria

in mind. Is the proposal clear and convincing? Does it answer the

reviewer’s questions? Is the information easy to find and the formatting

of the proposal organized logically under subheadings? Are strong

verbs and specific details used? The following pages describe in more

detail what information is included in each section of a proposal.

A Project summary

Many funding agencies require that a project summary, or abstract,

be submitted with a proposal. The summary should be short

(preferably less than one page, or about 250–450 words; often the

length is specified in the guidelines) and should accurately describe

the proposed project. Very often the project summary is the first and

could be the only thing a reviewer reads. In fact, a lifeless, poorly

documented abstract may cause a reviewer not to read any more of the

proposal.

The summary is not an introduction to the proposal. Rather, it is an

overview of the proposal, filled with details and passion. Because it

encapsulates the highlights of the project and draws in reviewers, a

summary should be written last, after the full proposal is developed.

Specifically, it includes statements about the need for the project,

the readiness of your organization to meet those needs, the proposed

methods, evaluation plans and expected outcomes. It is wise to

indicate how the project matches the funding organization’s mission.

If a dollar amount is included in the summary, list only the total cost.

Finally, name the project director, title and reporting line.



A summary usually presents information in the same order as it

appears in the proposal, which “sets up” readers for what follows by

providing them with the most compelling points from the full proposal.

List the proposal subheadings as an outline for the summary. Since

it is the first thing reviewers read, the summary occupies a critically

important position within the proposal. While you likely already have

strong writing skills, the following tips might assist in rewriting that

first draft:

w Avoid use of the first person (even though the first person writing

style may be appropriate for the rest of the proposal) since the

summary/abstract must often stand alone.

w Use plain, but scholarly language. If certain words are unavoidable,

define unfamiliar terms, acronyms and symbols the first time they

occur in the summary. Be sure each is also defined the first time it

appears in the proposal.

w Avoid graphs or tables in a summary; they take up too much space.

w Resist reference to the proposal itself; a project summary may be

published or distributed without the proposal.

w Use active, not passive, voice and action-oriented strong verbs.

Write from the heart.

w Avoid opening sentences with empty words like it and there.

w Be positive, not iffy, and decisive, not mushy. Avoid words such as

probably, seems, apparently, possibly, hopefully and may.

w Be careful to avoid stereotyping or making assumptions.



Background and Context for the Project

This section of the proposal sets the stage for your project. A common

misunderstanding about this section is that it introduces readers to

your organization and so writers mistakenly include extraneous details

from the institution’s bulletin about the academic programs and

irrelevant information about the institution’s history. Aside from a few

well-chosen words that describe your institution in a short paragraph,

this section must put the project at its center. The purpose here is to go

back in time and offer only the most compelling historical context and

background that set the stage for the civic engagement program as it is

today.

Include specific dates or timelines to describe when and how the

program began, and what has already been accomplished that is

relevant to the proposed project. Be sure to use statistics and specific

details, including the number and examples of activities, and growth

in terms of people and/or programs. Be clear about the purpose of

the project proposed and the needs that the programs have fulfilled.

Identify partners in the community and across the institution who

have been significant players in this story. When the program is

described in this way, its strengths and successes are emphasized,

thereby promoting the program as solid and poised for that next step.

Very few funders want to take a risk and invest in a program that may

be on a shaky foundation or coordinated by people who lack experience

with similar activities or vision of the purpose.

Now that the wider picture has been described (often in not more than

one page) and the reviewers have become confident in the abilities

of those involved to accomplish the goals, the proposal transitions

to a description of the project to be funded. The Background section

convinces readers that the program is capable of moving to the next

level.



the statement of significance or need

Even though this section establishes the foundation of a proposal, a

description of what needs to be done often derives from an experienced

hunch or critical observation, a request from someone who identifies a

need, or knowledge of best practices elsewhere that could be adapted

to one’s own program. There is a reason for writing a proposal:

Something is missing, services are inadequate, particular activities

cannot be accomplished, a specific group of people needs help to move

forward, more work should be done, more people should be involved.

So, what is it that needs to be improved? In answering this question,

this section documents the compelling reasons for writing a proposal

and tells reviewers why you need their support.

This section provides the rationale for the project. Use some of the

following techniques to give weight and credibility to the proposal.

w Make clear with statistical data and/or real-life examples that you

understand the problem or the scope of the issue the proposal

addresses.

w Give reasons why this is an important issue to address, not only to

your institution and program, but also to the surrounding region

and state. Make a connection with the priorities of the funding

agency. What might happen if the need is not met?

w Clarify the aspect(s) of the situation that the project will address,

and what gaps will be filled.

w Give the project validity by comparing it with a similar situation

elsewhere and the results that others have achieved. Show your

knowledge of the issues surrounding the proposed project by

including references to illustrate what is being done or what others

are thinking about this problem.



w Give evidence of the significance of this project through the voices

of others who are involved and illustrate why they share your

interests in this project.

This section takes one to three pages to set the stage for the proposal

and provides a jumping off point for your ideas and the goals of the

project.

Project goals and objectives

The proposed project responds to the situation described in the Needs

Section. The goals and objectives of the project are succinct statements

that say what you propose to do. Goals are broad strokes, bulleted

statements about the purpose of the whole project. For example, a

goal might be to embed civic engagement activities more firmly at the

center of the institution. This is a general statement that gives some

parameters to the project—a specific institution, civic engagement

rather than biology—but a goal provides few details. A proposal often

has only one or two goals, and usually does not exceed four or five.

The number of goals depends on the scope of the project and its

issues. The wider the reach of a project, the more goals it proposes,

the more complex the project becomes, and the more likely it is to

face challenges in achieving its goals. Generally, you will have greater

success by focusing on just a few goals at a time.

Proposals often include both goals and objectives, which connect to

one another in a hierarchical relationship. Objectives relate directly to

a particular goal and are statements about activities that will support

that goal. (Objectives do not say how goals will be accomplished.

These action steps should be listed in the Activities section.) A well-

considered project will typically have one to three main goals, several

objectives related to each goal and many action steps that will lead

participants toward achieving each objective and ultimately the goal.

Objectives give more detail to the goal and state who is going to do

what, when they will do it, and how it will be measured. In support of



the goal to embed civic engagement at the center of the institution, an

objective might state, for example . . .

w By the end of this fiscal year (when), the provost (who) will promote

civic engagement activities across the curriculum (what) as

determined by the number of new community-based courses to be

taught in the next three years (measure).

or

w The provost (who) will centralize civic engagement activities (what)

by establishing a new administrative office by the end of this fiscal

year (when).

Objectives clarify the desired end results of the project, but not

how those results will be accomplished. For example, an objective

would not be “to distribute curriculum development funds to

encourage adaptation of coursework to include experiential learning

opportunities.” This is a method, or one way to support the objective

of promoting civic engagement activities across the curriculum.

Remember that our goal of embedding civic engagement at the center

of the institution may have several objectives. When brainstorming

about defining objectives, consider what other areas or opportunities

can be affected by successfully achieving the goal. Since the example

above focuses on the curriculum, another objective might focus on

faculty scholarship. For example, another objective for this same goal

might state:

w Increase the number of action research projects or applied research

activities connected to the outside community (what) conducted by

science faculty members (who) within the next five years (when).

and/or

w Increase the level of faculty involvement (who) in community policy

issues (what) by supporting an annual (when) publication (how)



of research-based white papers derived from community needs-

assessments as measured by surveys of stakeholders (measure).

Even though objectives are usually statements, research objectives

can be framed as hypotheses or as research questions. Research

objectives/hypotheses are generally short. For example, research

objectives might say . . .

w What are the effects of contaminated sewage on the drinking water

in Downstream Township?

w What percentages of houses in Impoverished Neighborhood have

lead paint and what municipal ordinances protect the landlord and

residents?

w What government policies are needed to ensure inoculations of

infants with no health coverage?

The goals and objectives can usually be identified in less than one

page (unless the project is large in scope). Next, the strategies and

activities should be described to show reviewers that the project is

well-organized and feasible within a certain time period.

Plan of Activities for the Project

This section shows reviewers that the project is already carefully

organized to achieve its goals and objectives. The details are included

about what will happen when, who will be involved, and what results

can be expected. This is the most concrete and practical section of the

proposal because it provides the particular guide as to how the project

will be implemented and operationalized.

Even though the project might already be underway, the action steps

outlined in a proposal begin after announcement of the grant award.



Timeline Who’s Resources Start and Potential Outcome Action Steps Responsible Needed End Dates Obstacles Documented Assessment Measures

Write job description Provost Time Week Not Ad and Job approved, and start-up budget 1 approved resources account set up

Advertise in a variety Asst. ~$3,000 Weeks Ads not Pool of # of ads placed, # and of places Provost 2–10 timely candidates profile of candidates Search Committee Asst. Time Weeks Applicants College- All constituencies organized Provost 2–4 rejected by wide reps. represented committee Interviews and job offer Search Food Weeks Pick does New hire Search/hire successful Committee budget 10–14 not accept

Start designing the action plan by brainstorming with others about

how one can get from point zero to successfully realizing the project

goals. For each objective, describe what happens. Do those involved

need training to enable their participation? What services will be

provided? What resources will be necessary to complete the tasks?

Where can the activities take place? Who is best qualified to carry out

each task? How long will each activity require? Who benefits? What

changes will take place as a result of the project? What should happen

at the end of each task; what are the outcomes? To adequately explain,

it may be helpful to fill out a grid with the headings identified. Later

the grid can be developed in a narrative form, but this type of layout

helps to structure the project for the reader. For example . . .

Objective 1: By the end of this fiscal year, the provost will centralize

civic engagement activities by establishing a new administrative office.

A similar table for other objectives may have several additional action

steps, but this example illustrates the kinds of information to be

included in this section. As the chart is translated into a narrative

form, more details are added, such as the publications where the

ads will be placed and their publication dates, the membership of the

search committee and how they will be selected, and what policies

will be established for promoting civic engagement and how they will



be administered. Every objective will be directly supported by a set of

action steps or activities.

Remember also that the progress of each step or major event must be

documented. Before the project begins, determine which action steps

should be evaluated as a part of formative assessment, and then the

points at which formative and summative information is needed. (The

following section describes the assessment and evaluation plan in

more detail.)

Project TeamIn addition to the Plan of Action, include a subsection with the names

and titles of the project director and other key players who will form a

qualified and committed team with skills and knowledge that will lead

the project to a successful conclusion. Funders are less likely to invest

in one person, than they are in a group whose members each bring

special talents relevant to the project and together whose contributions

will assure the project progresses. The team membership matters for

the proposal because their resumes will show experience and assure

the funder that each team member will contribute. But it is not helpful

to pad the team with people who are not necessarily interested in the

project simply on the basis of their resumes. In the end, the project

team members should be contributing partners who will work to make

the project successful. Finally, the funder needs to know that the

project has the support of upper administration.

TimelineThe timeline gives the project markers to judge progress. This section

includes dates by which tasks are projected for completion, when

the assessment data will be collected and when the project funding

will end. Rarely can a project show results within a year, unless the

proposal requests time and support for planning only. More often,

activities evolve over three years, giving everyone time to fulfill the

goals of the project. If you request support for much longer, say

five years, a risk of losing momentum and the enthusiasm and



commitment of those involved increases. During a three-year project,

new opportunities reveal themselves, opening doors for the next steps

and a new proposal to move the project to the next level.

In sum, the Plan of Action section of your proposal is the lengthiest. It

often takes 5–10 pages to adequately cover the story you are telling.

outcomes and Assessment

A plan to assess and evaluate the successes of a project is critical to

the proposal, often becoming a decisive factor in the review process.

An extensive plan includes a mixed-method approach involving both

formative and summative analyses by project leaders and others not

connected to the project. Large projects might consider hiring a team

of consultants, who can assist in developing instruments for collecting

data, as well as complete the analyses of the information and write

reports. Even if the project is complicated and large enough in scope

to justify hiring a team of consultants who will actually carry-out the

evaluation, the proposal must still include a thorough description of

a plan. Campuses often have someone with expert knowledge about

the techniques of assessment who can help develop a plan that digs

for useful data and evaluates the relevant information. Assessing

civic engagement projects often is complicated but teams around the

country are developing tools that have been tested and could prove

useful to your particular project. (See previous chapter on assessment

for a list of resources.) Whichever assessment strategy is proposed,

it will be critical to involve, or at the very least inform, those on your

campus who are responsible for institutional assessment. By doing

this you may find advocates and internal resources to help, and avoid

potential obstacles to your assessment plan.

Planning for a variety of methods to collect information assures that

project directors will have opportunities for steering the project back

on course, and for judging whether it was successful in meeting its



goals. Broadly reaching projects with multiple goals will need an

equivalent evaluation plan to monitor all the “parts” of the project.

Smaller scale projects with one or two overriding goals may not need

complex plans for evaluation, but even in these, assessment measures

should begin collecting information at the start of the project through

to its end. Strategies for evaluation fall roughly into two categories:

formative and summative.

1. A formative assessment focuses on the processes and activities

of the project, identifies problem areas and highlights where changes

might influence success. The formative assessment often collects

baseline information before the activities of the project begin. This

information serves to describe the situation as it is before the project

intervenes, causing changes or improvements. Typically, information

is collected at markers in the timeline, but no less frequently than

annually.

Strategies for collecting information throughout the project period will

flow directly from the objectives of the proposal such that well-crafted

objectives contain the seeds of a formative assessment plan. Go back

and read over the objectives drafted for this proposal and review how

they played out in the Activity Plan. Note the key events intended

to guide what kinds of data should be collected, and when. In these

ways the assessment activities are integrated throughout the project.

Guiding questions might include the following: Were the activities

completed on time? Did the activity have the desired outcome? Did the

activities have a positive impact? Were the participants influenced/

changed by the project?

Information can be collected through a variety of methods: surveys,

tests, focus group discussions, written reflections, interviews with

key players, and/or a critique of documents produced in the project.

Assessment indicators must encompass information on both quantity

and quality. The guiding questions for assessment purposes should be

carefully worded so they elicit un-biased information.



Importantly, the information should be collected and analyzed by

someone not connected to the project to ensure the funder that the

evaluation will be objective. This person or team should be named in

the proposal and their responsibilities listed from among the following:

developing the tools, distributing the data- collection instruments,

analyzing the information, and reporting back to the project team so

they will make adjustments to keep the project on track.

2. In addition to the formative assessment, a summative evaluation

should be planned and scheduled toward the end of the project by

another objective expert. This person should also be named and

qualifications listed as someone with specialized experience in similar

projects. Note that the formative and summative evaluators should be

different people, even though they will no doubt be dealing with similar

data. This final evaluation is guided by these two questions: Did the

project meet its goals? Was it successful? The summative evaluator

reviews all the written documents, from the proposal to the formative

reports and data collected to the written materials the project team

has produced on the project. It is a good idea to propose that the

summative evaluator will also write a report that will be shared with

the funding agency.

Even though your project will be unique to a particular context and

time, standard techniques and tools exist for collecting data. Your

institution may already have some reliable tools for collecting data

that relate to the project. If so, integrate these into the evaluation plan.

(An earlier chapter of this guide lists several resources for assessment

tools.) Whatever strategies and tools are selected for the evaluation,

make certain they are directly linked to the goals and objectives of the

project. Otherwise, irrelevant information may be collected that has

little to do with the project.



A Budget

The budget for a project develops directly from the activities and the

time required to complete the project. A budget naturally follows the

narrative and must be accurate and based on real costs. When a

project extends for more than one year, an annual budget should be

developed, as well as a cumulated one that shows the summary costs

for the multi-year effort.

A budget consists of direct costs—those attributable to the actual

project—and, if allowed by the funding source, some indirect or

overhead costs—those incurred by the institution for its management

and infrastructure support of the project. Indirect costs are

individually negotiated by each institution based on complex formulas.

Call your grants office or administration and finance departments for

the most current formula. Except where they are specifically disallowed

by the funding agency, these indirect costs should be requested as part

of the budget.

In preparing the budget carefully read the funder’s guidelines. A funder

often establishes limits on allowable costs and may describe certain

expenses as ineligible for funding. A proposal budget usually must also

comply with your institutional policies and current agreements with

bargaining units, if applicable. A budget consists of several categories

of expenses, some of which are listed below. The cost within each

category should be based on actual calculations, not best guesses or

“ball park” figures. Use whole numbers (no cents), and be reasonable

and realistic with how much is needed to successfully manage

the project. Find ways to adjust the bottom line so it falls within

the funding limits specified in a funder’s guidelines. Outrageously

expensive budgets that go beyond what the funder is willing to spend

on average will likely defeat the proposal or seriously undermine your

credibility.



1. SalariesSalary is based on time spent at a particular activity and the expertise

involved to complete the tasks. A salary is different from a stipend, in

which someone is “contracted” to do a particular job for a fixed amount

of money. A stipend is entered in a different budget category and can

be considered a payment for services.

Funders will usually expect a budget to contain some salary costs

because they understand that someone must manage the project and

be responsible for guiding its progress, writing reports and other tasks.

Unless otherwise restricted, a budget usually indicates that the project

director will be able to dedicate time to the project as long as it lasts.

Salaries must be appropriate to the time and task, whether for

professionals or student assistants. Calculate the number of hours or

months required to do the job and the pay scale. If faculty members,

for example, request to be released from teaching courses, the time

they would normally spend on the course is now spent on the project.

The institution will be paid the proportional amount of one course that

the faculty member will not teach. This salary is figured by dividing the

faculty member’s annual salary by the fraction of one course over the

contractual normal total course load for the year. Example: Jane earns

$60,000 annually to teach 6 courses. One course is equivalent to 1/6 x

$60,000 = $10,000.

2. Fringe BenefitsAny salary charged to a project usually must also be associated with

fringe benefits, which are contributions institutions make to Social

Security, unemployment tax, health benefits, and benefits with a

cash value. These are figured at one rate for part-time and another for

summer work. Full-time employment benefits—and this includes the

portion of a salary budgeted for course release—are usually figured at

a different rate. These rates are determined by the institution and/or

by the state labor authority.



3. TravelOften a funder asks that the outcomes of a project be distributed at

conferences, or that the project principals attend meetings or training.

Costs for these expenses should be identified specific to an appropriate

conference and estimated for the number of people who will be

traveling. Mileage costs should be figured at the allowable institutional

rate.

4. Supplies, EquipmentThese can be calculated by reviewing what will be required to

complete the activities of the project. Funders often know when

a budget is inflated, so be certain to request a budget for what

tangible items the project actually needs. Equipment costs should

be based on manufacturer’s cost for educators. Equipment costs

are rarely estimated and sometimes require documentation from the

manufacturer.

5. ConsultantsThese are stipend payments to experts who will perform a fee for

service, e.g., a fixed amount to be given for the assessment of the

project or for someone to lead a training workshop. There are no

fringes charged.

6. Indirect or Facilities and Administration (F&A) ChargesThese are added to the direct costs of a project and are based on

rates negotiated by the institution with the federal government. The

negotiation is a result of several items, such as an analysis of space,

utilities and college budgets, and provides the institution with the

authority to request compensation for these expenses. Grant-seekers

are encouraged to request the full amount allowed by the funding

source.

Once the costs are outlined, the calculations should be explained in

a budget narrative that uses subheadings of the cost categories and

follows the summary of costs. A budget summary can usually fit on



one page; the budget explanation or justification sometimes requires

up to five pages to explain every expense that the funder might

question during the budget review.

supporting documents and Appendices

This section of a proposal may not be allowed or requested by a

funder. When the best funding source for a project has been chosen,

their guidelines will specify whether or not they wish to receive any

additional documents. If acceptable, this section is the place for

information that helps make your case with reviewers while providing

them with relevant supporting documents. Remember that your

proposal is probably one among many that reviewers are expected to

read. So padding this section with superfluous documents won’t help

your application.

Sometimes, though, documents substantiate the claims of your

proposal and offer evidence of careful planning and preparation for

carrying out the project. If allowed, consider adding signed agreements

from community partners and a letter from your own institution.

Especially if their letters contribute something to the project—staff

time, space, money or access to clients or information—these will

provide evidence of a solid organizational planning and show that other

sources are willing to support the project.

This may also be the section for short and edited resumes for the

project leaders and perhaps the evaluators. Their resumes should

show achievement and experience relevant to this project.



Summary to Creating a ProposalNo matter what funding source is chosen as the most appropriate,

writing a proposal must always include following these steps:

w Establish solid goal(s).

w Brainstorm activities that will lead to and support each goal.

w Estimate the money needed for items, activities and people’s time.

w Write these three preceeding points down. Pass them around and

listen to reactions.

w Gather information for a plan of action—best practices, data, and

partners.

w Keep folders of section headings and add supporting information to

them over time.

w Before too much time passes, begin to put it all together and write

a draft of the proposal.

w Reread the guidelines for the most appropriate funding source.

w Write the final draft, pass it around and ask experienced writers

and collaborators to read it for consistency and impact before

submission.



Most of the directors of ADP and civic engagement programs

were chosen or assigned the position—a full 79 percent of

those reporting on the survey had been invited to lead the

program and most of these (nearly 60 percent) were invited by their

chief academic officer. The others were invited by presidents, provosts

or vice presidents of student affairs, or elected from a standing

committee. Furthermore, 87 percent of those reporting on the survey

admitted they did not apply for the position.

Since most of the program directors were

appointed (rather than hired specifically to the

work), most are likely doing this work part-time

along with other “duties as assigned.” This has

obvious implications for the programs and may be

another factor in explaining why so many of the

programs are in flux or at the margins. When the

activities of civic engagement or ADP are added to

other responsibilities, directors get stretched thin,

their capacity for long hours is tested and they

become embroiled in campus politics, and progress

on the project wanes. Administrators must choose

to value the work, scrape away tasks and “other

duties,” so that civic engagement coordinators can give their full time

and talents to building programs.

iv. ProjECtmAnAgEmEnt

Photo provided by Humboldt State University.



As we know from the survey results, the directors collectively

bring enormous wisdom to this work. Their biographies reveal rich

experiences in community service and organizing, experiential

education and theoretical training, with 78 percent of respondents

reporting they had experience in civic engagement before directing

ADP. They have served the public good and been activists and leaders

in communities and on campuses: some pointed to backgrounds in

political science/action, some were life-long volunteers or managed

nonprofits, some spent time in service work based on faith or

conviction to civil rights, and others were devoted to the value of

service in education. It seems apparent that this group was appointed

to the task because they were already known to be “that sort” of

person—someone who had experience in engagement projects, and

who showed passion for its purposes. Both groups of directors—those

with roots in civic engagement and the 22 percent of those reported

who had no experience in civic engagement before they became

responsible for coordinating its activities—have had to adopt work

habits to stay current in this very demanding field while shepherding

civic engagement activities.

take time to reflect

A program manager, by definition, is a leader and must be sensitive

to possibilities and pitfalls of the assignment. More often than

not, a manager/director is very busy and must develop some time

management and organizational skills to keep the group moving

forward. When one’s responsibilities seem too demanding, it’s difficult

to step back and take time for reflection, but doing this will avoid

missteps and save time (and, often, the integrity of the program)

in the long run. Allow time to think critically about the context of

your work, the resources that might be available, the allies who

will support the program, and what barriers might get in the way of

advancement. From the perspective of a civic engagement director,

take a little time to do something like a SWOT analysis, which involves



looking carefully and critically at the (S) Strengths, (W) Weaknesses,

(O) Opportunities and (T) Threats to one’s program. There are other

analytical and reflective methods that are also useful, but adopting any

systematic approach will help organize your conclusions and provide

some concrete information about the realities of your program. When

consulting with others, visiting offices and finding resources, keep a

chart of potential opportunities and threats. Add in the strengths you

have discovered and the weaknesses that might drag and prevent the

program from moving forward. To be sure, the weakness quadrant will

be filled with lack of resources and time, but list these anyway. The

analysis can be the backdrop for making viable plans that emanate

from strengths, and implementing programs with the optimum use of

resources. The analysis will help define a reasonable scope of work.

Build a team

The SWOT analysis will be limited by the number of perspectives and

stakeholder groups included in the process. A person is chosen as

director for a reason and very likely has some notion of what a civic

engagement program should be and what services it should provide.

Consulting with others, however, leads to a shared sense of purpose

and an understanding of the mission and vision of the program.

Gathering contributing ideas from stakeholders will encourage their

buy-in to the campus effort, so that they are more inclined to be active

players and support the program.

Spending time on the groundwork will reap rewards in many ways.

From these consultations, you can build a team of people who have

ideas, can organize activities and carry the message to other parts

of the campus and community. Even though the director may have

a vision and know what should be done, including others in setting

the goals will pay dividends throughout the project. Among the

team members will be experts to share the responsibilities and play

a role in developing goals and planning activities. This makes for



a more efficient organization and one that is representative of the

needs and synergies arising from a larger group. When others are

given responsibility, they can take some ownership for the program’s

successes and thereby become more personally devoted to the mission

of the program. The ability to delegate tasks and ask for help is an

important skill for anyone who is over-booked.

So there is a team (or teams) of players who can work on projects.

But managing their energy depends on establishing goals to focus

their efforts and providing resources to enable them. Be clear and

concrete about this. For discrete projects with short-term effects, ask

specifically what needs to happen and how it will be accomplished.

Keep the responsibilities of everyone explicit and their tasks well-

organized so the projects can be coordinated. Will other offices be

involved and if so, who is their contact? Should evaluation surveys

or sign-in sheets be distributed? Should the public relations office be

notified? Will the project result in some kind of report? What kinds of

information should be collected and reported?

For meeting more long term goals, gather the players together

regularly. Post timelines and charts showing responsibilities in

common areas so people can know deadlines, their assignments and

meeting schedules.

deal with the Big Picture

Much of what has been presented in these chapters involves tactics

useful for organizing project-specific activities, but if your program

goals involve more substantive and foundational work, these

approaches are also effective in prioritizing and organizing a wider

scope. Working on the big picture likely requires a broader perspective,

but this is the work that will ultimately embed civic engagement deeper

into the culture of the campus and move it closer to center stage.

In doing this, it is important to pay attention to the “business of the



institution,” as well as to its values. Making plans based only on values

and good intentions of the ADP, for instance, will likely not sustain

the effort. After all, the ADP and civic engagement programs function

within the institution and survive and thrive because of it. If we are

mindful of the goals of the institution, overlapping and integrating

with its mission, our programs become more aligned with the core

values of the institution. As the institution develops and responds to

new initiatives, civic engagement programs can find areas of common

purpose. As a result these programs will benefit from the resources

and synergies already supported on the campus.

Aligning with institutional goals is fundamental to the health of a

program, but keep in mind what is feasible. We know ADP programs

have limited staff and resources. Civic engagement programs can grow

along a developmental path, especially if we are realistic about goals,

so they can be implemented by means of the available resources.

Additionally, aligning also with community partners not only extends

the reach of a program, but also builds allies. Strong community

partners serve civic engagement goals and activities when the

community-based organizations (CBOs) connect with the institution

on a variety of levels. All institutions, more often than not, value their

community partners—community CEOs sit on boards and provide

resources, our students’ families live in the region, and students often

graduate to work within the region. To varying degrees, institutions

strive to be responsive to the needs of the community. Fundamentally,

then, the larger community has a stake in education. Civic engagement

programs, in particular, provide connections to our communities

through our students. So, the outer edges of the “big picture” obviously

extend beyond the institution.



develop information Processing skills

Chapter 1 of this guide describes more fully how to market and

promote civic engagement programs. One significant challenge of

program management for directors lies in the volume of information

that comes in from a wide range of sources. Because the information

has varying degrees of importance, it must be prioritized. Sometimes

it is helpful to schedule several hours on your calendar to devote to

reading and responding to communications, and then the rest of your

day can be dedicated to program management tasks. Most e-mail

systems can be set up with “rules,” which automatically organize

e-mail as it arrives into desktop folders so that you can pick and

choose what to read first. Another tactic for busy people is to adopt

the habit of touching a communication only once: respond to it

immediately, pass it along, toss it, or file it away.

Whatever system can help organize information coming in, you also

must find an easy and reliable way to set up some communication

system that clearly conveys information out to those who need to

know. Whether sent to the variety of stakeholders, to a smaller project

team, or to the administration, the information must be helpful and

succinct. Be targeted in sending information so that it is relevant for

those who receive it. The content of specific messages determines

who should receive the information. Regularly, whether requested or

not, provide a short report to the administration on what has been

accomplished, what projects are planned, what is underway and what

insights/recommendations you might have. Keep your program on

other’s radars.

Keeping a team informed has to do with building their skills as well as

their knowledge. Managing a program also means that the people who

can contribute to its growth have the training and understanding they

need to do their work. This kind of information is most often learned

by participating in conferences, perhaps subscribing to important

publications, and joining focused and deliberate discussions. If



programs are expected to develop and grow, then their leadership

should remain vibrant and aware. Training opportunities can be

“manufactured” by organizing visits to nearby campuses to share

information and practices. By submitting an abstract to a conference,

your institution might be more inclined to support your attendance

when you are on the agenda and promoting its name. Once there, you

can collect best practices to adapt at your own institution, and network

with colleagues who can be resources for questions and information

when you need input from a knowledgeable counterpart.

watch the Budget

If the civic engagement program does not have its own source for an

operating budget, request one. Every administrator knows the effects

of dedicating money to show the work is valued. If civic engagement

is to be considered important within the institution, it simply must be

empowered with a budget to enable activities and a sense of ownership.

Without a budget, the work loses status and depends too much on

the good will of others. The social and intellectual capital of the people

devoted to civic engagement has tremendous worth. Programs cannot

survive without networks of ideas and committed supporters. But

once these are established, they should be rewarded and sustained

with some financial backing. The amount of budget given to a program

likely depends on the scope of the program, its goals and what is

expected by the administration. The cost of running programs should

be carefully determined. It’s easy to say you need more, but much

harder to justify increases without committing to concrete goals and

plans. Also consider ways that you might share costs of projects with

other divisions, or leverage what you have to request more from an

outside source. In all, spending should be deliberate and cautious, but

with progress in mind. Check on your goals and plans to make sure

you are spending appropriately on activities that support these goals.

A year-end report will demonstrate good stewardship of funds and

show progress toward those benchmarks. Doing this will make it much



easier for the administration to support a successful and well-managed

program, and easier for you to request their support.

The next chapter of the guide goes into a detailed treatment of

many of these project financing issues, from both the budgeting and

fundraising perspectives. As the reader transitions to that chapter,

suffice it to say that the quality of the relationship between a soundly

administered civic engagement program and the management of

the resources that are committed to it can do more to advance or

undermine a program than any other factor.

CiviC EngagEmEnt • monEy


Without some level of financial support, civic engagement

programs invariably will flounder. The importance, both

symbolically and practically, of an institutional and

community monetary commitment is illustrated in the results of the

fall 2008 survey of civic engagement directors. When asked, “In terms

of resources, what does your project need most?”, 75 percent of the 56

respondents identified funding (or staffing, time or space, all of which

require funding) as their priority need. Further, 88 percent indicated

that they were entirely dependent on internal sources of support for

their budget, 65 percent indicated they had been

unsuccessful in securing external support, and

the vast majority of those who had succeeded

received small grants or gifts from community-

based organizations.

This paints a grim picture of the financing, both

internal and external, of civic engagement or

American Democracy Project (ADP) programs.

The funding challenge is further illustrated by

responses to a question about the significant

barriers to funding. The most common answers

pointed to deficiencies in leadership, program

focus, sustained relationships with external partners, budget

allocations, project management skills, and grant-writing capabilities.

The need for this guide to dedicate a chapter to funding issues is

obvious. To effectively administer a civic engagement program, the

v. fundrAisingAnd BudgEting

Photo: A Stockton student plays guitar for children at Free To Be day care center.



director needs to know how to assemble a budget and, in turn,

develop an effective funding proposal with a coherent budget, ready for

submission to an external foundation or government agency. The most

important information for the director of civic engagement in seeking

external support is a list of the organizations that will be receptive to a

funding proposal. These issues are addressed in the following pages.

A Civic Engagement Budget

The importance of establishing a reliable and comprehensive budget

for the civic engagement program cannot be overstated. A precise and

reliable budget is important to the efficient and effective operation of

the campus-wide effort for two reasons: (1) the annual ‘snapshot’ of the

money behind the various elements of the civic engagement program

provides coherence and substance to institutional initiatives; and (2)

most, if not all, external funders require that a budget statement be

submitted with any funding application.

The previous chapter of this guide thoroughly covered the strategies

and the benefits of a targeted campus-wide civic engagement effort.

Because most programs have a significant number of administrative

offices, academic departments and individual faculty involved, the

fiscal resources tend to be dispersed across the campus. Often,

civic engagement activities have existed for a number of years at an

institution in some academic or student services departments, while

other elements of the effort are new or are an extension of these long-

standing programs. For example, program expansion could involve the

extension of a nursing home volunteer program in the department of

social work to a campus-wide effort to provide students in occupational

therapy, rehabilitation counseling and psychology the opportunity

to engage in service internships for other populations. In any case,

individual or small groups of faculty or staff members who have toiled

for years to advance their (often unrecognized and underfunded)

programs tend to be passionate about these activities yet protective

of the independence of their efforts. Therefore, a newly appointed

civic engagement director can face an inherent level of resistance to



intrusion or interference from these entrenched civic engagement

interests. For the director to collect information on budget support

for programs over which he or she has little control requires that a

senior administrator ask for the information and quell concerns of a

“takeover.” The goal of any comprehensive civic engagement program

must be to marshal campus support toward the achievement of

important campus educational and outreach goals. The rationale for

a coordinated program, as opposed to a dispersed effort, is based on

the belief that the coordination will result in a program with an impact

that exceeds the sum of its existing components and afford maximum

benefit to students.

Thus, one of the first tasks for the newly appointed civic engagement

director is to build the budget framework that is relevant and

consistent with the program’s goals and objectives. The categories

offered below should cover all components of the civic engagement

program with the exception of major capital expenditures.

internal (working) and External (funding) Budget Components

Please note: In the budget chapters that follow, two complimentary

budgets are described—a working budget that is used by the director

to develop a comprehensive picture of the civic engagement program

unique to that campus; and a funding application budget, based on

the working budget, which can be adapted to meet the requirements

of an external funding agency. Within the following budget categories,

the inclusion of costs in the working budget is covered, and where

appropriate, required additions to convert the working budget into a

proposal budget are explained. For external applications, a budget

narrative is also important (and may be required by the funder) to

justify the calculations for each entry.

Salaries and WagesThe salary of the civic engagement director is often not included

in that office’s working budget. Instead, it commonly is a part of



whatever administrative or academic unit has responsibility for

program supervision, such as the provost or vice president for

student services. It is nonetheless important that the salary of anyone

associated with civic engagement is compiled and recorded (even if in

a confidential file) so these commitments can be included in external

funding applications. Salary and wages cover all amounts paid by the

institution for personnel during the academic year or, in the case of

external funding applications, the project period. The budget should

reflect the estimated percentage of effort for professional staff and

faculty, and the weekly/hourly commitment for student employees and

hourly workers.

Reasonable salary increases for external applications that overlap

the institution’s fiscal years should be built into the budget. Annual

compensation adjustments and the salary for new positions should be

based on the institution’s pay scale and compensation practices, and

justified in the budget narrative.

The summary budget should include titles and time commitments

(Full-time Equivalents [FTE] or hours per week) for each position.

Other than senior personnel, it is not necessary to provide names of

those filling positions. Where appropriate, the percentage of effort for

nine-month faculty should be displayed in two ways: academic year

and summer support.

Personnel information (such as title, budget and FTE commitment)

for other professionals working on civic engagement activities should

also be listed under salaries and wages. This includes all persons with

responsibilities for program elements even if they are not paid out of

the civic engagement office budget.

Administrative/Clerical Staff. Staff included in the budget must

provide direct administrative coordination or clerical support to the

program. When developing a funding proposal, most private and

government funders consider administrative/clerical support as

an institutional overhead responsibility. Therefore, these types of

positions cannot usually be funded through external support, but



it is important to list these positions as a part of the institutional

contributions to the program.

Graduate Assistant Salaries. A graduate student receiving support

for thesis or other degree-related work and assigned to the civic

engagement program may be included in the budget. The payment

of a stipend must be made in accordance with pre-established

work, performance and payroll standards of the institution.

Undergraduate Student Wages. Undergraduate students are

budgeted at an hourly rate and their payroll must conform to

student financial aid or other student employment standards of

the institution. Higher salaries can be paid when students possess

special qualifications or experience, but these exceptional salaries

must be justified in the narrative when applying for external

funding.

Employee BenefitsEmployee benefits for professional staff and administrative/clerical

personnel are based on a formula that the institutional human

relations or grants office can provide. Typically, the fringe benefit

expenses include FICA, social security, health benefits, retirement

contributions, tuition remission and other benefits, provided that

the benefits have an identifiable value. Graduate and undergraduate

students, and faculty members who are “off contract” during the

summer months, normally do not receive the full range of benefits,

so the budget for these positions has to be calculated independent of

professional personnel.

Consultants Consultant support may be required for specialized, temporary or

highly technical assistance that cannot be performed satisfactorily

by existing institutional personnel as a part of their routine

responsibilities. A distinction must be made between consultants, who

are independent contractors, and employees. In fact, IRS rules prohibit

employees of the institution from serving as a consultant for a special



project associated with their home institution. Travel costs connected

to the consultant support also should be budgeted.

When applying for external funding, the work associated with the

consultancy must be explained and the relationship to the project

must be justified. Detailed information about the consultant (name,

qualifications and current affiliations) and the time commitment, a list

of duties/deliverables, and rates of compensation should be included

in the budget narrative.

Subcontracts When a portion of the required program activity needs to be performed

by another entity, either because of collaborators’ contributions or

to achieve program efficiencies, subcontracts are required. These

relationships should be handled similar to consultant agreements,

except the subcontract is with an organization not an individual. The

scope of work, time commitment, payment schedule and deliverables

should be precisely defined.

When asking an external organization to provide support, the

subcontract will need to be explained in the budget justification.

If handled properly, consultant and subcontracts can add to the

credibility of the proposal as long as the complementary nature of the

relationship is covered in detail.

EquipmentCapital equipment typically is identified based on useful life and

purchase price standards set by the funder. For example, many

federal funding agencies set a useful life of more than two years and

a purchase value of between $1,500 and $5,000 as the threshold for

classifying a purchase under equipment. Computer equipment (e.g.,

computers, monitors, printers, modems) and collectibles (e.g., artwork,

antiques) are often excluded from this threshold and, thus, always

classified as equipment. In deciding where to place equipment in the

external support budget, no matter the value, the civic engagement

director should always first follow the guidelines of the funding agency

even if they are inconsistent with institutional rules.



When applying for external funding, equipment can often have use

beyond the specific project. In these cases, the funder should be asked

to pay for only that portion of the equipment use that will be devoted to

the project. This allocation should be explained in detail in the budget

narrative.

Project ActivitiesEach activity (project) that is a part of the civic engagement program

is given a separate line item in the working budget. A lecture series,

a curriculum development project, or a specific service project, for

example, each require an independent expense budget line.

Supplies and Materials Supply costs include all the items required to run an office (paper,

calculators, telephone services, local and long distance telephone calls,

postage, photocopying and facsimiles). When developing the office

budget, institutional cost standards should be used to arrive at these

expense items.

Typically, only extraordinary costs in this category are included in the

external funding proposal. For example, a project may require off-

campus advertising, or surveying students or community members. In

these instances, the costs should be included in the funding proposal

budget. Many funders expect that the institution will contribute the

routine costs of running an office.

Travel Travel expenses include transportation, lodging, subsistence, and

related costs incurred when individuals associated with the civic

engagement project must attend meetings away from campus.

Institutional rules need to be followed in every case, and the travel

must be explained adequately to external funders.

The budget narrative should include estimates of costs considering the

number of people traveling and the destination. Most importantly, the

purpose of the travel and the relationship to the funded project needs

to be explained in detail.



Conferences and SeminarsIt is often necessary to host educational and planning meetings

to establish and develop successful civic engagement activities.

These face-to-face gatherings are essential if partnerships are to be

developed, the program impact expanded, and the complementary

role of all participants understood. Holding a conference or seminar

requires both an expense and revenue budget, and necessary costs

include meals, transportation, speakers/consultants, and possibly

facilities and equipment rental.

The civic engagement director should take advantage of the planning

and expertise capabilities of the campus’ continuing education or

conference/event staff to develop a budget for the conference and

seminar. If you are seeking support from an external agency for these

events, be certain to explain the costs in detail through the budget

narrative. It is a good idea to treat large conferences and seminars

in separate budgets so the costs can be viewed apart from the office

budget.

Publication CostsPublication costs involve the documentation, preparation, publication

and dissemination of project successes and best practices.

Dissemination of results tends to encourage the adoption of successful

programs, so most funders want this type of information sharing.

Publications and other forms of media promoting the program tend

to expand the impact of their support. The budget narrative for any

type of publication should include the page charges, formatting costs,

Web-based posting, and the total estimated cost for all publications.

If submitting to outside publishers, include specific names of the

journals so the funding reviewers will know the kind of publication you

have in mind.

A format for organizing the civic engagement budget follows.

Institutional budget standards should always be observed.



sample Civic Engagement Budget format with major Categories

Source (if other than Budget Categories $$$$$ civic engagement) Salaries and Wages Civic Engagement Director Academic or calendar year salary (percent effort x salary) Summer salary (percent effort x salary x length of time on project) Professional Support (percent effort x salary) Administrative Assistant (percent effort x salary) Graduate Research Assistant Academic year—percent of effort Summer—percent of effort Undergraduate Student(s) (hours x rate)Total Salaries and Wages

Employee Benefits Professional Staff figured at % ____________ Support Staff figured at % ____________ Graduate Students figured at % ____________ Undergraduate Students figured at % ____________

Consultants ____________ Subcontracts ____________ Equipment ____________Travel ____________Project One ____________ Project Two ____________ Project Three, etc. ____________ Supplies and Materials ____________ Conferences and Seminars ____________ Publication Costs ____________ Total $ ___________

An External (funding request) Budget

As in the office budget, the same categories apply when constructing

a proposal budget. There are, however, additional requirements

that need to be included in any proposal that will make the budget

development process more complex.

At the outset, identify the budget format and elements required by the

funding agency. If the funding agency has no format, either use the

one offered here or a form your institution has developed.



Facilities and Administrative (F&A),

Indirect, and overhead Cost These three terms are synonymous, and will be used here

interchangeably. Every institution wants to include overhead expenses

in the budget of all external funding proposals. Indirect costs are based

on negotiations between the Federal government and higher education

institutions. These negotiations establish an amount that can be

applied to grants and contracts to cover the aggregated educational

and general expense contributions that an institution makes to a

sponsored project. In theory, overhead pays for such things as building

maintenance and utilities, libraries, administrative costs of managing

grants and contracts, and departmental/school/college academic

administrative costs.

While F&A expenses are legitimate expenses, most agencies and

foundations that fund and support civic engagement projects limit

indirect cost recovery or disallow it altogether. So, as a proposal

is being prepared, the civic engagement director should look into

the indirect costs recovery policies of the funder. When these costs

are disallowed by a funder, consider including more administrative

expenses in the budget if they can be connected to the project, like

additions to library collections, or extra paper. Institutions, in most

cases, require an exception be approved if the full indirect cost is not to

be recovered, and this should be applied for through the institution’s

grants administration office well in advance of the proposal submission

date.

Cost Sharing It is common for sponsors to expect, or institutions to volunteer, cost-

sharing as a part of a proposal. This practice is also referred to as

matching and can be of two types: (1) hard or cash matches represent

purchases that require a commitment of funds, even though the

money is not coming out of the program budget; and (2) soft or in-kind

matches are contributions in which the value has to be determined

because no cash changes hands. Hard matches might include the

purchase and then donation of equipment necessary for the project.



Soft matches include the time of volunteers, release from teaching by

faculty members on the project, or the use of facilities. In either case,

careful records must be maintained to track the contributions because

cost-sharing is auditable and must be spent on the project once it has

been committed in the budget. An external budget with matching is

displayed in the following format:

sample Civic Engagement Budget format with Cost sharing

Project Title: __________________________________________________________________________________________Project Term: __________________________________________________________________________________________Project Director: __________________________________________________________________________________________Institution: __________________________________________________________________________________________

Project External University Sources for Budget Sponsor Matching University Total Budget Budget Matching

Salaries and Wages (all shown as the percent of time

on this project on an FTE or hourly basis)

Civic Engagement Director

Professional Support

Graduate Research Assistant

Undergraduate Student(s)

Volunteers

Total Salaries and Wages

Employee Benefits

Professional Staff

Support Staff

Graduate Students

Undergraduate Students

Consultants

Subcontracts

Equipment

Travel

Project One

Project Two

Project Three, etc.

Supplies and Materials

Conferences and Seminars

Publications

Indirect Cost (Facilities and

Administrative Costs [F&A])

Total



Budget narrative This is an essential component of the budget summary. In this section,

the project director describes each budget category and indicates

details about and the need for each item. Sponsor review panels and

administrative officials always review the budget and narrative to

determine the degree to which there is consistency across the program

goals and requested support. The format that follows is a sample;

not all budget items will apply to every proposal. However, the project

director must make sure every budget item that could be questioned is

fully explained, even if the item is not listed below.

It is particularly important that detail be added to the roles that

personnel, consultants and subcontracts play in the activity. Project

credibility often is judged on the ways that appropriate talent is

brought to bear to achieve project outcomes.

Salaries and Wages: “Show annual rate of increase for the

purpose of budget estimates, salaries and wages have been

escalated _____ % per year.”

Project Director: “Indicate time and effort percentage.

The PD will devote approximately _____% of effort during

the academic year and 100% of effort for _____ months

during the summer. Salary reimbursement is requested

for _____% of effort for academic year support and _____

months for summer support.” A short list of duties

should also be included.

Other Professional Support: List title, level of effort,

and summary job description

Administrative: List the circumstances for requiring

direct charging of these services, which must be readily

and specifically identified to the project with a high

degree of accuracy. Provide a brief description of actual

job responsibilities and the level of effort.



Graduate Students: List number, level of effort

(normally 100%) and a brief description of tasks.

Undergraduate Student(s): List number of students,

hourly commitment, and assignment.

Benefits: Provide information on the benefits included for

each category of employee.

Equipment: Explain why the equipment is essential.

The cost for each item should be listed at the rate for

educational institutions. Include the item’s description,

estimated cost per item, and total cost. Provide a brief

statement on how the purchase will contribute to the

success of the project.

Travel: Include total cost. For each trip, list who will

be travelling, their destination, duration, purpose and

relationship to program.

Consultants: Include the consultant’s name, expertise

that qualifies him/her that relates directly to the proposed

project, rate, number of days, travel cost per consultant,

and total consultants’ cost. Provide a brief statement

justifying the need for consultant services.

Subcontracts: Include the subcontractor’s name and

total cost. Provide a brief description of the work to be

performed and the basis for selection of the subcontractor.

The subcontractor should complete a separate budget and

corresponding budget justification. If it can be included,

prepare a subcontract agreement as an appendix to the

proposal, which will demonstrate your planning and

organizational ability to begin the project immediately.

Supplies and Materials: Include type of supplies or

materials, per unit price, quantity and total cost. When the



cost is substantial, provide a brief statement justifying the

necessity. Be reasonable here because this category often is

inflated.

Conferences and Seminars: Describe the need for the

meeting and how arrangements will be handled.

Publications: Page charges (number of pages multiplied by

the per-page charge) or Web charges must be detailed.

Overhead (Facilities and Administrative [F&A]): Provide

information on the basis for calculation and the negotiated

rates.

Examples of Programs and Their BudgetsThe three examples that follow illustrate various approaches to

financing a civic engagement or American Democracy Project

campus effort. The examples are based loosely on actual institutional

experiences, but the program specifics have been adjusted to obscure

the identity of any college or university. Also, notice that the three

campus examples handle their working budgets in distinct ways while

still reporting the same fundamental information. It is important to

recognize that every campus will have a unique way of recording its

civic engagement budget, and those variations can be equally valid

and useful for purposes of program management and fundraising.

This is true as long as the budget serves to offer a comprehensive and

coherent perspective on program activity (income and outlays).

It is also important to recognize that programs and budgets have

critical interactions as development and fundraising are pursued.

Therefore, this chapter will conclude by summarizing the important

lessons learned through these examples.

Example A. The University’s Civic Engagement Institute

mission. The University’s Civic Engagement Institute seeks to foster

civil discourse and promote civic engagement to facilitate student

learning beyond the classroom. In particular, the program is focused on

communities of students/citizens and the application of their collective

civic skills and academic learning to societal issues.



Programs and Funding. A Civic Engagement Institute was established

in 2004 when a single grant/gift of $800,000 was made to the

institution to increase understanding of the meaning of liberty and

promote responsible global citizenship. A number of programs were

immediately initiated under the Institute: a lecture series brought

prominent American historians to campus to speak on the genesis

of liberty; a “civic engagement incentive program” was initiated that

provided mini grants (under $1,000 each) to student organizations,

faculty and academic societies for civic-related projects; public policy

research projects were undertaken in each of the five colleges; an

annual symposium was held, focusing on leadership in the 21st Century,

state civic engagement education policy and national elections in the

Russian Federation, Czech Republic and the United States; several

international study abroad endeavors were funded; and miscellaneous

student leadership education, conference participation and annual

scholarships programs were supported. Two subsequent grants of

$75,000 each were awarded from the original funding source in 2004

and 2005. Program support continued until all grants from the initial

source expired in August of 2008.

An Institute staff was hired with a .75 FTE director, a .2 FTE program

assistant and a .3 FTE student assistant, and part-time administrative

assignments were given to five faculty members (one from each college)

with a combined 40 percent FTE. The director reported to the chief

academic officer and worked closely with the senior academic staff in

developing and planning the campus civic engagement program.

Several other private sources supported projects in 2007–2008:

a $1,000 corporate foundation grant for a Global Youth Service

Day project; a $700 commitment from a national communications

company for discussion group support; and a $1,000 grant from a

rural cooperative utility to support an alternative spring break Gulf

Coast home rehabilitation project. In addition, the student government

association committed $12,000 in student fee revenue to support the

effort.

Even though external commitments to the Institute have diminished

significantly in 2008–2009, the University remains committed to

sustaining the program core. The director position has been reduced to

a 50 percent assignment for civic engagement program management,

with this salary supported by the academic affairs general budget. Also,



other positions have been eliminated or reduced. The operating budget,

including office, program and travel expenses, now totals $6,000.

As the civic engagement project director position changed so did the

reporting responsibility. Beginning with the 2008–2009 academic year,

the director reports to the chair of the department of political science

and sociology, and with the re-positioning of the Institute programs out

of academic affairs, planning for the future is termed by the part-time

director as “a work in progress.” The institution has recently agreed to

link with several national initiatives supported by private foundations,

and it is hoped that these relationships will lead to future grant support.

The change from the 2007–2008 to the 2008–2009 operating budget

for the Institute illustrates the dramatic reduction in support.

Example A. university 2007–2008 institute operating Budget

Primary External Funding Secondary Budget Source Funding Sources

Activities Lecture Series $ 5,000 $ 5,000 New York Times College Readership Program 12,000 0 State Government–$12,000 Student Conferences 7,000 7,000 Civic Engagement Residential Project 2,500 1,500 Corp. Foundation–1,000 Constitution Week 500 500 Times Talk Refreshments 600 240 Comm. Co. Grant–360 Alternative Spring Break 5,000 4,000 Rural Utility Grant–1,000 Scholarships 3,000 3,000 Collaborative Events 6,000 6,000 Administration Office Expenses 3,430 3,430 Director Travel 5,000 5,000 Staff Director Compensation and Benefits 38,835 38,835 Administrative Assistant 6,400 6,400 Student Assistants 3,600 3,600Total $ 98,865 $ 84,505 $ 14,360

Example A. university 2008–2009 institute operating Budget

University Secondary Program Budget Support Sources

Program and Administration $ 6,000 Academic Affairs.5 FTE Director and Student Support 33,750 Academic AffairsTotal $ 39,750



Example B. Local University’s historic Commitment to Service

mission. The focus of all outreach activities has been the organization

and support for student volunteer service in the community. Initiated as

early as 1990, the civic engagement movement was based in the Local

University’s mission to“. . . educate students in the tradition of service

to others.” Thus, offering academic credit for volunteerism was the

centerpiece of Local University’s civic engagement efforts.

Programs and Funding. In the early 1990s, Local University made

a concerted effort to become a force in the adjacent community by

enlisting students and faculty to offer community support in areas in

which the institution had expertise. Promoted initially by the president

as a necessary and important component of the institution’s outreach

efforts, a faculty committee was formed to encourage integration

of academic credit for volunteer activities in every department. A

curriculum development goal was established that volunteer credit

programs would be developed in all departments of the arts, social

sciences and humanities, and 50 percent of all departments in the

sciences and technology. This goal was achieved within eight years, by

1998.

Until 2001, the faculty curriculum committee on volunteerism operated

the civic engagement program without a formal budget. Participating

departments were expected to contribute to activities relevant to their

disciplines, and occasionally, the president’s office financed receptions

and outreach events. However, two new programs changed the scope

and direction of civic engagement in 2001: a local foundation asked

the University to assume management responsibility for a faltering food

bank, and federal and state urban development grants were awarded

to the city and Local University for the rehabilitation and opening of

a university outreach center on Main Street. The funding for these

two projects changed the scope and focus of the civic engagement

programs.

The growth of the program necessitated the establishment of a

community outreach office destined eventually to coordinate all civic

engagement activities. A full-time director and a full-time administrative

assistant were hired to run the food bank program and initially serve



as liaison to the Local University center planning committee. As the

latter moved from the construction phase to program development,

the director became the chair of the community/campus committee

governing the facility, three assistant deans were given 25 percent

assignments each to direct the center’s activities, and the budget grew

to cover the curricular and student activities that would be operated out

of the facility.

Throughout these growth phases, the president and provost of Local

University remained committed to the goals of the civic engagement

campus program. They remained loyal to the vision of service to the

community, helped keep the program focused even though funding

interests pulled it in multiple directions, and protected the basic budget

of the program. They served as the champions for a consistent civic

engagement role for Local University.

The Local University Outreach Center now houses the civic engagement

offices, seven classrooms, an exhibit space, and a multi-purpose room

adaptable as a small performance or meeting space. In addition, the

role of the University in managing and staffing the Food Bank continues

today. The Foundation that initiated the request for the University

takeover contributed $200,000 for two years to finance the program,

and additional fundraising has resulted in contributions of $150,000 per

year from four foundations, three civic groups, the local United Way and

community businesses. All these contributions are shown in the budget

that follows.



Example C. The State University office of Civic Engagement

mission. The mission of the Office of Civic Engagement is to create a

campus of citizens who are civically aware, skilled and committed to act

for the public good.

History. During the 2004–2005 academic year, State University officially

began its participation in the American Association of State Colleges

and Universities’ American Democracy Project (ADP). The University

initiated its participation by (1) establishing an American Democracy

Project Steering Committee; (2) establishing a year-long conversation

group; (3) assessing the current level of civic engagement activities by

Example B. the university’s 2008–2009 Community outreach income/Expense

Budget University University Source External Funding

Activities Lecture Series $ 5,000 Community outreach office Alumni donations–$5,000 Faculty Curricular Projects 7,000 $ 7,000 Academic affairs budget Student Conference 3,000 3,000 College budgets Housing Volunteerism 4,500 2,000 Student affairs budget Corporate foundation Project grant–2,500 Recognition and Awards 3,500 2,000 Community outreach office Community groups–1,500 Dinner Learning Assessment 40,500 2,500 Academic affairs Federal grant–38,000 Student Organizations 1,000 1,000 Student fees

Food Bank Administration (2 FTE) 75,000 5,000 President’s office 4 civic groups; 2 foundations–70,000 Student Employees 8,200 8,200 Financial aide Office Expenses and 7,600 2,000 Community outreach office 4 civic groups; 2 Equipment foundations–5,600 Space Rental 50,000 4 civic groups; 2 foundations–50,000 Marketing 6,000 2,000 Community outreach office 4 civic groups; 2 foundations–4,000

Outreach Center Director & Staff (3.5 FTEs) 160,000 160,000 President’s office Office Expenses and 8,400 8,400 Community outreach office Building use revenues Equipment Student Assistants 3,600 3,600 Financial aide Director Travel 5,000 5,000 Community outreach office

Total $ 388,300 $ 211,700 $ 176,600



faculty and staff on the campus; and (4) sponsoring an official Civic

Engagement Celebration in the spring.

A seven-person ADP Steering Committee was created in June 2004. This

Steering Committee was comprised of the vice chancellor for academic

administration, the dean of the college of liberal arts, the dean of the

school of business & economics, the director of Student Life/First Year

Experience Program, a faculty member from the theatre department,

and a faculty member from the journalism and history programs.

Its purpose was to direct the campus’ activities for the 2004–2005

academic year. The two deans served as co-chairs.

Approximately 15 faculty and staff members, representing all academic

units, were invited to participate in a year-long conversation on civic

engagement. The purpose of this group was to discuss the theory

and practice of civic engagement. Participants were asked to read

some original material about civic engagement, meet monthly with

the other members of the conversation group, attend some campus

lectures on civic engagement, and help facilitate a campus-wide civic

engagement audit. The group was also involved in establishing some

civic engagement priorities for the campus and planning some individual

campus-wide civic engagement projects.

The group met seven times throughout the year. During the fall

semester the group centered its discussion on issues such as

Contributing to the Civic Good, Listening to Communities, and

Universities as Citizens. Much time was spent on trying to define

civic engagement. During the second semester, the group listened to

presentations from Campus Compact and the leadership of AASCU’s

American Democracy Project.

The ADP Steering Committee designed a survey instrument intended

to solicit responses from faculty and staff on their involvement in

civic engagement activities, both personally and professionally. The

instrument sought to assess the level of integration of civic engagement

opportunities in the classroom as well. For purposes of the survey, civic

engagement was defined as “interactions and relations that make

a positive difference in the civic life of communities.” The Steering

Committee would have liked a higher response rate; regardless,

there was a clear indication that for many at State University, civic

engagement was a high priority.



On April 20, 2005, the Steering Committee sponsored an event

titled Celebrate! Civic Engagement. The event included three panel

discussions, poster board displays of a wide variety of current civic

engagement activities, a display of the results of the civic engagement

survey, and time for participants to view and discuss all of the

components of the program. The attendance at the event was strong,

with no less than 35 people at any panel. At times there were close to

80 people in the room.

In the fall of 2005, the Office of Civic Engagement was established. A

part-time director and part-time administrative assistant were hired, with

the director having 15 years of experience as the leader of a program

that had placed students in the community as volunteers through

service-learning courses. As such, the Office of Civic Engagement

benefited from the previously established community partnerships. By

2009, the office staff had grown to a full-time director, one part- time

administrative assistant, five AmeriCorp-funded positions, and three

work-study students.

Programs and Funding. The Office of Civic Engagement accomplishes

its mission through curricular and co-curricular activities that create

opportunities for students as citizens to find a meaningful role in their

local, regional, national and international communities.

The Office of Civic Engagement continues to have a faculty steering

committee, which meets monthly to guide the activities of the office.

In addition, the Office of Civic Engagement Community Steering

Committee meets monthly to ensure continued communications with

the community.

Civic Engagement Reading/Action Groups. Thirty-six faculty and

staff members participated in two civic engagement reading groups

in 2006–2007. After three years of reading groups, it was decided to

guide the groups from reading to action. In the fall of 2007, two Office

of Civic Engagement groups were formed. A group of 30 faculty/staff

met twice to plan and implement student involvement in environmental

sustainability issues. The other group with 15 members met to develop

strategies and activities to involve students in citizenship and election

activities.



Faculty Integrating Civic Engagement. The Office of Civic

Engagement partnered with 21 faculty members in 2008 to enhance

student learning by integrating community involvement opportunities

into the curriculum. These faculty members come from the following

departments: psychology, sociology/anthropology, social work,

education, women’s studies, art, elementary education, early childhood

education, health education, recreations, the school of pharmacy and

the school of medicine.

Mini-Grants Awarded. The Office of Civic Engagement awarded

$11,895 in mini-grants to faculty from across several disciplines on the

campus to incorporate civic engagement activities into their curricula.

Kirby Leadership Institute. The Kirby Leadership Institute offers

leadership seminars, lectures, workshops, symposia, and community

learning partnerships designed to help students develop strategies

and skills for success. It offers opportunities for students to learn

the basic, fundamental skills that support successful personal

relationships and contribute to campus organizational leadership and

their participation as citizens in the community. The Office of Civic

Engagement has partnered with the Kirby Leadership Institute to offer

students community and civic opportunities as a part of their leadership

experience.

the new york times Distribution. In the fall of 2006, the Office of

Civic Engagement made available 225 subscriptions of The New York

Times for faculty to use in their classes. Courses within a variety of

disciplines including history, theater, cultural studies, foreign language,

composition, journalism and communications used the papers. In

December 2007, a New York Times representative was on campus to

demonstrate the use of online subscriptions for faculty who wished to

continue to use the The New York Times in their courses.

The Office of Civic Engagement produced and distributed several

newsletters and developed a Web site this past year. All this was done

to promote the programs and services of the office. An income and

expense budget for 2007–08 follows.



Example C. the state university office of CivicEngagement income and Expenses

Expenses Salaries (Director & .40 FTE Adm. Asst.) $ 69,410Fringe Benefits 23,897AMERICORPS Contracts 29,200General Operations Support/Services (includes food) 8,700Computer Supplies 400Printing 2,250Postage/Mail 275Telephone (International and Long Distance) 110Travel - Domestic (including registrations) 2100Equipment Repair/Maintenance 100Univ. Fleet Car Rental 924System-Wide Program Fees 913

Total Expenses $ 138,379 Income UNIV Office of Public Engagement Mini-Grant $ 5,0005—AMERICORPS 50,000UNIV Vice Chancellor for Academic Admin. 93,307College of ED—Office Support 2,000UNIV Human Resources—Work Study 2,000UNIV Chancellor’s Office 6,700Community Support (PTA’s) 500

Total Income $ 159,507

Analysis of the Three Examples Several observations drawn from the examples speak to the

vulnerabilities of many civic engagement programs:

w A large gift can give a program a significant boost, but attention at

the outset must be focused on how the program(s) will be sustained

after the gift expires. Otherwise, a well-funded program can

collapse because of its need for dollars to sustain a program that

grew too rapidly to provide valid evidence of its impact on learning.

w The objectives or focus of a civic engagement program can be

significantly altered when a large initiative is imposed on the office,

often by forces external to the campus. The original educational

goals of the program must be guarded against “mission creep”



that can easily rob a program of its educational focus or student

clientele.

w Key to sustained funding and preserving a central vision among

the college’s various outreach programs is continuity in the

“champions” of civic engagement. Whether they be faculty,

administrators, presidents or provosts, this leadership commitment

is essential to a continued comprehensive and coherent program

over time.

w Campus-wide involvement and support are critically important for

a program’s stability and sustainability. This commitment creates

the cultural context for civic engagement programs to survive and

prosper.

Under any circumstances, the civic engagement director must steer

a steady course, staying focused on the objectives of the effort and

advocating for the long-term health of the program.



The management of a successful civic engagement program

requires both capabilities in targeted proposal writing and

fundraising, and skills in financial management. The size of the

budget is not as important as the ways in which available funding is

used to help achieve the academic and student development objectives

of the program.

the search for funders: grantsearch

The search for financial support for the campus-wide civic engagement

project has internal and external elements. Sources of funding on

the campus usually are evident, but mobilizing

these budgets is a significant strategic challenge.

However, it is essential that the director of the

campus civic engagement effort know about

the philosophical (and political) basis for the

various campus activities and the budgets that

support them. Even if these other activities are as

divergent as programs for voter registration and

the reduction of homelessness, the development

of an organization-wide civic engagement effort

depends on the ability of the director to mobilize

all the disparate elements around campus into a

focused program. This requires knowledge of the

various program budgets that support civic engagement activities.

vi. funding sourCEs

Photo: Stockton student volunteers dig ditches at Forsythe Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey.



Once there is an understanding of current campus-wide activity, the

civic engagement director can take the next step of identifying the

funding gaps that exist within their own programs. This should be

done with a focus on the realization of campus goals/objectives for

civic engagement, as outlined in Chapter III.

After funding needs are listed and prioritized, a visit with the campus

sponsored programs and development office is in order. In most

cases, the office of sponsored programs will be the office responsible

for grant-seeking in support of campus programming. However, the

advancement/development office is frequently the “gate keeper” for

approaching private (as opposed to governmental) sources of support.

Therefore, contact with both offices is important during every phase of

program development and fundraising.

The importance of matching your fundraising efforts to the campus’

civic engagement goals and objectives cannot be emphasized enough.

As pointed out in previous chapters of this guide, one of the challenges

of working in this field is maintaining focus. You must establish a

coherent vision of your program’s direction, write specific program

goals that are consistent with the vision, and seek funding that serves

to realize the goals. All of this (mission, goals and programs) should

be succinct, specific and written. Periodically, these targets should be

reviewed to determine the program is on track.

There are many useful funding databases—all requiring a subscription

payment—available through campus libraries or sponsored programs

and development offices. InfoEd’s SPIN, COS Funding Opportunities

and Alerts, ResearchResearch, AASCU’s Grants Resource Center’s

GrantSearch, and the Illinois Researcher Information Service are all

reliable sources. For the purpose of demonstrating effective approaches

to searching, the GrantSearch database will be used. Figure 1 displays

the GrantSearch home page and shows the search categories available.



Figure 1: GrantSearch homepage



The key to effective database searching lays in the ability to identify

the program needing support in precise terms. This serves to narrow

the search and yield the most appropriate funding agencies.

Academic Subjects. The first search category within GrantSearch is

the Academic Category/Academic Subject field. The various options

have been listed for all relevant keywords in these disciplines:

Community/Economic Development, Education, Social and

Behavioral Sciences, and Special Populations. It is possible that civic

engagement programs will also involve other academic categories such

as Agricultural and Animal Sciences or Life Science and Health. So,

remember to start by being inclusive of all relevant disciplines.

There are a number of key words commonly associated with civic

engagement projects, and these are listed in the ‘chosen’ columns

in the figures that follow. However, it is not a good idea to list this

many keywords when running a search (as in Figures 2 to 5). Too

many opportunities will likely be identified and wading through all the

possibilities will be time-consuming and may lead you astray.

Notice the radio buttons allowing for the selection of ‘and’ or ‘or’ at the

bottom of the screen. The selection of ‘and’ will require that all key

words appear as descriptors for the funding opportunity; therefore, the

search yield will invariably be smaller.



Figure 2: Academic Subject Search—Community and Economic Development

Figure 3: Academic Subject Search—Education



Figure 4: Academic Subject Search—Social and Behavioral Sciences

Figure 5: Academic Subject Search—Special Populations



The academic category/subjects search option is the most common

basis for effective searching. However, there are other search criteria

that can also be selected.

Activity. If the project involves a very specific approach to civic

engagement programming, the activity search criteria can be useful.

These criteria should not be used if the program involves several

activity areas. Under Chosen Activities, Figure 6 lists those search

terms that most commonly relate to civic engagement efforts.

Figure 6: Activity Search

Funding Sponsor. There are occasions when a list of all the programs

a particular agency supports is going to be most useful. A few agencies

that commonly support civic engagement in higher education are

shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Funding Sponsor Search



Deadline Months. Searching by the funding deadline can be useful

when you know that there is a fixed timeframe during which you

will be developing the proposal. For example, you may know that a

faculty group will be seeking funding for a project during the months

of February, March and April. If they expect to finish their funding

proposal by the end of April and hope to gain support for a project that

will begin in January of the next year, then it is very appropriate to

look for deadlines during May, June and July.

Figure 8: Deadline Month and Text Search

Text. The text search is the least precise of the search options

under GrantSearch because this option searches within the title and

description of all funding opportunities for the exact word entered in

the search space. Because it is not coded to look for related terms,

some opportunities can be missed.

Typically, a search that yields more than 10 funding opportunities

needs to be narrowed by adding additional search criteria. One can

do this by selecting criteria under the ACTIVITY, FUNDING SPONSOR

or DEADLINE categories. Another limiting factor can be the selection

of ‘and’ over the default ‘or’ in the academic or activity categories.

For example, suppose the campus steering committee is placing a

priority on programs designed to address legal issues associated with

family violence. These search criteria would be appropriate: law and

justice, violence/violence prevention, -or- family/family services. In

this GrantSearch example, the use of ‘or’ yields 139 possibilities. If you

select ‘and’ instead of the default (‘or’), the search results are narrowed



to one possibility because all three criteria must be coded to that

particular funding opportunity for it to be selected as an appropriate

result.

A second example of a funding search is included in Appendix D. In

this case, the academic subject ‘social justice/human rights’ resulted

in the identification of 68 programs housed in a number of public and

private agencies, but only a few of these opportunities are included in

the appendix. To look at search results for this key word and others

relevant to civic engagement, go to http://www.aascu.org/grcinfo/

adpsearch.htm. The search results at this Web site will be updated

every six months as a part of the electronic version of this civic

engagement guide.

the foundation Center

A subscription is required to run funding searches through the

Foundation Center’s Foundation Directory Online. However, Foundation

Center staff at any location (state or national offices) will provide

some assistance to local clients whether they subscribe or not to the

directory. Most of the state Foundation Center affiliates are housed in

public libraries.

For those organizations holding subscriptions, access to the online

database is a very useful approach to finding support for civic

engagement projects. The search page has its own layout and search

criteria as illustrated on the next page. Thus, it is possible to search

on the basis of Grantmaker Name, Grantmaker Location, Fields of

Interest, Types of Support, Geographic Focus, Trustees/Officers/

Donors, Type of Grantmaker, Total Giving and Keywords. Note the

distinction between Grantmaker Location (which will tell you what

private funders are located in a specific state, city or zip code), and

Geographic Focus, which will indicate the locations that the foundation

lists as their funding interest areas. It is not uncommon to find

foundations that fund projects in a variety of locations, both local and

distant.



When one is conducting a search, selecting ‘view index’ under each

category prompts a menu of options. The person conducting the search

selects those words most appropriate to describe the project from the

list of options in the index. The two exceptions are the Total Giving and

Keyword Search; in both cases, the person conducting the search is

able to enter values not selected from an index.

Figure 9: Foundation Center Search Format

© The Foundation Center



It is instructive to actually run a search using the Foundation Center

database. Let’s assume that the civic engagement director at a campus

in Iowa is seeking to promote volunteer activity among the students. In

this case, ‘volunteerism promotion’ was selected as the field of interest

and the geographic foci selected were ‘Iowa’ and ‘national.’ It is typical

to search among those funders that support local projects as well as

those that have an interest in projects throughout the U.S. Before

running the search, note that “Exclude grantmakers not accepting

applications” was selected to ensure that the results would include

only foundations open to receiving unsolicited requests of support.

Figure 10: Foundation Center —Fieldsof Interest and Geographic Focus




In this case, the search yielded a list of twelve possibilities. The results

from the Foundation Center search will always have hot links to a

brief description of the funding organization and information on their

assets, recent funding levels and location.

Figure 11: Foundation Center Search results


The search could be further narrowed in several ways:

w Adding criteria in the other categories as appropriate to the project

(for example, perhaps you only want conferences and seminar

funding, so this could be added to type of support);

w Limiting the search to only Iowa funders;

w Selecting additional criteria to the fields of interest (for example,

‘voter education’; and



w Entering ‘and’ as opposed to ‘or’ between the criteria within the

fields of interest category.

These additional search limitations should be added one at a time

and in varying combinations, since restricting the search by using

too many limiters can result in a search outcome with NO potential

funders.

Summary of the Search ProcessThe goal of the search process is to yield the single best potential

funding source—one showing a close match between the goals of

the campus program being developed and the funding priorities of

a private foundation or government agency. While it is appropriate

to have several back-up potential funders, the proposal should be

directed at only one funder at a time. “Shotgun” approaches to seeking

support are notoriously unsuccessful, since this strategy does not

promote attention to the specific funding criteria of the organization

that is found to be the closest match.

Following the completion of the search, the civic engagement director

should be prepared to develop a focused proposal with a sound budget

and clearly articulated goals and objectives. Addressing this document

to the most likely funding source will significantly increase the chances

of success.

A Proposal development Checklist

As a conclusion to this guide, a checklist for preparing a proposal

for submission to an external funder or for review by an institutional

committee or administrator is in order. The following provides a

summary of the steps in the idea and proposal development process.



EFFECTIVE ProPoSAL WrITInG

Start with a well-written, concise, focused and programmatically

sound idea in the form of a hypothesis, research question or problem

statement. Then, attend to these issues:

• Dealwithcollaborationrequirements.Tobesuccessful,doyou

need assistance from colleagues? Do you need access to specialized

facilities or equipment?

• Writegoalsandobjectivesthatflowrationallyfromyourhypothesis,

research question or problem statement:

• Goalsshoulddivideyourprojectintoclearlyidentifiedcomponents.

• Objectivesshouldspeaktogoalattainmentwithatimelineand

assessment included.

• Researchfundingagenciesthoroughlyandchoosetheonemostlikely

to support your idea. Don’t take a “shotgun” approach to funders.

• Collectthefundingcriteriaandreviewer’sevaluationprotocolfrom

the funder.

• Outlinetheproposal,incorporatingresponsestothefunder’sreview

criteria.

• Writeandre-writetheproposaluntilyouarecertainyourideasare

clearly articulated:

• Usestrong,descriptive,action-orientedwords.

• Developcoherentparagraphsthatexpressyourpassion.

• Usefunding-criteria-relatedheadings.

• Havecolleaguesinyourfield(andrelatedfields)readyourproposal

for clarity, understandability and flow.

• Includeatimelinethatchronologicallyshowsthemajorbenchmarks

or deliverables for the project. Base the level of detail on space

allowances.

• Writeanassessmentplanthattargetstheoutcomesidentifiedinthe

objectives.



• Includeamanagementplanbasedontheprinciplesofproject

management.

• Provideevidenceofthesustainabilityoftheproject,andspeaktothe

capabilities that you and your organization possess that guarantee

the project’s success.

• Developabudgetthatreflectstheprioritiesofyourproposal.Work

on this with the pre-award budget staff at least a month before the

submission date.

• Spendsufficienttimedevelopingtheabstract.Thisisessentialfor

marketing the idea.

• Reviewtheabstract,hypothesis/problemstatementandbudgetfor

consistency.

• Getyourproposalinwellbeforethedeadline,soyoudonotruninto

technical submission problems.

Always remember that there are three essentials when writing a

funding proposal. First, the credibility and professional capabilities

of the project director and the organizational sponsor must be

established. The existence of these capabilities should be evident in the

clarity of the writing, the precision of the goals and objectives, and the

quality of the assessment strategy.

Second, it is essential that the proposal document have coherence

and consistency from the first page of the narrative to the last page

of the budget. The project should be viewed as a package, and there

is nothing more disturbing to a reviewer than a disconnect in either

philosophy or approach among the various chapters of the proposal.

Finally, the proposal writer needs to always remember that, first and

foremost, a proposal is all about marketing. Whether the document is

being prepared asking for internal support through the institutional

curriculum process, or is intended for an external funder, the selling of

the idea or concept is central to success.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Selected and Edited responsesAmerican Democracy Project Survey

October to December 2008N=61, not all respondents completed every question

Does the aDP team do well or poorly at marketing and networking within the institution?• Does well—28• Average, but needs to do more—14• None/does poorly—7• Limited resources and staff—7

identify some communications strategies used to promote the campus project:• Daily campus e-mail newsletter • Flyers and university-wide e-mails • Posters • Course embedded activities • College weekly press releases during scheduled events • Blog/student/faculty listserv/campus paper • Campus newspaper, other city media • “Reactivating ADP”• Electronic notifications to first-year students • Electronic campus “announcements” • Broadcast and targeted e-mails, university publications • Facebook, electronic messaging, student newspaper• College events e-mail list • Decided on a project and each unit promoted it • The VP announced it at the annual faculty meeting• Public activities, buttons and class discussions• Listserv

Would you describe ADP as central to the institution? As marginal? Describe its centrality or marginality and why this might be so.• Central—24 • Marginal—22• In-Between—18• Both—1

Have you received internal funding for your ADP project (from sources within the university)?Yes–53 • No–7

APPEndix A: survEY rEsults

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


if so, what are the sources of your internal support?• Provost’s office—18• President’s office—11• Student association/government—6 • Student services/affairs/student life—6• Various individual campus departments—5• Center/Office for civic leadership/engagement/service—5• Deans—5• Auxiliary services—2• Foundation• Office of housing • College of liberal arts• University advancement • Library• Tuition-based revenue • Faculty research funds • Chancellor’s office

Has your project grown in the past few years?Yes –42 • No–13

if yes, describe a few ways this happened:• Faculty and staff involvement shows growth and support—14• Steering Committee, more student involvement—10• ADP activities—9• More support from academic and student affairs, and community—9 • Increased funding—3

Would you say your institution has done a good job of assessing civic engagement?Yes–29 • No–29

if “yes,” please identify what methods you used:• Surveys—10

• Assessment/course reports—6

• National indirect measures such NSSE—4

• Attendance at events—2

• Student participation (volunteering to help with events)—2

• Campus audits—2

• ADP committee discussions

• PEP survey on our freshmen

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


• Strategic planning performance indicators

• Meetings with students, faculty and alumni

• We have successfully incorporated the value of a civil society in our university mission; student projects; clubs and organizations; and Greek communities. The value of service-learning is an important element of our university culture.

• Self-study for reaccreditation

• Photos and stories of service-learning and civic engagement activities

• Are developing pre-measures and followed by post-measures at annual intervals. We will use the FURCO measurement of institutionalization, which is an important part of the activities of our Americorps VISTA members who began in August 2008.

• In the area of voter education and registration our methods include a straight tallying of faculty participating and numbers of registrations processed. Our curricular program requires a specific instrument that gauges course impact on students; standard student assessment forms are not sufficient but we have not yet developed an independent assessment tool for the courses.

• The few successes we had came as a result of working together with coordinators of ADP, Stewardship of Place and Outreach programs

• Collaboration with clubs and organizations has proven to be helpful in completing goals for the activities on campus.

• An annual report on community outreach, passed in part on an interactive survey of faculty. We also have measurable goals (such as adding service-learning classes each semester).

• In 2006, the ADP Steering Committee conducted a campus engagement audit, which was prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and finalized by the ADP Audit subcommittee, to ascertain faculty, staff and student attitudes toward civic engagement and to determine where curricular and co-curricular activities were occurring.

Were you assigned this position? Yes–49 • No–13

By whom?• Provost/vice president for academic affairs - 31• Chancellor/president -3• Dean of students -2• Civic engagement committee

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


• President and chief academic dean • Former committee chair • Elected by the committee • Vice president for undergraduate studies

Did you apply for this position?No–52 • Yes–8

to whom do you report?• Provost/vice president for academic affairs—37• Various deans—5• Chancellor/president—4• Associate provost—2• The ADP committee and the provost • Associate vice chancellor for undergraduate studies • Vice president for undergraduate studies• Chair of the department of government and sociology • The director of student life • University programs • The director of CCERP and associate provost • VP for university advancement • Decentralized, so we don’t really “report” on ADP • No one specifically

Did you have experience in civic engagement before this? Yes–46 • No–13

if so, in what way?• Community volunteerism/activism/involvement—15

• Politically active in the campus and community and politics—11

• Taught/used service-learning/civic engagement in courses previously—11

• Overseeing civic engagement efforts as a student affairs administrator

• Supervised service-learning coordinator

• V.P. League of Women Voters; many other civic duties as a political scientist.

• Director, Center for Service-Learning, social work professional

• Campus speeches, providing internship opps., community work, community research.

• Attended the Stewardship of Public Lands seminar at Yellowstone and also used civic engagement literature in classes.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


• A graduate assistant with the University Center for Civic Education and Service, and I specifically worked with the service-learning program

• 30 years as a Lutheran minister and community organizer. I have not been a governor or corporate executive but have administered congregations with million dollar budgets.

• The director of the Center for Civic Leadership

• Twenty years working to establish close relations between a network of faculty and students and a broad-based community organizing project; established a forum for regular dialogue between academics and community organizers.

• Director of university’s community service-learning program for since 1993.

• First director of Service-learning; leadership within the community; League of Women Voters, ran for public office

• Working in the field of community-based learning and civic engagement for over 20 years.

• Presentations at conferences for teachers, working in schools on lessons/units with teachers, sponsoring speakers on campus, working with the League of Women Voters on candidate forums.

• Previous experience with PEP and co-curricular programs related to classroom initiatives.

• Director of Internships and Civic Engagement, introduced service-learning to the campus community.

• Director of America Reads/Counts work study coordinator for the financial aid office and many years of community work.

Choose one of the following that best describes your position within your institution.Faculty—34Academic Affairs Administrator—11Student Affairs Administrator—4 Other, please specify—12

• Combination faculty/academic affairs administrator—2 • Administrator in the chancellor’s office • Coordinator of civic engagement • Fall 2007 I returned to prof full time; was a dean • An instructor and an administrator • Faculty and director of prog for comm, cult & env

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


• Retired now, formally academic affairs • Honors director • Faculty w/ admin duties for non-part organization • Special assistant to the president • Director and executive director

Does your ADP project have strong community partners?Yes–36 • No–25

if so, please name a few of them and give a few examples of your activities together:• Local legislators—5

• Local media—5

• County offices and initiatives—3

• United Way—3

• City Councils/agencies—3

• Chamber of Commerce—2

• League of Women Voters—2

• Local merchants and business governance groups—2

• Community leaders—2

• School Districts

• Work with high school on local legends story taking and telling project by pre-service educators.

• Student-led endeavor to match educators and their classrooms with Peace Corps Volunteers around the world. Twelve teachers and classrooms are now linked with 11 countries. Early College, a Gates-funded experimental program located on our campus, benefits from our students who deliver a weekly New York Times Talk current event series.

• Place students as tutors in the schools, which is a great benefit to students and the children. A local advertising agency that we are working with on a voter campaign. Project Homeless Connect is an event which connects people in our city who are homeless or at risk of being homeless to services. Our students assist with this event. The city and the Office of Civic Engagement are working together to assist the city with budget concerns.

• U.S. Senate debates

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


• Voter groups

• NAACP

• A community strategic planning process that includes the city, county and key shareholders in the community

• The Center for Citizenship and Democracy

• Senior College

• American Legion

• Housing Authority—sociology students with after-school program.

• We Care Ministries food bank was given produce from a garden raised and maintained by agriculture classes.

• Downtown publications provide information dissemination to network of civic-minded businesses.

• A community member on the ADP committee is very interested in getting the community members that he works with connected to ADP events and programs. We have also partnered with the county elections office to bring about the 2008 Mock Convention for high school and university students.

• Interfaith Council—participating a grassroots organizing and networking project.

• Other colleges and the state and various government agencies.

• An annual community needs assessment project that involves dozens of participants

• Student government, Amnesty International, Honors Program

• An advisory committee of community members, especially from the legal community.

• University and community college faculty members worked on a county environmental project and presented their findings to their community partners: Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) and Community and Children’s Advocates Against Pesticide Poisoning (CCAAPP), prepared information about the dangers of methyl iodide to share with citizens and the California EPA.

• Working with the Economic Development department the Capstone students brought art classes to children at two facilities managed by the

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


department. The Capstone project provided more 20 hours of art to the children.

• Home for Boys

• The Deliberative Polling Project was done with a variety of community groups.

• Campus Compact helps us announce our conferences and workshops. The New York Times is a wonderful national partner. Mobilize.org and The Case Foundation attended our civic engagement workshop during Constitution Week.

in terms of resources, what does your project need most?• Funding—19 • Staff members and faculty positions—16 • Volunteering, support, campus leadership—8• Permanency, Collaboration and a clear vision—7 • Publishing opportunities, media—5• List of experts on topics—2• Not sure—2• None—2• Advertising dollars—1• Money for traveling expenses—1• In-service training for faculty—1

Has your institution received external funding for your ADP project (from beyond the university)?Yes–22 • No–40

if so, who are the funders? Campus Compact (state or national)—7Federal grants—6Private foundations—5 Corporations—5The New York Times—5State or local government—4Individuals—3Professional associations—2• Note: Some respondents listed multiple funders.

Please identify the key barriers/challenges that you have found or envision for obtaining external funding for ADP activities.Time—12 Lack of campus financial support—11Poorly organized campaign—7No grant-writing support—7 Lack of help identifying funders—7

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


No leadership—4Lack of goals or focus—2 • Note: Some respondents listed multiple barriers.

Do you have other thoughts or ideas about funding for ADP activities that you would like to share with your colleagues?• A focus on other institutional strategic planning priorities.

• Lack of resources and faculty time.

• Remained consistently in the 30-40 average of participants for special events

• No leadership.

• The curricular program has weakened most due to the resource constraints.

• It has not truly grown because the university has not bought into the project.

• Our organization’s strength has been rather consistent over the years. We fund several programs each year, a number that can vary from time-to-time. But I would say that we have been satisfied with our progress. We have been able to sponsor high-quality programs by avoiding a “get big” mentality.

• Poor leadership, lack of commitment, wrong people assigned to head the project

• Consistent emphasis from the top (president and provost) that this is one of the college’s priorities. I don’t know that I have heard the president give one talk in which he has failed to mention this as a priority. This alone has had a profound effect.

• Lack of faculty/administrator commitment.

• Changes in admin. at levels of pres., VPAA and dean along with departure of campus coordinator have program currently in limbo.

• Civic Agency Initiative resonates with campus goals.

Write a few sentences to describe your ADP project now:A small group of dedicated faculty and staff who put on a consistent set of programs each year.

We are trying to institutionalize ADP and civic engagement as a way to create a niche for our university and to get our students more involved in activities.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


There are several activities in progress:1. A deliberative polling demonstration project on energy policy2. An ongoing scholarship/seminar for students identified as civic leaders3. An ongoing residential college for civic involvement in our residence halls4. A university-county poll-worker project that trains students to work at

the polls on election day.

Our university completed the Deliberative Polling Initiative Spring 2008. The university is currently engaged in a wide array of election activities: CampaignWatch, Debate Watch, and Issue Expos. The ADP and Frederick Douglass Institute are hosting Election Night (watching election returns) and the ADP is sponsoring an Election Analysis Forum featuring several outstanding election experts.

ADP has been a very good resource to promote discussions, classes and programs that involve civic engagement opportunity. Beginning fall 2008, a core group met to organize our involvement in the Civic Agency Initiative. The first forum on Civic Agency was held in September, another will take place in October before a team goes to the Civic Agency meeting in November.

The ADP Steering Committee is now the umbrella organization for all campus activities that focus on engaging students with the community, state and world. There is a wide net cast that includes volunteering at one end and political engagement at the other—but all with the objective of helping to develop good citizens for our democracy.

We are beginning to develop civic engagement programs and service-learning on the campus. Over the last few years, there has been more of an effort to keep track of and make faculty aware of such projects on campus.

We are aligning our ADP projects under our newly articulated university-wide learning outcomes. We are integrated with the Provost’s Summit on learning by infusing topics about democracy in speaking and writing assessments.

A regular series of public presentations that include forum speakers and discussion groups.

Focused primarily on trying to get students to vote and engaged in the political process.

We have combined the American Democracy Project and the Political Engagement Project to include an Advisory Council that has representation from all of the eight colleges, student affairs, the library, governmental relations.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Civic Engagement across the curriculum and Deliberative Polling

A faculty-led approach to develop undergrad attitudes, dispositions, practices of civic engagement. We provide multiple opportunities (issues forums, political debates, provocative speakers, town hall meetings) to engage the students.

Directed through a interdisciplinary student-faculty-staff steering committee, we provide a variety of programs and events which connect a wide variety of academic disciplines to civic engagement. We have a strong commitment to political engagement (political forums, voter registration efforts, student poll worker program, etc.), with isolated service-learning efforts.

Our university’s ADP project has had more than 20 successful activities. The ADP Committee has taken a leadership role in civic engagement on the campus.

Campus Coordinator attended Kettering Foundation this summer. In addition to campus initiative, local community is moving into implementation of a long range strategic plan and has contracted with the Humphrey Institute, Center for Citizenship and Democracy, for a train-the-trainers approach to advancing civic agency. Students, AmeriCorps*VISTAs and staff from the university will also participate locally.

Small, disorganized. We’re laying the groundwork to develop a more institutionalized approach to ADP. We have a committee of two political science faculty members and one representative from student affairs.

Our project has recently been infused with private donor money and joined by our membership in Campus Compact. We are also considering merging it with our student leadership organization. All three have separate funds and efficiencies would be realized by reducing barriers among them.

Our program so far has been focused on raising awareness of ADP and we look to move to institutionalize ADP on the campus in the coming years.

Currently, we are continuing Constitution Day activities to prepare students for the upcoming election and are hosting debate watches. Our campus has begun an electronic political forum.

1. Five year long participation2. University-wide community based learning curricular program (Civic

Engagement Across the Curriculum - CEAC)3. Youth Voter Education & Registration Project in FYS (four years) and

campus wide this year.4. Constitution Day lecture, exhibits and luncheon for four years with great

visibility and success, and was coordinated with the Library.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Sponsored an American Democracy and Civic Engagement Project the week of Sept. 15–19 which coincided with Constitution Day on Sept 17. We are continuing with voter registration drive.

We are in the very beginning stages at this point. There are several faculty who have individual initiatives. We are working now to make connections between them.

The project is established as an ongoing part of work done by the University. We have name recognition among students, faculty, staff and community members and constituent groups anticipate programmatic activities—meaning that offices and individuals contact me about when things are going to happen, what we are going to do, if someone can come to their group rather than the ADP doing all of the initial contact reaching out. University officials note the project in public remarks, referencing in a way that assumes audiences know about the project. External agencies contact ADP if they have questions about voter registration, Constitution Day (other obvious links). Students are taking more responsibility for fronting co-curricular programming. We are established as an aspect of the commitment to the co-curriculum in Learning Communities and other pedagogical practices. We’re beginning to see more faculty interested in pursuing a research connection. From a program development viewpoint—our ADP is established, perceived as consistent and reliable, but also maintains an activist posture.

Currently, we have a strong ADP Steering Committee that meets monthly to plan events and programs to promote civic engagement amongst our students. We have a robust schedule of ADP events that includes non-partisan voter education programs and voter registration activities.

The ADP program combines scholarly lectures and symposia with a variety of co-curricular civic engagement projects. The program functions with student/faculty/staff project teams as contrasted to a steering committee.

The core of our strategy is to organize and energize the campus as a civic community created by its members. We want students to graduate having lived the experience of being successful social entrepreneurs, creative contributors and systemic problem-solvers, so we establish and pursue opportunities for them to do so both on and off campus. We also strive to create an environment that encourages everyone to discover, develop and apply their capacity to make a meaningful difference as campus citizens.

Changes in leadership at the president, provost, and dean’s level have invigorated the ADP in the last year. Administrative support is starting to occur with a vision for ADP and civic engagement as a core mission of the university.

In addition to our initital projects, New York Times Talk and Readership, our project has expanded to include the 7 Revolutions initiative as well as the

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Ben Franklin Papers project. We are very well recognized both on campus and in the community. We are receiving buy-in from faculty and administrators.

After struggling to gain a broad sense of energetic ownership for involvement in the ADP, we are now undergoing a robust reorganizating process. The current effort, led by the new director and board of the Program for Community, Culture, and the Environment, unites several disperate efforts, and initiates new ventures to make civic engagement a more central part of the ethos on campus and the university curriculum. Key aspects of this project include a three-semester Civic Engagement Certificate; efforts to build sustainability into the curriculum, and specific initiatives to enhance our involvement in the public work of the region in a manner consistent with the principles stated in the university’s strategic plan: sustainability, equity, diversity. This involves specific forums engaging leaders from the public, private, and NGO entities, as well as efforts to collaborate with grassroots organizing projects in the region.

The project has been reenergized. We are conducting several civic engagement, voting, issue awareness efforts, and folding service-learning opprotunities into ADP.

Our university’s ADP has established strong roots on campus. We strive to sponsor high-quality initiatives and seek to inspire creativity when it comes to civic education.

We involve faculty members and students in a variety of projects, including voter education, ADP Annual Meeting, community-based participatory research, advocacy courses, and encouraging greater inclusion of civic engagement in service-learning courses. Also involved in 7 Revolutions initiative with an instructor who is teaching a 7Rev course for the first time this semester. Finally, The New York Times and other newspapers in the classroom efforts have gone quite well.

The project has a core group of about 15 people, including faculty, staff and administrators, with equal numbers from academic affairs and Student and Campus Life, who meet several times each semester. We have sponsored speakers, panels, workshops, voter registration and service-learning stipends.

Since I left the project, as it was, it fell apart. The Center, where I was the director, also served as the campus coordinator of the ADP. Due to a reorganization, the Center was assigned to an incompatible division, university advancement. They hosted a search for a director of a combined division, and I stepped aside and ultimately retired.

An ad hoc committee of faculty, students, staff and administrators meet monthly to discuss issues and coordinate activities and initiatives to fulfill the goals of ADP.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


We have institutionalized many of our ADP initiatives in our Institute for Civic Engagement (ICE), which has three components—Service-Learning; Community Outreach (via our downtown facility); and Community Research and Economic Development. Some ADP initiatives were institutionalized in other areas of the college. For example, our Cultural and Intellectual Climate Committee organizes our themed speakers’ series each year. We operate our civic engagement activities under the ICE banner, yet we always add, “affiliate of the American Democracy Project.”

We are still a bit disjointed—but enjoying the partnership with The New York Times and looking forward to the deliberative polling project. We have no money, nor secretary, nor reassigned time for faculty coordination.

It is transitioning to a student-run program. This seems more successful.

Our ADP project is currently in a state of transition. I have just assumed responsibility as coordinator and am looking to expand our ADP activities and participation.

We do not have a set project. Our institution is in leadership transition with an interim chancellor and provost. This is not a high priority initiative on campus at this particular time.

I attended the annual conference in Utah and will be attending the Southern regional conference in November. The academic vice president has granted me a graduate assistant for the spring semester to help me get the program started.

Multiple activities ranging from voter inititiatives to curriculum infusement to sustainability. We organized ourselves into a five-person leadership team with 10 committees.

We are prepared to move to an entirely new level with civic/community engagement. We are intentionally participating in the Civic Agency initiative as a way to further infuse this ‘way of life’ even deeper into curricula and research.

The ADP on campus is a convener of campus and community experts to discuss issues. The purpose of the discussions is to inform and build a greater understanding of the issues. This effort is supported by offering The New York Times on campus for free to students.

In addition to hosting our Political Engagement, Deliberative Polling and America’s Future Projects, the AASCU-sponsored ADP encompasses such civic engagement activities as our Constitution Day Celebrations and our ongoing Voter initiatives.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Both are in initial steps. Deliberative polling for example is something we’ve participated in via an interactive webcast for training. We’ll be trying a modest version of it with an audience later this year.

Our efforts are focused on cross-campus, cross-disciplinary forums and collaboration among regional community colleges. The collaborative with our regional community colleges provided a year-long workshop series, sharing techniques with faculty from the university and four area community colleges, to build civic engagement/service-learning into the curriculum and identifing models to assess and document civic engagement/service-learning. We just completed the last of our workshops and will be meeting with all to report out on our ADP activities.

Our most tangible impact has been in the area of academic service-learning. We began a faculty development program and have greatly expanded our service-learning courses. Also greater relationships with community partners through our civic engagement day, community action summit, ‘volunteer dearborn’ program, etc.

We completed the Deliberative Polling last year and are now seeking another initiative to be the cornerstone of the program.

We are currently pilot testing the 7 Revolutions online materials made available by The New York Times and CSIS. We teach a senior seminar course in which these materials are used. We have just begun this semester to explore other areas in which we might be further engaged with the ADP.

We have limited our ADP projects to Constitution Day events, voter education and registration. We are developing a public responsibility and leadership program which will include forums and internships.

Our ADP project is a part of our Office of Civic Engagement; the mission is to educate students who are civically aware, skilled and committed to act for the public good. The Office of Civic Engagement accomplishes this mission through curricular and co-curricular activities that create opportunities for students to find a meaningful role in their local, regional, national and international communities.

We have a mission statement and set of program goals, and a committee composed of faculty, staff, students and community people.

We do faculty workshops during the year and a two-day one in May or June. Programs include Constitution Day, News Talk (first Saturday of the month), Civic Discourse and Opposing Views series (to teach respectful dialogue).We collaborate with other units for specific programs, e.g., Lincoln celebration next February.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


During the last two years, we have placed student civic engagement at the center of our ADP programming. Last year, we created the ADP student coordinator position and formed an ADP student board. It has made all the difference in our visibility on campus.

We are moving out of adolescence into adulthood. A few programs are well established and we are trying to build others, such as the 7 Revolutions and Stewardship of Public Lands.

The Committee meets once a month. We plan various activities, Cafe Demos, panels on immigration, group viewing of presidential debates, and we discuss ways we can contribute to the PEP initiative.

The ADP is largely moribund. The steering committee, which was comprised of faculty, staff and students has not met in close to a year and consequently there have been few if any activities or projects during this time period.

name 3 activities or accomplishments your ADP project has done really well:• Voter registration drives, forums, Rock the Vote, Youth Voter Registration,

Be Heard, Electoral Voice, election day transportation—29

• Constitution Week/Day activities, including historic PBS film focused upon Constitutional History; An original Reader’s Theatre script and performance of “The Constitution”—20

• The New York Times Talks/Coffees/other activities—9

• Involving faculty/students in ADP projects/initiatives and civic engagement—8

• 7 Revolutions initiative—4

• Institutionalizing initiatives and courses in the curriculum and across the campus—4

• Campus Reads, Pizza and Politics—4

• Hosted nationally known conferences/speakers, including Harry Boyte—4

• Faculty: Faculty connections and developmental workshops, peer mentoring, lesson plan sharing, faculty development—3

• Deliberate Polling Initiative—3

• PEP, including from one campus: Global Warming and Environmental Sustainability; Get on the Bus: 40 Years of Political Activism—3

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


• Raising the importance of service to the community; campus/community collaborations—3

• Open forum discussions of civic responsibility—2

• Provided stipends and workshops to faculty to incorporate service-learning into courses. At one campus, the number of service-learning courses has gone from 15 to 26 in three years—2

• Cafe Demos—2

• Teach-ins (e.g., CampaignWatch and War Talk)

• Mentoring programs with local schools

• Green Campus Initiative Project

• Student essay/speech contest at state and campus levels focusing on ADP themes

• Ongoing scholarship/seminar for students identified as civic leaders

• Ongoing residential college for civic involvement in our residence halls

• Model Congress programs for local high schools

• Banned Books Week events are noteworthy in the community for the third year in a row.

• Pantry Drive for Hurricane Katrina Evacuees.

• Planned for integration of the Civic Agency Initiative as part of implementation of long-range plan on campus and in the community.

• Maintained focus and momentum during change in provost’s position.

• Operation Care

• Food drives

• We have served as the Center for ADP South since 2005.

• Our Earthweek Celebration is eventful and has helped increase emphasis on recycling.

• Development of a university-wide curricular program with courses in all five colleges. Each contains a community based learning component. Each course must meet established civic engagement criteria.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


• Mock Lincoln/Douglas debate in the state’s General Assembly.

• National and Global Youth Service Day—A group of students, directed by one of the ADP Steering Committee members, organized this service event on campus. Students were given the opportunity to visit several stations around campus where they could participate in service. This event was a great success.

• UNF Voices Forum—The UNF Voices Forum is an opportunity for students to engage in a meaningful dialogue concerning political issues of the day. The UNF Voices Forum is organized by student groups such as Critical Minds, Project Affect, Americans for Informed Democracy, Students Without Borders, and the Progressive Action Committee.

• A residential learning community and student ADP organization dedicated to civic engagement using the Peace Corps Correspondence match program and an annual What a Relief alternative spring break program.

• Prove It!: With support from faculty and staff, our Student Government Association conceived, developed and implemented Prove It!, an initiative that challenged students to create a novel and innovative project, service or event that would make everyone proud to be a member of the campus community. Students competed for up to $50,000 in funding to support implementation of their ideas, and an additional $5,000 as a reward for coming up with the winning plan. The contest inspired countless conversations and group planning sessions. Twenty-two teams of students submitted entries, which were evaluated based on their strategic soundness, the value of the proposed innovation and the degree to which the teams had successfully reached out to potential partners. The winning entry announced in March 2008, “Green Space,” will transform a site overlooking the campus pond into a comfortable and appealing space for conversation, rest and study.

• Civic Imagination and Social Entrepreneurship course: We launched a course in fall 2008, cross-listed by the departments of political science, American studies, education and sociology, with the goal of empowering and preparing students to work effectively in their communities, social groups and democracy to initiate and achieve social change. Students analyze and evaluate prevailing ideas about effective citizenship, activism, service and politics, including conventional assumptions about the limits of ordinary citizens’ capacity to become agents of transformation. Course readings and discussions focusing on how people accumulate and exercise power to make change highlight ideas from the fields of political science, sociology, English/rhetoric, education, economics, social work, psychology and history. Students complete bi-weekly written reflections on readings and topics discussed in class. In addition, students work in groups to identify a social problem or opportunity and design a practical

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


plan to create change on campus or through the campus in the wider community.

• Leave Your Mark: During Welcome Week each fall since 2004, we have asked new students to gather around blank pieces of canvas, provided them with paint and brushes and invited them to participate in a ritual of campus co-creation. We ask them to imagine and depict how they hope to be remembered for the contributions they will make to the campus community. The resulting works of art are stitched together and hung in the campus Commons as a lasting reminder of the role students can play in shaping their own educational experiences and our community.

• Hosted an academic conference in 2007 that focused on how America’s democracy is connected to the international arena. This event attracted scholars and public officials from around the world.

• Encouraged faculty/staff to think about civic education from multiple perspectives

• Allowed for significant amounts of autonomy when it comes to developing civic education programs. This has allowed our ADP initiatives to accommodate the interests of individual faculty/staff members, in addition to helping develop timely and up-to-date programs.

• Created a Web site with informative links and a podcast of all ADP talks and panels.

• Excellent cooperation between academic affairs and student development and campus life.

• Deliberative Polling on Transportation.

• Institutionalization of our project under the auspices of the institute for civic engagement. Opened a downtown community outreach facility as a physical and symbolic commitment of the college to its community. Infusion of civic engagement into the culture of the institution.

• Hosted Film Nights

• Residence hall poster competition

• Crossword puzzle competition

• Steps to Make a Difference Walk with donations to community agencies.

• Volunteer and Community Fair

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


• Theater Partnership productions and televised Hurricane Watch coverage of student service-learning and civic engagement activities.

• We are hitting our stride in offering panel discussions. The vast majority of them are recorded and broadcast repeatedly on college access television so even if the crowds are small at the event, the exposure is much larger.

• Collaborative Civic Engagement Events: Diane Wilson, Alternative Energy Forum, Erin Brockovich, all examples of events co-sponsored by multiple units

• Hosted four service-learning workshops for university and community college faculty members focusing on service-learning best practices, developing community partnerships and assessment. Distributed 10 mini-grants to project participants to develop service-learning courses or fully integrate service-learning into their courses. As a result, service-learning was incorporated in 10 courses, seven at the university and three at the community colleges.

• Monthly “days of service”

• ADP Campus Audit

• MLK week of events

• A public forum on Home Rule in our county, a very controversial issue.

• Mobilized more than 1,000 students to assist in the community connected to course curriculum; reading groups which include faculty, staff and students; and monthly events which include POV films, panels, election events, sustainability events and others.

• In spring 2008 we hosted a regional ADP conference in partnership with our state’s Campus Compact and The New York Times featuring students, faculty, staff and community partners from five states. Our ADP board includes faculty, staff and students with active participation and funding from the provost and vice provost. In addition, our president actively supports The New York Times readership program on campus and ADP initiatives.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


APPEndix B: mArkEting BroChurEs

Marketing BrochuresFact Sheet for Marketing Brochures

Brochures should be flexible so they can be tailored to different audiences.

1. Need: • Mission of your office• Vision of your office• Brief statement of your purpose• List of programs, if applicable• Campus seal/logo or your office seal/logo or both

2. Facts and figures:• Number of students involved• Number of faculty involved• Number of community partners involved• What that translates into minimum wage or volunteer wage value• Above should be historical (if you have) as well as current, so partners/

funders can see your progress

3. A couple of candid photos of students with faculty, students and community partners.

4. Some success stories, if you have them (e.g., grants you have received; honors you have received).

Quotes from a student, faculty, community partner (president or vice president if he/she is really supportive of the effort—don’t force the issue).

5. Stories/Statements of Impact

6. Contact information: Web site, phone, campus address.

In general:• Strong layout and design. “Killer” text means nothing if readers aren’t

drawn to the brochure’s design.• Less text and more graphics/photos/white space. Bold colors and nice

paper.• Capture people’s attention, not overwhelm with details.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


APPEndix C: ProjECt ConCEPt workshEEt

Project Concept Worksheet

This form is designed to serve two purposes: first, to help you structure your thoughts about undertaking a project and second, to help identify funding sources for your project. Keep it simple: use bullet points and brief statements, but include as much detail as you can. If you have only rough ideas, brainstorm possibilities.

Name: Type of Project (Check all that apply)

❒ Basic Research ❒ Applied Research ❒ Curriculum Development ❒ Service ❒ Training/Education ❒ Planning ❒ Travel ❒ Other (specify)

needs Statement: Briefly, what question or issue caused you to think about doing a project?

Why is the project important or needed? What will be improved/changed as a result? Who might benefit from the project? In what ways?

Do you know what others have done about this? If so, list some examples that describe their projects. What are their strengths? Their weaknesses? What are their outcomes or conclusions that can help inform your project?

Project Description or Plan of Activities:Write one or two general statements about what you want to do. What are the most important goals or the purpose of your project?

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


In writing your objectives, can you say who is going to do what, for whom, by when, and to what degree? For each objective, jot down an assessment method to measure change. How will you know if you are successful?

Describe some activities that indicate how your project might reach its goals and objectives. How much time will you need? Who will be involved?

What outcomes or accomplishments might you expect as results of your project?

Jot down three important reasons why anyone would fund this project.

Name collaborators and partners already involved or who might be significant contributors.

What resources do you need to do this project?

❒ Salaries ❒ Special Space ❒ Travel Money ❒ Equipment ❒ Supplies ❒ Other (specify)

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Budget Information (Direct costs only)

Give an estimated first year budget:

Number of personnel and for how much time/week.

a. Salaries $___________________________ 1. Professionals __________________ 2. Student Assistants ____________ 3. Other _________________________

b. Equipment $______________________

c. Supplies $______________________

d. Stipends $______________________

e. Other $______________________

f. Total: $______________________

What title would you give this project?

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


APPEndix d: sElECtEd funding oPPortunitiEs

Selected Funding opportunities

Under the most stable social and economic circumstances, searches become outdated not long after they are executed. And today’s funding program situation is anything but stable. The passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Kennedy Serve America Act and the Higher Education Opportunity Act—in addition to the movement to re-vamp the U.S. health care system and the trend among private foundations to fund more social needs programs—creates a volatile funding program environment.

The following search is meant to illustrate the range of opportunities that exist under many key words. This particular search was executed using the academic subject ‘social justice/human rights,’ located in GrantSearch under the ‘community and economic development’ academic category. The yield was 68 programs housed in a number of public and private agencies, but I have included only a few of these opportunities in this appendix.

To look at search results for other key words, visit http://www.aascu.org/grcinfo/adpsearch.htm. The results at this Web site will be updated every six months as a part of the electronic version of this civic engagement guide.

Back | GRC Home Publications | Resources | Events | About GRC

GrantSearchFrom the Grants Resource Center

Search Results: Report View Text Report | Back | New Search

Support for Services to Torture Victims

GRC No.: 1051 Last verified: 3/09

CFDA No.: 93.604 Deadline: 5/11/2009

Contact: Holly Herrera Address: Office of Refugee Resettlement

Center for Victims of Torture 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW, 6th Floor

202/401-5541 Washington, DC 20447

Sponsor: Administration for Children and Families

Description: Supports assistance to victims of torture, including treatment for the physical &

psychological affects of torture; & social & legal services. Activities may include training & professional

development for health care providers who are outside the treatment centers. In FY 09, $8.7 million is

available to support 25 direct services awards and $875K for two technical assistance awards. See http://

www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open.html for details. E-mail: [email protected]

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Regional Community Health Grants


CFDA No.: N/A Deadline: No fixed deadline

Contact: Ilene Campbell Address: Aetna, Inc.

Program Associate 151 Farmington Avenue

860/273-8218 Hartford, CT 06156

Sponsor: Aetna Foundation

Description: Regional Community Health grants support projects in depression, childhood health,

obesity, diabetes, oral health, and end of life care. Awards range from $25,000 to $50,000. Deadlines

for FY09 (5/30, 6/15 & 7/15) according to region/community. See http://www.aetna.com/foundation/

grants_reg/ for details. Email: [email protected]

Grants (Inclusion/Diversity, Safe Communities, Economic Empowerment)


CFDA No.: NA Deadline: No fixed deadline

Contact: Foundation Staff Address: 2775 Sanders Road, Suite F4

800/255-7823 Northbrook, IL 60062-6127

Sponsor: Allstate Foundation

Description: The Foundation has announced that, given the serious economic environment, funding

at the national level in 2009 is primarily for renewing support for existing partners and that it will only

accept applications for new relationships in the areas of teen driving and economic empowerment for

victims of domestic violence. Proposals may be submitted year round. See http://www.allstate.com/

citizenship/foundation/funding-guidelines.aspx for guidelines. E-mail: [email protected]

Domestic Grants Program


CFDA No.: N/A Deadline: 5/16/2008

Contact: Angelica Valenzuela Address: 6033 W. Century Blvd, Suite 280

Vice President, Programs Los Angeles, CA 90045

520/319-1848

Sponsor: Children Affected by AIDS Foundation

Description: CAAF grants, ranging in size from $2,000 to $50,000, are made to nonprofit agencies that

provide direct care, support, & assistance to children, ages birth to 13 years, who are HIV-positive or

affected by HIV/AIDS. Support is provided in the following areas: Basic Needs; Social & Recreational

Grants; Psychosocial Support Grants. No FY 09 competition. See http://www.caaf4kids.org/ for details.

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Grants (Peace/Security, Environment/Sustainability & Population)


CFDA No.: N/A Deadline: 3/7/2009, 9/7/2009

Contact: Debra Doughtry Address: 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 540

Program Officer

650/508-1181

Sponsor: Compton Foundation, Inc.

Description: Supports projects addressing community, national, & international concerns in the areas of

Peace & Security, Environment & Sustainability, & Population & Reproductive Health. Foundation seeks

to foster human & ecological security by addressing contemporary threats to these inalienable rights

& envisions a world in which humans live in harmony with each other, and in sustainable balance with

the earth. Priority given to policy-related, interdisciplinary, & action-oriented projects. See http://www.

comptonfoundation.org/ E-mail: [email protected]

Martin Luther King, Jr. Service Day Initiative


CFDA No.: 94.007 Deadline: 4/15/2008

Contact: Rochelle Barry Address: 1201 New York Avenue, NW

Program Officer (ext. 2) Washington, DC 20205

404/331-4646

Sponsor: Corporation for National and Community Service

Description: Supports efforts to plan and conduct service opportunites in conjunction with the federal

holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. Grants support national service and community volunteering

projects. Awardees make subgrants to local agencies. Only applicants capable of carrying out multi-state,

nationally focused, or comprehensive regional initiatives are eligible for funding. All other applicants can

apply directly to the grantees. See http://www.learnandserve.gov/for_organizations/funding/nofa_detail.

asp?tbl_nofa_id=55 for details. E-mail: [email protected]

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Asset Building & Community Development



Contact: Linetta Gilbert Address: 320 East 43rd St.

Senior Program Officer, New York, NY 10017

Community Development

212/573-5000

Sponsor: Ford Foundation

Description: Focuses on promoting a more prosperous & inclusive society by innovative solutions that

broaden the successful participation of all people in community & economic life. Grants should help

low-income people build financial assets through increased access to employment opportunities, credit,

savings, home ownership, community development & environment to give low-income communities

greater ownership & control of key community institutions & resources. Also supports work in sexuality

& reproductive health. See http://www.fordfound.org/programs/assets for details.

Humane Studies Fellowships



Contact: Amanda Brand Address: George Mason University

Director of Academic Programs 3301 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 440

703/993-4880 Arlington, VA 22201-4432

Sponsor: Institute for Humane Studies

Description: Awards fellowships of up to $12,000 for a year to support the research of undergrad & grad

students from a libertarian perspective that will contribute to advancing a free society. Areas of interest

include: volunteerism, individual rights, free trade, market economics, & migration & peace. Approx 100

fellowships covering tuition & stipends are awarded each year to outstanding undergrad/grad

students, law students, & professional students who are interested in the classical liberal tradition.

Online apps available in mid Sept. for the 2009-10 academic year. See http://www.theihs.org/

scholarships/id.68/default.asp for details. E-mail: [email protected]

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Health, Education, Civic Affairs & Culture Grants Program



Contact: Grants Program Staff Address: Grants Office

212/578-6272 27-01 Queens Plaza North

Long Island City, NY 11101

Sponsor: MetLife Foundation

Description: Requests are accepted & reviewed throughout the year. Grants usually fall within the

following broad areas of concern: health, civic affairs, education, culture and public broadcasting.

Each request is reviewed to determine its general eligibility and conformity to the guidelines for the

appropriate category, the year’s contributions, program priorities and geographical considerations. See

http://tinyurl.com/ce38az.

S&B Dimensions of National Security, Conflict, & Cooperation (NSCC)


CFDA No.: Deadline: 9/30/2008

Contact: Amber Story Address: Behavioral & Cognitive Sciences Division

Program Director 4201 Wilson Boulevard

703/292-7249 Arlington, VA 22230

Sponsor: National Science Foundation

Description: As part of the NSF/Department of Defense Minerva Initiative, supports innovative

interdisciplinary research on the security implications of findings in social & human science disciplines.

Specifically, this solicitation calls for Studies of Terrorist Organization & Ideologies; & Studies of the

Strategic Impact of Religious & Cultural Change. Deadline refers to required letters of intent for small or

large awards; not required for workshop proposals. All proposals due 10/30/08. See http://www.nsf.gov/

funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503294 for details. E-mail: [email protected]

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Soros Justice Fellowships


CFDA No.: Deadline: 9/15/2008

Contact: Christina Voight Address: 400 West 59th Street

Program Officer New York, NY 10019

212/548-0600

Sponsor: Open Society Institute

Description: Supports individuals through 2 programs: the Soros Justice Advocacy Fellowships & the

Soros Justice Media Fellowships. Programs will fund innovative projects that address one or more of

the OSI U.S. Justice Fund’s criminal justice priorities. Advocacy Fellowships are 18 months in duration.

Stipends range from $69,750 to $79,500); Media Fellowships are 12 months in duration (stipend of

$45,000). See http://www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/justice/programs/justice_fellows for

details. Email: [email protected]

Applied Social Issues Internship Program



Contact: Anila Balkissoon Address: 208 I Street, NE

Administrative Coordinator Washington, DC 20002

202/675-6956

Sponsor: Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

Description: ASIIP provides from $300 to $2,500 to college seniors, graduate students, & first year

post doctorates in psychology, applied social science, & related areas, for social issues research in

cooperation with a community or government organization, public interest group or other not-for-profit

that will benefit from the project. Eligibility is limited to SPSSI members. Cost sharing is desirable.

SPSSI has other awards with different deadlines. See http://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.

viewPage&pageId=482 for details Email: [email protected]

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Unsolicited Concept Papers and Proposals


CFDA No.: Deadline: No fixed deadline

Contact: Gary Bittner Address: 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Program Officer Washington, DC 20523

202/712-1556

Sponsor: U.S. Agency for International Development

Description: Considers five-page concept papers & 15-page proposals addressing ways to advance

U.S. foreign assistance objectives. Applicants must demonstrate clear understanding of USAID’s

sector & country strategies & should propose specific institutional linkages that are not supported

by other USAID programs. Projects that are based only in the U.S. or that propose U.S. infrastructure

development are not eligible. All materials must be submitted electronically. Proposals are reviewed

quarterly and may be submitted at any time. See http://www.usaid.gov/university/ for details. Email:

[email protected]

Partnerships in Character Education Project Program


CFDA No.: 84.215 Deadline: 2/24/2009

Contact: Sharon Burton Address: 400 Maryland Avenue SW

Program Officer Room 3E212, FB-6

202/205-8122 Washington, DC 20208

Sponsor: U.S. Department of Education

Description: Supports SEAs (84.215V) and LEAs (84.215S) working in partnership with other

organizations, including IHEs, in designing and implementing character education programs that take

into consideration the views of parents, students, and other members of the community. In FY 09, about

$1.2 million may be available. See http://www.ed.gov/programs/charactered/index.html for details.

Email: [email protected]

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Fair Housing Initiatives Program


CFDA No.: 14.408 Deadline: 7/9/2008

Contact: Denise Brooks Address: 451 7th Street, SW

Program Officer Washington, DC 20410

202/402-7050

Sponsor: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Description: Sponsors initiatives that inform the public about rights and obligations under the Fair

Housing Act and substantially equivalent State and local fair housing laws. Applicants must develop

a complaint referral process so that funded activities will result in referrals to HUD of fair housing

complaints and other possible discriminatory housing practices. IHEs that are formulating or carrying

out programs to reduce discriminatory housing practices are eligible to apply. See http://www.hud.gov/

offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm for details.

Legal Assistance for Victims Grant Program


CFDA No.: 16.524 Deadline: 1/28/2009

Contact: OVW Office Address: Office on Violence Against Women

202/307-6026 800 K Street, NW, Suite 920

Washington, DC 20530

Sponsor: U.S. Department of Justice

Description: Program is intended to increase the availability of legal assistance necessary to provide

effective aid to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault who are seeking

relief in legal matters arising as a consequence of that abuse or violence. Program awards grants to law

school legal clinics, legal aid or legal services programs, domestic violence victims’ shelters, bar

associations, sexual assault programs, & private nonprofit entities. See http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov for

details.

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Research & Evaluation: Abuse, Neglect, & Exploitation of Elderly Individuals


CFDA No.: 16.560 Deadline: 4/10/2009

Contact: Carrie Mulford Address: 810 7th Street, NW

Social Science Analyst Washington, DC 20531

202/307-2959


Description: Supports proposals that address gaps in our ability to prevent, detect, and respond to elder

abuse, neglect, and exploitation, including abuse of elderly individuals, older women, and residents of

residential care facilities. Priority research areas include: identify and explore forensic markers of abuse;

examine the use of medication; perform rigorous evaluations of programs; explore typologies of

abusers and abusive situations; and examine risk and protective factors associated with abuse. See

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding/current.htm for details. E-mail: [email protected]

Transnational Crime


CFDA No.: 16.560 Deadline: 1/23/2007

Contact: Cornelia Sorensen Sigworth Address: 810 7th Street, NW

Social Science Analyst Washington, DC 20531

202/305-9776


Description: NIJ seeks research proposals on transnational crimes, those that violate the laws and

affect the interests of more than one country. Proposals must develop and analyze information and data

having clear implications for policy and practice in the following focus areas: Electronic crime in the

transnational context; Trafficking of human beings; Illegal Trafficking of goods; and Organized crime and

corruption. No competition in FY 08; FY 09 uncertain. See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding/

current.htm for details. Email: [email protected]

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


Youthbuild Grants


CFDA No.: 17.274 Deadline: 1/15/2009

Contact: Donna Kelly Address: Employment and Training Administration

Grants Management Specialist 200 Constitution Avenue, NW

202/693-3934 Washington, DC 20210

Sponsor: U.S. Department of Labor

Description: Funds public & private non-profit organizations to assist disadvantaged youth (16-24) in

distressed communities in completing their high school education, & provides training on housing for

homeless persons & low-income families. Goal is to promote self-sufficiency. In FY 09, approximately

$47 million is available to fund 90-100 awards ranging from $700,000 to $1.1 million. Awards typically

made every other year. See http://www.doleta.gov/grants/find_grants.cfm#young for details. E-mail:

[email protected]

View Text Report | Back | New Search

© AASCU/GRC

Funding Expertise.

Personally Delivered.GRCesourcerants

enter

CiviC EnGAGEmEnt


ABout thE Authors

Beth Olsen has worked in grants administration

since 1985, and currently serves as director of

grants development at Richard Stockton College of

New Jersey. She promotes sponsored programs as

opportunities for institutional change and faculty

development. As one of the first members of the New

Jersey Higher Education Service-Learning Consortium

when it formed in the 1990s, Olsen also supports service-learning at

Stockton and throughout New Jersey. Olsen has also directed grant-

funded projects including AmeriCorps programs. Within the provost’s

office, she supports many institution-wide initiatives including civic

engagement, diversity and community-based learning.

Richard Dunfee became director of the Grants

Resource Center (GRC) at AASCU in June of 2006.

He has served in research administration positions

in Maryland, South Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas

and New York City, and most recently worked as

an independent grants and contracts consultant in

Baltimore, leading faculty development seminars

and teaching graduate research writing classes at Johns Hopkins

University. He has written numerous successful grant proposals to a

variety of federal agencies and more than 20 private foundations.

Colleen Bentley is director of special projects for

the California State University (CSU) Office of the

Chancellor. Previously, she spent 10 years as the CSU

director of public affairs. As special projects director,

Bentley reports to the chancellor, writes his speeches

and other materials, and works with the CSU Center

for Community Engagement on communications and

marketing. She previously worked at the University of California,

Irvine. Prior to that, Bentley was a newspaper reporter in Los Angeles

(Calif.) and Las Vegas (Nev.).

© Copyright 2009 American Association of State Colleges and Universities

1307 New York Avenue, NW • Fifth Floor • Washington, DC 20005-4701

202.293.7070 • fax 202.296.5819 • aascu.org

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in

any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without the prior

permission of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

June 2009

Delivering America’s Promise

AASCU’s 430 public college and university members are found throughout the United States and in

Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We range in size from 1,000 students to 44,000. We are

found in the inner city, in suburbs, towns and cities, and in remote rural America. We include campuses

with extensive offerings in law, medicine and doctoral education—as well as campuses offering

associate degrees to complement baccalaureate studies. We are both residential and commuter, and

with on-line degrees as well. Yet common to virtually every member institution are three qualities that

define its work and characterize our common commitments.

• We are institutions of access and opportunity. We believe that the American promise should be real

for all Americans, and that belief shapes our commitment to access, affordability and educational

opportunity, and in the process strengthens American democracy for all citizens.

• We are student-centered institutions. We place the student at the heart of our enterprise,

enhancing the learning environment and student achievement not only through teaching and

advising, but through our research and public service activities.

• We are “stewards of place.” We engage faculty, staff and students with the communities and

regions we serve—helping to advance public education, economic development and the quality of

life for all with whom we live and who support our work. We affirm that America’s promise extends

not only to those who come to the campus but to all our neighbors.

We believe that through this stewardship and through our commitments to access and opportunity

and to our students, public colleges and universities effectively and accountably deliver America’s

promise. In so doing we honor and fulfill the public trust.

1307 new york avenue, nW • Fifth Floor

Washington, DC 20005-4701

202.293.7070 • fax 202.296.5819 • aascu.org/grc

June 2009

Advancing a Civic Engagement Agenda

Documents

Transcript of Advancing a Civic Engagement Agenda