NCA Accreditation Team 5: Engagement & Service
Minutes: October 3, 2003 meeting

1. Timeline for Self-Study Process: Fall/Winter (2003-2004)
Meet as a team to plan self-study content/process
Identify sources of data for self-study process
Collect supporting materials for site visit resource room
Create sub-teams to work on specific elements of self-study
Team/sub-teams meet with other teams as needed
Recommendations forwarded to appropriate governance groups on as needed basis
Monthly team meetings, twice monthly steering committee meetings
Submit progress report to Provost (December)
First draft of team self-study due (April)

2. Introduction to NCA website, explanation of “blogs” (Laura Pedrick, Sue Podgorski)
“Blogs” are a tool for team members to brainstorm, discuss, share/edit drafts—without scheduling meetings!

If you want help learning to use the blog, Laura and Sue will help—it isn’t hard once you learn the steps in the process to “post” your comments or work. (for help, e-mail to lpedrick@uwm.edu or suei@uwm.edu)

The launchpad is the main website: www.uwm.edu/Dept/Acad_Aff/accreditation/links.html
(our team is one of the buttons on top right corner)
login: nca
password: teams
Note: “calendar” is not an events calendar, it is to access postings from specific dates (an underlined date is one with a posting)
Typepad registration is free, but necessary to post materials (not to comment); content can be pasted from word documents; URL links can be posted

We can always add new categories as needed by teams/subteams

3. Some general discussion comments:

• Defining engagement & service needs to take place
• Collecting a little good data on a few things rather than collect “bad” data on too many things
• Having so many Milwaukee-based students leads us to over-emphasize local involvement—ignoring what they are doing in THEIR OWN communities
• What is meaningful UWM engagement/service versus what they would be doing anyway in their own communities—are they doing it as part of UWM or as part of some other function/role; what role does UWM have to play for it to count (e.g., Day of Caring—people having to take it as work vs. leave time)
• What is the bottom line—accreditation vs. an opportunity to create change? This is important in setting “calibration” of evidence needed.
• Suggestion: we should rough out self-study components first then determine what evidence we need to seek (AUDREY AGREED TO START THIS)
• Each section could specify data we need—rough it out and see what the bottom line is
• Each subcommittee should come up with evidence that UWM meets the standards THEN come up with additional evidence/questions/directions to address.
  

4. Discussion of Holland Matrix content
General comments—

• Assumptions within the matrix about what should/should not be done
• General impressions—Discrepancies between what believe vs reality/experience; wide variability
• What is the relative weight of each item? How are these items actually weighted?
• What assumptions are we making about how “good” this is for the University?
• Too much assuming that the community is “out there” where engagement is a perception of university as part of the community—not going out to it
• What is research in the community? How are community/research integrated in multiple ways (meet together with the other team on this)

-Mission—
Review UWM mission statement; and System
Each school/college missions
Is the commitment IN the statement, and then how is it displayed (on website, in literature, oriented to students
How does The Milwaukee Idea fit into our mission statement?

-Promotion/Tenure/Hiring—
Makes the assumption that senior faculty do it; is it as true at multiple levels?
Every Executive Committee provide standards; indefinite status is variable across units
Ask Asst. Deans (or other key person) at each school to explain the position at each
Division criteria; what types of activity count toward it? (Differs by discipline)
Mentoring program interviews—do not capture academic staff who are not on indefinite track; where do academic staff without indefinite fit in?

-Organization Structure—
Divisional committees emphasize research (70-80-%), teaching & service are important but won’t get you tenure
Academic staff without indefinite—how are they judged (annual review has element on service to the community, service to campus)
APCC—out of 81 UG degree programs, how is service learning and transfer credit addressed? (APCC addresses only if it is part of a degree program or part of a course); new outline for conducting reviews being applied

-Student Involvement—
Service learning—what is its value, doing it well; difference from internships, practicums?
Element of “giving back” and priority for students becoming part of communities, volunteerism (and paid experiences as valuable, too—e.g., America Reads)
Black & Gold Committee is essential context

-Faculty Involvement—

-Community Involvement—
Partners are concerned about “nuisance” of short term student “help”—a lot of work to train & supervise them followed by a drought; how do we ensure continuum of involvement—more reliability
UWM has matured into this
Service is part of our athletics—Horizon league

-Campus Publications—
Website
Bulletins
Center for Urban Initiatives Research compendiums—dissemination
E-news?
Catalog, time table, student brochures, class schedules (Inst of Service Lrng has its own section now as a dept.)
Tom Luljack’s office?
TMI
Alumni publication, UWM today

5. Discussion of 7-Parts Test
(We did not get to this but I have attached content from Bill Maryl that addresses some points)
1=Responsiveness—There are a number of boards and committees ranging from the Board of Visitors to the advisory committees of all of the Milwaukee Ideas that provide members of the campus community the opportunity to listen to the ideas and concerns of members of the community; resource limitations (space, etc.) are a major obstacle.

2=Respect—Today (compared to 5 years ago) we are improving (maybe a B). We should plan on surveying our community partners and community leaders on this one.

3=Academic Neutrality—We do well on this (perhaps an A). Anecdotal data may be all we can locate on this topic.

4=Accessibility—We should include this in a survey of our community partners and leaders.

5=Integration—We can come up with several good examples (e.g., Cultures and Communities, Helen Bader Institute for Nonprofit Management, Center for Age and Community, Service Learning Center, etc.); this dimension has not permeated the institutional culture

6=Coordination—TMI office and a range of campus publications can be used as evidence of the efforts to coordinate our activities

7=Resource partnerships—within the context of the current budget situation, we have done well in this area (an A). As evidence, use budget data that show UWM receiving several million dollars in new money to support the Milwaukee Idea. Also, point to generous grants from local foundations that have supported several of our “engagement” activities. Finally, the commitment of campus resources to various activities can be mentioned. However, here is where the current budget situation clouds the picture.

6. Sub team composition
5A: UWM learns from the constituencies we serve and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations

• Ann Hains *
• Mary Pick
• Joan Smothers
• Mark Krueger
• ?

5B: UWM has the capacity and the commitment to engage with our identified constituencies and communities

• Jean Bell-Calvin
• Laurie Marks*
• ?

5C: UWM demonstrates responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on us for services

• Mark Mone
• David Mulroy
• ?

5D: Internal and external constituencies value the services UWM provides

• Joan Prince?
• Bill Maryl?
• ?