Front Page / Assessment / Campus-Wide Assessment / Guides
Program & Campus-Wide Assessment
Overview | Guides | Campus Examples | Documents to Download
This section includes information about different tools that can be used for center's assessment as well as campus-wide assessment of community engagement. One area that is not covered here but that is covered elsewhere on the Bonner Wiki is information about campus-wide tracking tools. Visit Tracking Systems - Overview section of wiki to learn more about ways to keep track of and count community engagement projects.
A strong campus-wide assessment usually includes at least:
- Mapping/inventory (what exists)
- Perception + experience data (students, faculty/staff, and community partners)
- Outcome evidence (learning and partner/community outcomes)
Practical Guidance for Choosing an approach:
- If you need an institution-wide picture of activities, infrastructure, and partnerships, start with a Carnegie-style self-study + inventory.
- If you need scalable data on the student experience, use the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, and add modules as appropriate).
- If you need evidence of learning outcomes, use the Personal and Social Responsibility Inventory (PSRI or a comparable validated outcome tool), ideally paired with program participation data.
Program and Center Assessment
Bonner Program & Center Self-Assessment Tool
For over a decade, the Bonner Foundation has asked campuses to review and share their responses to a Self-Assessment Tool. This instrument is designed to highlight important indicators of a high-quality, comprehensive Bonner Program and a campus-wide infrastructure for community engagement. The tool was first developed in 2005 and revised in 2012 and again in 2017-2018 to reflect emerging research and cutting edge practices and remains the same this year. The content overlaps with (and in some cases are informed by) other nationally recognized rubrics for civic engagement, such as those developed by AAC&U, Campus Compact, and Campus-Community Partnerships for Health, as well as Barbara Holland, Andrew Furco, and Marshall Welch (NIIICE), but it also includes a number of unique dimensions on student development and leadership, recruitment, and other areas specific to the Bonner program approach. Generally, Bonner Center and Program staff – in conjunction with students, faculty, and partners - review and complete the tool. They then use their insights to articulate goals for change in both their programs and campus-wide engagement. In 2022, we also integrated several items from the Project Here Institutional Assessment Tool, in which Foundation staff participated as co- authors, which gauge important dimensions of the institution’s work on diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism. In 2022, the tool includes 55 items.
- Program & Center Infrastructure (10 indicators)
- Program Management (6 indicators)
- Student Development and Leadership (9 indicators)
- Structured Bonner Cornerstone Activities (6 indicators)
- Community Partnerships (6 indicators)
- Curricular Integration (6 indicators)
- Campus-Wide Infrastructure (8 indicators)
Making the Case: A Guide to Producing a Compelling Report on the Benefits of the Bonner Program & Community Engagement
|
More than ever, most institutions of higher education face structural and financial challenges that compel them to demonstrate the value and return on investment for their work. With limited resources, institutions face difficult decisions regarding prioritization of programs and units. Financial concerns in higher education have been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although senior leaders and institutional rhetoric often express a commitment to civic and community engagement, the Bonner Program and centers for community engagement may be at risk. It is incumbent that staff and programs effectively make the case for the value that having a Bonner Program and infrastructure (including staffing) for civic and community engagement bring to an institution’s reputation, enrollment, retention, completion, and work as stewards of place.
The guide provides step-by-step instructions to support a Bonner Program and community engagement unit to produce a comprehensive report that describes the positive impacts of this work. This guide is designed to help your center and program evaluate and make case for its Bonner Program and center’s work, much in the same way that other units or departments might articulate their value. The guide will help you quantifiably, quantitatively, and financially demonstrate to key stakeholders that the Bonner Program and civic and community engagement centers accrue major benefits for institutional priorities.
|
|
Student Impact Survey
The Bonner Student Impact Survey is a program evaluation tool that measures how community engagement experiences affect students over time, which makes it a key input to Bonner program assessment. The Bonner Foundation redesigned the survey in 2020 based on the new research around community engagement in higher education, which a) linked community engagement with effective teaching and learning; b) pointed to its effects on students’ political and democratic engagement; and c) linked engagement with psychosocial well-being.
The Student Impact Survey complements the Bonner Program and Institutional Self-Assessment by providing student-level outcome evidence (not just the assessment of the program structure and practices). The survey includes categories like civic and community engagement, integrating academics and service, identity and diversity, and post-graduate plans, helping programs assess impact across multiple dimensions aligned with Bonner Program goals. The survey’s longitudinal design (first-year and senior survey administration) allows programs to document developmental change and identify which elements of the Bonner model are associated with stronger outcomes, also informing other campus-based practices. Finally, the resulting findings and reports give programs credible evidence they can use in “Making the Case” materials and broader assessment reporting about program value and return on investment.
In 2020, the Bonner Foundation released this comprehensive report, which reflects implementation of the new Student Impact Survey across the national network. The report pointed to clear positive impacts, including on students’ academic learning.
Institutional / Campus-Wide Assessment
Carnegie Community Engagement (CE) Classification - Self Study
What it is: A structured, evidence-based self-study aligned with the Carnegie CE framework.
It is a prestigious, voluntary, elective designation for U.S. colleges and universities recognizing institutionalized, deep, and pervasive commitment to community engagement. It is awarded by the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching that highlights an institution’s commitment to community engagement. More than 230 U.S. colleges and universities received the 2026 Carnegie Community Engagement (CE) Classification, an elective designation. Even if you do not plan to apply for the classification, the framework is useful for organizing an assessment.
What you collect:
- Inventory of engagement activities (courses, programs, centers, partnerships)
- Institutional supports (leadership, staffing, funding, reward structures)
- Community partner roles and benefits (reciprocity, shared decision-making)
- Evidence of outcomes and continuous improvement
Best for: Building a comprehensive institutional narrative and evidence set that can support campus strategy, reporting, and (optionally) a future Carnegie application.
Strengths: Holistic, widely recognized, clarifies infrastructure and accountability.
Limitations: More time-intensive; requires coordination across units.
Typical outputs: A campus engagement profile, gaps/opportunities list, and a prioritized action plan.
NSSE: National Survey of Student Engagement & Related Study Survey Modules
What it is: A standardized student survey (often run institution-wide) that can include engagement indicators and optional modules that speak to community-based learning and civic engagement (see: http://nsse.indiana.edu/html/about.cfm).
As noted by NSSE, "student engagement represents two critical features of collegiate quality. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities. The second is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning. Through its student survey, The College Student Report, NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about first-year and senior students' participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development. The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending college."
What you learn:
- Student participation patterns (who engages and how)
- Type of student engagement, including in service-learning and internships
- Student-reported learning and developmental outcomes
- Differences by program, demographic group, or student type (as available)
Best for: Understanding the student experience at scale and comparing across years (and sometimes peer institutions).
- Because NSSE asks about a number of high-impact practices that are connected with community engagement (as well as with diversity and global immersions), it may provide some data to track and analyze in your efforts. Such data has been used by other studies to produce a better understanding of student engagement in and out of class. Additionally, in 2015, NSSE added a topical module on Civic Engagement, which specifically asks a number of questions about students engagement within and outside of courses in a variety of forms of civically focused activities (service, civic dialogue, civic education, organizing, etc.).
Strengths: Standardized, scalable, supports trend analysis.
Limitations: Primarily student-facing; does not fully capture community partner outcomes or institutional infrastructure.
Typical outputs: Student engagement baseline metrics and equity-focused insights to inform programming.
NASCE: National Assessment of Service and Community Engagement
What it is: A national student survey that quantifies how students engage in service and community-based activities, producing an overall engagement metric (the POP Score, “Percent of the Possible”) that summarizes breadth and depth of involvement of service that students participate in during their college years. The survey instrument is administered by Siena Research Institute, a department of Siena College. As such, many campuses in the Bonner network have used the NASCE on one or more occasions.
What you collect:
- Student-reported participation in community service and related civic/community activities
- Frequency and duration of involvement
- Depth or intensity of engagement (used to calculate the POP Score)
- The "Percent of the Possible" or POP Score is a quantitative measurement for understanding the breadth and depth of a student body's total levels of community involvement. The POP Score combines each student's rate, frequency, and depth of service into one easy-to-understand score. Some campuses have found this gives them a metric to work with to set goals for deepening or enhancing engagement.
- A campus-wide quantitative baseline you can track over time and compare across groups
Best for: Campuses that want a clear, numbers-based snapshot of student engagement to set targets, monitor progress, and support reporting to institutional leadership.
Strengths: Standardized instrument, generates a simple headline metric (POP Score), useful for goal-setting and trend tracking, relatively straightforward to administer as an emailed online survey.
Limitations: Self-reported data; focuses on student participation more than institutional infrastructure or reciprocity; may not capture quality of partnerships or learning outcomes without complementary qualitative methods.
Typical outputs: POP Score and summary results by subgroup (class year, program participation, etc.), baseline-to-goal comparisons, and a short set of priority recommendations for increasing depth and frequency of engagement.
PSRI: Personal & Social Responsibility Inventory or Similar Learning Outcomes Instruments
What it is: A validated survey tool used to assess students’ development in areas such as civic learning, social responsibility, and related competencies. Campuses often administer it in targeted cohorts (e.g., first-year vs. seniors, program participants vs. non-participants).
The Personal and Social Responsibility Inventory (PSRI): An Institutional Climate Measure is a campus climate survey developed originally as part of an initiative called Core Commitments: Educating Students for Personal and Social Responsibility. It was sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and directed by Caryn McTighe Musil. The initial inventory was developed in 2006 by L. Lee Knefelkamp, Teachers College, Columbia University, who consulted with Richard Hersh, Council for Aid to Education, and drew on the research assistance of Lauren Ruff. The initial inventory was then refined in cooperation with Eric L. Dey and associates at the University of Michigan's Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education and refined after Dey's death by Robert D. Reason, at Iowa State University. Most recently, the research involving data from the PSRI has suggested that students' perceptions of the campus climate (and specifically if the campus values student civic engagement and ethical action) matters a great deal in shaping student behavior. For more information on the PSRI, see: http://www.psri.hs.iastate.edu/.
What you learn:
- Student learning outcomes aligned to civic and social responsibility development
- Program-level contribution to outcomes (when paired with comparison groups)
Best for: Measuring learning outcomes connected to community engagement, especially when you need outcome evidence beyond participation counts.
Strengths: Outcome-oriented; can be paired with program evaluation designs.
Limitations: Implementation requires careful sampling and interpretation; still student-centered unless paired with partner data.
Typical outputs: Outcome findings that can shape program design, training, and learning goals.
Campus-Community Partnerships for Health: Institutional Self-Assessment
Campus-Community Partnerships for Health: Institutional Self-Assessment
by Gelmon, Seifer, Kauper-Brown, and Mikkelsen (produced in partnership with Campus-Community Partnerships for Health). This rubric was produced and used by institutions involved with a multi-year CCPH project to more fully integrate community engagement (CE) and community-engaged learning (CEL) across 20 colleges and universities. The project was called the "Faculty for the Engaged Campus Initiative." The tool has a strong emphasis on examining whether CE/CEL has been integrated into the work and assessment of faculty, teaching, and culture. The tool is constructed around six dimensions:
- Definition and Vision of Community Engagement (8 elements)
- Faculty Support For and Involvement in Community Engagement (6 elements)
- Student Support For and Involvement in Community Engagement (3 elements)
- Community Support For and Involvement in Community Engagement (6 elements)
- Institutional Leadership and Support For Community Engagement (9 elements)
- Community-Engaged Scholarship (12 elements)
This article, published in the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement (2012) describes the project and learning across the consortium, including with using the rubric. Building Capacity for CES by Gelmon et al.pdf
Publications that Offer Frameworks for Assessment Campus-Wide Engagement
The two below are especially helpful to share with senior leaders.
A Crucible Moment
This report, published in 2012 by the U.S. Department of Education and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, served as a call to action for higher education to renew its focus on civic education and engagement. The report, in part the result of a series of national roundtables involving more than 134 institutions and organizations, articulated five essential actions. It shared frameworks and best practices for institutionalizing civic engagement and learning, including the Bonner Program's developmental model and approach. A Crucible Moment also included Civic Investment Plan Templates (see page 81) and a matrix for institutional assessment. It is a good tool for involving senior leaders (including the president, provost, VPSA, and deans) in conversations about the degree of campus-wide integration and engagement. Like the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification, it promotes a model of pervasive, deep integration.
Stepping Forward as Stewards of Place
This report was written by a Task Force on Public Engagement including several university and system presidents and chancellors and published by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. It offers "a strategic, 'ground level' guide for presidents and chancellors and other campus leaders that offers a working definition of public engagement, provides exemplars of campus-wide commitment to engagement initiatives, and proposes concrete actions for institutions, public policymakers, and the association to promote an even fuller commitment to the concept of engagement" (foreword). The report is particularly useful because of its expanded conception of public engagement, which is defined as place-related, interactive, mutually beneficial, and integrate. The report also discusses ways that institutions can be involved in providing applied research, technical assistance, impact assessment, policy analysis, and economic development initiatives. Each of these models is embraced by the Bonner Foundation and its broader vision for the Bonner Program. While the report does not include a rubric, it includes several useful frameworks and diagrams for assessing institutional planning, goal setting, monitoring, and alignment.
