2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.

edu/thaynecenter Empowering Leaders

2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
Thayne Center for Service & Learning
empowering todays generation of leaders
Gail Jessen, Director
I imagine youve heard the
phrase tomorrows leaders.
As someone who directs a
center responsible for service-
learning and student leadership
development, you might think
Id use that phrase all the time.
To be honest with you, it
actually bothers me. I nd it
misleading and even unsettling.
In the Thayne Center we
work with students every day
who are out to change the
world as we know it. We
educate them about systemic
inequities in our society and
they volunteer their time to
engage with these complex
issues and contribute positively
to our communities. Every time
I hear someone talk about
tomorrows leaders, I want to
pull them aside and politely say,
Tomorrow? Have you seen
what students are doing today?
Right now. Its incredible.
Some contend that
leadership is an allusive
concept, a set of characteristics
and skills difcult to quantify;
yet many of our assessments
this year attempt to do just that.
We focused primarily on our
SLICE: Student Leaders in Civic
Engagement program. As our
foundation, we established a
vision statement, mission
statement, and four learning
outcomes. Students self-
selected responses to
quantitative instruments, the
program coordinator completed
rubrics, and we gathered
qualitative reections written by
the students themselves.
While many SLICE students
demonstrate skillful leadership,
others are at the beginning of
their journey. However, one
outcome is certain: The data
shows our students are not
leaders in some distant
tomorrow.
Theyre leaders today.
2010-2011ASSESSMENT
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
Service Council wasnt
working for our students. They
hated the name, and they let us
know it. They wanted active
language. Councils seemed like
stagnant committees for old
people and they wanted
nothing to do with that. We
listened. In summer 2010,
SLICE: Student Leaders in Civic
Engagement was reborn.
Beyond the name change, we
also created a theoretical
foundation for the program.
SLICE VISION
SLICE members work
toward a more just and
democratic society, seeking an
end to the social problems we
face. These students become
leaders among their SLCC
peers, raising awareness and
inspiring actions that address
community needs.
SLICE MISSION
Through structured training
and guided practice, SLICE
members develop the strong
leadership skills necessary to
bring about social change.
These skills empower them to
raise awareness, inspire others
to become engaged, and
become agents of change.
SLICE LEARNING OUTCOMES
Critical Thinking Skills;
Reective Thinking Skills;
Collaborative Leadership Skills;
and Engagement with the
Community.
SLICE MENTOR STRUCTURE
As explained in our
2009-2010 Assessment, we
created a structure where
second-year SLICE members
mentor their rst-year peers. It
was a work in progress and the
mentors told us they need more
structure and guidance. Thats
precisely what we worked to
accomplish this year.
2010-2011ASSESSMENT
Building a Foundation for Student Leadership
vision + mission + student learning outcomes
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
Our rst two student
learning outcomes for the
SLICE program are critical
thinking skills and reective
thinking skills. Both are
absolutely fundamental to
service-learning pedagogy and
to the work of our community
engagement eld. As
professionals in this eld, we
sometimes take these skills for
granted. We assume its clear
as to how theyre built into our
programming and practice.
However, as weve learned
over the years, we must err on
the side of complete
transparency with students and
be as explicit as possible with
our intentions. We need to
equip them with the language
of critical reection and practice
these skills with them even as
were telling them thats what
were doing.
Also, there is an inherent
paradox in assessing these
skills. Our typical quantitative
Likert scale pre-test/post-test
structure wont tell us what we
need to know. Students self-
selecting responses that claim
they are indeed critical,
reective thinkers is
problematic. Thus, we moved
toward a more qualitative,
expansive, and authentic
assessment when we adopted
the KWL reection model. The
K stands for Know, or
students understanding of an
issue before any interaction with
it. The W stands for What,
or students description of the
literal experience they had with
the issue. Finally, the L stands
for Learned, in which students
articulate the knowledge and/or
skills they gained through their
interaction with the issue.
2010-2011ASSESSMENT
Critical + Reflective Thinking Skills
qualitative assessment of SLICE student writings
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
Before, during, and after every service
experience, community partner tour, guest
speaker, training event, peer presentation, etc.
SLICE students lled out a KWL Chart under the
guidance of the program coordinator, Linnie
Spor. In her own reection on the past year,
Linnie wrote that students became more
engaged by using the KWL chart. The chart
developed their cognitive skills and SLICE
members were eventually able to think critically
about the issues.
Over the course of the year, we collected 99
completed KWL charts. We read each and every
submission, coding the students language for
demonstrated growth in critical thought, reective
capabilities, knowledge about complex issues,
disposition toward social justice and democratic
ideals, and more.
As one example of the growth we witnessed,
take Jamie (name changed to protect anonymity)
and her interaction with the issue of domestic
violence. Before SLICE members participated in
a multi-day YWCA workshop, Jamie wrote she
knew nothing about the organization or the
issues it addresses. She wrote: What is the
YWCA? Are there different types of violence?
How can it be controlled? How can we help?
After the workshop, Jamie demonstrated
knowledge of the number of YWCAs in the
country, the mission of the organization, when it
was established and why that time was
historically signicant for women, and statistics
about different types of violence addressed by
the YWCA in Salt Lake City. Beyond these facts,
Jamie demonstrated critical thinking skills when
she reected: Shelters help women stabilize
their whole life because healthy relationships are
skill based.
Even beyond that outcome, Jamie achieved
our programmatic vision that students strive for a
more just and democratic society. She wrote that
people need more than just their basic needs
met. She came to understand her rights and
responsibilities in a democratic society when she
wrote that controlling violence is an issue for men
and women. All this growth came from only one
experience with one community partner
organization. Jamie went on to complete 12
KWL charts, addressing issues ranging from
recycling to community gardens, hunger and
food insecurity to animal rights, modern day
slavery to lobbying elected ofcials.
Visit this link to watch SLICE student Sam Ortiz
explain the KWL chart he completed for our trip to
the Salt Lake Valley Landll. http://bit.ly/jeIt2O

Not every SLICE experience was life

changing, nor were they intended to be. More to
the point is that the process of reecting and
thinking critically about complex issues, as
opposed to simply listening to a guest speaker
and leaving, became systemic to the SLICE
program. Our coded data set demonstrates that
students across the board grew not only in their
statistical knowledge of issues, but in their ability
to engage with these issues in a dynamic,
intellectually exible way. Beyond the microcosm
of this program, students learned an incredibly
valuable skill they will carry throughout their life.
In a meta reection about the process of
KWL Charts, Linnie realized that, while powerful,
the structure was not as concise as it could be.
Taking the well-known service-learning reection
model of What? So What? Now What? Linnie
plans to merge the two models into a revamped
hybrid for the 2011-2012 SLICE cohort. The
reection worksheets will still be used before,
during, and after every experience, but will now
give students a stronger framework for critically
reecting on why these issues matter. More
importantly, the Now What? prompt reinforces
to students that they have the power to take
action and change our world as we know it.
Critical + Reflective Thinking Skills
qualitative assessment of SLICE student writings
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
The peer mentoring
structure was a new addition to
the SLICE program last year. In
our second year of learning
how to best implement this
model, we created learning
outcomes specic to the
mentor students. The mentor
outcomes build on the SLICE
learning outcomes, then
address the skills needed to
effectively manage and lead
others.
MENTOR LEARNING OUTCOMES
Model Collaborative
Leadership; Critical Reection
Skills; Conict Management;
Giving Constructive Feedback;
Receiving Constructive
Feedback.
The same paradox that
exists when assessing the
critical and reective thinking
skills of SLICE members is
inherent in asking student
leaders if theyre leaders. Self-
selected responses to pre- and
post-tests wouldnt give us an
accurate, objective evaluation.
In fall semester, Student
Voice posted an entry about
rubrics on their assessment
blog, announcing they planned
to dabble in models and pilot
programs implementing this
type of assessment practice.
Seeing this as a potential
solution to our paradox, by
spring semester we had read a
number of blog posts, attended
a handful of webinars, and
contacted Student Voice with
our tentative rubric-based
assessment plan. Its been a
learning process, both for us
and for Student Voice; but it
has also been the most
substantial and signicant
assessment of student
leadership skills the Thayne
Center has conducted to date.
2010-2011ASSESSMENT
Becoming Leaders Among Their Peers
a rubric-based assessment of SLICE Mentors
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
As an example, half the data set for one of
the ve mentor learning outcomes is displayed
below. We had four mentors participate in four
one-on-one evaluation meetings with the
program coordinator over the course of spring
semester. In those meetings, the coordinator
presented each of the ve learning outcomes to
the student, asking them to discuss their comfort
level and give examples demonstrating their skill,
or their need for improvement, in each of the
outcomes. The coordinator also gave
constructive feedback as to how the student
could improve their performance. After the
meeting, the coordinator entered the students
level of skill in Student Voice, along with the
second half of the data set: comments and notes
about the meeting.
The rubric for each of the ve learning
outcomes is divided into four skill levels:
Beginner, Developing, Accomplished, and
Advanced. Each response indicates one of the
four meetings between the mentor and the
program coordinator. Take for example Mentor
#2. In each of the four meetings, she/he
progressed steadily through each of the four
levels, achieving an advanced level of skill.
Though the assessment is only intended to
compare each mentor to themselves, youll
notice the contrast with Mentor #1, who scored
at the Beginner level for half the semester, then
progressed to Developing, and ranked at the
Accomplished level by her/his last meeting of the
semester.
Interestingly, the data and rankings end up
mirroring the length of time students spent in the
program. Mentor #2 has been in the SLICE
program three years, two of those as a mentor.
Mentor #4 has been in the SLICE program two
years, one as a mentor. Whereas #1 and #3 were
allowed to be mentors in their rst year of the
program because of unanticipated turnover and
transfer of existing mentors. Students #1 and #3
were only mentors for one semester and the
difference in skill level is clear. This nding
illustrates that students do, over time, learn and
progress. This reinforces our decision to create
targeted curriculum and intentional programming
around learning outcomes.
We are also able to run a report on each
mentor individually, highlighting their strengths,
challenges, and progress. This allows the
program coordinator to customize the content of
one-on-one meetings with these student leaders.
For example, Mentor #2 had a team member in
crisis throughout spring semester. Her/his rst
ranking in the learning outcome of Conict
Management was Developing. As she/he took on
an intensive mentor role, helping her/his team
member resolve complex life situations, she/he
ranked solidly as Accomplished for the remainder
of the semester. The program coordinator was
able to focus on this specic skill set and help
Becoming Leaders Among Their Peers
a rubric-based assessment of SLICE Mentors
the student succeed as an effective
mentor. The mentor and the student
in crisis remain in contact as close
friends to this day.
On a larger scale, comparing all
four mentors across all ve learning
outcomes tells us that giving and
receiving constructive feedback is
the most signicant challenge for
students. The program coordinator
is now working to reconstruct
trainings and the mentor handbook.
This summer the program
coordinator also attended a
conference in Washington focusing
specically on best practices of
student peer mentoring programs in
higher education.
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
America Reads Community Work-study
assessing our tutors impact on literacy skills
In 1993 America Reads
was established as a national
literacy tutoring program.
Across the country for nearly 20
years now, college students
have been placed in local Title I
elementary schools and serve
as reading tutors to high-risk
K-6 students. To date, the
Thayne Centers America Reads
program is the only community-
based option through which
SLCC students can earn their
federal work-study nancial aid
award.
As an institution, we are
required by the federal
government to pay out 7% of all
work-study funds to students
placed in the community at
nonprot organizations or public
schools. In scal year 2010, our
program tripled that goal,
reaching an impressive 21%. In
2010-2011, 58 SLCC students
worked 11,341 hours as
literacy tutors, earning
$116,654 in federal nancial
aid. The economic contribution
to our community, and to our
partner elementary schools,
was $242,244 (calculated
annually by Independent
Sector).
The vision of the America
Reads program is to hire
enough qualied tutors to meet
the literacy needs of our
community partner elementary
schools. The mission statement
of the program claims we
provide an enriching learning
opportunity for both SLCC
students and elementary school
students. This year our
assessment of the America
Reads program focused
primarily on the learning
experiences of the elementary
school students we tutor. We
say our vision is to meet literacy
needs and we claim to provide
an enriching learning
experience -- so did we?
2010-2011ASSESSMENT
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
Our initial plan was to partner with Westvale
Elementary School and track the progress of
students in their STAR reading program.
However, when the school districts split,
Westvale was moved into the Jordan School
District and funding for their program was
redistributed. Our students went from having one
point of contact to having four different program
coordinators over the course of six months. As a
result of the confusion, the number of SLCC
work-study students at Westvale dropped from
20 to ve by the end of the year. It is an
understood peril of partnering with K-12
institutions, but we do regret that it was not a
stronger year for our work at Westvale.
In contrast, SLCC students worked
consistently throughout the year to tutor 60
elementary school students at Nibley Park and
13 at Whittier. We were able to isolate testing
data for the children our SLCC tutors worked
with. We assessed the level at which these
students entered the reading tutoring program in
fall 2010 and the level they reached by the end of
spring semester 2011. The data does in fact
show that we are improving the literacy skills of
the students we tutor. Beyond that, data from
qualitative exit interviews demonstrates inspiring
growth in our own students that served as
mentors.
At Nibley Park Elementary School we tutored
60 children. The average number of levels by
which their literacy skills increased is 7.56 out of
a possible 18 (books leveled A-R). When we
remove six outliers (students who advanced
upwards of 6, 8, and 13 levels), we are left with
54 children who advanced anywhere from 1-4
levels in one academic year. When averaged for
the remaining 54 children, we increased literacy
skills, on average, by 1.69 levels in one year.
One of our work-study tutors at Nibley Park,
a person the reading coordinator identies as
the backbone of the program, continued
tutoring even after her federal award ran out.
Volunteering her own time with no nancial
compensation, she worked to train other tutors
and, by the end of the year, the reading
coordinator relied on her as a valuable program
assistant. This might seem like a simple story,
but take into account all that we know of the
nancial hardships of our students, particularly
those in a need-based program such as work-
study. Also take into account the data were
aware of on engagement and retention. Not only
did this student remain engaged with her tutoring
job after she was paid to do so, she also
remained in school and successfully completed
her coursework at SLCC.
At Whittier Elementary School we tutored 13
children in the Early Steps program. Eleven out of
the 13 began the year at a level zero, one, or
two. By the end of spring semester, the school
reported an average increase of 6.62 levels of
literacy skill. Three out of the 13 children
advanced as many as nine, 10, even 12 levels in
a single year. It is worth noting that the structure
of Whittiers Early Steps program is one of the
strongest of all our partnerships. It is also worth
noting that the Early Steps program is
coordinated by an SLCC graduate who was
herself an America Reads work-study tutor,
AmeriCorps member, and Civically Engaged
Scholar. She knows the program intimately and
understands how to work with both Whittier
students and SLCC work-study students.
Another exciting example of longitudinal
impact is the SLCC tutor who once attended
Whittier as an elementary school student herself.
This student came to our fall 2010 orientation
pregnant with her second child, worked at
Whittier until the day she gave birth, came right
back, and kept tutoring throughout both fall and
spring semesters. In fact, years ago, this tutors
mother was an SLCC student who earned her
work-study award tutoring at Whittier. When we
talk about high-impact programs, experiences
that retain students and set them up for success,
America Reads is central to that conversation.
Take the student who lost his work-study
award in spring semester due to low cumulative
GPA. He said had he been engaged as an
America Reads tutor from the beginning of his
time at SLCC, this low GPA would have been
avoided. He said his grades went up as he
tutored and he wished he had more time in the
program. On his last day at Whittier, he told the
children that reading with them was the best job
hes ever had.
America Reads Community Work-study
assessing our tutors impact on literacy skills
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
Our service-learning
program was without a full-time
coordinator throughout
2009-2010. As acknowledged
in last years assessment report,
it was challenging to do more
than maintain the basic
program structure. This year the
Thayne Center welcomed our
newest staff member, Lisa
Walz, and began the work of
revitalizing this complex
program.
One relationship absolutely
critical to the success of this
program is the partnership
weve developed with the
SLCC Faculty Teaching &
Learning Center. Their
grassroots infrastructure and
emphasis on innovative
pedagogies make the FTLC a
perfect partner for our service-
learning initiatives. In one year
alone weve collaborated on
Service-Learning 101
workshops for FTLC 1000
course participants, the
Service-Learning Grant &
Designation program, including
a new series of workshops
centered around the Request
for Proposals, a revamped
Service-Learning 1000 course
designed as an online training
tool for faculty interested in
service-learning, a presentation
at the 2011 Student Services
Summer Conference, and a
series of Teaching Circle and
Teaching Squares set to launch
in fall 2011.
Our assessment this year
focused on course evaluation
data from newly-designated
sections, and a pilot initiative
designed for faculty to self-
report the community
partnerships formed and the
hours served by students in
their service-learning courses.
2010-2011ASSESSMENT
Service-Learning Program
revitalizing + growing + innovating
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
Service-Learning Grant & Designation Program
A new addition to this program originally
established in partnership with the Faculty
Senate Curriculum Committee in 2004, is the SL
101 + Course Designation workshop series. This
initiative is intended to not only increase the
quality of proposals received, but also to assist
faculty with their ideas in a collaborative, peer-
mentored setting. The workshop covers the
basics of service-learning pedagogy while also
moving faculty through the request for proposals.
Questions are answered and ideas are shared
while paper work is made less intimidating and
tedious. In fall semester there were 5 attendees
and spring semester workshops had 12
attendees. One faculty member followed through
with a successful application, and many said
they intended to submit in the upcoming fall
2011 designation round. We will continue to
track the effectiveness of this new initiative.
As for newly designated courses taught in
2010-2011, we welcomed three new faculty
members into our growing network of
practitioners:
EDU 2011 - Lois Oestreich
ENGL 990 - Jason Roberts
COMM 2150 - Tamra Phillips
Course evaluation data show that 37.5% of
students enrolled in these sections volunteered in
their community prior to this service-learning
experience, whereas 68.8% of students
indicated they would remain engaged with the
community after the course, an increase of
31.3%.
A high 87.5% of students felt they
contributed a needed service to the community,
and 100% of community partners agreed or
strongly agreed that service-learners enhanced
the capacity of their organization. A near-perfect
93.8% of students felt their section was an
effective service-learning class.
An area for improvement includes solidifying
the connection between service work and course
learning objectives. Only 68% of students agreed
or strongly agreed that learning outcomes were
tied to service. While this is certainly not a failure,
it is a lower percentage than we want to see.
Fixing this issue relies not only on faculty
members communicating the connection more
clearly to students, but also on the Thayne
Center doing a better job of mentoring and
training new faculty as to why this is critical.
Another area for improvement, and
unfortunately one that is an on-going issue
semester to semester, is the communication
between faculty members and community
partners. Only 50% of community partners said
they saw the syllabus and understood where
they t within the larger context of the course.
This reciprocity is fundamental to the pedagogy
and is something both beginning and
experienced practitioners must remember.
Pilot SL Tracking & Reporting
Every semester since fall 2004 the Thayne
Center has combed through Banner looking up
the CRNs of designated classes, calculating
enrollment gures, factoring the number of
service hours based on known course
requirements, etc. It is this complicated process
that calculates the annual impact of service-
learning courses. In 2010-2011, for example,
5,558 students enrolled in 249 service-learning
classes. These students, 25% of SLCCs FTE,
served 66,190 hours in our community. This is
impressive data and we will continue to track and
record it in any way possible; however, the ideal
situation is that designated service-learning
faculty members submit reports to us detailing
the number of students, service hours, and
names of community partner organizations.
We used Student Voice to gather this data to
disappointing results. Only 12 classes reported
data in fall semester and 16 classes in spring
semester. We will continue to rene this process.
Reections + Future Plans
This spring we hosted the 1st Annual
Student Service-Learning Showcase. Inspired by
the English Department Service-Learning
Reception in December 2010, we put out a call
to all designated courses, inviting students to
submit a proposal to present their work. Nearly
30 students participated and presented on
issues as diverse as honey bee colony collapse
to Pacic Islander cultural outreach and
community programming. The next showcase is
scheduled for 12/09/2011.
Service-Learning Program
revitalizing + growing + innovating
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Service & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
In our 2009-2010
assessment report, we
presented data from our 2010
Community Partner Needs
Assessment survey. We
reviewed many comments that
were difcult to read, such as: I
feel like the community college
does not support service-
learning the way the U of U or
Westminster does.
A high 81% of nonprots
responding to the survey
strongly agreed that their
partnership with the Thayne
Center could be strengthened.
While we were keenly aware of
this issue prior to the needs
assessment survey, having the
data in front of us has had a
major impact on our work.
One specic critique that
surfaced repeatedly was that
potential partners were simply
directed to our Exchange
database website to register
their organization; whereas a
representative from the U of U
came out to see us. In order to
respond to this oversight and
the need for more substantive
contact, two AmeriCorps
VISTAs spent the better part of
2010-2011 conducting site
visits and tours of nonprot
organizations all over the valley.
Our VISTAs visited 44
organizations out of the 235
registered in our database. This
rate of return speaks to the time
and the skill necessary to form
true reciprocal partnerships.
Thirty-six nonprots have now
signed a formal Community
Partnership Agreement with our
center. We continue to run not
only our own social media
campaign, but we also promote
our community partners. Most
notably, you can view the
YouTube videos and blogs we
created after site visits here:
http://bit.ly/jRf32I and review all
current volunteer opportunities
here: http://bit.ly/mzuszX
The ultimate goal was to
secure funding for a full-time
Community Partnerships
Coordinator who will continue
this critical work. We were
successful in our request to the
Student Fee board and plan to
hire someone this summer.
2010-2011ASSESSMENT
Community Partnerships + Outreach
our effort to deepen existing partnerships
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Serviice & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter

vlslL us onllne for more lnformaLlon and llnks Lo our soclal medla slLes: www.slcc.edu/LhavnecenLer
1nANL CLN1Lk IMAC1 5UMMAk
Annua| 5tat|st|cs: 2006 - 2011

8CC8AM 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
5LkVICL-LLAkNING
CCUk5L5
1,871 sLudenLs
28,063 hours
118 courses
2,630 sLudenLs
37,730 hours
136 courses
3,182 sLudenLs
47,730 hours
187 courses
4,307 sLudenLs
31,373 hours
213 courses
3,338 sLudenLs
66,190 hours
249 courses
AMLkICCk5
LDUCA1ICN
AWAkD5
44 sLudenLs
10,221 hours
$38,404 ln
scholarshlps
114 sLudenLs
28,094 hours
$176,020 ln
scholarshlps
233 sLudenLs
60,913 hours
$329,382 ln
scholarshlps
209 new sLudenLs
62,127 hours
$80,000 ln
scholarshlps
213 new sLudenLs
(488 sLudenLs LoLal)
206,873 hours**
$488,900 ln
scholarshlps**
AMLkICA kLAD5
CCMMUNI1
WCkk-51UD
28 sLudenLs
6,010 hours
$37,433 of federal
flnanclal ald
33 sLudenLs
7,382 hours
$72,322 of federal
flnanclal ald
31 sLudenLs
8,303 hours
$79,721 of federal
flnanclal ald
86 sLudenLs
8,664 hours
$87,069 of federal
flnanclal ald
38 sLudenLs
11,816 hours
$121,404 of federal
flnanclal ald
AL1LkNA1IVL
5kING 8kLAk
30 parLlclpanLs
960 hours
19 parLlclpanLs
608 hours
18 parLlclpanLs
610 hours
26 parLlclpanLs
960 hours
24 parLlclpanLs
337 hours
5LICL: 5tudent
Leaders |n C|v|c
Lngagement
7 sLudenLs
1,200 hours
14 sLudenLs
1,914 hours
13 sLudenLs
2,489 hours
17 sLudenLs
3,422 hours
23 sLudenLs
4,332 hours
5CN5CkLD
kCILC15/LVLN15
1,308 parLlclpanLs
4,481 hours
29 pro[ecLs/evenLs
1,373 parLlclpanLs
2,088 hours
36 pro[ecLs/evenLs
703 parLlclpanLs
1,109 hours
27 pro[ecLs/evenLs
1,090 parLlclpanLs
3,701 hours
104 pro[ecLs/evenLs
2,019 parLlclpanLs
8,380 hours
87 pro[ecLs/evenLs
CIVICALL-LNGAGLD
5CnCLAk5
33 sLudenLs
2,623 hours
14 araduaLes
28 sLudenLs
2,100 hours
24 araduaLes
32 sLudenLs
2,323 hours
19 araduaLes
38 sLudenLs
3,200 hours
26 araduaLes
43 sLudenLs
12,839 hours
28 araduaLes
1kAINING &
WCkk5nC5
69 sLudenLs
13 Lralnlna evenLs
291 Lralnlna hours
261 sLudenLs
43 Lralnlna evenLs
1,648 Lralnlna hours
162 sLudenLs
49 Lralnlna evenLs
1,330 Lralnlna hours
1,179 sLudenLs
71 Lralnlna evenLs
3,871 Lralnlna hours
931 sLudenLs
77 Lralnlna evenLs
2,334 Lralnlna hours
CU1kLACn
INICkMA1ICN &
kLILkkAL
46,992 conLacLs
(lncludes weeklv
e-newsleLLer)
31,279 conLacLs
(lncludes weeklv
e-newsleLLer)
30,423 conLacLs
(lncludes weeklv
e-newsleLLer)
28,833 conLacLs
12 volunLeer
opporLunlLv bloa
posLs
8,480 conLacLs
292 volunLeer
opporLunlLv bloa
posLs
ANNUAL
1C1AL IMAC1
3,337 volunLeers
53,562 hours of
servlce
$1,053,587 worLh
of servlce Lo
communlLv, based
on $18.77/hr*
4,431 volunLeers
80,136 hours of
servlce
$1,563,453 worLh of
servlce Lo
communlLv, based
on $19.31/hr*
4,236 volunLeers
123,479 hours of
servlce
$2,500,450 worLh of
servlce Lo
communlLv, based
on $20.23/hr*
5,970 volunLeers
135,649 hours of
servlce
$2,828,282 worLh of
servlce Lo
communlLv based on
$20.83/hr*
8,215 volunLeers
311,387 hours of
servlce
$6,651,226 worLh of
servlce Lo
communlLv based on
$21.36/hr*
!"#$$%&'"(&'%)"*+"(*'%$,))-",./)"0&'0%'&,)1"23"4$1)5)$1)$,"6)0,*-7"8889.$1)5)$1)$,:)0,*-9*-;. ** 8ased on all 488 enrolled members."
2010-2011 Assessment | Thayne Center for Serviice & Learning at Salt Lake Community College | www.slcc.edu/thaynecenter
Thayne Center staff members took on a
more active role in the annual assessment
process this year than they ever have before. It
wasnt an easy assignment. It involved learning
how to navigate the Student Voice online
software system, using unfamiliar language,
discovering new forms of assessment, and
employing a new set of skills. Everyone
succeeded in creating a valuable snap shot of
the work we do. Cheers to you!
Lesa Bird, Secretary
Gail Jessen, Director
Lynne McCue-Hamilton, AmeriCorps +
America Reads Coordinator
Ann Schaar, AmeriCorps VISTA 2010-2011
Linnie Spor, Service Leadership Coordinator
Billy Walker, Student Employee Extraordinaire
Lisa Walz, Service-Learning Coordinator
Treva Woody, AmeriCorps VISTA 2010-2011
Also, SLCC was once again named to the
President Higher Education Community Service
Honor Roll. Only 641 institutions across the
country were selected for inclusion in the Honor
Roll. This is a prestigious recognition that we
have received every year since the Honor Roll
began in 2006. Congratulations to everyone at
SLCC involved in the transformational work of
community engagement. Thank you!
President Obama wishes to commemorate the
signicant role that higher-ed institutions, their
students, staff, and faculty play in helping to
solve pressing social problems in the nations
communities. Honorees are chosen based on a
series of selection factors including scope and
innovation of service projects, percentage of
student participation in service activities,
incentives for service, and the extent to which
the school offers academic service-learning
courses.
Corporation for National & Community Service
Our Thayne Center for Service & Learning Team
a few well-deserved acknowledgements...